21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Australia Blue Grenadier Fishery
Announcement Comment Draft Report
Conformity Assessment Body bio.inspecta (mandated by q.inspecta) (CAB)
Assessment team Sascha Brand-Gardner, Emily Fisher, Lynda Bellchambers
Atlantis Fisheries Consulting Group representing Petuna Sealord Fishery client Deepwater Fishing P/L and Sandford Ltd
Assessment Type First Reassessment
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 1 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
...... 7 ...... 8
...... 8 ...... 9 ...... 9 ...... 9
...... 14 ...... 25 ...... 25 ...... 26 ...... 26 ...... 28 ...... 29 ...... 32 ...... 34 ...... 36
...... 39 ...... 59 ...... 59 ...... 62
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 2 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
...... 65 ...... 67 ...... 69 ...... 72 ...... 74 ...... 76 ...... 79 ...... 81 ...... 84 ...... 86 ...... 89 ...... 90 ...... 92
...... 95 ...... 95 ...... 98 ...... 101 ...... 101 ...... 104 ...... 107 ...... 109 ...... 111 ...... 115 ...... 118
...... 120
...... 120 ...... 121 ...... 121
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 3 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
1 Glossary
View the MSC-MSCI Vocabulary. Insert an optional glossary or list of acronyms used. Note that any terms defined here shall not contradict terms used in the MSC-MSCI Vocabulary.
2 Executive summary To be completed at Public Certification Report stage
This report is the Announcement Comment Draft Report (ACDR) which provides details of the MSC reassessment process for the Australia Blue Grenadier Trawl Fishery. The assessment process began with publication of the ACDR on 24 October 2019 and is due to be concluded in July 2020.
This report does not present a final scoring outcome or a certification decision. The final scoring and certification decision will take place after the assessment team has conducted the site visit and has had the opportunity to review additional information and the views of stakeholders about this fishery.
The scoring presented in this report has not been reviewed by stakeholders, or peer reviewers – these steps will all take place from here onwards. Stakeholders are encouraged to review the scoring presented in this assessment. If you have any comments you must use the MSC Stakeholder Input Form to provide evidence to the team of where changes to scoring are necessary.
All stakeholder comments will be published ahead of the site visit. Stakeholders can meet with the assessment team onsite during the site visit which will take place in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, on the 26th and 27th November 2019.
Fishery strengths
• The target blue grenadier stocks are well above virgin biomass and are well monitored. • There is 100% observer coverage of the UoC vessels. • The fishery is managed under Australian legislation, which meets the requirements of international conventions. • Blue grenadier is caught by a fleet whose catch is limited quota and a range of other management arrangements and conditions. • ETP bycatch is minimal due to the mitigation measures in place. • Highly targeted fishery and minimal unwanted catch. • Large number of closed areas (46.7% of the CTS shallower than 1,300m) and unfishable ground (48%) ensures a high level of benthic protection. • Decision making processes are well established and participatory, especially through the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) and Resource Assessment Group (RAG) framework.
Fishery weaknesses
• There is some uncertainty regarding the stock structure of blue grenadier. • Retained primary and secondary species is not consistently reported at species level. • Fine scale fishing intensity overlaid with main habitat characteristics is not available.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 4 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Determination
On completion of the initial review of information and scoring, the assessment team consider that the fishery meets the MSC Requirements in most respects, and that there are some areas where either further information is required, or where there is new data or a change in the MSC standard and therefore a condition of certification may be required to achieve the MSC Standard.
Rationale
There is a contemporary stock assessment and operational management procedures including a strong harvest strategy for this fishery which provide a scientific basis for the sustainable management of blue grenadier stocks. The client fleet has a long history of compliance within the fishery and demonstrates good environmental stewardship.
Conditions & Recommendations
Following the site visit in November 2019 the team will review the initial assessment of the fishery presented in this report and re-score all the Performance Indicators against which the fishery is evaluated. Once that process is completed the team will determine whether or not the fishery meets the MSC Standard. If the fishery if found to meet the MSC Standard, the team may identify areas where improvement is needed, for which conditions of certification will be raised that will set out milestones for the fishery to achieve. The team’s determination of whether the fishery meets the MSC Standard and any conditions of certification will be set out in later versions of this report. bio.inspecta confirm that this fishery is “within scope”, which means that it meets the eligibility criteria to enter the MSC assessment process.
3 Report details 3.1 Authorship and peer review details
Peer reviewer information to be completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage
All team members listed below meet the competency criteria in Annex PC of the MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.1.
Team Leader and Principle 3 Expert: Sascha Brand-Gardner
Ms. Brand-Gardner has over 20 years of experience working in fisheries policy, ecosystem-based fishery management and marine research. She was a senior fishery manager at the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development - Fisheries Division in Western Australia (WA) and managed several prawn and scallop trawl and large pelagic line fisheries as well as multi-species ornamental fisheries. Prior to this, she worked on several marine research projects related to endangered, threatened and protected species, fishery habitats, abalone and the environmental impacts of aquaculture.
Sascha has an Honours degree in Marine Zoology (The University of Queensland) has been trained by the MSC to use the most recent MSC certification requirements and the risk-based framework and is a certified lead auditor under the ISO 9001:2015 standard. Sascha has been the Principle 3 expert for the MSC certification assessment of several AFMA managed fisheries including the Australia Blue Grenadier Fishery in 2015 and the Heard and McDonald Islands and Macquarie Island toothfish re-
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 5 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report assessments in 2016. Sascha has been involved in the surveillance audit of longline (e.g. tuna and swordfish), trawl (e.g. blue grenadier) and rake fisheries (South Australian pipi) and pre-assessments of purse seine and trawl fisheries.
Team Member and Principle 1 Expert: Dr Emily Fisher
Dr Fisher is a Research Scientist at the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western Australia (WA), with more than 10 years’ experience in fisheries assessments. She completed her PhD at Murdoch University in 2012, which focused on the development and testing of stock assessment tools for fish species with relatively limited information. These included age-based catch curve methods for species with variable recruitment and those that undertake size-related movements, and a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) model that allowed the effectiveness of common tools for managing recreational fisheries to be evaluated. Since then, her work has involved the assessments of several important demersal scalefish species in WA, based on catch curve methods as well as more complex integrated assessment models. She has also contributed to the development and implementation of harvest strategies for a number of finfish and invertebrate species.
Over the last six years, Dr Fisher has worked on the State’s Fisheries Certification program, providing support and advice to WA fisheries undergoing MSC assessments. She is part of a team of fisheries scientists and managers that facilitated the pre-assessments of all commercial fisheries in the State and has since coordinated the full assessment process for a number of now certified fisheries, including the Peel Harvey Estuary finfish and blue swimmer crab fisheries and the WA abalone fishery. Dr Fisher has contributed to numerous publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals and Departmental reports focused primarily on fisheries stock assessments, harvest strategies and MSC certification.
Team Member and Principle 2 Expert: Dr Lynda Bellchambers
Dr. Lynda Bellchambers is a Principal Research Scientist with the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) Western Australia (WA), where she manages the Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) Section. Lynda has a background in invertebrate ecology and biology, with 20 years post-PhD experience in fisheries research and management. She has conducted research on the biology and ecology of a number of the State’s invertebrate fisheries to provide advice for sustainable management. More recently, her research has focused on assessing the potential impacts of fishing on the ecosystem including target species (both invertebrates and finfish), bycatch, benthic habitats and Endangered, Threatened and Protected species.
Dr. Bellchambers is the Science Coordinator for the WA Third Party Certification Project which provides strategic advice and support to assist fisheries entering Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification. In this role, Lynda has been involved in the pre-assessment of all the States commercial fisheries (~50 fisheries) and full certification of 7 fisheries with several more in assessment. However, Dr. Bellchambers first experience with MSC was in 2005 when she was employed to assist the western rock lobster fishery address its Principle 2 conditions. Subsequently, Lynda has been trained by the MSC in use of the MSC standard (v1.3 and 2.0), including the risk-based framework (RBF) and worked with MSC to develop a mixed fisheries standard. She has also been contracted by MSC to test the draft standard on multi-species finfish fisheries in Indonesia and Mexico. Dr Bellchambers is also a member of the MSC Peer Review College and has extensive experience in conducting Ecological Risk Assessments (ERAs).
The MSC Peer Review College will propose the peer reviewers for this assessment at a later stage in the process.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 6 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
3.2 Version details
Fisheries program documents versions
Document Version number
MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.1
MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01
MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.4.1
MSC Reporting Template Version 1.1
4 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview 4.1 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification 4.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment
Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA)
UoA 1 Description
Species Blue Grenadier, Macruronus novaezelandiae
Stock South eastern Australia
Southeastern Australia, Southern Ocean and Tasman Sea in Australia’s EEZ. Geographical area FAO major fishing area 57 (subarea 6) and FAO major fishing area 81. Harvest method / Mid water trawl gear Atlantis Fisheries Consulting Group, representing Sealord Petuna Deepwater Client group Fishing Pty Ltd and Sanford Ltd Sealord Petuna Deepwater Fishing Pty Ltd and Sanford Ltd vessels fishing in Other eligible fishers the South East Trawl Winter Spawning Sector.
UoA 2 Description
Species Blue Grenadier, Macruronus novaezelandiae
Stock South eastern Australia
Southeastern Australia, Southern Ocean and Tasman Sea in Australia’s EEZ. Geographical area FAO major fishing area 57 (subarea 6) and FAO major fishing area 81. Harvest method / Demersal trawl gear
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 7 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Atlantis Fisheries Consulting Group, representing Sealord Petuna Deepwater Client group Fishing Pty Ltd and Sanford Ltd Sealord Petuna Deepwater Fishing Pty Ltd and Sanford Ltd vessels fishing in Other eligible fishers the South East Trawl Winter Spawning Sector.
4.1.2 Unit(s) of Certification To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage To be completed at Public Certification Report stage The report shall include a justification for any changes to the proposed Unit(s) of Certification (UoC).
Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Section 7.5
Unit(s) of Certification (UoC)
UoC X Description
Species
Stock
Geographical area
Harvest method /
gear
Client group
Other eligible fishers
UoC X Description
Species
Stock
Geographical area
Harvest method /
gear
Client group
Other eligible fishers
4.2 Assessment results overview 4.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement To be drafted at Final Draft Report To be completed at Public Certification Report
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 8 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the assessment team on whether the fishery should be certified.
The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the CAB’s official decision-makers in response to the Determination recommendation.
Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Section 7.21
4.2.2 Principle level scores To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report The report shall include scores for each of the three MSC principles in the table below.
Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Section 7.17
Principle level scores
Principle UoA 1 UoA 2 UoA 3 UoA 4
Principle 1 – Target species
Principle 2 – Ecosystem impacts
Principle 3 – Management system
4.2.3 Summary of conditions To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report The report shall include a table summarising conditions raised in this assessment. Details of the conditions shall be provided in the appendices. If no conditions are required, the report shall include a statement confirming this.
Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Section 7.18
Summary of conditions
Performance Related to previous Condition number Condition Indicator condition? (PI)
Yes / No / NA
Yes / No / NA
Yes / No / NA
4.2.4 Recommendations To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage If the CAB or assessment team wishes to include any recommendations to the client or notes for future assessments, these may be included in this section.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 9 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
5 Traceability and eligibility 5.1 Eligibility date The fishery is already certified. The eligibility date is therefore the 25 August 2020, which is the day after the current MSC Certificate for this fishery is due to expire.
5.2 Traceability within the fishery To be completed at Public Certification Report stage
Traceability within the fishery
Factor Description
Will the fishery use gears that are not part of the Unit of Certification (UoC)?
If Yes, please describe: No other fishing gear will be used. - If this may occur on the same trip, on the same vessels, or during the same season; - How any risks are mitigated. Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC geographic area? No. Vessels in the winter spawning fishery only fish in the UoC geographic area. Vessels are tracked by If Yes, please describe: VMS at all times. The risk of a vessel fishing outside - If this may occur on the same trip; of the UoC is therefore very low. - How any risks are mitigated. Most vessels outside the UoC fishing blue grenadier are fresh vessels. These vessels land semi- processed fresh fish into Australian markets. This Do the fishery client members ever handle product is then filleted on land and sold certified and non-certified products during any of domestically in fresh form. the activities covered by the fishery certificate? This refers to both at-sea activities and on-land There is a very low risk of substitution of certified activities. fish with non-certified fish. Frozen at sea product can be distinguished by the company’s - Transport product/item codes. Product landed by vessels - Storage operated by Sealord or Sanford are certified. - Processing Further, these vessels operate in the NZ blue - Landing grenadier fishery which is also MSC certified and - Auction therefore has systems that has passed MSC standards. If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. Sealord and Sanford operate advanced logistics and stock control systems and product can be distinguished by the company’s product/item codes.
Does transhipment occur within the fishery? Transhipping may occur in this fishery but requires
special authorisation by AFMA. This is to allow for If Yes, please describe: any proposed transhipping activity by a boat - If transhipment takes place at-sea, in nominated to a Commonwealth fishing concession port, or both; to undergo an assessment by AFMA on a case-by- - If the transhipment vessel may handle case basis. product from outside the UoC;
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 10 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
- How any risks are mitigated. The Sealord Group (“Sealord”) sells blue grenadier caught in Australian waters under contract using vessels leased to Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing Company Pty. Ltd. Sealord assigns a unique item code to the product that includes a product description. Similarly, Sanford Ltd. brings stock onto their system under a unique stock number. This stock number allows the product caught in Australian waters to be distinguished from product caught in NZ management area. Therefore product from both companies can be tracked and traced as well as segregated by their unique item code (Sealord) or stock number (Sanford). Are there any other risks of mixing or substitution between certified and non-certified fish? No additional risks have been identified at this stage. If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated.
5.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody To be completed at Public Certification Report stage
Tracking and traceability information for this fishery is considered sufficient for product to be eligible to enter further chains of custody.
All blue grenadier landed under licences held by Sealord and Sanford are eligible to use the fishery certificates. The only vessels eligible to operate within the fishery are those listed in the current MSC Certificate for the fishery. As of October 2019, these vessels include:
Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing Pty Ltd – Tokatu, Thomas Harrison, Rehua, Ocean Dawn and Aukaha
Sanford Ltd - San Waitaki, San Enterprise, San Discovery, San Granit and Fresher Vessels.
The eligible points of landing are Nelson and Timaru in New Zealand as well as Burnie, Devonport, Hobart, Port Welshpool and Melbourne, Australia.
The point of change of ownership for product from the fishery from which Chain of Custody certification is required are the points of landing listed above. All merchants and processors wishing to sell MSC certified fish that has been purchased from this fishery will therefore require their own Chain of Custody certification.
5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to enter further chains of custody To be completed at Public Certification Report stage
There are no IPI stocks in the retained catch.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 11 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
6 Scoring 6.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores
The provisional scoring ranges indicated at this stage in the assessment process are shown in the table below and are based on available information. Please note that this scoring does not indicate an assessment outcome, and that scoring is likely to change as the assessment progresses. Scoring rationales are presented in the following sections of the report.
UoA 1 UoA 2 Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) Mid water Demersal trawl Trawl 1.1.1 Stock status >80 >80 Outcome 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding >80 >80
1.2.1 Harvest strategy >80 >80 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools >80 >80 Management 1.2.3 Information & monitoring >80 >80
1.2.4 Assessment of stock status >80 >80
2.1.1 Outcome >80 >80 Primary 2.1.2 Management strategy >80 >80 species 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring >80 >80
2.2.1 Outcome >80 >80 Secondary 2.2.2 Management strategy >80 >80 species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring >80 >80
2.3.1 Outcome >80 >80
Two ETP species 2.3.2 Management strategy >80 >80
2.3.3 Information strategy >80 >80
2.4.1 Outcome >80 >80
Habitats 2.4.2 Management strategy 60-79 60-79
2.4.3 Information 60-79 60-79
2.5.1 Outcome >80 >80
Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management >80 >80
2.5.3 Information >80 >80
3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework >80 >80 Governance Consultation, roles & Three 3.1.2 >80 >80 and policy responsibilities 3.1.3 Long term objectives >80 >80
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 12 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives >80 >80 Fishery 3.2.2 Decision making processes >80 >80 specific management 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement >80 >80 system Monitoring & management 3.2.4 >80 >80 performance evaluation
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 13 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
6.2 Principle 1 6.2.1 Principle 1 background
Biology & Stock Structure
Blue grenadier (Macruronus novaezelandiae) are found in southern Australian waters from New South Wales to Western Australia, including the coast of Tasmania (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018; Figure 1). The same species is also abundant around New Zealand and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of South America, where it is more commonly referred to as hoki. Blue grenadier typically occurs at depths of 200-700 m on the shelf slope, with juveniles found further inshore (Kuo and Tanaka 1984; Smith 1994). The species exhibits diurnal migration, rising into the water column at night and staying close to the bottom during the day. They are not considered a low trophic level species, feeding mainly on lantern fish, crustaceans and squid (Kailola et al. 1993). Predators of juvenile blue grenadier may include adult blue grenadier and pink ling (Bulman and Blaber 1986).
Blue grenadier is a large and moderately long-lived species, which grows to a maximum length of up to 120 cm and a maximum age of about 25 years (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). In Australia, age at maturity is approximately 4 years for males and 5 years for females. The lengths by which 50% of males and females are mature have been estimated as 57 cm and 64 cm (Russell and Smith 2006). Spawning occurs predominantly off western Tasmania from May to September, with the peak spawning period estimated to be between June and August (Russell and Smith 2006). Within the spawning grounds, the upper reaches of canyons running down the slope from the continental shelf represent favoured spawning sites of blue grenadier (Tilzey et al. 2006). Evidence suggests that males arrive on the spawning grounds at a smaller size and younger age than females, with a higher proportion of small males being caught than females (Tuck 2013).
Analyses of otolith microchemistry and morphology indicates that blue grenadier in the Great Australian Bight is a separate biological stock to that in western Tasmania (Hamer et al. 2009). The relationship between populations in western Tasmania and eastern Bass Strait is less clear. Although there is evidence that some spawning also occurs in the eastern Bass Strait (Gunn et al. 1989; Bruce et al. 2001), these fish may comprise locally spawned individuals as well as vagrants from the major western Tasmanian spawning grounds (Hamer et al. 2009). Whilst the level of mixing between blue grenadier in the western Tasmanian and eastern Bass Strait regions requires further clarification, they are currently assessed and managed as a single stock (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018).
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 14 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Figure 1. Distribution of reported commercial catches of blue grenadier off southern Australia (Source: https://www.fish.gov.au/report/189-Blue-Grenadier-2018)
Fishery Overview
The blue grenadier stock in south-eastern Australia was first targeted in the late 1970s as the trawl fleet started exploring the deeper waters off western Victoria and Tasmania (Punt et al. 2001). The fishery has been managed by a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) since the early 1990s. There are two defined sub-fisheries for this species; the spawning fishery that targets the spawning stock off western Tasmania in winter (June, July and August), and the non-spawning fishery that catches mainly sub- adult and smaller adult fish throughout the year.
Blue grenadier stock assessments show that stock size is driven by large and sporadic recruitments of this species (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). Catch rates in the non-spawning fishery gradually declined in the 1990s, over a period when the proportion of catch taken in the winter spawning increased markedly (Punt et al. 2001). Spawning biomass gradually declined from 2001 as the abundance of strong cohorts from the mid-1990s diminished (Larcombe and Begg 2008). Concern over stock status led to a substantial reduction in the TAC between 2003 and 2006 to allow stock levels to rebuild (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018).
The blue grenadier fishery in south-eastern Australia now forms a part of the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS) of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF; Figure 2). The SESSF was established in 2003 from the amalgamation of four fisheries. It is a multi-sector, multi-gear and multispecies fishery, targeting a variety of fish and shark stocks. The SESSF is the largest Commonwealth-managed fishery in terms of volume and the management area covers almost half the area of the Australian Fishing Zone (Figure 2). As blue grenadier undertakes diurnal migration into the water column, both demersal and mid-water trawls are used to target this species.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 15 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Figure 2. The Commonwealth Trawl Sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF).
Stock Assessment
Blue grenadier is currently assessed as a single stock across the SESSF (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). As a Tier 1 species, stock status of blue grenadier is assessed using an age- and size-structured integrated analysis model, which since 2011 has been implemented in the generalized stock assessment software package Stock Synthesis (Methot 2011; Methot and Wetzel 2013). The assessment benefits from the ability of Stock Synthesis to account for multiple fishing fleets, to represent the different dynamics of the winter spawning fishery off western Tasmania and the more widely spread catches of the non-spawning fishery (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). It also allows the model to be fitted to multiple sources of data simultaneously.
Data Inputs
The most recent blue grenadier assessment incorporated data up to the end of 2017, including landings and discarded catches, catch rates, length-composition and conditional age-at-length data, and fishery-independent indices of abundance (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). Logbook data for blue grenadier since 1979 were used to apportion landed catches to the spawning and non-spawning fisheries, and were adjusted upwards to match the totals recorded in Catch Disposal Records (CDRs; Table). Discarded catches have been estimated from onboard observer monitoring since 1995 (e.g. Thomson and Klaer 2011; Burch et al. 2018) and are used to fit retention curves for each fishing fleet in the model (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018).
The standardized catch rates for the non-spawning fishery of blue grenadier follows the fluctuations in annual stock levels driven by large and sporadic recruitments (Sporcic and Haddon 2018; Table; Figure 3). Catch rates for the spawning sub-fishery are not considered to provide a reliable index of
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 16 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report abundance as the freezer vessels target aggregations of fish and catches are limited by the processing capacity of the fishing vessel.
Length and age data were included in the assessment as length-composition data and conditional age- at-length data by fleet and, where available, sex. In contrast to the previous assessment (Tuck 2013) the length-composition samples collected onboard and in port are now used separately in the model. The numbers of shots (onboard) or trips (port) sampled from each fleet are used to determine the effective sample size (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018).
The assessment model incorporates estimates of spawning biomass for blue grenadier off the west coast of Tasmania from two egg surveys undertaken in 1994 and 1995 (Bulman et al. 1999) and acoustic surveys undertaken between 2003 and 2010 (Ryan and Kloser 2012). Base-case egg estimates (and the associated coefficient of variation, CV) of 57,772 t (0.18) from 1994 and 41,409 t (0.29) from 1995 were used in the assessment (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). Acoustic survey estimates of spawning biomass by Ryan and Kloser (2012) are provided in Table . Sampling CVs less than 0.3 were considered too low for an acoustic survey (e.g. Tuck et al. 2004) and were increased to 0.3 to account for process error (Table ). It is assumed the acoustic survey selectivity corresponds to the maturity ogive as the surveys observe mature fish on the spawning ground (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). The assessment also assumed that the spawning ground experiences a turnover rate of two (i.e. spawning biomass estimates were doubled) (Russell and Smith 2006; Punt et al. 2015).
The blue grenadier assessment also incorporates abundance indices from fishery-independent surveys (FIS) undertaken biennially since 2008 in the spawning and non-spawning fishing grounds (Knuckey et al. 2017a; Table ). For the base case model, it has been assumed that the FIS selectivity is the same as the non-spawning trawl fleet selectivity. It has been recognised that length composition data from the FIS should be used to independently estimate a FIS selectivity to test this assumption (Castillo- Jordán and Tuck 2018). However, until there is an agreed set of weighted lengths, these length data have not been included in the base case model.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 17 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Table 1. Annual catch (in tonnes, t) of blue grenadier by the spawning and non-spawning fisheries (scaled up to the landings data), estimates of discards and the Total Allowable Catch (TAC). The standardised CPUE for the non-spawning fishery (Sporcic and Haddon 2018) is also provided. 1A voluntary industry reduction to 4,200 t was implemented in 2005. 2This was a 16-month TAC. 3The TACs cover the fishing year 1 May to 30 April (e.g. 2008 refers to 2008/09 fishing year). 4This is an estimate of retained catch based on the 2017/2018 TAC and relative split of catch between the spawning and non-spawning fisheries of 2017. Source: Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 18 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Figure 3. A comparison of the annual standardised catch rates for blue grenadier in the non-spawning fishery used in the 2013 and 2018 stock assessments. Source: Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018
Table 2. Estimates of biomass (tonnes, t) and associated CV of blue grenadier on the spawning grounds from 2003 to 2010 (Ryan and Kloser 2012). Source: Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018.
Table 3. Blue grenadier abundance indices with corresponding CV derived from fishery-independent surveys. Source: Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 19 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Parameter Inputs
The blue grenadier assessment has been regularly updated with new and improved versions of the model (e.g. Tuck 2013; Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). Recruitment is governed by a stochastic Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment relationship, parameterized in terms of the steepness h of this relationship (set to 0.75 based on recommendations by Francis 2009) and allowing for the large variability in annual recruitment observed for blue grenadier to be estimated. Growth is assumed to follow a von Bertalanffy length-at-age relationship, with the parameters of the growth function being estimated separately for females and males inside the assessment model. The assessment now allows for cohort-specific growth after it was recognised that stronger year classes typically experience slower than average growth (e.g. Punt et al. 2001; Whitten et al. 2013).
The assessment assumes that 84% of females spawn in each year and the female maturity ogive was based on the parameters estimated for blue grenadier by Russell and Smith (2006; Figure 4). The length weight-relationship for males and females was estimated from spawning fishery data over years 1999 to 2008 (Figure 4). In line with current practice for hoki in New Zealand, natural mortality for females is estimated when fitting the model whilst male natural mortality is assumed to be 20% greater (McAllister et al. 1994). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact on assessment outputs of alternative assumptions around recruitment and natural mortality, as well as excluding certain data inputs and modifying weighting of the data sources (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018).
Figure 4. Maturity by length for female blue grenadier (based on parameters from Russell and Smith (2006) and the length-weight relationships for males and females used in the assessment model (Source: Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018).
Assessment Results
The 2018 base case assessment of blue grenadier estimated that the female spawning stock biomass in 2018 was at 122% of the unfished level (B0, estimated as 53,909 t) (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck
2018). This is well above the target biomass level of 48%B0 and the limit reference level of 20%B0 for the stock (Figure 5). The estimated time series of relative spawning biomass shows marked fluctuations in abundance as strong cohorts move in and out of the spawning population (Figure 5a). The estimated annual recruitment under the base case model demonstrates the typical episodic nature of blue grenadier recruitment, with strong year classes spawned in 1979, the mid-1980s, 1994, and 2003, and relatively low recruitment between these years (Figure 5b).
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 20 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
A gradual decline in female spawning biomass to just below the target level is evident from 2000 to 2014 as the strong cohorts from the mid-1990s are fished down (Figure 5a). The subsequent increase in stock levels over the last five years is mostly driven by large estimates of recruitment since 2010 (Figure 5b). Whilst the recruitment appears to be well estimated, it is suggested that the results should be treated with some caution until clear further information on the strengths of these cohorts become available (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018).
Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that steepness of the stock-recruitment relationship is not well estimated by the model, as estimates of spawning biomass do not decrease to sufficiently low levels (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). All scenarios showed estimated relative spawning biomass levels well above the target level of 48%B0, except for the model where the fishery-dependent non-spawning catch rates were excluded, which was expected given the importance of this in the catch trend. The assessment acknowledges a poor fit to these catch rates, in particular following the large recruitment of the mid-1990s and the subsequent increase in discarding (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). Alternative models that time-blocked discarding, re-weighted discard CVs and included a discard fleet have all been unsuccessful in improving the fit to the catch rate (and discard) data. It has been suggested that the GLM model structure used in the standardisation of catch rate should be reviewed.
Overall, the 2018 assessment indicates that the blue grenadier stock in south-eastern Australia are not depleted or subject to overfishing.
(a)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 21 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
(b)
Figure 5. The estimated time series of (a) female spawning biomass relative to the unfished level and reference points and (b) annual recruitment from the 2018 base case assessment for blue grenadier (from Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018).
Harvest Strategy
To meet the objectives of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy, harvest strategies for commercially-fished stocks are designed to achieve an exploitation rate that keeps stocks at the level required to produce maximum economic yield (MEY), as well as ensure stocks remain above a limit biomass level at least 90% of the time (Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 2018a; b). The harvest strategy sets out the decision framework necessary to achieve these objectives, including fishery-specific performance indicators and reference levels, and a pre-determined harvest control rule (HCR) designed to reduce fishing pressure and rebuild the stock if the indicator approaches the limit reference level (Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 2018b).
The SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework (HSF) was developed in 2005 (Smith et al. 2008) and has since been used to inform annual TACs for quota-managed species, including blue grenadier. The HSF sets out the management actions required to achieve defined biological and economic objectives, describes the types of assessments and indicators used for monitoring the status of stocks, and outlines the rules applied to determine the recommended TACs (AFMA 2019a). Each stock in the SESSF is assessed using one of three types of assessment depending on the information available to assess stock status, where Tier 1 represents the highest quality of information available.
Each Tier has its own HCR that is used to determine the Recommended Biological Catch (RBC), which provides the best scientific advice on what the total fishing mortality (landings from all sectors plus discards) should be for each stock (AFMA 2019a). The HSF adopts increased levels of precaution that correspond to increasing levels of uncertainty about stock status, in order to reduce the level of risk associated with uncertainty. Once the RBC is determined from the results of the assessment and the application of the relevant HCR, a recommended TAC is calculated based on established rules.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 22 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Performance Indicators & Reference Levels
Tier 1 species have well-established quantitative stock assessments that provide estimates of current biomass levels. The assessment of blue grenadier provides estimates of female spawning stock biomass over the history of the fishery (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). The key performance indicator for blue grenadier is the spawning biomass relative to the unfished level (B0, in 1960), which is considered more robust to uncertainty than biomass estimates in absolute terms (Punt et al. 2018).
Default reference points for Tier 1 stocks are consistent with those prescribed in the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy (Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 2018b). They include a target and a limit biomass reference point (BTARG and BLIM), as well as a target fishing mortality rate (FTARG) that on average is expected to maintain a stock at BTARG (Day 2008). The BLIM represents the spawning biomass level below which the risk to the stock is unacceptably high and the stock is defined as overfished or depleted. The default BLIM proxy of 20%B0 has been used for blue grenadier since the SESSF HSF was introduced in 2005 (AFMA 2019a).
Various values have been considered for the target reference points of Commonwealth-managed stocks over time. The BMSY represents the spawning biomass level corresponding to maximum sustainable yield (MSY), which is the point at which additional fishing pressure is likely to decrease the total catch and profit. The default BMSY proxy is 40%B0. Following a review of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest
Strategy Policy (e.g. Haddon et al. 2014), a BMEY target has been applied to stocks (Department of
Agriculture and Water Resources 2018a; b). The default proxy for BMEY is approximated by 1.2BMSY, which corresponds to 48%B0.
Harvest Control Rule
Three alternative HCRs have been applied for Tier 1 species under the SESSF HSF (Figure 6). All variants set the exploitation rate to zero if the stock falls below the BLIM of 20%B0, however, they differ in the values assumed for the target and the breakpoint (or inflection point) in the HCR (Day 2008).
Currently, the 20:40:40 (BLIM:BMSY:FTARG) form of the rule will be used for blue grenadier, up to where fishing mortality reaches the level expected to achieve BMEY, i.e. 48%B0 (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). Once this is reached, the fishing mortality will be kept constant at this level (Figure 6; AFMA 2019a).
This HCR is designed to maintain the stock above the inflection point of BMSY (i.e. 40%B0), below which fishing mortality is reduced to minimise the risk of the stock being overfished (Figure 6). If the estimated biomass level falls below BLIM, no targeted fishing will occur and the HSF also requires that a rebuilding strategy is developed to recover the stock to the target level. For species like blue grenadier where proxy values of 40%B0 and 48%B0 are used for BMSY and BMEY, the current 20:40:40 HCR for the stock is equivalent to the 20:35:48 strategy outlined for Tier 1 species in the HSF (Day 2008; AFMA 2019a).
The RBC for a stock is determined by applying the target fishing level determined from the HCR to the current estimate of spawning biomass, to calculate the total catch (including discards) for the next year (AFMA 2019a). In the most recent base case assessment of blue grenadier, the 2019 RBC was calculated as 13,260 t while the estimated long-term RBC for the stock is 4,899 t (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). The retained portion of the RBC for 2019 is estimated to be 12,671 t.
Management Strategy Evaluation
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 23 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) of the original SESSF HSF has been undertaken and documented (Wayte 2009; Klaer and Wayte 2011). For Tier 1 species, the HCRs were tested for three species types with differing life history characteristics under each of three levels of spawning stock biomass (low, target and high). The MSE considered RBCs calculated based on both a 20:40:40 and a 20:40:48 HCR. Although it was recognised that the MSE did not characterise real species, application of both HCRs led to stocks stabilising at the target level (Wayte 2009).
Figure 6. Tier 1 HCRs based on alternative target reference levels and inflection points associated with 40%B0 (BMSY) and 48%B0 (BMEY). Source: Day 2008.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 24 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
6.2.2 Catch profiles
The time series of blue grenadier catches landed by the spawning and non-spawning sub-fisheries of SESSF are presented in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Time series of blue grenadier (UoA) catch harvested by the spawning (grey line) and non- spawning (orange line) sub-fisheries over the history of fishing.
6.2.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data
Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data
TAC Year 2018-19 Amount 8810 t
UoA share of TAC Year 2018-19 Amount 8810 t
UoA share of total TAC Year 2018-19 Amount 8810 t
Year (most Total green weight catch by UoC 2018-19 Amount 0 t* recent) Year (second Total green weight catch by UoC 2017-18 Amount 0 t* most recent) * There has been no fishing by the UoC in 2017/18 and 2018/19 season (UoA catch is provided in Figure 7)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 25 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
6.2.4 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales PI 1.1.1 – Stock status
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Stock status relative to recruitment impairment It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of a Guide is above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is post recruitment would be above the PRI. impaired (PRI). Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
The assessment of the blue grenadier stock in south-eastern Australia applies an integrated assessment model implemented using the software package Stock Synthesis. The most recent assessment was undertaken in 2018, incorporating data up to and including the 2017 calendar year (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). Estimated trajectories of female spawning biomass shows large fluctuations in spawning biomass as strong cohorts move in and out of the spawning population. A gradual decline in spawning biomass is evident from 2000 to 2014 as the stock is reduced to just below the target level. The subsequent increase in stock levels over the last five years follows a period of low catch and is mostly driven by large estimates of recruitment since 2010.
The base case model estimated that female spawning biomass in 2018 was at 122% of the unfished level (B0). This estimate, and the lower bounds of the associated 95% confidence interval, is well above the limit reference point for the blue grenadier stock of 20%B0. Sensitivity analyses undertaken to evaluate the impact on results of alternative assumptions around recruitment and natural mortality demonstrated relative spawning biomass estimates well above the limit reference point. There is thus a high degree of certainty that the stock is currently above PRI and SG100 is met.
Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) The stock is at or There is a high degree of fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock Guide consistent with MSY. has been fluctuating b around a level consistent post with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Yes Yes
Rationale
The recent stock assessment for blue grenadier in south-eastern Australia (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018) show the large fluctuations in spawning stock size driven by large but sporadic recruitment of this species (Figure 5). Following a gradual decline in spawning biomass from 2000 to 2014, a subsequent increase in stock levels over the last five years has been driven by large estimates of recruitment since 2010 (Figure 5b).
Female spawning biomass in 2018 was at 122% of the unfished level (B0), which is well above the target reference point of 48%B0 (proxy for BMEY). The target has been approximated as 1.2BMSY, based on proxy for BMSY of 40%B0, which consistent with the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy and
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 26 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report guidelines (Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 2018a; b). Given the highly variable and episodic recruitment of blue grenadier, the application of BMSY as a trigger level rather than as the target is considered appropriate and more precautionary. The estimated female spawning biomass (and associated 95% confidence interval) has largely been maintained above the target reference point over the history of the fishery, with estimates only reducing to around the level of BMSY (i.e. 40%B0) between 2012 and 2015 (Figure 5). There is thus a high degree of certainty that the stock has fluctuated around and above a level consistent with MSY over recent years. SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.
References
Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018; Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 2018a; b
Stock status relative to reference points Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference point BLIM proxy 20%B0 122%B0 (in 2018) used in scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa) Reference point BMSY proxy 40%B0 122%B0 (in 2018) used in scoring stock relative to MSY (SIb)
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 27 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding
Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.2 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Rebuilding timeframes A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable specified for the stock that rebuilding timeframe is is the shorter of 20 specified which does not Guide years or 2 times its exceed one generation a generation time. For time for the stock. post cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. Met? NA NA
Rationale
Not relevant. As indicated above, the blue grenadier stock is not depleted.
Rebuilding evaluation Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that There is strong evidence determine whether the the rebuilding strategies that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are are rebuilding stocks, or it strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the is likely based on stocks, or it is highly b Guide stock within the specified simulation modelling, likely based on simulation timeframe. exploitation rates or modelling, exploitation post previous performance that rates or previous they will be able to rebuild performance that they will the stock within the be able to rebuild the specified timeframe. stock within the specified timeframe. Met? NA NA NA
Rationale
Not relevant. As indicated above, the blue grenadier stock is not depleted.
References
Draft scoring range NA
Information gap indicator NA
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 28 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Condition number (if relevant)
PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue Harvest strategy design The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state of responsive to the state of stock management the stock and the the stock and is designed Guide objectives reflected in PI elements of the harvest to achieve stock a post 1.1.1 SG80. strategy work together management objectives towards achieving stock reflected in PI 1.1.1 management objectives SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
In line with the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and guidelines (Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 2018a; b), the SESSF HSF sets out the decision framework necessary to achieve management objectives for key commercial fish stocks (including blue grenadier); to achieve an exploitation rate that keeps fish stocks at the level required to produce maximum economic yield (BMEY), as well as ensure stocks remain above a limit biomass level (BLIM) at least 90% of the time (AFMA 2019a). The HSF describes the fishery-specific performance indicators and reference levels used for monitoring the status of stocks, and the pre-determined harvest control rule (HCR) used to inform the annual TACs for quota-managed species. The level of precaution in the HCR for stocks increases where assessments are more uncertain, in order to reduce the level of risk associated with this uncertainty.
The elements of the SESSF HSF work together to achieve management objectives for blue grenadier, with assessment outputs (i.e. estimates of spawning stock biomass relative to the unfished level) used by the HCR to determine the Recommended Biological Catch (RBC) for the stock (AFMA 2019a). The HCR is designed to maintain the stock at BMEY and reduces exploitation if the stock falls below BMSY. If the stock falls below BLIM, there will be no targeted fishing for that species and a stock rebuilding strategy will be developed to recover the stock to the target level. The harvest strategy is thus responsive to the state of the blue grenadier stocks and is designed to achieve stock management objectives, as reflected by the reference points. The harvest strategy for blue grenadier meets the requirements of the SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels.
Harvest strategy evaluation The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the likely to work based on not have been fully harvest strategy has been prior experience or tested but evidence fully evaluated and Guide plausible argument. exists that it is achieving evidence exists to show b post its objectives. that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Yes Yes Yes
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 29 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Rationale
Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) has been used to test the SESSF HSF and the HCRs applied to each tier of assessment (e.g. Wayte 2009). This has resulted in improvements to the HSF to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy and satisfies stock management objectives for species with differing life history characteristics (AFMA 2019a). The MSE has demonstrated that the HSF is robust to uncertainties and there is evidence that the HCRs will maintain the stock at the biomass targets (or equivalent proxy), or rebuild it to this level within a reasonable timeframe (AFMA 2019a).
The 2018 assessment of the blue grenadier stock indicates that the spawning biomass (relative to the unfished level B0) has been maintained around and above the target level of 48%B0 (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). The assessment explores uncertainty in a range of its data and parameter inputs and evaluates the probability that the stock is maintained at the target level. The requirements of the SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels are met.
Harvest strategy monitoring Monitoring is in place that c Guide is expected to determine post whether the harvest strategy is working.
Met? Yes
Rationale
Fishery-dependent and independent data for blue grenadier are available to monitor trends in stock abundance and the length- and age-structure of the population. These data inform the integrated stock assessment for this species, which estimates stock status relative to target and limit reference points. Due to the substantial resources required to frequently update stock assessments and set annual TACs, multiyear TACs have been adopted for species (including blue grenadier) where certain criteria are satisfied (AFMA 2019a). Breakout rules specify the circumstances for re-evaluating the stock during the period of the multiyear TAC. This ensures that there can be management intervention if trends in stock status are different from those expected, for example as indicated by changes in CPUE, size- and age- compositions or fishery-independent abundance indices. The current level of monitoring in place for blue grenadier is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.
Harvest strategy review The harvest strategy is Guide d periodically reviewed and post improved as necessary. Met? Yes
Rationale
Since its implementation in 2005, the SESSF HSF has been regularly reviewed and updated to improve its performance and ensure it complies with the requirements of Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy (AFMA 2019a). MSE has been used to test the ability of the SESSF HSF to achieve stock management objectives (e.g. Wayte 2009). A thorough review of the reference levels and HCRs Tier 1 stocks like blue grenadier was also undertaken as part of a broad review of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy (Haddon et al. 2014), which subsequently informed a revised edition of this document in 2018 (Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 2018a). A review of the monitoring and assessment processes that inform the SESSF HSF was recently undertaken by Knuckey et al. (2017b).
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 30 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Shark finning It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree e Guide finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark post place. finning is not taking place. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
Sharks and rays caught by the SESSF must be landed in accordance with the processing standards specified within the Statutory Fishing Right (SFR) or permit conditions for the fishing vessel, or provisions of the Fisheries Management Regulations 1992 (AFMA 2019b). The SFR for SESSF trawl sector states they must not possess any shark (Class Chondricthyes) dorsal, pectoral, caudal, pelvic or anal fins on board the vessel that are not attached to the shark’s carcass. Factory freezer vessels have 100% observer coverage. The SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels are thus met.
Review of alternative measures There has been a review There is a regular review There is a biennial of the potential of the potential review of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative f Guide measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise post UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
Strategies for reducing bycatch and discarding in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS) of the SESSF are reviewed as part of the process of undertaking Ecological Risk Assessments and updating the Bycatch and Discard Workplan for the sector (AFMA 2018a). The workplan is developed in consultation with industry and research partners to find practical and affordable solutions to minimising bycatch and the discarding of target species. It supports the overall objectives of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Ecological Risk Management (ERM) Strategy, which includes reducing discarding of target species to as close to zero as practically possible.
The current (2018-2019) Bycatch and Discard Workplan for the CTS will be reviewed every six months to ensure actions are progressing and determine if any additional actions can be taken (AFMA 2018a). At the end of the 24-month period of the workplan, outputs will be reported to the Department of Environment and a new workplan will be developed and implemented. This meets the requirements of SG60, SG80 and SG100.
References
AFMA 2018a; 2019a; b; Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018; Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 2018a; b; Haddon et al. 2014; Knuckey et al. 2017a; Wayte 2009
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 31 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 HCRs design and application Generally understood Well defined HCRs are The HCRs are expected HCRs are in place or in place that ensure that to keep the stock available that are the exploitation rate is fluctuating at or above expected to reduce the reduced as the PRI is a target level consistent exploitation rate as the approached, are expected with MSY, or another a Guide point of recruitment to keep the stock more appropriate level post impairment (PRI) is fluctuating around a taking into account the approached. target level consistent ecological role of the with (or above) MSY, or stock, most of the time. for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
There are well defined HCRs in place for blue grenadier that are broadly consistent with the SESSF HSF and the over-arching Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and guidelines (Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 2018a; b; AFMA 2019a). For species like blue grenadier where proxy values of 40%B0 and 48%B0 are used for BMSY and BMEY, the current 20:40:40 HCR for the stock (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018) is equivalent to the 20:35:48 strategy outlined for Tier 1 species in the HSF (Day 2008; AFMA 2019a).
The 20:40:40 HCR is designed to maintain the stock above BMSY (i.e. 40%B0), beyond which the fishing mortality is set to a constant level expected to achieve the BMEY target of 48%B0 (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). Where the stock falls below BMSY and approaches BLIM, the HCR specifies a linear reduction in fishing mortality to minimise the risk of the stock being overfished (AFMA 2019a). If the estimated biomass level falls below BLIM, no targeted fishing will occur and a rebuilding strategy will be developed. MSE has shown that the HCR will maintain stocks of three species types with differing life history characteristics at the target level. This meets the requirements of the SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels.
HCRs robustness to uncertainty The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account robust to the main of a wide range of b uncertainties. uncertainties including Guide the ecological role of the post stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 32 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Met? Yes No
Rationale
The Commonwealth HCRs has been evaluated by MSE for a range of stocks with different life history characteristics (Wayte 2009). Although the results are sufficient to suggest the HCR is likely to be robust to main uncertainties, it is not clear that the wide range of uncertainties specific to the current assessment of blue grenadier have been accounted for. While SG80 is met, the requirement of the SG100 level is not met. Further clarity will be sought during the site visit.
HCRs evaluation There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly that tools used or indicates that the tools shows that the tools in Guide available to implement in use are appropriate and use are effective in c HCRs are appropriate and effective in achieving the achieving the post effective in controlling exploitation levels exploitation levels exploitation. required under the HCRs. required under the HCRs.
Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
The assessment of blue grenadier demonstrates that female spawning stock biomass has been maintained above BLIM for the history of the fishery and there is evidence that exploitation has been reduced as the stock has fallen below the target level (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). This clearly demonstrates that the tools used to implement the HCR are effective in achieving the required exploitation levels. Catches from the fishery are reliably recorded and verified by observers, and have never exceeded the TAC. This meets the requirements of the SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels.
References
AFMA 2019a; Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018; Day 2008; Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 2018a; b; Wayte 2009
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator More information sought
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 33 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Range of information Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range information related to information related to of information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available composition and other composition, stock to support the harvest data are available to abundance, UoA removals a Guide strategy. support the harvest and other information post strategy. such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
A range of information relevant to the assessment and management of blue grenadier in south-eastern Australia can be sourced from online reports and published scientific papers. This includes broad descriptions of the biological characteristics and distribution of the species, the fishing fleet that target the stock and data used to inform the current stock assessment (e.g. AFMA 2018b; Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). The information is considered sufficient to support the harvest strategy for this blue grenadier stock and thus the requirements of the SG60 and SG80 levels are met.
The information would be considered comprehensive except for the uncertainty in stock structure, with some evidence suggesting that blue grenadier from the western Tasmanian and eastern Bass Strait regions are unlikely to be part of one highly mixed south-eastern Australian stock (Hamer et al. 2009). The SG100 level is therefore not met.
Monitoring Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required removals are monitored removals are regularly by the harvest control and at least one monitored at a level of rule is monitored with indicator is available and accuracy and coverage high frequency and a high monitored with sufficient consistent with the degree of certainty, and b Guide frequency to support the harvest control rule, there is a good harvest control rule. and one or more understanding of inherent post indicators are available uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and sufficient frequency to the robustness of support the harvest assessment and control rule. management to this uncertainty. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 34 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
The information required to estimate stock abundance of blue grenadier and inform the HCR to calculate the RBC and set annual TACs for the stock is monitored with a high frequency. There is excellent information available on all fishery removals from the stock, which is collected on a shot-by- shot basis in logbooks. The level of discarding is estimated based on observer data (e.g. Burch et al. 2018). Fishery-dependent standardised catch rates for the non-spawning fishery and fishery- independent survey indices of abundance are monitored annually and used to inform the integrated stock assessment model for blue grenadier (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). The assessment incorporates the uncertainty associated with the various data and parameter inputs and provides estimates of stock status that can be compared to reference levels in a probabilistic way.
Due to the substantial resources required to frequently update stock assessments and set annual TACs, multiyear TACs have been adopted for species (including blue grenadier) where certain criteria are satisfied (AFMA 2019a). Breakout rules specify the circumstances for re-evaluating the stock during the period of the multiyear TAC. This ensures that there can be management intervention if trends in stock status are different from those expected, as indicated by changes in catch rates, size- and age- compositions or fishery-independent abundance indices. The SG60, 80 and 100 guideposts are met.
Comprehensiveness of information
Guide There is good information c on all other fishery post removals from the stock.
Met? Yes
Rationale
There is reliable information available on fishery removals from the stock, which is collected on a shot- by-shot basis in logbooks (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). The logbook landings have been adjusted upwards to match the totals reported in Catch Disposal Records (CDRs) to take account of differences between logbook and landings data.
References
AFMA 2018b; 2019a; Burch et al. 2018; Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018; Hamer et al. 2009
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 35 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration The assessment is The assessment takes into appropriate for the stock account the major Guide a and for the harvest features relevant to the post control rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Yes Yes
Rationale
Blue grenadier is assessed using an age- and size-structured integrated analysis model, which since 2011 has been implemented in the generalized stock assessment software package Stock Synthesis (e.g. Methot and Wetzel 2013). The assessment benefits from the ability of Stock Synthesis to account for multiple fishing fleets, to represent the different dynamics of the winter spawning fishery off western Tasmania and the more widely spread catches of the non-spawning fishery (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). It also allows the model to be fitted to multiple sources of data simultaneously, including landings and discarded catches, catch rates, length-composition and conditional age-at- length data, and fishery-independent indices of abundance. The assessment provides estimates of female spawning biomass and spawning biomass relative to unfished levels, where the latter is compared to target and limit reference levels for the stock.
The assessment incorporates information on the key biological characteristics of the species, including the proportion of females spawning each year, length at 50% maturity for females and length-weight relationships (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). The value of female natural mortality was estimated by the model, while the male natural mortality was assumed to be 20% greater than the female estimate based on current practice for hoki in New Zealand (McAllister et al. 1994). A steepness value of 0.75 for the stock-recruitment relationship was assumed, based on recommendations by Francis (2009). The assessment now allows for cohort-specific growth after recognising that strong year classes typically experience slower than average growth (e.g. Punt et al. 2001; Whitten et al. 2013). This clearly meets the requirements for the SG80 and SG100 levels.
Assessment approach The assessment estimates The assessment estimates Guide stock status relative to stock status relative to b generic reference points reference points that are post appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock category. and can be estimated. Met? Yes No
Rationale
The assessment provides estimates of female spawning biomass relative to unfished levels (B0), which is compared to target and limit reference levels to determine the current status of the stock (Castillo- Jordán and Tuck 2018). In line with the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy, the SESSF HSF for Tier 1 species like blue grenadier adopts a biomass target reference point that aims to maintain stocks at a level which would result in maximum economic yield (BMEY), which is approximated by 1.2BMSY based on a proxy for BMSY of 40%B0 (AFMA 2019a). The default proxy for the limit reference point is 20%B0, i.e. 0.5BMSY (AFMA 2019a). These are considered appropriate for the stock and the SG60 level
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 36 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report is met. However, as the reference points are not estimated specifically for the stock, the SG80 level is not.
Uncertainty in the assessment The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into identifies major uncertainty into account uncertainty and is c Guide sources of uncertainty. account. evaluating stock status post relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
The integrated stock assessment of the blue grenadier stock identifies and explores the major sources of uncertainty relating to data and assumptions around biological parameters (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). Sensitivity analyses were conducted in the last assessment of the stock in 2018 to evaluate the impact on assessment outputs of alternative assumptions around recruitment and natural mortality, as well as excluding certain data inputs and modifying weighting of the data sources (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). The 95% confidence intervals associated with estimates of spawning biomass (relative to the unfished level) allow stock status to be compared to reference points in a probabilistic way. The SG60, SG80 and SG100 scoring elements are all met.
Evaluation of assessment The assessment has been tested and shown to be Guide robust. Alternative d hypotheses and post assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? No
Rationale
The assessment model for blue grenadier is implemented using generalized stock assessment software package Stock Synthesis (SS) (e.g. Methot and Wetzel 2013), which has been applied extensively for fisheries stock assessments around the world. The assessment model has been updated and improved over time and provides a robust assessment of the stock. Sensitivity analyses have been conducted for alternative model hypotheses. The most recent assessment acknowledges a poor fit to the catch rates of the non-spawning fishery, in particular following the large recruitment of the mid-1990s and the subsequent increase in discarding (Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018). Alternative models have all been unsuccessful in improving the fit to the catch rate data and it has been suggested that further consideration should be given to the GLM model structure used in the standardisation of the catch rate. Also, the uncertainty around stock structure has not been explored in the assessment. It is therefore not considered sufficient to meet the requirements of the SG100 level.
Peer review of assessment The assessment has been The assessment of stock Guide internally and e status is subject to peer externally peer post review. reviewed. Met? Yes No
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 37 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Rationale
The stock status of blue grenadier is regularly reviewed by the South East Resource Assessment Group (SERAG) and by internal CSIRO processes. Assessment outputs for this are reported in annual status reports for all quota-managed SESSF stocks (e.g. AFMA 2018b) and in the Status of Australian Fish Stock Reports (e.g. Georgeson 2018). This review process meets the requirements for the SG80 level but is considered to be predominantly an internal process. Although earlier versions of the model were peer reviewed and published (e.g. Punt et al. 2001), it is unclear if the more recent updates have been externally reviewed. It is therefore not considered sufficient to meet the requirements of the SG100 level. Further clarification will be sought at the site visit.
References
AFMA 2018b; 2019a; Castillo-Jordán and Tuck 2018; Francis 2009; Georgeson 2018; McAllister et al. 1994; Methot and Wetzel 2013; Punt et al. 2001; Whitten et al. 2013
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator More information sought
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 38 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
6.3 Principle 2 6.3.1 Principle 2 background
Evaluating the cumulative impacts of overlapping UoAs, as relevant to P2, is not required in this assessment.
Context
Data in Daume, et al., (2014) for the fishing seasons 2009-2013 was used to assess the demersal trawl, as more recent data for demersal trawl was not available at the time of assessment. Data used to assess mid-water trawl was provided by AFMA for the 2015 and Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing (PSDF) for the 2019 fishing seasons, these are the only years the Winter Spawning Blue Grenadier Fishery (WSBGF) has been fished since 2013. Data used in the previous assessment was not used to assess the midwater trawl as more recent dat was available.
Under Principle 2, separate scores for the two gear types (midwater and demersal trawl) were assigned for Primary and Secondary species (PIs 2.1.- 2.2.). However, the two gear types were not scored separately for ETP, habitat and ecosystem (PIs 2.3-2.5) because the information available was not gear type specific. However, were appropriate, comments to delineate the potential impacts of the two gear types were made.
The text and scoring below is based on the information available to the assessment team prior to the site visit. Following the site visit this text will be revised to incorporate any new information gathered by the assessment team, or submitted by the client or stakeholders at the site visit.
Fishery
Blue Grenadier are caught in the trawl sectors of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF), managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA). The SESSF is a multi-sector, multi-gear and multispecies fishery, targeting a variety of fish and shark stocks and is the largest Commonwealth-managed fishery in terms of volume. Across the entire SESSF, 34 species are subject to annual quotas (AFMA, 2019), although there are also a range of input controls on the fishery (Daume, et al., 2014). Blue Grenadier are taken predominantly in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS) of the SESSF, which operates within the Australian Fishing Zone extending southward from Barrenjoey Point (north of Sydney) around the New South Wales, Victorian and Tasmanian coastlines to Cape Jervis in South Australia from State waters (generally 3 nautical miles from shore) to the limit of the Australian EEZ (Figure 8).
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 39 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Figure 8: Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF). Source AFMA 2019. Fishing generally occurs at a depth range of 20 to 1300 m. Blue Grenadier are caught in two defined sub fisheries: the spawning and non-spawning fisheries. Spawning Blue Grenadier aggregate off Western Tasmania from June to early September (Tilzey, et al., 2006) where catches are taken by mid water and demersal trawl within the CTS operating on the Blue Grenadier winter spawning aggregations.
Figure 9: West coast blue grenadier winter spawning grounds. Note: grey colouring indicates the extent of the fishing grounds. Source (Kloser, et al., 2007). 21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 40 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
The SESSF is managed in accordance with the SESSF Management Plan 2003. Management of the fishery is primarily through total allowable catch (TAC) limits. A TAC is set for each quota species and some non-quota species (to cover incidental or unavoidable catch) and is the total allowable catch by all concession holders permitted during that fishing year. The SESSF is a limited entry fishery, operators must hold a relevant fishing concession which provides access to fishing area and method and relevant quota holdings for quota managed species (AFMA, 2019). Other management arrangements used in the SESSF include trip limits, incidental catch limits, size limits, prohibited take, gear restrictions and spatial and temporal closures. In addition, industry implements voluntary measures in co-operation with AFMA such as voluntary gear restrictions and industry Codes of Conduct.
AFMA employs a number of monitoring programs to collect information on its fisheries including: catch and effort logbooks, catch disposal records (CDRs), vessel monitoring systems (VMS), observer program and electronic monitoring (EM). Further research-based information collection also occurs, including via fishery independent surveys (FIS). Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
In 2007, a network of 13 marine protected areas was declared in the South-east marine region. The South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network stretches from the far south coast of New South Wales, around Tasmania and Victoria and west to Kangaroo Island off South Australia (Figure 10). The reserves cover an area of 388,464km2 with a depth range of 40 m - 4600m. The South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network are based on a system of zones which permit or restrict certain activities. There are six different zones in the network: 39 % of the total area is either sanctuary and zones managed for scientific research, monitoring and other passive uses. Approximately, 21% of the network is special purpose zone and closed to commercial fishing, while 12 % of the network is classified as multiple use where low-impact fishing methods and other activities are permitted. Although mid water trawl is permitted in some areas, bottom trawl of any type is not permitted in the network (Department of Environment, 2015).
Figure 10: Area of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (dark blue line) showing Commonwealth Marine Reserves and Fishery Closures. The area open fishing is shown in light blue. Ecological Risk Management (ERM)
AFMA conducts Ecological Risk Assessments (ERAs) to identify the risks posed by fishing to the ecological sustainability of the target, by-product and discards species, habitats and communities in all 21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 41 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Commonwealth fisheries. The process uses of the Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing (ERAEF) framework which consists of a hierarchy of risk assessment methodologies. Assessment of marine species are based on a series of parameters including life history, biological productivity and susceptibility to fishing gear. The ERAEF methodology includes:
• Level 1: Scale-Intensity-Consequence-Analysis (SICA). • Level 2: Semi-quantitative assessment - includes Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA), Sustainability Analysis of Fishing Effects (SAFE) and the residual risk assessment (RRA) process. SAFE is the preferred Level 2 tool where data and species biology allow
• Level 3: Fully quantitative assessment. The ERA approach is a way of screening out low risk activities and focusing more detailed analyses on high risk activities. The impact of each fishing method across the SESSF has been assessed through the application of a progression of risk assessment methodologies including the following assessments:
• Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) for Effects of Fishing – Report for the Otter Trawl Sub fishery of the Commonwealth Trawl Sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, 2007. Australian Fisheries Management Authority (Wayte, et al., 2007). • Residual Risk Assessment of the Level 2 Ecological Risk Assessment – Non-Teleost and Non- Chondrichthyan Species. Report for the Otter Board Trawl Method of the Great Australian Bight Fishery. July 2012. Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA, 2012). • Zhou et al 2012, Sustainability assessment of fish species potentially impacted in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery: 2007-2010. June 2012, Australian Fisheries Management Authority (Zhou, et al., 2012).
Twenty-six species including three species groups have been assessed as at risk from the impacts of fishing across the entire SESSF including: 16 species of sharks, rays or skates (chondrichthyans); three species of bony fish (teleosts); two invertebrate species groups; one seabird group and four marine mammals. Priority species for the otter board trawl component of the CTS are listed in Table 4.
Table 4: The priority species for the otter board trawl method in the CTS which AFMA will focus ERM efforts. Species Name Common Name Highest level of Assessment Diomedeidae Albatrosses (9 species) L2 Residual risk Arctocephalus p. doriferus Australian Fur Seal, Eared Seals, Seals L3 SAFE Centrophorus harrissoni Harrisson's Dogfish L3 SAFE Centrophorus zeehaani Southern Dogfish L3 SAFE Hydrolagus lemurs Bight Ghost Shark L3 SAFE Dipturus canutus Grey Skate L3 SAFE Squalus mitsukurii Green-Eyed Dogfish L3 SAFE Azygopus pinnifasciatus Righteye Flounder L3 SAFE Centrophorus squamosus Nilson's Deepsea Dogfish L3 SAFE Dipturus australis Common Skate L3 SAFE Trygonorrhina fasciata Eastern Fiddler Ray L3 SAFE Urolophus sufflavus Yellow backed Stingaree L3 SAFE Ventrifossa nigrodorsalis Rattail L3 SAFE
ERM strategies are then developed to respond to the outcomes of the ERA (see AFMA, 2015). The ERM strategies outline the management arrangements (including mitigation) to be implemented to ensure
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 42 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report that fishing does not reduce any species populations to/below the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) or to recover populations to above the PRI. The SESSF CTS has been assessed under these methods and results have been incorporated into management strategies such as Bycatch and Discarding Work plans (see AFMA, 2018a), and into the implementation of various plans of action and recovery plans for ETP species. AFMA is in the process of developing Fishery Management Strategies (FMS) for all Commonwealth fisheries including the SESSF. FMS combine existing components (AFMA, 2017) pertaining to the management of fishing interactions with commercial species (i.e. Harvest Strategy), bycatch species, habitats and communities, as well as supporting strategies for research, data and monitoring. (AFMA, 2018a). AFMA anticipate the FMS for the SESSF being available for public comment by 2020 (Department of Environment and Energy, 2019)
Target species
Between 2013-2019, Blue Grenadier have comprised between 97-99% of the landings of trawlers operating in the WSBGF, which represents between 37-42% of the TAC. No further information on Blue Grenadier will be presented in this section as information is provided in the Principle 1 section of this report. Primary and Secondary Species
In accordance with MSC standard v 2.01 (MSC 2018a); Primary species are species that;
• are in the catch but not covered under P1 because they are not included in the UoA (SA 3.1.3.1) • are within scope of MSC program as defined by FCR 7.4 (SA 3.1.3.2) and • have management tools and measures in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points (SA 3.1.3.3) Secondary species are species that are;
• not considered ‘primary’ as defined in SA 3.1.3; or • out of scope for MSC certification (i.e. birds, reptiles or mammals) but are not ETP species. The Main species (Primary or Secondary) are species that;
• comprise 5% or more by weight of the total catch of the UoC (FCR 2.01 SA 3.4.2.1) or • are classified as ‘less resilient’ (e.g. sharks) and comprise 2% or more by weight of the total catch (CR 2.01 SA 3.4.2.2). Primary Main species
Blue Grenadier comprise between 97-99% of the total landings of the UoC, no other species caught by the UoC comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch. Therefore, there are no Main Primary species in the fishery (Table 2 & 3; CR 2.01 SA 3.4.2.1). Similarly, no species classified as ‘less resilient’ e.g. sharks comprise 2% or more by weight of the total catch (Table 2 & 3; MSC 2018a).
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 43 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Table 5: Mid-water trawl catches (kg) of retained and discarded species by freezer boats in the WSBGF Note: 2015 data provided by AFMA, 2019 data provided by Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing (PSDF). Data correct at time of ADCR publication, to be updated after site visit.
2015 2019 Retained MSC Species Retained Discarded Retained Discarded Av % Total Category Alfonsino 1 0 88 32 0.0018 Primary Bellowfish 0 4 0.0000 Secondary Black Oreodory 113 0 0.0023 Primary Blue Warehou 10 0.0002 Primary Blue-eye Trevalla 20 1 0.0004 Primary Cardinal fishes 0 5 0.0000 Secondary Common Jack Mackerel 63 0 17 0.0012 Secondary Conger eels 0 1 0.0000 Secondary Deal Fish 119 0.0000 Secondary Deepwater Flathead 0 28 0.0000 Primary1 Fish (mixed) 0 445 0.0000 Secondary Frostfish 38 11 0.0008 Secondary Gemfish 109 0 1674 852 0.0021 Primary2 Ghostsharks 4 0 0.0001 Secondary Giant Squid 287 0.0000 Secondary Gould's Squid 247 7 12 247 0.0051 Secondary Gulper Sharks, Sleeper Primary3 0 83 Sharks, Dogfishes 0.0000 John Dory 2 0 0.0000 Primary King Dory 2 0 88 0.0000 Secondary Lined Javelinfish 1 36 1 0.0000 Secondary Mirror Dory 193 0 127 61 0.0066 Primary Orange Roughy 1651 0 0.0311 Primary Other species 1671 0.0347 Secondary Pink Ling 200 0 765 223 0.0201 Primary Porcupine Fish 60 0.0000 Secondary Ragfish 65 0.0000 Secondary Ray's Bream 14 0 75 0.0003 Secondary Red Gurnard 1 0 0.0000 Secondary Redbait (mixed) 2 0 36 0.0000 Secondary Reef Ocean Perch 9 1 0.0002 Primary4 Ribaldo 6 1 407 160 0.0056 Primary Rosy Dory 0 3 0.0000 Secondary Ruby Fish 2 0.0000 Secondary School Shark 5 36 210 144 0.0045 Primary Silver Dory 2 0 2 0.0000 Secondary Silver Warehou 470 0 8215 1467 0.1805 Primary Skates 12 2 0.0002 Secondary Sleeper Sharks (mixed) 0 46 0.0000 Secondary Smooth Oreodory 68 0 0.0013 Primary Spikey Oreodory 1485 0 0.0280 Primary Stargazers 8 0 0.0002 Secondary Swordfish 145 0.0030 Secondary
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 44 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Violet squid 108 0.0000 Secondary Whiptails 0 287 0.0000 Secondary Wobbegongs, blind, Secondary nurse, carpet & zebra 0 5 sharks 0.0000 1 Primary species as assessed as single stock, quota only applies to GAB 2 2019 is for Gemfish (W)
3 Species of dogfish unknown so considered used a precautionary approach and treated as primary 4 considered in Ocean Perch quota
Table 6: Demersal trawl catches (kg) of retained species by freezer boats in the WSBGF (2009-2013) from Daume, et al., (2014). Note information on discards was not available at the time of assessment. Data correct at time of ADCR publication, to be updated after site visit.
MSC 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 % Category Species Total Alfonsino 41 78 0.002 Primary Barracouta 104 155 0.005 Secondary Blue Warehou1 25 4615 0.093 Primary Blue-eye Trevalla 85 20 12 643 0.015 Primary Brier Shark 40 0.001 Primary Cardinal fishes 4 0.000 Secondary Common Jack Mackerel 376 1 0.008 Secondary Cuttlefish (mixed) 1 0.000 Secondary Dogfishes 21 0.000 Primary Draughtboard shark 59 0.001 Secondary Fish (mixed) 97 0.002 Secondary Frostfish 1200 622 922 3 2730 0.109 Secondary Gemfish 74 111 30 413 0.013 Primary Ghostsharks 8 79 51 0.003 Secondary Gould's Squid 104 33 1 3 340 0.010 Secondary Greeneye Spurdog2 59 253 0.006 ETP Grunter bream (mixed) 903 0.018 Secondary Gummy Shark 29 0.001 Secondary King Dory 25 286 54 4 18 0.008 Secondary Mirror Dory 392 313 87 3 5 0.016 Primary New Zealand Dory 9 0.000 Secondary Oarfish 665 0.013 Secondary Oreodories (mixed) 40 4 0.001 Primary Piked Spurdog 70 75 0.003 Secondary Pink Ling 570 610 201 15 5339 0.134 Primary Ray's Bream 10 35 0.001 Secondary Redbait (mixed) 20 0.000 Secondary Reef Ocean Perch3 13 55 60 0.003 Primary Ribaldo 8 10 4 0.000 Primary Sawsharks 1 18 0.000 Primary School Shark 810 546 107 2937 0.088 Primary Sharks (mixed) 2 0.000 Secondary 21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 45 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Silver Dory 6 86 4 0.002 Secondary Silver Trevally 25 0.000 Primary Silver Warehou 17481 5524 51079 5 41608 2.307 Primary Southern Ribbonfish 10 0.000 Secondary Spikey Oreodory 10 0.000 Primary Stargazers 38 36 0.001 Secondary Tiger flathead 17 0.000 Secondary Whiptails 5 48 591 0.013 Secondary White Warehou 3 2 0.000 Secondary Whitefin swellshark 6 32 0.001 Secondary 1Blue warehou was listed as Conservation dependent on the EPBC Act in 2015
2misidentified corrected at 1st surveillance audit (Daume & Brand-Gardner, 2016) 3 considered in Ocean Perch quota
Primary Minor species Therefore, all primary species in the fishery are classified as minor. Aside from the species noted in the Table 4 and 2 above there are a number of species listed as conservation dependent under the EPBC Act that occur in the fishery and are considered overfished (Table X7). Conservation dependent species are species that are the focus of a specific conservation program the cessation of which would result in the species becoming Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered (Threatened Species Scientific Committee, 2019). Incidental landings of conservation dependent species are permitted therefore they are assessed as Primary minor rather than ETP for the purpose of this assessment.
Under the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy (Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, 2018), rebuilding strategies are required to be developed for all species which are below their biomass limit reference point. Rebuilding strategies containing appropriate timeframes for rebuilding are in place to manage overfished stocks of Orange Roughy, Eastern Gemfish, Blue Warehou, and School Shark (AFMA, 2015; AFMA, 2019). A management strategy is also in place to rebuild Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish (Department of Environment and Energy, 2019).
Table 7: Species listed as Conservation dependent in EPBC Act
Species name Common names
Centrophorus harrissoni Harrisson's Dogfish, Endeavour Dogfish, Dumb Gulper Shark, Harrison's Deepsea Dogfish Centrophorus zeehaani Southern Dogfish, Endeavour Dogfish, Little Gulper Shark
Galeorhinus galeus School Shark, Eastern School Shark, Snapper Shark, Tope, Soupfin Shark
Hoplostethus atlanticus Orange Roughy, Deep-sea Perch, Red Roughy Rexea solandri (eastern Australian Eastern Gemfish population) Seriolella brama Blue Warehou
The SESSF is managed in accordance with the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Plan 2003. Currently 34 species/species groups are managed under quota across the entire SESSF (AFMA, 2019). AFMA has three tiers of stock assessment, (Tiers 1, 3 and 4; Tier 2 were phased out) developed to accommodate different levels of data quality or knowledge about stocks
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 46 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
(AFMA 2009). Tier 1 assessments are quantitative, model-based stock assessments that are conducted for with the high-quality data or information. The Tier 3 involves catch-curve analyses of age (or size) composition data, together with information on size-at-maturity and selectivity, to provide estimates of fishing mortality rates. Tier 4 involves an assessment of catch rate trends, and is undertaken for stocks for that only have catch-and-effort data (Daume, et al., 2014). The TACs for the 2019-20 fishing season and stock status are provided in Table 8.
Table 8: Primary species landed in WSBGF component of the SESSF. Stock status and assessment information were obtained from (AFMA, 2018b). TACs are for the entire SESSF (AFMA, 2019) not specifically the winter spawning grounds. Information on retained species for Midwater trawl was provided to the assessors by AFMA. Information from demersal trawl is from Daume et al. (2014). No discard information was available at the time of original assessment for demersal trawl. Note: NR not recorded.
Species Assessment 2019-20 Biomass Fishing Midwater Demersal Level and TAC(t) mortality year1 Alfonsino Tier 3 1017 Not Not subject Retained Retained (2013) Overfished to overfishing Blue-eye Tier 4 458 Not Not subject Discard# Retained trevalla (2017) Overfished to overfishing Blue warehou Tier 4 118* Overfished Uncertain NR Retained (2013)2 Deepwater Tier 1 458 Not Not subject Discard# NR flathead Overfished to (GAB) overfishing Deepwater Tier 4 24 Uncertain Not subject Retained NR shark basket (2018) to (east) overfishing Gemfish Tier 1 100* Overfished Uncertain Retained Retained (eastern) (2010) Gummy shark Tier 1 1785 Not Not subject NR Retained (2016) Overfished to overfishing John dory Tier 3 395 Not Not subject Retained NR (2017) Overfished to overfishing Mirror dory Tier 4 188 Not Not subject Retained Retained (2018) Overfished to overfishing Ocean perch4 Tier 4 241 Not Uncertain Retained Retained (Offshore and (2017) Overfished Inshore) Orange Tier 2 63 (Pedra Overfished Not subject Retained3 NR Roughy (2000) Branca) to (Southern) 31* overfishing Orange Tier 2 60* Overfished Not subject Retained3 NR Roughy (2002) to (Western) overfishing
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 47 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Oreo (smooth Tier 4 150 Not Not subject Retained NR cascade) (2009) Overfished to overfishing Oreo (smooth Tier 5 90 Not Not subject Retained NR other) (2015)4 Overfished to overfishing Oreo (basket) Tier 4 185 Not Not subject Retained Retained (2017) Overfished to overfishing Pink ling Tier 1 1288 Not Not subject Retained Retained (2018) (including Overfished to 428 overfishing eastern notional catch) Ribaldo Tier 4 422 Not Not subject Retained Retained (2017) Overfished to overfishing Sawshark Tier 4 430 Not Not subject NR Retained (2017) Overfished to overfishing School shark Tier 1 189* Overfished Uncertain Retained Retained (2018) Silver trevally Tier 4 292 Not Not subject NR Retained (2017) Overfished to overfishing Silver Tier 1 450 Not Not subject Retained Retained warehou (2018) Overfished to overfishing 1 stock assessment are conducted by ABARES, however at time of writing report available information was reported by AFMA 2018b 2 rebuilding species reviewed by SERAG in 2018 3 Stock from which catch is landed not specified in data provided in 2015 4 Recorded as reef ocean perch in logbook data 5 only 4 Tier assessment, however Tier 5 (DBSRA) used to assess this species superseding the previous Tier 4 assessment (see notes in AFMA, 2018b) * indicates TAC for incidental catch only, # - only recorded as discard
Secondary Species Secondary species are classified as follows:
• They are not considered ‘primary’ as defined in SA 3.1.3; or • They are out of scope for MSC certification (i.e. birds, reptiles or mammals) but are not ETP species.
Secondary species are noted in Table 5 and 6 above. There are no main secondary species in the fishery as no species meets the 5% or more by weight of the total catch or the 2% or more by weight of the total catch for less resilient species.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 48 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Endangered Threatened and Protected species The MSC standard specifies that ETP species are those that are recognized by national legislation and/or binding international agreements to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party. This includes species listed on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and/ or recognized by national legislation and out-of-scope species classified as Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered by the IUCN (CR v 2.01, SA3.1.5. 2018). In Australia, the national legislation is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999. An independent assessment of all export and Commonwealth managed fisheries is required under the EPBC Act. The assessments are conducted against the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries, which outlines specific principles and objectives designed to ensure a strategic and transparent way of evaluating the ecological sustainability of fishery management arrangements. SESSF was first assessed in 2002 and its management plan was accredited pursuant to section 33 of the Act in 2003. The SESSF was also assessed in accordance with the wildlife trade provisions of part 13A of the EPBC Act, to determine whether the SESSF should be accredited for the purposes of the protected species provisions of Part 13 of the EPBC Act. The most recent accreditation of the SESSF was in February 2019. The SESSF has also been approved as a wildlife trade operation until February 2022 (Department of Environment and Energy, 2019).
ETP species known to interact with the fishery include marine mammals, particularly seals, seabirds and sharks (Table 9). The SESSF has mitigation in place to reduce the interaction with ETPs such as Seal Exclusion Devices (SEDs) which are a condition for their Statutory Fishing Right (SFR) (Daume & Brand-Gardner, 2016). AFMA approved seabird management plans (SMPs) are also compulsory for all Commonwealth otter board trawl vessels in the SESSF (AFMA, 2019). SMPs identify and set out individually tailored mitigation measures that help reduce seabird interactions with warp wires (see Pierre, et al., 2014). SMPs include physical devices such as bafflers, sprayers and ‘pinkies’ to reduce seabird interaction and measures to manage the discharge of biological waste from vessels to reduce seabird attraction and interaction (AFMA, 2019). Table 9: Reported ETP interactions in the WSBGF. Logbook data provided by AFMA 2019.
Year
2013 2015* 2019* ETP Alive Dead Alive Dead Alive Dead
Albatross 1 Australian fur seal 6 2 1
New Zealand fur seal 2 2 Seals (undefined) 5 3
Shearwaters (undefined) 1 Shortfin Mako 1
*Midwater trawl only
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 49 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Habitats The MSC standard states that if a fishery interacts with benthic habitats, habitats categories are based on the following characteristics; • substratum, • geomorphology, and • biota, Habitats the fishery interacts with are classified as; • commonly encountered- regularly comes into contact with a gear used by the UoA, considering the spatial (geographical) overlap of fishing effort with the habitat’s range within the management area(s) covered by the governance body(s) relevant to the UoA (SA 3.13.3.1) • Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME)- as per paragraph 42 subparagraphs (i)-(v) of the FAO Guidelines7 (definition provided in GSA3.13.3.22) [as having one or more of the following characteristics: uniqueness or rarity, functional significance, fragility, Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult, and/or structural complexity]. This definition shall be applied both inside and outside EEZs and irrespective of depth • Minor- all other habitats “ Both commonly encountered and VME habitats are considered ‘main’ habitats for scoring purposes. Mid-water trawls used in the SESSF operate in the water column and rarely make contact with the bottom (Figure 11; AFMA, 2015; Department of Environment and Energy, 2019). Midwater trawl weights may contact the ocean floor occasionally and pelagic habitats will experience some short-term disruption (Daume, et al., 2014). Some disruption of the water column and its inhabitants will also occur as the net is towed (Daume, et al., 2014).Tingley (2014) estimated that 10-16% of mid-water trawl tows of New Zealand vessels operating the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) Convention Area made bottom contact. However, benthic material was observed in only 3% of tows. Therefore, observer data using the presence of benthic material in nets or torn gear as an indication of contact with the benthos is likely to be an underestimate (Tingley, 2014).
Demersal trawling is considered to have a higher impact on benthic habitats than more passive fishing methods (Figure 11; AFMA, 2015), depending on the spatial and temporal extent and sensitivity of the habitat (Daume, et al., 2014). Some habitat-creating organisms require substantial periods to recover after trawling (e.g. > 8 years for some sponges, >10 years for corals (Kaiser, et al., 2006; Althaus, et al., 2009; Williams, et al., 2010; Clark, Schlacher, Rowden, Stocks, & Consalvey, 2012). However, demersal trawling has not been used in the WSBGF since 2013. Knuckey & Liggins, (1999) state that the level of bycatch and discarding in the WSBGF was very low with approximately 90% of the catch retained, dominated by the target quota species.
Figure 11: Midwater and demersal trawl fishing methods. Source: www.afma.gov.au
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 50 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Koopman & Knuckey (2017) assigned the catch composition data used by (Daume, et al., (2014) in their MSC assessment of the WSBGF to categeries based on habitat use (Table 10). The analysis shows that approximately 99.8% of catches landed by both demersal and mid-water trawl vessels are benthopelagic, meaning living and feeding near the bottom as well as in mid-waters or near the surface. These results seem to indicate that both gear types make limited contact is made with the benthos.
Table 10: Percentage of catch of demersal and mid-water trawl vessels in the WSBGF (2009-2013) reported in Tables 5 and 6 of Daume, et al., (2014) by habitat use. Source: (Koopman & Knuckey, 2017). Habitat use Demersal trawl catches Mid-water trawl catches (%) by freezer boats (%) by freezer boats Bathydemersal 0.149 0.031 Bathypelagic 0.003 0.02 Benthopelagic 99.805 99.891 Demersal 0.008 0.001 Not known from this area 0.018 0.002 Pelagic-neritic 0 0.049 Pelagic-oceanic 0.013 0 Unknown but probably 0 0.002 bathypelagic Various 0.002 0
Williams, et al., (2006) conducted habitat mapping of the offshore region of the SESSF fishery (from 3nm offshore to 1300m depth) at scales relevant to fishing operations. The data along with the outputs of the ERA (see Wayte et al. 2007) were used to develop the Commonwealth Marine Reserves (CMR). CMR and fishery closures together cover 46.7% of the total area of the CTS at depths 0-1,500m (Pitcher, et al., 2016). Williams, et al., (2006) reported an estimated 48% of the total area of the CTS inside the 1,300 m depth contour is “untrawlable ground” i.e. it is not possible to tow the gear along the seabed, or there is a high risk of damaging gear. However, interviews with fishers indicated that 76% of ground off western Tasmania was untrawlable (Williams, et al., 2006). These estimates were made before the implementation of the 700 m closure (Koopman & Knuckey, 2017).
Figure 12: Distribution of common substrate types around Australia. Source https://parksaustralia.gov.au/marine/management/resources/scientific-publications/benthic-maps/
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 51 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Figure 12 Continued
Broad scale habitat distribution maps (Figure 12) indicate that sand and mud are the main habitat types in the area of the fishery. Soft-bottom habitat is thought to recover more quickly than hard bottom habitats as they are less stable and more likely to be disturbed. Hard-bottom habitat, are generally sensitive to trawling impacts because they are generally stable and have high habitat complexity. Previous studies show that recovery rates are slowest within stable, muddy or structurally complex habitats when compared to sandy sediment communities that show little change after two to three bottom trawl passes a year (Kaiser, et al., 2006). Hiddink, et al., (2017) quantify demersal trawling impacts and seafloor biota recovery by synthesizing data from trawling studies. The study found that trawl gears removed 6–41% of faunal biomass per pass (average 15.5%), and that recovery times post-trawling were 1.9–6.4 years depending on the fisheries and environmental context. Otter trawls caused the least depletion, removing 6% of biota per pass and penetrating the seabed on average down to 2.4 cm (Hiddink, et al., 2017).
The ERA identified the high-risk habitats for the trawl sector of the fishery, with 18 on the outer shelf (100–200 m), 12 on the upper slope (200–700 m) and 16 were on the mid-slope (700–1500 m) (Wayte, et al., 2007). The high-risk habitats on the outer shelf included soft-sediment seabed types interspersed with harder bottom, supporting large sponges, mixed epifauna, and the bryozoan communities at the shelf break. On the upper slope, the high-risk habitats included several hard- bottom types, dominated by large sponges not seen on the mid-slope, and several soft-bottom habitats based on bryozoan communities, which are restricted to a narrow zone near the shelf break. The high-risk mid-slope habitats include several categories of hard bottom (but still accessible to trawl gear) with delicate epifauna and several types of soft-bottom habitat that support large, erect or delicate epifauna.
Pitcher, et al., (2015) adapted a trawl-simulation model developed for tropical regions to quantify and assess cumulative threats, risks to benthic biodiversity, and the effects of discrete management actions in the South East Marine Region. The model incorporated predictions of biodiversity assemblages and habitat-forming benthos, in addition to their exposure to fishing and levels of protection (derived from existing data sources). The effects of fishing were modelled for 15 spatially unique species assemblages and 10 habitat-forming benthos taxa types that had been predicted and mapped from survey data (Figure 13). Simulation of the bottom trawl fishery from ~1985, (when consistent logbook records were available), showed that all 10 benthos taxa types declined in abundance in trawled areas until the mid-2000s. At this time fishing effort reduced due to economic pressures and licence buybacks, and large areas were closed to trawling. A complex picture emerged, with patterns and responses varying spatially according to the distribution of benthos taxa types, trawling distribution, and type of management action (Pitcher, et al., 2015).
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 52 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Figure 13: (a) Post-1985 footprints of the main bottom fisheries (crosshatching) over four main 2013 trawl closure types: [D] Deep water closure, [C] CMRs, [B] Bass Strait closure and [G] Gulper shark closures. (Light grey shading: open areas.) The inset plot shows actual trawl effort time-series and alternative effort scenarios. (b) Bio-physical characterisation with 15 predicted species assemblages (environments in which biological composition is expected to be relatively similar, and between which composition is expected to vary). Their degree of similarity is indicated by the proximity and colour of the legend symbols. Assemblages may not be spatially continuous. The inset plot shows the inclusion of assemblages in closed areas, and exposure to trawling. (c─l) Images and predicted distributions of 10 major taxa types of habitat forming benthos (relative density: blue=low through to red=high). Each inset plot shows predicted abundance time-series, relative to 1985, from simulation modelling of trawl effort on the taxa type distribution (from no management interventions to all interventions). Source (Pitcher, et al., 2015)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 53 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Building on his earlier work (Pitcher, et al., 2015) Pitcher, et al., (2016) found that the majority of the 106 seabed assemblages defined and mapped had little or no exposure to trawling by the Commonwealth trawl fisheries assessed. Across all fisheries, there were relatively few assemblages that had both high exposures to trawling and low protection by closed areas. However, the identification of these assemblages does not necessarily imply actual risk to habitat, but rather, information on the extent of any vulnerable habitats or biological components in the higher priority assemblages is required to make such a risk assessment (Pitcher, et al., 2016). Although WSBGF was not one of the fisheries included in study the maps below are still relevant to the fishing area. For the fishing area for the WSBGF, five habitat assemblages (2, 6, 8, 11 and 13) off western Tasmanian are relevant for the UoC (Figure 14). Two relevant habitats assemblages (6 and 8) are in the bright green, area indicating a medium priority for future AFMA habitat ERA for this fishery (not a high priority) (Figure 14). However, this only represents relative potential for risk, and does not necessarily imply actual risk to habitats. Sensitive habitats may or may not occur in trawl exposed areas. Assessment of the actual level of risk in assemblages requires information on the occurrence and landscape distribution of habitats susceptible to trawl impacts, their resilience and recovery, and quantitative estimation of their status (Daume & Brand-Gardner, 2016).
Figure 14: Assemblages in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector. Closer colours (like in 6 and 8 on the west coast of Tasmania) are more similar in habitat types and species assemblages then less similar colours (like 1).
Under contract to the MSC Clients Koopman & Knuckey (2017) requested that Pitcher summarise the overlap of the area of the fishery (the area of the WSBGF box was provided to Roland Pitcher by SETFIA) with each assemblage that occurs in the area of the fishery. The area used in the analysis (Figure 12) is described as two polygons: • a rectangle with the north-west corner at 41 10S and 144 E, directly east 144 15E, then down to -41 20S and 144 23E and south-west to -41 23S and 144 15E; • a rectangle with the north-west corner at -41 23S and 144 15E, north-east to -41 20S and 144 23E, south to -42 20S and 144 48E, then directly across to 144 43E.
Five different assemblages overlap with the WSBGF box (Figure 14 and Table 11). The assemblages range in total area from 9,826 km2 to 22,933 km2, however only a small percent of the area of each assemblage overlaps with the WSBGF box. The two assemblages with the largest overlap with the 10
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 54 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
WSBGF box (11 and 6) cover 580 km2 and 575 km2 of the box respectively, representing 3.76% and 3.19% of the area of each of those assemblages. A total of 400 km2 of assemblage 8 is within the WSBGF box, representing 4.07% of the area of that assemblage. Less than 0.01% of assemblages 13 is within the WSBGF box. While the WSBGF box overlaps with only a fraction of the total area of each assemblage, the larger areas of those assemblages are exposed to fishing by the CTS outside of the WSBGF box, and wider fishing impacts on each assemblage should be considered when assessing potential benthic impacts. Two of the assemblages that overlap the WSBGF box (13 and 2) have more than 60% of their total area closed to fishing by the CTS, and very low exposure to fishing effort (less than 5% total swept area) (Figure 15). Assemblages 11 and 6 have 80% and 90% of their areas open to fishing, however the total swept area was only about 20%. Just over 60% of assemblage 8 — which appears to be encompass parts of the slope extending west to at least 137E — is open to fishing by the CTS, and the total swept area was 60%. This is not to say however that the entire open area of this assemblage is fished each year, as the total swept area is “the total swept area of trawling within each assemblage and is an indicator of the intensity of trawling on the trawl exposed portion of each assemblage — typically, the exposed portions are trawled with an average intensity of about twice annually”, and could be greater than 100% (Pitcher et al., 2016).
Table 11: Summary of overlap between the WSBGF box and assemblages described by Pitcher et al. (2015). Assemblage 2 6 8 11 13 Number of 0.01 grids in WSBGF box 68 622 432 630 1 Total area of each assemblage (km2) 13493.21 18029.74 9825.78 15456.73 22933.07 Total area of each assemblage in the 62.39 574.95 400.08 580.45 0.92 WSBGF box (km2) Percent of assemblage in WSBGF box 0.46 3.19 4.07 3.76 <0.01
Figure 15: Enlargement of assemblages within the blue grenadier UoC fishery’s range on Tasmania’s west coast.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 55 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Figure 16: Plot of percentage of area of each assemblage open to potential trawling against exposure to actual effort as trawl footprint and swept intensity in the Blue Grenadier Fishery.
Pitcher, et al., (2018) quantified the exposure of mapped seabed assemblages to the footprints of all demersal trawl fisheries that operate on the mainland continental shelf and slope of Australia, as well as their spatial protection in areas permanently closed to trawling. The study found the majority of the 217 seabed assemblages defined and mapped had little or no exposure to trawling by the State and Commonwealth trawl fisheries included in the assessment. These assemblages with low trawl exposure also included a large number with little or no protection in any areas closed to trawling, in addition to those with higher levels of protection in closures. Across all fisheries, there were relatively few assemblages that had both high exposure to trawling and low protection by closed areas (Pitcher, et al., 2018). The study also conducted a preliminary relative benthic status (RBS) for the mapped assemblages (Figure 17). RBS can be used as a measure seafloor integrity or condition. While these results are preliminary they indicate the actual risk in the more exposed assemblages — in this case for the estimated overall status of unconsolidated sedimentary habitats (mud, sand, gravel), based on the average sensitivity to trawling of the typical benthic invertebrate faunal community common in such habitats (Pitcher, et al., 2018). Benthic assemblages off the west coast off Tasmania display mean RBS of >80% (Figure 17). The RBS method can also be applied to sensitive habitat‐forming benthos; however, distribution information for these biota are lacking for most trawled assemblages.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 56 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Figure 17: Preliminary mean relative benthic status (RBS) of sedimentary habitats for each assemblage. Source; (Pitcher, et al., 2018)
Effort in the WSBGF is monitored primarily through daily logbooks and a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). Vessels are increasingly using electronic recording systems which will improve the accuracy of data collected through automatic recording of position, date and time. Combined with gear details (also recorded in daily logbooks), the swept area of each tow can be calculated. These data can be verified using VMS data, which can be used to monitor the location and extent of fishing effort (Koopman & Knuckey, 2017). Pitcher, et al., (2016) provided levels of exposure (area swept) of each assemblage to trawling (Figure 16), indicating that habitat forming benthic invertebrate taxa across south-east Australia are at approximately 80–93% of their pre-trawl status, and that populations of those taxa are expected to recover at current levels of fishing effort. Fine scale spatial information of the swept area / footprint of midwater trawl and demersal trawl is collected for the WSBGF in logbooks and it is verified by VMS and observer coverage. This allows further analysis of the impact of fishing on the benthic environment in the future and any increase in risk will be able to be detected. Although not published as yet, in its revised ERA, AFMA is considering a metric of changes in fishery footprints that will be monitored annually as a proxy for impacts on benthic habitats (Koopman & Knuckey, 2017).
Ecosystem Currents, temperature and nutrients, influence the ecosystems of the South-east Marine Region. Compared to other marine areas, the Region is relatively low in nutrients and primary productivity. However, in some locations, water bodies converge and mix to create areas of relatively high productivity. The South-east Marine Region is oceanographically complex, with subtropical influences from the north and subpolar influences from the south (Department of Environment, 2015). The Leeuwin Current transports warm, subtropical water southward along the Western Australian coast and then eastward into the Great Australian Bight where it mixes with cool waters from the Zeehan Current running along the west coast of Tasmania. These currents are stronger in winter than in summer. The eastern parts of the Region are strongly influenced by the East Australian Current (EAC) that flows
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 57 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report southward along the east coast of New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, carrying warm equatorial waters. Sea-floor features and water depth throughout the Region contribute to the high level of species diversity. The South-east Marine Region is recognised as a major marine biogeographic region with highly diverse flora and fauna (Department of Environment, 2015).
Ecosystem Modelling CSIRO has developed a world-leading marine ecosystem modelling framework (Atlantis) to support management, seeking to balance sensible development and resource use with the conservation of biodiversity and functioning marine ecosystems. Atlantis includes the biophysical system, the human users of the system (industry), the three major components of an adaptive management strategy (monitoring, assessment and management decision processes) and socioeconomic drivers of human use and behaviour. A version of the model, Atlantis SE, has been developed to provide strategic advice to AFMA on management of the SESSF. Fulton, et al., (2007) used Atlantis to assess ecological and socio-economic outcomes of alternative management strategies for the SESSF. The modelling exercise tested management approaches for their effects on: a) fishing practices and fleet behaviour (such as changes in targeting practices) b) fleet size, structure and gear use c) harvest volumes and catch rates for commercial stocks d) habitats e) the composition and structure of the food web f) profitability and trading of quotas g) public perceptions of the fishery h) recovery of ecological systems.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 58 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
6.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales
The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where PI 2.1.1 recruitment would be impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI Scoring Issue Midwater – SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Trawl Main primary species stock status Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree likely to be above the highly likely to be above of certainty that main PRI. the PRI. primary species are above the PRI and are OR OR fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. If the species is below the If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has PRI, there is either a Guide measures in place that evidence of recovery or post are expected to ensure a demonstrably effective that the UoA does not strategy in place hinder recovery and between all MSC UoAs rebuilding. which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Yes Yes Yes Rationale
Midwater Trawl
Blue Grenadier comprise between 97-99% of the total landings of the UoC, no other species caught by the UoC comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch. Therefore, there are no Main Primary species in the fishery (Table 5; MSC 2018a SA 3.4.2.1). Similarly, no species classified as ‘less resilient’ e.g. sharks comprise 2% or more by weight of the total catch (Table 5; MSC 2018a SA 3.4.2.2). Demersal Trawl Blue Grenadier comprise between 97-99% of the total landings of the UoC, no other species caught by the UoC comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch. Therefore, there are no Main Primary species in the fishery (Table 2; MSC 2018a SA 3.4.2.1). Similarly, no species classified as ‘less resilient’ e.g. sharks comprise 2% or more by weight of the total catch (Table 5; MSC 2018a SA 3.4.2.2).
Minor primary species stock status Minor primary species are b highly likely to be above Guide the PRI.
Post OR
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 59 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species. Met? Yes
Rationale
Primary minor species in the SESSF midwater trawl catches are listed in Table 5. At SG100 it is required that minor primary species stocks are ‘highly likely” to be above the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) or, if below, evidence that the UoAs do not hinder recovery. In probabilistic terms, ‘highly likely’ for primary species means 80% or higher probability that these stocks are above PRI (MSC, 2018a Table SA9). If the evidence shows that a stock is below PRI, the MSC requires that the impact of the UoA is low enough that if the species is capable of improving its status, the UoA will not hinder that improvement; it does not require evidence that the status of the species is actually improving (MSC, 2018b, GSA3.4.6). The limit reference points for AFMA managed species are in accordance with the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and consistent with the MSC PRI (20% B0) and are regularly assessed by ABARES (see AFMA 2018b).
Midwater Trawl
All these species are assessed regularly for stock status which is listed in Table 5. Primary species landed using midwater Trawl are listed in Table 5. Most primary minor species are above the PRI. However, Eastern gemfish, blue warehou, orange roughy and school shark stocks were assessed as overfished and their TACs are only for incidental catch i.e. fisheries are not permitted to target this species. These species are listed as Conservation dependent in EPBC Act and are subject to rebuilding strategies (AMFA 2015, Department of Environment and Energy 2019). The status of deepwater shark was listed as uncertain. The catches of all Primary minor species were low, highest cates recored were of silver warehou (8.215t). Catches of all species, other than Blue Grenadier, represented approximately 0.25% of the fishery’s retained catch in 2019. Demersal Trawl All these species are assessed regularly for stock status and their status is listed in Table 5. Primary species landed using demersal Trawl are listed in Table 6. Most primary minor species are above the PRI. However, Eastern gemfish, blue warehou, orange roughy and school shark stocks were assessed as overfished and their TACs are only for incidental catch i.e. fisheries are not permitted to target this species. These species are listed as Conservation dependent in EPBC Act and are subject to rebuilding strategies (AMFA 2015, Department of Environment and Energy 2019). In addition, the status of deepwater shark was listed as uncertain. The catches of all Primary minor species were low or zero (i.e. Gemfish, orange roughy), with the largest catch recorded in being 4.6 tonnes of blue warehou in 2013 which was prior to its listing as conservation dependent on the EBPC Act in 2015 (Table 6). However, it is noted that the demersal trawl data is from 2009-2013. If this method was used again scores would need to be re-evaluated at surveillance audits to ensure they are in accordance with current TACs. Midwater and Demersal Trawl However, if a UoA’s catch is less than 30% of total catch from the stock the UoA would not hinder recovery. The catches of all Primary minor species were low (Table 4 and 5) Therefore, the UoAs do not hinder recovery of the species that are below PRI. Mid water trawl SG 100 is met. Demersal trawl SG 100 is met.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 60 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
References
MSC 2018 a,b, AFMA 2015, Department of Environment and Energy 2019
Midwater Trawl ≥80 Draft scoring range Demersal Trawl ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI.
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 61 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Management strategy in place There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for the UoA, if strategy in place for the place for the UoA for necessary, that are UoA, if necessary, that is managing main and minor expected to maintain or to expected to maintain or to primary species. a Guide not hinder rebuilding of not hinder rebuilding of post the main primary species the main primary species at/to levels which are at/to levels which are likely to be above the PRI. highly likely to be above the PRI.
Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
There are no Primary main species in the fishery. All other primary species are managed based on TACs (Table 5). Eastern gemfish, blue warehou and orange roughy which are minor primary species are managed under rebuilding strategies. In addition, other measures, such as limited entry, gear restrictions (e.g. mesh size) and spatial closures, limit the impact on primary minor species stocks. VMS monitoring and observers provide information on catch distribution and on compliance with spatial management. Fishers are provided with an annual management arrangements booklet (AFMA 2019) to inform and promote compliance with the management measures in place. Overall, species-specific measures and non-specific measures work together to minimise the impact of UoAs on primary species and maintain the stocks above PRI or not hinder recovery of the stock that are below PRI. There is a strategy in place for the UoAs for managing main and minor primary species.
Midwater Trawl SG 100 is met.
Demersal Trawl SG 100 is met.
Management strategy evaluation SG 60, 80 and The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy b Guide argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on post experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species fisheries/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 62 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
Stocks primary species are assessed and reviewed (AFMA 2018b). MSE supports high confidence that the strategies for all primary species will work, based on information about the fishery and species involved (Fulton et al. 2007). For the species under rebuilding strategy, the low proportions of these species taken in the SESSF supports high confidence that the strategy will work, and the UoA will not hinder recovery. SG 80 is met. Further investigation is required to determine if sufficient information is available to assess at SG 100.
Midwater Trawl SG 80 is met.
Demersal Trawl SG 80 is met.
Management strategy implementation There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being c Guide implemented implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes Yes
Rationale
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
AFMA oversees fishing activity in Commonwealth fisheries through the use of: VMS tracking, 100% observer coverage and daily logbooks. The Mid-water trawl method in this fishery is very selective and all primary species are caught in very low quantities is also evidence that the strategy is achieving the overall objective of maintaining primary species stock above PRI or not hindering recovery of stock that are under stock rebuilding strategies.
Midwater Trawl SG 100 is met.
Demersal Trawl SG 100 is met.
Shark finning It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree d Guide finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark post place. finning is not taking place. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
While some sharks are retained in the WSBGF (Table 5; Midwater trawl, Table 6; Demersal Trawl), shark finning is prohibited and there is 100% observer coverage providing evidence that there is a high degree of certainty that finning is not taking place.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 63 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Midwater Trawl SG 100 is met.
Demersal Trawl SG 100 is met.
Review of alternative measures There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative e Guide minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise post mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main primary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. primary species and they primary species, and they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
There is minimal unwanted catch in the WSBGF (see Table 5; Midwater Trawl Table 6; Demersal Trawl). The CTS bycatch and discard working plan (AFMA 2018a) is reviewed every 6 months and as part of the annual Ecological Risk Management Strategy Review. Note: discard data was not available for demersal trawl at the time of writing the ACDR. This does not impact scoring as scoring refers to process.
Midwater Trawl SG 100 is met.
Demersal Trawl SG 100 is met.
References
AFMA 2018 a,b, 2019, Fulton et al. 2007.
Midwater Trawl ≥80. Draft scoring range Demersal Trawl ≥80
More information sought on discards in Information gap indicator demersal trawl
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 64 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information adequate to estimate information is available is available and is the impact of the UoA on and is adequate to adequate to assess the main primary species assess the impact of the with a high degree of with respect to status. UoA on the main primary certainty the impact of species with respect to the UoA on main primary OR status. species with respect to status. a Guide If RBF is used to score OR post PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is If RBF is used to score adequate to estimate PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: productivity and Some quantitative susceptibility attributes information is adequate to for main primary species. assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
There are no main primary species in the fishery.
Midwater Trawl SG 100 is met.
Demersal Trawl SG 100 is met.
Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Some quantitative information is adequate to b Guide estimate the impact of the post UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? No
Rationale
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
There is quantitative information on all minor primary species and stocks are assessed and reviewed. However, species names are not always consistently recorded i.e. Ocean Perch meaning that there is some uncertainty around the accuracy of information for some species. This issue can be re-examined at the site visit and re-evaluated if additional information or clarity is provided to the assessors.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 65 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Midwater Trawl SG 100 is not met.
Demersal Trawl SG 100 is not met.
Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to c manage main primary strategy to manage manage all primary Guide species. main primary species. species, and evaluate with post a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
The available information is adequate to show that all non-target catch is minimized (i.e. less than 1%), and all minor primary are above PRI, or the WSBGF does not hinder recovery. Information is adequate to support a strategy to manage all primary species and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. SG60, 80 and 100 are met.
Midwater Trawl SG 100 is met.
Demersal Trawl SG 100 is met.
References
Midwater Trawl ≥80 Draft scoring range Demersal Trawl ≥80 Information gap indicator Information adequate to score the PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 66 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Main secondary species stock status Main secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree are likely to be above are highly likely to be of certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits. above biologically based OR limits. OR If below biologically based limits, there are If below biologically based measures in place limits, there is either expected to ensure that evidence of recovery or the UoA does not hinder a demonstrably recovery and rebuilding. effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and a Guide rebuilding. post AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
There are no main secondary species in the fishery as no species meets the 5% or more by weight of the total catch or the 2% or more by weight of the total catch for less resilient species (MSC 2018a).
Midwater Trawl SG 100 is met
Demersal Trawl SG 100 is met
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 67 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Minor secondary species stock status Minor secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.
OR Guide
B post If below biologically based
limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species
Met? No
Rationale
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
All secondary species are listed in Table 4 and 5. All Secondary species are minor species, as no species meets the 5% or more by weight of the total catch or the 2% or more by weight of the total catch for less resilient species to be classified as main (MSC 2018a).
There is insufficient information to assess the minor secondary species. Therefore, SG100 for ‘minor’ secondary species is not met. Further information on all species landed (retained and discarded) will need to be provided for both gear types to complete assessment.
Midwater Trawl SG 100 is not met
Demersal Trawl SG 100 is not met
References
Midwater Trawl ≥80 Draft scoring range Demersal Trawl ≥80 Information gap indicator More information sought
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 68 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and PI 2.2.2 the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Management strategy in place There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place, if necessary, which strategy in place, if place for the UoA for are expected to maintain necessary, for the UoA managing main and minor or not hinder rebuilding of that is expected to secondary species. main secondary species maintain or not hinder at/to levels which are rebuilding of main a Guide highly likely to be above secondary species at/to post biologically based limits or levels which are highly to ensure that the UoA likely to be above does not hinder their biologically based limits or recovery. to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
As no ‘main’ secondary species have been identified, a partial strategy for such species is not necessary.
Observers collect data on catch composition, and this can be considered a measure for primary and secondary species. In addition, measures such as limited entry, mesh size restriction, commercial species’ TACs, VMS, closed areas, work together to limit total catch quantity and fishing effort, limiting secondary species catch. These measures constitute a partial strategy for ‘minor’ species.
Midwater Trawl SG 80 is met
Demersal Trawl SG 80 is met
Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy b Guide argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on post experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or species UoAs/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 69 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
There are very low secondary species catch (See Table 4 and 5) indicates there is some evidence to suggest the strategy will work.
Midwater Trawl SG 80 is met
Demersal Trawl SG 80 is met
Management strategy implementation There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being c Guide implemented implemented Post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No
Rationale
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
The fact they are caught in very low quantities is clear evidence that the strategy is achieving the overall objective of minimizing the catch of secondary species (no main secondary species, all minor secondary species account for less than 1% of the catch).
Midwater Trawl SG 80 is met
Demersal Trawl SG 80 is met
Shark finning It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree d Guide finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark post place. finning is not taking place. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
While some sharks are retained in the WSBGF (Table 4 and 5) shark finning is prohibited and there is 100% observer coverage providing evidence that there is a high degree of certainty that finning is not taking place.
Midwater Trawl SG 100 is met
Demersal Trawl SG 100 is met
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 70 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative e Guide minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise post mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main secondary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. secondary species and secondary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? NA NA NA
Rationale
Unwanted catch of secondary species is extremely low. Therefore, an alternative review of measures to minimise it is not necessary
References
MSC 2018a
Midwater Trawl≥80 Draft scoring range Demersal Trawl ≥80 Information gap indicator Information is adequate to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 71 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information adequate to estimate information is available is available and adequate the impact of the UoA on and adequate to assess to assess with a high the main secondary the impact of the UoA on degree of certainty the species with respect to main secondary species impact of the UoA on status. with respect to status. main secondary species with respect to status. OR OR a Guide post If RBF is used to score If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: PI 2.2.1 for the UoA:
Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate information is adequate to productivity and assess productivity and susceptibility attributes susceptibility attributes for main secondary for main secondary species. species. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
There are no main species in the fishery
Midwater Trawl SG 100 is met
Demersal Trawl SG 100 is met
Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Some quantitative information is adequate to b Guide estimate the impact of the post UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. Met? No
Rationale
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
There is insufficient information on minor secondary species stocks with respect to status of minor secondary species.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 72 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Midwater Trawl SG 100 is not met
Demersal Trawl SG 100 is not met
Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to to support measures to to support a partial support a strategy to manage main secondary strategy to manage manage all secondary c Guide species. main secondary species. species, and evaluate post with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Midwater and Demersal Trawl
There are no main species in the fishery.
The available information on minor secondary species is adequate to understand how operational management measures work together to reduce secondary species catch, thus adequate to support the partial strategy that is in place for minor secondary species, the UoAs achieving SG80. The information, however, is not adequate to support a full strategy for secondary species.
Midwater Trawl SG 80 is met
Demersal Trawl SG 80 is met
References
List any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator More information sought
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 73 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection PI 2.3.1 of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, a Guide the effects of the UoA the combined effects of there is a high degree of post on the population/ stock the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the are known and likely to population /stock are combined effects of the be within these limits. known and highly likely MSC UoAs are within to be within these limits. these limits. Met? NA NA NA
Rationale
The UoA’s ETP species are Albatross (unspecified), Australian fur seal, NZ fur seal, Seals (unspecified), Shearwaters (unspecified) and Short Fin Mako (see Table 9). It does not appear that there are national or international limits for these species. If so, this SI is not scored. More information is needed to make that determination.
Direct effects Known direct effects of Direct effects of the UoA There is a high degree the UoA are likely to not are highly likely to not of confidence that there Guide hinder recovery of ETP hinder recovery of ETP are no significant post species. species. detrimental direct b effects of the UoA on ETP species. No • Seals • Seabirds Met? Yes Yes • Non target sharks
Rationale
ETP species are defined by the MSC as species that are: a) Recognised by national ETP legislation, b) Listed on Appendix I of CITES (unless it can be shown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the UoA under assessment is not endangered), c) Listed in any binding agreements concluded under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), or d) d) Classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) e) Listed in IUCN Red List as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE). In Australia the national ETP legislation is The EPBC Act. The requirements of the EPBC Act include all the other binding agreements requirements, thus compliance with this act reflects also compliance with other national and international legislation. The EPBC Act, Part 13 prohibits trade in CITES Appendix 1 listed species. An independent assessment of all export and Commonwealth managed fisheries is required under the EPBC Act. The assessments are conducted against the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries. The
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 74 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
SESSF was re-certified under the EPBC Act Part 13, in 2019, with the export approval extended to February 2022 (Department of Environment and Energy 2019) with a number of conditions relating to ETPs a) Australian Sea lions b) Dolphins c) seals d) seabirds e) Non target sharks The WSBGF has no recorded interaction with Australian sea lions or dolphins but interacts with seal, seabirds and non-target sharks. Therefore, at this point SG 100 is not met.
Indirect effects Indirect effects have been There is a high degree considered for the UoA of confidence that there c Guide and are thought to be are no significant post highly likely to not detrimental indirect create unacceptable effects of the UoA on ETP impacts. species.
Met? Yes No
Rationale
Indirect effects have been considered as part of the ERA (Wayte et al. 2007), and are possible but are highly unlikely for marine mammals. Therefore, SG 80 is met but SG100 is not met as there are no specific studies investigating indirect effects. References
(Department of Environment and Energy 2019), (Wayte et al. 2007)
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator More information sought
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 75 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. PI 2.3.2
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a place that minimise the place for managing the comprehensive UoA-related mortality of UoA’s impact on ETP strategy in place for ETP species, and are species, including managing the UoA’s expected to be highly measures to minimise impact on ETP species, a Guide likely to achieve mortality, which is including measures to post national and international designed to be highly minimise mortality, which requirements for the likely to achieve is designed to achieve protection of ETP species. national and international above national and requirements for the international requirements protection of ETP species. for the protection of ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
ERM strategies are developed to respond to the outcomes of the ERA (see AFMA, 2015). The ERM strategies outline the management arrangements (including mitigation) to be implemented to ensure that fishing does not reduce any species populations to/below the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) or to recover populations to above the PRI. The SESSF CTS has been assessed under these methods and results have been incorporated into management strategies such as Bycatch and Discarding Work plans (see AFMA, 2018a), and into the implementation of various plans of action and recovery plans for ETP species. AFMA undertakes reviews and updates these strategies as required. The SESSF has mitigation in place to reduce the interaction with ETPs such as Seal Exclusion Devices (SEDs) which are a condition for their Statutory Fishing Right (SFR) (Daume & Brand-Gardner, 2016). AFMA approved seabird management plans (SMPs) are also compulsory for all Commonwealth otter board trawl vessels in the SESSF (AFMA, 2019). SMPs identify and set out individually tailored mitigation measures that help reduce seabird interactions with warp wires. SMPs include physical devices such as bafflers, sprayers and ‘pinkies’ to reduce seabird interaction and measures to manage the discharge of biological waste from vessels to reduce seabird attraction and interaction (AFMA, 2019). AFMA is in the process of developing Fishery Management Strategies (FMS) for all Commonwealth fisheries including the SESSF. SG 80 is achieved but SG 100 is not achieved as while comprehensive the Strategy is not designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species.
Management strategy in place (alternative) There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a b place that are expected to place that is expected to comprehensive Guide ensure the UoA does not ensure the UoA does not strategy in place for post hinder the recovery of ETP hinder the recovery of ETP managing ETP species, to species. species. ensure the UoA does not
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 76 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
hinder the recovery of ETP species. Met? NA NA NA
Rationale
NA
Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is an objective The considered likely to basis for confidence strategy/comprehensive work, based on plausible that the strategy is mainly based argument (e.g., general measures/strategy will on information directly c Guide experience, theory or work, based on about the fishery and/or post comparison with similar information directly species involved, and a fisheries/species). about the fishery and/or quantitative analysis the species involved. supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work as these measures have been implemented across other trawl fisheries managed by AFMA. Seal exclusion devices have been extensively trialled supporting high confidence (Tilzey et al. 2006). The effectiveness of the seabird mitigation devices has been assessed in the SESSF proven to be effective (Pierre et al, 2014). Pierre et al, (2014) also tested the effectiveness of offal management. There is an objective basis for confidence that the measures/strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. As the fishery has quantitative analysis that supports high confidence that the strategy will work is available SG 100 is met.
Management strategy implementation There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the measures/strategy is strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being d Guide successfully. implemented successfully post and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Yes Yes
Rationale
The high observer coverage and electronic monitoring in place is clear evidence that the ETP strategies in place are being implemented successfully and the fact that interactions are relatively rare (Table 6), suggests that the strategies are achieving their objective to not hinder recovery of ETP species populations. SG 100 is met.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 77 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative E Guide minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise post mortality of ETP species. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality ETP ETP species and they are species, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
The Bycatch and Discarding Workplan describing the mitigation measures for ETP interactions have been reviewed annually (AFMA 2018a). Bycatch and discarding workplans will be integrated into the Fishery Management, which will contain annual deliverables including an annual review cycle (AFMA, 2017). Also, there is an ongoing development and review of the effectiveness of mitigation devices (seals and seabirds. The requirement that there is at least a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality ETP species, and they are implemented, as appropriate, is met. Therefore SG 100 is met.
References
AFMA 2015, 2017, 2018a, 2019, Daume & Brand Gardner 2016, Tilzey et al. 2006, Pierre et al. 2014
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 78 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: - Information for the development of the management strategy; PI 2.3.3 - Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and - Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information adequate to estimate information is adequate is available to assess with the UoA related mortality to assess the UoA a high degree of certainty on ETP species. related mortality and the magnitude of UoA- impact and to determine related impacts, OR whether the UoA may be mortalities and injuries a threat to protection and and the consequences If RBF is used to score recovery of the ETP for the status of ETP PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: species. species. a Guide Qualitative information is post adequate to estimate OR productivity and susceptibility attributes If RBF is used to score for ETP species. PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
AFMA collects fishery dependent information through fishery logbooks. All protected species interactions must be reported under AFMA’s legislation and the EPBC Act. Logbook data can be verified by data collected by the AFMA observer program and with VMS (provides the exact location and time of the interaction).
Therefore, based on logbook and the 100% observer coverage and the methods of monitoring ETP species interactions, there is quantitative information on the interactions with ETP species (Daume et al. 2016). However, interactions with ETPs are not always recorded to species level (e.g. Table 6). Therefore, data is sufficient to quantitatively estimate all fishery-related mortality but not determine ETP outcome status based on the information. Therefore SG 80 is met
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 79 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to support measures to to measure trends and to support a manage the impacts on support a strategy to comprehensive ETP species. manage impacts on ETP strategy to manage species. impacts, minimize b Guide mortality and injury of post ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Information is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. Quantitative information on ETP interactions is available. In addition, considerable knowledge and understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation devices and practices used is available to support management strategies for ETP species. Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimize mortality and injury of each ETP species, although not sufficient to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives SG 80 is met
References
Daume & Brand Gardner 2016.
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 80 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Commonly encountered habitat status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the commonly structure and function of to reduce structure and a Guide encountered habitats to a the commonly function of the commonly post point where there would encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a be serious or irreversible point where there would point where there would harm. be serious or irreversible be serious or irreversible harm. harm. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Mid-water trawls used in the SESSF operate in the water column and rarely make contact with the bottom (AFMA, 2015; Department of Environment and Energy, 2019). Midwater trawl weights may contact the ocean floor occasionally and pelagic habitats will experience some short-term disruption (Daume, et al., 2014, Tingley, 2014).
Demersal trawling is considered to have a higher impact on benthic habitats than more passive fishing methods (AFMA, 2015), depending on the spatial and temporal extent and sensitivity of the habitat (Daume, et al., 2014). Some habitat-creating organisms require substantial periods to recover after trawling (Kaiser, et al., 2006; Althaus, et al., 2009; Williams, 2010; Clark, et al., 2012).
The ERA identified the high-risk habitats for the trawl sector of the fishery, with 18 on the outer shelf (100–200 m), 12 on the upper slope (200–700 m) and 16 were on the mid-slope (700–1500 m) (Wayte, et al., 2007).
Pitcher et al. (2016, 2018) evaluated the impact of AFMA trawl fisheries on demersal habitats. This report showed that the majority of habitats that overlap with AFMA trawl fisheries are minimally exposed to trawl effort or adequately protected by existing spatial closures (Figure 3). Pitcher et al. (2016) also overlaid the WSBGF box over the assemblage that occur in the area and only a small proportion of each habitat over lapped with the WSBGF (see Table 11).
Pitcher et al (2018) estimated the Relative Benthic Status (RBS) of the predicted assemblages as a measure of the habitat status. In the area of the WSBGF RBS was >80%. RBS provides an estimate of the long‐term equilibrium status of the benthos with current trawling effort, relative to that with no trawling. This measure allows an assessment of habitat status against sustainability standards (Pitcher et al, 2018).
From the information available it appears that sand and mud would be the commonly encountered habitats (Figure 12). Soft-bottom habitat is thought to recover more quickly than hard bottom habitats as they are less stable and more likely to be disturbed. Therefore SG 80 is met.
However, given the uncertainty with predicted assemblages and that the assemblages defined and mapped are surrogates for habitats at meso-scale SG 100 is not met.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 81 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
VME habitat status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the VME structure and function of to reduce structure and B Guide habitats to a point where the VME habitats to a function of the VME post there would be serious or point where there would habitats to a point where irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible there would be serious or harm. irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Williams, et al., (2006) conducted habitat mapping of the offshore region of the SESSF fishery (from 3nm offshore to 1300m depth) at scales relevant to fishing operations. The data along with the outputs of the ERA identifying sensitive habitats (Wayte et al. 2007) were used to develop the Commonwealth Marine Reserves (CMR). The high-risk habitats on the outer shelf included soft-sediment seabed types interspersed with harder bottom, supporting large sponges, mixed epifauna, and the bryozoan communities at the shelf break. On the upper slope, the high-risk habitats included several hard- bottom types, dominated by large sponges not seen on the mid-slope, and several soft-bottom habitats based on bryozoan communities, which are restricted to a narrow zone near the shelf break. The high-risk mid-slope habitats include several categories of hard bottom (but still accessible to trawl gear) with delicate epifauna and several types of soft-bottom habitat that support large, erect or delicate epifauna.
CMR and fishery closures together cover 46.7% of the total area of the CTS at depths 0-1,500m (Pitcher, et al., 2016). Therefore, VMEs are afforded a high level of protection.
Pitcher et al, (2018) estimated RBS in the area of the WSBGF RBS was >80%.
Therefore, the UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of potential VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm and the requirements at SG60 and 80 are achieved. However, there is no clear evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of such habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm and SG100 is not achieved.
Minor habitat status There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and C Guide function of the minor post habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
Met? No
Rationale
Minor habitats are all the other habitats encountered by the fishery. There is not sufficient information to access at SG 100
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 82 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
References
AFMA, 2015; Althaus et al. 2009; Clark et al. 2012; Daume et al. 2014; Department of Environment and Energy, 2019, Kaiser et al. 2006; Pitcher et al. 2016, 2018; Wayte et al 2007;Williams, et al.,2006; Willams 2010
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator More information sought
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 83 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Management strategy in place There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place, if necessary, that strategy in place, if place for managing the A Guide are expected to achieve necessary, that is impact of all MSC post the Habitat Outcome 80 expected to achieve the UoAs/non-MSC fisheries on level of performance. Habitat Outcome 80 level habitats. of performance or above. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
AFMA conducts Ecological Risk Assessments (ERAs) to identify the risks posed by fishing to the ecological sustainability of the target, by-product and discards species, habitats and communities in all Commonwealth fisheries. Closed areas are the main method used to protect habitats. There is an extensive and well-designed reserve system that meets international standards for comprehensiveness, adequacy, and representativeness. Commonwealth Marine Reserves and fishery closures together cover 46.7% of the total area of the CTS at depths 0-1,500m (Pitcher, et al., 2016). VMS is compulsory for all AFMA managed fisheries, monitoring vessels position in near real time, and combined with observer coverage and compliance monitoring. Therefore, there is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types SG 100 is met.
Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy B Guide argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on post experience, theory or on information directly information directly comparison with similar about the UoA and/or about the UoA and/or UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved. Pitcher et al. (2016,2018) showed that most habitats have low levels of impact from fishing. However, this only represents relative potential for risk, and does not necessarily imply actual risk to habitats. Sensitive habitats may or may not occur in trawl exposed areas. Assessment of the actual level of risk in assemblages requires information on the occurrence and landscape distribution of habitats susceptible to trawl impacts, their resilience and recovery, and quantitative estimation of their status (Daume & Brand-Gardner, 2016). Therefore SG 80 is met but SG100 is not achieved.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 84 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Management strategy implementation There is some There is clear quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the measures/partial that the partial C Guide strategy is being strategy/strategy is being post implemented successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes Yes / No
Rationale
Each vessel in the UoC has 100% observer coverage and is fitted with a Vessel Monitoring System, so any breach of these reserves will therefore be detected. More information on compliance is required to score if strategy is being implemented successfully. Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs There is qualitative There is some There is clear evidence that the UoA quantitative evidence quantitative evidence D complies with its that the UoA complies that the UoA complies with management with both its management both its management Guide requirements to protect requirements and with requirements and with post VMEs. protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. fisheries, where relevant. Met? Yes / No / NA Yes / No / NA Yes / No / NA
Rationale
There is insufficient information to score at this time. More information will be requested.
References
Daume & Brand-Gardner 2016; Pitcher et al. 2016, 2018;
Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought to complete Information gap indicator scoring
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 85 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the PI 2.4.3 UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Information quality The types and distribution The nature, distribution The distribution of all of the main habitats are and vulnerability of the habitats is known over broadly understood. main habitats in the UoA their range, with area are known at a level particular attention to the OR of detail relevant to the occurrence of vulnerable scale and intensity of the habitats. If CSA is used to score UoA. PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: a Guide Qualitative information is OR post adequate to estimate the types and distribution of If CSA is used to score the main habitats. PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Williams, et al., (2006) conducted habitat mapping of the offshore region of the SESSF fishery (from 3nm offshore to 1300m depth) at scales relevant to fishing operations. The data along with the outputs of the ERA (see Wayte et al. 2007) were used to develop the Commonwealth Marine Reserves (CMR). CMR and fishery closures together cover 46.7% of the total area of the CTS at depths 0-1,500m (Pitcher, et al., 2016). Broad scale habitat distribution maps indicate that sand and mud are the main habitat types in the area of the fishery (Figure 12). Pitcher, et al., (2015) The effects of fishing were modelled for 15 spatially unique species assemblages and 10 habitat-forming benthos taxa types that had been predicted and mapped from survey data. Pitcher, et al., (2016) found that the majority of the 106 seabed assemblages defined and mapped had little or no exposure to trawling by the Commonwealth trawl fisheries assessed. Across all fisheries, there were relatively few assemblages that had both high exposures to trawling and low protection by closed areas. However, the identification of these assemblages does not necessarily imply actual risk to habitat, but rather, information on the extent of any vulnerable habitats or biological components in the higher priority assemblages is required to make such a risk assessment. Sensitive habitats may or may not occur in trawl exposed areas. Assessment of the actual level of risk in assemblages requires information on the occurrence and landscape distribution of habitats susceptible to trawl impacts, their resilience and recovery, and quantitative estimation of their status (Daume & Brand-Gardner, 2016). Pitcher et al. (2018) states that distribution information sensitive habitat‐forming benthos are lacking for most trawled assemblages.
The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA. Therefore SG 80 is met however the distribution of all habitats is not known, particularly VMEs so SG 100 is not met.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 86 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Information is adequate Information is adequate The physical impacts of to broadly understand the to allow for identification the gear on all habitats nature of the main of the main impacts of have been quantified impacts of gear use on the UoA on the main fully. the main habitats, habitats, and there is including spatial overlap reliable information on of habitat with fishing the spatial extent of gear. interaction and on the timing and location of use OR of the fishing gear. B Guide
post If CSA is used to score OR PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score adequate to estimate the PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: consequence and spatial Some quantitative attributes of the main information is available habitats. and is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Information is adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats (there is knowledge of how the gear works and what indications on the low probability of bottom contact), and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear (from VMS monitoring and high observer coverage). The requirement is achieved at SG 60 and 80. The physical impacts of the gear on all habitats have not been quantified fully therefore SG 100 is not achieved.
Monitoring Adequate information Changes in all habitat C Guide continues to be collected distributions over time post to detect any increase in are measured. risk to the main habitats. Met? No No
Rationale
Habitat types were considered as part of the ERA conducted in 2007 (Wayte et al. 2007) and identified high risk habitats on the outer shelf and upper and middle slope. However, community components were not determined for the fishery. The ERA is now over 10 years old and examined demersal trawl only, midwater trawl was not covered.
It is noted that the ERA has been recently updated and should be available for full assessment of the fishery. If available at the time of full assessment this scoring issue will be re-evaluated in light of any new information available.
Fine scale spatial information of the swept area / footprint of midwater trawl and demersal trawl is collected for the WSBGF in logbooks and can be verified by VMS and observer coverage. This data would be a mechanism for monitoring the impact of fishing on the benthic environment and detecting any changes in risk and was actually a recommendation of the draft SESSF monitoring and assessment 21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 87 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report project (see Koopman & Knuckey, 2017). However, such analyses are not conducted and therefore although the data is collect it is not used nor examined to detect any increase in risk to main habitats SG 80 is not met.
References
Daume & Brand-Gardner 2016; Koopman & Knuckey 2017; Pitcher et al. 2015, 2016, 2018; Wayte et al. 2007
Draft scoring range 60-79
Information gap indicator More information sought
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 88 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Ecosystem status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the the UoA is highly unlikely underlying ecosystem key elements underlying to disrupt the key a Guide structure and function to ecosystem structure and elements underlying post a point where there would function to a point where ecosystem structure and be a serious or there would be a serious function to a point where irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
The South-east Commonwealth Marine Parks Network covers an area of approximately 388 464 km2 with a depth range of 40 m - 4600 m, areas off the continental shelf and over deeper waters. A variety of marine reserves are established that exclude bottom trawling. In addition, most fishing grounds deeper than 700 m are closed to fishing (see Figure 17). These were selected based on Bioregional Marine Planning, mapping work conducted by Williams et al. (2006) and the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) work identified vulnerable benthic habitats (Wayte et al. 2007).
There is also good knowledge of key species of the ecosystem outside just the Target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats.
Fishery is managed in accordance with precautionary ecosystem-based management of fisheries. In addition, the fishery has been operating for over 20 years, with no major ongoing impacts documented on the system. Based on this management system and the operating evidence, it is highly unlikely that the fishery will cause serious or irreversible harm to the ecosystem. Therefore, the fishery meets the 60 and 80 scoring guidepost. However, in the absence of directed investigations SG 100 is not met
References
Wayte et al 2007; Williams et al 2006
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 89 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Management strategy in place There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that place, if necessary which strategy in place, if consists of a plan, in take into account the necessary, which takes place which contains potential impacts of the into account available measures to address all UoA on key elements of information and is main impacts of the a Guide the ecosystem. expected to restrain UoA on the ecosystem, post impacts of the UoA on and at least some of the ecosystem so as to these measures are in achieve the Ecosystem place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Currently, AFMA manages SESSF primary species under the SEFF Harvest Strategy (AFMA 2009) consistent with Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy (Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, 2018), while secondary species and protected bycatch species are managed under AFMA Bycatch Strategy (AFMA 2017). AFMA collect data on catch composition (fishery logbooks and AFMA observer program), fishing effort (logbooks), spatial and temporal distribution of the fishing effort (through VMS), interactions with protected species (logbooks and observer program) and monitor all fishing activities and compliance with regulations (compliance monitoring). AFMA applies Ecological Risk Assessments to all ecosystem. Extensive closures to trawl fishing below 700m and through the Marine Protected Area Network in the South East ensure a high level of representative habitat is protected. These have not been compiled into an overarching plan although there is the intention to do so with the development of FMS. Therefore SG 80 is met but SG 100 is not met.
Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/ partial partial strategy/ strategy b Guide argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on post experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or UoAs/ ecosystems). and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
Based on the fact that the fishery has not exceeded its catch limits, verified by 100% observer coverage at sea and unloading observer records, there is good evidence that the strategy is being successfully implemented and the strategy is likely to achieve its objective. The strategy has been tested using ecosystem modelling studies. Testing supports some confidence that the strategy will work, based on the MSE (Fulton 2007) meeting this element at the SG 100 level
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 90 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Management strategy implementation There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being c Guide implemented implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes Yes
Rationale
Through the 100% observer coverage records, there is good evidence that the strategy is being successfully implemented meeting this element at the SG 100.
References
AFMA 2008, 2017; Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, 2018; Fulton et al. 2007
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 91 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Information quality Information is adequate Information is adequate a Guide to identify the key to broadly understand post elements of the the key elements of the ecosystem. ecosystem.
Met? Yes Yes
Rationale
The key species have been well studied and their roles in the ecosystem have been identified and discussed in relation to the fishery. There is also good knowledge of key species of the ecosystem outside just the Target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats. Through the stock assessment work on target species, risk assessments on bycatch, byproduct and ETP species (eg. Wayte et al 2007, AFMA 2018b), there is generally good information on the key elements of the ecosystem and the impacts of the fishery meeting this element at the SG 80 level.
Investigation of UoA impacts Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions between on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem the UoA and these elements can be inferred elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can b Guide from existing information, from existing information, be inferred from existing post but have not been and some have been information, and have investigated in detail. investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Main impacts of the UoAs on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and some have been investigated in detail (Fulton et al. 2007). Therefore SG 80 is met but not SG 100
Understanding of component functions The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on components (i.e., P1 P1 target species, target species, primary, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP ETP species and Habitats c Guide species and Habitats) in are identified and the post the ecosystem are main functions of these known. components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Yes No
Rationale
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 92 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
As a result of these studies, the impacts of the fishery on Target, Retained, Bycatch, and ETP species are identified and the main functions of these components are understood, however more recent work would be required particularly updating the ERA to meet this element at the SG 100
Information relevance Adequate information is Adequate information is available on the impacts available on the impacts of the UoA on these of the UoA on the d Guide components to allow components and post some of the main elements to allow the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Yes No
Rationale
The information on the impact of the fishery (i.e. removal of biomass of blue grenadier, and other species) is of high quality and able to support the understanding of the consequences of the take and interactions (Fulton et al. 2007). The ERA and the residual risk assessment identified species at high risk. Information from studies has been considered and incorporated into the Atlantis model for the SE of Australia to infer the main consequences from the ecosystem (Fulton et al., 2007). However the studies did not cover all potential elements of the ecosystem that are important to determine the ecosystem resilience and productivity and more recent work is required on the trophic interactions of the wider ecosystem as well as consequences of fishing effort on habitats at spatial scales similar to that of the fishery for the demersal trawl sector. Therefore, SG 80 is met but SG 100 is not met.
Monitoring Adequate data continue to Information is adequate be collected to detect any to support the e Guide increase in risk level. development of strategies post to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? No No
Rationale
Adequate data is collected to detect any increase in risk level, as shown for each component, primary, secondary and ETP species. Adequate information is available to detect increase in risk to habitats but is not examined or used in a manner that would allow increased risk to be detected. In addition, the has not been a recent ERA despite it being scheduled for 2018. Therefore SG 80 is not met.
References
AFMA 2018b; Fulton et al. 2007; Wayte et al. 2007
Draft scoring range 60-79
Information gap indicator More information sought
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 93 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 94 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
6.4 Principle 3 6.4.1 Principle 3 background Blue Grenadier are targeted by the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS) of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF). Specifically, for this unit of certification, fishing occurs in Commonwealth waters along the west coast of Tasmania from Sandy Cape south to Strahan. Fishing operations occur during the winter months when spawning aggregations of Blue Grenadier can be captured using midwater and demersal trawl gear. Typically, one or two freezer factory vessels and 3 to 4 fresh boats operate in the winter sector. The SESSF is a single jurisdiction Commonwealth managed fishery that is managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA).
6.4.2 Governance and Policy
National Legislation
The Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) sets out arrangements between the different Australian jurisdictions regarding responsibilities for fisheries. Under the OCS, the Australian states and the Northern Territory manage fisheries out to 3 nautical miles from the coast, and for the Australian Government to manage fisheries from three to 200 nautical miles (which is the extent of Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)). The settlement is not set out in one single document but is found in the legislation that implements it. The OCS arrangements provided for the Commonwealth, the States and the NT to agree to adjust these arrangements by passing management responsibility for particular fisheries exclusively to the Commonwealth or to the adjacent States/Northern Territories (NT); or alternatively, for the Commonwealth and the States/NT to jointly manage a fishery in waters relevant to the Commonwealth and one or more States/NT (Borthwick, 2012). These are binding arrangements requiring both State and Commonwealth to implement fisheries management arrangements in their respective jurisdictions.
Australia is a signatory to a number of international agreements and conventions (which it applies within its EEZ), such as: • United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; • Convention on Biological Diversity; • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); • Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; • United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement; and • State Member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 is the Australian Government’s (Commonwealth) central piece of environmental legislation. The EPBC Act is administered by the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy (DoEE) and provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places — defined in the EPBC Act as matters of national environmental significance. The DoEE is responsible for acting on international obligations on a national level, by enacting policy and/or legislation to implement strategies to address those obligations.
The DoEE, through the Commonwealth Minister, has a legislative responsibility under the EPBC Act, to ensure that all managed fisheries undergo strategic environmental impact assessment before new management arrangements are brought into effect; and all fisheries in Australia from which product is exported undergo assessment to determine the extent to which management arrangements will ensure the fishery is managed in an ecologically sustainable way in the long term. The SESSF has been assessed using the Australian National ESD Framework for fisheries, in particular, the Guidelines for
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 95 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries, 2007 (DoEE, 2007). The ESD includes the principles of ecologically sustainable target and bycatch species, ecological viability of bycatch species, and impact of the broader marine ecosystem.
The Commonwealth Department of Agriculture (formerly the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR)) are responsible for the broader fishery policy, international negotiations and strategic issues. Key aspects of the policy framework for Commonwealth fisheries are articulated in: • Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy (DAWR, 2018a); and • Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy 2018 (DAWR, 2018b).
The day-to-day management of Commonwealth fisheries, including the SESSF, is vested with the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) that is established under the Fisheries Administration Act 1991. AFMA manages Commonwealth Fisheries in accordance with the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (FMA) and Fisheries Management Regulations 2019.
The legal rights for people dependent on fishing for food (non-commercial use) is enshrined in the Native Title Act 1993. This allows special provision for ‘traditional fishing’ to be made where they might apply in the context of both Commonwealth and State Fisheries Law.
Consultation and interest groups
The consultation arrangements for this fishery consist of several different forums (both statutory and informal) depending on the issue. Statutory consultation for the determination of management plans is prescribed in Section 17 of the FMA. The requirements were adhered to during the development of the SESSF Management Plan 2003. The SESSF Management Plan 2003 prescribes the consultation that must be conducted in determining a TAC for quota and non-quota species. AFMA must consult with the relevant Management Advisory Committee (MAC) which is the major source of advice to AFMA, reflecting the experience and expertise of the range of stakeholders with interest in the fishery covered by the MAC.
The South East MAC (SEMAC) is the relevant MAC for the SESSF and membership consists of a commercial industry member, fishery managers, scientists and a conservation member. Australian State and the Recreational sectors are each represented by an invited participant. The environment/conservation member aims to provide a communication conduit between the MAC and NGOs. The MAC provides a forum where higher level strategic issues relating to the fishery are discussed, the outcomes of which determine the recommendations that the MAC will make to the AFMA Commission. Fisheries Management Paper 1 – Management Advisory Committees outlines the function, roles and responsibilities of MACs (AFMA 2018a).
AFMA must also take into account advice from the relevant Resource Assessment Group (RAG). The main function of the RAG is to review scientific data and information and provide advice to AFMA on the status of fish stocks, sub-stocks, species and the impact of fishing on the marine environment as well as developing the strategic research plan. The South East Resource Assessment Group (SERAG) is the RAG for the Commonwealth Trawl Sector of the SESSF. The group provides advice to SEMAC on the status of fish stocks, sub stocks, species (target and non-target), the impact of fishing on the marine environment and the type of information needed for stock assessments. Membership consists of scientists, industry representatives, an AFMA member, an economic and recreational member and an independent Chair. This ensures that the interests of a range of stakeholder groups are represented. Based on scientific and industry advice the SERAG will propose a TAC which is then considered by SEMAC and AFMA management. Ultimately, the TAC is set by the AFMA Commission following consideration of the advice and any other comments or representations received during the
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 96 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report process. Fisheries Administration Paper 12 sets out the roles and responsibilities of RAGs and outlines their relationship with the AFMA Commission, AFMA Management and MACs (AFMA 2018b).
Cooperation with industry continues to be the key in innovative fisheries management, with the making of a new co-management arrangement between AFMA and the South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association (SETFIA). This includes a new Seine and Trawl Advisory Group (STAG) to provide expert advice on operational aspects of the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS) to better inform fisheries management decisions made by AFMA and the AFMA Commission. The advisory group will meet twice yearly and its members will include trawl operators from across the CTS, a hook operator, and representation from AFMA.
AFMA formally consults with key stakeholder groups and the broader community through public comment opportunities which are advertised on AFMA’s website. For example, AFMA position papers regarding significant management issues such as the recommended TAC is open to all interested parties for comment. AFMA conducts pre-season briefings, port visits and holds an annual public form, all of which are attended by a range of representative groups.
SETFIA plays an integral role in ongoing consultation with interest groups and is keen to promote a culture of environmental stewardship. SETFIA’s communication plan to ensure all stakeholders are informed consists of: • Monthly external newsletters (open to any interested person that subscribes to the mailing list); • Regular internal newsletter to members (providing updates on any issues that affect the Industry); • Short interval communications (eg. An SMS sent to skippers to remind them that a new Regulation takes effect on a particular day); and • Social media platforms.
Management objectives
There are explicit management objectives across all tiers of the management system and they are all clear and consistent.
The objective of the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy is the ecologically sustainable and profitable use of Australia’s Commonwealth commercial fisheries resources (where ecological sustainability takes priority)—through implementation of harvest strategies (DAWR 2018a).
The overall long-term objectives of the FMA 1991 form the basis for the management of all Commonwealth fisheries. These objectives are mirrored in the fishery-specific management plans and are: a) to implement efficient and cost-effective fisheries management of the fishery on behalf of the Commonwealth; b) to ensure that the exploitation of the resources of the fishery and the carrying on of any related activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development and the exercise of the precautionary principle and, in particular, the need to have regard to the impact of fishing activities on non-target species and the long-term sustainability of the marine environment; c) to maximise economic efficiency in the exploitation of scalefish and shark resources within the fishery; d) to ensure AFMA’s accountability to the fishing industry and to the Australian community in the management of the resources of the fishery; e) to reach Government targets for the recovery of the costs of AFMA in relation to the fishery;
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 97 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
f) to ensure, through proper conservation and management, that the living resources of the fishery are not endangered by over-exploitation; g) to ensure the best use of the living resources of the fishery; h) to ensure that conservation and management measures in the fishery implement Australia’s obligations under international agreements that deal with fish stocks, and other relevant international agreements; i) to ensure, as far as practicable, that measures adopted in pursuit of these objectives are not inconsistent with the preservation, conservation and protection of all whale species.
The SESSF harvest strategy has explicit short-term biological, socio-economic and ecosystem objectives that, together with the decision rules and reference points, are well defined and measurable and consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 (AFMA 2019).
The SESSF Ecological Risk Management (ERM) Strategy (AFMA 2015) objectives are to: • reduce the number of high risks assessed through AFMA’s Ecological Risk Assessment process • avoid interactions with species listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) • reduce discarding of target and non-target species to as close to zero as practically possible • minimise overall bycatch in the fishery over the long-term.
These objectives informed the development of the Commonwealth Trawl Sector Bycatch and Discarding Workplan 2018-2019 (AFMA 2018c).
6.4.3 Fishery Specific Management
The fishery-specific management framework is outlined in the SESSF Management Plan, the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework 2009 (Amended 2019), the SESSF ERM, the CTS Bycatch and Discarding Workplan and Conditions on the SFRs and are summarised in the SESSF Management arrangements Booklet 2019 (AFMA 2019b).
The following management measures are currently in place for the SESSF: • Limited entry fishery • Statutory Fishing Rights (SFR Quota and Boat) can be permanently transferred or leased to another person or company • Operators must hold a fishing permit which prescribes the area in which to fish, permitted method (Boat SFR) and if fishing for quota species, relevant quota holdings for that species (Quota SFR) • Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for each quota species and certain non-quota species • Gear restrictions – mesh size specifications, codend requirements, bycatch reduction devices • Implementation of a Seabird Management Plan • Vessel Management Plan • Prohibited species • Spatial and temporal closures • Navigation regulations that require boat to maintain a speed over 5 knots when navigating in a closure • Nominated boat must be fitted with a Vessel Monitoring System • Incidental catch limits and size limits • Fish Receiver permits are required and permit holders must complete the catch and disposal record
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 98 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
• Logbooks, catch and disposal forms and transit forms must be completed by operators or nominated authorized agent and submitted to AFMA • Must have an AFMA observer on board if directed by AFMA
Decision-making process
The Australian Government delegates AFMA to implement management decisions in respect to all Commonwealth Fisheries (FMA, 1991). Decisions on the implementation of the policy are taken by the AFMA Commission, following advice from SEMAC, as well as AFMA Management. A Chairman’s summary following the AFMA Commission meetings is published on AFMA’s website.
The harvest strategies have clear decision rules around the TAC setting process that incorporates a precautionary approach by requiring a review when the target reference level is not met.
Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
AFMA has a responsibility to enforce the provisions of the FMA through the detection of illegal activities within the AFZ. AFMA’s compliance and enforcement programmes are designed to maintain the integrity of fisheries management arrangements and protect Australia’s fishing resources. AFMA’s program uses a risk-based approach that enables AFMA’s resources to be targeted to the areas where they are most needed and where they will prove most effective (AFMA 2017a). Compliance Risk Management Teams are established to deal with each prioritized task. In addition to the risk model, AFMA maintains a ‘general’ presence at fishing ports and at sea to discourage noncompliance and provide advice or instructions to those wishing to comply.
AFMAs compliance programme is comprehensive and includes: • CRIMFISH hotline to report illegal or suspicious fishing • Intelligence Unit • Fisheries Officers (surveillance activities, inspections and education) • Vessel Monitoring System • Monitoring of Logbooks, Catch Disposal and Fish Receiver Records • AFMA Fishery Observers • 100% electronic monitoring coverage in some SESSF sectors.
The SESSF is subject to a biennial National Compliance Risk Assessment (2019-21). The compliance risk assessment process identifies modes of offending, compliance counter measures and risks and relies on a weight-of-evidence approach, considering information available from specialist units, trends and issues identified by inspectors and priorities set AFMA. As outlined in the National Compliance and Enforcement Program (AFMA 2018d), the prioritised risks that are the focus of the 2019-20 program are: • Quota evasion • Bycatch mishandling • Failure to report interaction / retention of protected or prohibited species.
Fisheries Officers (FOs) are formally appointed pursuant to the FMA, which clearly sets out their powers to enforce fisheries legislation, enter and search premises, obtain information and inspect catches. FOs are highly trained; they must have a thorough knowledge of the legislation they are responsible for enforcing and follow a strict protocol for undertaking their duties in accordance with FMA and in recording information relating to the number and type of contacts, offences detected and sanctions applied. Operational planning compliance staff utilise a number of formal monitoring and surveillance
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 99 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report activities and control mechanisms in the SESSF. Fisheries legislation forms one component of the control system for commercial fishers and these are applied through the SFR conditions.
Various sanctions are available to FOs following the detection of an offence. Verbal or written warnings may be given by a fisheries officer where the impact caused by an offence is minimal and the breach of a legislative instrument or regulation is of a minor technical nature. Written cautions may be given by a fisheries officer where the impact caused by an offence is minor or a first occurrence. Cautions are used for more serious matters and only if the officer believes there to be evidence of an offence. The regulations provide for infringement notices to be issued for breaches of fisheries management rules. These infringement notices require payment of the fine within a specified timeframe.
Longer term action may be required to address ongoing non-compliance. Amendment to concession conditions can be used where there is a need to take additional action arising from a breach of the legislation or legislative instruments. Amendments represent an alternative to other enforcement action to achieve compliance with the FM Act. In addition, pursuant to sections 38 and 39 of the FM Act, fishing concessions may be suspended or cancelled under certain circumstances. Prosecutions may be initiated where there is evidence of breaches of the FM Act (or other relevant Commonwealth Acts) on a case-by-case basis, where prosecution is the most appropriate response to achieve personal and/or public deterrence.
AFMA’s observer program is operated as an independent group within the AFMA Operations Branch, and is a science-based data collection program operated across all of AFMA’s fisheries. Observers have fishing industry experience and/or environmental science or management qualifications. Observers often provide the most reliable data on catch composition, fate of target and non-target species and fishing effort. All operators are required to carry observers when requested by AFMA.
Monitoring and evaluation of management performance
Internal and external review mechanisms exist through all levels of the management system. Recent reviews of core Acts and policy settings resulted in a revised national harvest strategy and national bycatch management policy and guidelines in 2018 (DAWR 2018a, DAWR 2018b) to ensure they meet world’s best practice.
The monitoring and assessment of the SESSF was subject to a strategic review in 2017 (Knuckey, et al 2017). AFMA’s Annual Report documents overall performance against the legislative objectives, statutory requirements and financial reporting, the effectiveness of internal controls and adequacy of systems, while AFMA and the MACs are required to periodically assess the effectiveness of the management measures taken to achieve the objectives of the Management Plan by reference to the performance criteria specified in the Plan.
The SESSF harvest strategy was reviewed based on the revised National Harvest Strategy Policy and a review of AFMA’s ERA-ERM Framework resulted in new Guidelines for fisheries that were finalised in 2017 (AFMA 2017b).
External reviews include assessment by the DoEE against protected species and export approval requirements under the EPBC Act, evaluation through the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) annual reports on the ecological and economic sustainability of fisheries managed by AFMA and a Productivity Commission review of commercial fisheries regulation in Australia.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 100 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
6.4.4 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: - Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); PI 3.1.1 - Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and - Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective national legal system and national legal system and national legal system and a framework for organised and effective binding procedures cooperation with other cooperation with other governing cooperation a Guide parties, where necessary, parties, where necessary, with other parties which post to deliver management to deliver management delivers management outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2. MSC Principles 1 and 2.
Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale The Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) provides for the demarcation of fisheries management responsibility between the States and Australian Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has responsibility to manage fisheries between 3 nautical miles and 200 nautical miles from the coastline. The settlement is not set out in one single document but is found in the legislation that implements it. There are 59 OCS arrangements including OCS agreements with New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. Gazette S 531, 1996 demarcates management responsibility for the fishery for finfish to be managed under Commonwealth Law in waters relevant to Tasmania. These are binding arrangements requiring both State and Commonwealth to implement fisheries management arrangements in their respective jurisdictions.
The Fisheries Administration Act 1991 establishes the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) to manage Commonwealth fisheries and administer the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (FMA). This national legislation sets out AFMA’s responsibilities in relation to the pursuit of ecological sustainable development. National policies such as the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy and the Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch govern the actions of AFMA which ensure that the management outcomes are consistent with Principles 1 & 2.
Commonwealth managed fisheries are subject to assessment against the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). These guidelines take into account the sustainable harvest of target and bycatch species and the impact on the habitat and broader ecosystem. In addition, the South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserve was established under the EBPC Act and fishers must cooperate and comply with the activities outlined in the Management Plan for this Reserve or any other determination made by the Director of National Parks.
The national legal system and binding procedures governing cooperation are in place and effective and meets SG100.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 101 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Resolution of disputes The management system The management system The management system incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism by law to a transparent by law to a transparent for the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the disputes arising within the resolution of legal resolution of legal b Guide system. disputes which is disputes that is post considered to be appropriate to the context effective in dealing with of the fishery and has most issues and that is been tested and proven appropriate to the context to be effective. of the UoA. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
Sections 161 and 165 of the FMA provide appeal rights for decisions taken by AFMA through administrative means (internal AFMA review, appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Statutory Fishing Rights Allocation Review Panel) and judicial means through appeal to the Federal Court. AFMA’s decision to apply the precautionary principle have been upheld in a number of legal challenges, following referral to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (e.g. Weier and Loke 2007).
The Co-Management Arrangements between the AFMA and SETFIA in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery contain a dispute resolution clause.
AFMA advises fishers in writing of their appeal rights and the processes involved as a matter of course when, for example, alterations are made to their fishing concession conditions. In addition to these processes, the consultation and advisory processes established by AFMA provide mechanisms for the discussion and resolution of different perspectives on fisheries management issues by stakeholders. The legal system includes transparent mechanisms for the resolution of disputes. These mechanisms have been tested and proven to be effective. Therefore SG100 is met.
Respect for rights The management system The management system The management system has a mechanism to has a mechanism to has a mechanism to generally respect the observe the legal rights formally commit to the legal rights created created explicitly or legal rights created explicitly or established established by custom of explicitly or established Guide c by custom of people people dependent on by custom of people post dependent on fishing for fishing for food or dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner food and livelihood in a manner consistent with consistent with the manner consistent with the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
The Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 provides the means by which the Australian legal system recognises the traditional rights and interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This legislation provides a mechanism for the making of binding decisions about native title rights to areas of land and water and thereby ensures access to fish resources for people who depend on fishing for their food. Access rights by customary fishers remain within the context of ecological sustainable development and are therefore consistent with Principles 1 and 2. Therefore, SG100 is met.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 102 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
References
Weier and Loke 2007
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 103 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Roles and responsibilities Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process management process management process have been identified. have been identified. have been identified. Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and a Guide responsibilities are responsibilities are responsibilities are post generally understood. explicitly defined and explicitly defined and well understood for well understood for all key areas of areas of responsibility responsibility and and interaction. interaction. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
The key organisations involved in the management process are AFMA for day to day management and the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture (DoA, formerly the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources) for overarching policy direction. AFMA and SETFIA, the Industry Association, have a new co-management agreement in place which identifies their roles in the management process. The functions of AFMA are set out in section 7 of the Fisheries Administration Act 1991.
Roles and responsibilities and advice about operation and participation in MACs and Resource Assessment Groups (RAGs) are provided in:
• Management Advisory Committee, Fisheries Management Paper. No 1 (AFMA, 2018a) • Fisheries Administration Paper (FMP) No.7 - Information and Advice for Industry Members on AFMA Committees (AFMA, 1999); and • Fisheries Administration Paper Series No. 12 Resource Assessment Groups - Roles, Responsibilities and Relationship with Management Advisory Committees (AFMA, 2018b).
The South East MAC is the relevant MAC for the SESSF. The MAC provides a forum where higher level strategic issues relating to the fishery are discussed, the outcomes of which determine the recommendations that the MAC will make to the AFMA Commission.
AFMA must also take into account advice from the relevant Resource Assessment Group (RAG), which for this fishery, is the SERAG. The main function of the RAG is to peer review scientific data and information and provide advice to AFMA on the status of fish stocks, substocks, species and the impact of fishing on the marine environment as well as developing the strategic research plan.
The organisations and individuals involved in the management processes are clearly identified and their functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. Therefore, SG100 is met.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 104 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Consultation processes The management system The management system The management system includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information seek and accept seek and accept from the main affected relevant information, relevant information, b Guide parties, including local including local knowledge. including local knowledge. post knowledge, to inform the The management system The management system management system. demonstrates demonstrates consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
The Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy was reviewed in 2017. The revised policy was subject to public consultation, as well as the DoA holding consultation workshops with targeted stakeholders (scientists, industry, recreational fishers and environmental NGOs).
The management system includes statutory requirements for public consultation in relation to matters such as development and amendment of management plans for Commonwealth fisheries.
MAC membership requirements ensure that a wide range of expertise feeds into the management regime. AFMA’s legislation limits the number of members on a MAC to ten, in addition to the Chairperson and an AFMA officer. AFMA has included a broader range of interest groups in this consultative process when required. The AFMA Commission decides on a fishery-by-fishery basis whether membership of a MAC should also reflect these wider community interests. Regular MAC and RAG meetings provides a process where information is updated. Publication of the minutes, including consideration of information obtained, are made publicly available on the AFMA web site. The Chairman’s summary from AFMA Commission meetings is also available on the website.
AFMA invites public comment on policy documents and AFMA position papers regarding recommended TAC settings and other strategies which are placed on the website and open to all interested parties for comment. AFMA demonstrates how information from submissions is used or not used by publishing a summary of the submissions and explaining how the submissions were addressed (i.e. Small Pelagic Fishery dolphin strategy).
The incorporation of local knowledge through Committee membership and public consultation opportunities, together with the publication of consultation outcomes and meeting minutes, the fishery meets SG 100 for this performance indicator.
Participation The consultation process The consultation process provides opportunity provides opportunity Guide for all interested and and encouragement for c affected parties to be all interested and affected post involved. parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Yes Yes
Rationale
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 105 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
AFMA facilitates stakeholder engagement mainly through the membership composition of MACs and RAGs. SEMAC members comprise of representatives from the fishing industry, the conservation community, the research sector, economic field and AFMA. Similarly, the SERAG provides an avenue for consultation between industry members, fishery managers, fishery scientists, economists and other interest groups. When required, both Committees have invited participants and observers with specific knowledge or interests to meetings to ensure a wide range of information is incorporated into the management system.
AFMA conducts an Annual Public Forum and many port visits throughout the year which provides an opportunity for interested people to learn about the fishing industry and how it is managed. Some AFMA Commission meetings are conducted in regional areas which allows the Commissioners to visit various industries and people.
Interested parties can subscribe to AFMA’s fishery news and media releases through the website and join AFMA’s social media platforms. SETFIA plays an integral role in ongoing consultation with interest groups through monthly external newsletters to subscribers, internal newsletters to members and short communications on specific issues.
AFMA uses various methods to facilitate effective engagement with stakeholders and therefore SG100 is met.
References
AFMA (1999). Fisheries Administration Paper. Information and Advice for Industry Members on AFMA Committees. https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/uploads/2014/09/Fisheries- Administration-Paper-7-Information-and-Advice-for-Industry-Members-on-AFMA-Committees1.pdf
AFMA (2018a) Fisheries Management Paper No. 1. Management Advisory Committees. https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/revised_fmp1_to_reflect_legislative_changes_- _october_2018.pdf
AFMA (2018b). Fisheries Management Paper 12. Resource Assessment Groups. https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/fap12_to_reflect_legislative_changes_and_econo mic_advice_-_october_2018.pdf
SETFIA https://setfia.org.au/
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 106 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Objectives Long-term objectives to Clear long-term Clear long-term guide decision-making, objectives that guide objectives that guide consistent with the MSC decision-making, decision-making, Fisheries Standard and consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Guide a the precautionary Fisheries Standard and Fisheries Standard and post approach, are implicit the precautionary the precautionary within management approach are explicit approach, are explicit policy. within management within and required by policy. management policy. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
The long-term objectives of the management system are specified in Section 3 of the FMA and in the EPBC Act, and further defined in the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy (DAWR 2018a) and the Commonwealth Bycatch Management Policy (DAWR 2018b). The objectives and policy guidance are consistent with MSC’s Principles and Criteria and explicitly require application of the precautionary principle. The fishery is also subject to the Commonwealth EPBC Act which requires periodic assessment against the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries (DoE 1992). These Guidelines are consistent with the MSC Principles and Criteria and encourage practical application of the ecosystem approach to fisheries management. Both the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy and Commonwealth Bycatch Management Policy contain guidelines, and these guidelines are used by AFMA to support the setting of fisheries specific strategies and bycatch management plans. The fishery meets the requirements of SG100.
References
Fisheries Management Act of 1991. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consolact/fma1991193/
Department of Environment (1992). National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/esd/publications/national-esdstrategy
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011C00751
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2018a). Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy. Framework for applying an evidence-based approach to setting harvest levels in Commonwealth fisheries. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/domestic/harveststrategypolicy
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2018b). Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy: Framework for managing the risk of fishing-related impacts on bycatch species in Commonwealth fisheries. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/environment/bycatch/review
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 107 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 108 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Objectives Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving long-term objectives, expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed which are demonstrably a Guide Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 and consistent with achieving post implicit within the 2, are explicit within the the outcomes expressed by fishery-specific fishery-specific MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, management system. management system. are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
The long-term objectives specified in the SESSF Management Plan reflect those in the FMA. The objectives for the fishery are: a) to implement efficient and cost-effective fisheries management of the fishery on behalf of the Commonwealth; b) to ensure that the exploitation of the resources of the fishery and the carrying on of any related activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development and the exercise of the precautionary principle and, in particular, the need to have regard to the impact of fishing activities on non-target species and the long-term sustainability of the marine environment; c) to maximise economic efficiency in the exploitation of scalefish and shark resources within the fishery; d) to ensure AFMA’s accountability to the fishing industry and to the Australian community in the management of the resources of the fishery; e) to reach Government targets for the recovery of the costs of AFMA in relation to the fishery; f) to ensure, through proper conservation and management, that the living resources of the fishery are not endangered by over-exploitation; g) to ensure the best use of the living resources of the fishery; h) to ensure that conservation and management measures in the fishery implement Australia’s obligations under international agreements that deal with fish stocks, and other relevant international agreements; i) to ensure, as far as practicable, that measures adopted in pursuit of these objectives are not inconsistent with the preservation, conservation and protection of all whale species.
The SESSF harvest strategy has explicit short-term objectives that, together with the decision rules and reference points, are well defined and measurable and consistent with MSC Principle 1 (AFMA 2019a). The biological objectives of the harvest strategy are: • To maintain stocks at (on average), or return to, a target biomass point BTARG or equivalent proxy (e.g. FTARG or CPUETARG) equal to the stock size that aims to maximise net economic return for the fishery as a whole. • To maintain stocks above the limit biomass level, or an appropriate proxy, at least 90% of the time. • A reduced level of fishing if a stock is below BTARG but above BLIM (or an appropriate proxy). • To implement rebuilding strategies, no-targeting and incidental bycatch TACs if a stock moves below BLIM (or an appropriate proxy).
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 109 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
• To ensure the sustainability of fisheries resources, including consideration of the individual fishery circumstances and individual species or stock characteristics, when developing a management approach.
The Socio-economic objectives of the harvest strategy are: • To maintain stocks at (on average), or return to, a target biomass point BTARG equal to the stock size that aims to maximise net economic returns for the fishery as a whole. • To maximise the profitability of the fishing industry and the net economic returns to the Australian community. • To minimise costs to the fishing industry, including consideration of the impacts on the industry of large or small changes in TACs, and the appropriateness of multi-year TACs.
The Ecosystem objective contained within the harvest strategy is: • To be consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, including the conservation of biological diversity, and the adoption of a precautionary risk approach.
The SESSF Ecological Risk Management (ERM) Strategy (AFMA 2015) objectives are to: • reduce the number of high risks assessed through AFMA’s Ecological Risk Assessment process • avoid interactions with species listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) • reduce discarding of target and non-target species to as close to zero as practically possible • minimise overall bycatch in the fishery over the long-term.
These objectives are consistent with Principle 2 and informed the development of the Commonwealth Trawl Sector Bycatch and Discarding Workplan 2018-2019 (AFMA 2018c).
While some of the above objectives are quite broad, others are operationally defined (quantifiable reference points) in such a way that the performance against the objective can be measured. The harvest strategy clearly sets out the management actions, indicators used for monitoring, reference points and the decision rules applied for determining the recommended total allowable catches. The fishery meets the requirement of SG100.
References
AFMA (2015) https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/11/SESSF-ERM-Strategy- 2015.pdf
AFMA (2018c) https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/cts_bycatch_and_discarding_workplan_2018- 19_0.pdf .
AFMA (2019a) https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/default/files/sessf_harvest_strategy_framework_2019_amendment. pdf
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 110 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Decision-making processes There are some decision- There are established making processes in place decision-making a Guide that result in measures processes that result in post and strategies to achieve measures and strategies the fishery-specific to achieve the fishery- objectives. specific objectives. Met? Yes Yes
Rationale
The fishery has a harvest strategy in place that clearly sets out the reference points and decision rules to achieve the fishery specific objectives (AFMA 2019a). The TAC setting process is explicit in the harvest strategy. Stock assessment reports that provide recommended biological catch amounts for each quota species are produced by the RAG during October and November each year. In mid- December, AFMA produces a position paper with recommended TACs for quota species for the upcoming fishing season, based on stock assessments and RAG advice. The paper is distributed to interested parties and undergoes a public comment period. In early February, a SEMAC meeting is held for setting TACs and the final recommended TACs are made. The outcomes of SEMAC, together with the AFMA position paper and any public comments received, are then sent to the AFMA Commission which finalises the TACs for the upcoming fishing season in mid February. Therefore, SG80 is met.
Responsiveness of decision-making processes Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to all serious issues identified serious and other issues identified in in relevant research, important issues relevant research, monitoring, evaluation identified in relevant monitoring, evaluation b Guide and consultation, in a research, monitoring, and consultation, in a post transparent, timely and evaluation and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take consultation, in a adaptive manner and take some account of the transparent, timely and account of the wider wider implications of adaptive manner and take implications of decisions. decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
The status of stocks and how they are tracking against the harvest strategy is reported to the RAG, MAC and AFMA Commission as part of the yearly TAC setting process. The harvest strategy acknowledges that it may need to be amended where there is new information or drivers external to management of the fishery that increases risks to fish stocks. If alternative assessment methods are developed or a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) indicates room for improvement, changes are initiated. Issues identified are evaluated through the SERAG and MAC mechanisms and must be considered. The SESSF harvest strategy has been amended several times as a result of MSE outcomes 21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 111 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report and other monitoring or research. The MAC and RAG meet regularly to ensure that any issues are considered in a timely manner and prior to the start of a fishing season.
Issues raised during the RAG and MAC meetings are carefully documented and monitored through action items. The issues are transparent and addressed in a timely manner as evidenced by the minutes of these meetings on the AFMA website.
The socio-economic objectives outlined in the SESSF harvest strategy require decision makers to consider the impacts on the industry.
Adaptive management via the decision makers is evident across the fishery and therefore SG100 is met. Use of precautionary approach Decision-making c Guide processes use the precautionary approach post and are based on best available information.
Met? Yes
Rationale
AFMA’s management decisions must be consistent with the objectives in the FMA including the application of the precautionary principle. Key principles of the SEMAC and the SERAG include that the “advice must be evidence based and use the best available scientific information.” Another principle is that “AFMA seeks, through its scientific processes and committees/groups, to obtain the best quality information and advice”.
The SESSF Harvest Strategy framework adopts increased levels of precaution that correspond to increasing levels of uncertainty about stock status (AFMA 2019a). For example, each stock is assessed using one of three types of assessment depending on the type and amount of information available (e.g. tiered approach). Therefore, SG80 is met.
Accountability and transparency of management system and decision- making process Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all fishery’s performance and fishery’s performance interested stakeholders management action is and management provides generally available on action is available on comprehensive request to stakeholders. request, and information on the explanations are provided fishery’s performance for any actions or lack of and management d Guide action associated with actions and describes post findings and relevant how the management recommendations system responded to emerging from research, findings and relevant monitoring, evaluation recommendations and review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 112 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders on the SESSF’s performance and management actions is provided through publicly available mechanisms including AFMA’s Annual Report, minutes of SEMAC and SERAG, outcomes of AFMA Commission meetings, stock assessments, ecological risk management reports, ETP interaction reports, catch data (through “Catchwatch”) and Annual status reports by ABARES (ABARES 2019).
The Wildlife Trade Operation (WTO) strategic assessment reports produced by the Department of the Environment and Energy every three years, details AFMA’s progress in implementing the WTO conditions and recommendations for the SESSF (DoEE 2019). Details in this report include implementation of harvest strategies and control rules, the TAC setting process and changes to the management arrangements, research projects and monitoring programs.
All of the abovementioned reports are available on the relevant websites and provide a description on the fishery’s performance and changes in management from emerging research, monitoring and evaluation activities. Therefore, SG100 is met.
Approach to disputes Although the The management system The management system management authority or or fishery is attempting to or fishery acts proactively fishery may be subject to comply in a timely fashion to avoid legal disputes or continuing court with judicial decisions rapidly implements challenges, it is not arising from any legal judicial decisions arising e Guide indicating a disrespect or challenges. from legal challenges. post defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
The consultative and participatory characteristics of the management system act to avoid legal disputes by engendering a strong understanding of management and a strong sense of stewardship by operators. The transparent and inclusive nature of management decision making minimizes the likelihood of legal disputes and the recent agreement between AFMA and SETFIA for co-management of the fishery will strengthen the stewardship and is likely to avoid legal disputes. The management system is successful in avoiding legal disputes as no legal challenges have taken place in the SE Trawl fishery and SG 100 is met.
References
AFMA Annual Report https://www.afma.gov.au/annual-report-2017-18 DoEE (2019) https://www.environment.gov.au/marine/fisheries/commonwealth/scalefish ABARES (2019) http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research-topics/fisheries/fishery-status-2019
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 113 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 114 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 MCS implementation Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive surveillance surveillance system has monitoring, control and mechanisms exist, and been implemented in the surveillance system has are implemented in the fishery and has been implemented in the a Guide fishery and there is a demonstrated an ability fishery and has post reasonable expectation to enforce relevant demonstrated a that they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to strategies and/or rules. enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
AFMA’s compliance program is risk based and includes: • CRIMFISH hotline to report illegal or suspicious fishing • Intelligence Unit • Fisheries Officers (surveillance activities, inspections and education through port visits) • Vessel Monitoring System • Monitoring of Logbooks, Catch Disposal and Fish Receiver Records • AFMA Fishery Observers at the discretion of AFMA. The National Compliance and Enforcement Program 2019-20 (AFMA 2018d) identifies areas of compliance focus to ensure it is effective. There is 100% compliance with implementation of an approved seabird management plan and resulting seabird mitigation. ANAO (2013) provides information on enforcement actions implemented by AFMA, further demonstrating that AFMA’s monitoring, control and surveillance system has the ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules, meeting SG100 requirements.
Sanctions Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and non-compliance exist, are non-compliance exist, are b Guide there is some evidence consistently applied consistently applied and post that they are applied. and thought to provide demonstrably provide effective deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
The FMA provides for penalties and ‘administrative’ sanctions in the event that fishers do not comply with the management measures for the fishery. Financial penalties such as infringement notices through to prosecutions can be applied. Penalties such as cancellation or suspension of a fishing license can also be imposed. Immediate suspension of a license if quota has not been reconciled within 28 days is one example of a sanction.
Administrative sanctions include warnings and cautions when breaches are of a minor nature. Other sanctions include amendments to fishing license conditions, directions by fisheries officers (such as for
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 115 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report a vessel to immediately return to port) and license suspension. Seizure of catch for breach of a gear condition is another example. AFMA considers administrative sanctions to be more immediate and that they provide a greater deterrent for fishers due to their financial impact (ANAO 2013). The comprehensive enforcement regime and high level of compliance is evidence that sanctions are an effective deterrent. There SG100 is met.
Compliance Fishers are generally Some evidence exists There is a high degree thought to comply with to demonstrate fishers of confidence that the management system comply with the fishers comply with the for the fishery under management system management system c Guide assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, post when required, providing including, when required, including, providing information of importance providing information of information of importance to the effective importance to the to the effective management of the effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery. fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
The Compliance Division measures compliance outcomes by estimating compliance and non- compliance rates. In the last 3 years (2016-2018), from 45 inspections, 5 minor offences were detected in the broad SE Trawl Fishery and no offences have been detected in the winter spawning sector (Ashley Mooney, AFMA, pers com, 2019). The collection of accurate and comprehensive fisheries data is important for the stock assessment and TAC setting process and this information is submitted in both logbook and catch and disposal records. The accuracy of the data can be verified against the observer reports. Therefore SG80 is met.
The 100% observer coverage on the client’s vessel to observe fishing operations, collect catch data, test conversion factors and document other observations provides a high degree of confidence that the client complies with the management system. This will be verified through observer reports at a later stage of this assessment.
Systematic non-compliance There is no evidence of Guide d systematic non- post compliance.
Met? Yes
Rationale
There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance in the SE Trawl Fishery (Ashley Mooney, AFMA, pers com August, 2019). SG80 has been met.
References
List any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator More information required.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 116 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 117 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Evaluation coverage There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in place to evaluate some place to evaluate key place to evaluate all a Guide parts of the fishery- parts of the fishery- parts of the fishery- post specific management specific management specific management system. system. system. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
The performance of the fishery is subject to scrutiny by the SEMAC, SERAG, AFMA and other government agencies and a range of stakeholders. The SESSF Harvest Strategy is evaluated each year as part of the TAC setting cycle. It was last amended in 2019.
The effectiveness of the compliance activities including port and at sea inspections, VMS and closed areas are evaluated against the objectives of the respective programs on an ongoing basis. These activities are subject to biennial risk assessments undertaken by AFMA and appropriate changes made where required.
Internal and/or external review The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management system is management system is management system is Guide b subject to occasional subject to regular subject to regular post internal review. internal and occasional internal and external external review. review. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
The SESSF Management Plan is regularly reviewed, and outlines obligations for assessing the effectiveness of performance measures and reporting. The harvest strategy for this fishery was reviewed in 2019 to align with the harvest strategy policy and guidelines for Commonwealth fisheries, which was revised in 2018.
The SESSF is assessed against the EPBC Act every 3 years and most recently in February 2019. The fishery meets the requirements to be a Wildlife Trade Operation. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) review the ecological and economic performance of Commonwealth fisheries annually. The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s Status of key Australian fish stocks reports (SAFS reports) contains independent assessments every two years for a number of species stocks taken in this fishery.
References
DoEE (2019) https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/bbf3e30a-2fa3-45d6-b20c- 7623b995cbcd/files/assessment-southern-eastern-scalefish-shark-fishery-2019.pdf
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 118 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 119 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
7 Appendices 7.1 Assessment information 7.1.1 Previous assessments
The report shall include:
- A brief summary of any previous full assessments of the client operations, noting that these are available on the MSC website. - Details of any conditions that were closed at or between the previous surveillance audits and this assessment, with justification for closing the conditions. - A summary of previous conditions.
Reference(s): FCP v2.1
The Australia Blue Grenadier Fishery was first certified in August 2015 with the same Units of certification and two conditions were placed on the fishery.
Table X – Summary of previous assessment conditions
Condition PI(s) Year closed Justification
A report, commissioned by industry, summarised the findings of an FRDC report that included catch 1. By the second annual composition from logbook data, observer reports surveillance audit, the and marine reserves and areas closed to fishing. The client shall provide assessment team concluded that there was very documented evidence little evidence of interaction with benthic species. that, at a scale relative Information from various sources and from observer 2.4.3 2017 to the fishery, there is data was cited, indicating that mid-water gear has on-going monitoring that very rare contact with the sea bed. The report also would be able to detect concluded that closures from marine reserves any increase in risk to provided protection for a diverse array of habitats habitat. and species assemblages and that the on-going monitoring in place would be able to detect any increase in risk to habitats. 2. By the second annual It was confirmed that the reported landing of audit, the management greeneye spurdog was misidentification and that agency of the client compliance staff would continue to apply sanctions fishery should in accordance with AFMA’s Compliance and demonstrate that Enforcement Program. The Compliance report sanctions are 3.2.3 2017 demonstrates that sanction continue to be applied. consistently applied. This SETFIA provided details of a pre-sailing briefing that shall include specific included information on ETP species and the requirements for other management arrangements for the upcoming non-target species like season. Greeneye Spurdog.
7.2 Evaluation processes and techniques 7.2.1 Site visits
The report shall include:
- An itinerary of site visit activities with dates.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 120 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
- A description of site visit activities, including any locations that were inspected. - Names of individuals contacted.
Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Section 7.16
7.2.2 Stakeholder participation
The report shall include:
- Details of people interviewed: local residents, representatives of stakeholder organisations including contacts with any regional MSC representatives. - A description of stakeholder engagement strategy and opportunities available.
Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Section 7.16
7.2.3 Evaluation techniques
The report shall include:
- Justification for how public announcements were developed. - Methodology used, including sample-based means of acquiring a working knowledge of the management operation and sea base. - Details of the scoring process e.g. group consensus process. - The decision rule for reaching the final recommendation e.g. aggregate principle-level scores above 80.
If the RBF was used for this assessment, the report shall include:
- The justification for using the RBF, which can be copied from previous RBF announcements, and stakeholder comments on its use. - The RBF stakeholder consultation strategy to ensure effective participation from a range of stakeholders including any participatory tools used. - A summary of the information obtained from the stakeholder meetings including the range of opinions. - The full list of activities and components that have been discussed or evaluated in the assessment, regardless of the final risk-based outcome.
The stakeholder input should be reported in the stakeholder input appendix and incorporated in the rationales directly in the scoring tables.
Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Section 7.16, FCP v2.1 Annex PF Section PF2.1
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 121 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
7.3 Peer Review reports To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report The report shall include unattributed reports of the Peer Reviewers in full using the relevant templates. The report shall include explicit responses of the team that include:
- Identification of specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made; and, - A substantiated justification for not making changes where peer reviewers suggest changes, but the team disagrees.
Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Section 7.14
7.4 Stakeholder input To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report To be completed at Public Certification Report The CAB shall use the stakeholder input template to include all written stakeholder input during the stakeholder input opportunities and provide a summary of verbal stakeholder input received during the site visit. Using the stakeholder input template, the team shall respond to all written stakeholder input identifying what changes to scoring, rationales and conditions have been made in response, where the changes have been made, and assigning a ‘CAB response code’. The team may respond to the verbal summary.
Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Section 7.15
7.5 Conditions – delete if not applicable To be drafted from Client and Peer Review Draft Report The report shall document all conditions in separate tables. The CAB shall include rationale for exceptional circumstances in the summary of conditions in the Client and Peer Review Draft Report and all subsequent reports.
For reassessments, the CAB shall note:
- If and how any of the new conditions relate to previous conditions raised in the previous assessment or surveillance audits. - If and why any conditions that were raised and then closed in the previous assessment are being raised again in the reassessment. - If any conditions are carried over from a previous assessment, including an explanation of: - Which conditions are still open and being carried over. - Why those conditions are still open and being carried over. - Progress made in the previous assessment against these conditions. - Why recertification is being recommended despite outstanding conditions from the previous assessment. - If any previous conditions were closed after the 4th Surveillance Audit and reassessment site visit (i.e. in Year 5), including the rationale for re-scoring and closing out of the condition.
Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Section 7.18
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 122 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Table X – Condition 1
Performance
Indicator
Score State score for Performance Indicator
Cross reference to page number containing scoring template table or copy Justification justification text here. If condition relates to a previous condition or one raised and closed in the previous assessment include information required here
Condition State condition
Milestones State milestones and resulting scores where applicable
Consultation on Include details of any verification required to meet requirements in FCP v2.1 condition 7.19.8
7.6 Client Action Plan To be added from Public Comment Draft Report The report shall include the Client Action Plan from the fishery client to address conditions.
Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Section 7.19
7.7 Surveillance To be drafted from Client and Peer Review Draft Report The report shall include the program for surveillance, timing of surveillance audits and a supporting rationale.
Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Section 7.28
Table X– Fishery surveillance program
Surveillance level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site surveillance audit e.g. Level 5 surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit
Table X – Timing of surveillance audit
Anniversary date of Proposed date of Year Rationale certificate surveillance audit e.g. Scientific advice to be released in June 2018, proposal e.g. 1 e.g. May 2018 e.g. July 2018 to postpone audit to include findings of scientific advice
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 123 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Table X – Surveillance level rationale
Year Surveillance activity Number of auditors Rationale
e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced that information needed to verify progress towards conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided remotely in year 3. Considering e.g. 1 auditor on-site with that milestones indicate that e.g.3 e.g. On-site audit remote support from 1 most conditions will be closed out auditor in year 3, the CAB proposes to have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on-site with remote support – this is to ensure that all information is collected and because the information can be provided remotely.
7.8 Harmonised fishery assessments To be completed at Public Certification Report stage Harmonisation is required in cases where assessments overlap, or new assessments overlap with pre- existing fisheries.
If relevant, in accordance with FCP v2.1 Annex PB requirements, the report shall describe processes, activities and specific outcomes of efforts to harmonise fishery assessments. The report shall identify the fisheries and Performance Indicators subject to harmonisation.
Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Annex PB This fishery overlaps with other certified AFMA managed fisheries and the scores for Performance Indicators under 3.1 will be harmonised at a later stage. Table X – Overlapping fisheries
Performance Indicators to Fishery name Certification status and date harmonise South East Australia Small Certified since August 2019 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 Pelagic Fishery
Northern Prawn Fishery Certified since November 2012 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3
Walker Seafoods albacore, Certified since August 2015 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 yellowfin tuna and swordfish Heard and McDonald Islands Certified since March 2012 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 Toothfish and Icefish
Macquarie Island Toothfish Certified since May 2012 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 124 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Table X – Overlapping fisheries
Supporting information
- Describe any background or supporting information relevant to the harmonisation activities, processes and outcomes.
Was either FCP v2.1 Annex PB1.3.3.4 or PB1.3.4.5 applied when Yes / No harmonising?
Date of harmonisation meeting DD / MM / YY
If applicable, describe the meeting outcome
- e.g. Agreement found among teams or lowest score adopted.
Table X – Scoring differences
Performance Fishery name Fishery name Fishery name Fishery name Indicators (PIs)
PI Score Score Score Score
PI Score Score Score Score
PI Score Score Score Score
Table X – Rationale for scoring differences
If applicable, explain and justify any difference in scoring and rationale for the relevant Performance Indicators (FCP v2.1 Annex PB1.3.6)
If exceptional circumstances apply, outline the situation and whether there is agreement between or among teams on this determination
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 125 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
8 References
Principle 1
AFMA (2018a). Commonwealth Trawl Sector (Otterboard Trawl and Danish Seine) Bycatch and Discarding Workplan (2018-2019). Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.
AFMA (2018b). 2018 Species Summaries for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.
AFMA (2019a). Harvest strategy framework for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, version 5. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.
Bruce, B.D., Condie, S.A., Sutton, C.A. (2001). Larval distribution of blue grenadier (Macruronus novaezelandiae Hector) in south-eastern Australia: further evidence for a second spawning area. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 52: 603-610.
Bulman, C.M., Blaber, S.J.M. (1986). Feeding ecology of Macruronus novaezelandiae (Hector) (Teleostei: Merlucciidae) in south-eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 37: 621-639
Bulman, C.M., Koslow, J.A., Haskard, K.A. (1999). Estimation of the spawning stock biomass of blue grenadier (Macruronus novaezelandiae) off western Tasmania based upon the annual egg production method. Marine and Freshwater Research 50: 197-207.
Burch, P., Deng, R., Thomson, R., Castillo-Jordán, C. (2018). Integrated scientific monitoring program for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery – discards for 2017. Prepared for SERAG, Hobart, 19-21 September 2018. CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere.
Castillo-Jordán, C., Tuck, G.N. (2018). Blue grenadier (Macruronus novaezelandiae) stock assessment based on data up to 2017 base case. Technical paper presented to the SERAG, 14-16 November 2018, Hobart, Australia.
Day, J. (2008). Modified breakpoint for the 2008 Tier 1 harvest control rule. Unpublished report to Shelf RAG. 6 pp.
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2018a). Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy, 2nd Edition. Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra.
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2018b). Guidelines for the Implementation of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy, 2nd Edition. Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra.
Francis, R.I.C.C. (2009). Assessment of hoki (Macruronus novaezelandiae) in 2008. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2009/7.
Georgeson, L. (2018). Blue grenadier, Macruronus novaezelandiae. In Stewardson C., Andrews J., Ashby C., Haddon M., Hartmann K., Hone P., Horvat P., Mayfield S., Roelofs A., Sainsbury K., Saunders T., Stewart J., Nicol S., Wise B. (eds.). Status of Australian Fish Stocks Reports 2018. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
Gunn, J.S., Bruce, B.D., Furlani, D.M., Thresher, R.E., Blaber, S.J.M. (1989) Timing and location of spawning of blue grenadier, Macruronus novaezelandiae (Teleostei: Merlucciidae) in eastern Australian waters. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40: 97-112.
Haddon, M., Dichmont, C., Klaer, N., Pascoe, S., Penney, A., Smith, T., Smith, D., Vieira, S., Ward, P. (2014). Technical reviews of formal harvest strategies. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Project 2012/225. CSIRO and ABARES, Hobart.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 126 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Hamer, P., Kemp. J., Robertson, S. and Hindell, J. (2009). Use of otolith chemistry and shape to assess stock structure of blue grenadier (Macruronus novaezelandiae) in the Commonwealth Trawl and Great Australian Bight fisheries. Final Report for FRDC Project 2007/030. DPI Fisheries Research Branch, Queenscliff and Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
Kailola, P.J., Williams, M.J., Stewart, P.C., Reichelt, R.E., McNee, A., Grieve, C. (1993). Australian Fisheries Resources. Bureau of Resource Sciences and the FRDC, Canberra. 422 pp.
Klaer, N., Wayte, S. (2011). Demersal MSE for trawl fish in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery and other like-species. Report prepared for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as part of the Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status project. CSIRO, Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart. 68 pp.
Knuckey, I., Koopman, M. and Boag, S. (2017a). Fishery Independent Survey for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery — Winter 2016. AFMA Project RR2016/0802. Fishwell Consulting 58 pp.
Knuckey, I., Penney, A., Haddon, M., Pascoe, S., Boag, S., Koopman, M., Corrie, D., Day, G., Rayns, N., Hutton, T. (2017b). Strategic Review of SESSF Monitoring and Assessment. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Project 2014/203. 342 pp.
Kuo, C.L., Tanaka, S. (1984). Distribution and migration of hoki Macruronus novaezelandiae (Hector) in waters around New Zealand. Bulletin of Japanese Society for Scientific Fisheries 50: 391-396.
Larcombe, J., Begg, G. (eds.) (2008). Fishery status reports 2007: status of fish stocks managed by the Australian Government, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
McAllister, M. K., Pikitch, E. K., Punt, A. E., and Hilborn, R. (1994). A Bayesian approach to stock assessment and harvest decisions using the sampling/importance resampling algorithm. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51: 2673–87.
Methot, R.D. (2011). User manual for Stock Synthesis Model Version 3.2. NOAA Fisheries Service, Seattle. 165 pp.
Methot, R.D., Wetzel, C.R. (2013). Stock Synthesis: a biological and statistical framework for fish stock assessment and fishery management. Fisheries Research 142: 86-90.
Punt, A.E., Day, J.R., Fay, G., Haddon, M., Klaer, N.L. etc. (2018). Retrospective investigation of assessment uncertainty for fish stocks off southeast Australia. Fisheries Research 198: 117-128.
Punt, A.E., Smith, D.C., Haddon, M., Russell, S., Tuck, G.N. and Ryan, T. (2015). Estimating the dynamics of spawning aggregations using biological and fisheries data. Marine and Freshwater Research 66: 1-15.
Punt, A.E., Smith, D.C., Thomson, R.B., Haddon, M., He. X., Lyle, J.M. (2001). Stock assessment of the blue grenadier Macruronus novaezelandiae resource off south eastern Australia. Marine and Freshwater Resources 52: 701-717.
Russell, S. and Smith, D.C. (2006). Spawning and Reproductive Biology of Blue Grenadier in South Eastern Australia and the Winter Spawning Aggregation off Western Tasmania. FRDC 2000/201.
Ryan, T.E., Kloser, R.J. (2012). Industry based acoustic surveys of Tasmanian West Coast blue grenadier during the 2010 spawning season. CSIRO and Petuna Sealord Pty. Ltd. March 2012.
Smith, A.D.M. (1994). Blue grenadier, Macruronus novaezelandiae. In R.D.J. Tilzey (ed.) The South East Fishery: a scientific review with particular reference to quota management, p. 137-148. Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra. 360 pp.
Smith, A.D.M., Smith, D.C., Tuck, G.N., Klaer, N., Punt, A.E., Knuckey, I., Prince, J., Morison, A., Kloser, R., Haddon, M., Wayte, S., Day, J., Fay, G., Fuller, M., Taylor, B., Little, L.R. (2008).
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 127 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Experience in implementing harvest strategies in Australia’s south-eastern fisheries. Fisheries Research 94: 373-379.
Sporcic, M., Haddon, M. (2018). Draft CPUE standardizations for selected SESSF Species (data to 2017). CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart. 331 pp.
Thomson, R.B., Klaer, N. (2011). South East Fishery data for stock assessment purposes. Technical document.
Tilzey, R., Goldsworthy, S., Cawthorn, M., Calvert, N., Hamer, D., Russell, S., Shaughnessy, P., Wise, B., Stewardson, C. (2006). Assessment of seal–fishery interactions in the winter blue grenadier fishery off west Tasmania and the development of fishing practices and Seal Exclusion Devices to mitigate seal bycatch by factory trawlers. FRDC Project No. 2001/008. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra.
Tuck, G. (2013). Stock assessment of blue grenadier Macruronus novaezelandiae based on data up to 2012. Slope/Deep Resource Assessment Group 6/8 November 2013, Hobart, Tasmania. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research.
Tuck, G.N., Smith, D.C and Talman, S. (2004). Updated stock assessment for blue grenadier Macruronus novaezelandiae in the South East Fishery: August 2004. Report to the Slope Fishery Assessment Group, August 2004.
Wayte, S.E. (ed.) (2009). Evaluation of new harvest strategies for SESSF species. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart and Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. 137 pp.
Whitten, A.R., Klaer, N.L., Tuck, G.N., Day, R. (2013). Accounting for cohort-specific variable growth in fisheries stock assessments: A case study from south-eastern Australia. Fisheries Research 142: 27- 36.
Principle 2
AFMA, 2012. Residual Risk Assessment of the Level 2 Productivity Susceptibility Analysis Non-Teleost and Non-Chondrichthyan SpeciesReport for the Otter Board Trawl Method of the Commonwealth Trawl Sector , Canberra: AFMA.
AFMA, 2015. Ecological Risk Management Strategy for the Southern and eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, Canberra
AFMA, 2017. AFMA Bycatch Strategy Mitigating protected species interactions and general bycatch 2017-2022, Canberra: AFMA.
AFMA, 2018a. Commonwealth Trawl Sector (Otterboard trawl & Danish Seine) Bycatch and Discarding Workplan 2018 - 2019, Canberra: AFMA.
AFMA, 2018b. 2018 Species Summaries for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, Canberra: Australian Fisheries Management Authority.
AFMA, 2019. Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2019, Canberra: Australian Fisheries Management Authority.
Althaus, F. et al., 2009. Impacts of bottom trawling on deep-coral ecosystems of seamounts are long- lasting. Marine Ecology Progress Series 397, Volume 379, pp. 279-294.
Clark, M. et al., 2012. (2012). Science priorities for seamounts: research links to conservation and management. PLoS One, 7(1).
Daume, S. & Brand-Gardner, S., 2016. Australia Blue Grenadier Fishery 2016 MSC Suveillance Audit Report, Emeryville, CA: SCS Global Services.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 128 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Daume, S. & Brand-Gardner, S., 2016. Australian Blue Grenadier Fishery 2016 MSC Surveillance Report, Emeryville, CA: SCS Global Services.
Daume, S., McLoughlin, K. & Brand-Gardner, S., 2014. Australia Blue Grenadier Fishery MSC Full- Assessment Public Certification Report, s.l.: SCS Global Services.
Department of Environment and Energy, 2019. Assessment of the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery February 2019, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia 2019.
Department of Environment, 2015. South-east marine region profile: A description of the ecosystems, conservation values, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Fulton, E., Smith, A. & Smith, D., 2007. Alternative Management Strategies for Southeast Australian Commonwealth Fisheries: Stage 2: Quantitative Management Strategy Evaluation., Canberra: AFMA.
Hiddink, J. G. et al., 2017. Global analysis of depletion and recovery of seabed biota after bottom trawling disturbance. PNAS, 114(21), pp. 8301-8306.
Kaiser, M. et al., 2006. Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series , Volume 311, p. 1– 14. .
Kloser, R., Ryan, T., Geen, G. & Lewis, M., 2007. Development of a sustainable industry-based acoustic observation system for blue grenadier at the primary spawning sites, Hobart: CSIRO.
Knuckey, I. & Liggins, G. W., 1999. Focussing on bycatch issues in Australia’s South East Trawl Fishery. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269576495_Focussing_on_bycatch_issues_in_Australiaapos s_South_East_Trawl_Fishery
Koopman, M. & Knuckey, I., 2017. Monitoring risks of Benthic Impacts of the Winter Spawning Blue Grenadier Fishery, s.l.: Fishwell Consulting.
MSC (2018a). MSC fisheries standard, v.2.1, 31 August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 133 pp.
MSC (2018b). MSC guidance to fisheries standard, v.2.1, 31 August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 156 pp. Pierre, J., Gerner, M. & Penrose, L., 2014. Assessing the effectiveness of seabird mitigation devices in the trawl sectors of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery in Australia, Canberra: AFMA.
Pitcher, C. et al., 2015. Predicting benthic impacts & recovery to support biodiversity management in the South‐east Marine Region, Canberra: Marine Biodiversity Hub, National Environmental Research Program, Final report 2011–2015. Report to Department of the Environment..
Pitcher, C. et al., 2018. Putting potential environmental risk of Australia's trawl fisheries in landscape perspective: exposure of seabed assemblages to trawling, and inclusion in closures and reserves, Canberra: CSIRO.
Pitcher, R. et al., 2016. Implications of current spatial management measures for AFMA ERAs for habitats, Canberra: Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.
Resources, D. o. A. a. W., 2018. Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy Framework for applying an evidence-based approach to setting harvest levels in Commonwealth fisheries, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee, 2019. Guidelines for assessing the conservation status of native species according to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000. [Online] 21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 129 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
Available at: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/d72dfd1a-f0d8-4699-8d43- 5d95bbb02428/files/tssc-guidelines-assessing-species-2018.pdf [Accessed 3 10 2019].
Tilzey, R. et al., 2006. Assessment of seal-fishery interactions in the winter blue grenadier fishery off west Tasmania and the development of fishing practices and Seal Exclusion Devices to mitigate seal by catch by factory trawlers, Canberra: Bureau of Rural Sciences.
Tingley, G., 2014. An assessment of the potential for near-seabed mid-water trawling to contact the seabed and to impact benthic habitat and vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs)., Wellington: Ministry for Primary Industries.
Wayte, S. et al., 2007. Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing: Report for the otter trawl sub-fishery of the Commonwealth trawl sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, Canberra: Australian Fisheries Management Authority.
Williams, A., Bax, N. & Barker, B., 2006. Integrating fishing industry knowledge of fishing grounds with scientific data on seabed habitats for informed spatial management and ESD evaluation in the SESSF, Hobart: CSIRO.
Williams, A. et al., 2010. Seamount megabenthic assemblages fail to recover from trawling impacts. Marine Ecology, pp. 1-17.
Zhou, S., F. M. & Daley, R., 2012. Sustainability assessment of fish species potentially impacted in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery: 2007-2010, Hobart: CSIRO.
Principle 3
ABARES (2019). Fishery status reports 2019. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research- topics/fisheries/fishery-status-2019
AFMA (1999) Fisheries Administration Paper (FMP) No.7 - Information and Advice for Industry Members on AFMA Committees. https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/uploads/2014/09/FisheriesAdministration-Paper-7- Information-and-Advice-for-Industry-Members-on-AFMACommittees1.pdf
AFMA (2015) Ecological Risk Management Strategy for the SESSF https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/11/SESSF-ERM-Strategy-2015.pdf
AFMA (2017a) National Compliance 2017-2019 Risk Assessment Methodology. https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/05/National-Compliance-Risk-Assessment- Methodology-2017-19.pdf
AFMA (2017b) Guide to AFMA’s Ecological Risk Management. https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/08/Final-ERM-Guide_June-2017.pdf
AFMA (2018a), Management Advisory Committee, 2018. https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/revised_fmp1_to_reflect_legislativ e_changes_- _october_2018.pdf
AFMA (2018b), Resource Assessment Groups. https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/fap12_to_reflect_legislative_chang es_and_economic_advice_-_october_2018.pdf
AFMA (2018c) Commonwealth Trawl Sector Bycatch and Discarding Workplan 18-19. https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/cts_bycatch_and_discarding_workplan_2018- 19_0.pdf .
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 130 of 131
21_390EN MSC Announcement Comment Draft Report
AFMA (2018d) National Compliance and Enforcement Program 2019-20. https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/default/files/afma_- _national_compliance_and_enforcement_program_2019-20_fa-tagged-final.pdf
AFMA (2019a) South East Scalefish and Shark Fishery Harvest Strategy https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/default/files/sessf_harvest_strategy_framework_2019_amendment. pdf
AFMA (2019b). SESSF Management Arrangements Booklet 2019. https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/sessf_management_arrangements_booklet_2019_final_up dated_july_2019.pdf
ANAO (2013) Administration of the Domestic Fishing Compliance Program. The Auditor-General Audit Report No.20 2012-2013, Performance Audit. https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/net2446/f/201213%20Audit%20Report%20No%2020.pdf
Borthwick, D (2012). Review of Commonwealth Fisheries: Policy, Legislation and Management, DAFF, http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/fisheries/fisheriesreview/commonwealth- fisheries-management-review-report.pdf
DAWR (2018a). Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy. Framework for applying an evidence-based approach to setting harvest levels in Commonwealth fisheries. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/domestic/harveststrategypolicy
DAWR (2018b). Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy: Framework for managing the risk of fishing- related impacts on bycatch species in Commonwealth fisheries. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/environment/bycatch/review
DoE (1992). National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/esd/publications/national-esdstrategy
DoEE (2007). Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries. https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/97ff9461-5ccf-49cb-9368- 8bde5f243c0b/files/guidelines.pdf
DoEE (2019) Assessment report for the SESSF https://www.environment.gov.au/marine/fisheries/commonwealth/scalefish
Knuckey, I., Penney, A., Haddon, M., Pascoe, S., Boag, S., Koopman, M., Corrie, D., Day, G., Rayns, N and Hutton, T. (2017). Strategic Review of SESSF Monitoring and Assessment. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Project 2014. https://www.frdc.com.au/ArchivedReports/FRDC%20Projects/2014-203-DLD.pdf
Weier, A., and Loke, P. (2007). Precaution and the Precautionary Principle: two Australian case studies, Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper, Melbourne.
21_390EN / Approval Date: 23/10/19 Page 131 of 131