8950 Martin Luther King Jr. Street North, Suite 202 St. Petersburg, FL 33702 USA Tel: (727) 563-9070 Fax: (727) 563-0207 Email: [email protected]

President: Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.

South East Australia Small Pelagic Fishery (Commonwealth)

Blue Mackerel (Scomber australasicus) Jack Mackerel (Trachurus declivis) Redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus)

Mid-Water Trawl

MSC Fishery Assessment

Final Report and Determination

Prepared for Ridley Agriproducts Pty Ltd.

MRAG Americas, Inc. 16 July, 2019

Authors: Richard Banks, Mihaela Zaharia, Cameron Dixon and Amanda Stern-Pirlot

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 1

Project Code: US2619 Issue ref: Final Report and Determination Date of issue: 16 July 2019 Prepared by: R. Banks, C. Dixon, M. Zaharia, A. Stern-Pirlot Checked/Approved by: Jodi Bostrom

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 2

Contents

Contents ...... 3 Glossary of Abbreviations ...... 6 1 Executive Summary ...... 8 2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 12 2.1 Peer Reviewers ...... 13 3 Description of the Fishery ...... 15 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 15 3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) ...... 15 3.1.2 Final UoC(s)...... 15 3.1.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 16 3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 17 3.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) 17 3.2 Overview of the Fishery ...... 17 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 19 3.3.1 Assessment of Target Species against Key Low-Trophic Level Criteria ...... 19 3.3.2 Biology and Life History ...... 20 3.3.3 Harvest Strategy and Harvest Control Rules ...... 24 3.3.4 Assessment of Stock Status ...... 30 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 32 3.4.1 Primary Species Outcome (PI 2.1.1) ...... 35 3.4.2 Primary Species Management (PI 2.1.2) ...... 37 3.4.3 Primary Species Information (PI 2.1.3) ...... 39 3.4.4 Secondary Species Outcome (PI 2.2.1) ...... 40 3.4.5 Secondary Species Management (PI 2.2.2) ...... 41 3.4.6 Secondary Species Information (PI 2.2.3) ...... 42 3.4.7 Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species (ETPs) Outcome (PI 2.3.1) .... 43 3.4.8 ETP Species Management (PI 2.3.2) ...... 62 3.4.9 ETP Species Information (PI 2.3.3) ...... 72 3.4.10 Habitat Outcome (PI 2.4.1) ...... 76 3.4.11 Habitat Management (PI 2.4.2) ...... 85 3.4.12 Habitat Information (PI 2.4.3) ...... 87 3.4.13 Ecosystem Outcome (PI 2.5.1) ...... 89 3.4.14 Ecosystem Management (PI 2.5.2) ...... 95

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 3

3.4.15 Ecosystem Information (PI 2.5.3) ...... 97 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 98 3.5.1 Legal and Customary Framework (PI 3.1.1) ...... 98 3.5.2 Roles and Responsibilities and Consultation (PI 3.1.2) ...... 101 3.5.3 Long Term Objectives (PI 3.1.3) ...... 106 3.5.4 Fishery Specific Management Objectives (PI 3.2.1) ...... 111 3.5.5 Decision-Making Processes (PI 3.2.2) ...... 114 3.5.6 Compliance and Enforcement (PI 3.2.3) ...... 115 3.5.7 Monitoring and Management Performance Evaluation (PI 3.2.4) ...... 122 4 Evaluation Procedure ...... 124 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 124 4.2 Previous Assessments ...... 124 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 124 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 124 4.4.1 Site Visits ...... 124 4.4.2 Consultations...... 126 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 127 5 Traceability ...... 129 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 129 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 129 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 131 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 131 5.4.1 Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) Catches ...... 131 5.4.2 Request to Allow an Exemption to Detailed Requirements for IPI Stocks ..... 132 6 Evaluation Results ...... 134 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 134 6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 134 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 135 6.4 Recommendations ...... 135 6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 135 6.6 Changes in the Fishery Prior to and since Pre-Assessment ...... 135 7 References ...... 136 Appendices ...... 150 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 150 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 150 Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs ...... 262

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 4

Appendix 1.3 Conditions...... 262 Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports ...... 265 Peer Reviewer A General Comments ...... 265 Peer reviewer A Specific PI Comments ...... 268 Peer Reviewer B General Comments ...... 274 Peer Reviewer B Specific PI Comments ...... 276 Appendix 3 Stakeholder Submissions ...... 287 Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency ...... 302 Appendix 5 Objections Process ...... 303

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 5

Glossary of Abbreviations

AAT Administrative Appeals Tribunal ABARES Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences ACAP Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels AFZ Australian Fishing Zone AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority BMEY Biomass at Maximum Economic Yield BMSY Biomass at Maximum Sustainable Yield CCSA Conservation Council for South Australia CDR Catch and Disposal Record CEBEL Cetacean Ecology Behaviour and Evolution Lab (Flinders University) CFMMWG Commonwealth Fisheries Marine Mammal Working Group CMS Convention on Migratory Species CoA Commonwealth of Australia CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation CTS Commonwealth Trawl Sector CTW Closed Technical Workshop CUZ Coastal Upwelling Zone DAWR Department of Agriculture and Water Resources DEE Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy DEPM Daily Egg Production Method EAC East Australian Current EGAB Eastern Great Australian Bight ENGO Environmental Non-Government Agency EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act ERA Ecological Risk Assessment ERAEF Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing ERM Ecological Risk Management ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development ETBF Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected species FCR Fishery Certification Requirements FMA Fisheries Management Act FMS Fisheries Management Strategy FMSY Maximum rate of fishing mortality FRDC Fisheries Research and Development Corporation GAB Great Australian Bight GES Good Environmental Status GSI Gonadosomatic Index HCR Harvest Control Rules HSP Harvest Strategy Policy IPI Inseparable or Practically Inseparable stocks ITQ Individual Transferrable Quota IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IVMP Individual Vessel Management Plan LTL Low Trophic Level LRP Limit Reference Point MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation ND Not Dates NEZ Nutrient Enrichment Zone NSW New South Wales

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 6

NT Northern Territory OCS Offshore Constitutional Settlement OMC Operations Manager Compliance PBR Potential Biological Removal PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment RAG Resource Assessment Group RBC Recommended Biological Catch RBF Risk Based Framework RBS Relative Benthic Status SARDI South Australian Research and Development Institute SASF South Australian Sardine Fishery SAW Sub-Antarctic water SED Seal Excluder Device SEMAC South East Management Advisory Committee SESPF South East Small Pelagic Fishery SESSF Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery SFR Statutory Fishing Rights SICA Scale, Intensity, Consequence Analysis SPF Small Pelagic Fishery SSJF Southern Squid Jig Fishery SST Sea Surface Temperature TEP same as ETP TAC Total Allowable Catch TAE Total Allowable Effort TAP Threat Abatement Plan TSSC Threatened Species Scientific Committee UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem VMP Vessel Management Plan VMS Vessel Monitoring System

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 7

1 Executive Summary

This Final Report and Determination sets out the results of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment of the South East Australia small pelagic fishery (commonwealth) mid- water trawl fishery against the MSC Fisheries Standard for sustainability.

MRAG Americas was contracted in 2018, by Ridley Agriproducts Pty Ltd to undertake the initial MSC assessment of the South East Australia small pelagic fishery (commonwealth) mid-water trawl fishery. The assessment was undertaken in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0 and using the MSC Guidance to MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0 which sets out the assessment and certification process. The default assessment tree contained within FCR v2.0 and also FCR v2.01 were used to evaluate the fishery. V 2.01 is the most current version (though substantively itentical to V2.1) and where page numbers are referenced, these are as in V2.01 (MSC 2018a).. As a result, to date, the following steps have been undertaken: • Announcement of the assessment • Appointment of the assessment team • Notification on the use of the assessment tree • Notification and undertaking of the site visit • Production of the client draft report that describes the background to the fishery, the fishery management operation and the evaluation procedure and results • Production of the Peer Review Report • Response to Peer Review comments, and report revisions where necessary • Production of the Public Comment Draft Report • Response to stakeholder comments on the Public Comment Draft Report • Review by MRAG Americas’ qualified nominated Reviewer and Decision Maker • Consultation on the Final Report and Determination • Production of the Public Certification Report

The assessment of the fishery was performed by Cameron Dixon (Principle 1 Team Member), Mihaela Zaharia (Principle 2 Team Member), Richard Banks (Principle 3 Team Member), and Amanda Stern-Pirlot (Team Leader).

A site visit was conducted in Melbourne, Australia from 6-8 February 2019. During that time the assessment team met with scientists, fishery managers and stakeholders as well as the vessel owner and client representatives. Recreational fisheries stakeholders requested a meeting with the team, which was held during the site visit via teleconference, and the NSW Department of Primary Industries spoke with the team and provided a letter shortly following the site visit. The results of both are summarized in Appendix 3. No written submissions were received ahead of the site visit by other stakeholders.

The following strengths and weakness were identified with respect to each Principle:

Principle 1

Strengths: Although the UoA species have been harvested for over three decades, the Small Pelagic Fishery is effectively a developing fishery, with historic and current exploitation rates well

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 8

below sustainable levels. This provides a sound basis for the implementation of conservative management arrangements as the fishery grows. Despite low historic production, there has been considerable interest in the fishery and the UoA target species and there is a sound research history. The ecosystem modelling and Management Strategy Evaluation work of Smith et al (2015) underpins the management framework. These models examined a range of scenarios to determine sustainable exploitation that were well below FMSY. The current Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) are based on this work and they act to reduce exploitation rate as the uncertainty in the stock assessment increases. The HCRs are designed to ensure that there is a high probability that stocks will remain above B50% over a 50-year period. Other elements of the harvest strategy reflect the strong management framework for Commonwealth fisheries that is also shared by the MSC certified Northern Prawn Fishery and MSC certified Blue Grenadier Fishery. Management is underpinned by both input and output controls. All vessels in the SFP require VMS and there is a high level of compliance. AFMA runs an independent observer program and the UoC vessel also requires 100% electronic monitoring. Spawning biomass surveys have been conducted historically for all three UoA species and 5-yearly surveys are required to maintain the maximum exploitation rates determined under the HCRs. The status of stocks is assessed annually and a Scientific Committee makes TAC recommendations following the HCRs and the information provided in the annual Fishery Assessment Report, which includes catches of UoA species from all other sectors.

Weaknesses: The main weaknesses of the system relate to the developing nature of the fishery. The UoC vessel has harvested consistently for the last three years and these data provide the only consistent trends in catch, effort, CPUE and size and age frequencies for the fishery. Thus, while biomass surveys are conducted every five years, there is currently limited information to inform changes in stock status annually, at least until enough data has been collected to provide a robust basis for the development of performance measures. Also, the HCRs have one weakness. At Tier 1, where maximum exploitation rates can be applied as long as a spawning biomass estimate is no longer than 5 years old and an annual stock status assessment is done, there is no mechanism to reduce exploitation rate as PRI is approached. Finally, while all components of the work have been internally reviewed, to date there has been no external review of the stock assessment.

Principle 2

Strengths:

• Mid-water trawl method of fishing is very selective, with all non-target catch contributing less than 2% to the total catch; thus the SESPF UoAs impacts on primary and secondary species are minimal. • Mid-water trawl does not regularly contact the sea bottom, therefore the impact on benthic habitats is minimal. • The UoAs interact with few ETP species, mainly seals and dolphins and there are comprehensive strategies in place to minimise the impacts on these species. • There are escalating consequences following ETP interactions, which serve as a deterrent for fishers misbehaviour and as incentive for individual responsibility to avoid interactions.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 9

• Most ETP interactions involve fur seals, species with expanding populations, and the level of interaction is significantly lower than the estimated PBRs. • Studies using underwater videos have shown that a much higher number of seals interact with the trawl gear compared to the number of seals caught, the seal excluder device (SED) being effective in allowing most seals to escape alive. • Causes for dolphin interactions were identified and addressed, with no recurring interactions due to the same issue (i.e. common dolphin interactions were due to gear malfunction, the issue having been addressed immediately; bottlenose interactions were due to fishing at night in low visibility, which led to a voluntary measure to fish only during daylight). • Benthic ecological assemblages were mapped and used as surrogates for habitat mapping relative to demersal trawl footprints for the entire Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ). • Ecosystem modelling studies have shown that small pelagic species targeted by the SESPF are not key elements in the ecosystem and the current TAC levels do not negatively impact higher predators or the ecosystem overall.

Weaknesses: • Although Pitcher et al predict benthic assemblages at a scale of 0.01o and these are used as surrogates for habitats at mesoscale, only potential risk can be assessed not actual habitat risk. This is due to a lack of information on susceptible habitat components within assemblages and their fine‐scale distribution relative to trawling (Pitcher et al 2018). • No reliable population abundance estimates are available for dolphin species and genetic structures of these populations are not fully understood. • Ecological models are at a spatial scale that is less finely resolved than is required to identify adverse impacts of localized depletion, although at the current level of exploitation localized depletion is unlikely.

Principle 3

The legal and customary framework implemented through the Fisheries Management Act (FMA) of 1991 and Fisheries Management Regulations 1992, the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 and the Fisheries (Administration) Regulations 1992, and Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999, and Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements clearly demonstrate that there is an effective national legal system and binding procedures governing cooperation with other parties which delivers management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The Australia Government and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority have set out processes to deal with prospective legal disputes, but provide several means by which to challenge governance actions if required. Customary rights are protected through the application of the Native Title Act, 1993.

Roles and responsibilities are clearly demarcated between policy and implementation through the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority respectively. Formal consultation processes exist through annual public processes, but the main vehicle for consultation leading to the application of fisheries specific strategies is through Management Advisory Committees, as supported by the

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 10

Resource Assessment Groups or Scientific Panel. These systems, allied when required to other consultation vehicles, provide opportunity for all affected parties. Clear long-term objectives are explicit in Australia’s Commonwealth environmental and fisheries laws, which apart from the FMA and EPBC Act, include the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (DoE, 1992a) and the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, 1992 (DoE, 1992b). Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan 2009 reinforces the long-term objectives of the FMA as the long-term objectives of the Plan. Fishery specific (short -term) objectives are identified in the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy (2017), and these are reviewed on a regular basis and contain well defined measurable indicators. A fishery specific by-catch action plan conforms to the requirements as laid down in the EPBC Act, 1999 and the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries, 2007.

Decisions on the implementation of the policy are taken by the AFMA Commission, following advice from SEMAC, as well as AFMA officers. The harvest strategies and control rules incorporate a precautionary approach to the decision-making process by requiring a review when the target reference level is not met. The frequency of evaluation (both annually and in-season) and review means that management action to investigate and, where required, alleviate adverse impacts on stocks is always taken before the performance indicators reach the limit reference level. The application of the research, monitoring and evaluation within the SPF Management Plan, Harvest Strategy and Bycatch Work Plan provides a good tool to assess the relative risks to target species, bycatch and ETP species, initiating when appropriate, actions to deal with at risk species. Examples of precautionary actions include setting precautionary TACs, and the application of ETP excluder devices. AFMA and SARDI provide a comprehensive range of reports which confirm fishery performance and how management has responded to findings from recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. AFMA applies a robust compliance system founded on the basis of risk assessment profiling and a strong focus on educational awareness. The tools applied include an array of control measures such as VMS tracking, observer coverage, daily logbooks and electronic monitoring. There is a robust sanction system in place. No non compliance actions have been detected in recent years. All management entities are subject to regular internal and external review processes. Based on the information available to date, the South East Australia small pelagic fishery (Commonwealth) mid-water trawl fishery achieved overall scores of 86.7 for Principle 1 (all species), 90.0 for Principle 2 and 100.0 for Principle 3. As such, the fishery is recommended for certification against the MSC Standard, as no indicator scored less than 60, and all average principle scores were above 80.

One condition was raised with respect to Performance Indicator 1.2.2 for all target species, which must be closed with the Performance Indicator reaching the SG80 level by the 4th annual surveillance audit.

Two recommendations were raised under Principle 1. Firstly, the rules regarding the timing of surveys in relation to TAC setting should ensure that Tier 1 and Tier 2 decision rules are enforced once survey data become 5 years old (i.e. not 5 years + time lag due to reporting of survey results). Secondly, the stock assessment should be externally peer-reviewed within the certification period (5 years).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 11

2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers

The South East Australia small pelagic fishery (Commonwealth) mid-water trawl fishery assessment team consisted of four individuals: Cameron Dixon (Principle 1 Team Member), Mihaela Zaharia (Principle 2 Team Member), Richard Banks (Principle 3 Team Member), and Amanda Stern-Pirlot (Team Leader).

Dr. Cameron Dixon (P1). Cameron Dixon works as a senior fisheries consultant at MRAG Asia Pacific. His recent work includes Marine Stewardship Council assessment and peer review, most recently as a team member on the South Australia sardine MSC full assessment. In addition, he has undertaken independent reviews of fisheries assessed against the Coles’ Responsible Sourcing Seafood Assessment framework and the World Wildlife Fund’s Ecological Sustainability Evaluation of Seafood framework. Cameron is currently the Chair of the Northern Territory’s Coastal Line Fishery Management Advisory Committee, and is a Technical Advisor for FisheryProgress.org. Prior to becoming a consultant, he worked as a Senior Fisheries Scientist for 20 years in South Australia and Victoria, during which time he completed his PhD with Melbourne University researching density-dependence in abalone stocks.

Ms. Mihaela Zaharia (P2). Mihaela Zaharia earned her M Sc. in Biological and Ecosystem Sciences. Her relevant experience includes involvement as a marine science researcher for Poseidon Aquatic Resources Management Consultants Ltd and National Institute for Marine Research and Development (Gr. Alntipa). Ms. Zaharia was the P2 Assessor for both the Spencer Gulf and Northern Prawn Fishery as well as the South Australia Sardine fishery, and also participated as a team member in a number of pre-assessments on clam, tuna, blue swimming crab and tropical prawn assessments and Fisheries Improvement Plans and prepared Risk Based Framework templates for the MSC. In addition to her employment history, Ms. Zaharia has also contributed several publications on fishery biology and science.

Mr. Richard Banks (P3). Richard Banks has considerable MSC experience having served as the Lead Assessor for four prawn trawl fisheries in Australia and on the PNA free school skipjack full assessment. Richard has also designed several fishery improvement plans in South East Asia and the Pacific, and acted as external reviewer to a number of MSC assessments on behalf of WWF. Richard currently works as an advisor to Parties to the Nauru Agreement. Richard is an economist and fisheries management and policy programming specialist having worked on similar issues for international agencies, Commonwealth and State Fisheries. Richard holds a bachelor’s degree in Fisheries Economics and a Masters in Agricultural Economics from the University of Portsmouth, and Wye College, London, respectively.

Ms. Amanda Stern-Pirlot (Team Leader). Amanda is an M.Sc. graduate of the University of Bremen, Center for Marine Tropical Ecology (ZMT) in marine ecology and fisheries biology. Ms. Stern-Pirlot joined MRAG Americas in mid-June 2014 as MSC Certification Manager (now Director of the Fishery Certification Division) and is currently serving on several different assessment teams as team leader and team member. She has worked together with other scientists, conservationists, fisheries managers and producer groups on international fisheries sustainability issues for over 15 years. With the Institute for Marine Research (IFM-GEOMAR) in Kiel, Germany, she led a work package on simple indicators for sustainable within the EU-funded international cooperation project INCOFISH, followed

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 12

by five years within the Standards Department at the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) in London, developing standards, policies and assessment methods informed by best practices in fisheries management around the globe. Most recently she has worked with the Alaska pollock industry as a resources analyst, within the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council process, focusing on bycatch and ecosystem-based management issues, and managing the day-to-day operations of the offshore pollock cooperative. She has co-authored a dozen publications on fisheries sustainability in the developing world and the functioning of the MSC as an instrument for transforming fisheries to a sustainable basis.

2.1 Peer Reviewers Geoff Tingley

Dr Geoff Tingley has over 30 years’ experience in academia, government and the private sector, mostly working in marine & freshwater fisheries research and applied fisheries management. His long-term focus has been on improving the sustainability of fisheries world-wide, using tools such as the MSC certification scheme and fishery improvement projects (FIPs) with Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP).

Dr Tingley has been a Principal Scientist at both Cefas in the UK, and then at New Zealand’s Ministry of Primary Industries, where he provided advice on the science & management of deepwater and inshore fisheries both within the EEZ and for the NZ high seas fisheries in the Pacific. This included abundance estimation and stock assessments of hoki, orange roughy, ling, hake, sharks, squid & rock lobster, as well as understanding and mitigating the environmental impacts of fishing. He chaired a Deepwater Fisheries Assessment Working Group and provided advice on fisheries science & management both within the Ministry and to industry.

Dr Tingley has also advised on MSC certification, including stock status (P1), ecosystem elements of by-catch, benthic, ecosystem and ETP impacts (P2) and fisheries management (P3) (including hake, ling, orange roughy, oreo, squid). He was also Head of the NZ Delegation to the Scientific Committee of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) and a NZ Delegate to the SPRFMO Commission. He also initiated and then chaired the MPI South Pacific Fisheries Assessment Working Group to support the science process underpinning the work for SPFRMO.

Chris Grieve

Chris Grieve has 25+ years’ experience in fisheries management and policy-making from local to global levels. First as research assistant to Australian stock assessment scientists, then the manager of complex Australian demersal trawl and dredge fisheries. She moved to the UK in 2000 to lead the Sustainable Fisheries Policy Research Program for a London-based think tank where the mission was influencing change in the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy. In 2002, Chris became International Policy Director for the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) to lead MSC’s work on standards, certification and accreditation, governing bodies and developing world fisheries. Chris’s role evolved to become Associate Director between 2005 and 2010 after she established Meridian Prime as a consulting company with a diverse portfolio of work. Chris led and participated in work on the development, evolution and implementation of the MSC standard and certification requirements. She has also led and participated in sustainable fisheries-related projects for client organisations in the UK, across Europe and the USA. Chris has been team member on fishery assessments and surveillance audits under the MSC certification scheme; and is an approved independent peer reviewer for MSC’s Peer Reviewer College. On a consultancy basis, Chris is Executive Director Standards & Impact of the EDGE Certified Foundation: a Swiss-based, global certification scheme focusing on gender equality in the workplace. Chris served until recently as a Board Director for WOCAN (an international non- profit focusing on gender equality in natural resource management in the global south) and was on the

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 13

founding Advisory Board of Ocean Outcomes (a US-based non-profit focusing on sustainable fisheries). Chris was a founding Trustee and Vice Chair of the ISEAL Alliance, the global sustainability standards organization; and a statutory-appointed member of two Australian fisheries management public boards.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 14

3 Description of the Fishery 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought 3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) The units of Assessment (UoA) for this fishery are as follows: Target Stocks: 1. Blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus) EAST 2. Jack mackerel (Trachurus declivisi) EAST 3. Redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus) EAST Method of Catch: Midwater board trawl Management Australian Commonwealth managed Small Pelagic Fishery These UoAs were chosen because they describe the fishery under assessment.

The proposed Units of Certification are as follows: Target Stocks: 1. Blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus) EAST 2. Jack mackerel (Trachurus declivisi) EAST 3. Redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus) EAST Method of Catch: Midwater board trawl Management Australian Commonwealth managed Small Pelagic Fishery Eligible vessel and Saints Antonio and Guiseppe (one vessel) landing product in processor Ulladulla for processing by Stockfeeds Australia Pty Ltd in Moruya NSW There are currently no other eligible fishers identified as this is the only midwater trawl vessel presently operating in this fishery. MRAG Americas has determined that this fishery is within scope for assessment against the MSC Fisheries Standard for sustainability according to the scope criteria as specified in MSC FCR v2.0 section 7.4 and subsections.

3.1.2 Final UoC(s) (PCR ONLY)

The PCR shall describe:

a. The UoC(s) at the time of certification. b. A rationale for any changes to the proposed UoC(s) in section 3.1(c). c. Description of final other eligible fishers at the time of certification.

(References: FCR 7.4.8-7.4.10)

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 15

3.1.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data

Table 1. Blue Mackerel TAC and Catch Data

TAC Year 17-18 Amount 12,090 t UoA share of TAC Year 17-18 Amount 100% UoC share of total TAC1 Year 17-18 Amount 100% Total green weight catch by Year (most 17-18 Amount 2,858 t UoC recent) Year (second 16-17 Amount 1,248 t most recent)

Table 2. Jack Mackerel TAC and Catch Data

TAC Year 17-18 Amount 18,880 t UoA share of TAC Year 17-18 Amount 100% UoC share of total TAC Year 17-18 Amount 100% Total green weight catch by Year (most 17-18 Amount 2,748 t UoC recent) Year (second 16-17 Amount 3,966 t most recent)

Table 3. Redbait TAC and Catch Data

TAC Year 17-18 Amount 3,410 t UoA share of TAC Year 17-18 Amount 100% UoC share of total TAC Year 17-18 Amount 100% Total green weight catch by Year (most 17-18 Amount 10 t UoC recent) Year (second 16-17 Amount 101 t most recent)

1 Because this is an ITQ fishery the UoC has access to 100% of the quota (lease or buy additional quota) but they do not have 100% share by default. This goes for all three species.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 16

3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries This is not an enhanced fishery.

3.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) This fishery is not based on introduced species.

3.2 Overview of the Fishery

The following overview of the fishery is primarily adapted from Ward and Grammer (2018).

The Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) is a mid-water trawl and purse seine fishery that operates in Commonwealth waters (from 3 to 200 nm offshore) from southern Queensland to south-western Western Australia, including Tasmania (Figure 1, AFMA 2009). The fishery is divided into two sub-areas (East and West) by a line through longitude 146°30'E (Figure 1, AFMA 2009). The three UoA species under assessment are based in the eastern sub-area. Sardines are also an important target species of the fishery in some regions, but are not assessed here. In the eastern sub-region, the three UoA species are managed in a multijurisdictional manner (i.e. managed by both the Australian and state governments) under Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements.

Figure 1. Management sub-areas of the Small Pelagic Fishery. The three UoA species are broadly distributed throughout southern Australian waters. Jack mackerel is widely distributed throughout coastal waters of southern Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, they occur along the southern coast from Shark Bay in Western

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 17

Australia to Wide Bay in Queensland, including the waters around Tasmania (Gomon et al. 2008). They are found to depths of 500 m, but are most abundant over the continental shelf to 200 m (Pullen 1994). Blue mackerel occur throughout the Pacific Ocean, including South East Asia, Australia and New Zealand, and in coastal and continental shelf waters of the northern Indian Ocean and Red Sea (depths up to 200m). In Australia, blue mackerel are found in subtropical and temperate waters from Queensland to Western Australia (Ward et al. 2001a, Gomon et al. 2008). Juveniles and small adults usually live in inshore waters, while larger adults form schools in depths of 40–200 m across the continental shelf (Kailolaet al. 1993). Redbait are widely distributed throughout the southern hemisphere, with the species reported from Tristan da Cunha in the southern Atlantic, the south-western coast of South Africa, St Paul and Amsterdam Islands, mid-oceanic ridges and seamounts through the Indian Ocean, Australia, New Zealand, submarine ridges in the south-eastern Pacific, and the southern coast of Chile (Markina and Boldyrev 1980, Meléndez and Céspedes 1986, Parin et al. 1997). Within Australian waters, their range extends from mid New South Wales to south-west Western Australia, including Tasmania (Gomon et al.2008). They inhabit depths from the surface to >800 m, though are mostly recorded from mid-water trawls in 100–400 m water (Heemstra and Randall 1977, Smith and Heemstra 1986, Mel'nikov and Ivanin 1995). A large-scale purse seine fishery for small pelagic fishes was first developed off Tasmania in the mid-1980s. Most of the catch was jack mackerel (Trachurus declivis), with relatively small quantities of redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus) and blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus) taken as by-product. The fishery was the largest in Australia by weight, with catches of jack mackerel peaking at 39,747t in 1986/87 (Kailola et al. 1993, Pullen 1994), however by 1988/89 the catch fell to 8,150 t (Kailola et al. 1993, Pullen 1994). Purse seine operations targeting jack mackerel continued through the 1990s but ceased in 2000. Mid-water trawling intended to target sub-surface schools of jack mackerel off Tasmania was first trialled in 2001/02, however 90% of the 5000 t harvest from December 2001 and April 2002 was redbait. A multi-purpose 50 m mid-water trawler was then used to target small pelagic fishes from late 2002 onwards. By mid-2003, more than 7,000 t of small pelagic fishes (predominately redbait) had been taken. Trawl effort declined in the late 2000s, whereas small-scale purse seine operations for jack mackerel continued into the early 2010s (Emery et al. 2015). It is thought the long-term trend in production throughout the history of the fishery for jack mackerel is likely the result of a combination of changes in fish availability/abundance and market/economic factors (Ward and Grammer 2018). Several authors have documented large inter-annual variability in oceanographic conditions in the southern part of the East Australian Current (e.g. Harris et al. 1992, Young et al. 1993, McLeod et al. 2012), which may contribute to changes in relative abundance of surface schools of small pelagic species such as jack mackerel and their availability to the fishery. The apparent shift from jack mackerel to redbait as the dominant small pelagic fish in this region during the 1990s may have resulted from changes in food availability caused by environmentally-driven changes in the plankton assemblage (Harris et al. 1992, Young et al. 1993, McLeod et al. 2012). Catches of blue mackerel have been historically low in the SPF. Blue mackerel is also taken in several other fisheries with annual catches typically <3,000 t (Ward et al. 2001a, Ward and Grammer 2017). The New South Wales commercial purse seine fishery has targeted yellowtail scad and blue mackerel since the early 1980s (Stewart and Ferrell 2001). During that time, blue mackerel typically comprised ~38% of the total annual catches. The average

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 18

annual catch of blue mackerel in Victorian waters between 1978/79 and 2004/05 was 49 t (±22.9 t) with catches ranging between 0.2 and 370.6 t per annum (Ward and Rogers 2007). TACs were introduced for the Tasmanian component of the SPF prior to the implementation of the SPF Management Plan in 2009 (AFMA 2009). A combined species TAC for the Tasmanian component of the fishery was set at 42,000 t in 1988/89, based on the highest annual catch from the purse seine fishery (Jordan et al. 1992; Pullen 1994). The TAC was decreased to 34,000 t in 2002/03 with the renewed interest in small pelagic species and the commencement of mid-water trawl operations. Despite catches not approaching this level, the TAC was applied in subsequent fishing seasons up until 2008/09 when the SPF was split into East and West sub-areas. Under the SPF Harvest Strategy (AFMA 2008), species and sub- area specific TACs were established. Input controls include a fixed number of Statutory Fishing Rights (SFRs). Until recently, minimal catch and effort in the Commonwealth SPF have reflected a lack of markets and processing facilities. The operation of a factory trawler in the 2014–15, 2015–16 and 2016–17 seasons led to increased catches. The factory trawler left the fishery during the 2016–17 season (AFMA 2016a), and the UoC vessel has been the primary vessel operating in the fishery thereafter.

3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background 3.3.1 Assessment of Target Species against Key Low-Trophic Level Criteria Under Principle 1 of the FCR, key Low-Trophic Level (LTL) species are assessed differently for stock status, where the status of the stock must explicitly consider the needs of the ecosystem. The three target species assessed here are blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus), jack mackerel (Trachurus declivis), and redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus), with their respective families being Scombridae, Carangidae and Emmelichthyidae. Blue mackerel are listed as a default key LTL species under MSC FCR v2.0 (MSC 2014, Box SA1, Genus scomber). While jack mackerel and redbait are not listed as default key LTL species in the FCR, as they fill a similar ecological niche to blue mackerel in the ecosystem, all three species are assessed here against the MSC’s key Low-Trophic Level species criteria. SA2.2.9 of FCR 2.0 (MSC 2018a) defines the stock as a key LTL species if in its adult life cycle phase the stock holds a key role in the ecosystem, such that it meets at least two of the following sub-criteria: i. A large proportion of the trophic connections in the ecosystem involve this stock, leading to significant predator dependency; ii. A large volume of energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock; iii. There are few other species at this trophic level through which energy can be transmitted from lower to higher trophic levels, such that a high proportion of the total energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock (i.e., the ecosystem is ‘wasp-waisted’). Criterion (i) – Connectivity: GSA2.2.9 indicates that connectivity can be assessed against a “SURF” index determined from ecosystem studies, stating “SURF values of less than 0.001 will normally indicate a non-key LTL stock. SURF values of greater than 0.005 will normally indicate a key-LTL stock” (MSC 2018a).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 19

Lack et al. (2014) present SURF estimates of <0.0001, 0.0005 and 0.0002 for blue mackerel, jack mackerel and redbait, respectively, for the eastern region of the SPF (i.e. the UoA). These values are below the 0.001 threshhold, suggesting that these stocks are not considered to be key LTL stocks. Criterion (ii) – Energy Transfer: GSA2.2.9 indicates that energy transfer can be empirically determined as the Consumer Biomass Ratio, which is “calculated as the biomass of the candidate key LTL stock, divided by the biomass of all consumers in the ecosystem” (MSC 2018a). Bulman et al (2011) developed ecosystem models for southern Australian ecosystems that support the SPF. Energy transfer could be determined from the basecase model for the eastern region of the SPF. The biomasses of both redbait and jack mackerel were estimated in the model and represented 1.3% and 3.5%, respectively, of total consumer biomass. These levels were below the 5% threshold level (MSC 2018a). While the biomass of blue mackerel was not estimated independently in the model, Ward and Grammer (2017) estimated that the spawning biomass of blue mackerel was approximately half that of jack mackerel in the eastern region of the SPF. Criterion (iii) – Wasp-waistedness: GSA2.2.9 requires that there are few other species at this trophic level through which energy can be transmitted from lower to higher trophic levels, such that a high proportion of the total energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock (i.e., the ecosystem is ‘wasp-waisted’) (MSC 2018a). Lack et al. (2014) discuss the type of trophic control operating in the food web of the region of the SPF UoA. Bulman et al. (2011) investigated the dynamics of food web control in the region and found that these systems are largely bottom-up forced, with some top-down forcing also present in the region. Ecosystem modelling suggested that reducing the abundance of mesopelagic fishes and krill affected more groups to a greater extent than reductions in small pelagic fishes (Bulman et al. 2011, Smith et al. 2011). Based on this information, Lack et al. (2014) concluded that there was little evidence of wasp-waistedness in the system supporting the UoA. In addition to the three key criteria above, other evidence exists to support the position that the redbait, jack mackerel and blue mackerel caught in the UoA are not key LTL species in the eastern Australian ecosystem. Firstly, Smith et al (2015) estimated equilibrium BMSY as ranging from 30-35% of unfished levels for all three species, which approximates the default reference levels for non-LTL species (i.e. B40%). Secondly, the Atlantis ecosystem model developed by Smith et al (2015) suggested that whether singly or in combination, depleting the target species in the SPF has only minor impacts on other parts of the ecosystem. Finally, stocks that are subject to annual catches <50,000 t are generally considered to be non-LTL stocks unless they are taken from unusually small ecosystems (MSC 2018a) and catches of each of these species are well below these levels. On this basis, jack mackerel, blue mackerel and redbait are assessed as against the default settings for Principle 1.

3.3.2 Biology and Life History The following has been modified from Ward and Grammer (2018). Blue mackerel Blue mackerel occur throughout the Pacific Ocean, including South East Asia, Australia and New Zealand, and in coastal and continental shelf waters of the northern Indian Ocean and Red Sea (depths up to 200m). In Australia, Blue mackerel are found in subtropical and

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 20

temperate waters from Queensland to Western Australia and are the only species from this genus in these waters (Ward et al. 2001, Gomon et al. 2008). Juveniles and small adults reside inshore, while adults form large schools in depths of 40–200 m (Kailola et al. 1993). The genus Scomber (family Scombridae) historically included three species: blue mackerel (S. australasicus), chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus), and Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus). However, S. australasicus and S. japonicus have proved to be more closely related to each other than to S. scombrus, and morphological and genetic differences in Atlantic and Indo-Pacific populations of S. japonicus warranted recognition of two separate species (Scoles et al. 1998). Atlantic chub mackerel (Scomber colias) was identified through further genetic analyses and replaces S. japonicus in the Atlantic Ocean (Infante et al. 2006, Catanese et al. 2010). Thus, two closely related species occur in the Indian and Pacific Oceans: S. japonicus and S. australasicus, and two closely related species are found in the Atlantic Ocean: S. scombrus and S. colias. The Australian east coast and west coast blue mackerel populations are thought to be genetically separate stocks (Ward and Rogers 2007, Schmarr et al. 2011). An additional stock in southern Australia has tentatively been identified through differentiation with otolith microchemistry and parasite analyses (Ward and Rogers 2007, Schmarr et al. 2011). Significant differences in the morphology of monogenean parasites distinguished fish from Australia and New Zealand (Rohde 1987), however, genetic differences were not been found between blue mackerel from Australia and New Zealand using mtDNA RFLP analysis and cytochrome b sequencing (Scoles et al. 1998). Blue mackerel are pelagic omnivores, feeding mainly on krill, fish and gelatinous nekton (Bulman et al. 2001, Daly 2007, Bulman et al. 2011). Mackerel (Scomber spp.) alter their feeding behaviour and ingestion rates depending on prey size and density (Prokopchuk and Sentyabov 2006, Garrido et al. 2007). Age estimation of blue mackerel can be problematic (Stewart et al. 1999, Ward and Rogers 2007, Marriott and Manning 2011), although the otoliths have been successfully used to estimate annual ages in Australia (Stewart and Ferrell 2001, Ward and Rogers 2007). Juveniles grow rapidly and reach ~250 mm fork length (FL) after ~2 years of life (Ward and Rogers 2007). Blue mackerel reach sizes of up to 440 mm FL in the GAB and are estimated to attain ~8 years (Stevens et al. 1984). Commercial catches of blue mackerel taken off southern New South Wales contained mostly 1 to 3-year-old fish and included individuals up to 7 years old (Stewart and Ferrell 2001). Blue mackerel are serial spawners, and spawn multiple times over a prolonged spawning season with 50% sexual maturity occurring around 237 mm FL for males and 287mm FL for females (Ward and Rogers 2007, Rogers et al. 2009). Spawning takes place from summer to early autumn and late winter to spring in New South Wales (Ward and Rogers 2007, Ward et al. 2015b). Mean spawning frequencies range from 2 to 11 days in southern Australia. Mean batch fecundity is ~70,000 oocytes per batch and 134 oocytes per gram of weight (Rogers et al. 2009). Fecundity increases exponentially with fish length and weight. Most of the eggs collected off southern and eastern Australia have been obtained from the mid-shelf. High egg and larval densities are recorded at depths >50 m with sea surface temperatures (SST) of 18- 22°C (Ward and Rogers 2007, Ward et al. 2015b). The location of spawning off southern Australia appears to vary substantially among years.

Jack mackerel

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 21

Jack mackerel belong to the family Carangidae, which includes 140 species representing 32 genera (Nelson 2006). There are 65 species in Australian waters; eight species from four genera inhabit temperate waters (Gomon et al. 2008). The genus Trachurus contains 13 species; three of these species are found in Australia: T. declivis, T. murphyi and T. novaezelandiae. Jack mackerel is widely distributed throughout coastal waters of southern Australia from Shark Bay in Western Australia to Wide Bay in Queensland (Gomon et al. 2008) and is found to depths of 500 m but are most abundant over the continental shelf to 200 m (Pullen 1994). There is some evidence to suggest that at least two populations of Jack mackerel occur within Australian waters, whilst a third occurs in New Zealand. Analysis of morphometric measurements and meristic counts showed a significant difference between east Australian fish and those from the Great Australian Bight (GAB) (Lindholm and Maxwell 1988). Genetic studies have found no significant differences between southern New South Wales and eastern Tasmanian populations, however there was some uncertainty in this result as there appeared to be temporal differences in the mtDNA of two sperate samples from Eastern Tasmania (Smolenski et al. 1994). Distinct genetic differences between the GAB and New Zealand have been described (Richardson 1982). In an extensive review of available biological, environmental and fishery data, Bulman et al. (2008) concluded that Jack mackerel from eastern Australia, including eastern Tasmania, were likely to be a separate sub-population to those from west of Tasmania, which includes the GAB and Western Australia. While no specific movement studies have been conducted, a correlation between size and depth is evident that suggests offshore movement with increasing size (Shuntov 1969, Stevens et al. 1984, Kailola et al. 1993, Pullen 1994). Dietary composition varies seasonally (Bulman et al. 2008) though they mostly feed on aquatic crustaceans (Shuntov 1969, Stevens et al. 1984, Bulman et al. 2008, McLeod et al. 2012) with krill accounting for ~44% of the diet in Jack mackerel from eastern Tasmania (Webb 1976, Williams and Pullen 1986, McLeod et al. 2012). In deeper waters they also feed on mesopelagic fish (Maxwell 1979, Blaber and Bulman 1987) and minor quantities of other prey items (Stevens et al. 1984, Blaber and Bulman 1987, McLeod et al. 2012). Jack mackerel reach a maximum of 470 mm fork length (FL), 1 kg in weight and 17 years of age (Last et al. 1983, Williams and Pullen 1986, Lyle et al. 2000, Browne 2005). In Tasmania, Jack mackerel reach 270 mm TL within their first 4 years and 335 mm TL by 10 years, with no significant difference in growth between males and females (Lyle et al. 2000). Jack mackerel are serial spawners (Marshall et al. 1993, Neira 2011), and mean spawning fraction (proportion of mature females spawning per day/night) is estimated at 0.056 (range: 0.0 to 0.134) in Australian waters (Ward et al. 2015a, 2016). Estimates of spawning fraction equate to a mean spawning frequency of 17.9 days (range: 7.5-142.9 days). Mean batch fecundity has been estimated at ~63,000 eggs for fish from eastern Tasmania (Neira 2011) and ~34,000 eggs for fish along the eastern Bass Strait (Ward et al. 2015a, 2016). Both male and female Jack mackerel off south-eastern Australia are reported to be sexually mature at ~270 mm (Webb 1976), with 50% of females ≥315 mm FL undergoing vitellogenesis during the spawning season (Marshall et al. 1993). Spawning occurs in spring along most of the New South Wales coastline (Maxwell 1979, Keane 2009), and during summer in south-eastern Australia (Eden, New South Wales to St. Helens, Tasmania). Mean gonadosomatic index (GSI) values for females off eastern Tasmania increase substantially in November and remain high until January, before declining

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 22

in February (Williams and Pullen 1986; Ward et al. 2011). Spawning follows a semi-lunar cycle, where peak activity is associated with both full and new moons (Jordan 1994).

Redbait Redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus, Richardson 1845) belong to the family Emmelichthyidae, and is one of two species of emmelichthyid found off southern Australia (Last et al. 1983, May and Maxwell 1986, Gomon et al. 2008). Emmelichthyids generally school over continental shelf breaks, seamounts and submarine ridges and inhabit depths from the surface to >800 m, though are mostly recorded from mid-water trawls in 100–400 m water (Heemstra and Randall 1977, Smith and Heemstra 1986, Mel'nikov and Ivanin 1995). Redbait are widely distributed throughout the southern hemisphere, reported from Tristan da Cunha in the southern Atlantic, the south-western coast of South Africa, St Paul and Amsterdam Islands, mid-oceanic ridges and seamounts through the Indian Ocean, Australia, New Zealand, submarine ridges in the south-eastern Pacific, and the southern coast of Chile (Markina and Boldyrev 1980, Meléndez and Céspedes 1986, Parin et al. 1997). Within Australian waters, their range extends from mid New South Wales to south-west Western Australia, including Tasmania (Gomon et al. 2008). There have been no studies on the stock structure of redbait in Australia, however eastern Australia is thought to be a single stock based on spawning dynamics (Bulman et al. 2008), while the situation for western Tasmania and the GAB is less clear. Neira et al. (2008) observed that Redbait from eastern and south-western Tasmania exhibit biological differences. Redbait captured on the shelf off eastern Victoria (unspecified size) had a varied diet that was dominated by pelagic crustaceans and other invertebrates, including gelatinous zooplankton (Bulmanet al. 2000, Bulman et al. 2001). Similarly, redbait captured off eastern Tasmania consumed mainly pelagic crustaceans, with krill and copepods comprising 66% and 33% of the diet, respectively (McLeod et al. 2012). Since redbait and jack mackerel form mixed species schools in Tasmanian waters (Williams and Pullen 1993), it is not surprising the two species feed on similar prey. The maximum reported size for female and male redbait from Tasmania is 317 and 304 mm FL, respectively (Neira et al. 2008), which is considerably smaller than reported in other areas. Redbait grow to 335 mm FL off eastern Victoria (Furlani et al. 2000), 344 mm standard length (SL) off the coast of Chile (Meléndez and Céspedes 1986) and to 493 mm TL in South African waters (Heemstra and Randall 1977, Meyer and Smale 1991). Redbait are observed to school by size and stratify by water depth, with larger (>200mm FL) individuals found deeper and closer to the seafloor (Markina and Boldyrev 1980). Redbait display rapid early growth (Williams et al. 1987, Neira et al. 2008), reaching >200 mm FL in the first three years, with growth slowing thereafter (Neira et al. 2008). The maximum estimated age for Redbait is 21 years for females and 18 years for males (Neira et al. 2008). Redbait is an asynchronous batch spawner with indeterminate fecundity. Annual trends in GSI and macroscopic gonad stages indicated that redbait from eastern Tasmania spawn between September and November, with a peak in activity during September and October (Ewing and Lyle 2009). A similar pattern was evident for south-western Tasmania, although the peak occurred one month later between October and November (Ewing and Lyle 2009). Spawning occurs along a 2.5 nautical mile (nm) corridor either side of the continental shelf break when mid-water temperatures are 12 to 15.2°C (Neira et al. 2008).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 23

Redbait display regional differences in size and age at sexual maturity with males and females from south-western Tasmania maturing ~100 mm larger and two years older than redbait from eastern Tasmania (Ewing and Lyle 2009), although there was some uncertainty in these estimates due to possible sampling bias.

3.3.3 Harvest Strategy and Harvest Control Rules The MSC definition of Harvest Strategy is “The combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management actions, which may include an MP or an MP (implicit) and be tested by MSE” (MSC 2018a). The MSC definition of a Harvest Control Rule is “A set of well-defined pre-agreed rules or actions used for determining a management action in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to reference points” (MSC 2018a). It should be noted that documentation for the SPF refers to the Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) as the “Harvest Strategy”. The HCRs are documented in the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy2. The SPF fishery is managed with input and output controls including gear restrictions, vessel restrictions and a total allowable catch (TAC) (AFMA 2009). The harvest strategy includes: licence limitation; a TAC; Statutory Fishing Rights (SFRs) and Individual Transferrable Quotas (ITQs); spatial management of the catch; gear restrictions; closed areas; a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS); a well-managed compliance program; an on-board observer program; electronic monitoring; fishery-independent egg surveys; an ecosystem model and; species-specific population models to inform a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE). The management arrangements for the SPF are detailed in the Small Pelagic Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet3. The elements relevant to P1 include: • Approved fishing methods • Statutory Fishing Rights (SFRs) conditions • Transfer and lease of quota SFRs • Area closures and spatial catch management arrangements • Scientific research • Licencing • Quota conditions (e.g. undercatch/ overcatch) • Data collection (e.g. logbooks) • Fishery Observers, and • VMS

Key elements of the harvest strategy and HCRs are described in the following sections.

3.3.3.1 Management Strategy Evaluation A review and update of “harvest strategy settings” for the Small Pelagic Fishery was published in 2015 (Smith et al 2015). The report examined the three UoA species plus sardines for the south-eastern (i.e. the UoAs) and western regions of Australia, separately.

2 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/04/SPF-Harvest-Strategy_April- 2017_FINAL.pdf 3 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/05/Final-SPF-Management- Arrangements-Booklet-2018.pdf

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 24

Firstly, an ecosystem model was developed for the fishery (Atlantis-SPF) based on the Atlantis SE model, which is one of the most sophisticated and well understood ecosystem models globally (Smith et al 2015). The results suggested that if a single UoA species was heavily exploited, the effect on species other than small pelagic species (and especially any effects on predators) is minimal. Further, high exploitation rates of all UoA species combined also concluded that impacts on the broader ecosystem were minimal (i.e. the ecosystem is robust to high exploitation rates of the UoA species). Equilibrium BMSY for these species ranged from about 30 to 35% of unfished levels. While it is not uncommon for highly productive species to have a BMSY below 40%, Smith et al (2015) recommended to accept the default values from the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy4 (HSP) of BMSY set at B40 (i.e. 40% of unfished levels) and the default target set at 1.2 times this level, close to B50. It was recommended to adopt a target reference point of BMEY (i.e. B50%) and a limit reference point at B20, in line with the HSP default settings. Secondly, single species population models were then developed for each UoA species. The target refence point for the models was set at B50% (i.e. 50% depletion) with only an 8% probability of falling below B20% in 50 years. The primary aim of the study was to determine exploitation rates that were sustainable over the long term, with the target reference point being substantially more conservative than exploitation rates at BMSY (i.e. FMSY). Seven performance measures were used to evaluate the performance of the different control rules and the impact of the sensitivity analyses on performance. Nine different management scenarios were considered in the MSE. Key outcomes from the MSE and sensitivity studies included: • The sensitivity studies for jack mackerel and blue mackerel were robust with the only scenario that breached the Harvest Strategy Policy (HSP) occurring when DEPM surveys for jack mackerel were done every 10 years. Scenario studies for redbait proved problematic. • Exploitation rates determined as those that would maintain stocks at B50% were: Jack mackerel 12%, blue mackerel 23%, redbait 9%. • The harvest rates that achieve 50% depletion were effectively identical for surveys conducted every two years versus five years. • When DEPM survey results are more than five years old, the risk of falling below the reference points increase to unacceptable levels. Exploitation rates need to be at least halved to maintain acceptable levels of risk. However, it is generally not safe to apply these harvest rates for long periods of time unchecked, particularly for blue mackerel.

3.3.3.2 Harvest Control Rules, catch by other sectors and TAC The Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy is reviewed every three years. The recent 2018 update of the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy5 was based on the results of Smith et al (2015). While Smith et al (2015) recommended that B50% and B20% be adopted for target and limit reference points, respectively, biological reference points have not been set for the fishery because the fishery is still in a developmental stage and there are insufficient reliable data upon which to base meaningful reference points. Instead, the “reference points” for the HCRs

4 http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/domestic/harvest_strategy_policy 5 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/04/SPF-Harvest-Strategy_April- 2017_FINAL.pdf

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 25

are based on uncertainty in the information available for assessment, specifically the frequency of DEPM surveys and annual fishery assessments. The maximum exploitation rates for the SPF were based on Smith et al (2015), with annual exploitation rates of 15% for blue mackerel, 12% for jack mackerel and 10% for redbait selected in the HCRs. The more conservative estimates for blue mackerel were selected because of uncertainty regarding some of the biological parameters. The maximum exploitation rate for redbait was chosen as 10%, which was the level suggested for the western stock. While this is 1% higher than that suggested for the south-eastern stock, it is noted that redbait exploitation rates are highly unlikely to reach these levels as redbait are only caught as a byproduct during targeted jack mackerel and blue mackerel fishing and current exploitation levels are <1% (see 3.3.4). The HCRs have 3 Tiers which are described in the Small Pelagic Harvest Strategy Policy as: Tier 1 Tier 1 applies if a biomass estimate is available from a DEPM assessment within the last five years. In this situation the maximum species and zone specific exploitation rate can be applied to that biomass estimate to obtain the RBC. These exploitation rates were developed in Smith et. al. 2015. Tier 2 Tier 2 applies if a fishery assessment has been conducted but the most recent DEPM is more than 5 years old and less than 10 years old (blue mackerel) or 15 years old (Jack mackerel and Redbait). In this situation half the maximum exploitation rate is applied to the most recent biomass estimate to obtain the RBC. Tier 3 Tier 3 applies if catch and effort data is reviewed but any DEPM biomass estimate exceeds the age required by Tier 2. Where an older DEPM is available a quarter of the maximum exploitation rate is applied to that estimate to obtain the RBC. Otherwise an eighth of the maximum exploitation rate is applied to the Atlantis biomass estimate (Smith et. al. 2015). As stated previously, in the developmental stages of the fishery there has been insufficient information to determine meaningful performance indicators, thus the HCRs have been designed to directly reflect the MSE work of Smith et al. (2015). The modelling indicates that as the uncertainty of falling below the suggested reference points increases to unacceptable levels, reductions in exploitation rate are required. This has been addressed through the Tiered system in the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy Policy, with reductions in exploitation as the fishery moves from Tier 1 to Tier 2 and from Tier 2 to Tier 3. At Tier 1, the modelling results indicate that as long as survey estimates are provided every five years, a constant harvest fraction is sufficient to ensure that the biomass will be highly unlikely to reduce below reference levels. The Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy Policy also defines what the Annual Fishery Assessment must include: • length–frequency and age information from catches for each stock fished. Guidelines have been developed on the quantity of length–frequency data and otolith information required on an ongoing basis • updated catch and effort data • information on changes in spatial and temporal patterns of effort and catch.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 26

The Policy states “The Annual Fishery Assessment should aim to provide evidence suitable for detecting stock depletion, localised depletion or changes in the size and age structure of the catch that cannot be adequately explained by reasons other than a decline in abundance.” Details on the estimates for spawning biomass are provided in the next section (1.1.3.3). Application of the HCRS leads to a TAC being determined annually by the Small Pelagic Fishery Scientific Panel. Firstly, Recommended Biological Catches (RBCs) are determined based on biomass estimates and the appropriate species–specific harvest rate. Recommended TAC’s are calculated by subtracting any significant known sources of mortality from the RBCs. Adjustments for catches taken in other fisheries are based on the Panel’s best estimate of future catch in other fisheries (e.g. average of recent recorded annual catches). Blue mackerel has been harvested from the New South Wales commercial purse seine fishery since the early 1980s (Stewart and Ferrell 2001). There is a current TAC of 757.8 t6 however catches have not reached half of this level in the fishery’s history. Average annual catch of blue mackerel in Victorian waters between 1978/79 and 2004/05 was 49 t (±22.9 t) with catches ranging between 0.2 and 370.6 t per annum (Ward and Rogers 2007). The Tasmanian Purse Seine Fishery first reported landings of blue mackerel in 1985/86 with a catch of 587 t (1984/85: 0 t; Pullen 1994). From 1984/85 to 1989/90, blue mackerel represented <4% of the total annual catch of small pelagic fishes in Tasmania (Pullen 1994). Species-specific information was not available for other years. Blue mackerel are also an important baitfish species for recreational fishers in Australia (Henry and Lyle 2003), with estimates of annual catch by the recreational sector in Australia being 228 t (Ward and Rogers 2007). Estimates of total annual catch for south-east jack mackerel include small catches from the NSW Ocean Fisheries (Hauling, Trap and Line, Trawl), NSW Estuary General Fishery, Victorian Ocean Purse Seine Fishery, Tasmanian Scalefish Fishery and the Commonwealth SPF. Small quantities of SPF species are caught in other Commonwealth fisheries, primarily the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery and the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (Moore and Skirtun 2012), however catches are less than 40 t per year and are not included in the assessment of the fishery (Ward and Grammer 2018). Recreational fishers target jack mackerel using rod and line, and troll lines in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The Australian National Survey of Recreational and Indigenous Fishing (Henry and Lyle 2003) estimated that boat-based recreational fishers harvested 740,260 Jack mackerel and Scads (combined) in 2000/01, with an estimated weight of ~94 t per annum (Ward and Rogers 2007). While redbait was previously a key by-product species in the Tasmanian Purse Seine Fishery for jack mackerel in the mid-1980s and a target species for mid-water trawler in the 2000s, current commercial catches outside of the SPF are negligible. The total catch of redbait currently includes minor catches from NSW ocean fisheries, the Victorian Ocean Purse Seine Fishery and the Tasmanian Scalefish Fishery. There is no known recreational fishery for redbait in Australia. Current TACs for the SPF7 are provided below (note UoAs relate to sub-area Eastern). Jack mackerel and blue mackerel TACs are set under Tier 1 rules, however current exploitation rates are within the Tier 2 level at <4% and <3%, respectively. The redbait TAC is set under the Tier 2 HCRs (last DEPM biomass survey conducted in 2006), although it is currently

6 https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/737135/OUT17-34615-Ocean-Hauling- Purse-Seine-Net-Fact-Sheet.pdf 7 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00337

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 27

operating at Tier 3 levels because it is only caught as a byproduct species (currently <1% exploitation rate).

3.3.3.3 Estimates of biomass from the Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM) The Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM) was originally developed for stock assessment of northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax, off the west coast of North America (Parker 1980) and has been regularly used to estimate the spawning biomass of sardine in South Australia since 1995 (Ward et al. 2015). DEPM surveys have been conducted for the East Australian stocks of blue mackerel (2004 and 2014), redbait (2005 and 2006) and jack mackerel (2002 and 2014). Both the annual and daily egg production methods have been used to estimate the spawning biomass of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the north-eastern Atlantic Ocean (Gonçalves et al. 2009). The method uses data from the collection of pelagic eggs during fishery-independent surveys to estimate the biomass of spawning adults by dividing total daily egg production by mean daily fecundity (Lasker 1985). The DEPM can be applied to fishes that spawn multiple batches of pelagic eggs over an extended spawning season (e.g. Parker 1980) and has been used for stock assessment of at least 15 species of small pelagic fishes, mostly clupeoids (Ward et al. 2017a). The key assumptions of the DEPM survey methodology as: 1) surveys are conducted during the main (preferably peak) spawning season; 2) the entire spawning area is sampled; 3) eggs are sampled without loss and identified without error; 4) levels of egg production and mortality are consistent across the spawning area; and 5) representative samples of spawning adults are collected during the survey period (Parker 1980; Alheit 1993; Hunter and Lo 1997; Stratoudakis et al. 2006). The key uncertainties of DEPM spawning biomass estimates include: 1) estimation of total daily egg production (P0) and spawning area (A) (Fletcher et al. 1996; McGarvey and Kinloch 2001; Ward et al. 2001b; Gaughan et al. 2004; Stratoudakis et al. 2006), and 2) difficulties obtaining representative samples of spawning adults for estimation of adult reproductive parameters, especially spawning fraction (S) (see Stratoudakis et al. 2006). DEPM estimates of spawning biomass are considered to be accurate, however they are a notoriously imprecise measure (Alheit 1993; Hunter and Lo 1997; Stratoudakis et al. 2006), with Coefficients of Variation (CV) commonly >35% of the mean (Ward et al. 2017a). The DEPM is also currently considered the best technique available for this species off the west

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 28

coast of North America (e.g. Lo et al. 1996, 2005) and the western and southern coasts of Australia (Fletcher et al. 1996; Ward et al. 2001a; Gaughan et al. 2004). Despite these limitations, DEPM estimates of biomass are considered more appropriate than other commonly used approaches, such as acoustic techniques. Recently, a project was completed that examined issues associated with the precision of DEPM estimates for sardines in South Australia (Ward et al 2018b). While not directly related to the SPF UoAs, the results may improve future DEPM biomass estimates for jack mackerel, blue mackerel and redbait for the eastern SPF (note DEPM surveys are conducted by the same researchers as for SA sardine). Key outcomes of the project were identified as: 1) a new generalised egg staging method that has several advantages over previous egg staging systems; 2) refinements to methods used to identify samples where a zero count should be allocated to one or more egg cohorts; 3) identification of factors that cause the high levels of uncertainty associated with estimates of mean daily egg production (P0) and egg mortality (z); 4) confirmation that the log-linear model is the most precise method currently available for estimating P0 and z for Australian Sardine off South Australia; 5) a simulation model that can be used to evaluate the effects of key processes (e.g. sampling method) on the precision of estimates of P0 and z; and 6) recommendations to trial a new oblique plankton sampler that may improve the precision of future estimates of P0.

Estimates of blue mackerel spawning biomass An extensive study that included both the East and West sub-areas of the SPF investigated the application of a range of egg-based stock assessment methods for blue mackerel and concluded that blue mackerel was suitable for assessment using the DEPM (Ward and Rogers 2007, Ward et al. 2009). The preliminary estimate of spawning biomass, calculated from the ‘best’ estimate of each parameter, was 23,009 t (Ward and Rogers 2007). ‘Minimum’ and ‘maximum’ estimates ranged from 7,565 to 116,395 t. The ‘best’ estimate of spawning biomass was considered conservative due to both the approach used to estimate egg production (i.e. McGarvey and Kinloch 2001) and because the survey most likely occurred outside the peak spawning season in that region (Ward and Rogers 2007). A dedicated DEPM survey for south-eastern blue mackerel was then conducted in August/September 2014 (Ward et al. 2015b). Spawning biomass was estimated to be ~83,300 (95% CI = 35,100–165,000 t). The estimated spawning area for blue mackerel off eastern Australia was 17,911 km2, comprising 27.3% of the total area sampled (65,528 km2) (Ward et al. 2015b). Live blue mackerel eggs (n = 2,330) were collected from 70 of the 262 (26.7%) stations between Sandy Cape, Queensland to just south of Newcastle, NSW. Mean daily egg production (P0) was 35.1 eggs∙day-1∙m-2. The highest densities of blue mackerel eggs were recorded in waters just north of Coffs Harbour and off Port Stephens where SSTs ranged between 18 and 20°C. The 2014 estimates of egg production and spawning area were considered more likely to be robust than the 2004 levels. A repeat DEPM survey for blue mackerel is planned for 2020. The fishery is currently evaluated under Tier 1 of the Harvest Strategy.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 29

Estimates of jack mackerel spawning biomass During the late 1980s and early 1990s, considerable research effort was directed at describing the fisheries biology of jack mackerel, however, no successful method of assessing the size of the Jack mackerel resource was developed (Ward and Grammer 2018). Methods attempted included a combination of aerial surveys of surface-schooling fish, and hydro-acoustic surveys of surface and sub-surface schools on the shelf break (Jordan et al. 1992). A preliminary application of the DEPM estimated the spawning biomass of south-eastern jack mackerel between Sugarloaf Point and Cape Howe, New South Wales during October 2002 to be 114,000–169,000 t (Neira 2011). This estimate was considered imprecise due to a lack of locally collected, species-specific estimates of adult reproductive parameters. The first DEPM estimate for jack mackerel was then done in 2011 using samples collected off south- eastern Australia in 2002 and the 2004 blue mackerel survey (Neira 2011). The first dedicated application of the DEPM to south-eastern jack mackerel was undertaken in January 2014 between Eden, New South Wales and Triabunna, Tasmania and involved concurrent sampling of eggs and adults (Ward et al. 2015a). The estimate of spawning biomass of 157,805 t (95% CI = 59,570–358,731 t) was considered robust because it was based on reliable estimates of key adult parameters. The 2014 estimate is also within the range of estimates provided by Neira (2011) and within the range of plausible estimates of biomass suggested in ecosystem modelling (130,000 to 170,000 t, Fulton 2013). A repeat DEPM survey for jack mackerel was completed in 2018. The fishery is currently evaluated under Tier 1 of the Harvest Strategy.

Estimates of redbait spawning biomass Neira et al. (2008) described spawning habitat of redbait from egg, larval and environmental data collected over shelf waters between north-eastern Bass Strait and lower south-western Tasmania in 2005 and 2006. The DEPM was subsequently applied to estimate the spawning biomass of south-eastern redbait in these years (Neira et al. 2008, Neira and Lyle 2011). The survey extended from the north-eastern Bass Strait (38.8°S) to south of the Tasman Peninsula (43.5°S) and involved concurrent sampling of eggs and adults (Neira et al. 2008). Estimates of redbait spawning biomass were 86,994 t (CV:3.7) in 2005 and 50,782 t (CV:2.1) in 2006 (Neira and Lyle 2011). The estimates were considered negatively biased, as the surveys coveredless than half the known spawning area of redbait in south-eastern Australia (Neira and Lyle 2011). As there has been no DEPM survey within the last 5 years but the last survey is no more than 15 years old, the fishery is currently evaluated under Tier 2 of the Harvest Strategy.

3.3.4 Assessment of Stock Status Stock status is assessed in the Fishery Assessment Report against the implicit reference point of maximum exploitation rate as defined by Smith et al (2015). Current exploitation rate is calculated as the total catch (all sources combined) for each UoA species divided by the spawning biomass as estimated on the most recent DEPM survey. For jack mackerel east (i.e. the UoA) Ward and Grammer (2018) state “Recent catches of Jack Mackerel East are assessed as sustainable, as they were ~3% of the spawning biomass estimate in 2014 and below the Tier 1 exploitation rate for this stock of 12%”.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 30

For blue mackerel east Ward and Grammer (2018) state “Recent catches of Blue Mackerel East are assessed as sustainable, as they have been <2% of the estimate of spawning biomass for 2014 and below the Tier 1 exploitation rate for this stock of 15%”. For redbait east Ward and Grammer (2018) state “Recent catches of Redbait East are assessed as sustainable as they have been <1% of the estimated spawning biomass and below the Tier 2 exploitation rate for this stock of 5%”. Additional data for annual assessment as described in the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy include length and age–frequency of the catch and analyses of catch and effort data. Because this is a developing fishery, there are few trends in these measures that can be interpreted from the available data. Ward and Grammer (2018) state “variations are difficult to interpret due to changes in fishing effort, small sample sizes, and changes in fishing locations over time. Standardised protocols, particularly for ageing, are being established”. It is noted that the current UoC has operated in the fishery for three consecutive years and information on CPUE and size structure of the catch collected to date demonstrate stable trends that will likely provide a useful baseline for annual assessments in future years.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 31

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

SESPF operates in the eastern sub-area of the SPF fishing area, along the coast of NSW, SE Victoria coast, the eastern half of Bass Strait and the eastern half of Tasmania coastline. The managed area comprises marine environments with a wide range of geomorphological and oceanographic conditions that support a variety of marine communities. South-eastern Australian waters are characterised by low productivity although localised coastal upwelling zones (CUZs) as well as nutrient enrichment zones (NEZs) create high productivity regions, with high temporal variability, which support valuable fisheries of small pelagic fish, including the SESPF. Upwelling systems worldwide create high productivity regions which support large assemblages of small pelagic fish such as anchovies, sardines and mackerels and massive fisheries. The small pelagic fish functional group is an important link between the primary and secondary producers and the higher predators including the valuable wild tuna species and some other commercial species, as well as marine mammals and seabirds. In Australia, the small pelagic fish fauna is not as abundant as that of other regions of the world, implying a tighter control (Bulman et al, 2011), although ecosystem modelling studies have shown that the role of this functional group in Australia is not as important as in other regions (Smith et al, 2015). Mid-water trawl impact associates mainly with changes in the trophic structure through the removal of small pelagic species biomass. Other potentially significant impacts can occur on protected species stocks, through direct interactions with the gear or indirectly, through changes in the trophic structure. Mid-water trawl method of fishing, which targets fish aggregations, is very selective, in the sense that non-target species (bycatch) have very low percentage contributions to the total catch. Also, this fishing method does not have a significant impact on benthic habitats because the gear does not normally contact the sea bottom. Under Principle Two, the impacts of the SESPF on the ecosystem components and ecosystem overall and the management of these impacts are analysed and assessed against the MSC standard. Although the three target species are assessed as separate UoAs in this assessment, catch data verified by information from AFMA stakeholder interviews show that target species are caught together in various proportions, depending on seasonal variability of their distribution (AFMA, unpublished8, Josh Cahill pers com, February 2019). For this reason, the impact of the three UoAs on ecosystem components is considered equal, and the same scores apply to all three UoAs. The MSC’s core principle guiding the ecosystem standard is: Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends (MSC, 2018a, p.5). As a general management framework for ecosystem impacts, the SPF Management Plan (Australian Government, 2009) includes long-term objectives consistent with achieving the outcomes required by the MSC Standard for non-target species. These objectives are those stated in Section 3 of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Australian Government, 1991a). The objective referring to the protection of the ecosystem components, including primary, secondary and ETP species and habitats, requires AFMA to ensure:

8 confidential 2017-18 catch data for SESPF, in accord to the confidentiality of non-aggregated data clause in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Office of Parliamentary Counsel, 2017)

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 32

… that the exploitation of fisheries resources and the carrying on of any related activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development (which include exercise of the precautionary principle), 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 (Australian Gov, 1991a). Currently, AFMA manages SPF primary species under the SPF Harvest Strategy (AFMA, 2017a) consistent with Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy (DAWR, 2018a), while secondary species (general bycatch) and protected bycatch species are managed under AFMA’s Bycatch Strategy (AFMA, 2017b), consistent with the Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy (DAWR, 2018c). Management measures that are in place for achieving the objective stated in the Fisheries Management Act 1999 include: Input controls - limited entry in the fishery - fixed number of SFRs, - gear restrictions - minimum mesh size of 30 mm (AFMA, 2017e); - since April 2015, all boats over 130 metres in length are banned from undertaking fishing-related activities within the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ); - A current move-on trigger of 2 000 tonnes (all species combined) is in place, within a rolling 30-day period as the limit at which vessel/s must move out of a fishing grid (AFMA, 2018c). - Vessels greater than 130 metres cannot fish in this fishery. Output controls - Total Allowable Catch (TACs) or Total Allowable Effort (TAEs) for target and primary species (https://www.afma.gov.au/what-fishing-quota) Spatial Closures - For SPF concession holders, fishing is not permitted within three nautical miles of any state coastline (AFMA, 2018c). - Protected areas where mid-water trawl fishing is not permitted (AFMA, 2018c). - The SESPF overlaps with seven out of the eight marine parks from the Temperate East Network (Central Eastern, Gifford, Lord Howe, Solitary Islands, Cod Ground, Hunter, and Jervis), with a total area of 194,895 km2 and with six out of the 14 marine parks from the South-east Network (East Gippsland, Flinders, Freycinet, Beagle, South Tasman Rise and Huon), with a total area of 129,745 km2. Data Collection - AFMA requires accurate and comprehensive data collection that is used in stock assessments and to inform species TACs, or other species-specific management measures. Fishers must accurately record all the relevant information about each fishing operation and catch data in paper or electronic logbooks that are specific for mid-water trawl and eastern area. From January 2019, the use of electronic logbooks

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 33

is compulsory for SPF mid-water trawl. Skippers are also required to fill in Catch Disposal Record forms at landing and the quantities of fish landed are verified by the authorized fish receiver (CDRs) (AFMA, 2018c). - In addition to the fishery-dependent data collection, independent observers collect reliable and accurate data on fishing operations, and on catch composition for the retained or discarded parts of the catch (https://www.afma.gov.au/monitoring- enforcement/observer-program) - All vessels are required to be fitted with AFMA approved VMS units which must remain switched on at all times that the boat is nominated to a Commonwealth concession, including when in port or engaged in State fishing. VMS data allows knowledge of the spatial distribution of the catch and ensures compliance with spatial management measures (AFMA, 2018c). - Electronic monitoring (such as cameras), is used to verify logbooks data and it has been compulsory for mid-water trawl vessels since 2015 (https://www.afma.gov.au/news-media/news/review-gillnet-dolphin-mitigation- strategy-and-small-pelagic-fishery-dolphin). Ecological Risk Assessments (ERAs) - AFMA, working with CSIRO, undertakes regular risk assessments for all major Commonwealth fisheries, SPF mid-water trawl, included (Daley et al, 2007, AFMA, 2010, Zhou et al, 2009). The SESPF mid-water trawl has been recently reassessed under a revised Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing (ERAEF) framework (Bulman et al 2017)9

The sources of information used for this assessment are: Fishery-dependent - Catch and effort data from SESPF logbooks (provided by AFMA) and Catch Disposal Records (https://data.gov.au/dataset/0cd2ec97-d13c-4b02-8071- fd778fdcdee7/resource/81d3d265-b21a-4b05-b62d- c315beec771e/download/annual-cdr-catch-data-30-05-2018.xlsx); - ETP interaction data provided by AFMA and interaction reports (https://www.afma.gov.au/sustainability-environment/protected-species- management/protected-species-interaction-reports); - Interviews with AFMA and Industry stakeholders. Fishery-independent - Observer data on catch composition and ETP interactions; - Research studies by SARDI, CSIRO and other relevant research literature; - AFMA-CSIRO ecological risk assessments (ERAs) for each ecosystem component (target species, retained species (byproduct), discarded species (bycatch), habitats and communities); - DEE’s SPF assessments for accreditation under Part 13A of the EPBC Act (he SPF was reaccredited in October 2018);

9 Becomes public in March 2019

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 34

- DEE’s Expert Panel reports on a Declared Commercial Fishing Activity; - Interviews with stakeholders.

3.4.1 Primary Species Outcome (PI 2.1.1) Primary species are defined as species that are not identified as target species in the UoAs, and where each primary species is subject to fishery-specific management (in the UoA or in other overlapping fisheries), with established reference points (SA3.1.3, MSC, 2018a, p.27). The ‘main’ designation is given where either i) the catch of a species by the UoA comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA, or ii) the species is classified as ‘less resilient’, and the catch of the species by the UoA comprises 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA (MSC, 2018a, p. 32). The SESPF is a new, developing fishery. Even though historical data is available for the SPF since 2001, the effort in the fishery has been sporadic, and the fishery’s management and operations experienced significant changes, thus data sets for five most recent years (consistent with the MSC requirement, MSC, 2018b, p. 57) are not available. Nevertheless, from an analysis of the available catch data, current and historical, it is evident, with a high degree of certainty, that mid-water trawl method is very selective, in the sense that all non- target catch represents less than 2% of total catch (AFMA, unpublished10; AFMA and CDRs11; Tuck et al, 2013). Non-target species in the SESPF catch in 2017 and 2018 contributed less than 0.4% to total catch. In consequence, no species in the SESPF catch classifies as ‘main’ primary species. A list of currently identified primary species is presented in Table 1. Table 2 shows other potential primary species, which were identified from previous mid-water trawl catch from the SPF eastern sub-area (AFMA, unpublished 2015- 2016 catch data). Table 4. SESPF primary species sorted from the most to the least abundant (source: AFMA, unpublished catch data for 2017-18)

Common Name Latin Name Gould's Squid Nototodarus gouldi Gemfish Rexea solandri Redfish Centroberyx affinis Reef Ocean Perch Helicolenus percoides Silver Warehou Seriolella punctata Australian Sardine Sardinops sagax Striped Marlin Kajikia audax Alfonsino Beryx splendens Tiger Flathead Platycephalus richardsoni Jackass Morwong Nemadactylus macropterus

Table 5. Potential primary species identified from catch records from SPF eastern sub- area in the 2015 – 2016 period (source: AFMA, unpublished catch data for 2015-2016).

Common Name Latin Name

10 confidential 2017-18 catch data for SESPF, in accord to the confidentiality of non-aggregated data clause in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Office of Parliamentary Counsel, 2017) 11Catch Disposal Records, Available at https://data.gov.au/dataset/ds-dga-0cd2ec97-d13c-4b02-8071-fd778fdcdee7/distribution/dist-dga- 81d3d265-b21a-4b05-b62d-c315beec771e/details?q=

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 35

Blue Grenadier Macruronus novaezelandiae Blue Warehou Seriolella brama Common Sawshark Pristiophorus cirratus Mirror Dory Zenopsis nebulosus Pink Ling Genypterus blacodes Southern Sawshark Pristiophorus nudipinnis Swordfish Xiphias gladius Yellowfin Tuna Thunnus albacares

There is no specific requirement at SG80 for the Outcome PI for ‘minor’ primary species, thus SG80 is achieved by default. At SG100 it is required that these 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 there is at least 80% chance the stocks are above PRI (MSC, 2018b, p. 71). The PRI is interpreted as a point below which the recruitment might be impaired, and it can be analytically or empirically determined. In any case, the PRI cannot be less than 20% of the spawning stock level that would be expected in the absence of fishing or B0 (MSC, 2018a, p. 15). 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, 2018a, p. 29, MSC, 2018b, p. 51). All of the SESPF primary species are managed in overlapping AFMA managed fisheries (mostly in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF)). The limit reference points for AFMA managed species are in accord to the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and consistent with the MSC PRI (20% B0). All these species are assessed regularly for stock status and fishing mortality (AFMA, nd, Species12). Most SESPF ‘minor’ primary species stocks were assessed as sustainable at current fishing mortality (2018) and have shown long term sustainability (Helidoniotis et al, 2018). Striped marlin and yellowfin tuna and swordfish are not commonly caught in the SESPF UoAs, nevertheless, the eastern stocks of these species were assessed as sustainable in 2018 and they are managed as targets in AFMA’s Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (ETBF) (AFMA, nd, Species). Eastern gemfish, redfish and blue warehou stocks were assessed as ‘uncertain’ and fisheries are not allowed to target these species. The marginal contribution of the SESPF for 2017- 2018 cannot be calculated because information on catches of these species by other fisheries was not available at the time of this assessment. Catch data from previous years (2012-2016) suggest that SESPF catch contributes less than 5% to total catch of each of these species (AFMA unpublished and AFMA, nd, CDRs). According to the MSC guidance, when the stock abundance is uncertain, even if the total catch of a species in a given area is clearly hindering the recovery of that species, UoA catches of less than 30% of total catch from that stock would not hinder the recovery in a marginal sense (i.e. nothing the UoA does can change the situation of the stock (MSC 2018b, p. 60). In consequence, the SESPF does not hinder recovery of the species that are below PRI. All the requirements for this PI are met at SG100.

12 https://www.afma.gov.au/species

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 36

3.4.2 Primary Species Management (PI 2.1.2) All minor primary species are target species or ex-target species under recovery strategies in overlapping fisheries (e.g. SESSF, SSJF) and managed according to Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy, with a Limit Reference Point (LRP) of 0.2% B0 (DAWR, 2018a). Gould’s squid is the only species with no set TAC although there is a 2000t catch limit trigger for Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS, part of SESSF) and a 6000t limit trigger for the combined catch from jig and trawl gears, which warrant further investigation by AFMA to adjust the management of the species (AFMA, nd, Arrow Squid)13. All other primary species (which are target species in overlapping fisheires) are managed based on output controls in the form of Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs, granted as Statutory Fishing Rights (SFRs)) to the commercial fishery. ITQs are granted on a species by species (or stock by stock) basis. Some species TACs are set annually while others are multi-year TACs (but evaluated annually) (AFMA 2018g, Tuck, 2016a, 2016b). TACs are set based on stock assessments which produce estimates of the sustainable levels of catch termed the Recommended Biological Catch (RBC). Discards from Commonwealth fisheries and catches recorded from other jurisdictions (State and Territory commercial and recreational fishing catches) are subtracted from the RBC before a TAC is recommended to the AFMA Commission who is the decision maker. In areas where SESPF overlaps with the relevant sectors of the SESSF, mid-water trawl boats nominated to SPF SFRs must also be nominated to fishing concessions that allow access to trawl fishing in the SESSF fishery and the catch of SESSF managed species (AFMA, 2018- SPF booklet). Redfish, eastern gemfish, and blue warehou, which are minor primary species in the SESPF UoAs, are managed under rebuilding strategies (redfish rebuilding strategy, AFMA, nd, Redfish14; gemfish rebuilding strategy, AFMA, nd, Gemfish15; blue warehou rebuilding strategy, AFMA, nd, Blue Warehou16). The SESPF complies with these rebuilding strategies in the sense that incidental catches of these species are very low relative to their set TACs and relative to catches in other fisheries (see AFMA, nd, CDRs). AFMA has recently announced a move on rule for blue warehou (Simon Boag pers com April 2019). SPF catch is counted against each species TACs or limt triggers. SPF specific management measures for primary species are to comply fishing concessions that allow access to fish in overlapping fisheries where these species are target. In addition to species-specific measures, general operational measures that limit the intensity and the spatial distribution of the fishing effort such as limited entry, move-on trigger and spatial closures, limit the impact on primary species stocks. Gear restrictions, such as mesh size, limit the catch of juveniles from primary species stocks. VMS monitoring provides information on primary species catch distribution and on the level of compliance with spatial closures. Observer coverage of at least 20% of the effort for SPF mid-water trawl, allows the collection of reliable information on catch composition and identification of any increase in risk to primary species (e.g.any increase in percentage contribution to total catch). Fishers are provided with an annual management arrangements booklet (e.g. SPF Management Arrangements Booklet 2018-19, AFMA, 2018c) in order to promote compliance with the management measures in place. Overall primary species-specific

13 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/11/Arrow-Squid-FisheryHS.pdf 14 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/Redfish-rebuilding-strategy-2016.pdf, 15 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/SESSF-Eastern-Gemfish-Rebuilding-Strategy-20152.pdf, 16 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/Blue-Warehou-Rebuilding-Strategy-2014.pdf

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 37

measures and non-specific measures work together to minimise the impact of the SESPF on primary species and achieve the required outcome (i.e. maintain the stocks above PRI or not hinder recovery). AFMA evaluates annually the stocks of the species it manages, including all primary species stocks assessed here. In overlapping fisheries where these species are targeted, harvest strategies are tested through empirical testing (past performance, CPUE) and quantitative simulation testing (management strategy evaluation using computer modelling). Testing supports high confidence that the strategies for all primary species will work, based on information about the fishery and species involved. For the species under rebuilding strategy, the low proportions of these species catch that are taken in the SESPF, represent testing that the SESPF UoAs will not hinder recovery. AFMA seeks to achieve a level of compliance consistent with management measures that are in place by maximising voluntary compliance and creating effective deterrents to non- compliance. The AFMA’s National Compliance and Enforcement Program is conducted via the use of a risk-based approach which involves a series of steps to identify and assess non- compliance risks and then apply appropriate enforcement actions to mitigate these risks. AFMA oversees fishing activity in AFMA managed fisheries through the use of: - VMS tracking - observer coverage - daily logbooks - electronic monitoring No systematic non-compliance events related to primary species management were identified, and this represents clear evidence that the strategy for primary species is implemented successfully (AFMA, 2018d, see also Compliance in P3). Because some potentially caught minor primary species are sharks, a scoring issue dealing with shark finning needs to be scored. SESPF concession holders are granted permission to carry and process fish in this fishery according to the regulation 9ZO from Fisheries Management Regulations 1992 (Australian Government, 1992). Regulation 9ZO prohibits some ways of processing fish, including shark finning and requires that sharks are landed with fins attached. Compliance with shark finning regulations is monitored through high independent observer coverage and on-board electronic monitoring (cameras). In addition, the risk-based framework for compliance monitoring allows AFMA to identify non- compliance risks and implement compliance maintenance programs across managed fisheries. Shark finning was not identified as a compliance risk in recent assessments (AFMA 2018e). AFMA also maintains a general presence deterrence program involving in port and at sea targeted inspections in order to discourage non-compliant behaviour by fishers, and education programs to increase voluntary compliance (AFMA, 2018d). There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Scoring issue 2.1.2e, dealing with minimising the unwanted catch of primary species will not be scored because practically there is no unwanted catch of primary species. Out of total primary species catch from the SESPF mid-water trawl, 0.5% was discarded since the start of current UoA’s fishing operations. To be noted that there are certain exceptional circumstances when discarding is unavoidable (e.g. gear malfunction). All the requirements for this PI are met at SG100.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 38

3.4.3 Primary Species Information (PI 2.1.3) AFMA’s monitoring program ensures a comprehensive data collection from the SESPF mid-water trawl fishery. Information on primary species is collected through logbooks and catch disposal records (CDRs), scientific surveys (in overlapping fisheries), observer coverage, electronic monitoring and independent research. An overview of the monitoring program is provided below.

Fishery Dependent: - Logbooks All concession holders in the SPF are required to complete paper and/or electronic logbooks. Logbooks provide for the recording of information on the vessel, operator, gear, location, time and catch for each fishing operation. Information on species composition and discard rates are also collected. Accurate information from logbooks, combined with the other forms data collection, allows AFMA to monitor all retained and discarded catch of non-target species in the fishery and respond to any emerging issues (AFMA, 2018h). - Catch disposal records (CDRs) On landing, an authorised person is required to complete a catch disposal record form detailing the species caught and their accurate weight. These are verified by the fish receiver. CDRs are used by fisheries managed under the quota system to gather and maintain data on the species caught (AFMA, 2018h). Fishery Independent: - Observer program Concession holders are required to carry an observer at any time when directed to do so by AFMA. The baseline coverage for the SESPF mid-water trawl is 20% (AFMA, 2018c). It is likely that observer coverage will decrease in the near future, as per SPF Scientific Panel recommendation from November 2018 meeting (SPF Scientific Panel, 2018). Observers are AFMA employees trained in specialised sampling techniques including the collection of otoliths, biological samples such as the sex and length, and environmental observations. Observers have fishing industry experience and/or environmental science or management qualifications. The observer’s role is to collect independent, accurate and reliable data on the SESPF mid-water trawl fishing operations, catches and interactions with the environment (AFMA, nd, Observer Program)17, Josh Cahill pers comm, February 2019). Observers follow sampling protocols and data collection as set by AFMA with input from the Scientific Panel (SPF Scientific Panel, 2018). - Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)

17 https://www.afma.gov.au/monitoring-enforcement/observer-program

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 39

SPF vessels are required to operate an AFMA approved Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) at all times. VMS monitoring provides information on the spatial distribution of the effort and the catch, ensures compliance with spatial closures and with the move-on trigger (AFMA, 2018c). - Electronic Monitoring It is also compulsory that mid-water trawl vessels operating in the fishery have an electronic monitoring (e-monitoring) system operational during all fishing activities. Electronic monitoring (e-monitoring) is a system of video cameras and sensors capable of monitoring and recording fishing activities, which can be reviewed later to verify logbook data (AFMA, 2018c). In addition, analytical stock assessments and/or CPUE trends are available for some minor primary species in overlapping fisheries (e.g. for eastern stock of silver warehou, jackass morwong, eastern gemfish, tiger flathead, sawshark) (Tuck 2016a and 2016b). Also, some primary species have been risk assessed using ERAEF methodology (AFMA, 2017f). Out of the identified primary species, blue grenadier, blue warehou and tiger flathead were assessed as low risk from the SPF mid-water trawl (Daley et al, 2007, AFMA, 2010, Zhou et al, 2009). At the most recent ERA, primary species component (byproduct species) was eliminated at Level 1 SICA, as being at low risk from the SPF mid-water trawl (Bulman et al, 2017). To be noted that Level 1 assessment is the most precautionary out of the three levels of ERAEF and it is not likely to underestimate the risk (2017f). Quantitative information is available and adequate to assess with high degree of certainty that all non-target species are under 2% of total catch and no primary species classifies as ‘main’. The information is also adequate to estimate the impact of the UoAs on minor primary species with respect to status. All requirements are achieved at SG100 for this PI.

3.4.4 Secondary Species Outcome (PI 2.2.1) Secondary species are defined as those species in the catch that are within scope of the MSC program (fish or invertebrate) but are not covered under P1 and not designated as primary, and species that are ‘out of scope’ but do not meet the definition for Endangered, Threatened and Protected species (ETPs) (MSC, 2018a, p. 27). In the SESPF mid-water trawl catch, all out of scope species are ETPs. All secondary species that have been identified in the three SESPF UoAs are fish species that are not managed according to set limits in the SPF or in the overlapping fisheries. Secondary species are designated as ‘main’ (>5% or >2% if vulnerable) or ‘minor’ (<5% or <2% if vulnerable) in the same way as primary species. As all non-target species usually constitute less than 2%, (AFMA, unpublished; AFMA, nd, CDRs; Tuck et al, 2013), no secondary species are ‘main’. In current UoAs fishing catch (2017-18 fishing season), all secondary species represented 0.2% of the total catch. Table 3 shows all secondary species that were identified from the UoAs catch and Table 4 show potential secondary species identified from previous years mid-water trawl catch data from the Eastern sub-area. Table 6. SESPF secondary species (source: AFMA, unpublished catch data for 2017-18)

Common Name Latin Name Barracouta Thyrsites atun Bronze Whaler Carcharhinus brachyurus Blue Shark Prionace glauca Dusky Whaler Carcharhinus brachyurus

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 40

Eastern Orange Perch Lepidoperca pulchella King Dory Cyttus traversi Latchet Pterygotrigla polyommata Leatherjackets Balistidae, Monacanthidae - undifferentiated Longfin Perch Caprodon longimanus Ocean Jacket Nelusetta ayraudi Deepsea Scorpionfish Trachyscorpia carnomagula Ocean Sunfish Mola mola Red Gurnard Chelidonichthys kumu Ruby Snapper Etelis carbunculus Short Sunfish Mola ramsayi Splendid Perch Callanthias australis Tang's Snapper Lipocheilus carnolabrum Yellowspotted Boarfish Paristiopterus gallipavo Yellowtail Scad Trachurus novaezelandiae

Table 7. Potential secondary species identified from catch records from SPF eastern sub-area in the 2015 – 2016 period (source: AFMA, unpublished catch data for 2015- 2016). Amberjack Seriola dumerili Australian Bonito Sarda australis Frigate Mackerel Auxis thazard Frostfish Lepidopus caudatus Greeneye Dogfish Squalus mitsukurii Lanternfishes Myctophidae - undifferentiated Oarfish Regalecus glesne Octopuses Octopodidae - undifferentiated Porcupine Fish Diodontidae - undifferentiated Scad Decapterus spp. Silver Dory Cyttus australis Skates and rays Skates & rays, unspecified Stingrays Dasyatidae - undifferentiated Swallowtail Centroberyx lineatus Toadfishes unspecified Tetraodontidae undifferentiated

Considering the current UoAs catch data and historical catch data sets from SPF fisheries (AFMA, unpublished; AFMA, nd, CDRs; Tuck et al, 2013), there is a high degree of certainty that no secondary species classifies as ‘main’. The PI 2.2.1 requirements for ‘main’ secondary species are met at SG100 by default. There is insufficient information to assess these minor secondary species under the Outcome PI, thus the requirements for ‘minor’ secondary species for this PI are not met at SG100. There is no requirement for ‘minor’ secondary species at SG80, thus SG80 is met by default by all three UoAs, with an overall Outcome PI score of 90.

3.4.5 Secondary Species Management (PI 2.2.2) Secondary species are managed under the same SPF Management Plan long-term objective for the protection of the ecosystem components as primary species, ETPs and habitats (see

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 41

section 3.4). Under Part 2 of the Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan 2009, AFMA is required to develop and implement a bycatch action plan (currently referred to as a Bycatch and Discarding Workplan and in the future absorbed into individual Fisheries Management Strategy (FMS), AFMA, 2017b). In addition, the new Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy (DAWR, 2018c) requires development and implementation of limit reference points for general bycatch species which will allow, in the future, for minor secondary species status or the level of risk from the fishery, to be assessed (Outcome PI). That limit is the level below which the risk of recruitment impairment is regarded as unacceptably high (DAWR, 2018d). Catch data series from SPF mid-water trawl show that this fishing method is very selective (<2% non-target catch, AFMA, unpublished; AFMA, nd, CDRs; Tuck et al, 2013) and the use of the method has low impact on secondary species. As no ‘main’ secondary species have been identified, a partial strategy for such species is not necessary. With the transition of the SPF mid-water trawl to e-monitoring, observer coverage is not necessary to monitor interactions with large bycatch such as ETPs, although observer coverage is maintained primarily to sample and collect data on catch composition, and this can be considered a specific measure in place for primary and secondary species. The general management measures such as limited entry, mesh size restriction (no less than 30 mm), commercial species’ TACs, move on trigger, VMS, closed areas limit the fishing effort and the total catch volume, thus limiting the impact on secondary species. These measures constitute a partial strategy for ‘minor’ species. A “partial strategy” represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically (MSC 2018, p. 29). However, there is no full strategy in place, for managing minor secondary species. A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome, and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts (MSC 2018, p. 29). The UoAs meet the requirements for issue 2.1.2a at SG80 but not at SG100. Regarding the effectiveness of the partial strategy in minimizing secondary species catch, the selectivity of the fishing method and evidence of very low secondary species catch (0.2% of total UoAs catch) support high confidence that the partial strategy will work. The evidence for successful implementation of the partial strategy and the evidence that shark finning is not occurring are the same as for the primary species strategy (see section 3.4.2). Although 56% of the secondary species catch was discarded in 2017-18, this represents only approximately 0.1% of total catch, thus the unwanted catch is already minimized and an alternative review of measures is not necessary. Scoring issues b, c and d of this PI are met at SG100, with an overall PI score of 95.

3.4.6 Secondary Species Information (PI 2.2.3) Quantitative information on UoAs secondary species catch is collected through the same AFMA monitoring program as for primary species: fishery dependent logbooks and CDRs verified by AFMA observers’ reports (which are the most reliable source for secondary species catch composition due to a representative sampling process) and electronic

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 42

monitoring. Unlike for primary species, stock assessments, CPUE trends and survey research from overlapping fisheries are not available for secondary species. Some of the more abundant secondary species identified in recent SPF catch from eastern sub-area have been identified and assessed under the ERAEF framework as low risk from SPF mid-water trawl method of fishing (Daley et al, 2007, AFMA, 2010, Zhou et al, 2009). At the most recent ERA, the bycatch component was eliminated at Level 1 (SICA), and considered to be at low risk from the fishery (Bulman et al, 2017). Quantitative catch data from the UoAs is available for one fishing season, showing that mid- water trawl method is very selective (targeting single species schools of fish) and no secondary species classify as ‘main’. This is consistent with historical catch data series which are available for the whole SPF range. Even though the species composition of the UoAs catch differs from the historical catch composition from SPF mid-water trawl, it is clear that secondary species catch for this fishing method is extremely low. Quantitative information is available and adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty that no secondary species in the SESPF mid-water trawl catch are ‘main’ and SG 100 is achieved by default for scoring issue 2.2.3a. As information is lacking for minor secondary species stocks with respect to status, scoring issue 2.2.3b does not achieve SG 100, although it does achieve SG 80 by default. 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, achieving SG80 for scoring issue 2.2.3c. The information, however, is not adequate to support a full strategy for secondary species (see the definition for a ‘partial strategy’ and a ‘strategy’ in section 3.4.5) and SG 100 is not achieved. The resulted overall score for the Information PI for secondary species component is 85.

3.4.7 Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species (ETPs) Outcome (PI 2.3.1) ETP species are defined by the MSC (MSC 2018a, p.28) as species that are: i) Recognised by national ETP legislation, ii) 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), iii) Listed in any binding agreements concluded under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), or iv) Classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Red List as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE).

Legislation relevant to ETPs in Australia includes:

International agreements • The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels 2001 (ACAP);18 • Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1979 (CMS or the Bonn Convention)19; • The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)20;

18 Further information provided at : https://www.acap.aq/en/resources/education/1078-about-acap 19 Further information on the CMS, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA is provided at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/index.html 20 CITES Appendices Listing

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 43

• The Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Danger of Extinction and their Environment 1974 (JAMBA) 21; • The Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Protection of Migratory Birds and their Environment 1986 (CAMBA) 22; • The Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea on the Protection of Migratory Birds 2007 (ROKAMBA) 23; and • Any other international agreement, or instrument made under other international agreements approved by the Environment Minister.

National legislation: • EPBC Act: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (DEE, nd).

The requirements of the EPBC Act includes all the other binding agreements requirements, thus compliance with this act reflects also compliance with other national and international legislation. The fishery meets CITES requirements for all Appendix 1 listed species, most specifically because under the EPBC Act, Part 13 prohibits trade in Appendix 1 listed species. All major Australian fisheries must undergo an environmental assessment under the guidelines for the ecologically sustainable management of fisheries, pursuant to the EPBC Act, and address any subsequent conditions and recommendations by the Department of Environment and Energy (DEE) before an exemption to remove or export a native species is granted. The SPF has been found to comply with the guidelines and has been re-certified under the EPBC Act Part 13, in 2018, with the export approval extended to 21 October 2023 (DEE, 2018) with two conditions: Condition A Prior to fishing, mid-water trawl vessels must have in place effective mitigation approaches and devices to minimise interactions with dolphins, seals and seabirds. Note: SPF mid-water trawlers have to implement an AFMA approved Vessel Monitoring Plan (VMP) which lays out how the vessel operations meet this condition. Condition B That at least one observer be deployed on each new mid-water trawl vessel for the first 10 fishing trips, with additional observer coverage or other monitoring implemented as appropriate, following scientific assessment of the Small Pelagic Fishery. Note: AFMA comprehensive monitoring framework includes adequate observer coverage and other monitoring, meeting this condition. However, the UoA includes only one existing vessel, thus this condition does not apply to the UoA. As part of the requirement under the EPBC Act 1999, AFMA licensed fishers must report any interactions of their fishing activity with threatened, endangered and protected species to the DEE. Based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), AFMA supplies interaction data on

21 Further information on the CMS, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA is provided at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/index.html 22 Further information on the CMS, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA is provided at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/index.html 23 Further information on the CMS, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA is provided at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/index.html

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 44

behalf of the fishers who report ETP interactions in logbooks (AFMA 2018d). These reports are published on AFMA’s website at: www.afma.gov.au/sustainability-environment/protected-species-management/protected- species-interaction-reports/. Although the DEE’s expert panel have identified 241 ETP species that occur in the area of the SPF (Lack et al, 2014), interactions usually occur with seals, dolphins and protected sharks, and occasionally with birds.

3.4.7.1 Cetaceans All cetaceans are protected under Australian Commonwealth Legislation. The Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999, which is administered by the DEE, also prohibits the intentional killing or exploitation of any listed marine species, including cetacean in Australian Commonwealth waters. Although there are protection requirements for cetaceans, there are no conservation plans or rebuilding strategies that set limits, thus scoring issue 2.3.1.a of the Assessment Tree is not scored. A total of 47 cetacean species are recorded to occur in Australian waters, and of these, 44 species are known or are likely to occur in the SPF area. Of these 44 species, 42 species were assessed in the ERAEF process for the mid-water trawl sector of the SPF (Daley et al. 2007). The ERAEF Level 2 PSA analysis identified a total of 20 ETP cetacean species as high risk, a further 21 cetacean species as medium risk, and one cetacean species as low risk. After Level 2 residual risk assessment was applied, seven cetacean species remained at high risk for the mid-water trawl sector of the SPF (AFMA 2010). A new ERAEF was completed in 2017 and no species were identified as being at high or medium risk from SPF mid-water trawl (ETP component was eliminated at Level 1). This was due to more data becoming available, better application of the management strategies and high observer coverage (Bulman et al, 2017). However, some issues emerged from the new ERAEF analysis of the SPF midwater trawl fishery: - Direct impact of fishing on protected species wasn’t assessed to be of concern in this period of relatively light effort but increasing effort might result in a higher interaction rate and consequently greater risk. There have been interactions with seals and dolphins which resulted in temporary closure of zones within fishery, but overall, the populations of marine mammals were not found to be at significant risk from this fishing activity at the present level of effort. - Any increase in fishing effort should be closely monitored to be able to identify any increases in risk (Bulman et al, 2017).

From recent and historical reports, only bottlenose dolphins and common dolphins are known to have interacted with the fishery (AFMA, nd, Protected Species; Tuck et al, 2013). Mackay et al (2016), attempted to estimate the potential maximum cumulative anthropogenic mortality limits (Potential Biological Removal (PBR) of key marine mammal species, including the species with recorded interactions, to inform management in the SPF area. A Closed Technical Workshop (CTW) reviewed the available information to inform the establishment of trigger limits using PBR for these key marine mammal species, although such limits could not be established in all cases (Mackay et al, 2016). More on PBR estimates will be discussed for each species below.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 45

Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis) The background information has been adapted from Lack et al, 2014. The short-beaked common dolphin is widely distributed in continental shelf and pelagic waters from tropical to cool temperate regions in the Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans and is possibly absent from most of the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans (Rice 1998, Jefferson et al. 2008, Perrin 2009a, Amaral et al. 2012 in Lack et al, 2014). This species has been recorded from all Australian states and Northern Territory waters, including subtropical Lord Howe Island off NSW and southwestern Australia, with few records from north-western Australia (Bannister et al. 1996, Chatto and Warneke 2000, Bell et al. 2002, Hutton and Harrison 2004, Kemper et al. 2005, Kemper 2008 in Lack et al, 2014). There appear to be two main locations in Australian waters with one cluster occurring in the southern south- eastern Indian Ocean and another in the Tasman Sea (Woinarski et al. 2014 in Lack et al, 2014). Common dolphins may be the most numerous dolphins in Australian waters and are often reported in coastal waters of southern Australia (Kemper 2008 in Lack et al, 2014), but there are no robust estimates of the Australian population size or trends (Woinarski et al. 2014 in Lack et al, 2014). Substantial genetic differentiation has been recorded between common dolphin subpopulations in SA and those in eastern Australia including Tasmania, with finer levels of subpopulation substructuring along the south-eastern and southern Australian coasts, possibly associated with spatial variation in oceanographic currents, upwellings or fish distributions (Bilgmann et al. 2008, 2014a, 2014b, Möller et al. 2011). Globally, this species is considered to be very abundant, but there is no robust estimate of global population size and population trends are unknown (Hammond et al. 2008 in Lack et al, 2014). Overseas, regional population estimates include about 3,000,000 in the eastern tropical Pacific region, and about 370,000 from the western United States coast (Jefferson et al. 2008, in Lack et al, 2014). Möller et al. (2011) investigated the genetic structure of common dolphins from 115 tissue samples collected at six locations, covering approximately 1,000 km of the NSW coastline between 2003 and 2006 and identified at least three genetically differentiated populations, separated at a scale of a few hundred kilometres. Genetic variation was determined to be highest in the southern NSW population (Tasman Sea / Pacific Ocean). Bilgmann et al. (2014) analysed 308 common dolphins biopsy samples from 11 locations in southern and south-eastern Australia between 2004 and 2012. Analyses indicated genetic structuring between Indian Ocean / Southern Ocean and Pacific Ocean (NSW) samples. Further sub-structuring was determined to be present in the Indian Ocean samples. Based on their results, the authors suggested the presence of six genetic populations for the species between Esperance (WA), and Eden (NSW). Altogether, population genetic analyses suggest there are a minimum of eight populations of common dolphin along the southern and eastern Australian coasts (Bilgmann et al. 2014, Möller et al. 2011). The biopsy data also indicated movements of common dolphins occur from the Pacific Ocean (south-eastern Australia) into the Indian Ocean (southern Australia). The proposed Pacific Ocean genetic population is also suggested as the main source of migrants to the “mixed water” central NSW population (Möller et al. 2011). This indicates spatial mixing of proposed common dolphin populations across at least part of the region. The CTW described in Mackay et al 2016 considered seven management zones for estimates of common dolphin abundance. These seven management zones were previously used by AFMA to manage dolphin interactions within the SPF, although currently, only an eastern

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 46

and a western sub-area are used. The current UoAs overlap with zones 5, 6 and 7.

Figure 1. The seven management zones considered by participants during Closed Technical Workshop for calculating estimates of common dolphin abundance. Source: Mackay et al 2006. For each of these zones, abundance information is available as follows (source: Mackay et al, 2016): • Zone 5: There have been no systematic surveys for common dolphin in Zone 5. A synthesis of DPIPWE sighting and strandings and AMMC data indicate the occurrence of the species throughout the zone. One expert of the CTW reported that common dolphins are encountered regularly during boat work in groups up to ~350 individuals and that the species is seen occasionally in the Derwent River (SE Tasmania) and during boat surveys off south Bruny Island. Interactions between dolphins and vessels in the SPF in this zone have previously been recorded on two occasions in October 2004 east of Flinders Island (Lyle and Wilcox, 2008 in Mackay et al, 2016). • Zone 6: There are no systematic abundance estimates for common dolphin for this zone. Genetic analyses suggest that there are at least two populations in Zone 6 (Möller et al. 2011), with higher genetic diversity in samples collected from the southern NSW area. This latter population is the Pacific Ocean management unit described in Bilgmann et al. (2014b). Sightings and strandings data for Zone 6 from the AMMC database are limited to the autumn and winter months and include two sightings of 17-150 individuals. Strandings and sighting data from DIPWE in the south-west area of Zone 6 are from summer and spring and are of group sizes of 1-16 individuals. Sightings of common dolphin were also recorded in the south-west area of Zone 6 to the seismic survey Cetacean Sightings Application. There are stranding records for 91 common dolphins along the NSW coast (which also encompasses Zone 7) (Lloyd and Ross 2015 in Mackay et al, 2016). The majority of cetacean stranding records in the NSW database have been recorded since 1960.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 47

• Zone 7: There are no estimates of abundance for SBCD in Zone 7, but peaks in bycatch of common dolphin in nets set by the Queensland Shark Control Program have been recorded during the winter-spring months across the period 1992-2012 (Meager and Sumpton 2016 in Mackay et al, 2016). Although a PBR value of 261 dolphins could be calculated for Zone 3, which is outside the UoAs fishing area, no PBRs could be calculated for Zones 5, 6 and 7. In 2015, when one large freezer trawler was in operation in the SPF, nine interactions with common dolphins were recorded, which prompted AFMA to apply stringent consequences for mid-water trawler vessels that interact with dolphins. No interactions were recorded since in SPF, for the duration of that trawler’s operation. Since the entry in the fishery of the currently operating vessel, only one interaction, involving three common dolphins, has been recorded. Investigations on the cause of the interaction have shown that the death of the three dolphins resulted from gear malfunction (AFMA, nd, Dolphin Strategy Review24). It is mandatory for mid-water trawl vessels to have an AFMA-approved vessel management plan (VMP) and dolphin management plan. AFMA has developed a Dolphin Mitigation Strategy to mitigate interactions with dolphins and the current version was implemented in the SPF in May 2017. The strategy sets out the requirements for trawl operations in the SPF, including performance criteria that each operator must comply with, through both a maximum interaction rate (number of shots per dolphin interaction) over a six month period, and a maximum interaction cap during a six month review period and over 12 months (see Table 8). Sanctions consistent with the strategy were applied following the common dolphin interaction. Considering: - the existing information on common dolphin abundance on the south-eastern Australia coast, - the evidence that interactions in the SESPF mid-water trawl are not commonly occuring, and - when interactions occur there are stringent consequences for the vessel involved (acting as prompt for fishers to make every possible effort to prevent future interactions), - in the new ERA common dolphins were considered to be at low risk from the SPF mid-water trawl, - electronic monitoring with 100% recording coverage during UoAs fishing operation verifies the accuracy of dolphin interactions reported in logbooks and ensures that any increase in risk will be timely identified,

it is highly likely that the UoAs do not hinder recovery (SG 80 met for SI 2.3.1.b for common dolphin). There is no ‘high degree of certainty’ (90% probability for ETPs) that current rate of interaction does not produce significant detrimental effects on common dolphin populations. The SESPF mid-water trawl targets seem to represent a relatively high proportion in common dolphin’s diet (11.4% jack mackerel, GAB area, Lack et al, 2014), thus the species is susceptible to be caught. In addition, species population structuring and the impacts the SESPF might have on sub-populations are not fully understood (SG 100 not met).

24 https://www.afma.gov.au/news-media/news/review-gillnet-dolphin-mitigation-strategy-and-small-pelagic-fishery-dolphin

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 48

Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus (common) and T. aduncus (Indo-Pacific)) Bottlenose dolphins are listed as a cetacean species under the EPBC Act and assessed as Data Deficient in Australian waters (Woinarski et al. 2014 in Lack et al, 2014). The common bottlenose dolphin is listed globally as Least Concern for the IUCN Red List while the Indo- Pacific, is listed as globally Data Deficient (Woinarski et al. 2014 in Lack et al, 2014). Bottlenose dolphins, not identified to species level, have sporadically been recorded as bycatch in the SPF in waters off eastern Tasmania (Mackay et al, 2016). Common bottlenose dolphins have a cosmopolitan distribution extending from tropical to temperate coastal, shelf and offshore waters between about 55°S and 65°N. They are recorded from the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Ocean regions and also occur in most enclosed or semi-enclosed seas, with an apparently higher population density in coastal or continental shelf habitats compared with oceanic regions further offshore. Common bottlenose dolphins are broadly distributed around much of the Australian coastal shelf area in deeper waters out to the outer continental shelf, and in some offshore habitats mostly within 1000 km of the continental coast (Ross 2006, Hale 2008, in Lack et al 2014) including subtropical Lord Howe Island (Hutton and Harrison 2004 in Lack et al 2014). Therefore, their Australian range overlaps extensively with the SPF area (Lack et al, 2014). Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins have a wide but discontinuous distribution from tropical to warm temperate coastal regions ranging from southern Africa to the Red Sea and eastwards to China and southern Japan, through south-east Asia and southward to New Guinea, Australia and New Caledonia (Ross 2006, Jefferson et al. 2008, Wang and Yang 2009 in Lack et al 2014). In Australian waters, this species has an extensive coastal distribution from eastern, northern and western Australian regions and some parts of southern Australia. Therefore, the southern Australian range of this species overlaps partly with the SPF area (Lack et al, 2014). There are no abundance estimates available for offshore bottlenose dolphins for the Australian region and there is limited information on their distribution outside coastal and near-shelf areas. For inshore areas, where T. truncatus can occur sympatrically with Indo- Pacific bottlenose dolphins, sightings have not been assigned to species. Identification is further complicated by the recent description of an additional Tursiops sp., the Burrunan dolphin (T. cf. australis) (Mackay et al, 2016). A number of abundance estimates exist for inshore bottlenose dolphin populations, but these tend to be for small restricted areas, where dolphins exhibit some degree of residency, although the abundance and population structure of inshore bottlenose dolphin species across the range of the SPF is unknown (Mackay et al, 2016). For the Indo-Pacific dolphins in NSW waters, surveys between 2003 and 2005 in the Byron Bay and Ballina region provided an abundance estimate of 865 (CI 95%: 861–869) dolphins, with average group sizes of 21 for female-calf groups and smaller adult-only groups (Hawkins and Gartside 2008 in Lack et al, 2014). Repeated surveys from 2003 to 2006 provided abundance estimates of 34 (95 per cent CI 19–49) dolphins in the Richmond River estuary near Ballina, and 71 (95 per cent CI 62–81) dolphins in the larger Clarence River estuary further south (Fury and Harrison 2008 in Lack et al, 2014). In Port Stephens in central NSW, minimum abundance of these dolphins was estimated to be 160 (95 per cent CI = 148– 182) in 1998–99 and 143 (95 per cent CI = 132–165) in 1999–2000, with about 90 resident individuals that are genetically differentiated from adjacent coastal communities (Möller et al. 2002, 2007, Wiszniewski et al. 2010 in Lack et 2014). Abundance estimates in Jervis Bay

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 49

in southern NSW varied from 108 (95 per cent CI = 98–128) dolphins in 1997–98, to 61 (95 per cent CI = 58–72) dolphins in 1998–99 (Möller et al. 2002 in Lack et al, 2014). For common bottlenose dolphins, there are no robust estimates of total population size or trends in Australian waters (Hale 2008, Woinarski et al. 2014 in Lack et al 2014). Hammond et al. (2008f in Lack et al, 2014) suggested a minimum global abundance estimate of 600,000 common bottlenose dolphins based on a summation of estimates from parts of their range. The global population trend is unknown, but some populations are declining, and one subspecies and two subpopulations are assessed as threatened (Hammond et al. 2008f in Lack et al, 2014). Groups of up to 100 dolphins have been recorded in deeper waters off the coast of NSW and Queensland (Hale 2008 in Lack et al 2014), and 151 individuals were photographically identified foraging in association with a trawler off northwestern Australia in 2011 (S. Allen pers. comm. in Woinarski et al. 2014 n Lack et al, 2014). Two small resident communities of bottlenose dolphins identified as Burrunan dolphins T. australis occur in Port Phillip Bay (about 80–100 dolphins) and in the Gippsland Lakes, Victoria (Charlton-Robb et al. 2011, Howes et al. 2012 in Lack et al 2014), which may also be relevant to assessment of T. truncatus. The CTW concluded that average lowest estimates ranged from populations of a few tens to less than 200 individuals, and a PBR was calculated for a hypothetical population of 100 individual (PBR=1) (Mackay et al, 2016). 2017-18 Interaction reports show that four bottlenose dolphins were killed in the SESPF mid- water trawl nets, in the last quarter of 2017 (AFMA, nd, Protected Species). It is it is highly likely that interactions with the SESPF mid-water trawl are not common, based on: - The death of the four dolphins reported occurred in one single interaction. It is believed that the interaction occurred due to fishing at night and since the interaction, the fishery adopted a voluntary measure to ban night fishing and prevent future interactions (Tony Muollo, pers com, February 2019). To be noted, this voluntary measure was introduced to avoid the escalating consequences of interaction imposed by the SPF Dolphin Mitigation Strategy (see Table 8). - SESPF target species seem to not constitute a high proportion of bottlenose dolphin diets (less than 2% of their stomach content in GAB area, Lack et al, 2014) - It is mandatory for mid-water trawl vessels to have an AFMA-approved VMP with a dolphin management plan included. AFMA has developed a Dolphin Mitigation Strategy to mitigate interactions with dolphins and the current version was implemented in the SPF in May 2017. The strategy sets out the requirements for trawl operations in the SPF, including performance criteria that each individual operator must comply with, through both a maximum interaction rate (number of shots per dolphin interaction) over a six-month period, and a maximum interaction cap during each six-month review period. Sanctions consistent with the strategy were applied following the bottlenose dolphin interaction and the investigation that followed the interaction has led to adopting a voluntary measure to prevent further interactions. Although future monitoring of the risk to bottlenose dolphins is critical to reduce the uncertainty about the level of impact from the SESPF mid-water trawl, the available information suggests that it is highly likely that the UoAs do not hinder recovery of the species. The UoAs meet SG 80 requirements for the scoring issue 2.3.1.b. Considering the limited information that is available on the abundance of bottlenose dolphin populations,

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 50

there no high degree of certainty that the current interaction rate does not create significant detrimental direct effects on bottlenose dolphins, thus SG100 is not met. SPF historical interactions with dolphins (including eastern and western sub-areas) Historical data shows that 25 dolphin mortalities using mid-water trawl gear were reported during 2001-2009. These interactions occurred in 2004 (3 bottlenose and 14 either common or bottlenose dolphins) and 2005 (8 dolphins, unspecified but most likely common or/and bottlenose) (Tuck et al, 2013). There have been no reported dolphin interactions since mid-2005 to 2011, following the introduction of bycatch management measures. These observations are based on <13% observed shots per annum since 2007, noting that there was no observer coverage in 2010 and 2011, which corresponds to a reduction in mid-water trawl fishing (Tuck et al, 2013). From 2011 to 2015 no interactions with SPF have been recorded (Tuck et al, 2013). This information supports the fact that interactions with dolphins in mid-water trawl fishery are not common. SESPF mid-water trawl indirect effects on dolphins For ETP species, MSC standard requires that, in addition to assessing the direct effects from the fishery, indirect effects have to be considered as well. Such effects could relate to behaviour modification, discarding of unwanted catch, discarding domestic litter, chemical pollution, localised depletion of their prey, with effects on population long-term viability. - Discards Discarding domestic litter and chemicals is prohibited under MARPOL and observers are required to report such incidents. No pollution incidents were reported so far in the SESPF. Indirect effects of pollution on protected species were assessed at ERA Level 1 (SICA) and found to be non-existent (Bulman et al, 2017). The impacts of potential lost gear were also assessed at the latest ERA and considered to be negligible (Bulman et al, 2017).

The UoAs discards of target species are very low and uncommon, occurring only under special circumstances (e.g. pump malfunction, Josh Cahill pers com, February 2019, Tony Muollo pers com, February 2019). Primary species discards are also very low (less than 1% of primary species catch), these species being commercially valuable. Although more than 50% of the secondary species catch is discarded, these discards represented only 0.1% of total 2017-18 SESPF mid-water trawl catch. Also, discards are monitored through logbooks and observer reports. Fishers must report in their logbooks the retained and discarded quantity of each species, which are verified by observers reports. The current level of discarding in the SESPF UoAs is considered to be unlikely to create significant indirect detrimental impacts such as behavior modifications (dolphins feeding on discards) on dolphin populations. - Localised depletion Indirect impacts from the UoAs may also occur due to prey depletion through overfishing. These indirect effects have been explored in ecosystem modelling studies and other research on localised depletion. Common dolphin’s diet profile showed that Australian sardine and anchovy had a significant percentage contribution (64.1%), while mackerel (11.4%) and other species contributed less (Lack et al, 2014). Bottlenose dolphin’s diet profile showed even less dependence on SPF mid-water trawl targets (less than 2%, Lack et al, 2014). Low dependence of dolphin species on the small pelagic fish caught by the UoAs suggest that

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 51

localised depletion of these species would not significantly affect dolphins. Ecosystem modelling has shown that south-eastern Australia coastal ecosystems are resilient to significant biomass removal from these species and trophic cascade effects are unlikely to occur (Smith et al 2015). In addition, although the risk of localised depletion occurring in the SPF is considered to be low (Lack et al, 2015), AFMA’s SPF spatial management (move-on triggers) is likely to further minimise this risk (AFMA, 2018c). The risks of behavior modification, effects of discards, gear loss, waste disposal and chemical pollution from the SPF mid-water trawl fishery on marine mammals (with bottlenose dolphin considered the most vulnerable element) were also assessed under the ERAF framework at Level 1 (SICA) and were considered to be minor/insignificant (Daley et al, 2007). There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the SESPF mid-water trawl fishery on cetacean species and the UoAs achieve SG 100 for scoring issue 2.3.1c, for common dolphin and bottlenose dolphin scoring elements.

3.4.7.2 Pinnipeds (seals) There are three resident pinniped species that breed in coastal areas and islands off southern Australia. These are the Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinereal), the New Zealand fur seal (Arctocephalus forsteri), and the Australian fur seal (A. pusillus doriferus). All species are native to Australia, occur within the SPF and occur in sympatry (overlap in ranges) over parts of their ranges. However, the Australian sea lion’s distribution does not overlap with the SESPF UoAs, occurring only in the western SPF sub-area. A new ERAEF was completed in 2017 and no pinniped species were identified as being at high risk from SPF mid-water trawl. This was due to more data becoming available, better application of the management strategies and high observer coverage (Bulman et al, 2017). However, some issues emerged from the ERAEF analysis of the SPF midwater trawl fishery: - Direct impact of fishing on protected species wasn’t assessed to be of concern in this period of relatively light effort but increasing effort might result in a higher interaction rate and consequently greater risk. - Any increase in fishing effort should be closely monitored to be able to identify any increases in risk.

Australian fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus) The background information below has been adapted from Lack et al, 2014 and Mackay et al, 2016. The Australian fur seal is listed as Marine under the EPBC Act. Globally, the species is listed as least concern under the IUCN Red List and is listed in Appendix II of CITES (Lack et al, 2014). There are two subspecies of the Afro-Australian fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus), the Cape or South African fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus) and the Australian (or brown fur seal) (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus). The Australian subspecies is endemic to southeastern Australian waters and are found from the coast of NSW, Tasmania to Victoria and across to SA with the centre of their distribution in Bass Strait (Kirkwood et al. 2010 in Lack et al, 2014). There are 21 known breeding sites (Kirkwood et al. 2010, Shaughnessy et al. 2010, McIntosh et al. 2014, Shaughnessy et al. 2014 in Lack et al, 2014). The range of the species is expanding, with the new colonies in NSW and SA all establishing in the past 10 years. Historical ranges prior to colonial sealing (pre-1800s) are unknown (Lack et al, 2014).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 52

Population size and trends Three national surveys of pup production for the species have been done at approximately five-yearly intervals since 2002– 03. One undertaken in 2002–03 estimated a pup production of 19,820, another undertaken in 2007–08 estimated a pup production of 21,881, and the most recent survey undertaken in 2013–14 estimated a pup production of 15,063 (Kirkwood et al. 2005, Kirkwood et al. 2010, McIntosh et al. 2014 in Lack et al, 2014). The rate of increase in pup production between 1986 and 2002–03 was estimated to be 5 per cent per year, slowing to 0.3 per cent per year between 2002–03 and 2007–08 seasons (McIntosh et al. 2014 in Lack et al, 2014). It is not clear if the apparent 6 per cent per year decline between the 2007–08 and 2013–14 estimate is due to a poor pupping season in 2013–14 or represents a real decline in population over that period, as there is no colony that is monitored on an annual basis (McIntosh et al. 2014 in Lack et al, 2014). Based on the 2007–08 surveys, two colonies adjacent to the Victorian coast, Seal Rocks (5660 pups) and Lady Julia Percy Island (5574 pups), account for more than half (51 per cent) the total pup production (Kirkwood et al. 2010). Based on these surveys the total Australian fur seal population is estimated to be 120,000 individuals (Kirkwood et al. 2010 in Lack et al, 2014). Australian fur seals have an annual synchronous breeding season, with most pups born over a five-week period between early November and mid-December, with the peak in breeding usually in late November/early December. Most pups are weaned when they are 10–11 months old, just prior to the commencement of the next breeding season, although some may continue into a second year (Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013in Lack et al, 2014). The Australian fur seal forages almost exclusively in association with the sea floor and rarely leaves the continental shelf, which reflects the benthic nature of their foraging (Arnould and Kirkwood 2008, Kirkwood and Arnould 2011, Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013 in Lack et al, 2014). Satellite tracking studies show that lactating adult females from the main breeding colony in eastern Bass Strait (The Skerries) travelled the shortest distance (20–60 km) while those in central Bass Strait (Seal Rocks, Kanowna Island) and western Bass Strait (Lady Julia Percy Island) typically forage out to 60 and 150 km from the colony (Arnould and Kirkwood 2008, Kirkwood and Arnould 2011 in Lack et al, 2014). Foraging trip durations of lactating females last approximately six days, with most (greater than 90 per cent) time spent within 150 km of the colony (Kirkwood and Arnould 2011 in Lack et al, 2014). Analysis of habitat use has indicated that individual seals selected areas with depths of 60–80 m, significantly more than other depths (Arnould and Kirkwood 2008 in Lack et al 2014). Females from colonies adjacent to productive shelf-edge waters (e.g. Lady Julia Percy Island and The Skerries) typically have shorter foraging trips, have smaller foraging ranges, forage closer to colonies and exhibit less diversity in foraging trip strategies than females from colonies more distant from the shelf-edge (e.g. Seal Rocks and Kanowna Island) (Kirkwood and Arnould 2011 in Lack et al 2014). Females typically show strong fidelities to individual foraging hotspots (Arnould and Kirkwood 2008, Kirkwood and Arnould 2011 in Lack et al 2014). Information on the movement of adult males comes mainly from animals satellite tracked from one colony (Seal Rock). Most foraged in western Bass Strait with many also travelling down the west coast of Tasmania to forage in southern Tasmanian waters, 500 km from Seal Rocks. One adult male travelled west of the Eyre Peninsula (SA), 1200 km from Seal Rocks (Kirkwood et al. 2007 in Lack et al, 2014). A number of adult male Australian fur seals interacting with mid-water trawl gear on freezer vessels off the west coast of Tasmania in the winter blue grenadier (Macruronus novaezelandiae) fishery have also been satellite tracked (Tilzey et al. 2006 in Lack et al 2014). The tracked seals continually targeted the fishing operations, resting between foraging trips at haul-outs on Tasmania’s west coast, until the

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 53

fishing season ended. The seals then moved on to forage in southern Tasmania or Bass Strait (Tilzey et al. 2006 in Lack et al 2014). Juvenile Australian fur seals tracked from Lady Julia Percy Island and Seal Rocks display similar ranges to adult females (Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013 in Lack et al 2014). The diet of Australian fur seals is reasonably well understood, with dietary studies having been undertaken across most of the species’ range. In Bass Strait, southern Tasmania and SA they predominantly forage benthically but also eat a wide range of pelagic fish and cephalopod species. Key fish prey include redbait, leatherjackets, jack mackerel, barracouta, red rock cod and flatheads. Cephalopods are also important prey with key species being Gould’s squid, octopus, and cuttlefish. Most of the dietary studies have used analyses of prey hard parts recovered from faecal (scat) samples, a method that can both under and over- represent prey species. One study analysed faecal DNA from samples collected at the three main Victorian colonies (Lady Julia Percy Island, Seal Rock, The Skerries). The study confirmed, based on the prevalence of sequences from redbait and jack mackerel, the importance of these species in seals diet. However, blue mackerel was also found to be important, suggesting hard-part analyses methods may have under-represented the importance of this species in their diet (Deagle et al. 2009 in Lack et al 2014). Kirkwood et al. (2008 in Lack et al 2014) analysed annual variation in the diet of Australian fur seals at Seal Rocks over a nine-year period (1997–2006). The importance in the diet of redbait and jack mackerel varied considerably across the period, prevalent in some years, and near absent in others when it was replaced by increased proportions of barracouta, red cod and leatherjackets (Figure 2). Statistical analyses indicated that annual variation in redbait prevalence in the diet was significantly related to changes in mean sea surface temperatures in western Bass Strait where the seals foraged (Kirkwood et al. 2008 in Lack et al 2014). They found no correlation between the prevalence of redbait in the diet with fishing effort (annual fisheries catch-per-unit-effort) nor the annual mean Southern Oscillation Index (Kirkwood et al. 2008 in Lack et al 2014).

Figure 2. Annual variation in the diet of Australian fur seals at Seal Rocks (Victoria) based on prey hard- part analyses for scats collected at a nearly bimonthly frequency over nine years (1997–2012). Note the importance and variability of redbait and jack mackerel in the diet. Source: Lack et al, 2014 Mackay et al (2016), estimated the potential maximum cumulative anthropogenic mortality limits (PBR) of key marine mammal species, including seals, to inform management in the SPF area. For the proposed single management zone over the SPF, the most conservative

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 54

PBR for Australian fur seal was estimated range as 2,623 (Figure 3).

Figure 3. The single management zones considered by participants during Closed Technical Workshop for calculating estimates of abundance of Australian fur seal. Source: Mackay et al 2006. In 2017-18 season there were ten reported interactions of SESPF UoAs with Australian fur seal, in all cases the animals being dead (AFMA, nd, Protected Species). The current interaction rate is low compared to the estimated PBR and the range of the species is expanding. Having an upward opening Seal Excluder Device (SED) installed is compulsory for mid-water trawl vessels. Although there is no conclusive information on the superior effectiveness of the upward opening SED compared to a downward large opening SED (Lack et al, 2014), the upward opening is more likely to retain a dead seal in the net rather than allowing it to fall through the opening and create unobserved mortality (Josh Cahill, pers com February, 2019). From seal satellite tracking studies, it is apparent that male seals are more likely to interact with trawl fishing (Lack et al, 2014) thus lactating females are less likely to die due to the fishery and create unobserved mortality of their pups as a consequence. These suggest that the UoAs are highly unlikely to hinder recovery of the Australian fur seal, thus the SG 80 is achieved. Seals are the ETPs that most commonly interact with the SESPF mid-water trawl. In addition, Australian fur seals diet profile includes high proportions of the species targeted in the UoAs, making them susceptible to interact with the gear for food. There is no high degree of certainty that the fishery does not create significant detrimental direct effects to Australian fur seal populations (SG 100 is not achieved).

New-Zealand Fur Seal (Arctocephalus forster) The New Zealand fur seal is listed as Marine under the EPBC Act. Globally, the species is listed as Least Concern under the IUCN Red List and are listed in Appendix II of CITES. The background information below has been adapted from Lack et al, 2014 and Mackay et al, 2016.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 55

The New Zealand (or long-nosed) fur seal is a native mammal of Australia that occurs in both New Zealand and Australian waters. The species was subject to heavy exploitation by colonial sealers between 1800 and 1830, resulting in major reductions in range and abundance (Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013 in Lack et al 2014). Numbers remained at very low levels for almost 140 years, after which they slowly began to build up and new colonies were established across their former range. In Australia, New Zealand fur seals occur in the coastal waters and on the offshore islands of South and Western Australia, from just east of Kangaroo Island, west to the south-west corner of the continent in WA, and also in southern Tasmania (Shaughnessy et al. 1994 in Lack et al 2014). Small populations have recently been establishing in Bass Strait and Victorian and southern NSW coastal waters (Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013 in Lack et al 2014). In New Zealand, this species occurs around both the North and South Islands, with newly formed breeding colonies now established on the North Island and established and predominantly expanding breeding colonies around the entire South Island (Boren et al. 2006, Bouma et al. 2008 in Lack et al 2014). There are well established and expanding colonies also found on Stewart Island and all of New Zealand’s subantarctic islands. Their range extends to Australia’s Macquarie Island. Vagrants have been recorded in New Caledonia (Shaughnessy 1999 in Lack et al 2014). The Australian population of the species is centred off SA where more than 80 per cent of the national New Zealand fur seal population occurs, with key breeding sites at Kangaroo Island, the Neptune Islands and Liguanea Island (Shaughnessy et al. 2014 in Lack et al 2014). In Tasmania, the New Zealand fur seal mainly occurs on the west and south coasts with a small number breeding on remote islands off the south coast (Lack et all 2014). There are 65 known breeding sites for the species in Australia, most (86 per cent) are in South and Western Australia (SA 36; WA 20; Tasmania four; Victoria four; NSW one) (McIntosh et al. 2014, Shaughnessy et al. 2014, Campbell et al. in press in Lack et al 2014). Pup production surveys were undertaken over the 2013–14 breeding season in SA, Victoria, Tasmania and NSW, and in the 2011–12 season in WA, which provide a comprehensive and current assessment of the status of the species’ Australian population. The maximum pup production for the Australian population based on these surveys is 24,656, with most pup production in SA (83%) and WA (14%). Based on a pup-to-total-population multiplier of 4.76 (developed by Goldsworthy and Page 2007 in Lack et al 2014) the Australian population is currently estimated to number approximately 117,400. Populations of New Zealand fur seals in Australian waters appeared to begin their major recovery in the 1970s and 1980s. Between the 1989–90 and 2013–14 breeding seasons, the fur seal population in SA has increased 3.6 fold, with the average annual increase in pup production being 5.3 per cent (Shaughnessy et al. 2014 in Lack et al 2014). Recovery rates at some sites have been much greater. For example, in the Cape Gantheaume Wilderness Protection Area on Kangaroo Island, annual monitoring of pup production over a 26-year period from 1988–89 (457 pups) to 2013–14 (5333 pups), demonstrates a remarkable 11.7- fold increase at an average rate of 10% per year (Goldsworthy et al. 2014c in Lack et al 2014). In contrast, pup production at the Neptune and Liguanea islands appears to have peaked in the mid-2000s, with most of the available breeding habitat now full (Shaughnessy et al. 2014 in Lack et al 2014). The centre of population expansion is now on Kangaroo Island. The growth of New Zealand fur seal populations since the 1970s and 1980s in Australia is attributable to recovery from 19th century sealing (1800– 1830) and subsequent take (Shaughnessy et al. 2014 in Lack et al 2014). New Zealand fur seals have an annual synchronous breeding season, with most pups (90 per cent) being born over a five-week period between late November and early January. On

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 56

Kangaroo Island the breeding season peaks around 25–26 December (Goldsworthy and Shaughnessy 1994 in Lack et al 2014). Lactating females alternate between shore bouts lasting approximately 1.7 days in duration (when pups are nursed) and foraging trips to sea which increase in duration from about three to five days early in lactation, to eight to 11 days late in lactation (Goldsworthy 2006 in Lack et al 2014). However, foraging trips lasting more than 20 days are not uncommon (Goldsworthy 2006 in Lack et al 2014). The core of Australia’s New Zealand fur seal breeding distribution in SA is distributed across a relatively small geographic range characterised by narrow shelves in proximity to localised seasonal upwelling in summer and autumn. Satellite tracking studies show that early in lactation (December to March), females undertake short foraging trips to mid-outer shelf waters (70–90 km from the colony), in regions associated with localised upwelling (Page et al. 2006, Baylis et al. 2008a in Lack et al 2014). However, between April to May most females switch to foraging in distant oceanic waters associated with the Subtropical Front, 700–1000 km to the south of breeding colonies and continue foraging in these waters up until the weaning of their pups in September/October (Baylis et al. 2008a, Baylis et al. 2008b, Baylis et al. 2012 in Lack et al. 2014). These winter foraging trips last between 15 and 25 days. Once weaned, the pups head for oceanic waters south of Australia, and as juveniles, also forage in distant oceanic waters (mean maximum distance of 1095 km from the colony) (Baylis et al. 2005, Page et al. 2006 in Lack et al. 2014). In contrast to juveniles and adult females, adult males focus their forage efforts along the continental slope (Page et al. 2006 in Lack et al. 2014). New Zealand fur seals forage both on the shelf, where they target pelagic and bentho-pelagic prey, and off the shelf, where they target epipelagic prey that exhibit daily vertical migrations (Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013 in Lack et al 2014). Adults can therefore forage both near or on the benthos in water depths ranging up to 200 m, and in the water column where the sea-floor might be less than 20 m or greater than 2000 m (Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013 in Lack et al 2014). New Zealand fur seal diet profile does not include high proportions of the SESPF UoAs target species (0.13% on average red bait and much lower for the other species) (Lack et al. 2014). An estimated PBR of 81 seals was the most conservative PBR for the New Zealand fur seal within the management zone 3 (partially overlapped by the SESPF range, Figure 4). The reason for the low PBR estimate is that zone 3 does not contain the core of the population distribution which is in zone 2 (PBR = 2499).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 57

Figure 4. The three management zones considered by participants during Closed Technical Workshop for calculating estimates of abundance of New Zealand fur seal. Source: Mackay et al 2006. Seventeen New Zealand fur seals interactions were reported since the inception of the current UoAs operations (2017-18), with two being released alive (AFMA, nd, Protected Species). The SESPF does not overlap with the core population of the New Zealand fur seal, although seals pup production is increasing within the fishery’s range. The population has increased over the last 30 years and still expanding. The small pelagic fish (SESPF mid-trawl targets) do not represent an important part of the New Zealand fur seal diet. Un upward opening SED is compulsory for mid-water trawls, making unobserved mortality unlikely. The SESPF UoAs are highly unlikely to hinder recovery of this species (SG80 is achieved for SI 2.3.1b). There is some evidence of population structuring across the breeding range, with genetic variation observed between individuals from SA, Tasmania and New Zealand (Mackay et al, 2016). There is no high degree of certainty that the SESPF mid-water trawl does not create significant detrimental effect to New Zealand fur seal local populations (SG 100 not achieved. Unidentified seal interactions Not all reported animals interacting with the SESPF could be identified to species level, although reporting to species has improved in recent years. Since the start of the current SPF mid-water trawl vessel operations five unidentified seals were reported as dead (AFMA, nd, Protected Species). These were most likely either Australian or New Zealand fur seals because these are the species with distribution ranges that include SESPF range. The number of unidentified seals interactions does not significantly increase the risk to the populations and does not justify changes in outcome scores.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 58

SPF historical interactions with seals (including eastern and western sub-areas) Seal interactions have been reported also during the previous operational periods of the SPF (before the 2015). 184 seal interactions with mid-water trawl gear were reported during 2001- 2011. These data are compiled in Tuck et al (2013) and are derived from scientific projects, observer trips and/or Commonwealth logbooks. Although seal interactions were not reported at species level, most seals were believed to be Australian fur seals. Of these, 175 were observed interacting during scientific trials (May–July 2005; February 2006; and January 2006–February 2007) aimed to assess the type and frequency of interactions and performance of various excluding devices as options to mitigate dolphin and seal interactions. Out of the remaining nine, three were recorded in observer data during standard commercial midwater trawl trips, whereas six were recorded in the Commonwealth logbook database. Of the interacting seals, 145 were reported to be alive, 30 died, while the fate of the remaining 9 was unknown. There has been no incidental fur seal interactions reported between 2007-2011 either by on-board observers or fishers. These reports are based on observer coverage of <13% of shots per annum for mid-water trawl vessels since 2007 (Tuck et al, 2013). The high number of the seals observed interacting during the scientific trials is due to a high number of seals entering the net for feeding, then exiting through the SED opening. The footage has shown that a small number of seals exiting the SED were in a poor condition and would subsequently have most likely died, creating unobserved mortality (Lack et al, 2014). To address this issue, all mid-water trawl vessels have to have an upward opening SED, so as to dead or badly injured seals would not be able to exit the net (Josh Cahill pers com, February, 2019). During the fishing seasons 2015-16 and 2016-17, when a larger freezer trawler was operating in the SPF, 56 seals were reported as interacting with the gear (AFMA, nd, Protected Species), six of which were released alive. The information on historical interaction rates supports the current interaction level (2017-18) which is similar to the one from previous years. SESPF mid-water trawl indirect effects on seals For ETP species, MSC standard requires that in addition to assessing the direct effects from the fishery, indirect effects be considered as well. Such effects could relate to behaviour modification, discarding of unwanted catch, discarding domestic litter, chemical pollution, prey localised depletion, with effects on population long-term viability. - Behaviour modification Behaviour modification for animals habituated to feed from fishing nets, other than increasing their susceptibility for direct effects, can create indirect negative effects if the population would not be able to find food outside fishing seasons. A novel satellite telemetry study was undertaken to understand the movement patterns of seals directly interacting with freezer trawler vessels in the blue grenadier fishery. Nine male Australian fur seals were tracked for up to seven months. All seals tracked foraged almost exclusively within the blue grenadier fishing grounds throughout the duration of the fishing season and rested between foraging trips at either Hibbs Point or Reid Rocks (the nearest haul-out site/breeding colonies to the south and north, respectively). When leaving the fishing grounds, seals typically swam in a direct line towards haul-out sites, but on return, swam to the nearest edge of the continental shelf, possibly to enhance the likelihood of intercepting fishing vessels (Goldsworthy et al. 2003b, Tilzey et al. 2006 in Lack et al 2014). For seals that were tracked beyond the duration of the winter blue grenadier fishing season, there was a noticeable change in the focus of foraging effort. The tracking studies clearly demonstrated

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 59

the habitual nature of fur seals feeding in the fishing grounds in between resting at nearby haul-outs. The number of resights of satellite-tagged seals alongside fishing vessels (including one live capture and release in a trawl net), and the intensity of movements to and from the fishing grounds between haul-outs, suggested that the seal population interacting with the fishery may be relatively small and transient during the period of the fishery (Goldsworthy et al. 2003b, Tilzey et al. 2006 in Lack et al 2014). In the SPF, Lyle and Willcox (2008 in Lack et al 2014) used underwater video to monitor seal interactions in 98 trawls amounting to more than 700 hours of video footage. This project has shown that a much higher number of seals enter the net for feeding, compared to the number of seals caught and brought on board of the vessel. The number of seals entering the net was higher in autumn and winter months. This evidence suggests that trawl fishing creates behavior modification in seals, although it is thought that the population feeding on trawl fishing grounds is small and transient, and the seals are able to change their feeding habits when the trawl fishing is not operating, thus not creating long term behavior modification. - Discards

Discarding domestic litter and chemicals is prohibited under MARPOL and observers are required to report such incidents. No pollution incidents were reported so far in the SESPF. Indirect effects of pollution on protected species were assessed at ERA Level 1 (SICA) and found to be non-existent (Bulman et al, 2017). The impacts of potential lost gear were also assessed at the latest ERA and considered to be negligible (Bulman et al, 2017).

The UoAs discards of target species are very low and uncommon, occurring only under special circumstances (e.g. pump malfunction, Josh Cahill pers com, February 2019 and Tony Muollo pers com, February 2019). Primary species discards are also very low (less than 1% of primary species catch), this species being commercially valuable. Although more than 50% of the secondary species catch is discarded, these discards represented only 0.1% of total 2017-18 SESPF mid-water trawl catch. The current level of discarding in the SESPF UoAs is considered to be unlikely to create significant indirect detrimental impacts on seal populations. - Localised depletion Indirect impacts from the UoAs may also occur due to prey depletion through overfishing. These indirect effects have been explored in ecosystem modelling studies and other research on localised depletion. Australian fur seal’s diet profile showed that redbait (31%) and jack mackerel (20%) had significant percentage contributions (Lack et al. 2014). Moreover, Kirkwood et all found that in some years these percentages were much higher, although changes in diet were not correlated with SPF fishing effort, but rather they were statistically significantly related to changes in mean sea surface temperatures (Kirkwood et al. 2008 in Lack et al 2014). New Zealand fur seal’s diet did not include significant amounts of the SESPF UoAs targets (Lack et al, 2014). Ecosystem modelling studies suggest that current level of fishing in the SPF does not significantly affect seal populations. Studies have also shown that south-eastern Australia coastal ecosystems are resilient to significant biomass removal from these species and trophic cascade effects with serious effects on top predator species are unlikely to occur (Smith et al 2015). In addition, although the risk of localised depletion occurring in the SPF is considered to be low (Lack et al. 2015), AFMA’s SPF spatial management (move-on triggers) is likely to further minimise this risk (AFMA, 2018c).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 60

The risks of behavior modification, effects of discards, gear loss, waste disposal and chemical pollution from the SPF mid-water trawl fishery on marine mammals (although not specifically for seals because they were not considered the most vulnerable elements) were also assessed under the ERAF framework at Level 1 (SICA) and were considered to be minor/insignificant (Daley et al, 2007, Bulman et al 2017). Although Australian fur seals show dependence on small pelagic species that constitute targets for the UoAs, there is evidence that the population is expanding, and they are able to switch opportunistically from one prey to another. In addition, there are measure in place to limit the potential effect of localised depletion. There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on pinniped species and the UoAs achieve SG 100 for scoring issue 2.3.1c for both, Australian and New Zealand fur seals.

3.4.7.3 Elasmobranchs (sharks) It is compulsory for the SESPF mid-water trawl operators to report interactions with protected shark species, these including mako sharks, porbeagls, silky sharks, and all other EPBC listed shark species. Any live and vigorous listed shark must be released (Simon Boag pers com April, 2018). Interactions with protected sharks are not common in the SESPF mid-water trawl. Although a number of interactions with mako sharks (some released alive) and one tiger shark (released alive) have been reported when a large freezer trawler was operating in the SPF (AFMA, nd, Protected Species), up to the time of this MSC assessment there have been no reported interactions of the current UoAs with sharks (AFMA, nd, Protected Species), and sharks will not be scored as a scoring element under the ETP Outcome PI.

3.4.7.4 Seabirds The background information is based on Lack et al, 2014. South-eastern Australia coast is known for the richness of seabird species. There are 89 protected species of seabirds that occur within the SPF area. Of those, the groups most impacted by direct interactions with fisheries are albatrosses and petrels (Lack et al, 2014). The ERA for the SPF mid-water trawl sector (Daley et al. 2007) assessed 76 bird species of which 53 were albatrosses and petrels. The remainder comprised penguins, cormorants, gannets, boobies, tropicbirds, skuas, gulls and terns, which are considered likely to be at lower risk of mortality in trawl fishing operations. Of the 76 bird species assessed in the ERA, only three (shy albatross Thalassarche cauta, Chatham albatross T. eremita and black- browed albatross T. melanophris) were assessed at ‘high’ risk (Daley et al. 2007). These assessments were reduced to ‘medium’ risk as a result of the residual risk assessment (AFMA 2010). At the new ERA, no seabird species were found to be at high or medium risk from the SESPF mid-water trawl because all ecological components were eliminated at Level 1 (Bulman et al, 2017). This was due to more data becoming available, better application of the management strategies and high observer coverage (Bulman et al, 2017). Interactions of the mid-water trawl with birds are rare. Since the current vessel is in operation, two shy albatross interactions have been recorded. Both birds were released alive. Lack et al (2014) note some discordance between the definitions of a seabird interaction in the MOU between AFMA and the DEE and the Small Pelagic Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2014-15. This has been addressed and currently, the MoU definition is used in the booklet, i.e. any physical contact of a bird with the gear or boat is considered interaction and reported as such. Previous data on interactions with protected species in the mid-water trawl sector of the SPF

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 61

has been compiled by Tuck et al. (2013). They report that, between 2001 and 2011, there were 37 recorded seabird interactions with SPF mid-water trawl (Tuck et al. 2013). Of those, 36 occurred in the first half of 2006 and involved shearwaters; 24 flesh-footed shearwaters Puffinus carneipes, eight short-tailed shearwaters and four unidentified shearwater species. Of those, 22 mortalities were recorded. Lack et al (2014) note that the causes of mortality of seabirds in trawl fisheries have been summarised by the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) as: “Varied and dependent on the nature of the fishery (pelagic or demersal), the species targeted and fishing area. Mortalities may be categorised into two broad types: (1) cable-related mortality, including collisions with net-monitoring cables, warp cables and paravanes; and (2) net-related mortality, which includes deaths caused by net entanglements” and “In all cases the presence of offal and discards is the most important factor attracting seabirds to the stern of trawl vessels, where they are at risk of cable and net interactions. Managing offal discharge and discards while fishing gear is deployed has been shown to reduce seabird attendance.” The DEE commissioned expert panel, when assessing the impact of SPF mid-water trawl on seabirds, concluded that interactions have been low, and this could be at least partly explained by the low level of discharge of biological material that would attract seabirds. The SESPF UoAs are considered to not create significant detrimental direct effects to seabird populations and SG 100 is achieved for the SI 2.3.1.b. SESPF mid-water trawl indirect effects on seabirds Indirect effects on seabirds might be related to behavior modification, with long-term consequences for the population, trophic effects due to localized depletion of prey species, catch and waste discards, chemical pollution, and other causes. Such indirect effects were assessed at ERAEF Level 1 (SICA) and were considered minor/negligible (Daley et al, 2007, Bulman, 2017). The three SESPF UoAs meet the requirements at SG 100 for the SI 2.3.1.c.

3.4.8 ETP Species Management (PI 2.3.2) When assessing ETP Management PI, unlike requirements for primary and secondary species (where a partial strategy, if necessary, is required at SG80), a full strategy is required for an unconditional pass (SG 80). At SG 100, a comprehensive strategy is required. A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome, and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification of fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts (MSC 2018a, p. 29) A “comprehensive strategy” (applicable only for ETP component) is a complete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analyses, and management measures and responses (MSC 2018a, p. 30) The first scoring issue of the ETP Management PI is not applicable because there are no legislations that set limits for protected species, thus it is not scored, and only SIs 2.3.1b and c are scored.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 62

In 2016, the AFMA Commission approved the following protected species management principles for Commonwealth fisheries: - Management responses should be proportionate to the conservation status of affected species and Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) results. - Ensure consistency with Government policy and legislative objectives (including to ‘avoid’ and ‘minimise’) and existing national protected species management strategies such as Threat Abatement Plans and National Plans of Action. - Incentives should encourage industry-led solutions to minimise bycatch of protected species utilising an individual accountability approach. - Account for cumulative impact of Commonwealth fisheries on protected species when making management decisions on mitigation. - Appropriate, and where possible consistent monitoring and reporting arrangements should exist across fisheries (AFMA, 2017d) These principles are consistent with the new Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy (DAWR, 2018c).

AFMA has developed mitigation strategies to avoid interactions and to minimise impacts on high risk ETP species in accord to AFMA’s new Bycatch Strategy (2017b). AFMA undertakes reviews and update these strategies as required. All SPF mid-water trawl vessels are required to have a dolphin management plan and vessel management plan which details vessels fishing operations and vessel specific ETP mitigation measures.

3.4.8.1 Cetaceans

A Dolphin Mitigation Strategy has been developed to be consistent with the AFMA Commission principles. This aims to minimise dolphin interactions in the trawl sector of the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) by adopting an individual responsibility approach to create incentives for fishers to innovate and adopt best practices (AFMA, 2017g). AFMA recognises that the strategy has been developed in the absence of important information regarding dolphin population sizes and gear-specific interaction rates, thus the strategy is aimed to be precautionary. The information gaps are due to the sporadic effort in the fishery and the absence of long-term data series rates, although since 2015, when fishing effort has increased, comprehensive data has been collected. The management areas and responses in the Strategy are not based on specific dolphin population status but rather aim to minimise and avoid interactions while also creating incentives to drive changes in fishers’ behaviour (AFMA, 2017g). Under the individual responsibility approach, fishers are responsible for their actions to minimise interactions and stay within defined performance criteria. This Strategy implements a framework to minimise dolphin interactions by: - improving information on the nature of interactions between dolphins and fishing gear, and species identification - providing incentives for individual operators to minimise dolphin interactions and implement and develop mitigation measures best suited to their circumstances and location

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 63

- identifying options and best practice mitigation measures to support fishers in minimising dolphin interactions. SPF Dolphin Mitigation Strategy framework includes: Monitoring and data collection - Logbooks: all protected species interactions, including dolphins, must be reported under AFMA’s legislation and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). A Listed Marine and Threatened Species form in the daily fishing logbook must be completed for all protected species interactions (AFMA, 2017g). AFMA has distributed a dolphin identification guide to assist operators to record interactions at species level (AFMA, 2006). - Dolphin Interaction Evaluation Report: In addition to completing a Listed Marine and Threatened Species form in the daily fishing logbook, a Dolphin Interaction Evaluation Report must be completed and sent to AFMA within 48 hours of landing. This report contains more specific detail about the circumstances of the interaction, and allows AFMA to evaluate if there are any factors trends that contribute to interactions for consideration by the Commonwealth Marine Mammal Working Group (CMMWG) (AFMA, 2017g). - Electronic monitoring: All trawl vessels in the SPF are required to have electronic monitoring systems installed. Electronic monitoring ensures that AFMA and scientists have an accurate record of the catch and effort in the fishery and of interactions with large animals. Electronic monitoring footage is used as independent verification of logbook data. If an AFMA observer is not present, a minimum of 10 percent of trawling fishing activity recorded by electronic monitoring will be independently reviewed across the fishery to verify interactions with protected species. If there is an increase in dolphin interactions, or concerns about non-reporting of dolphin interactions, AFMA may increase the review of electronic monitoring footage for an operator or require the carriage of an AFMA observer (fee-for-service), to ensure that they are operating in accordance with their Dolphin Mitigation Plan (AFMA, 2017g). Note that 100% of electronic monitoring has been reviewed during the large freezer trawler operations (2015-16 and 2016-17) (Josh Cahill, pers com, February 2019). - Scientific (AFMA) observers: SPF concession holders are required to carry an observer at any time when directed to do so by AFMA. The baseline coverage for the SESPF mid-water trawl is 20%. For new boats entering the fishery observer coverage for at least the first 10 trips is required. Observers collect detailed information on dolphin interactions (AFMA, 2018c). To be noted that the achieved observer coverage for the UoAs in the fishing season 2017-18 was 36% (Marton & Mobsby, 2018) Reporting Enforcement - Where an operator fails to report a dolphin interaction, potential penalties may apply under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 or the EPBC Act. In addition, to ensure that this strategy is supported by accurate information, AFMA may require 100 per cent monitoring (observer or 100 per cent electronic monitoring review) for protected species interactions, charged on a fee-for-service basis. ERA - AFMA, working with CSIRO, undertakes regular risk assessments for all major Commonwealth fisheries, SPF mid-water trawl, included (Daley et al, 2007, AFMA, 2010, Zhou et al, 2009). The SESPF mid-water trawl has been recently reassessed

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 64

under a revised Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing (ERAEF) framework (Bulman et al 2017). Consultation - To help ensure that the latest research and science is being used to support fisheries management, AFMA has formed a new Commonwealth Fisheries Marine Mammal Working Group (CFMMWG) which provides advice across AFMA-managed fisheries. The group also provides advice on priorities arising from AFMA’s Protected Species Strategy. Members of the Working Group include marine mammal scientists, an industry expert, a conservation member, a recreational fishing science expert, the DAWR and DEE representatives and an independent chair (AFMA, nd, Committees25). Measures - Dolphin Mitigation Plan: To fish in the SPF, all trawl vessels in the fishery must have an AFMA approved Dolphin Mitigation Plan that outlines what actions are being taken by the fishers to minimise dolphin interactions on that particular vessel. Given that this Strategy is based on an individual responsibility approach, AFMA does not prescribe specific mitigation measures that must be included in the Dolphin Mitigation Plan. AFMA will only approve a Dolphin Mitigation Plan where it is satisfied the plan details actions to minimise interactions being taken in the following areas: - fishing practices (e.g. the SESPF is only setting gear during daylight hours – allows good visibility to check for dolphin presence before setting the gear to fish and postpone fishing or move to different area if dolphins are present, avoid offal discharge while shooting and hauling) - gear setup (e.g. the SESPF fishers remove ‘stickers’, entangled fish from the net after each shot) - mitigation devices (e.g. the SESPF uses mammal excluder device – top opening SED) Dolphin Mitigation Plans must be updated by an operator if there are any changes to actions being taken to minimise dolphin interactions. The updated version must be approved by AFMA before implementation and recommencing fishing. AFMA may review electronic monitoring footage of any dolphin interactions to ensure that operators are operating in accordance with their Dolphin Mitigation Plan, and may require increased monitoring (observer or electronic monitoring) to confirm appropriate mitigation strategies are being used by the operator (AFMA, 2017g). - Vessel Management Plan: Any holder of an SPF concessions must not fish using the mid-water trawl method unless a Vessel Management Plan (VMP) for the boat has been approved by AFMA. A VMP sets out the day-to-day operational rules that apply and includes measures aimed at reducing interactions with protected species and reporting requirements. For an example of VMP see https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/10/Vessel-Management- Plan-for-the-Geelong-Star-Version-2.0.pdf. Responses

25 https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/committees

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 65

The Strategy implements a management response for any dolphin interaction. For any subsequent interactions, a series of escalating management responses are applied to individual fishers, culminating in closures for fishers who are unable to minimise their interactions (Table 8). Table 8. Measures that apply to all trawl fishers for each dolphin interaction.

Performance Criterion Management Response Indicator Interaction Rate If > 1:50 (1 dolphin 1. If the interaction rate is exceeded in interaction: 50 trawl gear sets) a review period: Cease fishing and applies separately to return to port. Review of Dolphin the eastern area and Mitigation Plan by AFMA or AFMA- the western area approved reviewer (fee-for-service). measured at the end of The plan must be submitted and the review period (6 approved by AFMA prior to the months) operator recommencing fishing using trawl methods. OR 2. If interaction rate is exceeded for a second consecutive review period: Exclusion from the relevant area (Eastern or Western) for 6 months. Review of Dolphin Mitigation Plan by AFMA or AFMA-approved reviewer (fee-for-service). The plan must be submitted and approved by AFMA prior to the operator recommencing fishing using trawl methods. OR 3. If interaction rate is exceeded for a third consecutive review period, irrespective of area: Exclusion from the fishery for 6 months. Review of Dolphin Mitigation Plan by AFMA or AFMA-approved reviewer (fee-for- service). The plan must be submitted and approved by AFMA prior to the operator recommencing fishing using trawl methods.

Interaction Cap Any dolphin interaction - Operator to review current mitigation, make any necessary repairs applies separately to in a single gear set to mitigation devices the eastern area and the western area - Operator to submit a Listed Marine measured within a and Threatened Species Form in the review period daily fishing logbook - Operator to submit complete a Dolphin Interaction Evaluation Report and submit it to AFMA within 48 hours of landing at the end of the trip 3 or more dolphins In addition to the Listed Marine and Threatened Species Form and Dolphin across 3 or more gear sets Interaction Evaluation Report listed above:

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 66

- Cease fishing and return to port. Review of Dolphin Mitigation Plan by AFMA or AFMA- approved reviewer (fee-for- service). The plan must be submitted and approved by AFMA prior to the operator recommencing fishing using trawl methods. In addition to the Listed Marine and Threatened Species Form and Dolphin Interaction Evaluation Report listed above: 1. Cease fishing and return to port. Review of Dolphin Mitigation Plan by AFMA or AFMA-approved 6 or more dolphins reviewer (fee-for-service). The plan where the Maximum must be submitted and approved by Interaction Rate has not been AFMA prior to the operator exceeded in either of the recommencing fishing using trawl previous two review periods methods. For any subsequent dolphin interaction within the same review period, the operator must cease fishing and return to port. A review of the Dolphin Mitigation Plan by AFMA or an AFMA-approved reviewer must occur prior to recommencing fishing.

Exclusion from the relevant area 6 or more dolphins (Eastern or Western) for 6 months. where the Maximum Review of Dolphin Mitigation Plan by Interaction Rate has been AFMA or AFMA- approved reviewer exceeded in either of the (fee-for-service). The plan must be previous two review periods submitted and approved by AFMA prior to the operator recommencing

fishing using trawl methods. Exclusion from the fishery for 6 months. Review of Dolphin Mitigation If 6 dolphin interaction cap is Plan by AFMA or AFMA-approved exceeded twice within 12 reviewer (fee-for- service). The plan months must be submitted and approved by AFMA prior to the operator recommencing fishing using trawl methods. Source: AFMA, 2017g Analyses AFMA aimed to review the Strategy’s performance against its objectives after the first year, and every two years thereafter, with advice from the CMMWG (AFMA, 2017g). The strategy is intended to be adaptive and integrate improved information as needed on: - any trends identified in Dolphin Interaction Evaluation Reports - dolphin conservation status and population abundance

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 67

- the cumulative impacts of dolphin interactions on populations - the effectiveness of management measures in mitigating interactions. AFMA, with advice from the CMMWG, will also continue to review the cumulative level of dolphin interactions across Commonwealth fisheries. The first review of the SPF Dolphin Strategy was completed in 2018 (AFMA, nd, Dolphin Strategy Review).

It can be concluded that SPF dolphin strategy has all the elements required to meet the definition of a comprehensive strategy, although, because of the short implementation time, it cannot be said that it is a fully tested strategy. As a precautionary measure, the score given for the SI 2.3.1.b is 80. The management responses in case of dolphin interactions are very stringent, acting as a deterrent for fisher misbehaviour and an incentive to continuously develop mitigation measure to reduce the risk of interactions. For the two occasions when interactions resulting in dolphin mortality occurred, the investigations into the cause of mortality have led to the fishers being able to address the cause (i.e. fix the malfunctioning gear and banning night fishing). No other interactions have been recorded after the beginning of 2018. There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved (SG 80 is met for SI 2.3.1b). However, a quantitative analysis that supports high confidence that the strategy will work is not available (SG100 is not met). The high observer coverage and electronic monitoring in place offer clear evidence that the comprehensive strategy is being implemented successfully and the fact that dolphin interactions are rare suggest that the strategy is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue 2.3.1b (to not hinder recovery) and for SI 2.3.1c, SG 100 is met. The SPF Dolphin Mitigation Strategy makes provisions for a biennial review of the strategy and the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoAs- related mortality of dolphins, and they are implemented, as appropriate, for SI 2.3.1 SI, the requirement at SG100 is achieved. An overall score of 90 has been achieved for the Management PI for dolphin species as scoring elements.

3.4.8.2 Pinnipeds Some of the elements included in dolphin strategy apply for the management of seals as well:

Monitoring and data collection - Logbooks: all protected species interactions, including seals, must be reported under AFMA’s legislation and the EPBC Act. A Listed Marine and Threatened Species form in the daily fishing logbook must be completed for all protected species interactions, including seals (AFMA, 2018c). AFMA has distributed a protected species identification guide to assist operators to record interactions at species level (AFMA, 2006). - Electronic monitoring: All trawl vessels in the SPF are required to have electronic monitoring systems installed. If an AFMA observer is not present, a minimum of 10 percent of trawling fishing activity recorded by electronic monitoring will be

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 68

independently reviewed across the fishery to verify interactions with protected species. - Scientific (AFMA) observers: SPF concession holders are required to carry an observer at any time when directed to do so by AFMA. The baseline coverage for the SESPF mid-water trawl is 20%. For new boats entering the fishery observer coverage for at least the first 10 trips is required. Observers collect detailed information on dolphin interactions (AFMA, 2018c). Reporting Enforcement - Where an operator fails to report a seal interaction, potential penalties may apply under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 or the EPBC Act. In addition, to ensure that management measures are supported by accurate information, AFMA may require 100 per cent monitoring (observer or 100 per cent electronic monitoring review) for protected species interactions, charged on a fee-for-service basis.

Consultation - CFMMWG provides advice on best practice management of seal interactions (AFMA, nd, Committees26). Measures - Vessel Management Plan: Any holder of an SPF concessions must not fish using the mid-water trawl method unless a Vessel Management Plan (VMP) for the boat has been approved by AFMA. A VMP sets out the day-to-day operational rules that apply and includes measures aimed at reducing interactions with protected species and reporting requirements. The current management arrangements booklet requires a top opening SED to be installed in trawl nets of mid-water trawl vessels (AFMA, 2018c). Fishing only during daylight is a voluntary measure introduced to increase the probability that mammals, if present, are seen before fishing starts (Josh Cahill pers.com February 2019). Responses AFMA has not set management responses in case of seal interactions, although the Vessel management plan must include such responses (e.g. suspend fishing immediately, review the effectiveness of the SED). The SPF management measures for seals meet the definition of a ‘strategy’ because the SED has been introduced and developed to manage seal interactions specifically (SG 80 is met for SI 2.3.2b). The strategy however, has not been tested sufficiently and there is still uncertainty related to the effectiveness of the SED type used (SG100 not met). There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved (SG 80 is met for SI 2.3.1b). However, a quantitative analysis that supports high confidence that the strategy will work is not available (SG100 is not met). The high observer coverage and electronic monitoring in place offer clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully and the fact that only a small fraction of the seals that interact with the gear get caught, suggests that the strategy is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue 2.3.1b (to not hinder recovery) and for SI 2.3.1c, SG 100 is met.

26 https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/committees

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 69

The Bycatch and Discarding Workplans, containing mitigation measures for ETP interactions, have been reviewed annually and renewed every two years. With the implementation of the new AFMA Bycatch Strategy, bycatch and discarding workplans are going to be integrated in the bycatch section of the Fishery Management Strategy for each fishery, which will contain annual deliverables, thus reviewed annually (AFMA, 2017b). Also, there is an ongoing development and review of the effectiveness of SEDs through scientific and industry trials, as well as by follow-up investigations after an interaction occurs. 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 (SG100 met). An overall score of 90 has been achieved for the Management PI for seals species as scoring elements.

3.4.8.3 Elasmobranchs No interactions with protected sharks have been reported for the fishing season 2017-18. However, the SPF management arrangements booklet specifies live release and reporting requirements for protected shark species. Porbeagle, shortfin mako and longfin mako sharks were listed as migratory species in 2010, silky shark was listed in 2015. Any interaction with these species must be reported however, provided that fishing occurs in accordance with the Management Plan, fishers may retain and trade (domestic only) any of these species that are brought up dead. Live sharks must be returned to the sea unharmed and a Listed Marine and Threatened Species Form must be completed. Sharks are not scored in this assessment under the Management PI (no interactions reported).

3.4.8.4 Seabirds AFMA has produced Seabird Bycatch Operational Guidelines for Commonwealth Fisheries (AFMA, 2018h) which provides an operating framework to support implementation of government policies and legislation relating to the protection of seabirds during fishing operations. These Operational Guidelines have been drafted to pursue the five overarching principles documented in the AFMA Bycatch Strategy: • Management responses are proportionate to the conservation status of bycatch species and Ecological Risk Assessment results • Consistency with Government policy and legislative objectives (including to ‘avoid’ and ‘minimise’) and existing national protected species management strategies such as Threat Abatement Plans (TAP) and National Plans of Action. • Incentives should encourage industry-led solutions to minimise bycatch of protected species utilising an individual accountability approach. • Cumulative impact of Commonwealth fisheries on protected species is accounted for when making management decisions on mitigation. • Appropriate, and where possible, consistent monitoring and reporting arrangements across fisheries. Although the new Commonwealth Bycatch Strategy is not yet fully implemented, for the SESPF mid-water trawl, management measures and reporting requirements are in place and detailed in the VMP. These include:

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 70

Monitoring and data collection - Logbooks: all protected species interactions, including birds, must be reported under AFMA’s legislation and the EPBC Act. A Listed Marine and Threatened Species form in the daily fishing logbook must be completed for all protected species interactions, including birds. AFMA has distributed a protected species identification guide to assist operators to record interactions at species level (AFMA, 2006). - Electronic monitoring: All trawl vessels in the SPF are required to have electronic monitoring systems installed recording 100% of the time (AFMA, 2018c). - Scientific (AFMA) observers: SPF concession holders are required to carry an observer at any time when directed to do so by AFMA. Observers collect detailed information on bird all interactions (AFMA, 2018c). Reporting Enforcement - Where an operator fails to report an interaction, potential penalties may apply under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 or the EPBC Act. In addition, to ensure that management measures are supported by accurate information, AFMA may require 100 per cent monitoring (observer or 100 per cent electronic monitoring review) for protected species interactions, charged on a fee-for-service basis (AFMA, 2018h). Measures - Vessel Management Plan: Any holder of an SPF concessions must not fish using the mid-water trawl method unless a VMP for the boat has been approved by AFMA. A VMP sets out the day-to-day operational rules that apply and includes measures aimed at reducing interactions with protected species and reporting requirements. Such measures include: • No discharge of biological material while fishing gear is in the water • The third wire is required to be close to the water, greatly reducing its aerial extent behind the boat and consequently reducing the risk of seabirds accidentally flying into the wire • Tori lines (lines with streamers on them) must be used on either side of the third wire. The tori lines are highly visible and create a barrier to seabirds (all the mitigation devices and procedures that are in use in the SESPF mid-water trawl are presented in AFMA 2018h, Appendix A). Responses Responses are also included in the approved VMP. Since 2016, the following responses were set for the SPF mid-water trawl: - If a seabird is killed by the third wire the boat must stop fishing and cannot recommence until AFMA has reviewed the circumstances of the mortality and provided written approval to recommence. - If two or more seabirds are killed on a single trip (regardless of what caused the mortalities) the boat must stop fishing and cannot recommence until AFMA has reviewed the circumstances of the mortality and provided written approval to recommence. Seabird management measures and responses constitute a ‘comprehensive strategy’ and SG 80 and SG 100 are achieved for SI 2.3.2b.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 71

There have been no bird mortalities since the current UoAs started their fishing activity. The effectiveness of the mitigation devices adopted in the SESPF mid-water trawl have been assessed in the SESSF and they were proven to be effective for the shy albatross, the species that most often interacts with trawl gear (Pierre et al, 2014). The same authors found also support for the effectiveness of offal management (no discarding while the gear is in the water), which is consistent with previous research (Pierre et al, 2014). There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved, meeting the requirement at SG80 for the SI 2.3.2c. As the fishery is developing, a quantitative analysis that supports high confidence that the strategy will work is not available. SG 100 is not met. The high observer coverage and electronic monitoring in place offer is clear evidence that the strategy for seabirds is being implemented successfully and the fact no seabird mortalities occurred since the SESPF mid-water trawl UoAs started their fishing activity suggests that the strategy is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue 2.3.1c (to not hinder recovery) and for SI 2.3.1c, SG 100 is met. The Bycatch and Discarding Workplans, containing mitigation measures for ETP interactions, have been reviewed annually and renewed every two years. With the implementation of the new AFMA Bycatch Strategy, bycatch and discarding workplans are going to be integrated in the bycatch section of the Fishery Management Strategy for each fishery, which will contain annual deliverables, reviewed annually (AFMA, 2017b). 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 (SG100 met). An overall score of 90 has been achieved for the Management PI for seabird species as scoring elements.

3.4.9 ETP Species Information (PI 2.3.3) The ETP Information PI requires that relevant information is collected to support the management of UoAs’ impacts on ETP species, including: • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Fishery-dependent information AFMA collects fishery dependent information through fishery logbooks. All protected species interactions must be reported under AFMA’s legislation and the EPBC Act. Daily logsheet forms contain a field where the fisher must fill ‘yes’ if an interaction occurred, and then they need to complete the Wildlife and other Protected Species form (located at the back of the logbook) and return the form and corresponding logsheets to AFMA. If there is an observer present, they must be informed of the interaction immediately, although the fishers are still required to report the interaction in their logbook. As part of the requirement under the EPBC Act 1999, AFMA licensed fishers must report any interactions of their fishing activity with threatened, endangered and protected species to the DEE. Based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), AFMA supplies interaction data to the DEE on behalf of the fishers who report ETP interaction in logbooks (AFMA 2018d).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 72

The information reported to the DEE includes: • The total number of each species/species group interacted with; • Life status for each interaction - dead; alive; injured; • Interaction type - netted; entangled; collision; and • Method of fishing (AFMA and DEH, 2005). For whales and dolphin species and for some sharks (e.g. great white shark) DEE requires more specific information for individual interactions such as: • Location (latitude/longitude verified by VMS); • Time and date; • Whether an observer was present; • Sex (if identified); and • Life stage - Adult/juvenile (if identified) When the number of interactions with these species in any period reaches an agreed threshold level (currently one) AFMA will report to DEE as soon as AFMA is notified of such interaction (AFMA and DEH, 2005). Fishery independent information Fishery independent information is collected by AFMA through the observer program, electronic monitoring and VMS (provides the exact location and time of the interaction). In addition to monitoring program, other independent sources of information are used to inform management. Population surveys are used to inform on ETP species abundance and distribution (Mackay et al, 2016, offers a synthesis of such surveys). Ecological risk assessments (ERAEF) inform on the level of risk the fishery poses to ETP species (Daley et al, 2007, AFMA, 2010, Bulman et al 2017). The effectiveness of the mitigation devices and other management measures is assessed in scientific studies and industry trials in SPF or other similar fisheries. Summary information on the ERAEF framework and mitigation devices trials are given below. Ecological Risk Assessments The Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing (ERAEF) framework involves a hierarchical approach that moves from a comprehensive but largely qualitative analysis of risk at Level 1, through a more focused and semi-quantitative approach at Level 2, to a highly focused and fully quantitative “model-based” approach at Level 3. This approach is efficient because many potential risks are screened out at Level 1, so that the more intensive and quantitative analyses at Level 2 (and ultimately at Level 3) are limited to a subset of the higher risk activities associated with fishing. It also leads to rapid identification of high-risk activities, which in turn can lead to immediate remedial action (risk management response). The ERAEF approach is also precautionary, in the sense that risks will be scored high in the absence of information, evidence or logical argument to the contrary. AFMA, working with CSIRO, undertakes regular risk assessments for all major Commonwealth fisheries, SPF mid-water trawl, included (Daley et al, 2007, AFMA, 2010). The SESPF mid-water trawl has been recently reassessed under a revised Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing (ERAEF) framework (Bulman et al, 2017). It is expected that ERAs will be undertaken every five years (AFMA, 2017f).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 73

Bycatch Mitigation Devices Trials - Seal Excluder Device (SED) The SED has a metal grid which blocks access to the codend, whilst still allowing fish to pass through the bars. The metal grid angled towards the codend, which guides mammals that enter the net out of the escape hole. SEDs also allow other larger animals such as sharks and rays to escape the net safely. In the SPF, there have been ongoing SED trials. From the inception of mid-water trawling in 2002, a soft rope mesh SED was incorporated in the gear, and scientific trials conducted to modify the SED in order to reduce gear interactions. In 2004, larger top-opening excluder gaps were required on all nets, allowing seals to escape more easily. By late 2005, the soft mesh excluder was replaced with a metal grid and a bottom opening excluder device re- instated. This excluder device was enlarged around mid- 2006 and made mandatory on all nets to minimise bycatch of seals and dolphins (Tuck et al, 2013). SED trials in the mid-water trawl fishery of the SPF indicated lower seal mortality with a larger SED opening (in a bottom opening SED). Top opening SEDs are currently in use, mainly to retain dead seals in the net and prevent unobserved mortality (Josh Cahill, pers com February 2019). Information on the way seals interact with trawl gear and the effectiveness of the SED is available from SPF trials and from the blue grenadier fishery from off western Tasmania and reviewed in Lack et al (2014) as follows: In the SPF, between 2004 and 2010, a total of 184 seal interactions were recorded with mid- water trawl gear, and of that, 175 interactions (95 per cent) were part of underwater video monitoring conducted during the scientific projects. The most detailed project was undertaken by Lyle and Willcox (2008 in Lack et al, 2014) who used underwater video to monitor seal interactions in 98 trawls amounting to more than 700 hours of video footage. During the study, 151 seals (mostly Australian fur seals) were recorded inside the trawl net in the region of the SED in more than half of the monitored shots, peaking during autumn and winter months (70 per cent) and below 25 per cent at other times of the year. Most seals (87 per cent) entered the trawl net via the net mouth and exited via the SED opening (64 per cent), with a smaller percentage entering through the SED opening (13 per cent) and exiting via the net mouth (22 per cent, exit point of 14 per cent unknown) (Lyle and Willcox 2008 in Lack et al 2014). Seals entered the net at every stage of trawling, with the highest rates of interaction occurring during setting. However, numerically, most of the recorded net entries occurred during fishing (62 per cent), which accounted for most (73 per cent) of the trawl duration. As most fishing occurred in less than 150 m, the net was essentially available to seals at all stages of trawling (Lyle and Willcox 2008 in Lack et al 2014). Intensive observations were undertaken on board fishing vessels in blue grenadier fishery off western Tasmania to assess the relationship between seal numbers and a range of factors to do with trawling activity including on-board factors and the relationship to the proximity of other vessels, distances from seal colonies/haul-out locations and weather and sea conditions. In addition, underwater cameras were used to record seal activity in and around the codend of the net during trawling, primarily to record the timing and depths of net-entry. A complex suite of interacting parameters were found to be important in determining the number of seals present at any given time behind fishing vessels, including factors to do with the fishery (stage of fishing season, presence of other vessels), the vessel (speed), weather (barometric pressure) and the proximity to seal colonies/haul-outs. Numbers of seals increased in response to poor weather (decreasing barometric pressure/increasing swell height), increasing fishing activity (the number of nearby vessels and trawl frequency), and proximity to seal

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 74

haul-outs/colonies. Numbers decreased with increasing vessel speed (Hamer and Goldsworthy 2006 in Lack et al, 2014). Seal numbers at the surface generally increased throughout trawling operations, with brief declines during shooting and hauling phases (presumably when many seals were actively diving down to the net). This was substantiated with subsurface observations from a submersible video camera installed in the net, confirming the greatest period of seal activity within the net was during shooting and hauling (Hamer and Goldsworthy 2006 in Lack et al, 2014). The numbers of seals observed in the net was similar during shooting and hauling; however, all seals observed to enter the net during shooting drowned; whereas most (86 per cent) that entered the net during hauling survived, with all seals entering during hauling observed to enter the net just prior to it breaching the surface and being hauled on board (Hamer and Goldsworthy 2006 in Lack et al, 2014). Innovations in SED design emerged from the blue grenadier fishery, such as a hydrostatic net release, an acoustic transponder release grid gate and installation of smaller sized mesh on the hood. These were promising, although less likely to be effective in shallower, mid-water trawling where seals can access the net at any stage (Lack et al, 2014). Bird Interaction Mitigation Devices (http://setfia.org.au/fishermen-call-to-mandate-use-of- new-technology-to-reduce-effects-on-seabirds/)

In 2010 the trawl industry supported a management rule requiring that all trawl vessels use pinkies – large brightly coloured inflatable boys that physically push seabirds to the sides of the two warps where they enter the water. Pinkies have proven to reduce seabird warp strikes by around 75% compared to unprotected warps with no mitigation device. However, pinkies can become tangled in fishing gear and we believed we could do better to further reduce interactions with seabirds.

In 2014, based on an Australian Government grant, a steering committee of trawl fishermen from the Great Australian Bight and South East Australia, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), the Australian Antarctic Division, Fishwell Consulting and the CSIRO oversaw a project during which a delegation travelled to New Zealand, (where the seabird issue is more significant), to identify and adapt seabird mitigation devices that might work in Australia. Following the visit, built and fine-tuned two new devices, designed a scientific testing program and then used independent sea-going observers to complete a study on their efficacy.

A device called a sprayer, sprays seawater on the area where the warp enters the water. Seabirds being sprayed so keep away from warps. The sprayer is now proven to reduce interactions by 90%.

A second device called a bird baffler creates a long curtain of ropes and pieces of plastic piping which acts as a fence to prevent seabirds from entering the danger zone near the warps. The trial has shown that bird bafflers reduce interactions by 96%.

The SESPF vessel uses the later device (Ross Bromley, pers com March 2019).

Information Adequacy

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 75

In assessing the information adequacy, “adequate” refers to the quantity and quality of information needed to justify the level of risk or certainty associated with the specific Scoring Guidepost. The adequacy of information relates to its ability to determine and to detect changes over time in the status of the species involved. The precision of the estimate (qualitative or quantitative), potential bias in estimates and data collection methods (logbook information is considered higher bias, while information from observer program and electronic monitoring, lower bias, higher verifiability), comprehensiveness of the data and data continuity (MSC, 2018a, p. 37). In the case of the SESPF mid-water trawl UoAs, some quantitative information that is collected is adequate to assess the UoAs related mortality and impact (in ERAs) and to determine whether the UoAs may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species (SG80 is achieved for SI 2.3.3a). Quantitative information is not yet available to assess with a high degree of certainty the magnitude of UoAs-related impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species (SG100 is not achieved). Information is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. Quantitative information on ETP interactions is available from the current UoAs, as well as from previous periods of mid-water trawl activity in the SPF. In addition, considerable knowledge and understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation devices and practices used, is available to support management strategies for ETP species (SG80 is achieved). 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. Data insufficiency is due to the fact that this is a new fishery (SG100 is not achieved). The overall score for ETP Information PI for each ETP species in each of the three UoAs is 90.

3.4.10 Habitat Outcome (PI 2.4.1) The MSC Standard requires an understanding of the main habitat types associated with the fishing grounds, and an understanding of the overlap of SESPF effort with these main habitat types. There is also a focus on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs), which were originally introduced by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) for the management of deep-sea fisheries in the high seas. Under the MSC FCR, the definition of VMEs is the responsibility of the management authority. To date, no VMEs were identified in the eastern sub-area of the SPF. The only VME habitats off south-eastern Australia are the giant kelp forests which are EPBC listed as a protected ecological community, although these do not overlap SESPF fishing grounds (DEE, 2018). SPF mid-water trawl method does not normally touch the sea bottom (it is occasionally possible) and it is not considered to have a significant impact on benthic habitats, as assessed at ERA in Daley et al 2007. Daume and Brand Gardner (2017) in the second annual surveillance report for the MSC certification of blue grenadier fishery (part of SESSF) mention that a report by Koopman and Knuckey (2017) commissioned by industry (not available for the present assessment) has shown very little evidence of mid-water trawl interaction with benthic species. The authors used various sources and observer data, indicating that mid-water gear has very rare contact with the sea bed. An assessment of the potential for near-seabed midwater trawling to contact the seabed and to impact benthic habitat and vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) in SPFRMO Convention

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 76

Area was shown to be low but not zero. The frequency with which benthic material is brought up when using midwater trawl gear was relatively low, with six of 238 (3%) midwater tows during the period 2011–2013 with a recorded presence of benthic material. Over the same time period, the rate for demersal trawl tows with benthic material was 37% (Tingley, 2014). The study shows that using a different approach to quantify the evidence of bottom contact (i.e. gear events such as tears in the net, net caught/net fast were added to events of benthic material caught,), estimated benthic habitat interaction were up to 19%) (Tingley, 2014). However, fishing methods and fishing areas descrided in Tingley (2014) are not similar to those in SESPF, the target species for the former being Alfonsino, a deep-water fish, very rarely caught in the history of SPF and never caught in the current UoA, SESPF targets being pelagic species. Nevertheless, at the current level of effort in the SESPF, even in a worse scenario when benthic interaction would occur 20% of the time, this is highly unlikely to produce serious harm to habitats, or the marginal harm would be insignificant compared to impact from the SESSF trawl sector overlapping SESPF.

3.4.10.1 Australian Marine Parks A series of Australian Marine Parks overlap the SESPF management area (Figure 5). Mid- water trawling is not permitted in sanctuary (pink), national park (green), recreational (orange), Lord Howe habitat protection (yellow hatched) and special purpose zones (dark blue, except for trawl zone where it is allowed).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 77

Figure 5. National Marine Parks within the SESPF management area. Temperate East Network of Australian Marine Parks The SESPF overlaps with seven out of the eight marine parks from the Temperate East Network (Central Eastern, Gifford, Lord Howe, Solitary Islands, Cod Ground, Hunter, and Jervis), with a total area of 194,895 km2. These protect underwater seamount chains, sub- tropical reefs, species richness and diversity. Temperate East Network supports the critically endangered grey nurse shark, vulnerable black cod, and are important breeding grounds for seabirds. Also, migratory humpback whales make their way through the region annually on their way to breeding grounds in Queensland. Within most of the area covered by these parks, mid-water trawling is permitted with authorisation. South-east Network of Australian Marine Parks The SESPF overlaps with six out of the 14 marine parks from the South-east Network (East Gippsland, Flinders, Freycinet, Beagle, South Tasman Rise and Huon), with a total area of 129,745 km2. These parks protect seamounts, abyssal plains, canyons, deep granite reefs, deep-sea communities. Most area of these parks is closed to mid-water trawling (national park and special purpose zones).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 78

3.4.10.2 Commonly Encountered Habitat Twenty-four benthic habitats, two pelagic habitats and eight benthic communities and 2 pelagic ones were identified as overlapping SESPF range and assessed at ERAEF Level 1 (SICA) (Daley et al, 2007). To identify these habitats, the most widely available type of data – seabed imagery –were used. The habitats were classified in a similar manner to that used in bioregionalisation and deep seabed mapping in Australian Commonwealth waters. Using this imagery, benthic habitats were classified based on an SGF score, using sediment, geomorphology, and fauna (Daley et al, 2007). This surrogate based classification is consistent MSC the recommended methodology (sediment, geomorphology, biota or SGB, MSC, 2018b, p. 8). Where seabed imagery was not available, a second method was used to develop an inferred list of potential habitat types for the fishery (Daley et al, 2007). All the identified habitat types scored as low risk from the SPF mid-water trawl and their assessment did not progress to Level 2. Although there was at least one score of 3 or higher for communities’ component, these were not assessed at Level 2 at the time of the initial ERA (Daley et al, 2007) and the following residual risk assessment (AFMA, 2010). The technique to assess communities has been further developed (Hobday et al, 2011) and it can now be progressively incorporated into AFMA’s fisheries and, subsequently, appropriate measures implemented to enable steps to be taken based on outcomes of the ERA. A new ERA, with the revised ERAEF methodology, has recently been completed and all ecological components (including habitats and benthic communities) were eliminated at Level 1, being considered as at low risk from the SESPF mid-water trawl. Under a recent project (Pitcher et al. 2016, 2018), the impact of AFMA trawl fisheries on demersal habitats was assessed with consideration of existing spatial management. The project aimed to quantify the overlap of mapped seabed assemblages with trawl footprints, and with areas of spatial management that exclude trawling, by building on previously collated data and assemblage mapping as well as data for Commonwealth demersal trawling effort (not mid-water trawl), fishery closures and marine reserves. These trawl exposure and protection estimates provide information that AFMA can use to focus on priorities or gaps, regarding the needs for future habitat ERAs. 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, although south-east habitats had the most exposure and the least protection (Figure 6 and Figure 7). Pitcher et al (2018) have estimated the Relative Benthic Status (RBS) of the predicted assemblages as a measure of the habitat status. 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 such as EU MSFD, which aims to achieve good environmental status (GES) by 2020; for “Sea‐floor Integrity” implementation, this could mean that >80% of each habitat should be in >80% status (Pitcher et al, 2018).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 79

Figure 6. East Australian shelf and slope region #5: map of assemblage patterns and compositional similarity (inset: first 2 dimensions of multi‐dimensional biological space representing gradations in habitats and species and their similarity, with vectors indicating the direction and magnitude of the major environmental variables. See Pitcher 2018 Appendix 7.3 for variable definitions). Source: Pitcher, 2018

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 80

Figure 7. Southeast Australian shelf and slope region #8: map of assemblage patterns and compositional similarity (inset: first 2 dimensions of multi‐dimensional biological space representing gradations in habitats and species and their similarity, with vectors indicating the direction and magnitude of the major environmental variables. See Pitcher 2018 Appendix 7.3 for variable definitions). Source: Pitcher 2018. Recent fishing effort in the SESPF mid-water trawl was restricted to a very small area of the total allowable range (Figure 8). This area corresponds to assemblages #16 in Figure 7, and #4 in Figure 6. These are considered commonly encountered habitats. The sediment type in both these areas is predicted to be sandy (high percentage particles with sizes 63 μm < Ø < 2 mm) and the predicted geomorphological feature is ‘plane’ (flat), with high seabed current stress (Pitcher et al, 2018, p. 53, Appendix 3). Fishing in the SESPF occurs in areas deeper than 100m (Bulman et al, 2017). It can be assumed that biota associate with these habitats is small erect/encrusting/burrowing or no apparent biota (MSC, 2018b, p.81, Table GSA6). The MSC standard requires, at SG80, that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats (main) to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. For the habitat component, this is the reduction in habitat structure, biological diversity, abundance and function such that the habitat would be unable to recover to at least 80% of its unimpacted structure, biological diversity and function within 5-20 years, if fishing were to cease entirely (MSC, 2018a). An average RBS estimate of >.80 might be compatible with the MSC requirement, although MSC has not yet adopted this measure. The assemblage #16 from region #8 had an average RBS of .89 while assemblage #4 from region #5 had an average RBS of .87. Although there were many possible sources of uncertainty and the assemblages defined and mapped are surrogates for habitats at meso- scale, the strength of the project is that the method provided a spatial mapping approach that could be applied consistently Australia‐wide, when habitat data per se were not available. On the positive side, the uncertainty was higher where less fishing occurred, thus less impact, and less data was available, while the where data density was higher (higher impact), the uncertainty was lower. The weakness of the method is that only potential risk can be assessed

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 81

not actual habitat risk, due to the lack of information on susceptible habitat components within assemblages and their fine‐scale distribution relative to trawling (Pitcher et al, 2018). Based on the best available science, the habitats that are commonly encountered by the SESPF are highly likely to be in a status consistent with the MSC standards. In addition, mid- water trawl’s marginal impact is likely to be negligible. There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm (SI 2.4.1a scores is 100).

Figure 8. The distribution of fishing effort in the SESPF (mid-water trawl and purse-seine) in 2017-18. Source: Marton &Mobsby, 2018.

3.4.10.3 Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) The latest SPF assessment under Part13 of the EPBC has identified there was a lack of information regarding the risk of fishing to the Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South-east Australia threatened ecological community (EPBC listed as endangered) which may occur in SESPF managed area (DEE, 2018). Kelp forests are shallow coastal ecological communities of cold-water regions organised around the structure and productivity of members of the order Laminariales (Tegner and Dayton, 2000, in CofA, 2012). Giant kelp forests are phyletically diverse, structurally complex and highly productive components of cold-water rocky marine coastlines around the world (Stenek et al., 2002 in CofA, 2012). The most dense forests and largest canopies are produced by kelp from the genus Macrocystis, which contains only one species: Macrocystis pyrifera, known as giant kelp or string kelp. Giant kelp forests in Australia are found in temperate south eastern waters on rocky reefs where conditions are cool and relatively nutrient rich (Womersley, 1945, 1957; Edyvane, 2003; Johnson et al., 2011 in CofA, 2012). The Giant Kelp Forests of South East Australia ecological community is defined as giant kelp growing typically at depths greater than eight metres below sea level (bsl) and forming a closed or semi-closed surface or sub-surface canopy. The Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia is a unique ecological community that extends from the ocean floor to the ocean surface and exhibits a ‘forest-like’ structure with a diverse range of organisms occupying its benthic, pelagic and upper-canopy layers.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 82

The ecological community is characterised by a closed to semi-closed surface or subsurface canopy of M. pyrifera. M. pyrifera is the only species of kelp able to provide this three- dimensional structure from the sea floor to the sea surface, so if giant kelp plants are lost or removed, the ecological community no longer exists. The Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia ecological community occurs on rocky substrate, generally at greater than eight metres bsl, along the east and south coastlines of Tasmania (from Eddystone Point in the north east, along the east coast and around to Port Davey in the south) (Edgar, 1981; 1982; Sanderson, 1997; Barrett et al., 2001; Edyvane 2003 in CofA, 2012). Some patches of the ecological community may also occur at greater than eight metres bsl in the coastal waters of western and northern Tasmania, south eastern South Australia as far west as Margaret Bock Reef near Robe and Victoria as far east as Gabo Island (Edyvane 1999; Edyvane and Bakker, 1999; Crozier et al., 2007; Millar pers. comm. 2011; Shepherd and Edgar, 2012 in CofA, 2012). This distribution encompasses the Otway, Central Victoria, Two Fold Shelf, Flinders, Boags, Freycinet, Bruny, Davey and Franklin marine bioregions (DPIWE, 2001; Commonwealth of Australia, 2006 in CofA, 2012). VME Status The giant kelp provides valuable habitat for a range of marine species. Patches of M. pyrifera included in the Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia ecological community act as habitat engineers by providing vertical structure to the water column and altering the immediate light and hydrological environment with their stipes and canopy (hence their likeness to terrestrial ‘forests’). This habitat structure is inhabited by a diverse assemblage of animals and smaller seaweeds. The primary production of giant kelp is also utilised by a broad community of organisms (Hobday et al., 2006; Okey et al., 2006 in CofA, 2012) making the ecological community a distinctive and important habitat type on shallow sub- tidal reefs in south eastern Australia (Johnson et al., 2011 in CofA, 2012). The high primary and secondary productivity of the giant kelp forests create and provide a number of ecosystem services to the local environment including settlement habitat for juvenile life stages of commercially important fisheries, improvements in local water quality conditions and coastal protection via buffering strong wave conditions from reaching the shore (CofA, 2012). VMEs have one or more of the following characteristics, as defined in paragraph 42 of the FAO Guidelines: • Uniqueness or rarity – an area or ecosystem that is unique or that contains rare species whose loss could not be compensated for by similar areas or ecosystems • Functional significance of the habitat – discrete areas or habitats that are necessary for survival, function, spawning/reproduction, or recovery of fish stocks; for particular life- history stages (e.g., nursery grounds, rearing areas); or for ETP species • Fragility – an ecosystem that is highly susceptible to degradation by anthropogenic activities • Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult – ecosystems that are characterised by populations or assemblages of species that are slow growing, are slow maturing, have low or unpredictable recruitment, and/or are long lived • Structural complexity – an ecosystem that is characterised by complex physical structures created by significant concentrations of biotic and abiotic features Although the FAO Guidelines do not identify kelp communities as indicative of a VME, the MSC guidance specifies that “when the FAO Guidelines are applied in shallow, inshore

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 83

waters, the definition of VME could include other species groups and communities (e.g., seagrass beds, complex kelp-dominated habitats, biogenic reefs)” (MSC, 2018a, p 83). The giant kelp forests of south-east Australia have all the characteristics of a VME, as defined in FAO guidelines, which are adopted by the MSC standard. Conservation Status The Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia ecological community is listed as endangered (CofA, 2012). The Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) determined that this ecological community met Criterion 1 of the eligibility criteria for listing as vulnerable because it has undergone a substantial decline in geographic distribution. The ecological community also met the relevant elements of Criterion 2 to make it eligible for listing as vulnerable under this criterion. The ecological community also met Criterion 3 as endangered as it has undergone a severe decline of functionally important species, and met the eligibility criteria as endangered for Criterion 4 due to the severe change in integrity experienced by the ecological community such that regeneration is unlikely within the near future, even with positive human intervention (CofA, 2012). SESPF Impact on Giant Kelp Marine Forest The Conservation Advice for giant kelp community does not identify mid-water trawl commercial fisheries as a threat. The SESPF mid-water trawl fishing usually occurs in waters deeper than 100 m (Bulman et al, 2017). Although an accurate map of giant kelp forests distribution was not available for this assessment, these threatened ecological communities are likely to be found in shallower waters. There are no records of the SESPF to have ever encountered giant kelp forests while fishing (Josh Cahill pers com February 2019). Some of giant kelp community might occur in areas closed to mid-water trawl, such as Flinders and Freycinet marine parks. It is justified to assume that the UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of giant kelp habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm and for scoring issue 2.4.1b, the requirement at SG80 is achieved. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence that the UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of giant kelp habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm and SG100 is not achieved. Other Possible VMEs Recent studies (e.g. Williams et al. 2006 & 2009 in Pitcher et al 2016) have indicated that vulnerable habitat-forming benthos types are present in exposed assemblages identified in south east area. For example, sub-cropping friable sandstone supporting gardens of large sponges are restricted within a few exposed mid-shelf assemblages; aggregations of the relict stalked crinoid Metacrinus cyaneus are restricted within a few exposed shelf-break assemblages; a ribbon of delicate bryozoan communities occur in a limited depth range within many shelf-edge assemblages, some of which are exposed; and tree-forming octocorals and black corals are restricted to high flow, steep banks in upper-slope assemblages, some of which are exposed. Some of these vulnerable types occur in places potentially accessible to and removable by trawls and may be at risk (Williams et al. 2011 in Pitcher et al 2016) at least locally within assemblages, if not at regional landscape scale (Pitcher et al. 2016). It is more likely that such habitats are affected by demersal trawl, while impact from mid-water trawl is unlikely. Some of these habitat types are likely to be protected in closed areas.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 84

The SESPF does not use a bottom-contact gear and is highly unlikely to have any impact on these assemblages. The UoAs are thought to be highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of other potential VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm and for scoring issue 2.4.1b, the requirement at SG80 is achieved. Nevertheless, 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.

3.4.10.4 Minor Habitats Minor habitats are all the other habitats that overlap the SESPF range. No fishing effort from the SESPF mid-water trawl occurred over these habitats. This is evidence that the UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm and SG100 is achieved for SI 2.3.1c.

3.4.11 Habitat Management (PI 2.4.2) AFMA recognises that fishing has impacts on marine habitats beyond the direct effects of harvesting individual species. The ERAEF for habitats and communities (Hobday et al. 2007) was designed to include risk assessments for the impacts of these components of the ecosystem, to prioritise high risk elements and introduce appropriate measures and policies within an ERM framework that are consistent with the ESD principles. The “Pitcher reports” have shown that it is possible to quantify cumulative risks to habitats and estimate a relative status measure (RBS) of habitat health when limited data is available. AFMA and CSIRO have also completed a new ERA which accounted for habitats and ecological communities in the SESPF area and none were found at risk. If future ERAs will identify increases in risk the new information will be integrated in the ERM. However, the intent of the MSC is to evaluate measures and strategy that are ‘in place’. AFMA implements a cohesive strategic arrangement which is “in place” to ensure known sensitive habitats are protected, and this consists in a vast system of closed areas to demersal trawling, inclusive all waters deeper than 700m (for SESSF). One closure, the East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector Exclusion Zone (Schedule 4, AFMA, 2016a), has been introduced specifically to protect benthic habitats. SPF concession holders are exempt from this prohibition with the following condition: If the holder of a Small Pelagic Fishery concession finds any evidence of benthic impacts while fishing under the authority of a concession granted in accordance with the Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan 2009 in the area specified in Schedule 4 the holder must notify AFMA and not engage in fishing in the area described in the relevant Schedule under that fishing concession until further notified by AFMA in writing (AFMA, 2016a). There has been no fishing by the SESPF mid-water trawl in this area. Only mid-water trawling is allowed over sensitive areas such as seamounts (e.g. over Britannia Guyots and Barcoo and Taupo seamounts, part of the Central Eastern marine park) even though the closures were introduced primarily for the protection of certain species (e.g. gulper shark. AFMA, 2018f). Other areas are closed to demersal trawl as well as to mid-water trawl, such as the Derwent Hunter seamount closure that protects upper slope dogfish, and all national park zones within marine parks (AFMA, 2018c, 2018g). Figure 9 shows mid-water trawl closures. VMS is compulsory for all AFMA managed fisheries, monitoring vessels position in near real time, and combined with observer coverage and compliance monitoring, ensures that SESPF operators comply with spatial closures. Other measures such as the fishery being limited

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 85

entry and the catch quantity move-on trigger are likely to limit impact on habitats if the fishery will expand to full quota. Although the information on the type and range of the benthic habitats is limited, there is a precautionary strategy in place for managing all, MSC UoAs and non-MSC fisheries impacts. This is supported by a demonstrable understanding on how mid-water trawl and demersal trawl gears work, and the differences in the operation (e.g. Tingley, 2014). There is also some understanding about the impacts of lost gear on habitat and the relative effects of such impacts are deemed to be low risk for overall habitat health (Daley et al, 2007). Periodic assessments such as risk assessment (Daley et al, 2007, Bulman et al, 2017) and research to gain a better understanding of the state of benthic habitats and cumulative impacts from the fisheries (e.g. Pitcher et al, 2016, 2018) are undertaken to inform management decision makers. The requirement for SI 2.4.2a is achieved at SG100.

Figure 9. Mid-water trawl closure in eastern SPF sub-area. Source: AFMA, 2018c.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 86

There is some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved (i.e. Pitcher report showing that most habitats have low levels of impact from fishing). The requirement for SI2.4.2b is achieved at SG80. However, testing does not support high confidence that the strategy will work because there is still a high level of uncertainty related to actual risk to the habitats and only the potential risk could be determined (Pitcher et al, 2018). SG100 is not achieved. There is clear quantitative evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue 2.4.1a (more exactly that the mid-water trawl does not reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitat to a point of serious or irreversible harm). Such evidence can be derived from the distribution of the fishing effort only on small areas of the fishery, which can be verified through VMS and scientific observers. Also, there have been no compliance issues related to mid-water trawl vessel not respecting closed areas or having impact on benthic habitat. The UoAs vessel did not operate over the benthic habitat protection areas. The requirement for SI 2.4.2c is met at SG100. SI 2.4.2d requires at SG100 clear quantitative evidence that the UoAs comply with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. Although giant kelp forest has been identified as VME, there are no specific requirements for mid-water trawl fisheries. Moreover, it is highly unlikely for the SESPF vessel to encounter giant kelp communities which occur in shallower waters. The latest DEE assessment of the fishery concluded that although there is no specific strategy to avoid impact with to giant kelp threatened ecological community, fishing operators are unlikely to operate in areas where this occurs (DEE, 2018) and the SPF fishery has received wildlife trade accreditation with no conditions related to VMEs, thus it was considered as compliant. Evidence of zero impact is clear quantitative evidence that meets the SI 2.4.2d requirement at SG100.

3.4.12 Habitat Information (PI 2.4.3) Information on the level of impact the SESPF mid-water trawl has on benthic habitats is available from the initial ERA (Daley et al 2007), where 24 benthic habitat types occurring in the SPF range have been assessed at LEVEL 1 (SICA). Scale, Intensity, Consequence Analysis (SICA) is a qualitative assessment to evaluate the risk from a stakeholder -agreed set of fishery’s activities to the ecological components, on a plausible ‘worst case scenario’ base, instead of considering all possible interactions (AFMA, 2017f). This means that one element that is considered most vulnerable is chosen as representative for that component (i.e. one benthic habitat out of 24) to be used as a unit of assessment. SICA elements are scored on a scale from 1(negligible) to extreme (6), with score 3 or higher within a component resulting in that component being scored at Level 2. If risks to the most vulnerable elements score 1 (negligible) or 2 (low), that means risks to all the other elements are lower and the whole component can be eliminate from Level 2 assessment. The chosen most vulnerable habitat type to mid-water trawl component of the SPF was characterized by fine sediment, subcrop, large sponge, outer-shelf. All the hazards/activities (e.g. fishing, chemical pollution, discards, noise pollution etc.) were considered to cause low or negligible impact to this habitat type, thus the whole benthic habitat component was eliminated from Level 2 assessment (Daley et al, 2007). Although the assessment of pelagic habitats considered only areas where fishing effort occurred at the time (mainly east Tasmania), thus it may not be relevant to the current spatial distribution of the fishing effort, benthic habitat types from the entire SPF were identified and qualitatively assessed to determine a plausible ‘worst case’ scenario. A new ERA has been completed

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 87

following the revised ERAEF methodology and the SESPF mid-water trawl impacts on habitats were considered low. In future ERAs, if higher risks will be identified, management actions, as appropriate, will be integrated in the SPF’ FMS. Quantitative information on the SESPF benthic habitats is available from the “Pitcher project”, which over the last four years, has developed a methodology to predict and map species assemblages and quantify their exposure to trawling, as well as their relative status (Pitcher et al, 2016, 2018). The project aimed to quantify the overlap of mapped seabed assemblages with trawl footprints, and with areas of spatial management that exclude trawling, by building on previously collated data and assemblage mapping as well as data for Commonwealth demersal trawling effort, fishery closures and marine reserves. These trawl exposure and protection estimates provide information that AFMA can use to focus on priorities or gaps, regarding the needs for future habitat ERAs. The report investigated the intensity of trawl footprints on different habitat types to assess the probable impact of fishing on these habitats in association with knowledge of existing spatial management plans. The results 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. Thus, managers can focus future analyses on the remaining at-risk habitats to better assess their risk from fishing activities. This allows fishery managers to minimise the need to conduct resource intense ERA analyses for habitats that are known to be at low risk. The techniques employed are not intended to replace ERA, but instead streamline resource use by excluding low-risk habitats/fisheries from subsequent resource-intense ERA. Consideration of existing fisheries management actions is an important component in assessing the overall risk of ecosystem components to fishing activities and allows managers to better prioritise resource use (AFMA, 2017f). It is AFMA’s intent to continue to develop and progress ERA and ERM for habitats and communities. As it stands, development of level 3 methodologies has not been undertaken. Prior to the development of level 3 techniques, there is a need for improved data collection at appropriate scales to better inform level 1 and 2 analyses. Furthermore, research into the selection of appropriate reference points to inform ERM decisions is required. These values currently do not exist for these habitat and ecological community components or are somewhat arbitrarily determined (Hobday et al. 2011). ERAEF with the overall three-tiered hierarchical structure is scheduled to be undertaken at five-year intervals, with assessors investigating the previous five years of fishery (and other relevant) data to best reflect the current management of each fishery (AFMA 2017f). AFMA’s intent is to improve data collection at appropriate scales for each fishery. So far data on benthic habitats has been collected mainly from demersal trawl fisheries overlapping SESPF and knowledge of the gear’s level of impact is available from other mid-water trawl fisheries. For the MSC assessment, the Information PI is assessed taking account of the scale and intensity of the UoA. For the SESPF UoAs, the current scale of the fishery is small (one vessel), and the intensity is low, considering the fishing gear does not normally come in contact with the benthic habitats. There is potential for the expansion of the fishery and this needs to be considered when assessing the Information PI. Nevertheless, as long as demersal trawl fisheries are operating on overlapping habitats, the marginal impact of the mid-water trawl will always be minimal. There are areas potentially containing sensitive habitats where only mid-water trawl is allowed, e.g. the East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector Exclusion Zone (Schedule 4, AFMA, 2016a), and there are reporting requirements and management actions likely to restrict mid-water trawl impact, if there will be evidence of such impact. The current

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 88

UoAs do not operate in sensitive habitat closure area or other sensitive areas such as over seamounts. The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoAs area are considered to be known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA (SI 2.4.3a requirement is achieved at SG80). However, the distribution of all habitats is not known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitats and SG 100 is not achieved. 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 indications of low probability of bottom contact (from blue grenadier fishery and from Tingley 2014). Also, 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 SI 2.4.3 b requirement is achieved at SG 80. Nonetheless, the physical impacts of the gear on all habitats have not been quantified fully and SG 100 is not achieved. AFMA continues to collect adequate information continues to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats from overlapping demersal trawl fisheries. The ERAEF for habitats and communities is expected to occur every five years. This level of data collection is adequate and sufficient for the current scale and intensity of the fishery. If the fishery is to expand and the risks to habitats will increase, this will be considered at the annual surveillance audits or at the reassessment. SG80 is achieved for SI 2.4.3c but not SG 100 because changes over time in habitat distributions cannot yet be measured (the uncertainty in actual habitat distribution is currently too high to be able to measure changes in their distribution, Pitcher et al, 2018).

3.4.13 Ecosystem Outcome (PI 2.5.1) In addition to the potential impacts to species and habitats described in the preceding sections, mid-water trawl fisheries for small pelagic fish pose the risk of altering the structure and function of the ecosystem from which the extraction of target species is made. Impacts can arise from the reduction of the target species stocks, or just localised depletion of these stocks, followed by consequence on their predators. Impacts from discarding are negligible because discarding is avoided as much as possible (Josh Cahill, Tony Muollo pers com February 2019). South-eastern Australian waters are characterised by a low productivity, although localised coastal upwelling zones (CUZs) as well as nutrient enrichment zones (NEZs) create high productivity regions, with high temporal variability, which support valuable fisheries of small pelagic fish, including the SESPF. Discrete upwelling hotspots have been identified at five coastal locations along the NSW shelf while large NEZs have been identified along the eastern Bass Strait shelf front and off eastern Tasmania (Figure 10).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 89

Figure 10. Location of spring/summer coastal upwelling areas (CUZs) and nutrient enrichment zones (NEZs) known for south-eastern Australia; NEZ off Bass Strait cascade corresponds to a winter event. Sizes of depicted plumes are not to scale. Adapted from Bulman et al 2011.

South-eastern Australian CUZs and NEZs differ in terms of season, duration and intensity, forcing mechanism and dynamics. Most prevail during spring/summer, except the NEZ along eastern Bass Strait which flourishes during winter/spring (June to October). All events are annual and occur intermittently. The events on the eastern shelf are relatively short-lived compared to the ones on the SA shelf which can last up to four months (Bonney) (Bulman et al, 2011). Forcing factors in the summer upwelling off eastern Victoria are thought to be a combination between an anticyclonic eddy and local bottom topography, local wind stress having little or no contributing effect (Rochford, 1977 in Bulman eta al, 2011). CUZs along NSW are largely produced by a combination of mesoscale features associated with the East Australian Current (EAC) and upwelling-favourable local winds, e.g. north-easterlies. These features comprise mostly warm-core anticlyclonic eddies that are shed from the EAC during periods when this warm, polarward current encroaches onto the slope and shelf off NSW and deflects eastwards toward the Tasman Sea. A lesser known upwelling mechanism constitutes the forcing of parcels of cold, nutrient-rich slope water by small, unstable cold-core eddies that surround larger, more stable warm-core eddies, as described for southern NSW to explain the significant nutrient enrichment recorded around the entrance to Jervis Bay in 1992 (Gibbs et al., 1997 in Bulman et al, 2011). In contrast to the localised upwelling hotspots off NSW, the major NEZs identified along the shelf break of eastern Bass Strait (Mallacoota to Banks Strait) and eastern Tasmania (Flinders Is. to Tasman Is.) extend over much larger regions and are caused by different oceanographic features to those responsible for upwelling off SA, western Vic and NSW. Nutrient enrichment in the two zones is forced by different processes and occurs at different times of the year, i.e. in winter along Bass Strait and spring to early autumn off eastern Tasmania. The winter NEZ is believed to be triggered by the mixing of shallow Bass Strait water with deeper, nutrient-rich sub-Antarctic water along the eastern shelf front. This mixed, denser

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 90

water drives surface productivity northwards until it cascades down the continental slope off the Vic/NSW corner under the warmer Tasman Sea, below the photic zone (Gibbs et al., 1991in Bulman et al, 2011). In contrast, the spring/summer NEZ off eastern Tasmania is produced by the onshore advection of deeply mixed, nutrient-rich sub-Antarctic water following periods of strong zonal westerlies driven by changes in the latitudinal position of subtropical high-pressure systems over south-eastern Australia (Bulman et al 2011). Climate-driven changes in the past The small pelagic fishery operates in an oceanographically dynamic area, (Mcleod et al, 2012). Changes in physical ocean conditions have been linked to to shifts in dominance of small pelagic fish in a range of marine ecosystems. One example of such change was the replacement of jack mackerel, Trachurus declivis, with redbait, Emmelichthys nitidus on the east coast of Tasmania (Welsford and Lyle, 2003 in Mcleod et al, 2012). This change coincided with a warming trend on the east coast of Australia and Tasmania (Ridgway, 2007; Lough and Hobday, 2011 in Mcleod et al, 2012). This region, one of the fastest warming in the southern hemisphere, has provided evidence of climate-related distributional change for a range of marine taxa, including phytoplankton, zooplankton, invertebrates and coastal fish (Mcleod et al, 2012). The east coast of Tasmania is influenced by two major water bodies, the southward flowing East Australian Current (EAC) and southern sub-Antarctic water (SAW). For the past six decades the EAC has strengthened, resulting in greater poleward movement of warm water and a rate of ocean warming four times faster than the global ocean average (Ridgway, 2007 in Mcleod et al, 2012). The annual strength of the EAC has implications for seasonal productivity in the region (Harris et al., 1987; Ridgway, 2007 in Mcleod et al, 2012), and over longer time periods there is evidence that the increased strength of the EAC has led to a change in the structure of zooplankton communities (Cazzasus, 2004; Johnson et al., 2011 in Mcleod et al, 2012). Data from samples collected 30 years apart showed a relative increase in small warm-water copepods that have extended southward ranges consistent with increased penetration of the EAC (Johnson et al., 2011 in Mcleod et al, 2012). In addition, evidence suggests a reduction in the occurrence of large surface swarms of cold-water krill that were common in the east coast region of Tasmania (Johnson et al., 2011 in Mcleod et al, 2012). During the 1970s and 1980s, stomach contents analysis of jack mackerel collected in this area showed that krill were, almost exclusively, the dominant prey item (Young et al., 1993). It is likely that krill are still relatively abundant, but appear to have changed their vertical distribution and, therefore, their availability to surface schools of small pelagic fish (Mcleod et al, 2012). During the 1980s, jack mackerel was the main target of a surface purse-seine fishery that was, at that time, the largest volume fishery in Australia (Marshall et al., 1993 in Mcleod et al, 2012). Such intense fishing appears to have altered the population structure of jack mackerel, with Browne (2005 in Mcleod et al, 2012) showing a reduction in mean size-at-age since 1987–1988, and a decline in the number of age classes present in the fishery; both well- documented signs of intense fishing pressure (Perry et al., 2010 in Mcleod et al, 2012). In 2001, the fishery shifted to trawling subsurface redbait schools, with redbait previously only a bycatch species in the purse-seine jack mackerel fishery (Welsford and Lyle, 2003 in Mcleod et al, 2012). Kirkwood et al. (2008 in Mcleod et al, 2012) found that the proportion of redbait in the diet of the Australian fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus) increased dramatically from .10% prior 2001 to .30% between 2002 and 2005, this supporting the fact that the change in catch compositon indeed reflected the relative abundance of jack mackerel and redbait.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 91

In order to test the hypothesis that changes in prey availability might have led to changes in pelagic species relative abundance, Mcleod et al (2012) have tested functional equivalence with regard to prey of the small pelagic fish from the east coast of Tasmania by analyzing stomach contents and comparing overlap between species. The diet of redbait and jack mackerel consisted predominantly of pelagic crustaceans and other pelagic invertebrates, although redbait diet contained higher proportion of copepods. Overall, diet overlap and morphology suggest that these species are not playing identical ecological roles, and thus might respond to changes in prey size structure in different ways (Mcleod et al, 2012). The authors concluded that changes in prey availability might have contributed to the observed shifts in relative abundance of redbait and jack mackerel. Lack et al (2014) who have evaluated the issue of localised depletion of the SPF target species, found that the available information on jack mackerel movements suggest an ‘association’ of the species with oceanographic conditions that are favourable to them when they are spawning or feeding and which would dictate their behaviour and movement, and consequently, their susceptibility to capture. Jack mackerel off eastern Tasmania were found to move from shelf to deeper water to spawn during the summer probably to avoid the more variable surface conditions of the EAC (Jordan et al. 1995 in Lack et al, 2014). This migration to deeper water, leaving the smaller non-spawning fish on the shelf, rendered them less susceptible to capture. A peak in landings indicated that adults returned to the shelf in autumn (Jordan et al. 1995 in Lack et al, 2014).

Ecosystem modelling studies Earlier ecosystem modelling studies undertaken in the area, cover the whole southern half of the AFZ, although each of these models were developed for different purposes. Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) models developed for East Bass Strait (EBS) (Bulman et al., 2006), the eastern Great Australian Bight (EGAB) (Goldsworthy et al., 2013) and the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (Young et al., 2009 in Bulman et al 2011); and the Atlantis-SE models developed for South East Australia (Fulton et al., 2004 in Bulman et al 2011) and the NSW shelf (Savina et al., 2008 in Bulman et al 2011). Bulman et al (2011) updated and compared the EwE models of EBS and EGAB to identify what types of controls are operating in the southern Australia ecosystems that overlap SPF and explore wider effects of predator-prey interactions on the ecosystem, then compared the EwE and Atlantis outputs (Figure 11).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 92

Figure 11. Atlantis-SE model domain. The box in black marks the spatial domain of the Ecosim-EBS model. Source: Bulman et al 2011

The most recent update of the Atlantis-SE model was used to evaluate the harvest strategy setting for the SPF (Atlantis-SPF model) (Smith et al 2015). The earlier model investigated scenarios of depletion of a single species, while Smith et al (2015) considered the simultaneous depletion of the target species in the SESPF mid-water trawl.

The main findings of the ecosystem studies were: - that the SPF mid-water trawl target species do not have a keystone role in the ecosystem analogous to that of the large biomasses of prey fish in upwelling ecosystems elsewhere in the world; - the current catches in the fishery are unlikely to negatively impact predators, which are typically not highly dependent on SPF target species and have the capacity to switch to other prey species; - EBS system (corresponding to the Bass Strait Cascade (Figure 10) was more top- down controlled compared to the GAB and the open ocean systems (from Atlantis model) which makes it more sensitive to fishing pressure and other stressors; - evidence from all ecosystem studies suggest that current target and limit reference points in line with AFMA’s Harvest Strategy Policy are safe from an ecosystem perspective; - studies using different ecosystem models have reached similar conclusions.

Risks of Localised Depletion There have been concerns related to the potential of localized depletion of the target species, resulting in negative effects on the game fish species that prey on the small pelagics caught in the SPF, and wider effects to the ecosystem. These concerns were in particular about the potential of large factory freezer trawlers to produce localized depletion (CofA, 2016). To be noted that factory freezer trawlers do not currently operate in the fishery, the UoA vessel being of a much smaller capacity (40m). Nevertheless, some stakeholders are still concerned

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 93

of the possibility of new vessels entering the fishery and utilizing the full quota and potentially producing localized depletion (see Appendix 3). The DEE has appointed an expert panel to investigate the effects of fishing using a factory freezer trawler in the SPF (Lack et al, 2015). The issues addressed by the panel included localized depletion. The panel defined ‘localised depletion’ as a spatial and temporal reduction in the abundance of a targeted fish species that results from fishing and considered factors that would influence the extent and impact of localised depletion such as the scale and persistence of the depletion and the vulnerability of the SPF species to localised depletion. Although the expert panel assessment was directed towards large factory freezer trawler, useful information can be derived that is relevant for the current UoAs MSC assessment. The expert panel (Lack et al 2015) concluded: - Vessels of a smaller capacity tend to concentrate effort around their home ports because their limited fish handling and storage facilities, and fuel and provisioning capacity, restrict their range. A fleet of many smaller vessels has the potential to create localised depletion if the fishing intensity is spatially and temporally dense. - With regard to small pelagic species’ vulnerability to fishing, the panel found that SPF target species had characteristics that made them both vulnerable to fishing (detection and size of schooling behaviour and association with environmental features) and resilient to fishing (swimming proficiency, reproductive capacity and unpredictability of schooling behaviour). These latter qualities are able to reduce the temporal and spatial extent of any depletion that occurs from fishing or natural causes and therefore on the extent of adverse environmental impacts either on the target species themselves or on dependent predator species. - With regard to current and past harvest rates of small pelagic species in southern Australia, the panel was unable to find evidence of discernible adverse impacts on the target species. The available genetic evidence for jack mackerel did not suggest that past, apparently high, levels of fishing had significantly affected reproductive capacity. Also, there have been no significant changes in the age or size composition of redbait in recent years that might indicate a potential impact on reproductive capacity. There were too few data available for blue mackerel to determine significant changes on age, size structure or reproductive capacity to date but the low levels of effort and catch suggest that there is little likelihood that this has occurred. There is no evidence to suggest that localised depletion has caused any impacts on genetic diversity. Furthermore, the panel considered that any localised depletion of SPF target species that might arise from the SPF fishing activity was unlikely to affect the overall status of stocks of those species, assuming that TACs are set in accordance with the current Harvest Strategy Policy and with the best possible stock estimates. - Since it is recognised that purse seine fishing has more capacity to take a whole school of fish by encircling the school compared with mid-water trawl which trawls through the school, a reduced purse seine capacity (in favour of mid-water trawl) might reduce the potential for localised depletion. - The issue of ecological allocation of resources to dependent predators and the ‘trade- offs’ that might be necessary to support growing demand for food supplies was examined in the first declaration report (Lack et al 2014). The critical issue was to determine the level of removal of the prey species that, when added to the requirements of the overall ecosystem and taking into account natural variability, would not cause unacceptable adverse impacts to the ecosystem or components.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 94

Ecological modelling of the southern Australia region has found that current exploitation rates under the SPF Harvest Strategy appear to provide an adequate ‘ecological allocation’ to central place foragers and other dependent predators, and that no adverse impacts were likely at the current level of allowable harvest - Small pelagic fish distribution is highly likely to depend on the prevailing oceanographic conditions. However, the available ecological models gave results at a spatial scale that is less finely resolved than is required to identify adverse impacts on particular species of central place forager species such as fur seals, and birds. The ability of predators to switch prey in times of reduced prey availability can mitigate the effects of depletion. This ability is inherent in predators of small pelagic species so they can cope with the fluctuations of abundance of their prey that are caused by environmental variability, and which may be indistinguishable from the fluctuations caused by fishing (Lack et al, 2015). It can be concluded that localized depletion due to the SPF mid-water trawl, although possible, is highly unlikely and that the current level of fishing will not create significant detrimental effects for the ecosystem structure and function, nor will it be distinguishable from the natural variability of the ecosystem. In addition, measures are in place, such as conservative catch limits and spatial management with move-on triggers, that minimise the risk of localized depletion. Although the expert panel identified potential negative effects on central place foragers such as fur seals and birds, if localized depletion of small pelagic fish occurs, there is no evidence of such effects currently occurring. Considering all the available information, the UoAs are highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm and the SG80 requirement for SI 2.5.1a is achieved. The evidence that fishing small pelagic species in south eastern AFZ does not have significant negative effects on the ecosystem is at a too broad scale to identify localised depletion. Even though management measures are in place to minimise this risk, there is no clear evidence that the UoAs are highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point of serious or irreversible harm. The requirement at SG100 is not achieved.

3.4.14 Ecosystem Management (PI 2.5.2) The Ecosystem Management PI takes into consideration existent measures which are based on available information and are expected to restrain impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem so as to achieve at least the Ecosystem Outcome at SG80 (MSC, 2018b, p.98).

AFMA manages Commonwealth fisheries, including the SPF, applying the principles of ecologically sustainable development and the exercise of the precautionary principle, as prescribed by the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Australian Gov, 1991a) to ensure long- term sustainability of all the elements of the marine ecosystem. Currently, AFMA manages SPF primary species (byproduct) under the SPF Harvest Strategy (AFMA, 2017a) consistent with Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy (DAWR, 2018a), while secondary species (general bycatch) and protected bycatch species are managed under AFMA’s Bycatch Strategy (AFMA, 2017b), consistent with Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy (DAWR, 2018c). AFMA collects data on catch composition (fishery logbooks and AFMA observer program), fishing effort (logbooks), spatial and temporal distribution of the fishing effort (through

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 95

VMS), interactions with protected species (logbooks and observer program) and monitors all fishing activities and compliance with regulations (compliance monitoring) (AFMA, 2018c, AFMA, 2017d). AFMA applies Ecological Risk Assessments to all ecosystem components (target species, byproduct, bycatch, habitats, ecological communities) and, based on these assessments results, develops and implements measures, prioritized by risk level, within an Ecological Risk Management (ERM) framework (AFMA, 2017f). The most recent ERA was completed in 2017 (Bulman et al, 2017). Due to low effort in the fishery and 100% observer coverage for period assessed, all ecological components were eliminated at Level 1 (SICA). This means that all species (target, primary, secondary or ETP), habitat types and ecological communities were assessed as being at low risk from the UoAs. However, the new ERA did identify areas of possible future concern if the fishery increases and expands. The ERA report indicates that next steps for each fishery would be to consider and implement appropriate management responses to address the immediate risks using the Ecological Risk Management (ERM) framework developed by AFMA, although in the case of SPF, there was no reason to proceed to this step (Bulman et al, 2017). Comprehensive monitoring system is in place and it is expected that any increase in risk will be timely addressed. There is a commitment for ERAs to be updated every five years (AFMA, 2017f). In addition to management strategies in place to address the main risks to target and non- target species, ETPs and habitats, there are measure in place specifically introduced to minimise the risk of localized depletion of the target species and consecutive ecosystem effects. These measures consist of: - spatial management of the stocks (separate TACs for each area: eastern – part of the UoAs- and western – not assessed here). - a move-on trigger of 2 000 tonnes (all species combined), within a rolling 30-day period as the limit at which vessel/s must move out of a fishing grid (AFMA, 2018cADMA, 301). - closed areas where mid-water trawl is prohibited (Marine Parks and AFMA closures, AFMA, 2016a) SI 2.5.2a requires, at SG100, that there is a strategy that consists of a plan, in place which contains measures to address all main impacts of the UoAs on the ecosystem (ERM), and at least some of these measures are in place. This requirement is achieved. There is some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on some information directly about the UoAs and the ecosystem involved. This is supported by the ecosystem modelling studies, using alternative software, which show similar results, in that SPF target species do not have a keystone role in the ecosystem and no predators are highly dependent on them. SI 2.5.2b requirement is achieved at SG80. The strategy has been tested using ecosystem modelling studies. Testing supports some confidence that the strategy will work, based on the Harvest Strategy Testing (Smith et al, 2015), although the fishery is new and sufficient data series are not available. SG100 is not achieved. There is some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Such evidence can be derived from compliance monitoring, where no systematic non-compliance issues related to ecosystem regulations have been identified (AFMA, 2017d). SI 2.5.2c is achieved at SG80 There is not yet clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 96

and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) because the fishery is a new developing fishery. SG100 is not achieved.

3.4.15 Ecosystem Information (PI 2.5.3) There is on-going global and Australian interest in the impact of small pelagic fisheries on the ecosystem. Internationally, the LENFEST Forage Fish Task Force has been established, comprising 13 International scientific experts, including Dr Keith Sainsbury from Australia (Pikitch et al, 2012). The primary purpose of the Task Force was to provide practical, science-based advice for the management of species known as forage fish, because of their crucial role in marine ecosystems (Pikitch et al, 2012). Australian research on small pelagic fish acknowledges the work of LENFEST, and recently an FRDC project was finalised that aimed to ensure appropriate coordination of small pelagics research in Australia (Buxton 2017). This coordinated approach provides additional confidence that the SESPF will continue to be managed in a manner that does not pose risk to its underlying ecosystem. Regional and local research, specifically aiming to study the effects of the SESPF mid-water trawl on target species and the associated predators includes ecosystem-modelling studies, for the EBS region (Bulman et al, 2011) and for the EGAB region (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). Alternative studies in the region include an MSC study on impacts of fishing small pelagic species on the southeastern Australian coast (Johnson, 2011) and fishery-specific study of the four Commonwealth SPF target species aimed to determine sustainable harvest levels in an ecological context (Smith et al 2015). The MSC study compared the application of Ecopath with Ecosim software that is freely available and Atlantis software that was developed specifically for Australian marine ecosystems by CSIRO. Modelling the effects of small pelagics biomass variations on various groups of the trophic web, neither Ecosim nor Atlantis exhibited large-scale system changes as a result of the loss of small pelagic fish, but the number of responding groups and the size of the responses were greater in Ecosim. Ecosim produced a slightly larger response to the loss of small pelagic fishes (such as anchovies, sardines, etc) than to the loss of mackerel, whereas Atlantis-SE showed less of a response. The impacts up the food chain in Ecosim extended to predators and competitors of the small pelagics. In comparison, Atlantis-SE did not produce any changes in the standing stock of the major prey groups of small pelagics. There was also a more variable, but less substantial, response from the higher trophic groups in Atlantis. These differences suggest a larger ecosystem dependence on small pelagic fishes as a link between higher and lower trophic levels in the Ecosim model than in the Atlantis model. This may be caused by diets being more constrained by the presence/absence of small pelagics in Ecosim. In Atlantis alternative prey items (e.g. other forms of small fish) readily take the place of small pelagic fishes in the diets of most of their predators and few predators are as highly dependent upon the presence of small pelagic fishes as they appear to be in Ecosim (Johnson, 2011). Although it is not clear which of the two models is more representative of the reality, the Ecosim results are more conservative while Atlantis model allows for a more flexible and compensatory system. These results suggest that a higher degree of switching behaviour leads to a more resilient ecosystem (Johnson, 2011). These conclusions add confidence that Ecosim, yielded conservative results and still indicate that the SPF had low impacts on ecosystem structure and function and the impacts will continue to be low at the current level of exploitation. Alternative ecosystem modelling studies yielded similar results, showing that the small pelagic species targeted by the SESPF mid-water trawl are not key elements in the ecosystem. In contrast, mesopelagic species play a key role in the food web of the south- eastern ecosystem (Bulman et al. 2011). Simulated removals of mesopelagic fishes and squid

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 97

had cascading consequences up and down the foodweb (Griffths et al., 2009). Myctophids or mesopelagic fishes, play an important role in the diets of many fishes including those of commercial importance such as ling and blue grenadier. The available information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem and SI 2.5.3.a is achieved at SG80. Main impacts of the UoAs on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and some have been investigated in detail. No predator of the small pelagic species targeted in the SESPF mid-water trawl are highly dependent on these species, and this fact is supported by diet profiles of predator species and ecosystem studies results. SI 2.5.3.b is achieved at SG80. Main interactions between the UoA and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information and have been investigated in detail. Interactions between ecosystem elements in the south-eastern AFZ have been investigated in detail in several ecosystem models covering the whole SPF managed area, with consistent results. SG 100 is achieved. The main functions of the components (i.e., P1 target species, primary, secondary and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known from the ecosystem studies based on long term data series from the previous operating periods of the SPF as well as from other fisheries. SI 2.5.3c is achieved at SG80. Not all the impacts of the UoAs on target species, primary, secondary and ETP species and Habitats are identified and the main functions of all these components in the ecosystem are not perfectly understood. SG100 is not achieved. Adequate information is available on the impacts of the UoA on these components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Adequate information is available on the UOAs impacts on target, primary and secondary species as well as on ETPs and this is adequate to allow for some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred and SI 2.5.3.d is achieved at SG80. Not all impact on all the elements of the secondary species and habitats are known, to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred and SG100 is not achieved. Adequate data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level, as shown for each component, primary, secondary and ETP species and habitat (mainly from demersal trawl fisheries). This information is being integrated within the ERM and the FMS, thus SG80 is achieved for SI 2.5.3e. However, information is not yet adequate to support the development of strategies to manage all ecosystem impacts and SG100 is not achieved.

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background 3.5.1 Legal and Customary Framework (PI 3.1.1) As a matter of Australian domestic law, the Offshore Constitutional Settlement provides for the Australian states and the Northern Territory to manage fisheries out to 3 nautical miles from the coast, and for the Australian Government to manage fisheries from three to 200 nautical miles. The settlement is not set out in one single document but is found in the legislation that implements it. However, these default arrangements are frequently varied through instruments known as Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) arrangements. The OCS 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).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 98

These arrangements require the Australian Government Minister responsible for fisheries (the Commonwealth Member) and the relevant State/NT Government Minister administering the state legislation relating to marine fishing (the State Member) to administer fisheries in the respective zones. There are currently 59 OCSs in place. These include an arrangement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales covering the finfish fishery (including Blue Mackerel, Redbait and Sardine) (GoA, 1991 a) and Jack mackerel (GoA 1991b). 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 (regulation of ocean space); • Convention on Biological Diversity and Agenda 21 (sustainable development and ecosystem-based fisheries management); • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; protection of threatened, endangered and protected species); • Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (standards of behaviour for responsible practices regarding sustainable development); • United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement; and • State Member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (marine protected areas). The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 199927 is the Australian Government’s (hereafter referred to as the ‘Commonwealth Government’) central piece of environmental legislation. The EPBC Act is administered by the Commonwealth DEE 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 DoE 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 Commonwealth DoE, through the Commonwealth Minister, has a legislative responsibility 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. All Commonwealth managed fisheries conform to Commonwealth Government fisheries and environmental law, including the EPBC Act. The Small Pelagic Fishery is located in the Australian EEZ outside of 3 nautical miles, from Southern Queensland on the East across to Southern Western Australia. It comprises two sub areas, Eastern and Western. The fishery is managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA)28 in accordance with the Fisheries Management Act (FMA) of 1991 and Fisheries Management Regulations 1992, the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 and the Fisheries (Administration) Regulations 1992. Commonwealth-managed fisheries are also

27 http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc 28 http://www.afma.gov.au/

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 99

subject to aspects of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000. The SPF commercial export fisheries have been assessed using the Australian National ESD Framework for Fisheries, in particular, the Guidelines for 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 above laws created a statutory authority model for fisheries management whereby day- to-day management of fisheries are vested with AFMA, with the broader fisheries policy, international negotiations and strategic issues being administered by DAWR29. The Fisheries Administration Act establishes AFMA to manage Commonwealth fisheries. The overall objectives of the FMA 1991 form the basis for the management of all Commonwealth fisheries. The key EPBC Act 1999 requirements that apply relate to the need for a strategic assessment of the fishery management arrangements, and the management of protected areas and species. Key aspects of the policy framework for Commonwealth fisheries are articulated in: • The AFMA Corporate Plan (2015-3018) • Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy (DAWR, 2018). 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. Australian Fisheries Management Authority decisions to apply the precautionary principle have been upheld in a number of cases, following referral to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) (Weier & Loke, 2007). Fishers are advised of their appeal rights and the processes involved. In addition to these processes, the consultation and advisory processes established by AFMA provide mechanisms for the airing and discussion of different perspectives on fisheries management issues by stakeholders. Legal advice on management and appeals is provided by legal expertise within AFMA and by external, independent legal advisers as required. The consultation and decision-making process in place actively seeks to avoid legal challenges. Five forms of dispute resolutions are as follows (Mark Lindsey Temple, AFMA, pers com, 14 February 2017, cited in MRAG, 2018). (1) 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 (SFRARP)) and judicial means through appeal to the Federal Court (AFMA, undated). The allocation system would initially appear in the draft Management Plan which is subject to extensive consultative arrangements, consideration of submissions, determination by AFMA and acceptance by the Minister. These dispute resolution mechanisms have been tested (Weier & Loke, 2007) and proven to be effective. Cases such as Arno Blank vs AFMA30 challenged the application of the precautionary principle. AFMAs application of the precautionary principle was upheld. (2) Plans of Management (made pursuant to section 17) where AFMA must, in writing, after consultation and after giving due consideration to any representations mentioned in subsection (3), determine plans of management for all fisheries. Before determining a plan of

29 http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries 30 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2000/1027.html

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 100

management for a fishery, AFMA must prepare a draft of the plan and, by public notice: (a) state that it intends to determine a plan of management in respect of the fishery; and (b) invite interested persons to make representations in connection with the draft plan by a date specified in the notice, not being less than one month after the date of publication of the notice in the Gazette; (3) AFMA enters into with the SPF contain a dispute mechanism clause which encourages both AFMA and the SPF to enter into Alternative Dispute Resolution process in an attempt to settle any dispute with the view to avoiding a Tribunal or Court. (4) Fishers are advised of their appeal rights and the processes involved. In addition to these processes, the consultation and advisory processes established by AFMA provide mechanisms for the airing and discussion of different perspectives on fisheries management and arguably serve to avoid potential legal disputes. Legal advice on management and appeals is provided by legal expertise within AFMA and by external, independent legal advisers as required. Historically a legal challenge was made to Northern Prawn Fishery 1989 Management Plan in relation to the compulsory reduction in effort within the fishery. The main arguments were that the amendments to the plan to implement the reduction in effort were ultra vires, and the restructuring program represented an acquisition of rights on unjust terms under the constitution. The challenge was unsuccessful (Josh Fielding, AFMA, email of 21/12/2011, cited in MRAG, 2018). (5) AFMA has set out a Client Service Charter (https://www.afma.gov.au/about/corporate- publications/afmas-client-service-charter/7) which sets out AFMA’s Our service commitments accord with the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct and provides for any deficiencies in AFMA’s administration to the attention of the Commonwealth Ombudsman have certain fisheries management decisions. A system or mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicit or established by custom on people dependent on fishing for food (non-commercial use) is enshrined in the Native Title Act, 1993”. This allows for special provision for ‘traditional fishing’ to be made where they might apply in the context of both Commonwealth and State Fisheries Law. The Small Pelagic Fishery is a specialist offshore commercial fishery so is not affected by this Law. Indigenous rights are considered in the context of The Aboriginal Land Act 1978 (NT) 12(1)31 which empowers the Administrator to close the seas adjoining and within 2km of Aboriginal land to others who are not Aborigines entitled by tradition to enter and use the seas in accordance with that tradition. Before doing so he may (and in case of dispute he must) refer a proposed sea closure to the Aboriginal Land Commissioner.

3.5.2 Roles and Responsibilities and Consultation (PI 3.1.2) AFMA is a statutory authority with policy input being provided to the Minister via DAWR. All aspects of the fishery management system including the research, surveys, stock assessments, harvest strategies, and management controls are controlled by AFMA. The Commonwealth model of fisheries management has a number of features that distinguish it from many other countries, the most prominent of which is the partnership approach with industry and other stakeholders. Under this model, the involvement of industry is recognised as being vital to successful fisheries management. For administrative purposes, AFMA has grouped the fishery resources in the Australian Fishing Zone into 21 fisheries that are identified by species, fishing method and/or area.

31 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consolact/ala126/s12.html

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 101

AFMA’s responsibilities are shared between a Commission and the Chief Executive Officer: • The Commission is responsible for domestic fisheries management. • The Chief Executive Officer is responsible for foreign compliance, and for assisting the Commission and giving effect to its decisions. • The Chief Executive Officer is responsible for the agency that supports these functions. The CEO is also a Commissioner and is appointed on a full-time basis. All other Commissioners are appointed on a part-time basis. Appointments are made by the Australian Government Minister responsible for fisheries. Commissioners are appointed on the basis of their high level of expertise in one or more of the fields of fisheries management, fishing industry operations, science, natural resource management, economics, business or financial management, law, public sector administration or governance. Commissioners cannot hold any executive position in a fishing industry association, nor can they have a controlling interest or executive role in any entity holding a Commonwealth fishing concession. The current eight Commissioners were appointed on 1 September 2016 for three-year terms of office. The Minister tends to set the policy framework (e.g., see the Ministerial Direction) – the Commissioners oversee the application of the framework in Commonwealth managed fisheries and for ensuring that adequate resources and expertise are available to meet AFMA's legislative obligations. The Commission has three committees to assist in the conduct of its business: The Finance and Audit Committee, the Research Committee and the Environment Committee. The outcomes of Commission meetings are reported to stakeholders as well as to the public through the AFMA website. As part of AFMA's partnership approach to fisheries management, it has established Management Advisory Committees (MACs) for each major fishery that it manages. MACs are AFMA's main point of contact with client groups in each fishery and play an important role in helping AFMA to fulfil its legislative functions and pursue its objectives. The Committees provide advice to AFMA on a variety of issues, including on-going measures required to manage the fishery, the development of management plans, research priorities and projects for the fishery. The MACs are also charged with ensuring that processes are in place for industry and other interested stakeholders to receive advice from researchers in a form appropriate to the audience. 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). • Fisheries Administration Paper Series No. 12 Resource Assessment Groups - Roles, Responsibilities and Relationship with Management Advisory Committees (AFMA, 2018b) It is noteworthy that for the SEMAC, there are special arrangements for the use of a Special Scientific Panel, a Stakeholder Forum (AFMA, 2015). These arrangements are described below. The MACs are intended to complement the work of fishery managers by providing a broader perspective on management options and a wide range of expertise. MACs therefore provide

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 102

a forum where issues relating to a fishery are discussed, problems identified and possible solutions developed. The outcomes of these deliberations determine the recommendations that the MAC will make to the AFMA Commission. AFMA’s legislation limits the number of members on a MAC to ten, in addition to the Chairperson and an AFMA officer. Increasingly, and where appropriate, AFMA has included a broader range of interest groups in this consultative process. The AFMA Commission decides on a fishery-by-fishery basis whether membership of a MAC should also reflect these wider community interests. As a general rule, revised membership arrangements are considered upon expiry of terms of appointment of existing members. Specific arrangements are being made to review the role of recreational and indigenous groups on each MAC. The MAC that covers the management of the SPF is known as the South East Management Advisory Committee (SEMAC), and includes three fisheries, the Small Pelagic Fishery and the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) and the Southern Squid Jig Fishery (SSJF). There are currently seven statutory members of SEMAC comprising the Chairman, four from industry, one from the conservation community, a research member, and an AFMA Member (usually the Fishery Senior Manager). Historically, with SEMAC State Government representatives (New South Wales, Tasmania, and Victoria) attend as invited observers. A recreational stakeholder on SEMAC is statutory but has not yet to be filled. Recreational respresentatives alos attend as invited observers. Invited Observers usually include one or more AFMA Commissioner, and the Chair of the SPF Scientific Panel, if not already a member of the MAC, SARDI scientists, and a representative from ABARES. Invited observers can also include indigenous representatives. The first meeting of SEMAC was held in 2013. Minutes of SEMAC meetings are publicly available on the AFMA website32. The SPF stock assessment process is reviewed by SPF Scientific Panel33 which provides advice to SEMAC. The SPF Scientific Panels is not a body of the MACs and operate independently from them, although the two groups work closely together. All advice presented by SPF Scientific Panel is given without bias. The MACs consider the advice of SPF Scientific Panel and provide recommendations to the Commission based on how the alternatives will contribute to meeting overall objectives for the particular fishery (risk management) and, ultimately, to the pursuit of AFMA’s legislative objectives. The main role of SPF Scientific Panel is to provide advice on the status of fish stocks, sub stocks, species (target and non-target), and on the impact of fishing on the marine environment. This includes providing advice to MAC research sub-committees on the type of information required for stock assessments. The Scientific Panel also evaluates alternative harvest options proposed by MACs, including impact over time of different harvest strategies; stock depletion or recovery rates; confidence levels for fishery assessments; and risks to the attainment of approved fishery objectives. The Scientific Panel coordinates, evaluates and regularly undertakes fishery assessment activity in the SPF. They report their recommendations through the individual fishery MACs to the AFMA Commission on issues such as the setting of total allowable catches (TACs), stock rebuilding targets, biological reference points etc. In effect, the Scientific Panel provides advice taking account of uncertainty and seek to identify the risks associated with the alternatives (risk assessment).

32 https://afma.govcms.gov.au/fisheries/committees/south-east-management-advisory-committee-semac/south- east-mac-past-meetings 33 https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/small-pelagic-fishery/small-pelagic-fishery-scientific-panel

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 103

The SPF Scientific Panel is required to engage with stakeholders to ensure its advice to the Commission is sound, well-founded and takes account of stakeholders’ views and experience. Stakeholder forums are the main avenue to capture stakeholder views and provide interested stakeholders with the opportunity to consider and discuss the scientific advice of the panel.

The Stakeholder Forum is the main avenue to capture stakeholder views34. The forum, whilst going through an 18-month trial process, is open to members of peak recreational fishing bodies, environmental non-government organisations (e-NGOs), indigenous groups, individual community stakeholders and commercial fishing industry members. Attendance at Stakeholder Forums is by invitation only after registration with AFMA. Attendance at the SPF forum to date has seen some 17 people present: Five from the recreational fishing sector, one each from third party certification, Tasmanian state fisheries department, New South Wales state fisheries department and the balance made up of members of the Scientific Panel and AFMA. Stakeholder Forum attendees may, after giving previous notice to AFMA, deliver presentations on their views or topics relevant to the Small Pelagic Fishery. Outcomes from Stakeholder Forums are provided to the Commission, the Scientific Panel and SEMAC by the forum facilitator, who then submit a report on the key issues raised and any outcomes to AFMA35. The reports are not consensus based but cover key discussions and outcomes of the Stakeholder Forum. The Scientific Panel Chair contributes to the development of Stakeholder Forum agendas, in conjunction with AFMA and the Stakeholder Forum facilitator. The Scientific Panel also reports on any undertakings given at past Stakeholder Forums and what progress has been made towards these. This advice is also be reported to the Commission, AFMA and to SEMAC. In response, any advice sought by the Commission from the Scientific Panel is posted on the AFMA website. An Independent Facilitator, along with the Scientific Panel Chair, reports on the Scientific Panel’s annual work-plan, any Scientific Panel recommendations and decisions made as well as reporting on any research outcomes to the Stakeholder Forums. Areas raised by Forum members included:

• What impact commercial SPF activities have on the re-aggregation / fill time / persistence of fish • Reducing the current grid size to allow finer scale management • Reviewing the 10% Total Allowable Catch (TAC) trigger proposed in the Panel’s draft advice on spatial management arrangements. Specifically, considering whether it is low enough. • Investigating the arrangements between recreational and commercial operators in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (ETBF) as a model for SPF. Other issues discussed included: • Future research priorities & DEPM schedule • Ongoing Monitoring requirements in the SPF • Spatial Management in the SPF • Update on the SPF Scientific Panel / Stakeholder Forum Model review

Recreational stakeholders were interviewed by the assessment team (see Appendix 3), and the current representational system was discussed. Key comments were:

34 https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/small-pelagic-fishery/small-pelagic-fishery-stakeholder-forum 35 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/02/Panel-Chair-to-Forum-to-Stakeholder-attendeeswebsite.pdf

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 104

1. Broadly the management system and discussions were transparent including access to management and the state of the stocks. However, they would very much like greater access to data and better understanding about what is and isn’t available 2. The need to have a greater understanding of the relative economic importance of the recreational fishing sector against the commercial fishery. 3. That they were largely excluded from direct dialogue on management issues, largely through SEMAC. They acknowledged that they had a good working relationship with AFMA but would prefer that AFMA would support improved communication between recreational interests and the fishery. 4. Experience with the Forum had been restricted to one meeting in Sydney and a tele conference call. It was too early to assess how effective these processes were. 5. Recreational interests had shown a consistent track record of wanting to participate but faced particular barriers in terms of funding to attend meetings (flight costs and lack of financial support to participate in meetings outside the State’s jurisdictional members. The environmental and ecosystem issues member on SEMAC indicated her broad satisfaction in her participation at meetings (Anissa Lawrence, pers com, 6 February 2019). As the member specialist on environmental issues, she would liaise with the principal NGOs that had an interest in the fishery on key issues. The eNGOs were invited as stakeholders but chose not to comment. The invited participant from New South Wales (Veronica Silberschneider, pers com, 6 February 2019), an invited representative to SEMAC, also indicted her broad satisfaction with the MAC processes. The view taken by the assessment team is that: The structure of the current consultation process does demonstrate that the management system includes consultation processes that regularly seeks and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. Minutes of the Stakeholder Forum’s Independent Adjudicator, the Scientific Panel and the RAG explains how information from the consultation process is used or not used in support of the management system. The evidence available also demonstrates that the consultation process does provide opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved and facilitates their effective engagement. The assessment team is of the view that this scoring requirement is met, but again points to the disproportionality of representation at the MAC level between environmental and recreational interests. It is also acknowledged that AFMA is currently reviewing whether there should be permanent representation of recreational and indigenous interests on each MAC, and whether the Stakeholder Panel (currently on a trial basis) is effective. In addition to the opportunities for stakeholder engagement provided by the MACs and the Stakeholder Panel, AFMA provides opportunities for public comment on fisheries management plans; requires each MAC to hold an annual public meeting; and holds around half of AFMA’s Commission meetings in regional centres providing opportunities for direct access to AFMA Commissioners by stakeholders and the general public. The Small Pelagic Fishery was subject to a State Expert Enquiry (Lack et al 2014) and a Senate Enquiry (Senate, 2016), at which time various stakeholders, including eNGOs and recreational fishers,

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 105

along with AFMA, provided input. The Government subsequently responded to the Enquiry with a series of recommendations, and thereafter implemented the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Act, 2017 to ensure that recreational and indigenous stakeholders formed part of the advisory process. DAWR provided the opportunity for stakeholder consultation. on key non-specific Commonwealth fishery policy areas such as harvest strategy development and bycatch management plans, Bodies consulted included the commercial fishing industry, environmental non-government organisations, the recreational fishing industry, state fisheries departments, scientific research organisations and government organisations. Throughout the consultation process, information about the review and how to make a submission was available online and in hardcopy on request. The review was advertised in several mediums including the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s Fish Magazine and the AFMA website. The public consultation period was open for six weeks to give stakeholders the opportunity to consider their submissions and provide input. DAWR consulted government, the commercial fishing industry, environmental non-government organisations, the recreational fishing industry, state fisheries departments, scientific research organisations and government organisations. The department also developed a discussion paper for public consultation, as part of the review process. The discussion paper was released in November 2012 for a 6-week public consultation period. A final report on the review outcomes is available on: http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/fisheries/environment/bycatch/repor t-harvest-strategy.pdf

3.5.3 Long Term Objectives (PI 3.1.3) Clear long-term objectives are explicit in Australia’s Commonwealth environmental and fisheries laws. Commonwealth Fisheries Management Act, 1991 (GoA 1991) requires that all State Governments conform to the following objectives: (a) ensuring, through proper conservation and management measures, that the living resources of the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) are not endangered by over-exploitation; and (b) achieving the optimum utilisation of the living resources of the AFZ; and (c) ensuring that conservation and management measures in the AFZ and the high seas implement Australia’s obligations under international agreements that deal with fish stocks. The following principles are principles of ecologically sustainable development as defined in the Act: (a) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equity considerations; (b) if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation; (c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations; (d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision‑making; and

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 106

(e) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted. The National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (DoE, 1992a) requires that fisheries management agencies throughout Australia to adopt a fisheries ecosystem management framework which will provide a more holistic and sustainable approach to management of aquatic resources. Governments will seek to enhance the decision-making capacity of management authorities, resource users and individuals, in particular through enabling them to make decisions that are based on knowledge of the likely consequences for the resource and the environment. Elements of a fisheries ecosystem management approach include: data collection and research on fish stocks and environmental factors to enhance management on an ecosystem basis; steps to address cross-sectoral issues between coastal management, total catchment management and fisheries management; awareness and education campaigns, for both users and the general public; and development of strategic management plans, framed within the principles of ESD, in conjunction with rationalisation of fishing capacity and over exploited fisheries. The principle objectives of the strategy are: • to ensure that fisheries management agencies work within a framework of resource stewardship • to develop national guidelines for state of the aquatic environment reporting • to disseminate information on the principles of ESD to fishers and the wider community State Governments are then required to review, and where necessary amend, fisheries legislation to ensure it provides the basis for managing the fishery resource in ways which are consistent with the principles of ESD; conduct a review of fishing fleet capacity by fisheries management authorities; examine mechanisms for addressing the prioritisation of scientific and economic research activities to help research agencies coordinate their programs and direct their scarce resources to areas of greatest importance; cooperatively work to resolve management boundaries between the Commonwealth and the States/Territories, and between adjoining States and Territories, on a biological/ecological basis; seek to involve representatives from the fisheries industry in discussions on prioritisation of research and resolution of management boundaries; seek to formalise international commitments covering fishing on the high seas, driftnetting, reductions in land-based sources of marine pollution, shipping standards and implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, 1992 (DoE, 1992b) requires that where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by: careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment; and an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) (DoE, 1999) is the Australian Government’s central piece of environmental legislation 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. Its objectives are: • to provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance; and

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 107

• to promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources; • to apply the precautionary principle in decision making • to promote the conservation of biodiversity; • to provide for the protection and conservation of heritage; and • to promote a co-operative approach to the protection and management of the environment involving governments, the community, landholders and Indigenous peoples; and • to assist in the co-operative implementation of Australia’s international environmental responsibilities; and • to recognize the role of Indigenous people in the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of Australia’s biodiversity; and • to promote the use of Indigenous people’s knowledge of biodiversity with the involvement of, and in co-operation with, the owners of the knowledge. The long-term objectives that must be pursued by AFMA in the management of Commonwealth fisheries are prescribed in the Fisheries Management Act 1991. These are: (a) implementing efficient and cost-effective fisheries management on behalf of the Commonwealth; and (b) ensuring that the exploitation of fisheries resources and the carrying on of any related activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development (which include the exercise of the precautionary principle), 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; and (c) maximising the net economic returns to the Australian community from the management of Australian fisheries; and (d) ensuring accountability to the fishing industry and to the Australian community in AFMA’s management of fisheries resources; and (e) achieving government targets in relation to the recovery of the costs of AFMA. In addition, the Act specifies that the Minister, AFMA and Joint Authorities are to have regard to the objectives of: (a) ensuring, through proper conservation and management measures, that the living resources of the AFZ are not endangered by over-exploitation; and (b) achieving the optimum utilisation of the living resources of the AFZ; and (c) ensuring that conservation and management measures in the AFZ and the high seas implement Australia’s obligations under international agreements that deal with fish stocks. To assist AFMA in the application of these objectives, the Australian Government also made changes to both the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy (“the Policy”) (DAWR, 2018a) and the Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy The objective of the 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. To pursue this objective the Australian Government will implement harvest strategies that:

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 108

• ensure exploitation of fisheries resources and related activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, including the exercise of the precautionary principle • maximise net economic returns to the Australian community from management of Australian fisheries—always in the context of maintaining commercial fish stocks at sustainable levels • maintain key commercial fish stocks, on average, at the required target biomass to produce maximum economic yield from the fishery • maintain all commercial fish stocks, including byproduct, above a biomass limit where the risk to the stock is regarded as unacceptable (BLIM), at least 90 per cent of the time • ensure fishing is conducted in a manner that does not lead to overfishing—where overfishing of a stock is identified, action will be taken immediately to cease overfishing • minimise discarding of commercial species as much as possible • are consistent with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries (2nd edition). The Bycatch Policy aims to minimise fishing-related impacts on general bycatch species in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development and with regard to the structure, productivity, function and biological diversity of the ecosystem. To pursue this objective the Australian Government will implement bycatch mitigation strategies for general bycatch species that: • draw on best-practice approaches to avoid or minimise all bycatch, and minimise the mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided • manage fishing-related impacts on general bycatch species to ensure that populations (that is, discrete biological stocks) are not depleted below a level where the risk of recruitment impairment is regarded as unacceptably high • in instances where fishing-related impacts have caused a bycatch population to fall below a level where the risk of recruitment impairment is regarded as unacceptably high, implement management arrangements to support those populations rebuilding to biomass levels above that level. The AFMA Bycatch Strategy (the Strategy) (AFMA, 2017) has been developed to provide consistency in and guide the management of bycatch across all Commonwealth fisheries. The Strategy aims to achieve more consistency, transparency and practicality to bycatch management and improved monitoring and reporting of bycatch interactions in Commonwealth fisheries. This Strategy establishes guiding principles that AFMA will use in identifying bycatch issues in order to minimise and avoid bycatch of protected and general species. These principles have been developed to provide a consistent approach to management decisions while remaining flexible enough to tailor these decisions and responses for different gear types, spatial and temporal variations and degree of risk identified in the ecological risk assessment for the fishery. The five guiding principles are: • Principle 1. Management responses are proportionate to the conservation status of bycatch species and Ecological Risk Assessment results

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 109

• Principle 2. Consistency with Government Policy and legislative objectives (including to avoid and minimise) and existing national protected species management strategies such as the threat abatement plan and national plans of action • Principle 3. Incentives should encourage industry-led solutions to minimise bycatch of protected species utilising an individual accountability approach • Principle 4. Accounting for cumulative impact of Commonwealth Fisheries on protected species when making management decisions on mitigation • Principle 5. Appropriate and consistent monitoring and reporting arrangements across fisheries. The primary management instrument for most fisheries is a statutory fishery management plan developed under the FMA. Fishery level objectives, as specified in management plans, are the same as the longer-term strategic objectives specified in the FMA. Each Plan incorporates measures that seek to achieve stock sustainability, maximising net economic returns and application of the EAFM. All Commonwealth fisheries are also required to comply with relevant requirements of the EPBC Act. The objectives of the EPBC Act are to: • provide for the protection of the environment, especially matters of national environmental significance • conserve Australian biodiversity • provide a streamlined national environmental assessment and approvals process • enhance the protection and management of important natural and cultural places • control the international movement of plants and animals (wildlife), wildlife specimens and products made or derived from wildlife • promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources One of the main provisions of the Act relating to fisheries is the strategic assessment process. Environmental Guidelines for Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries (DEE, 2007): The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that maintain ecologically stock levels at an agreed point or range with acceptable levels of probability. The objective is subdivided into assessment, management response and information, all of which are entirely consistent with the scoring PIs as set out in MSC principle 1; Fishing operations should be managed to minimise their impact on the structure, productivity, function and biological diversity of the ecosystem. The guidelines contain core objectives, accompanied by stipulated measurable indicators, which are consistent with MSC principle 2. • The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten bycatch species. • The fishery is conducted in a manner that avoids mortality of, or injuries to, endangered, threatened or protected species and avoids or minimises impacts on threatened ecological communities • The fishery is conducted, in a manner that minimises the impact of fishing operations on the ecosystem generally. Each of these objectives contains associated performance indicators on information requirements, assessments and management responses.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 110

3.5.4 Fishery Specific Management Objectives (PI 3.2.1) The fishery currently implements the fisheries specific objectives through the Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan 2009 GoA, 2009), supported by the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy, last Revised April 2017 (AFMA, 2017). The objectives of the Plan are the same as defined in the Commonwealth Fisheries Management Act (See above). Measures by which the Plan’s objectives comprise: a) providing the services needed to manage the fishery, including data collection, research and consultation; and services to ensure compliance with the Plan; b) annually evaluating and, if necessary, revising the range, extent and cost of the services mentioned in paragraph (a); c) reviewing ecological risk assessments of marine communities, quota and non-quota species, and protected species to determine the risk to the maintenance of an ecologically sustainable fishery; d) developing, in cooperation with stakeholders, a plan to strategically address any high risks identified during an ecological risk assessment; e) setting catch limits, or designing other measures, for non-quota species to ensure the ecological sustainability of these species; f) setting catch limits and managing quota species in accordance with the Harvest Strategy; g) issuing directions prohibiting fishing in the fishery, or part of the fishery, during specified periods, informing the holders of fishing concessions about those directions, and requiring the holders to comply with the directions; h) granting SFRs to eligible persons; i) consulting with the advisory committee about the management of the fishery; j) in accordance with the government’s cost recovery policy, preparing annual budgets and recommending levies to recover the costs of management that are attributable to the fishing industry; k) identifying impediments to maximising the net economic returns to the Australian community in managing the resources of the fishery and developing strategies to minimise the effect of, or eliminate, the impediments; l) reviewing and, if necessary, amending the Management Plan to improve the management of the fishery at least once during: i. the period of 5 years period commencing on the commencement day; and ii. each subsequent period of 5 years; The performance criteria for assessing measures to achieve objectives comprise: a) that the range and cost of AFMA’s services in the fishery are reviewed annually and: i. the review is published; and ii. the management of the fishery has been carried out cost-effectively; b) that the necessary risk assessments are carried out for quota species, non-quota species and protected species; c) that, in cooperation with stakeholders, a plan is developed to address any high risks identified during an ecological risk assessment; d) that catch limits, or other appropriate measures, are set for non-quota species if there is a risk to the viability of the species;

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 111

e) that the management of quota species, including the use of catch limits, is done in accordance with the Harvest Strategy, and that actions taken in accordance with the Harvest Strategy are monitored, reviewed and, if appropriate, improved; f) that SFRs for each quota species are granted to eligible persons; g) that, subject to the provisions relating to overcatch, the TACs for a species are not exceeded; h) that the advisory committee was consulted on the management of the fishery; i) that the costs of the management of the fishery that are attributable to the fishing industry have been recovered; j) that impediments to maximising the net economic returns to the Australian community in managing the resources of the fishery have been identified and strategies to minimise and eliminate those impediments have been developed; k) that any changes to the management of the fishery are assessed for their likely effect on maximising the net economic returns to the Australian community in managing the resources of the fishery. l) AFMA must assess the effectiveness of this Management Plan, including the measures taken to achieve the objectives of the Plan, at least once during: m) the period of 5 years period commencing on the commencement day; and each subsequent period of 5 years. The Plan also lays out specific ecosystem requirements A by-catch action plan must require AFMA to ensure that: a) information is gathered about the impact of the fishery on by-catch species; and b) all reasonable steps are taken to minimise incidental interactions with seabirds, marine reptiles, marine mammals and fish of a kind mentioned in sections 15 and 15A of the Act; and c) the ecological impacts of fishing operations on habitats in the area of the fishery are minimised and kept at an acceptable level; and d) by-catch is reduced to, or kept at, a minimum, and below a level that might threaten by-catch species. In developing a by-catch action plan, AFMA must take into account: e) the protection given to whales and other cetaceans under Division 3 of Part 13 of the EPBC Act; and f) the requirements under the EPBC Act for the protection of: i. protected species; and ii. listed threatened ecological communities. If information gathered under a by-catch action plan shows that it may be appropriate to amend this Management Plan or change the conditions imposed on the holders of SFRs, AFMA must consider making such amendments or changes. The SPF Harvest Strategy was last revised in 2017 (AFMA, 2017). The objective of the Strategy is:

The sustainable and profitable utilisation of the Small Pelagic Fishery in perpetuity through the implementation of a harvest strategy that maintains key commercial stocks at ecologically

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 112

sustainable levels and, within this context, maximises the net economic returns to the Australian community.

The measures by which the objectives of this plan are to be attained include: • Developing and implementing appropriate management measures (including directions referred to in subsection 17 (5A) of the Act) in relation to the Small Pelagic Fishery GoA, 2016, GoA 2018a, GoA 2018 b); • Principles for recommending TACs and Recommended Biological Catches (RBCs) • Assessment and monitoring; • Harvest Strategy Framework • Decision Rules and Reference Points • Review processes The Strategy contains: • Indicators (data from the fishery) • Monitoring (agreed protocols to get data) • Reference points (targets and limits) • Method of assessment (e.g. stock assessment, Catch per Unit of Effort (CPUE) standardisation) • Decision rules (agreed rules for setting catch levels). Reports, submitted through the Scientific Panel, along with their recommendations to SEMAC and AFMA, demonstrate how the management system responds to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Bycatch management has historically relied on the use of Environmental Risk Assessments to assess the potential impact of the fishery and underlined by a series of technological gear mitigation measures. The Small Pelagic Fishery Bycatch and Discarding Work Plan, 2014-2016 (AFMA, 2014) Work Plan is to develop strategies that will: • Respond to high ecological risks assessed through AFMA’s Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effect of Fishing (ERAEF) and other assessment processes; • Avoid interactions with species listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act); • Reduce discarding of target species to as close to zero as practically possible; and • Minimise overall bycatch in the fishery over the long-term.

The Bycatch and Discarding Workplan identifies three areas of action:

• Monitor the trial and use of top-opening seal excluder devices (SEDs) in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector of the SESSF and adapt as appropriate (having regard for health and safety issues) for SPF mid-water trawl boats • Develop and implement VMPs for mid-water trawl operators to minimise ETPS interactions and record procedures for reporting on catch and wildlife interactions • Develop triggers to identify shifts or expansion in effort within the fishery, including increased interactions with TEPS.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 113

The Midwater trawl fishery applies a 20% observer program, SEDs and Individual Vessel Management Plans (IVMPs). SPF Bycatch and Discard actions are defined in Table 2 of the Work Plan and include Responsible Parties (Industry supported by Government), Performance Indicators, and milestones.

AFMA assesses the sustainability of the SPF bycatch by collecting data from ETPS logbooks, observer and electronic monitoring reports. AFMA provides a protected species interaction summary report to the Department of the Environment and Energy on a quarterly basis on behalf of fishers who report interactions in their logbook. These reports are published on AFMA’s website at: www.afma.gov.au/sustainability-environment/protected-species- management/protected-species-interaction-reports/.

Data on ETP interactions is drawn to the attention of SEMAC and the Scientific and stakeholder panels. Reports, submitted through the Scientific Panel, along with their recommendations to SEMAC and AFMA, demonstrate how the management system responds to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

3.5.5 Decision-Making Processes (PI 3.2.2) 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 officers. AFMA Commission meeting records are not made public however a Chairman’s summary outlining decision outcomes and justifications are made public on the AFMA website (https://www.afma.gov.au/61st-afma-commission-meeting-chairmans-summary) following meetings. Further, SEMAC does receive a letter from the Commission outlining decisions made on SPF recommendations, including explanations as to acceptance or rejecting of such recommendations. The harvest strategies and control rules incorporate a precautionary approach to the decision- making process by requiring a review when the target reference level is not met. This ensures that any warning signs are recognised and investigated / addressed in their early stages. The frequency of evaluation (both annually and in-season) and review means that management action to investigate and, where required, alleviate adverse impacts on stocks is always taken before the performance indicators reach the limit reference level. The application of the research, monitoring and evaluation within the SPF Management Plan, Harvest Strategy and Bycatch Work Plan provides a good tool to assess the relative risks to target species, bycatch and ETP species, initiating when appropriate, actions to deal with at risk species. Examples of precautionary actions include setting precautionary TACs, and the application of ETP excluder devices. AFMA and SARDI provide a comprehensive range of reports which confirm fishery performance and how management has responded to findings from recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. (https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/small-pelagic-fishery). These include stock status reports; catch data including target species, byproduct (retained species), bycatch and ETP species; Ecological Risk Assessments; Sustainability assessment reports, and Harvest Strategy reviews. Explanations are provided for actions or lack of actions by the organisations tasked with implementation. Failure to achieve the management reference levels is discussed at SEMAC and advice provided to AFMA. AFMA provide responses through the MAC how

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 114

information is reviewed and the management decisions made (See South East Management Advisory Committee past meetings (https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/committees/south- east-management-advisory-committee-semac). It then becomes the responsibility of AFMA to rectify failure to achieve specific management outcomes. get setting. The Harvest Strategy (AFMA, 2018), Bycatch and Discards Workplan (AFMA, 2014) contain monitoring and performance indicators and provided the basis for incorporating relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. The consultation and advisory processes ensure that the management system in the fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes. No legal challenges or judicial decisions have taken place in the SPF. An appeals procedure exists to the Federal Court for Statutory Fishing Rights Allocations, but has not been tested within this fishery. The AAT and consultative processes, described above, shows how the management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes.

3.5.6 Compliance and Enforcement (PI 3.2.3) The management system takes a risk-based approach to compliance (AFMA, 2017b). Compliance risk assessments are undertaken by the Operations Management Committee (AFMA, 2017c), and compliance plans are developed for each Commonwealth fishery (AFMA, 2018d). Primary compliance tools include vessel monitoring systems on all vessels (Vessel monitoring systems), landing reports, catch disposal records and fish receiver records. At-sea and in-port vessel inspection, fish receiver inspections, trip and landing inspections are also carried out. AFMA compliance is subject to both internal (AFMA, 2018d) and external review (ANAO, 2013) and demonstrated to have been effective.

Compliance resourcing AFMA adopts a centralised model for its domestic compliance program and delivers its program from Canberra. Compliance staff are also stationed at Darwin, Thursday and at Lakes Entrance.

Key components of the program include: • compliance intelligence - collection, analysis and reporting of intelligence information to support the compliance function; • risk assessment and planning - a biennial risk assessment process to assist in the targeted planning of compliance activities; • communications - education and awareness activities to increase rates of voluntary compliance with fisheries management requirements; • compliance monitoring - incorporating a planned general deterrence program, targeted activities addressing key identified compliance risks, and special operations to address specific issues or fishing operators; and • enforcement - seeking to affect a timely and appropriate response to non‐compliance. Fisheries Officers (FO) undertake regular land and sea patrols using a compliance delivery model supported by a risk assessment process and associated operational planning framework. The SPF uses VMS and electronic monitoring as support to its monitoring activity and a combination of at sea patrols and port inspections.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 115

AFMA applies a resourcing of the intelligence function, through development of intelligence reports and analytical tools to support the risk-based compliance approach and case management system to help ensure consistency in enforcement action The Operations Division reviews the compliance risk assessments each year. The risk assessment process can also be triggered by the introduction of new supporting legislation36 in a fishery / resource or the identification of any new major issues that would require compliance managers to assess their compliance program. 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. The prioritised risks that are the focus of the 2017-18 program are:

• Sea bird mitigation- vessels complying with concession conditions and vessel management plans. • Dolphin mitigation - vessels complying with concession conditions and vessel management plans. • Seal mitigation - vessels complying with concession conditions and vessel management plans. • Accurate reporting of all TEP species • Accurate reporting of all migrative species • VMS and EM operational at all times • Log books vessels complying with concession and log book conditions. • Logbook and Catch disposal record book accuracy. • Closure monitoring The Operations Manager Compliance (OMC) is responsible for the allocation of resources and the day-to-day direction of AFMA’s national compliance program. Importantly, the OMC will be constantly balancing resources and making tradeoffs between risk treatment (proactive), investigation/monitoring (reactive) and general deterrence (routine) programs. The allocated resources and compliance strategies (i.e. monitoring, surveillance and education activities), specifies planned hours and staff allocated to key compliance tasks and duties. This planning and delivery process allow for more-targeted, effective and relevant compliance service in terms of both cost and activities. There is also flexibility within the region to allocate additional resources to respond to changes, such as the need for a planned tactical operation in response to fresh intelligence. Redirecting existing resources or seeking additional resources from other areas or units may achieve this. Similarly, changing priorities and resourcing on a local level can involve reducing planned delivery of compliance services to ensure resources are directed to where they are most needed. 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

36 ‘Supporting legislation’ refers to any Regulation or Gazette that would allow non-compliance with the management framework to be detected and prosecuted with a reasonable chance of securing a conviction.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 116

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 activities and control mechanisms in the SPF. Fisheries legislation forms the one component of the control system for commercial fisheries in the SPF, and these are applied through Licence conditions. The SPF is subject to controls under: • Fisheries Management Act, 1991 (Commonwealth) • Fisheries Management Regulations (Commonwealth), 1992 • The EPBC Act (export exemptions) • The Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan, 1991 • The Fisheries Management (Small Pelagic Fishery Total Allowable Catch – Quota Species) • Fisheries Management (Small Pelagic Fishery Overcatch and Undercatch) • Monitoring the effectiveness of the bycatchBycatch and Discarding Work Plan and • Licensing Conditions that embrace the above requirements. A description of the control measures in place is provided in Table 9. Table 9. Description of the control measures and instruments of implementation in the SPF

Measure Description Instrument Limited Entry Entry is limited through restricting the Small Pelagic Fishery number of Statutory Fishing Rights (SFR) in Management Plan, 2009 the relevant sub-area of the fishery.

Catch limits TAC for target species Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan, 2009 TAC limits for non-target species Catch limits for by-product species

Vessel A VMP setting out the day-to-day Bycatch Work Plan Management operational rules that apply and includes Plans measures primarily aimed at reducing interactions with protected species and reporting requirements. Spatial Spatial closures that apply to the mid- water The Southern and Closures trawl methods in the SPF. Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery and Small Pelagic Fishery (Closures) Direction 2016

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 117

Measure Description Instrument Spatial From 1 May 2018, the following spatial Management management arrangements, in the form of Arrangements regional catch limits, apply to all vessels operating in the SPF (regardless of method):

A catch limit of 2 000 tonnes applies to the combined catch of quota species within the grids numbered G1 to G120 (Appendix D and Appendix E) over a 30-day period. SPF Dolphin The Strategy sets out the rules and Bycatch Work Plan Strategy consequences for interactions with dolphins. The Strategy sets out the requirements for trawl operations in the SPF, including performance criteria that each individual operator must comply with, through both a maximum interaction rate (number of shots per dolphin interaction) over a six-month period, and a maximum interaction cap during a six-month review period. Fisher Commonwealth operators dispose of landed The Fisheries Receiver fish to the holder of a Commonwealth Fish Management Regulations Permits Receiver Permit (FRP). 1992

VMS boat nominated to the SPF quota SFR is Fisheries Management reporting fitted with a Vessel Monitoring System Act 1991 (VMS)

Reporting Compulsory logbook reporting and Fisheries Management electronic monitoring of all catch, bycatch Act 1991 and by-product species. EPBC Act 1999 All interactions with threatened, endangered Fisheries Management and protected species must be reported on Regulations, 1992 the Wildlife and other Protected Species form (located at the back of the logbook)

Target actions for the SPF comprises: • Centralised compliance program exists to maintain the sustainability and integrity of Commonwealth fisheries through compliance monitoring and enforcement Vessel inspections to ensure compliance with the technical regulations and reporting requirements. • Effective deterrents are created through AFMA compliance monitoring programs and enforcement options involving risk assessments, random vessel inspections, targeted operations, intelligence gathering, and mitigation measures. • At sea inspections

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 118

• AFMA’s a risk-based program allows AFMA to maximise compliance and deter illegal fishing in Commonwealth fisheries and the Australian Fishing Zone • Approval of Vessel Management Plans • Reviews of bycatch mitigation procedures when required. • Education, warnings, Cautions, Infringement notices and prosecutions for detected offences • Desktop audits on specific vessels Boardings take place at sea, where the primary activity is check compliance with the license conditions and the application of. Ad hoc monitoring occurs on land to check on violations, as well as regular landing inspections. Actions may be determined as part of a regular review or through intelligence provided by industry. The Division has also implemented an initiative called Crimefish37, whereby the community can report instances of suspected illegal fishing. The Crimefish phone line provides a confidential quick and easy way to report any suspicious activity to AFMA compliance staff.

Enforcement measures The Fisheries Management Act 1991 and regulations allow for a range of enforcement measures. These measures (or tools) can be used in combination, separately or for particular types of incidents in order to achieve the most appropriate outcome. AFMA will use the range of measures available in its “toolbox” in order to achieve the most efficient and cost- effective outcome. Warnings Verbal or written warnings may be given by a fisheries officer where: the impact caused by an offence is minimal the breach of a legislative instrument or regulation is of a minor technical nature a warning is fair and appropriate the matter is one which can quickly and simply be addressed. Warnings are used in the circumstance of a minor event. In deciding whether a warning is an adequate response the fisheries officer must have regard to the principles contained in the Policy. Warnings may also be contained in a caution. Warnings (verbal or written) will be recorded for future reference. Cautions Written cautions may be given by a fisheries officer where: • the impact caused by an offence is minor • the breach of a legislative instrument or regulation is minor or a “first occurrence” • a caution is fair and appropriate • the matter is one which can quickly and simply be put right • it is appropriate to advise the responsible party that a repeat occurrence will lead to more serious action being taken. Cautions are used for more serious matters and only if the officer believes there to be prima facie evidence of an offence. In deciding whether a caution is an adequate response the fisheries officer must have regard to the principles contained in the Policy. Where a caution is not complied with in the period specified further enforcement measures may be pursued. Observer Compliance Notices (OCN)

37 http://www.afma.gov.au/monitoring-enforcement/report-illegal-fishing-activity/

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 119

An OCN is a non-statutory means of providing a person with clear written notice of an apparent breach of the observer requirements under the FM Act and Fisheries Management Regulations 1992. The OCN will detail the actions which need to be undertaken by that person to rectify the situation. It also gives notice that further enforcement action may follow, especially if the situation is not rectified within the specified time. Failure to comply with an OCN is not in itself an offence but rather a form of caution. Commonwealth Fisheries Infringement Notices (CFINs) 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. The Policy considerations for issuing a Commonwealth Fisheries Infringement Notice (CFIN) rather than prosecution are: • the offence is one that may be dealt with by imposition of a fine under the FM Act • the nature of the incident, whether it is well defined or not • the severity of the impact • the evidence discloses a prima facie case against the person with reasonable prospects of success • the previous history of the person the culpability of the person • notification of the incident to AFMA, voluntary action to mitigate the impacts and a commitment to prevent future incidents. Amendments to fishing concession conditions 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. Amendments to license conditions are subject to appeal provisions under the FM Act. Failure to comply with fishing concession conditions is an offence. Generally new or alterations to existing conditions will be subject to AFMA’s regulatory review process. Directions by fisheries officers Under section 84 of the FM Act, fisheries officers may direct the process by which various enforcement actions implemented; these being: land and boarding inspections. Directions by FOs will be used where there is imminent risk of severe impacts or there are other reasonable grounds for doing so. Such reasonable grounds may include (but are not limited to) where further inspection of a boat is required for investigation of detected (or suspected) offences, or where it will directly assist in ensuring compliance for future fishing (e.g. to repair fishing gear or a VMS unit). However, as there are no appeal provisions, these powers will only be used where consideration has been given to the likely consequences of such a direction. Failure to comply with an instruction from a fisheries officer, without reasonable excuse, is an offence. Suspension or cancellation of fishing concessions Pursuant to sections 38 and 39 of the FM Act, fishing concessions may be suspended or cancelled under certain circumstances where: • a fee, levy, charge or other moneys has not been paid by the due date there are

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 120

reasonable grounds that a condition has been breached • there are reasonable grounds false or misleading information has been furnished to AFMA • in accordance with a condition on the concession certain international sanctions have been applied and are not complied with. Since, in most cases, this would result in ceasing of fishing activity and resultant loss of income, suspension or cancellation will be used in those circumstances that pose an unacceptable impact or where there is an attitude of non-compliance or evidence of a deliberate attempt to gain financial advantage from non-compliance. The CEO or other delegate will, when exercising this enforcement measure, give the person a reasonable opportunity to show cause in writing why the power should not be exercised. Suspension or cancellation should only be used for serious offences. Failure to comply with a suspension or cancellation of a fishing concession is an offence. Prosecution Prosecutions will be initiated, consistent with the principles and criteria of the Policy, where there is prima facie evidence of breaches of the FM Act (or other relevant Commonwealth Acts) on a case-by-case basis, where prosecution is, in the opinion of the OMC, the most appropriate response to achieve personal and/or public deterrence. A number of factors will be taken into account in considering whether an offence is serious enough to warrant suspension or cancellation of a fishing concession or quota. Examples of serious offences include: • fishing without a valid license, authorisation or permit; • failing to maintain accurate records of catch and catch-related data or serious misreporting of catch; • fishing in a closed area, fishing during a closed season or fishing without quota where no action is taken to cover outstanding catches; • directed fishing for a stock that is subject to a moratorium or for which fishing is prohibited; • using prohibited gear; • falsifying or concealing the markings, identity or registration of a fishing boat; • concealing, tampering with or disposing of evidence relating to an investigation • multiple violations which together constitute a serious disregard of conservation and management measures; or • such other violations as identified on a case by case basis. Minor would cover offences for which infringement notices are issued (may include a fine) but no further action is taken. Typically, this may include minor deviations from legislation that are unintentional in nature. Major relates to offences which are referred (along with a brief of evidence) to the department of public prosecutions, it is then in their discretion to pursue through the court (Steve Bolton, pers com, AFMA, January, 2017, cited in MRAG, 2018). Offences are specified in Section 95 of the FMA, 1991 and incorporated into the Fisheries Management Regulations (1992). Offences are determined on a per unit system, with penalty units specified for each offence and up to a maximum of up to 250 points (Index to Offences, Fisheries Management Regulations, 1992). The current assigned value assigned per unit is AUD 180/unit.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 121

AFMA compliance has inspected 8 SPF vessels since 27 September 2016, covering 4 different vessels. No offences were detected. Before this date AFMA compliance regularly inspected the Geelong Star (AFMA, email response, 5 February, 2019).

The Observer Program 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. The group has an observer pool of 20 field observers. 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.

The observers undergo pre training prior to deployment, which includes vessel work experience along with experienced observers. Observers are required to follow a manual and complete an excel reporting spreadsheet divided into several modules. Observers undergo a pre-briefing and debriefing process.

Observers are not designated fishery compliance officers but may provide evidential support to fishery prosecutions.

3.5.7 Monitoring and Management Performance Evaluation (PI 3.2.4) The Australia Government commissioned two independent reviews of the core Acts (EPBC Act and FMA) governing the environment and fisheries (Hawke, 2009, and Borthwick, 2012). The Borthwick review also included reviews of policy settings, recasting AFMA’s objectives, fisheries management plans, the Minister’s powers to vary fisheries management plans, integrating fisheries and environmental assessments, Research, fisheries management and industry levies, Offshore Constitutional Settlements (OCS), Recreational Fishing, Aquaculture, Compliance and enforcement and Co-management. The Government response to the Borthwick Review was announced in March 2013 (Australia Government, 2013). DAWR thereafter initiated a public consultation process (DAFF (2012/2013), followed by specific Reports on Harvest Strategy and Bycatch management strategy (DAWR 2013a, DAWR 2013b). A revised national harvest strategy and national bycatch management policy and guidelines were produced in 2018 (DAWR 2018a, DAWR 2018b, DAWR 2018c and DAWR 2018d). The SPF harvest strategy was reviewed in 2008 (AFMA, 2008) and 2015 (Smith et al., 2014). This prompted a revised SPF Harvest strategy (AFMA, 2017a). In addition, AFMA’s management system is subject to internal and external performance evaluation including (Nick Rayns, AFMA, January 2017, MRAG, 2017): Internal peer reviews, which include: • The requirement to report in AFMA’s Annual Report on overall performance against the legislative objectives, statutory requirements and financial reporting, the effectiveness of internal controls and adequacy of systems; and the Authority’s risk management processes • AFMA and the MAC to periodically assess the effectiveness of the management measures taken to achieve the objectives of this Management Plan by reference to the

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 122

performance criteria specified in the Plan • An AFMA MAC/Scientific Panel Workshop focusing on managing conflicts of interest, the Productivity Commission review of commercial fisheries management, the regulatory outlook etc. • AFMA and SEMAC developing performance measures • SEMAC research proposals reviewed by the AFMA Research Committee and those for FRDC funding by the Commonwealth Research Advisory Committee • The SPF harvest strategy to be reviewed based on the revised Australian Government’s Harvest Strategy Policy • Review of AFMA’s ERA-ERM Framework – new Guidelines for fisheries have been finalised in 2017; and • AFMA also has an internal quality assurance program to determine whether Compliance best practice has been followed. External reviews, which include: • Questioning by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport in Senate Estimates hearings (three times/year); • Annual reporting of SPF performance against protected species and export approval requirements under the EPBC Act consistent with the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries (See below); • The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) annual reports (last published late 2016) on the ecological and economic sustainability of fisheries managed by AFMA; • The Productivity Commission review of commercial fisheries regulation in Australia which has made a number of recommendations relevant to AFMA (GoA, 2016); • The Australian National Audit Office periodic reviews of aspects of AFMA’s performance. This includes an audit of AFMA’s risk management procedure (AFMA, 2016b). • An independent review of AFMA’s fisheries management, organisation and governance, has also just been completed. All SARDI reports are subject to an internal review process by in-house scientists. SARDI stock assessment work of SPF target species have not been reviewed (Tim Ward, 7 February 2019). All FRDC funded research papers are also subject to external review. The ANAO regularly reviews the AFMA Compliance Program (ANAO, 2013a), and these recommendations are adopted into the AFMA Compliance Program (AFMA 2017-2018). The implementation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) requires the Australian Government to assess the environmental performance of fisheries and promote ecologically sustainable management. The independent assessment of all export and all Australian Government managed fisheries is required. These assessments ensure that, over time, fisheries are managed in an ecologically sustainable way. The Assessment (DoEE, 2018) is available at DoEE website, Assessment of the Small Pelagic Fishery. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/41b182ca-9bfc- 48b2-92a1-8a21f729f337/files/assessment-commonwealth-small-pelagic-fishery-oct- 2018.pdf;

This includes the accreditation:

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 123

Given the management measures described, the Department has determined that product taken in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery should be included in the list of exempt native specimens under Part 13A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) until 21 October 2023. (DoEE, 2018).

4 Evaluation Procedure 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment This assessment does not overlap with other in-assessment or certified fisheries, except those on other AFMA-managed stocks in relation to Component 3.1. All outcomes of this assessment are consistent with P3 scores for these other fisheries.

4.2 Previous Assessments This fishery (different client and different vessel but same stock targets) were the subject of a previous MSC assessment that was withdrawn in May of 2016. No assessment reports were produced. Information about this assessment can be found at https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/australian-small-pelagic-fishery/.

4.3 Assessment Methodologies The MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements version 2.0 and accompanying guidance and corresponding MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template were used to assess this fishery. The Default Assessment Tree as published in FCR v2.0 and republished in MSC 2018a was used without modification. The RBF was not used. Further details on assessment methodologies for the fishery as a whole are given in sections below.

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques 4.4.1 Site Visits Information supplied by the clients and management agencies was reviewed by the assessment team ahead of the meetings, and discussions with the clients, management agencies, scientists and stakeholders centred on the content within the provided documentation. In cases where relevant documentation was not provided in advance of the meeting, it was requested by the assessment team and subsequently supplied during, or shortly after the meeting.

Thirty days prior to the audit, all identified stakeholders were informed of the opportunity to provide information to the auditors in advance of, or during, the period of the audit. We received requests from a number of stakeholders with recreational fisheries interests to discuss concerns with the assessment team. We received no requests or written submissions from eNGO stakeholders.

The audit was held in Melbourne, Australia from February 6-8, 2019

Table 10 lists the attendees and their affiliations, and Table 11 gives the schedule of meetings and who attended each.

Table 10. SPF MSC full assessment participants and affiliations

Name Affiliation Amanda Stern-Pirlot MRAG Americas, Assessment team leader

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 124

Cameron Dixon MRAG Asia Pacific, Assessment team Mihaela Zaharia Assessment team Richard Banks Assessment team Simon Boag Atlantis Fisheries Consulting (client representative) Ross Bromley Atlantis Fisheries Consulting (client representative) Charles Klem Ridley (client) Joe Rossignuolo Ridley (client) Tony Muollo Vessel owner-- Saints Antonio & Giuseppe Sally Weekes AFMA -SPF fishery manager Anissa Lawrence TierraMar and conservation member on the SEMAC Nate Meulerberg AFMA observer program Josh Cahill AFMA observer program David Schubert AFMA compliance Tim Davie AFMA compliance Mike Gerner AFMA-Electronic Monitoring Veronica Silberschneider NSW DPI Tim Ward SARDI Malcolm Poole Recreational angling sector Phil Bolton Recreational angling sector John Burgess Recreational angling sector Mark Nikolai Tarfish Sergio Cansado Assurance Services International (ASI) Matt Watson Marine Stewardship Council

Table 11. Schedule of meetings. Unless otherwise specified, “Assessment Team” comprises Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Cameron Dixon, Mihaela Zaharia and Richard Banks. Wednesday February 6

Time Attendees Subject 08:00-09:00 Assessment Team Client Opening meeting, including review of Simon Boag confidentiality protocol Ross Bromley Sergio Cansado Matt Watson 10:00-12:15 Assessment Team Principle 1—Harvest Strategy and Harvest Sally Weekes controls Sergio Cansado Principle 3-Fishery Specific Management Matt Watson 12:15-13:15 Anissa Lawrence Principle 2: Conservation concerns Assessment team Principle 3: Sergio Cansado Consultation/roles/responsibilities etc. Matt Watson 14:00-16:00 Josh Cahill Principle 2-Catch Composition, ETP Nate Meulerberg interactions, ecosystem and habitat David Schubert Principle 2/3-Observer program Tim Davie Principle 3-Compliance and Enforcement Assessment Team Ross Bromley Sergio Cansado Matt Watson 16:00-17:00 Mike Gerner (AFMA Principle 2- Catch Composition Electronic Monitoring; by Principles 1/2/3-Monitoring

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 125

telephone) Assessment Team Ross Bromley Sergio Cansado Matt Watson

Thursday February 7 Time Attendees Subject 10:00-12:00 Assessment Team Recreational fisheries stakeholder Malcolm Poole (by telephone) concerns. See full summary of Phil Bolton (by telephone) meeting in Appendix 3 John Burgess (by telephone) Mark Nikolai (by telephone) Sergio Cansado Matt Watson 13:30-15:00 Tim Ward Principle 1-stock status and stock Assessment Team assessment topics. Ross Bromley Sergio Cansado Matt Watson

Friday February 8 Time Attendees Subject 09:00-10:30 Charles Klem Traceability Joe Rossignuolo General fishery/industry topics Tony Muollo Simon Boag Ross Bromley Assessment Team Sergio Cansado Matt Watson 10:30-11:00 Assessment team Assessment team meeting-pre Sergio Cansado closing meeting with client 11:00-13:00 Charles Klem Client closing meeting Joe Rossignuolo Tony Muollo Simon Boag Assessment Team Sergio Cansado Matt Watson 13:30-14:00 Assessment Team ASI Closing Meeting Sergio Cansado

4.4.2 Consultations See Table 10 above, with respect to details of the individuals interviewed during the site visit and after, and the summary of topics discussed. A written summary of consultation with recreational fisheries stakeholders is given in Appendix 3.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 126

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques MRAG published an announcement of the reassessment on our website and sent a direct email to all stakeholders on our stakeholder list. MSC posted the announcement on its South East Australia small pelagic fishery (Commonwealth) mid-water trawl track-a-fishery page, as well as sent it by email in their Fishery Announcements newsletter to all registered recipients. At this time, MRAG Americas also announced the assessment site visit dates and location, as well as the assessment team. This was done according to the process requirements as laid out in MSC’s Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0. In addition, follow-up emails were sent to stakeholder groups closer to the time of the meeting to schedule and provide details for remote participation. Together, these media presented the announcement to a wide audience representing industry, agencies, and other stakeholders.

The assessment team and the clients set up meetings with South East Australia small pelagic fishery mid-water trawl management and science personnel, and industry and harvest-sector representatives relevant to the fishery assessment.

In the FCR v2.0 default assessment tree used for this assessment, the MSC has 28 ‘performance indicators’, six in Principle 1, 15 in Principle 2, and seven in Principle 3. The performance indicators are grouped in each principle by ‘component.’ Principle 1 has two components, Principle 2 has five, and Principle 3 has two. Each performance indicator consists of one or more ‘scoring issues;’ a scoring issue is a specific topic for evaluation. ‘Scoring Guideposts’ define the requirements for meeting each scoring issue at the 60 (conditional pass), 80 (full pass), and 100 (state of the art) levels.

Note that some scoring issue may not have a scoring guidepost at each of the 60, 80, and 100 levels. The scoring issues and scoring guideposts are cumulative; this means that a performance indicator is scored first at the SG60 levels. If not all of the SG scoring issues meet the 60 requirements, the fishery fails and no further scoring occurs. If all of the SG60 scoring issues are met, the fishery meets the 60 level, and the scoring moves to SG80 scoring issues. If no scoring issues meet the requirements at the SG80 level, the fishery receives a score of 60. As the fishery meets increasing numbers of SG80 scoring issues, the score increases above 60 in proportion to the number of scoring issues met; performance indicator scoring occurs at 5-point intervals. If the fishery meets half the scoring issues at the 80 level, the performance indicator would score 70; if it meets a quarter, then it would score 65; and it would score 75 by meeting three-quarters of the scoring issues. If the fishery meets all of the SG80 scoring issues, the scoring moves to the SG100 level. Scoring at the SG100 level follows the same pattern as for SG80.

Principle scores result from averaging the scores within each component, and then from averaging the component scores within each Principle. If a Principle averages less than 80, the fishery fails.

Scoring for this fishery followed a consensus process in which the assessment team discussed the information available for evaluating performance indicators to develop a broad opinion of performance of the fishery against each performance indicator. Review of sections 3.2-3.5 by all team members assured that the assessment team was aware of the issues for each performance indicator. Subsequently, the assessment team member, or members in this case, responsible for each principle filled in the scoring table and provided a provisional score. The assessment team members reviewed the rationales and scores, and recommended modifications as necessary, including possible changes in scores.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 127

Performance Indicator scores were entered into MSC’s Fishery Assessment Scoring Worksheet (see Table 12, below) to arrive at Principle-level scores. Each P1 stock is part of its own UoA (rather than a scoring element in P1). The RBF was not used in this assessment.

Table 12. Scoring elements Component Scoring elements Main/Not Data-deficient or not main [e.g. P1, Primary, [e.g. species or stock] Secondary, ETP] Primary Gould's Squid Not main Not data-deficient Primary Gemfish Not main Not data-deficient Primary Redfish Not main Not data-deficient Primary Reef Ocean Perch Not main Not data-deficient Primary Silver Warehou Not main Not data-deficient Primary Australian Sardine Not main Not data-deficient Primary Striped Marlin Not main Not data-deficient Primary Alfonsino Not main Not data-deficient Primary Tiger Flathead Not main Not data-deficient Primary Jackass Morwong Not main Not data-deficient Primary Blue Grenadier Not main Not data-deficient Primary Blue Warehou Not main Not data-deficient Primary Common Sawshark Not main Not data-deficient Primary Mirror Dory Not main Not data-deficient Primary Pink Ling Not main Not data-deficient Primary Southern Sawshark Not main Not data-deficient Primary Swordfish Not main Not data-deficient Primary Yellowfin Tuna Not main Not data-deficient Secondary Barracouta Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Bronze Whaler Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Blue Shark Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Deepsea Scorpionfish Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Dusky Whaler Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Eastern Orange Perch Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary King Dory Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Latchet Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Leatherjackets Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Longfin Perch Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Ocean Jacket Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Ocean Sunfish Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Red Gurnard Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Ruby Snapper Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Short Sunfish Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Splendid Perch Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Tang's Snapper Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Yellowspotted Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Boarfish Secondary Yellowtail Scad Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Amberjack Not main Data-deficient (not scored)

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 128

Secondary Australian Bonito Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Frigate Mackerel Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Frostfish Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Greeneye Dogfish Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Lanternfishes Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Oarfish Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Octopuses Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Porcupine Fish Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Scad Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Silver Dory Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Secondary Skates and rays Not main Data-deficient (not scored) ETP Common Dolphin N/A Not data-deficient ETP Common Bottlenose N/A Not data-deficient Dolphin ETP Indo-Pacific N/A Not data-deficient Bottlenose Dolphin ETP Australian Fur Seal N/A Not data-deficient ETP New Zealand Fur Seal N/A Not data-deficient ETP Shy Albatross N/A Not data-deficient Commonly encountered sand, flat, small Main Not data-deficient habitat erect/encrusting/ burrowing) VME Giant Kelp Forest Main Not data-deficient Minor habitats Other Not main Data-deficient (not scored) Ecosystem South-East AFZ Main Not data deficient

5 Traceability 5.1 Eligibility Date The eligibility date for this fishery is the date of pubication of the Public Certification Report.

5.2 Traceability within the Fishery This fishery is prosecuted by midwater trawl catching mixed schools of blue mackerel, jack mackerel, redbait and very few other miscellaneous species as identified in the Principle 2 section of the report. The proportion of target species in each tow varies based on time of year and migration patterns of the respective species.

Once the net is hauled back, the catch is pumped on board and into a chilled seawater hold. The current vessel operating in the fishery has four holds which are filled with mixed species catches as pumped from the net. There is no separation of species on board vessels, except in the rare event that a large fish or shark is captured. In these events, such catches are recorded and directly discarded.

Upon landing, the contents of the holds are transferred to trucks for delivery to primary processing, accompanied by an unloading docket which specifies the proportions of each species in the hold. This proportion is verified and the catch is re-weighed at offload. As there is no separation of catch by species throughout this process, minor species caught and landed are considered as Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) in this assessment.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 129

The trucks then take the fish to a primary processor, Stockfeeds Australia Pty Ltd in Moruya, NSW, for processing into fishmeal and fishoil, accompanied by the unloading docket verifying the contents of the delivery. The processor handles only fish from this fishery and is an exclusive subcontractor to the client, Ridley Corporation. After processing, the fishmeal and fish oil is then transferred to Ridleys for onward processing.

Table 13. Traceability Factors within the Fishery

Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls) Potential for non-certified gear/s to be Low risk. There are two other vessels participating in used within the fishery the SPF fishery, both purse seiners. These vessels operate in different areas and their product is not processed or handled in the same facilities as those from the midwater trawl fishery. Potential for vessels from the UoC to Negligible risk. The UoC vessel (currently only one) fish outside the UoC or in different only operates in the UoA area. geographical areas (on the same trips or different trips)

Potential for vessels outside of the UoC As stated previously, there are two other commercial or client group fishing the same stock vessels, both purse seine, targeting the same stocks, though primarily in different areas. There are also small recreational catches of these species. The risk of mixing associated with these other operations is very low, as stated above. Risks of mixing between certified and Very low risk. As described in the preceeding non-certified catch during storage, section, only the fish from this fishery (presently transport, or handling activities single vessel) is transported and processed by the (including transport at sea and on land, primary processor named in the previous section. points of landing, and sales at auction) Only when the fishmeal and oil is transferred to Ridley Corporation’s main facility is there a risk of mixing. Risks of mixing between certified and No risk. As described above all the target species in non-certified catch during processing this fishery are covered within the P1 assessment, activities (at-sea and/or before and any small catches of other species are handled as subsequent Chain of Custody) IPI. Only fish from this fishery are processed by the facility mentioned in the previous section. There is no separation of catch. Risks of mixing between certified and No risk. There is no transhipment. non-certified catch during transhipment

Any other risks of substitution between No other risks identified. fish from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 130

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody The product will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody provided the IPI requirements are met and MSC approves an exemption per their specified requirements. Provided the fishery assessment and IPI exemption are successful, the product will be eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel (subject to labelling requirements). Product changes ownership after it is received by Ridley Corporation’s main facility and used to formulate feed to supply aquaculture operations. The eligible landing port is Ulladulla, and subsequent chain of custody will be required after processing by Stockfeeds Australia Pty Ltd in Moruya NSW.

5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody

5.4.1 Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) Catches The Small Pelagic Fishery uses mid-water trawl gear to catch high volumes per trawl of the UoA species jack mackerel, blue mackerel and redbait. The catch is pumped directly into holds so it is impractical to physically remove non-target species, other than individuals that are larger than can be physically pumped by the gear (7.4.13.1.b). All the catch is processed into fish meal. A haphazard sample of the catch is collected on at least three occasions for each haul; one around the start, middle and end of each haul, to ensure that samples are not biased. Each sample is at least 20 kg, and the catch composition is recorded by number and or weight. Samples from each haul are combined and expressed as percentage of the sampled catch. The percentages are then multiplied by the total catch weight to give estimated catch composition. Table 13 provides summary data of the total catch composition from catches that were sampled by the UoC vessel from 2017 to 2019.

Table 14. Catch composition from mid-water trawl shots conducted by the UoC from 2017 to 2019.

Common name Species name % of the catch Est. weight (kg)

Jack Mackerel (UoA) Trachurus declivis 55.660% 6,083,078

Blue Mackerel (UoA) Scomber australasicus 42.568% 4,652,257

Redbait (UoA) Emmelichthys nitidus 1.424% 155,610

Various large individuals 0.101% 11,047 discarded

Gould's Squid Nototodarus gouldi 0.079% 8,609

Ocean Jacket Nelusetta ayraud 0.064% 7,047

Eastern Orange Perch Lepidoperca pulchella 0.021% 2,271

Eastern Gemfish Rexea solandri 0.019% 2,100

Redfish Centroberyx gerrardi 0.016% 1,753

Yellowtail Scad Trachurus novaezelandiae 0.011% 1,250

Reef Ocean Perch Helicolenus percoides 0.010% 1,057

Silver Warehou Seriolella punctata 0.009% 1,030

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 131

Leatherjackets Balistidae, Monacanthidae - 0.005% 520 undifferentiated

Splendid Perch Callanthias australis 0.002% 239

Australian Sardine Sardinops sagax 0.002% 215

Alfonsino Beryx splendens 0.001% 150

Deepsea scorpionfish Trachyscorpia carnomagula 0.001% 150

Latchet Pterygotrigla polyommata 0.001% 122

Tiger Flathead Platycephalus richardsoni 0.001% 118

King Dory Cyttus traversi 0.001% 94

Barracouta Thyrsites atun 0.001% 73

Red Gurnard Chelidonichthys kumu 0.001% 73

Longfin Perch Caprodon longimanus 0.000% 38

Jackass Morwong Nemadactylus macropterus 0.000% 31

Yellowspotted Boarfish Paristiopterus gallipavo 0.000% 2

Total 100.000% 10,928,984

Estimated catch composition was determined for a total catch of 10,928,984 kg from the UoC vessel from 2017 to 2019 (Table 1). Of this, 99.652% of the catch was target species and 0.348% were IPI stocks or discards, which is well below the threshold levels for IPI stocks (7.4.13.1.c and 7.4.14.2.a.i). Twenty-one IPI stocks are identified, each of which contribute <0.08% of the total catch. None of the IPI species are ETP species (7.4.13.1d). None of the IPI species are certified in other fisheries (7.4.13.1e). The SPF does not have a significant impact on the state of the IPI stocks (7.4.14.2ai). Each of the IPI species is assessed as primary or secondary species in this assessment. Therefore, in accordance to FCR 7.4.13.1(a,b,c,d,e), Gould's Squid (Nototodarus gouldi), Ocean Jacket (Nelusetta ayraud), Eastern Orange Perch (Lepidoperca pulchella), Eastern Gemfish (Rexea solandri), Redfish (Centroberyx gerrardi), Yellowtail Scad (Trachurus novaezelandiae), Reef Ocean Perch (Helicolenus percoides), Silver Warehou (Seriolella punctata), Leatherjackets (Balistidae, Monacanthidae), Splendid Perch (Callanthias australis), Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax), Alfonsino (Beryx splendens), Bigeye Ocean Perch (Helicolenus barathri), Latchet (Pterygotrigla polyommata), Tiger Flathead (Platycephalus richardsoni), King Dory (Cyttus traversi), Barracouta (Thyrsites atun), Red Gurnard (Chelidonichthys kumu), Ruby Snapper (Etelis carbunculus), Longfin Perch (Caprodon longimanus), Jackass Morwong (Nemadactylus macropterus), Yellowspotted Boarfish (Paristiopterus gallipavo) are considered as IPI stocks.

5.4.2 Request to Allow an Exemption to Detailed Requirements for IPI Stocks As described above, there are 21 species that are only rarely caught by the SPF and combined they comprise <2.0% of the total weight observed from catches by the UoC from 2017-2019. Target species comprise 99.652% of the total weight of the catch and it is impractical to separate these species from the catch. The IPI stocks have each been assessed as minor primary or secondary species in this assessment. Many of these species are regulated and are caught within sustainable limits. Three IPI stocks are currently under rebuilding strategies however the catches are very low and are not

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 132

impacting the likelihood of recovery. Minor secondary species are caught very rarely and it is considered highly unlikely that the fishery is having a significant impact on these stocks. Based on the above MRAG Americas considers that IPI stocks, in addition to 7.4.13.1, also fulfil requirement 7.4.14.2 (i) and (ii). Thus, a request is being addressed to MSC in order to allow those IPI stocks to enter chain of custody with an exemption to the additional assessment requirements for IPI stocks given in PA4.2.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 133

6 Evaluation Results 6.1 Principle Level Scores

Table 15. Final Principle Scores

Blue Jack Overall weighted Principle-level scores Redbait mackerel mackerel Principle 1 - Target species 85.8 85.8 85.8

Principle 2 - Ecosystem 90.0 90.0 90.0

Principle 3 - Management 100.0 100.0 100.0

6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores Blue Jack Principle Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Redbait macke mackerel 1.1.1 Stock status 1.0 100 100 100 Outcome 0.333 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.0

1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 80 80 80 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 75 75 75 Management 0.667 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 80 80 80

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 80 80 80

2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 100 100 100

Primary species 0.2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.333 100 100 100

2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 100 100 100

2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 90 90 90

Secondary species 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.333 95 95 95

2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 85 85 85

2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 90 90 90

Two ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.333 90 90 90

2.3.3 Information strategy 0.333 80 80 80

2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 95 95 95

Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.333 95 95 95

2.4.3 Information 0.333 80 80 80

2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 80 80 80

Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.333 85 85 85

2.5.3 Information 0.333 85 85 85

3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 0.333 100 100 100

Governance and policy 0.5 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 0.333 100 100 100

3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.333 100 100 100

Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 100 100 100

3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.25 100 100 100 Fishery specific management system 0.5 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 100 100 100 3.2.4 Monitoring & management performance evaluation 0.25 100 100 100

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 134

6.3 Summary of Conditions

Table 16: Summary of Conditions Condition Condition Performance Related to number Indicator previously raised condition? (Y/N/NA) For all three target species, within 3 years of the fishery reaching Tier 1 exploitation rates, well-defined HCRs will be in place at Tier 1 that ensure that the 1 exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, 1.2.2 N/A and are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY.

6.4 Recommendations 1. Ensure that Tier 1 and Tier 2 decision rules be enforced once survey data become 5 years old. 2. The stock assessment be externally peer-reviewed with the certification period (5 years).

6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement Following the assessment process, peer, and stakeholder review, and on the basis that all individual Performance Indicators score at least 60 and each Principle has an aggregate score of at least 80, the assessment team and MRAG Americas have determined that this fishery should be certified. This is a draft determination only and not a final certification decision.

(REQUIRED FOR PCR)

1. 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.

6.6 Changes in the Fishery Prior to and since Pre-Assessment No noteworthy changes.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 135

7 References

Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Arno Blank V AFMA, AAT 1027, 15 November 2000 Available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2000/1027.html Australian Fisheries Management Authority (Undated), Allocation of fishing concessions where management arrangements change (FMP 8). Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/about/fisheries-management-policies/allocation-fishing- concessions-management-arrangements-change AFMA unpublished, confidential data for 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 catch data for SESPF AFMA CDRs, Catch Disposal Records. Available at https://data.gov.au/dataset/ds-dga- 0cd2ec97-d13c-4b02-8071-fd778fdcdee7/distribution/dist-dga-81d3d265-b21a-4b05- b62d-c315beec771e/details?q= AFMA Species. Annual status reports for each species managed by AFMA. Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/species AFMA (nd). Arrow Squid Fishery (Notodarus gouldi). Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/11/Arrow-Squid- FisheryHS.pdf AFMA (nd). Redfish (Centroberix affinis) Stock Rebuilding Strategy 2016-2021. Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/Redfish-rebuilding- strategy-2016.pdf AFMA (nd). Eastern Gemfish (Rexea solandri) Stock Rebuilding Strategy. Revised 2015. Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/SESSF- Eastern-Gemfish-Rebuilding-Strategy-20152.pdf AFMA (nd). Blue Warehou (Seriolella brama) Stock Rebuilding Strategy. Revised 2014. Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/Blue- Warehou-Rebuilding-Strategy-2014.pdf AFMA (nd) Observer Program. Available at: https://www.afma.gov.au/monitoring- enforcement/observer-program AFMA (nd). SPF Dolphin Strategy Review. Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/news- media/news/review-gillnet-dolphin-mitigation-strategy-and-small-pelagic-fishery- dolphin AFMA (nd). Committees. Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/committees AFMA (1999) Fisheries Administration Paper (FMP) No.7 - Information and Advice for Industry Members on AFMA Committees. Available at 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 (2006) Protected Species ID Guide. https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/protected-species-id- guide.pdf

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 136

AFMA (2008), Review of the Draft Harvest Strategy for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery, https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/02/SPF-harvest- strategy-review-2008.pdf AFMA (2009). Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan 2009. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra, Federal Register of Legislative Instruments F2010L00081. 51 pp. AFMA (2010). ‘Ecological Risk Management Report for the Midwater Trawl Sector of the Small Pelagic Fishery.’ Available at http:// www.afma.gov.au/managing-our- fisheries/environment-and-sustainability/ecological-risk-management. AFMA (2014) Small Pelagic Fishery Bycatch and Discarding Workplan 2014-2016 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/11/Bycatch-and-Discard-Work- Plan-SPF-2016.pdf AFMA (2015a). AFMA Corporate Plan, Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/about/corporate-publications/afma-corporate-plan-2015- 2018 AFMA (2015b), Acquiring scientific advice by the use of a Scientific Panel and Stakeholder Forums in the Small Pelagic Fishery, Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2015/12/FINAL-Scientific-Panel- Policy-Paper.pdf AFMA (2016a) Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark fishery and Small Pelagic Fishery (Closures) Direction 2016. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00549 AFMA (2016b) Audit and Risk Committee Charter, Available at https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/uploads/2016/06/AFMA-Audt-and- Risk-Committee-Charter.pdf AFMA (2017a). Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy, 2017 (Revised from 2008). Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/04/SPF- Harvest-Strategy_April-2017_FINAL.pdf AFMA (2017b) AFMA Bycatch Strategy Mitigating protected species interactions and general bycatch 2017-2022 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/07/Fishery-Management- Paper-Number-15-Final-AFMAs-bycatch-strategy-030717.pdf AFMA (2017c). National Compliance 2017-19 Risk Assessment Methodology “The compliance risk assessment process. Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/05/National-Compliance- Risk-Assessment-Methodology-2017-19.pdf AFMA (2017d) National Compliance and Enforcement Policy 2017 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/07/2017-National-Compliance-and- Enforcement-Policy-with-signed-page.pdf AFMA (2017e) Small Pelagic Fishery General Conditions 2017-18 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/07/Small-Pelagic-Fishery- General-Condition43s-2017-18.docx)

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 137

AFMA (2017f) 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 (2017g). Small Pelagic Fishery Dolphin Strategy. Minimising Dolphin Interactions in the Small Pelagic Fishery. https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/05/Small-Pelagic-Fishery- Dolphin-Mitigation-Strategy-FINAL.pdf AFMA (2018a), Management Advisory Committee, 2018. Available at 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. Available at https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/fap12_to_reflect_legislative_chang es_and_economic_advice_-_october_2018.pdf AFMA (2018c), Small Pelagic Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2018-19. Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/05/Final-SPF- Management-Arrangements-Booklet-2018.pdf AFMA (2018d) National Compliance and Enforcement Program 2018–19. Available at https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/10017-afma-national-compliance- and-enforcement-program_fa.pdf AFMA (2018e), 61st AFMA Commission meeting - Chairman's summary. Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/61st-afma-commission-meeting-chairmans-summary AFMA (2018f), Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2018-19. Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/SESSF-Management- Arrangements-Booklet-2018-FINAL.pdf AFMA (2018g) Small Pelagic Fishery Assessment Report to the Department of Environment and Energy, 28p. AFMA (2018h) Seabird Bycatch Operational Guidelines for Commonwealth Fisheries. Available at https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/seabird_bycatch_operational_guide lines.pdf AFMA and DEH (2005) Memorandum of Understanding between Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Department of the Environment and Heritage for the reporting of fisheries interactions with protected species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Available at https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/uploads/2010/06/mou.pdf Alheit, J. (1993). Use of the daily egg production method for estimating biomass of clupeoid fishes: A review and evaluation. Bulletin of Marine Science. 53(2): 750-767. Australian Government (1991a), Arrangement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales in Relation to the Finfish Fishery, Gazette GN 2, 16 January, 1991. Australian Government, Fisheries Management Act 1991. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00363

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 138

Australian Government (1991b), Arrangement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales in Relation to the Silver Trevally and Related Species Fishery, Gazette GN 2, 16 January, 1991. Australia Government, Fisheries Management Act 1991. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A04237 Australian Government, Fisheries Administration Act 1991. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A04236 Australian Government, Fisheries Management Regulations 1992. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017C00241 Australian Government, Fisheries (Administration) Regulations 1992. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2005C00266 Australian Government, Native Title Act, 1993. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00178 Australia Government (2009), Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan 2009. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2014C01077 Australia Government (2013): Final report on the review of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines, May 2013. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/fisheries/environment/bycatc h/report-harvest-strategy.pdf Australia Government. Southern and Eastern Scalefish And Shark fishery and Small Pelagic Fishery (Closures) Direction 2016. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00549 Australia Government (2016), Productivity Commission Enquiry Report, No 81, December 2016. Available at https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/fisheries- aquaculture/report/fisheries-aquaculture.pdf Australia Government, Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Act, 2017. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017A00123/Download Australia Government (2017), Australian Government response to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee report: Factory freezer trawlers in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery, December 2017. Available at https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Australian+Government+re sponse+to+the+Senate+Environment+and+Communications+References+Committee +report:+Factory+freezer+trawlers+in+the+Commonwealth+Small+Pelagic+Fishery, +December+2017&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Australia Government (2018a), Fisheries Management (Small Pelagic Fishery Total Allowable Catch – Quota Species) Fishing Capacity Determination 2018. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00337 Australia Government, (2018b) Fisheries Management (Small Pelagic Fishery Overcatch and Undercatch) Fishing Capacity Determination 2018. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00336 Australia National Audit Office (2013). Administration of the Domestic Fishing Compliance Program https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/administration-domestic- fishing-compliance-program

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 139

Bilgmann K, Möller LM, Harcourt RG, Gales R, Beheregaray LB (2008) Common dolphins subject to fisheries impacts in Southern Australia are genetically differentiated: implications for conservation. Anim Conserv 11: 518−528 Bilgmann, K., Parra, G.J., Zanardo, N., Beheregaray, L.B.and Möller, L.M (2014a). Multiple management units of short-beaked common dolphins subject to fisheries bycatch off southern and southeastern Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 500: 265-279 Bilgmann, K, Parra, G.J. and Möller, L.M. (2014b). Inshore cetacean survey between Ceduna and Coffin Bay, eastern Great Australian Bight. Report as part of the Great Australian Bight Research Program. Blaber, S. J. M., and C. M. Bulman. 1987. Diets of fishes of the upper continental slope of eastern Tasmania: content, calorific values, dietary overlap and trophic relationships. Marine Biology 95:345-356. Borthwick, D (2012). Review of Commonwealth Fisheries: Policy, Legislation and Management, DAFF, http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/fisheries/fisheries- review/commonwealth-fisheries-management-review-report.pdf Browne, A. 2005. Changes in the growth and age structure of jack mackerel in south-east Australian waters. Honours Thesis, University of Tasmania, School of Zoology. 58 pp. Bulman, C., F. Althaus, X. He, N. J. Bax, and A. Williams. 2001. Diets and trophic guilds of demersal fishes of the south-eastern Australian shelf. Marine and Freshwater Research 52:537-548. Bulman, C., S. Condie, J. Findlay, B. Ward, and J. Young. 2008. Management zones from small pelagic fish species stock structure in southern Australian waters. Final Report for FRDC Project 2006/076. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research: Hobart, Tasmania. Bulman CM, Condie SA, Neira FJ, Goldsworthy SD, Fulton EA (2011) The trophodynamics of small pelagic fishes in the southern Australian ecosystem and the implications for ecosystem modelling of southern temperate fisheries. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Technical Report. Final report for FRDC project 2008/023 Bulman, C., Sporcic, M., Fuller, M. & Hobday, A. (2017) Ecological Risk Assessment for Effects of Fishing. Report for the Midwater Trawl Sub-fishery of the Small Pelagic Fishery. (CSIRO, Hobart) Buxton, C.D., (2016). Small Pelagics Co- ordination Program. Final Report FRDC Project 2013/064. Colin Buxton & Associates. Catanese, G., M. Manchado, and C. Infante. (2010). Evolutionary relatedness of mackerels of the genus Scomber based on complete mitochondrial genomes: Strong support to the recognition of Atlantic Scomber colias and Pacific Scomber japonicus as distinct species. Gene 452:35-43. (CofA) Commonwealth of Australia (2012a) ‘Approved Conservation Advice for Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia’, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra ACT, Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/107- conservation-advice.pdf

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 140

(CofA) Commonwealth of Australia (2016) Factory freezer trawlers in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery. Environment and Communication References Committee. Commonwealth of Australia 2016. Retrived from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahU KEwj8mauIzO_gAhXYR30KHSnkAvgQFjAAegQIABAC&url=https%3A%2F%2F www.aph.gov.au%2FParliamentary_Business%2FCommittees%2FSenate%2FEnviro nment_and_Communications%2FSupertrawlers45th%2F~%2Fmedia%2FCommittees %2Fec_ctte%2FSupertrawlers45th%2Freport.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0jaD_5tHoALEHp HJudYWrQ DAFF (2013a). Final Report of the Review of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/fisheries/environment/bycatc h/report-harvest-strategy.pdf. DAFF (2013b), Report on the review of the Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/fisheries/environment/bycatc h/submissions/fisheries-bycatch.pdf. Daley, R., Dowdney, J., Bulman, C, Sporcic, M., Fuller, M., Ling, S. and Hobday, A. (2007). ‘Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing.’ Report for the midwater trawl sub-fishery of the Small Pelagic Fishery. Report for AFMA, Canberra. Daly, K. (2007). The diet and guild structure of the small pelagic fish community in the eastern Great Australian Bight, South Australia. Honours thesis, University of Adelaide. 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/harvest_strategy_policy Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2018b). Guidelines for the Implementation of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/domestic/harvest_strategy_policy Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2018c). Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy: Framework for managing the risk of fishing-related impacts on bycatch species in Commonwealth fisheries. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/environment/bycatch/review Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2018d). Guidelines for the Implementation of the Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/environment/bycatch/review Department of Environment and Environment (1992a). National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/about- us/esd/publications/national-esd-strategy Department of Environment and Environment (1992a). Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/about- us/esd/publications/intergovernmental-agreement

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 141

Department of Environment and Energy (nd), Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc Department of Environment and Energy (2007), Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries. Available at https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/97ff9461-5ccf-49cb-9368- 8bde5f243c0b/files/guidelines.pdf Department of Environment and Energy (2018), Assessment of the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/41b182ca-9bfc-48b2-92a1- 8a21f729f337/files/assessment-commonwealth-small-pelagic-fishery-oct-2018.pdf Ewing, G. P., and J. M. Lyle. (2009). Reproductive dynamics of redbait, Emmelichthys nitidus (Emmelichthyidae), from south-eastern Australia. Fisheries Research 97:206- 215. Fletcher, W. J., and S. J. Blight. (1996). Validity of using translucent zones of otoliths to age the pilchard Sardinops sagax neopilchardusfrom Albany, western Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 47:617-624. Fulton, E. A. (2013). Simulation analysis of jack mackerel stock size: Ecosystem model based plausibility study. CSIRO, Australia. 24 pp. Furlani, D., A. Williams, and N. Bax. (2000). Fish biology (length and age). In: Habitat and fisheries production in the South East Fishery ecosystem. Final report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Project No. 94/040, (eds N.J. Bax and A. Williams). Division of Marine Research, CSIRO Marine Laboratories, Hobart. Garrido, S., A. Marcalo, J. Zwolinski, and C. D. Van Der Lingen. (2007). Laboratory Investigations on the Effectof Prey size and Concentration on the Feeding Behaviour of Sardina pilchardus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 330:189-199 Gaughan, D.J., Leary, T.I., Mitchell, R.W. and Wright, I.W. (2004). A sudden collapse in distribution of Pacific Sardine (Sardinops sagax) of south-western Australia enables an objective re-assessment of biomass estimates. Fishery Bulletin. 102 (4): 617-633. Goldsworthy SD, Page B, Rogers PJ, Bulman C, Wiebkin A, McLeay LJ, Einoder L, Baylis AMM, Braley M, Caines R (2013) Trophodynamics of the eastern Great Australian Bight ecosystem: Ecological change associated with the growth of Australia’s largest fishery. Ecological Modelling 255: 38– 57 Gomon, M., D. Bray, and R. H. Kuiter. (2008). Fishes of the Australia’s South Coast. Museum of Victoria. New Holland Publishers (Australia). Gonçalves, P., A. M. Costa, and A. G. Murta. (2009). Estimates of batch fecundity and spawning fraction for the southern stock of horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in ICES Division IXa. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 66:617-622. Griffiths, S. P. ,Young, J. W., Lansdell, M. J., Campbell, R. A., Hampton, J., Hoyle, S. D., Langley, A., Bromhead, D., Hinton, M. G. (2010). Ecological effects of longline fishing and climate change on the pelagic ecosystem off eastern Australia. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 20: 239-272. Hawke, A. (2009), Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999., October, 2009, Available at

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 142

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/5f3fdad6-30ba-48f7-ab17- c99e8bcc8d78/files/final-report.pdf Helidoniotis et al (2018). Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery. ABARES Fisheries Status Reports. Available at: http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research- topics/fisheries/fishery-status/scalefish-shark-fishery#84-biological-status Heemstra, P. C., and J. E. Randall. (1977). A revision of the Emmelichthyidae (Pisces : Perciformes). Marine and Freshwater Research 28:361-396 Henry, G. W., and J. M. Lyle. (2003). The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 99/158. Final Report to FRDC 1999/158., New South Wales Fisheries Research Centre. 188 pp Hobday, A. J., A. Smith, H. Webb, R. Daley, S. Wayte, C. Bulman, J. Dowdney, A.Williams, M. Sporcic, J. Dambacher, M. Fuller, T. Walker. (2007) Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing: Methodology. Report R04/1072 for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. Hobday, A. J., Bulman, C., Williams, A., and Fuller, M. (2011). Ecological risk assessment for effects of fishing on habitats and communities. FRDC Project 2009/029, Canberra. Hunter, J.R. and Lo, N.C.H. (1997). The daily egg production method of biomass estimation: Some problems and potential improvements. Ozeanografika 2:41-69. Infante, C., E. Blanco, E. Zuasti, A. Crespo, and M. Manchado. (2006). Phylogenetic differentiation between Atlantic Scomber coliasand Pacific Scomber japonicusbased on nuclear DNA sequences. Genetica:1-8. Jordan, A., G. Pullen, and H. Williams (1992). Jack mackerel resource assessment in south eastern Australian waters: Final Report to FRDC, Project DFT2Z. Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Energy, Sea Fisheries Research Laboratories. Taroona, Tasmania. Jordan, A. R. (1994). Age, growth and back-calculated birthdate distributions of larval jack mackerel Trachurus declivis (Pisces: Carangidae), from eastern Tasmanian coastal waters. Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45:19-33. Kailola, P. J., M. J. Williams, P. C. Stewart, A. M. Reichelt, and C. Grieve. (1993). Australian Fisheries Resourses. Bureau of Resource Sciences, Department of Primary Industries and Energy and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Keane, J. P. (2009). Mesoscale Characterisation of the Pelagic Shelf Ecosystem of South- Eastern Australia: Integrated Approach Using Larval Fish Assemblages and Oceanography. PhD Thesis, University of Tasmania. 269 pp. Lack, M., Bulman, C., Goldsworthy S. and Harrison P. (2014). Report of the expert panel on a declared commercial fishing activity: Final (small pelagic fishery) declaration 2012. Lack, M., Bulman, C., Goldsworthy S. and Harrison P. (2015) Report of the expert panel on a declared commercial fishing activity: Final (small pelagic fishery) declaration (no. 2) 2013 Lasker, R. (1985). An egg production method for estimating spawning biomass of pelagic fish: application to northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax. NOAA. Tech. Rep. NMFS, 36: 1-99.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 143

Last, P. R., E. O. G. Scott, and F. H. Talbot. (1983). Fishes of Tasmania. Tasmanian Fisheries Development Authority. 563 pp. Lindholm, R., and J. G. H. Maxwell. (1988). Stock separation of jack mackerel Trachurus declivis (Jenyns, 1841), and yellowtail T. novaezealandiae (Richardson, 1843) in southern Australian waters using principal component analysis. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report No. 189. Hobart, Tasmania. 7 pp. Lo, N.C.H., Green Ruiz, Y.A., Cervantes, M.J., Moser, H.G., Lynn, R.J. (1996). Egg production and spawning biomass of Pacific Sardine (Sardinops sagax) in 1994, determined by the daily egg production method. CalCOFI Report 37: 160-174. Lo, N.C.H., Macewicz, B.J. and Griffith, D.A. (2005). Spawning biomass of Pacific Sardine (Sardinops sagax), from 1994-2004 off California. Reports of California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations 46: 93-112. Lyle, J. M., K. Krusic-Golub, and A. K. Morison. (2000). Ageand growth of jack mackerel and the age structure of the jack mackerel purse seinecatch. Final Report for FRDC Project 1995/034. Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania. Hobart, Tasmania. 49 pp. Mackay, A., Goldsworthy, S. and Harrison, P. (2016). Critical knowledge gaps: estimating potential maximum cumulative anthropogenic mortality limits of key marine mammal species to inform management. FRDC Final Report - 2015-035. Markina, N. P., and V. Z. Boldyrev. (1980). Feeding of the redbait on underwater elevations of the southwest Pacific. Biologiya Morya (Vladivostok) 4:40-45. Marriott, P. M., and M. J. Manning. (2011). Reviewing and refining the method for estimating blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus) ages. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2011:25. Marshall, J. M., G. Pullen, and A. R. Jordan. (1993). Reproductive biology and sexual maturity of female jack mackerel, Trachurus declivis (Jenyns), in eastern Tasmanian waters. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 44:799-809 Marton, N. and Mobsby, D. (2018). Small Pelagic Fishery, Fisheries status reports 2018. ABARES, http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research-topics/fisheries/fishery- status/small-pelagic Maxwell, J. G. H. (1979). Jack mackerel. Fishery Situation Report, no. 2. Division of Fisheries and Oceanography. CSIRO Australia, 18 pp. May, J. L., and J. G. H. Maxwell. (1986). Field guide to trawl fish from temperate waters of Australia. CSIRO Division of Fisheries Research. McGarvey, R. and Kinloch, M.A. (2001). An analysis of the sensitivity of stock biomass estimates derived from the daily egg production method (DEPM) to uncertainty in egg mortality rates. Fisheries Research. 49: 303-307 McLeod, D. J., Alistair J. Hobday, Jeremy M. Lyle, Dirk C. Welsford (2012) A prey-related shift in the abundance of small pelagic fish in eastern Tasmania?, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 69, Issue 6, 1 July 2012, Pages 953 960, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fss069 Meléndez, C. R., and M. R. Céspedes. (1986). Emmelichthys nitidus cyanescens (Guichenot, 1848) in the Chilean Southern fisheries (Perciformes, Emmelichthyidae). Investigacion Pesquera 33:111-114.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 144

Mel'nikov, Y., and N. A. Ivanin. (1995). Age-size composition and mortality of the rubyfish Plagiogeneion rubiginosum (Emmelichthyidae) in West Indian Submarine Ridge. Journal of Ichthyology 35:20-27 Meyer, M., and M. J. Smale. (1991). Predation patterns of demersal teleosts from the Cape south and west coasts of South Africa. 1. Pelagic predators. South African Journal of Marine Science 10:173-191. Möller, L. Valdez, F.P., Allen, S., Bilgmann, K., Corrigan, S. and Beheregaray, L.B (2011). Fine-scale genetic structure in short-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) along the East Australian Current. Marine Biology. 158:113-126 Möller, L., Parra, G.J. and Bilgmann, K. (2012). Population size, structure and habitat preferences of common dolphins in South Australia: enhancing the assessment, reduction and mitigation of fisheries operational interactions. Final report to the Australian Marine Mammal Centre. Moore, A., and M. Skirtun (2012). The Small Pelagic Fishery. In J. Woodhams, S. Vieira and J. Stobutzki (Eds), Fishery Status Reports 2011, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resources Economics and Sciences, Canberra, 2012, 93 pp. MRAG (2018). First MSC Re-Assessment, Northern Prawn Fishery, Public Certification Report, Prepared for NPF Industry Pty Ltd, MRAG Americas, Inc. Available at https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/australia-northern-prawn/@@assessments 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. MSC (2018c). MSC certification process, v.2.1, 31 August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 101 pp. MSC (2018d). MSC guidance to the fisheries certification process, v.2.1, 31 August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 88 pp. Neira, F. J., J. M. Lyle, G. P. Ewing, J. P. Keane, and S. R. Tracey. (2008). Evaluation of egg production as a method of estimating spawning biomass of redbait off the east coast of Tasmania. Final report, FRDC project no. 2004/039. Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, Hobart. Neira, F. J., and J. M. Lyle. (2011). DEPM-based spawning biomass of Emmelichthys nitidus (Emmelichthyidae) to underpin a developing mid-water trawl fishery in south-eastern Australia. Fisheries Research 110:236-243. Nelson, J. S. (2006). Fishes of the World. Fourth Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey. 601 pp. Parin, N. V., A. N. Mironov, and K. N. Nesis. (1997). Biology of the Nazca and Sala y Gomez submarine ridges, an outpost of the Indo-West Pacific Fauna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean: composition and distribution of the fauna, its communities and history. Advances in Marine Biology 32:145-242. Parker, K. (1980). A direct method for estimating northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax, spawning biomass. Fisheries Bulletin. (US). 541-544. Pierre, J., Gerner, M. and Pennrose, L. (2014). Assessing the effectiveness of seabird mitigation devices in the trawl sectors of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery in Australia.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 145

https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/Seabird-Mitigation- Assessment-Report.pdf Pitcher, C.R., Ellis, N., Althaus, F., Williams, A., McLeod, I., Bustamante, R., Kenyon, R., Fuller, M. (2016) Implications of current spatial management measures for AFMA ERAs for habitats — FRDC Project No 2014/204. CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Published Brisbane, November 2015, 50 pages. Retrieved from: Pitcher, C.R., Rochester, W., Dunning, M., Courtney, T., Broadhurst, M., Noell, C., Tanner, J., Kangas, M., Newman, S., Semmens, J., Rigby, C., Saunders T., Martin, J., Lussier, W. (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 — FRDC Project No 2016‐039. CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Brisbane, 71 pages. Retrieved from: http://www.frdc.com.au/Archived- Reports/FRDC%20Projects/2016-039-DLD.pdf Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. 2012. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp. Pullen, G. (1994). Fishery status report: Purse seine (The Tasmanian jack mackerel fishery). Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, Tasmania. Internal Report 13. 49pp. Richardson, B. (1982). Geographical distribution of electrophoretically detected protein variation in Australian commercial fishes. I. Jack mackeral, Trachurus declivis Jenyns. Marine and Freshwater Research 33:917-926. Rogers, P. J., T. M. Ward, L. J. McLeay, M. Lowry, and D. Williams. (2009). Reproductive biology of blue mackerel, Scomber australasicus, off southern and eastern Australia: suitability of the Daily Egg Production Method for stock assessment. Marine and Freshwater Research 60:187-202. Rohde, K. (1987). Different populations of Scomber australasicusin New Zealand and south- eastern Australia, demonstrated by a simple method using monogenean sclerites. Journal of Fish Biology 30:651-657. Prokopchuk, I., and E. Sentyabov. (2006). Diets of herring, mackerel, and blue whiting in the Norwegian Sea in relation to Calanus finmarchicus distribution and temperature conditions. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63:117-127 Schmarr, D. W., I. D. Whittington, J. R. Ovenden, and T. M. Ward. (2011). Discriminating stocks of Scomber australasicususing a holistic approach: a pilot study. American Fisheries Society Symposium 76:1-21. Scoles, D. R., B. B. Collette, and J. E. Graves. (1998). Global phylogeography of mackerels of the genus Scomber. Fishery Bulletin 96:823-842. Shuntov, V. P. (1969). Some features of the ecology of pelagic fishes in the Great Australian Bight. Problems of Ichthyology 9:801-809. Small Pelagic Fishery Scientific Panel, SPF Scientific Panel response to key issues raised at Stakeholder Forum (PDF 154KB), February, 2018 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/02/Panel-Chair-to-Forum-to- Stakeholder-attendees_website.pdf

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 146

Smith, A. D. M. Sainsbury, K. J., and Stevens, R. A. (1999), Implementing effective fisheries-management systems – management strategy evaluation and the Australian partnership approach, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56: 967–979. 1999. Available at http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/6/967.abstract Smith, A.D., Brown, C.J., Bulman, C.M., Fulton, E.A., Johnson, P., Kaplan, I.C., Lozano- Montes, H., Mackinson, S., Marzloff, M., Shannon, L.J., Shin, Y.J. and Tam, J. (2011). Impacts of fishing low-trophic level species on marine ecosystems. Science. 334(6052):39. Smith, A., Ward T, Hurtado F, Klaer N, Fulton E, and Punt A. (2015). Review and update of harvest strategy settings for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery – Single species and ecosystem considerations. Hobart. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 2013/028. Smith, M. M., and P. C. Heemstra. (1986). Smith's Sea Fishes. MacMillan, Johannesburg. 1047 pp. Smolenski, A. J., J. R. Ovenden, and R. W. G. White. (1994). Preliminary investigation of mitochondrial DNA variation in jack mackerel (Trachurus declivis, Carangidae) from south-eastern Australian waters. Marine and Freshwater Research 45:495-505. Stevens, J. D., H. F. Hausfeld, and S. R. Davenport. (1984). Observations on the biology, distribution and abundance of Trachurus declivis, Sardinops neopilchardus and Scomber australasicus in the Great Australian Bight. CSIRO Marine Laboratories, Cronulla. Stewart, J., D. J. Ferrell, and N. L. Andrew. (1999). Validation of the formation and appearance of annual marks in the otoliths of yellowtail (Trachurus novaezelandiae) and blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus) in New South Wales. Marine and Freshwater Research 50:389-395. Stewart, J., and D. J. Ferrell. (2001). Age, growth, and commercial landings of yellowtail scad (Trachurus novaezelandiae) and blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus) off the coast of New South Wales, Australia. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 35:541-551. Stratoudakis, Y., Bernal, M., Ganias, K, and Uriate, A. (2006). The daily egg production method: recent advances, current applications and future challenges. Fish and Fisheries, 7: 35-57. Svane, I. (2005). Occurrence of dolphins and seabirds and their consumption of by-catch during trawling in Spencer Gulf, South Australia. Fisheries Research. 76: 317-327. The Senate (2016), Environment and Communications References Committee: Factory freezer trawlers in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery, November, 2016. Available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahU KEwjH2byil57gAhWWfn0KHVoJB_cQFjAAegQICBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fw ww.aph.gov.au%2FParliamentary_Business%2FCommittees%2FSenate%2FEnviron ment_and_Communications%2FSupertrawlers45th%2F~%2Fmedia%2FCommittees %2Fec_ctte%2FSupertrawlers45th%2Freport.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0jaD_5tHoALEHp HJudYWrQ Tingley, G. (2014). An assessment of the potential for near-seabed midwater trawling to contact the seabed and to impact benthic habitat and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 147

(VMEs). Available at: https://www.sprfmo.int/assets/Meetings/Meetings-2013- plus/SC-Meetings/2nd-SC-Meeting-2014/Papers/SC-02-10-Midwater-trawls- potential-for-benthic-impacts.pdf Tuck, G.N., Knuckey, I. and Klaer, N.L. (2013). ‘Informing the review of the Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch through assessing trends in bycatch of key Commonwealth fisheries.’ FRDC Project No. 2012/046 Final Report. Fishwell Consulting, Queenscliff. Tuck, G.N. (ed.) 2016a. Stock Assessment for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery 2015. Part 1. Australian Fisheries Management Authority and CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart. 245p. Tuck, G.N. (ed.) 2016b. Stock Assessment for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery 2015. Part 2. Australian Fisheries Management Authority and CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Flagship, Hobart. 493 p. Ward, P. J., T. Timmiss, and B. Wise. (2001). A review of biology and fisheries for mackerel. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. Ward, T. M., and P. J. Rogers, editors. (2007). Development and evaluation of egg-based stock assessment methods for blue mackerel Scomber australasicusin southern Australia. Final report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Project 2002/061. SARDI Aquatic Science, Adelaide. Ward, T. M., P. J. Rogers, L. J. McLeay, and R. McGarvey. (2009). Evaluating the use of the daily egg production method for stock assessment of blue mackerel, Scomber australasicus. Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 62:112-128. Ward, T. M., J. Lyle, J. P. Keane, G. A. Begg, P. Hobsbawn, A. R. Ivey, R. Sakabe, and M. A. Steer. (2011. Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery: Status Report (2010). Report to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000270-2. SARDI Research Report Series No. 524. 84 pp. Ward, T.M., Burnell, O., Ivey, A. Carroll, J. Keane, J., Lyle, J., Sexton, S (2015). South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Summer spawning patterns and preliminary Daily Egg Production Method survey of Jack Mackerel and Sardine off the East Coast, March. FRDC Project No 2013/053. Ward, T.M, Angélico, M.M. Cubillos, L.A. van Damme, C.J.G. Ganias, K. Ibaibarriaga, L. and Lo, N.C.H. (2015c). Benchmarking Australia's small pelagic fisheries against world's best practice, FRDC Project No 2013/063 Ward, T. M., and G. L. Grammer. (2016). Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery: Fishery Assessment Report 2015. Report to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000270-7. SARDI Research Report Series No. 900. 111 pp. Ward, T. M. and Grammer, G. L. (2018). Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery: Fishery Assessment Report 2017. Report to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000270-9. SARDI Research Report Series No. 982. 114pp.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 148

Ward, T.M, Carroll J, Grammer GL, James C, McGarvey R, Smart J, and Ivey AR (2018). Improving the precision of estimates of egg production and spawning biomass obtained using the Daily Egg Production Method. Final report to FRDC. Project No. 2014/026. Webb, B. F. (1976). Aspects of the biology of jack mackerel, Trachurus declivis (Jenyns) from south-east Australian waters. Tasmanian Fisheries Research 10:1-14. Weier, A. and Loke, P. 2007, Precaution and the Precautionary Principle: two Australian case studies, Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper, Melbourne, September. West, L. D., K. E. Stark, J. J. Murphy, J. M. Lyle and F. A. Ochwada-Doyle (2015) Survey of Recreational Fishing in New South Wales and the ACT, 2013/14. Williams, H., and G. Pullen. (1986). A synopsis of biological data on the jack mackerel Trachurus declivis Jenyns. Technical Report No. 10. Department of Sea Fisheries, Tasmania, Marine Laboratories: Taroona. 34 pp. Williams, H., and G. Pullen. (1993). Schooling behaviour of jack mackerel, Trachurus declivis (Jenyns), observed in the Tasmanian purse seine fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 44:577-587. Williams, H., G. Pullen, G. Kucerans, and C. Waterworth. (1987). The jack mackerel purse seine fishery in Tasmania, 1986-87. Technical report No. 19. Department of Sea Fisheries, Tasmania, Marine Laboratories. Taroona, Tasmania. 32 pp. Zhou, S, Fuller, M and Smith, T (2009). Rapid quantitative risk assessment for fish species in additional seven Commonwealth fisheries. CSIRO, 88 pp.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 149

Appendices

Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

Evaluation Table for 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 a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment Guide It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of post above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is recruitment would be above the PRI. impaired (PRI).

Met? Y Y Y Justifi Blue mackerel, jack mackerel and redbait are not considered as a key LTL stock and are cation therefore assessed under the default assessment tree for P1.1.1. While spawning biomass estimates from fishery-independent egg surveys are available for all UoA species, biomass reference points are not directly used explicitly or implicitly to assess stock status. Instead, fishing mortality (F) expressed as the % exploitation rate is used as an implicit reference point to determine stock status in the Fishery Assessment Reports. GSA2.2.4 states “Clause SA2.2.4 also allows the use of fishing mortality as a means of scoring PI 1.1.1 when biomass information is not available”. Smith et al (2015) developed single species populations models for all three UoA species for both the east and west regions of the SPF to determine “sustainable” exploitation rates through Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE). Sustainable exploitation rates were determined as those that would maintain stocks at B50% with only an 8% probability of falling below B20% in 50 years. Smith et al (2015) also developed an ecosystem model that estimated BMSY for all three species as 30-35% of unexploited biomass. This result suggests that the use of B50% for determining sustainable exploitation rates is more conservative than FMSY. Results from the modelling suggested that exploitation rates varied between species and regions, with annual exploitation rates considered as sustainable under the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy policy being: • Jack mackerel 12% • Blue mackerel 23% • Redbait 9% Jack mackerel Jack mackerel were harvested at high levels historically (peak 40,000 t in 1986/87) by purse seine vessels however catches declined and the purse seine fishery ceased in 2000. Midwater trawl fishing occurred thereafter but catches rarely exceeded 5,000 t. From 2010/11 to 2014/15 catch was negligible, with catch increasing to 6,316 and 3,996 t in 2015/16 and 2016/17, respectively (Ward and Grammer 2018). The first dedicated DEPM survey estimate of biomass for eastern jack mackerel (Ward et al 2015a), conducted in January 2014, estimated that the spawning biomass of jack mackerel was 157,805 t (95% C.I. = 59,570–358,731 t). The largest recent catch of 6,316 t represents an exploitation rate of 4.0%. Smith et al (2015) determined that a 12% exploitation rate would maintain stocks around B50, with a 92% probability of remaining above PRI in a 50 year period. While a high degree of certainty is determined explicitly as the 95th percentile,

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 150

based on the relative exploitation rates we consider there is a high degree of certainty the stock is above PRI and SG100 is met for this species. Blue Mackerel Catches of blue mackerel did not exceed 1,500 t until 2015/16 when around 2,300 t was harvested by midwater trawl and purse seine across a number of jurisdictions. Catch decreased to around 1,500 t in 2016/17 (Ward and Grammer 2018). The first dedicated DEPM survey estimate of biomass for eastern blue mackerel, conducted in August/September 2014 (Ward et al 2015b), estimated that the spawning biomass of blue mackerel was 83,300 t (95% C.I. = 35,100–165,000 t). The largest recent catch of 2,300 t represents an exploitation rate of 2.8%, which is well below the 23% exploitation rate considered as a likely long-term harvest rate to maintain stocks above B50. On the basis of the same rationale as for jack mackerel, there is a high degree of certainty the stock is above PRI and SG100 is met for this species. Redbait Catches of eastern redbait peaked around 8,000 t in 2003/04 when mid-water trawling intensified off the east Tasmanian coast. Catches from 2010/11 to 2014/15 were negligible, with slight increases to 217 and 101 t in 2015/16 and 2016/17, respectively (Ward and Grammer 2018). DEPM survey estimates of biomass for eastern redbait were conducted in 2005 and 2006, with estimates of spawning biomass of 86,994 and 50,782 t, respectively (Neira et al 2008). In the five years following the 2006 survey, exploitation rates averaged around 1% of the lower biomass estimate. The largest catch in the last 8 years since of 217 t represents an exploitation rate of 0.4% of the lower 2006 estimate. These estimates are well below the 9% exploitation rate considered as a likely long-term harvest rate to maintain stocks around B50, with a high probability (92%) of maintaining stocks above PRI. While it is noted that the DEPM surveys were conducted around 13 years ago, at a time where environmental conditions may have been favourable to redbait abundance, based on the very low exploitation rates since 2006 relative to sustainable levels, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above PRI and SG100 is met for this species. b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guide The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of post around a level consistent certainty that the stock has with MSY. been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y Y Justifi The three UoA species are highly productive, relatively short-lived, forage fish. As cation described above in PI 1.1.1(a), the current levels of exploitation for all three UoA species are very low and effectively represent a “developing fishery”. The guidance at GSA2.2.4 suggests “A 100 score is justified if F is highly likely to have been below FMSY for at least two generation times (or for at least four years, if greater)”. Jack mackerel Smith et al (2015) estimated the sustainable annual exploitation rate for jack mackerel to be 12% of the total biomass. Exploitation rate has not exceeded 4.0% for the last 20 years. On the same basis as the rationale for PI 1.1.1a, SG100 is met for jack mackerel. Blue mackerel Smith et al (2015) estimated the sustainable annual exploitation rate for blue mackerel to be 23% of the total biomass. The 2015/16 catch was the largest recorded in the fisheries history and this represented a 2.8% annual mortality rate. On this basis, SG100 is met for blue mackerel. Redbait Smith et al (2015) estimated the sustainable annual exploitation rate for jack mackerel to be 9% of the total biomass. As described above in 1.1.1(a), exploitation rate has not exceeded 0.4% for the last 7 years. Based on the fishery history presented in Ward and Grammar

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 151

(2018), exploitation rate has only exceeded FMSY in one year (2003/04, ˜15%). Since 2006, exploitation rates have averaged well below 1%. On this basis, SG100 is met for redbait. Neira, F. J., J. M. Lyle, G. P. Ewing, J. P. Keane, and S. R. Tracey. (2008). Evaluation of egg production as a method of estimating spawning biomass of redbait off the east coast of Tasmania. Final report, FRDC project no. 2004/039. Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, Hobart. Smith, ADM., Ward, TM., Hurtado, F., Klaer, N., Fulton, E., and Punt, AE (2015), Review and update of harvest strategy settings for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery - Single species and ecosystem considerations. Hobart. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 2013/028. Ward, T.M., Burnell, O., Ivey, A. Carroll, J. Keane, J., Lyle, J., Sexton, S (2015). South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Summer spawning References patterns and preliminary Daily Egg Production Method survey of Jack Mackerel and Sardine off the East Coast, March. FRDC Project No 2013/053. Ward, T. M., G. L. Grammer, A. R. Ivey, J. R. Carroll, J. P. Keane, J. Stewart, and L. Litherland. (2015b). Egg distribution, reproductive parameters and spawning biomass of Blue Mackerel, Australian Sardine and Tailor off the East Coast during late winter and early spring. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. FRDC Project No. 2014/033. 77p. Ward, T. M. and Grammer, G. L. (2018). Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery: Fishery Assessment Report 2017. Report to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000270-9. SARDI Research Report Series No. 982. 114pp. Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point Reference Exploitation rate Max. exploitation rate: Recent exploitation rate: point used in • Jack mackerel 12% • Jack mackerel <4% scoring stock • Blue mackerel 23% • Blue mackerel <3% relative to PRI (SIa) • Redbait 9% • Redbait <1% Reference Exploitation rate Max. exploitation rate: Recent exploitation rate: point used in • Jack mackerel 12% • Jack mackerel <4% scoring stock • Blue mackerel 23% • Blue mackerel <3% relative to MSY (SIb) • Redbait 9% • Redbait <1% OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 152

Evaluation Table for 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 a Rebuilding timeframes Guide A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable post specified for the stock that rebuilding timeframe is is the shorter of 20 specified which does not years or 2 times its exceed one generation generation time. For time for the stock. cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

Met? NA NA Justifi cation b Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence post determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding strategies rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is are rebuilding stocks, or it is effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation highly likely based on stock within the specified modelling, exploitation rates simulation modelling, timeframe. or previous performance that exploitation rates or they will be able to rebuild previous performance that the stock within the they will be able to rebuild specified timeframe. the stock within the specified timeframe. Met? NA NA NA Justifi cation References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: NA CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 153

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of the responsive to the state of the management objectives stock and the elements of the stock and is designed to reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. harvest strategy work achieve stock management together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI stock management 1.1.1 SG80. objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y Y N Justifi The following PI 1.2.1 assessment is applicable for all three UoA species. cation The harvest strategy contains a mixture of input controls, output controls and monitoring tools that are specifically designed to maintain the fishery at levels of high productivity. In the last three decades, the fishery has operated at low exploitation rates and the three UoA species are currently under-exploited. While these low exploitation rates are the primarily the result of economic factors rather than any biological or logistic constraints, the objective of the current harvest strategy is to maintain all three UoA stocks at levels well above BMSY by maintaining conservative exploitation rates that are below FMSY. Considering this is largely a developing fishery, the harvest strategy is well thought out and the data available to underpin the harvest strategy are adequate. The harvest strategy includes: licence limitation; Statutory Fishing Rights (SFRs); a total allowable catch (TAC); spatial management of the catch; gear restrictions; closed areas; a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS); a well-managed compliance programm; an on-board observer program; electronic monitoring; fishery-independent egg surveys; an ecosystem model and; species-specific population models to inform a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE). The input and output controls combined with VMS, spatial allocation of the catch, on-board observer, electronic monitoring and compliance programs provide great confidence that the SFRs and combined TAC is harvested in a manner that is appropriate for the stock and is complied with. The Harvest Control Rules are documented in the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy June 2008 (SPFHS) which was last updated in April 201838. This document is prepared in line with Australia’s Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines39. Recommended Biological Catches (RBCs) are determined by multiplying biomass estimates with exploitation rate. Recommended TAC’s are calculated by subtracting any significant known sources of mortality from the RBCs. Biomass estimates are determined from fishery-independent egg surveys which provide accurate albeit imprecise estimates of spawning biomass. The estimates are derived using the Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM) which is considered best practice in many clupeid fisheries (Ward et al. 2015), including the MSC certified South Australian Sardine Fishery (SASF). The exploitation rate applied in the harvest strategy varies with the certainty of the assessment. At Tier 1 the maximum exploitation rate can be applied when a biomass estimate is completed every five years and a Fishery Assessment is completed annually. Exploitation rate is reduced at Tier 2 where only Annual Assessments are made and further reduced at Tier 3 where only a review of available catch and effort data is conducted. The exploitation rates selected in the harvest strategy were based on the MSE work of Smith et al (2015). Firstly, an ecosystem model was developed that determined that BMSY for all

38 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/04/SPF-Harvest-Strategy_April- 2017_FINAL.pdf 39 http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/domestic/harvest_strategy_policy

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 154

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place three species was likely to be 30-35% of unexploited biomass levels. A target reference point of B50 was recommended, with a limit reference point (PRI) of B20. These conservative reference points were chosen to specifically incorporate increased conservatism in the exploitation rate through the developing phase of the fishery by ensuring F remained below FMSY. Subsequently, species-specific models were evaluated to determine sustainable levels of exploitation with a high degree of statistical confidence to maintain target levels of biomass over an extended period with a high degree of confidence that stocks would not fall below the LRP. The combination of management measures, monitoring programs and HCRs based on conservative exploitation rates provide confidence that the harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80 and thus SG60 is met. The harvest strategy is also responsive to the state of the stock. TACs are derived by combining the relevant exploitation rate with spawning biomass estimates. As spawning biomass will vary over time, the TAC will adjust accordingly with the changes in observed biomass and thus, the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. On this basis, PI 1.2.1a SG80 is met. While Smith et al (2015) determined that B20% and B50% were appropriate limit and target reference points for all three UoA species in the SPF, no explicit biomass reference points have been developed for the fishery. The Annual Fishery Assessment (e.g. Ward and Grammer 2018) uses the maximum exploitation rates from Smith et al (2015) as implicit reference points by comparing them to current exploitation rates. The lack of explicit reference points reflects the developmental nature of the fishery and the adaptive management approach to the harvest strategy. While this is sufficient in the early phases of the fishery, the harvest strategy currently is not designed well enough to meet the SG100 for PI 1.2.1(a). b Harvest strategy evaluation Guide The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may not The performance of the post to work based on prior have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been experience or plausible evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and evidence argument. achieving its objectives. exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y N Justifi The MSC defines “Tested” at SG80 as “the involvement of some sort of structured logical cation argument and analysis that supports the choice of strategy” (SA2.4.1.2). The guidance for SG80 (GSA 2.4.1) suggests that testing “can include the use of experience from analogous fisheries, empirical testing (for example practical experience of performance or evidence of past performance) and simulation testing (for instance using computer-intensive modelling such as Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE))”. The MSE conducted by Smith represents a “test” of the harvest strategy, with a high degree of confidence that stocks will be maintained at highly productive levels if catches are maintained within the exploitation rates defined in the harvest strategy. The maximum exploitation rates recommended for the harvest strategy were based on DEPM surveys being conducted every five years, with RBCs being determined based on the DEPM spawning biomass and sustainable exploitation rates. Evidence from all sectors for all UoA species suggest that catches are currently being maintained well within these sustainable limits. The MSE study also examined the sensitivity of the model to the frequency of DEPM surveys (Smith et al 2015). The sustainable exploitation rate varied negligibly for surveys conducted 2 or 5 years apart, however once surveys exceeded more than five years apart an unacceptable level of uncertainty was introduced. The study suggested that in the absence of five yearly surveys, exploitation rate must be halved to ensure the same degree of confidence in the stocks being maintained at highly productive levels. As a result, a harvest control rule was established to halve the exploitation rate once the DEPM survey exceeded

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 155

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place five years of age. This “test” and its incorporation into the harvest strategy also provides confidence that the harvest strategy will achieve its objectives. The exploitation rates determined in Smith et al (2015) for sardines in the western SPF relate to an analogous fishery, the MSC certified SASF. The SASF has been Australia’s highest volume fishery since the late 1990s and is underpinned by biannual DEPM surveys and a well-established harvest strategy with HCRs linked directly to biomass estimates. The maximum exploitation rate in the SASF harvest strategy is 25% which is more conservative than the 33% exploitation rate considered as sustainable by Smith et al (2015). Recent DEPM survey results for the fishery suggest that spawning biomass is currently higher than that observed at any other time in the fishery, suggesting that despite an annual fishing mortality of up to 25%, the productivity of the species is maintaining stocks close to unexploited levels. Although the UoA species are not as productive as sardines, this nevertheless provides confidence in the robustness of the MSE work by Smith et al (2015) that underpins the exploitation rates determined for the SPF. GSA 2.4.1 also states “Testing and evaluation in Scoring Issue (b) at the Harvest Strategy level should consider the full interactions between different components of the harvest strategy, including the HCRs, use of information and the assessment of stock status”. Evidence does exist that the interactions among the components of the harvest strategy are operating effectively and the harvest strategy is achieving its objective of maintaining stocks at highly productive levels. As described above, a key component of the harvest strategy is the exploitation rates determined from MSE. Exploitation rates are used in combination with biomass estimates from DEPM surveys to determine an RBC for each UoA stock. The TAC is determined on an annual basis following advice from the Small Pelagic Fishery Scientific Panel. The maximum TAC is calculated by subtracting all significant known sources of mortality from the RBCs, which includes catches from other jurisdictions and for blue mackerel and jack mackerel, a small recreational catch. Data on catch, effort, CPUE and size and age structure of the UoA harvest are presented to the Scientific Panel in an annual fishery assessment report (e.g. Ward and Grammar 2018). Upon considering these data and the maximum TAC, the Scientific Panel provides a TAC recommendation. All minutes from the Scientific Panel meetings are published on the AFMA website. TACs have been set for the fishery since the first Management Plan was introduced in 2009 and total catches have not exceeded the TAC in any year. High rates of observer coverage and 100% electronic monitoring provide evidence that the system is being complied with. Estimates of spawning biomass from fishery-independent DEPM surveys have been conducted since the early 2000s for all three species. DEPM surveys are considered best practice for biomass estimation in many clupeid fisheries (Ward et al. 2015), including the MSC certified SASF. The first surveys were conducted for eastern SPF jack mackerel, blue mackerel and redbait in 2002, 2004 and 2005, respectively. These initial surveys aimed to determine whether the DEPM would provide a reliable measure of spawning biomass for these species in these waters. Subsequently, follow up surveys were conducted for eastern jack mackerel and blue mackerel in 2014 and these provided what was considered a more reliable estimate following the learnings from the initial survey (Ward and Grammer 2018). A third survey was recently completed for jack mackerel and a third survey for blue mackerel is planned for 2019/20. The second redbait survey was conducted in 2006, immediately after the initial survey. Given the last survey was conducted 13 years ago, the exploitation rate for redbait is at Tier 2 which is half of the maximum exploitation rate, as recommended by Smith et al (2015). This provides evidence that the harvest strategy rules are being adhered to. In summary, while the harvest strategy may not be fully tested because of the developmental nature of the fishery, a number of relevant tests have been applied to the fishery and these do provide substantial confidence that the harvest strategy will achieve its objectives of maintaining highly productive stocks. Considering the recent history of very light exploitation, robust and transparent processes to determine a sustainable TAC that have been adhered to for over a decade, and regular collection of data on spawning biomass and fishery and population statistics, the fishery is assessed as meeting SG60 and SG80 for PI 1.2.1b. However the performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated and

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 156

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place therefore SG100 is not met. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guide Monitoring is in place that is post expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justifi The monitoring program includes: monitoring of the spawning biomass through fishery cation independent surveys; annual determination of the TAC based on the RBC and known other mortalities (e.g. state based catches, recreational catches); monitoring of the catch and effort against the TAC; monitoring of the size- and spatial distribution of the catch, and; annual reporting of fishery data including catch, effort, CPUE and age and size frequency of the catch. This monitoring is likely to be sufficient to determine whether the harvest strategy is working, particularly if exploitation rates increase and the measures reported annually become more robust. We note that while surveys for redbait are now 13 years old, the information gathered for redbait is relevant to the requirements for the Tier 2 TAC that has been set for this species. d Harvest strategy review Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Y Justifi The harvest strategy is reviewed on an annual basis through the Small Pelagic Fishery cation Scientific Panel. The Scientific Panel considers the information in the annual fishery assessment and all other relevant information from the fishery. The TAC is set each year based on the RBC, catches from other sources, and any other information considered relevant to the harvest strategy for the fishery. The Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy was first developed in 2009 and was last revised in April 2018. The Small Pelagic Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet was also last revised in 2018. The Small Pelagic Fishery General Conditions were last updated in 2017. e Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Not relevant. cation f Review of alternative measures Guide There has been a review There is a regular review There is a biennial post 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 measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise 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? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi There is no unwanted catch of the target stock, therefore this SI is not relevant.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 157

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place cation Smith, ADM., Ward, TM., Hurtado, F., Klaer, N., Fulton, E., and Punt, AE (2015), Review and update of harvest strategy settings for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery - Single species and ecosystem considerations. Hobart. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 2013/028. Ward, T.M, Angélico, M.M., Cubillos, L.A., van Damme, C.J.G., Ganias, K., Ibaibarriaga, References L. and Lo, N.C.H. (2015) Benchmarking Australia's small pelagic fisheries against world's best practice. Final report to FRDC Ward, T. M. and Grammer, G. L. (2018). Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery: Fishery Assessment Report 2017. Report to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000270-9. SARDI Research Report Series No. 982. 114pp. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 158

Evaluation Table for 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 a HCRs design and application Guide Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to post are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating at are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced or above a target level exploitation rate as the point as the PRI is approached, are consistent with MSY, or of recruitment impairment expected to keep the stock another more appropriate (PRI) is approached. fluctuating around a target level taking into account the level consistent with (or ecological role of the stock, above) MSY, or for key most of the time. LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y N N Justifi The following PI 1.2.2 assessment is applicable for all three UoA species. cation The HCRs are documented in the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy (SPFHS). Smith et al (2015) determined conservative exploitation levels that aimed to maintain stocks above B50% with a high degree of confidence (<8% probability) of falling below B20% in 50 years for a range of MSE scenarios. Therefore even at maximum exploitation rates the fishery is highly likely to be operating below FMSY under average conditions. The MSE results provide the basis for the HCRs, with maximum exploitation rates of 15% for blue mackerel, 12% for jack mackerel and 10% for redbait. The HCRs provide a framework where exploitation rates are reduced as uncertainty in population status increases. This is reflective of the developing nature of the fishery. The HCRs have 3 Tiers. At Tier 1, where the maximum exploitation rate can be applied, a biomass estimate must be completed every five years and a Fishery Assessment is completed annually. At Tier 2, where a DEPM survey is between 5 and 10 or 15 years old (depending on the species), a Fishery Assessment is completed annually and the exploitation rate is half of the maximum. At Tier 3, where a DEPM survey is greater than 10 or 15 years old a review of available catch and effort data is required, and the exploitation rate is 25% of the maximum. The MSE work (Smith et al 2015) determined exploitation rates of 23%, 12% and 9%, at Tier 1 for blue mackerel, jack mackerel and redbait, respectively. The SPFHS uses 15% for blue mackerel because there is uncertainty regarding some of the biological parameters40. The exploitation rate for redbait is 10% which reflects the levels determined for the western redbait stocks (as opposed to 9% for UoA stocks), however redbait exploitation rates are highly unlikely to reach these levels as redbait are only caught as a byproduct during targeted jack mackerel and blue mackerel fishing. Smith et al (2015) also reported that there was negligible benefit in conducting surveys every two years compared to five years, however uncertainty increased substantially when DEPM surveys were conducted more than five years apart. This led to the Tier 2 recommendation to halve exploitation rate to maintain stocks above B50% with the same degree of confidence. A further halving of the exploitation rate occurs at Tier 3 when surveys become either 10 or 15 years old, depending on the species. By including these decision rules, the Harvest Strategy explicitly accounts for the uncertain event that PRI is approached in the absence of a direct biomass measure by automatically reducing exploitation to levels that will ensure recovery of the stock to levels above B50%. While it cannot be argued that these HCRs are responsive to the state of the stock, they do ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is theoretically approached, and they can be expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level at least consistent with BMSY.

40 https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/default/files/final_spf_panel_meeting_minutes_26_november_2 018.pdf

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 159

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place At Tier 1, where DEPM surveys are conducted at least every 5 years, the constant maximum exploitation rate is applied. The model indicates that this approach is sufficient to ensure that PRI is unlikely to be approached with a high degree of certainty, as a decline in survey biomass will result in a decline in the RBC (i.e. catch / total exploitation). However this in itself will not ensure a reduction in exploitation rate as required for SG80. Thus, even if the DEPM spawning biomass declines to very low levels relative to previous surveys, the harvest strategy allows the maximum exploitation rate to be applied. The HCRs currently lack an explicit LRP that equates to PRI and it also lacks an explicit mechanism to reduce exploitation if PRI is approached. Importantly, it should be noted that the risks of approaching PRI are directly related to the catch (i.e. exploitation rate) harvested by the fishery. The fishery is currently in a developmental phase and catches to date have been below half of the TAC available at Tier 1. While HCRs that reduce exploitation rate do not currently exist for Tier 1, the systems implemented by the fishery agency do provide substantial confidence that exploitation would likely be reduced if evidence were presented that PRI was being approached. Firstly, while direct measures of biomass are only conducted every five years at the most, annual assessments of catch, effort, CPUE and age and length frequencies for each species are presented in a Fishery Assessment Report. While the data gathered to date during the exploratory phase of the fishery are limited, they are nonetheless likely to provide a useful baseline for determination of changes in population parameters that may reflect declines in biomass in the future. Secondly, the exploitation rates at Tier 1 are maximum exploitation rates only. The Scientific Panel recommends on an annual basis what the appropriate TAC should be given the information provided in the latest DEPM surveys and Fishery Assessment report. The Minister makes the final decision on what the TAC should be for any given year. Thus if signs of population decline became evident, the agency has mechanisms in place to reduce exploitation as required. Finally, although the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy document does not contain explicit LRPs, it is directly linked to the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy which states that when a stock falls below the LRP (which is generally at least equivalent to PRI) a Stock Rebuilding Strategy must be implemented, with exploitation rates reduced to levels that ensure stock recovery within a timeframe that by definition fits with the MSC PI 1.1.2. AFMA has already implemented several Stock Rebuilding Strategies under the Harvest Strategy framework (e.g. blue warehou41). In summary, the fishery is currently underexploited and stocks of all three UoA species are highly likely to be well above BMSY. A range of tools are available to manage the fishery including a TAC based on conservative exploitation rates, DEPM surveys to estimate spawning biomass, and annual assessment of key population parameters and fishery statistics. TAC decisions are recommended by a Scientific Panel following a Harvest Strategy decision framework that is linked to the Australian Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy. Given the favourable current status of the stocks, it is considered that generally understood HCRs are in place or available that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as PRI is approached. On this basis, the PI 1.2.2a SG60 is met. These tools have been developed into explicit HCRs complicit with the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy. At Tiers 2 and 3, which determines exploitation rates in the absence of ongoing biomass surveys, exploitation rates are reduced when the age of surveys exceeds 5, 10 or 15 years based on a statistical probability that PRI is being approached. To this extent, the Tier 2 and Tier 3 components meet SG80. However, at Tier 1 there are currently no explicit reference points or HCRs to reduce exploitation if PRI is approached and thus it cannot be argued that well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached. On this basis, PI 1.2.2(a) SG80 is not met. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a robust to the main wide range of uncertainties

41 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/Blue-Warehou-Rebuilding- Strategy-2014.pdf

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 160

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place post uncertainties. including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? Y N Justifi As discussed in PI 1.2.2(a), the HCRs (and generally understood HCRs) for the fishery are cation centered around TACs determined from conservative exploitation rates and estimates of spawning biomass from DEPM surveys. The exploitation rates used in the Harvest Strategy are based on Smith et al (2015) which explicitly considered the role of the UoA species in the ecosystem and the modelling underpinning the MSE was conducted with a high degree of statistical robustness. Smith et al (2015) first examined the singular and collective impacts of harvesting the UoA species in an ecosystem model (Atlantis SPF). The model outputs suggested that the ecosystem was only marginally affected even at high combined exploitation rates of these forage species, primarily because few predators were highly reliant on one or all of these species as a food source. The model estimated BMSY’s for these species of B30-35%, however there was some uncertainty in the model as it was difficult to paramterise. On this basis, Smith et al (2015) suggested that conservative target reference point of B50% and limit reference point of B20% be used to determine appropriate exploitation rates. Smith et al (2015) then developed single species population models to determine sustainable exploitation rates that considered the main uncertainties in the system. The results were considered highly robust, with a <8% probably of the biomass falling below B20% over a 50-year period for any given scenario. Ward et al (2017) provide thorough documentation and discussion of the assumptions of the DEPM survey methodology and the associated empirical methods for estimating spawning biomass. Estimates are considered accurate but imprecise. The biomass estimates from the contemporary surveys of jack mackerel and blue mackerel were considered more reflective of the stock than the initial surveys due to better estimation of the key parameters of the model. Biomass estimates are generally presented as mean with 95% confidence limits. Recently, a report was published that explicitly examines approaches to reduce the imprecision in DEPM estimates of egg production and spawning biomass (Ward et al. 2018). In summary, the current HCRs rely on modelled estimates of exploitation rate and spawning biomass estimates from DEPM surveys. These measures are well understood and likely to be robust to the main uncertainties and thus SG80 is met. While the current exploitation rates do explicitly consider the role of the UoA species in the ecosystem, due to the developing nature of the fishery there is currently limited direct evidence from the SPF that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties and thus SG100 is not met. c HCRs evaluation Guide There is some evidence that Available evidence indicates Evidence clearly shows post tools used or available to that the tools in use are that the tools in use are implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels controlling exploitation. levels required under the required under the HCRs. HCRs. Met? Y Y N Justifi The guidance for PI 1.2.2(c) states “teams must review the ability of the tools associated cation with the HCRs to achieve the exploitation levels. Such tools would include management measures like total allowable catches (TACs) and fishing limits, and arrangements for sharing TACs between participants in the fishery, including between states in shared stock fisheries”. The primary management tool for managing total exploitation in the fishery is the TAC. A separate TAC is established for each UoA species pertaining specifically to the UoA area (i.e. eastern SPF). To fish in the fishery, operators must hold statutory fishing rights and

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 161

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place own or lease quota specific to the UoA species. The UoA stocks are shared amongst other state-based jurisdictions within Australia, however fishing areas are do not overlap. New South Wales has recently implemented a quota for blue mackerel caught within state waters, while all other species / jurisdiction combinations are limited by input controls. Due to the low value of these species, current and historic catches are very low in these other jurisdictions. Nevertheless, catches from all jurisdictions and from the recreational sector are considered appropriately in TAC setting. The TAC is enforced through a commercial logbook and CDR program. Rigorous compliance monitoring of catches is undertaken, including the compulsory use of VMS and electronic monitoring of the catch. This provides a high degree of confidence that the TAC is being complied with. The guidance for PI 1.2.2(c) also states “Evidence that current F is equal to or less than FMSY should usually be taken as evidence that the HCR is effective”. The assessment of stock status compares current exploitation rates with the sustainable exploitation rates that are used as HCRs. Currently the level of exploitation is well below the levels that are highly likely to maintain the stocks above B50%. The available evidence is sufficient to meet the SG60 and SG80 levels. The HCRs that are currently in place are sufficient to support the harvest strategy during the developmental phase of the fishery. As the fishery progresses it is likely that improved measures of abundance from additional surveys and CPUE will increase the evidence base. Also, as described in 1.2.2(a), there are some limitations to the HCRs particularly regarding reference points defining PRI and approaches to reduce exploitation as PRI is approached in Tier 1. On this basis, it cannot be argued that the evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs and thus SG100 is not met. Smith, ADM., Ward, TM., Hurtado, F., Klaer, N., Fulton, E., and Punt, AE (2015), Review and update of harvest strategy settings for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery - Single species and ecosystem considerations. Hobart. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 2013/028. Ward, T.M, Angélico, M.M., Cubillos, L.A., van Damme, C.J.G., Ganias, K., Ibaibarriaga, L. and Lo, N.C.H. (2015) Benchmarking Australia's small pelagic fisheries against world's best practice. Final report to FRDC References Ward, T. M. and Grammer, G. L. (2018). Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery: Fishery Assessment Report 2017. Report to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000270-9. SARDI Research Report Series No. 982. 114pp. Ward, T.M, Carroll J, Grammer GL, James C, McGarvey R, Smart J, and Ivey AR (2018). Improving the precision of estimates of egg production and spawning biomass obtained using the Daily Egg Production Method. Final report to FRDC. Project No. 2014/026. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

Condition 1: Within three years of reaching catches that are greater than 50% of the TAC, the HCRs in place will ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached for Tier 1 of the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy.

Recommendation 1: Ensure that Tier 1 and Tier 2 decision rules be enforced once survey data become 5 years old.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 162

Evaluation Table for 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 a Range of information Guide Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of post related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, structure, stock productivity, composition is available to fleet composition and other fleet composition, stock support the harvest strategy. data is available to support abundance, UoA removals the harvest strategy. and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y N Justifi The following PI 1.2.3 assessment is applicable for all three UoA species. cation There is a broad range of information gathered for the fishery, sufficient to support the harvest strategy: • While there is a considerable history of work conducted on stock structure for all three species (e.g. Richardson 1982, Rohde 1987, Lindholm and Maxwell 1988, Scoles et al. 1998, Ward and Rogers 2007, Bulman et al 2008, Schmarr et al. 2011), some uncertainty remains around the western stock boundary for the jack mackerel stock (Smolenski et al 1994). Despite this uncertainty, the information that is available on stock structure is sufficient to support the harvest strategy. • Basic biology is well understood including distribution and abundance, food and feeding, reproduction, and life history parameters for all three species (summarised in Ward and Grammer 2018). • Biomass estimates are determined using the DEPM method from data obtained during fishery-independent surveys (e.g. Neira et al 2008, Ward et al 201a,b). • Catch and effort data is recorded in commercial logbooks and are validated through Catch and Disposal Records (CDRs). • Catches of the UoA species from other jurisdictions are incorporated into the fishery assessment and the TAC setting process (Ward and Grammer 2018). • Estimates of recreational harvest are incorporated into the fishery assessment (e.g. Henry and Lyle 2003, West et al 2015, summarized in Ward and Grammer 2018). • The composition of the broader SPF fleet is well understood. The UoA species are currently harvested by only one Commonwealth vessel (the UoC). • All vessels in the fishery are required to use VMS and there is 100% electronic monitoring of the catch. • Samples are taken directly from the catch by observers for independent analysis of catch composition, and size and age composition of the UoA species in the catch. • There is an excellent understanding of the ecosystems in which the UoA species inhabit, and the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem through UoA removals (e.g. Smith et al 2015). Although the fishery is currently underutilized, there is a strong history of appropriate data that have been collected to support the harvest strategy. Fishery assessment reports are produced annually that summarise all the relevant data to inform the harvest strategy and TAC decisions. As described above, a number of peer-reviewed journal articles and internal reports have been published on a range of topics relevant to the fishery. This information is sufficient to meet the SG60 and SG80 levels. The primary limitations in the information available for the fishery result from the developmental nature of the fishery. For example, there is currently insufficient data to

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 163

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy develop robust performance measures for CPUE and age and size composition of the catch. On this basis, the information available is not sufficient to meet SG100. b Monitoring Guide Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by post removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high available and monitored accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree with sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of rule. more indicators are available inherent uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty. Met? Y Y N Justifi The HCRs for the fishery are primarily based on exploitation rates and biomass measures cation that inform sustainable TACs. To support the implementation of the HCRs, abundance is measured primarily through DEPM surveys while UoA removals are monitored through catch and effort reporting. Spawning biomass estimates from DEPM surveys are considered an accurate although imprecise measure. Surveys are conducted every five years for maximum exploitation rates to be maintained (i.e. Tier 1). The uncertainties of DEPM estimates are well understood, and a project specifically aimed at improving the precision of these estimates was recently completed (Ward et al. 2018). The uncertainty in DEPM estimates was explicitly examined in the MSE for the fishery (Smith et al 2015). Fishers estimate catch by species by taking several samples of catches throughout the hauling procedure to determine the % of each of the UoA species in the catch samples. The % is then multiplied by the total catch estimate to give an estimate of catch for each species that is entered into the commercial catch and effort logbook. Logbook estimates are validated through Catch and Disposal Records. Also, independent observer samples are taken to validate species % composition. There is a high degree of certainty in the catch statistics for the fishery with a high level of fishery independent observer coverage, 100% electronic monitoring and VMS to validate the spatial distribution of the catch. In summary, stock abundance is measured regularly and while there is uncertainty associated with the measure, this has been accounted for in the harvest control rules explicitly through the exploitation rate and also through the Tier 1, 2 and 3 decision rules. UoA removals are measured accurately and there is a high degree of certainty in these measures. This is sufficient to meet PI 1.2.3(b) at the SG60 and SG80 levels. To meet SG100 all the information needs to be gathered with a high frequency and high degree of certainty. Given that surveys are conducted only every five years and there are high levels of imprecision in DEPM spawning biomass estimates, the SG100 is not met. c Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good information post on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justifi While the vast majority of the total removals from the stock are harvested by the UoA, there cation are small catches of UoA species from a number of other sources. Ward and Grammer (2018) report that estimates of total catch for jack mackerel (east) and blue mackerel (east) include catches from New South Wales (NSW) ocean fisheries, NSW Estuary General Fishery, Victorian Ocean Purse Seine Fishery and the Tasmanian Scalefish Fishery. Total catch of redbait includes catches from NSW ocean fisheries, Victorian Ocean Purse Seine Fishery and the Tasmanian Scalefish Fishery. Recreational catches of UoA species have also been determined through National surveys

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 164

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy (e.g. Henry and Lyle 2003) and some state-based surveys (e.g. West et al 2015). This information is sufficient to meet the SG80 for PI 1.2.3(c). Bulman, C., S. Condie, J. Findlay, B. Ward, and J. Young. 2008. Management zones from small pelagic fish species stock structure in southern Australian waters. Final Report for FRDC Project 2006/076. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research: Hobart, Tasmania. Henry, G. W., and J. M. Lyle. 2003. The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 99/158. Final Report to FRDC 1999/158., New South Wales Fisheries Research Centre. 188 pp. Lindholm, R., and J. G. H. Maxwell. 1988. Stock separation of jack mackerel Trachurus declivis (Jenyns, 1841), and yellowtail T. novaezealandiae (Richardson, 1843) in southern Australian waters using principal component analysis. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report No. 189. Hobart, Tasmania. 7 pp. Neira, F. J., J. M. Lyle, G. P. Ewing, J. P. Keane, and S. R. Tracey. (2008). Evaluation of egg production as a method of estimating spawning biomass of redbait off the east coast of Tasmania. Final report, FRDC project no. 2004/039. Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, Hobart. Richardson, B. 1982. Geographical distribution of electrophoretically detected protein variation in Australian commercial fishes. I. Jack mackeral, Trachurus declivis Jenyns. Marine and Freshwater Research 33:917-926. Rohde, K. 1987. Different populations of Scomber australasicusin New Zealand and south- eastern Australia, demonstrated by a simple method using monogenean sclerites. Journal of Fish Biology 30:651-657. Schmarr, D. W., I. D. Whittington, J. R. Ovenden, and T. M. Ward. 2011. Discriminating stocks of Scomber australasicus using a holistic approach: a pilot study. American Fisheries Society Symposium 76:1-21. Scoles, D. R., B. B. Collette, and J. E. Graves. 1998. Global phylogeography of mackerels References of the genus Scomber. Fishery Bulletin 96:823-842. Smith, ADM., Ward, TM., Hurtado, F., Klaer, N., Fulton, E., and Punt, AE (2015), Review and update of harvest strategy settings for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery - Single species and ecosystem considerations. Hobart. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 2013/028. Smolenski A. J. , Ovenden A, J. R. and White R. W. G. (1994). Preliminary Investigation of Mitochondrial DNA Variation in Jack Mackerel (Trachurus declivis, Carangidae) from South-eastern Australian Waters. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res., 1994, 45, 495-505. Ward, T. M., and P. J. Rogers, editors. 2007. Development and evaluation of egg-based stock assessment methods for blue mackerel Scomber australasicus in southern Australia. Final report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Project 2002/061. SARDI Aquatic Science, Adelaide. Ward, T. M., G. L. Grammer, A. R. Ivey, J. R. Carroll, J. P. Keane, J. Stewart, and L. Litherland. (2015a). Egg distribution, reproductive parameters and spawning biomass of Blue Mackerel, Australian Sardine and Tailor off the East Coast during late winter and early spring. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. FRDC Project No. 2014/033. 77p. Ward, T.M., Burnell, O., Ivey, A. Carroll, J. Keane, J., Lyle, J., Sexton, S (2015b). South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Summer spawning patterns and preliminary Daily Egg Production Method survey of Jack Mackerel and Sardine off the East Coast, March. FRDC Project No 2013/053. Ward, T.M, Carroll J, Grammer GL, James C, McGarvey R, Smart J, and Ivey AR (2018). Improving the precision of estimates of egg production and spawning biomass obtained using the Daily Egg Production Method. Final report to FRDC. Project No. 2014/026. West, L. D., K. E. Stark, J. J. Murphy, J. M. Lyle and F. A. Ochwada-Doyle (2015) Survey

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 165

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy of Recreational Fishing in New South Wales and the ACT, 2013/14. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 166

Evaluation Table for 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 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guide The assessment is The assessment takes into post appropriate for the stock and account the major features for the harvest control rule. relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Y N Justifi The following PI 1.2.4 assessment is applicable for all three UoA species. cation GSA2.7 states “This PI considers how the fishery assesses information to provide an understanding of stock status and the effectiveness of the harvest strategy”. The assessment of stock status for each species as presented in the Fishery Assessment Reports (e.g. Ward and Grammer 2018) compares current exploitation rates in the fishery against the model derived “sustainable” exploitation rates determined by Smith et al (2015). Exploitation rate is not defined as a reference point for the fishery, so this is used as an implicit performance measure only. The model-derived exploitation rate is appropriate to use as reference point for stock status. It was determined in a two-step process, with an ecosystem model developed first to determine BMSY for the UoA species (30-35% of unexploited levels). Subsequently, species-specific population models were developed to determine sustainable levels of exploitation with a high degree of statistical confidence to maintain at least 50% of the unexploited biomass over 50 years (i.e. well above BMSY levels). Therefore, the estimated exploitation rate was well below FMSY. These models incorporated the necessary statistical uncertainties associated with the DEPM biomass estimates, the biology of the species, and the key elements of the harvest strategy. Current exploitation rates are determined from total catch and DEPM biomass surveys. Despite their inherent imprecision, DEPM surveys are a widely preferred methodology for determining biomass estimates for clupeid species globally (Ward et al 2015a, Ward et al 2018). On this basis, the assessment is considered appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and thus SG80 is met. This simplistic approach to assessment of stock status reflects the developing nature of the fishery and the harvest strategy. While the model-derived estimates of exploitation are conservative and consider all reasonable uncertainties, the assessment of stock status for each UoA species is entirely reliant on biomass surveys conducted five years apart. The primary limitation of this current approach is the potential impact of factors outside of the control of the fishery, such as environmental events, that could have an unexpected impact on the biomass between surveys. On this basis, SG100 is not met. b Assessment approach Guide The assessment estimates The assessment estimates post stock status relative to stock status relative to generic reference points reference points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated. Met? Y Y Justifi As described in PI 1.2.4(a), the model-derived exploitation rate from Smith et al (2015) is cation an implicit reference point used to assess stock status. When a DEPM survey has been conducted within 5 years, sustainable exploitation rates are considered to be 23%, 12% and 9%, for blue mackerel, jack mackerel and redbait, respectively. If the most recent DEPM survey was more than 5 years old, the sustainable exploitation rate is half of these amounts. Current exploitation is calculated as the sum of all catches for each UoA species expressed as a proportion of the estimated biomass from the most recent DEPM survey for each species. These data are reported annually in the Fishery Assessment Report for each UoA species. On this basis, the assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points that

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 167

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status are appropriate to the stock and can be estimated and thus SG60 and SG80 are met. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guide The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into post major sources of uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is uncertainty. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y N Justifi The Fishery Assessment Reports (e.g. Ward and Grammar 2018), the DEPM reports (e.g. cation Ward et al 2015b) and the MSE work (Smith et al 2015) all identify the major sources of uncertainty in the assessment and thus SG60 is met. The assessment of stock status is based on model-derived exploitation rates (Smith et al 2015). These estimates explicitly account for a variety of uncertainties directly in the population models themselves (e.g. biological parameters and the CV of DEPM surveys) and through a range of sensitivity analyses and Management Strategy Evaluations. DEPM estimates of spawning biomass are presented as mean values with 95% confidence limits. The reason that DEPM estimates have such broad confidence limits is due to the multiplicative effects of uncertainty around various parameters underpinning the DEPM approach. While the estimates are imprecise, the uncertainty is well understood, and its impacts transparently reported. On this basis, SG80 is met. While the model-derived exploitation rate that is used as an implicit refence point was determined in a probablilistic way, the annual exploitation rate is calculated deterministically as the total catch for the UoA species expressed as a proportion of the most recent DEPM biomass survey. On this basis, SG100 is not met. d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has been post tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? N Justifi The assessment of stock status relies on model-derived exploitation rates, total catch cation estimates and DEPM surveys. The study of Smith et al (2015) examined a range of alternative management strategies by varying exploitation rate, the frequency of DEPM surveys and the exploitation rate required to achieve a specific level of depletion. Also, sensitivity analyses were conducted that examined variations in the CV of DEPM biomass estimates, bias in DEPM biomass estimates, the stock recruitment pararmeters, and selectivity. DEPM was first developed for Northern Anchovy (Parker 1980, Lasker 1985) and has been used in South Australia for sardine assessment since 1995 (Ward et al 2017) and in South East Australia for the UoA species since the early 2000s. Improvements in the use and application of DEPM egg production and biomass estimates have been ongoing, with an International Workshop held in Adelaide in July 2014 (Ward et al 2015) and a specific project recently completed to improve precision of the method (Ward et al 2018). Alternative approaches have been assessed, but the uncertainties associated with methods such as acoustic surveys are considered to be problematic in Australia (Ward et al 2017). Robust assessments of alternative approaches have been examined for DEPM surveys. While the ecosystem study and MSE work was robust, only one ecosystem model was successfully fitted and alternative approaches are yet to be examined. On this basis the SG100 is not met for PI 1.2.4(d). e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 168

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status post status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? Y N Justifi Fishery Assessment Reports are produced annually, with the latest report (Ward and cation Grammer 2018) produced by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA). While the report was reviewed by both SARDI and AFMA staff, this is considered as internal peer review. Similarly, DEPM biomass reports (e.g. Ward et al 2015b) that are documented after each DEPM survey are also internally reviewed. The MSE work of Smith et al (2015) was funded by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC). All FRDC reports are assessed by two external reviewers. While the MSE work has been externally reviewed, the Fishery Assessment Reports and DEPM biomass reports have not been externally reviewed. On this basis, SG80 is met however SG100 is not met. Lasker, R. (1985). An egg production method for estimating spawning biomass of pelagic fish: application to northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax. NOAA. Tech. Rep. NMFS, 36: 1- 99. Parker, K. (1980). A direct method for estimating northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax, spawning biomass. Fisheries Bulletin. (US). 541-544. Smith, ADM., Ward, TM., Hurtado, F., Klaer, N., Fulton, E., and Punt, AE (2015), Review and update of harvest strategy settings for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery - Single species and ecosystem considerations. Hobart. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 2013/028. Ward, T.M, Angélico, M.M., Cubillos, L.A., van Damme, C.J.G., Ganias, K., Ibaibarriaga, L. and Lo, N.C.H. (2015a) Benchmarking Australia's small pelagic fisheries against world's best practice. Final report to FRDC. Ward, T.M., Burnell, O., Ivey, A. Carroll, J. Keane, J., Lyle, J., Sexton, S (2015b). South References Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Summer spawning patterns and preliminary Daily Egg Production Method survey of Jack Mackerel and Sardine off the East Coast, March. FRDC Project No 2013/053. Ward, T.M., Ivey, A.R. and Smart, J.J. (2017). Spawning biomass of Sardine, Sardinops sagax, in waters off South Australia in 2017.Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000566-8. SARDI Research Report Series No. 965. 27pp. Ward, T. M. and Grammer, G. L. (2018). Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery: Fishery Assessment Report 2017. Report to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000270-9. SARDI Research Report Series No. 982. 114pp. Ward, T.M, Carroll J, Grammer GL, James C, McGarvey R, Smart J, and Ivey AR (2018). Improving the precision of estimates of egg production and spawning biomass obtained using the Daily Egg Production Method. Final report to FRDC. Project No. 2014/026. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Recommendation 2: The stock assessment be externally peer-reviewed within the certification period (5 years).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 169

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main primary species stock status Guidepost Main primary Main primary species are There is a high degree of species are likely to highly likely to be above the certainty that main primary be above the PRI PRI species are above the PRI and are fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. OR OR

If the species is If the species is below the below the PRI, the PRI, there is either evidence UoA has measures of recovery or a in place that are demonstrably effective expected to ensure strategy in place between all that the UoA does MSC UoAs which not hinder recovery categorise this species as and rebuilding. main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Justification “Primary species will usually be species of commercial value to either the UoA or fisheries outside the UoA, with management tools controlling exploitation as well as known reference points in place. In addition, the institution or arrangement that manages the species will usually have some overlap in jurisdiction with the fishery in the UoA. “(MSC 2018b, p.46). - ‘main’ primary species = species with contribution > 5% to total catch by the UoA The SESPF is a new, developing fishery. Even though historical data is available for the SPF since 2001, the effort in the fishery has been sporadic and the fishery’s management and operations experienced significant changes, thus data for five most recent years (consistent with the MSC requirement, MSC, 2018b, p. 57) is not available. Nevertheless, from an analysis of the available catch data, current and historical, it is evident, with high degree of certainty, that mid-water trawl method is very selective, in the sense that all non-target catch represents less than 2% of total catch (AFMA, nd, unpublished, AFMA, nd, CDRs, Tuck et al, 2013). Non- target species in the SESPF catch in 2017-18 contributed less than 1% to total catch. In consequence, no species in the SESPF catch classifies as ‘main’ primary species. There is a high degree of certainty that the SESPF mid-water trawl UoAs do not impact on ‘main’ primary species. SG 60, 80 and 100 are met by default. B Minor primary species stock status Guidepost Minor primary species are highly likely to be above the PRI

OR

If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 170

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. rebuilding of minor primary species Met? Y Justification - ‘minor’ primary species: species with contribution < 5% to total catch by the UoA Minor primary species identified in the UoAs catch and potential minor primary species, identified in previous years catch (2015-16 and 2016-17, freezer trawler catch), are presented in Table 11. Table 16. Minor primary species in the SESPF catch Common Name Latin Name Alfonsino Beryx splendens Australian Sardine Sardinops sagax Gemfish Rexea solandri Gould's Squid Nototodarus gouldi Jackass Morwong Nemadactylus macropterus Redfish Centroberyx affinis Reef Ocean Perch Helicolenus percoides Silver Warehou Seriolella punctata Striped Marlin Kajikia audax Tiger Flathead Platycephalus richardsoni Blue Grenadier Macruronus novaezelandiae Blue Warehou Seriolella brama Common Sawshark Pristiophorus cirratus Pink Ling Genypterus blacodes Mirror Dory Zenopsis nebulosus Southern Sawshark Pristiophorus nudipinnis Swordfish Xiphias gladius Yellowfin Tuna Thunnus albacares

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, 2018b, p. 71). The PRI is interpreted as a point below which the recruitment might be impaired, and it can be analytically or empirically determined. In any case the PRI cannot be less than 20% of the spawning stock level that would be expected in the absence of fishing or B0 (MSC, 2018a, p. 15). 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, 2018a, p. 29, MSC, 2018b, p. 51). All primary species are managed in overlapping AFMA managed fisheries (most in the SESSF). The limit reference points for AFMA managed species are in accord to the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and consistent with the MSC PRI (20% B0). All these species are assessed regularly for stock status (AFMA, nd, Species). Most ‘minor’ primary species stocks were assessed as sustainable in 2018 and have shown long term sustainability (e. g. see SESSF ABARES reports). Striped marlin, swordfish and yellowfin tuna are not commonly caught in the SESPF UoAs, nevertheless the eastern stocks of these species were assessed as sustainable in 2018 and are targeted in AFMA’s Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (ETBF) (AFMA, nd, Species). Most SPF minor primary

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 171

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. species are highly to be above PRI. Eastern gemfish, redfish and blue warehou stocks, however, were assessed as ‘uncertain’ and their TACs are only for incidental catch, fisheries not being allowed to target this species. The marginal contribution of the SESPF for 2017- 18 cannot be calculated because information on these species catch by other fisheries (mainly by the SESSF) was not available at the time of this assessment. Nevertheless, catch data from previous years (2012-2016) suggest that SESPF catch contributes less than 5% to total catch of each of this species (AFMA, nd, unpublished and AFMA, nd, CDRs). According to the MSC guidance, when the stock abundance is uncertain, even if the total catch of a species in a given area is clearly hindering the recovery of that species, UoA catches of less than 30% of total catch from that stock would not hinder recovery in a marginal sense (i.e. nothing the UoA does can change to situation of the stock (MSC 2018b, p. 60)). In consequence, the SESPF UoAs do not hinder recovery of the species that are below PRI. The UoAs meet the requirements for this SI are met at SG100. AFMA unpublished, confidential data for 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 catch data for SESPF AFMA CDRs, Catch Disposal Records. Available at https://data.gov.au/dataset/ds- dga-0cd2ec97-d13c-4b02-8071-fd778fdcdee7/distribution/dist-dga-81d3d265- b21a-4b05-b62d-c315beec771e/details?q= AFMA Species. Annual status reports for each species managed by AFMA. References Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/species MSC (2018b). MSC guidance to fisheries standard, v.2.1, 31 August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 156 pp. Tuck, G.N., Knuckey, I. and Klaer, N.L. (2013). ‘Informing the review of the Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch through assessing trends in bycatch of key Commonwealth fisheries.’ FRDC Project No. 2012/046 Final Report. Fishwell Consulting, Queenscliff. All UoAs Scoring element 2.1.1 a (60, 80, 100) 2.1.1 b (100 only) Score Main primary species 100 N/A 100 Minor primary species N/A 100 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE All UoAs: 100

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 172

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy 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 a Management strategy in place Guidepost There are measures There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place in place for the UoA, place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing if necessary, that are necessary, that is expected to main and minor primary expected to maintain maintain or to not hinder species. or to not hinder rebuilding of the main rebuilding of the primary species at/to levels main primary species which are highly likely to be at/to levels which are above the point where likely to above the recruitment would be point where impaired. recruitment would be impaired. Met? Y Y Y Justification “Measures” are actions or tools in place that either explicitly manage impacts on the component or indirectly contribute to management of the component under assessment having been designed to manage impacts elsewhere. A “partial strategy” represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically. A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome, and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts (MSC, 2018a, p29) An All minor primary species are managed species in overlapping fisheries, i.e. different sectors of the SESSF. Gould’s squid is the only species with no set TAC although there is a 2000t catch limit trigger for Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS, part of SESSF) and a 6000t limit trigger for the combined catch from jig and trawl gears, which warrant further investigation by AFMA to adjust the management of the species (AFMA, nd, Arrow Squid). All other primary species are managed based on output controls in the form of Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs, granted as Statutory Fishing Rights (SFRs)) to the commercial fishery. In areas where SESPF UoAs overlap with the relevant sectors of the SESSF, mid- water trawl boats nominated to SPF SFRs must also be nominated to fishing concessions that allow access to trawl fishing in the SESSF fishery and the catch of SESSF managed species (AFMA, 2018-SPF booklet). Redfish, eastern gemfish, and blue warehou, which are minor primary species in the SESPF UoAs, are managed under rebuilding strategies (redfish rebuilding strategy, AFMA, nd, Redfish42; gemfish rebuilding strategy, AFMA, nd, Gemfish43; blue

42 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/Redfish-rebuilding-strategy-2016.pdf, 43 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/SESSF-Eastern-Gemfish-Rebuilding-Strategy-20152.pdf,

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 173

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. warehou rebuilding strategy, AFMA, nd, Blue Warehou44). The SESPF complies with these rebuilding strategies in the sense that incidental catches of these species are very low relative to their set TACs and relative to catches in other fisheries (see AFMA, nd, CDRs). AFMA has recently announced a move on rule for blue warehou (Simon Boag pers com April 2019). SPF catch is counted against each species TACs or limt triggers. SPF specific management measures for primary species are to comply fishing concessions that allow access to fish in overlapping fisheries where these species are target. In addition to primary species specific measures, general operational measures that limit the intensity and the spatial distribution of the fishing effort, such as limited entry in the fishery, move-on trigger and spatial closures, limit the impact on primary species stocks. Gear restrictions, such as mesh size, limit the catch of juveniles from primary species stocks. VMS monitoring provides information on primary species catch distribution and on compliance with spatial management. Observer coverage of at least 20% of the effort for SPF mid-water trawl, allows the collection of reliable information on catch composition and identification of any increase in risk to primary species (e.g. increase in percentage contribution to total catch). Fishers are provided with an annual management arrangements booklet (e.g. SPF Management Arrangements Booklet 2018-19, AFMA, 2018c) in order 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 the SESPF UoAs on primary species and maintain the stocks above PRI or not hider recovery of the stock that are below PRI. There is a strategy in place for the UoAs for managing main and minor primary species. SG 60, 80 and 100 are met. b Management strategy evaluation Guidepost The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial work, based on measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, plausible argument will work, based on some based on information (e.g., general information directly about directly about the fishery experience, theory or the fishery and/or species and/or species involved. comparison with involved. similar fisheries/species). Met? Jack Y Y Y Mackerel UoA Blue Y Y Y Mackerel UoA Redbait UoA Y Y Y Justification AFMA evaluates annually the stocks of the species it manages, including all primary species stocks assessed here. In overlapping fisheries where these species are targeted, harvest strategies are tested through empirical testing (past performance, CPUE) and quantitative simulation testing (management strategy evaluation using computer modelling). Testing supports high confidence that the strategies for all

44 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/Blue-Warehou-Rebuilding-Strategy-2014.pdf

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 174

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. primary species will work, based on information about the fishery and species involved. For the species under rebuilding strategy, the low proportions of these species catch that are taken in the SESPF UoAs, represent testing that supports high confidence that the strategy will work, and the UoAs will not hinder recovery. SG 60, 80 and 100 are met. c Management strategy implementation Guidepost There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented is being implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Jack Y Y Mackerel UoA Blue Y Y Mackerel UoA Redbait UoA Y Y Justification AFMA seeks to achieve a level of compliance consistent with management measures that are in place by maximising voluntary compliance and creating effective deterrents to non-compliance. The AFMA’s National Compliance and Enforcement Program is conducted via the use of a risk-based approach which involves a series of steps to identify and assess non-compliance risks and then apply appropriate enforcement actions to mitigate these risks. AFMA oversees fishing activity in AFMA managed fisheries through the use of: - VMS tracking - observer coverage - daily logbooks - electronic monitoring No systematic non-compliance events related to primary species management were identified, and this represents clear evidence that the strategy for primary species is implemented successfully (AFMA 2018d, see also Compliance in P3). The fact that mid-water trawl method is very selective and all primary species are caught in very low quantities is clear 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. SG80 and 100 are met. d Shark finning Guidepost It is likely that shark It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of finning is not taking finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning place. is not taking place. Met? Jack Y Y Y Mackerel UoA Blue Y Y Y

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 175

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. Mackerel UoA Redbait UoA Y Y Y Justification SESPF concession holders are granted permission to carry and process fish in this fishery according to the regulation 9ZO from Fisheries Management Regulations 1992 (Australian Government, 1992). Regulation 9ZO prohibits some ways of processing fish, including shark finning and requires that sharks are landed with fins attached. Compliance with shark finning regulation is monitored through high independent observers coverage and electronic monitoring. In addition, the risk- based framework for compliance monitoring allows AFMA to identify non- compliance risks and implement compliance maintenance programs across managed fisheries. Shark finning has not identified as a compliance risk in recent assessments (AFMA 2018d). AFMA also maintains a general presence deterrence program involving in port and at sea targeted inspections in order to discourage non-compliant behaviour by fishers, and education programs to increase voluntary compliance (AFMA, 2018c). There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. SG60, 80 and 100 are met. e Review of alternative measures Guidepost There is a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of the potential the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness effectiveness and and practicality of and practicality of practicality of alternative measures to alternative measures to alternative measures minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related to minimise UoA- mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch related mortality of of main primary species and of all primary species, and unwanted catch of they are implemented as they are implemented, as main primary appropriate. appropriate. species. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justification Scoring issue 2.1.2e, is not be scored because practically there is no unwanted catch of primary species. Out of the total primary species catch from SESPF mid-water trawl, 0.5% has been discarded since the start of the current UoAs fishing operations. AFMA (nd). Arrow Squid Fishery (Notodarus gouldi). Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/11/Arrow-Squid- FisheryHS.pdf AFMA (nd). Redfish (Centroberix affinis) Stock Rebuilding Strategy 2016-2021. Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/Redfish- rebuilding-strategy-2016.pdf AFMA (nd). Eastern Gemfish (Rexea solandri) Stock Rebuilding Strategy. Revised 2015. Available at References https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/SESSF-Eastern- Gemfish-Rebuilding-Strategy-20152.pdf AFMA (nd). Blue Warehou (Seriolella brama) Stock Rebuilding Strategy. Revised 2014. Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/Blue-Warehou- Rebuilding-Strategy-2014.pdf AFMA (2010). ‘Ecological Risk Management Report for the Midwater Trawl Sector of the Small Pelagic Fishery.’ Available at http:// www.afma.gov.au/managing-our- fisheries/environment-and-sustainability/ecological-risk-management AFMA (2017e) Small Pelagic Fishery General Conditions 2017-18

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 176

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. https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/07/Small-Pelagic-Fishery- General-Conditions-2017-18.docx) AFMA (2018c), Small Pelagic Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2018-19 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/05/Final-SPF- Management-Arrangements-Booklet-2018.pdf AFMA (2018d) National Compliance and Enforcement Program 2018–19 https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/10017-afma-national-compliance- and-enforcement-program_fa.pdf AFMA (2018f), Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2018-19 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/SESSF-Management- Arrangements-Booklet-2018-FINAL.pdf Australian Government (1992) Fisheries Management Regulations, https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017C00241/Download Daley, R., Dowdney, J., Bulman, C, Sporcic, M., Fuller, M., Ling, S. and Hobday, A. (2007). ‘Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing.’ Report for the midwater trawl sub-fishery of the Small Pelagic Fishery. Report for AFMA, Canberra. MSC (2018a). MSC fisheries standard, v.2.1, 31 August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 133 pp. Tuck, G.N. (ed.) 2016a. Stock Assessment for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery 2015. Part 1. Australian Fisheries Management Authority and CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart. 245p. Tuck, G.N. (ed.) 2016b. Stock Assessment for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery 2015. Part 2. Australian Fisheries Management Authority and CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Flagship, Hobart. 493 p. Zhou, S, Fuller, M and Smith, T (2009). Rapid quantitative risk assessment for fish species in additional seven Commonwealth fisheries. CSIRO, 88 pp. All UoAs 2.1.2 a (60, 2.1.2 b (60, 2.1.2 c (80, 2.1.2. d 2.1.2.e (60, Total Scoring element 80, 100) 80, 100) 100 only) (60, 80, 80, 100) 100) Main primary 100 100 100 100 N/A 100 species Minor primary 100 100 100 100 N/A 100 species OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 177

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information 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 a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Guidepost Qualitative Some quantitative Quantitative information is information is information is available and available and is adequate to adequate to estimate is adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of the impact of the impact of the UoA on the certainty the impact of the UoA on the main main primary species with UoA on main primary primary species with respect to status. species with respect to respect to status. status. OR OR If RBF is used to score PI If RBF is used to 2.1.1 for the UoA: score PI 2.1.1 for the Some quantitative UoA: information is adequate to Qualitative assess productivity and information is susceptibility attributes for adequate to estimate main primary species. productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species. Met? Jack Y Y Y Mackerel UoA Blue Y Y Y Mackerel UoA Redbait UoA Y Y Y Justification Quantitative information is available and adequate to assess with high degree of certainty that all non-target species are under 2% of total catch and no primary species classifies as ‘main’. SG 60, 80 and 100 are met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Guidepost Some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? Jack Y Mackerel UoA Blue Y Mackerel UoA

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 178

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 Redbait UoA Y Justification Analytical stock assessments and/or CPUE trends are available for some minor primary species in overlapping fisheries (e.g. for eastern stock of silver warehou, jackass morwong, eastern gemfish, tiger flathead, sawshark) (Tuck 2016a, 2016b). Also, primary species have been risk assessed using ERAEF methodology (AFMA, 2017f). All primary species (byproduct) were scored as being at low risk from the SPF mid-water trawl (Daley et al, 2007, AFMA, 2010, Zhou et al, 2009, Bulman et al, 2017). The information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoAs on minor primary species with respect to status. SG100 is met. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guidepost Information is Information is adequate to Information is adequate to adequate to support support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage measures to manage manage main Primary all primary species and main primary species. evaluate with a high degree species. of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Jack Y Y Y Mackerel UoA Blue Y Y Y Mackerel UoA Redbait UoA Y Y Y Justification 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 maintained above PRI, or the SESPF 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. AFMA (2010). ‘Ecological Risk Management Report for the Midwater Trawl Sector of the Small Pelagic Fishery.’ Available at http:// www.afma.gov.au/managing-our- fisheries/environment-and-sustainability/ecological-risk-management Bulman, C., Sporcic, M., Fuller, M. & Hobday, A. (2017) Ecological Risk Assessment for Effects of Fishing. Report for the Midwater Trawl Sub-fishery of the Small Pelagic Fishery. (CSIRO, Hobart) Daley, R., Dowdney, J., Bulman, C, Sporcic, M., Fuller, M., Ling, S. and Hobday, A. (2007). ‘Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing.’ Report for the References midwater trawl sub-fishery of the Small Pelagic Fishery. Report for AFMA, Canberra. Tuck, G.N. (ed.) 2016a. Stock Assessment for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery 2015. Part 1. Australian Fisheries Management Authority and CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart. 245p. Tuck, G.N. (ed.) 2016b. Stock Assessment for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery 2015. Part 2. Australian Fisheries Management Authority and CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Flagship, Hobart. 493 p. Zhou, S, Fuller, M and Smith, T (2009). Rapid quantitative risk assessment for fish

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 179

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 species in additional seven Commonwealth fisheries. CSIRO, 88 pp. All UoAs 2.1.3 a (60, 2.1.3 b (100 only) 2.1.3 c (60, 80, 100) Total Scoring element 80, 100) Main primary 100 N/A 100 100 species Minor primary N/A 100 100 100 species OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 180

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically PI 2.2.1 based 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 a Main secondary species stock status Guidepost Main Secondary Main secondary species are There is a high degree of species are likely to highly likely to be above certainty that main be within biologically based limits secondary species are within biologically based biologically based limits. limits. OR

OR If below biologically based limits, there is either If below biologically evidence of recovery or a based limits, there demonstrably effective are measures in place partial strategy in place such expected to ensure that the UoA does not hinder that the UoA does recovery and rebuilding. not hinder recovery AND and rebuilding. 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 also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Justification Secondary species are defined as those species in the catch that are within scope of the MSC program (fish or invertebrate) but are not covered under P1 and not designated as primary, and species that are ‘out of scope’ but do not meet the definition for ETPs (MSC, 2018a, p. 27). All secondary species that have been identified in the three SESPF UoAs are fish species that are not managed according to set limits in the SPF or in the overlapping fisheries. Secondary species are designated as ‘main’ (>5% or >2% if vulnerable) or ‘minor’ (<5% or <2% if vulnerable) in the same way as primary species. As all non-target species in the SPF normally constitute less than 2%, (AFMA, unpublished45, CDRs46, Tuck et al, 2013), no secondary species are ‘main’. There is a high degree of certainty that The UoAs do not impact on ‘main’ secondary species. SG60, 80 and 100 are met. b Minor secondary species stock status Guidepost Minor secondary species are highly likely to be

45 confidential catch data for SESPF, in accord to the confidentiality of non-aggregated data clause in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Office of Parliamentary Counsel, 2017) 46 https://data.gov.au/dataset/ds-dga-0cd2ec97-d13c-4b02-8071-fd778fdcdee7/distribution/dist-dga-81d3d265-b21a-4b05-b62d- c315beec771e/details?q=

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 181

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically PI 2.2.1 based limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. above biologically based limits.

OR

If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? N (minor spp not scored) Justification All secondary species catch represented 0.2% of the total SESPF mid-water trawl catch in the current UoAs. Table 12 show secondary species identified from the UoAs catch and from previous years mid-water trawl SPF catch data from the Eastern sub-area. Table 17. SESPF identified secondary species. Source: AFMA, unpublished catch data for 2015-16, 2015-17(freezer trawler), 2017-18 (current UoAs) Common Name Latin Name Barracouta Thyrsites atun Bronze Whaler Carcharhinus brachyurus Blue Shark Prionace glauca Dusky Whaler Carcharhinus brachyurus Eastern Orange Perch Lepidoperca pulchella King Dory Cyttus traversi Latchet Pterygotrigla polyommata Leatherjackets Balistidae, Monacanthidae - undifferentiated Longfin Perch Caprodon longimanus Ocean Jacket Nelusetta ayraudi Ocean Perch Trachyscorpia carnomagula Ocean Sunfish Mola mola Red Gurnard Chelidonichthys kumu Ruby Snapper Etelis carbunculus Short Sunfish Mola ramsayi Splendid Perch Callanthias australis Tang's Snapper Lipocheilus carnolabrum Yellowspotted Boarfish Paristiopterus gallipavo Yellowtail Scad Trachurus novaezelandiae Amberjack Seriola dumerili Australian Bonito Sarda australis Frigate Mackerel Auxis thazard Frostfish Lepidopus caudatus Greeneye Dogfish Squalus mitsukurii Lanternfishes Myctophidae - undifferentiated Oarfish Regalecus glesne Octopuses Octopodidae - undifferentiated

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 182

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically PI 2.2.1 based limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Porcupine Fish Diodontidae - undifferentiated Scad Decapterus spp. Silver Dory Cyttus australis Skates and rays Skates & rays, unspecified Stingrays Dasyatidae - undifferentiated Swallowtail Centroberyx lineatus Toadfishes unspecified Tetraodontidae undifferentiated

There is insufficient information to assess these minor secondary species at SG100 under the Outcome PI thus, they are not scored and the requirement at SG100 for ‘minor’ secondary species is not met. MSC (2018a). MSC fisheries standard, v.2.1, 31 August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 133 pp. References Tuck, G.N., Knuckey, I. and Klaer, N.L. (2013). ‘Informing the review of the Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch through assessing trends in bycatch of key Commonwealth fisheries.’ FRDC Project No. 2012/046 Final Report. Fishwell Consulting, Queenscliff. All UoAs Scoring element 2.2.1a (60, 80, 100) 2.2.1.b (100 only) Total Score Main secondary 100 N/A 100 species Minor secondary N/A N/A species OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 183

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guidepost There are measures There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in in place, if necessary, place, if necessary, for the place for the UoA for which are expected to UoA that is expected to managing main and minor maintain or not maintain or not hinder secondary species. hinder rebuilding of rebuilding of main main secondary secondary species at/to species at/to levels levels which are highly which are highly likely to be within likely to be within biologically based limits or biologically based to ensure that the UoA does limits or to ensure not hinder their recovery. that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? Y Y N Justification Catch data series from mid-water trawl in SPF show that this fishing method is very selective (<2% non-target catches, AFMA, unpublished47, CDRs48, Tuck et al, 2013) and the use of the method has low impact on secondary species. As no ‘main’ secondary species have been identified, a partial strategy for such species is not necessary. Nevertheless, observer coverage is maintained primarily to sample and collect data on catch composition, and this can be considered a measure in place mainly for primary and secondary species. In addition, the general management measures such as limited entry, mesh size restriction (no less than 30 mm), commercial species’ TACs, move on trigger, VMS, closed areas, work together to limit total catch quantity and fishing effort, thus limiting secondary species catch. These measures constitute a partial strategy for ‘minor’ species. The UoAs meet the requirements at SG60 and 80 but not at SG100. b Management strategy evaluation Guidepost The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial work, based on measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, plausible argument will work, based on some based on information (e.g. general information directly about directly about the UoA experience, theory or the UoA and/or species and/or species involved. comparison with involved. similar UoAs/species). Met? Y Y Y Justification Regarding the effectiveness of the partial strategy in minimizing secondary species catch, the selectivity of the fishing method and evidence of very low secondary species catch (0.2% of total UoAs catch) represent testing that supports high confidence that the partial strategy will work. SG60, 80 and 100 are met.

47 confidential 2017-18 catch data for SESPF, in accord to the confidentiality of non-aggregated data clause in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Office of Parliamentary Counsel, 2017) 48 https://data.gov.au/dataset/ds-dga-0cd2ec97-d13c-4b02-8071-fd778fdcdee7/distribution/dist-dga-81d3d265-b21a-4b05-b62d- c315beec771e/details?q=

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 184

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. c Management strategy implementation Guidepost There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented is being implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justification AFMA seeks to achieve a level of compliance consistent with management measures that are in place by maximising voluntary compliance and creating effective deterrents to non-compliance. The AFMA’s National Compliance and Enforcement Program is conducted via the use of a risk-based approach which involves a series of steps to identify and assess non-compliance risks and then apply appropriate enforcement actions to mitigate these risks. AFMA oversees fishing activity in AFMA managed fisheries through the use of: - VMS tracking - observer coverage - daily logbooks - electronic monitoring No systematic non-compliance events related to secondary species management were identified, and this represents clear evidence that the partial strategy for minor secondary species is implemented successfully (AFMA 2018e, see also Compliance in P3). The fact that mid-water trawl method is very selective and all primary species are caught in very low quantities is clear evidence that the strategy is achieving the overall objective of minimizing the catch of bycatch species (no main bycatch species, all minor bycatch species account for less than 0.5% of the catch. SG80 and 100 are met. d Shark finning Guidepost It is likely that shark It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of finning is not taking finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning place. is not taking place. Met? Y Y Y Justification Regulation 9ZO prohibits some ways of processing fish, including shark finning and requires that sharks are landed with fins attached. Compliance with shark finning regulations is monitored through high independent observer coverage. In addition, the risk-based framework for compliance monitoring allows AFMA to identify non- compliance risks and implement compliance maintenance programs across managed fisheries. Shark finning has not identified as a compliance risk in recent assessments (AFMA 2018d). AFMA also maintains a general presence deterrence program involving in port and at sea targeted inspections in order to discourage non-compliant behaviour by fishers, and education programs to increase voluntary compliance (AFMA, 2018c). There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. SG60, 80 and 100 are met. e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justification There is a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of the potential the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness effectiveness and and practicality of and practicality of practicality of alternative measures to alternative measures to

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 185

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. alternative measures minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related to minimise UoA- mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch related mortality of of main secondary species of all secondary species, and unwanted catch of and they are implemented as they are implemented, as main secondary appropriate. appropriate. species.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Guidepost Although 56% of the secondary species catch has been discarded, this represents only approximately 0.1% of total catch, thus the unwanted catch is already minimized and an alternative review of measures to minimise it is not necessary. AFMA (2018c), Small Pelagic Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2018-19 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/05/Final-SPF- Management-Arrangements-Booklet-2018.pdf AFMA (2018d) National Compliance and Enforcement Program 2018–19 https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/10017-afma-national-compliance- References and-enforcement-program_fa.pdf MSC (2018a). MSC fisheries standard, v.2.1, 31 August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 133 pp. Tuck, G.N., Knuckey, I. and Klaer, N.L. (2013). ‘Informing the review of the Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch through assessing trends in bycatch of key Commonwealth fisheries.’ FRDC Project No. 2012/046 Final Report. Fishwell Consulting, Queenscliff. All UoAs 2.2.2a (60, 2.2.2b (60, 2.2.2c (80, 2.2.2d (60, 2.2.2e (60, Total score Scoring element 80, 100) 80, 100) 100 only) 80, 100) 80, 100) Main secondary 80 100 100 100 N/A 95 species Minor secondary 80 100 100 100 N/A 95 species OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 186

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information 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 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guidepost Qualitative Some quantitative Quantitative information is information is information is available available and adequate to adequate to and adequate to assess assess with a high degree of estimate the the impact of the UoA on certainty the impact of the impact of the UoA main secondary species UoA on main secondary on the main with respect to status. species with respect to secondary status. species with OR respect to status. If RBF is used to score OR PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Some quantitative If RBF is used to information is adequate to score PI 2.2.1 for assess productivity and the UoA: susceptibility attributes for main secondary species. Qualitative information is adequate to estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for main secondary species. Met? Y Y Y Justification Quantitative catch data form the UoAs is available for one fishing season (AFMA, unpublished). This shows that mid-water trawl is very selective (targeting single species schools of fish) and no secondary species classify as ‘main’. This is confirmed by historical catch data series which are available for the whole SPF fishing area (not just for the UoAs) (AFMA, unpublished49, CDRs50, Tuck et al, 2013. Even though the species composition of the UoAs catch might differ from historical catch composition of the SPF mid-water trawl, it is clear that secondary species catch for this fishing method is extremely low. Quantitative information is available and adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty that no secondary species in the SESPF mid-water trawl catch is ‘main’ and SG 60, 80 and 100 are achieved. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guidepost Some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.

49 confidential catch data for SESPF, in accord to the confidentiality of non-aggregated data clause in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Office of Parliamentary Counsel, 2017) 50 https://data.gov.au/dataset/ds-dga-0cd2ec97-d13c-4b02-8071-fd778fdcdee7/distribution/dist-dga-81d3d265-b21a-4b05-b62d- c315beec771e/details?q=

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 187

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. Met? N Justification As information is lacking for minor secondary species stocks with respect to status, minor secondary species are not evaluated and scoring issue 2.2.3b does not achieve SG 100 c Information adequacy for management strategy Guidepost Information is Information is adequate to Information is adequate to adequate to support support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage measures to manage main secondary all secondary species and manage main species. evaluate with a high degree secondary species. of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N Justification 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 (see the definition for a ‘partial strategy’ and a ‘strategy above, (MSC 2018a, p. 29) and SG 100 is not achieved. MSC (2018a). MSC fisheries standard, v.2.1, 31 August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 133 pp. References Tuck, G.N., Knuckey, I. and Klaer, N.L. (2013). ‘Informing the review of the Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch through assessing trends in bycatch of key Commonwealth fisheries.’ FRDC Project No. 2012/046 Final Report. Fishwell Consulting, Queenscliff. All UoAs 2.2.3a (60, 2.2.3b (100 only) 2.2.3c (60, 80, 100) Total Score Scoring element 80, 100) Main secondary 100 N/A 80 90 species Minor secondary N/A N/A 80 80 species OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 188

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guidepost Where national Where national and/or Where national and/or and/or international international requirements international requirements requirements set set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, limits for ETP the combined effects of the there is a high degree of species, the effects of MSC UoAs on the certainty that the combined the UoA on the population/stock are known effects of the MSC UoAs are population/stock are and highly likely to be within these limits. known and likely to within these limits. be within these limits. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justification There are no National or International legislations that set limits for the SESPF ETP interactions and this SI is not scored. b Direct effects Guidepost Known direct effects Known direct effects of the There is a high degree of of the UoA are likely UoA are highly likely to not confidence that there are no to not hinder hinder recovery of ETP significant detrimental direct recovery of ETP species. effects of the UoA on ETP species. species. Met? Y Y N- Dolphins N- Seals Y - Seabirds Justification ETP species are defined by the MSC (MSC 2018a, p.28) as species that are: i) Recognised by national ETP legislation, ii) 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), iii) Listed in any binding agreements concluded under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), or iv) Classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Red List as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE). The main national ETP legislation is The EPBC Act 1999 (DEE, 1999). 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 fishery meets CITES requirements for all Appendix 1 listed species, most specifically because under the EPBC Act, Part 13 prohibits trade in Appendix 1 listed species. All major Australian fisheries must undergo an environmental assessment under the guidelines for the ecologically sustainable management of fisheries, pursuant to the EPBC Act, and address any subsequent conditions and recommendations by the Department of Environment and Energy before an exemption to remove or export a native species is granted. The SPF has been found to comply with the guidelines and has been re-certified under the EPBC Act Part 13, in 2018, with the export approval extended to 21 October 2023 (DEE, 2018) with two conditions: Condition A Prior to fishing, mid-water trawl vessels must have in place effective mitigation

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 189

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species approaches and devices to minimise interactions with dolphins, seals and seabirds. Note: SPF mid-water trawlers have to have an AFMA approved VMP which lays out how the vessel operations meet this condition. Condition B That at least one observer be deployed on each new mid-water trawl vessel for the first 10 fishing trips, with additional observer coverage or other monitoring implemented as appropriate, following scientific assessment of the Small Pelagic Fishery. Note: AFMA comprehensive monitoring framework includes adequate observer coverage and other monitoring, meeting this condition. As part of the requirement under the EPBC Act 1999, AFMA licensed fishers must report any interactions of their fishing activity with threatened, endangered and protected species to the DEE. Based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU, AFMA and DEH, 2005), AFMA supplies interaction data to the DEE on behalf of the fishers who report ETP interaction in logbooks (AFMA 2018d). These reports are published on AFMA’s website at: www.afma.gov.au/sustainability-environment/protected-species- management/protected-species-interaction-reports/. Although the DEE’s expert panel have identified 241 ETP species that occur in the area of the SPF (Lack et al, 2014), interactions occur only with two species of seals, three species of dolphins and occasionally with protected sharks and seabirds. Cetaceans All cetaceans are protected under the Australian Commonwealth Legislation. The Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999, which is administered by the DEE, also prohibits the intentional killing or exploitation of any listed marine species, including cetaceans in Australian Commonwealth waters.

Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis) The common dolphin is widely distributed in continental shelf and pelagic waters from tropical to cool temperate regions in the Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans and is possibly absent from most of the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans (Rice 1998, Jefferson et al. 2008, Perrin 2009a, Amaral et al. 2012 in Lack et al, 2014). This species has been recorded from all Australian states and Northern Territory waters, including subtropical Lord Howe Island off NSW and south-western Australia, with few records from north-western Australia (Bannister et al. 1996, Chatto and Warneke 2000, Bell et al. 2002, Hutton and Harrison 2004, Kemper et al. 2005, Kemper 2008 in Lack et al, 2014). There appear to be two main locations in Australian waters with one cluster occurring in the southern south-eastern Indian Ocean and another in the Tasman Sea (Woinarski et al. 2014 in Lack et al, 2014). Common dolphins may be the most numerous dolphins in Australian waters and are often reported in coastal waters of southern Australia (Kemper 2008 in Lack et al, 2014), but there are no robust estimates of the Australian population size or trends (Woinarski et al. 2014 in Lack et 2014). Möller et al. (2011) investigated the genetic structure of common dolphins from 115 tissue samples collected at six locations, covering approximately 1,000 km of the NSW coastline between 2003 and 2006 and identified at least three genetically differentiated populations, separated at a scale of a few hundred kilometres. Genetic variation was determined to be highest in the southern NSW population (Tasman Sea / Pacific Ocean). Bilgmann et al. (2014b) analysed 308 common dolphins biopsy samples from 11 locations in southern and south-eastern Australia between 2004 and 2012. Analyses indicated genetic structuring between Indian Ocean / Southern Ocean and Pacific Ocean (NSW) samples. Further sub-structuring was determined to be present in the

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 190

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Indian Ocean samples. On the basis of their results, the authors suggested the presence of six genetic populations for this species between Esperance (WA), and Eden (NSW). Altogether, population genetic analyses suggest there are a minimum of eight populations of common dolphin along the southern and eastern Australian coasts (Bilgmann et al. 2014b, Möller et al. 2011). The biopsy data also indicated movements from the Pacific Ocean (south-eastern Australia) into the Indian Ocean (southern Australia). The proposed Pacific Ocean genetic population is also suggested as the main source of migrants to the “mixed water” central NSW population (Möller et al. 2011). This indicates spatial mixing of proposed common dolphin populations across at least part of the region. The Closed Technical Workshop described in Mackay et al 2016 considered seven management zones for estimates of common dolphin abundance (Figure 1). The current UoAs overlap with zones 5, 6 and 7 (Mackay et al, 2016). For each of these zones, abundance information is available as follows: • Zone 5: There have been no systematic surveys for common dolphin in Zone 5. A synthesis of DPIPWE sighting and strandings and AMMC data indicate the occurrence of the species throughout the zone. One expert of the CTW indicated that common dolphins are encountered regularly during boat work in groups up to ~350 individuals, and that the species is seen occasionally in the Derwent River (SE Tasmania) and during boat surveys off south Bruny Island. Interactions between dolphins and vessels in the SPF have previously been recorded on two occasions in October 2004 east of Flinders Island (Lyle and Wilcox, 2008 in Mackay et al, 2016). • Zone 6: There are no systematic abundance estimates for common dolphin for this zone. Genetic analysis suggests that there are at least two populations in Zone 6 (Möller et al. 2011), with higher genetic diversity in samples collected from the southern NSW area. This latter population is the Pacific Ocean management unit described in Bilgmann et al. (2014b). Sightings and strandings data for Zone 6 from the AMMC database are limited to the autumn and winter months and include two sightings of 17- 150 individuals. Strandings and sighting data from DIPWE in the south- west area of Zone 6 are from summer and spring and are of group sizes of 1-16 individuals. Sightings of common dolphin were also recorded in the south-west area of Zone 6 to the seismic survey Cetacean Sightings Application. There are stranding records for 91 common dolphins along the NSW coast (which also encompasses Zone 7) (Lloyd and Ross 2015 in Mackay et al 2016). The majority of cetacean stranding records in the NSW database have been recorded since 1960. • Zone 7: There are no estimates of abundance for SBCD in Zone 7, but peaks in bycatch of common dolphin bycatch in nets set by the Queensland Shark Control Program have been recorded during the winter-spring months across the period 1992-2012 (Meager and Sumpton 2016 in Mackay et al, 2016). Although a PBR value of 261 dolphins could be calculated for Zone 3 which is outside the UoAs fishing area, no PBR could be calculated for Zones 5, 6 and 7. Since the entry in the fishery of the current SPF mid-water trawler, only one interaction involving 3 common dolphins has been recorded. Investigations in the cause of the interaction have shown that the death of the three dolphin resulted from gear malfunction (https://www.afma.gov.au/news-media/news/review-gillnet- dolphin-mitigation-strategy-and-small-pelagic-fishery-dolphin). SPF mid-water trawl vessels have to use a mammal excluder device (top opening SED). It is mandatory for mid-water trawl vessels to have an AFMA-approved vessel management plan (VMP) and dolphin management plan.Also, AFMA has developed Dolphin Mitigation Strategy to mitigate interactions with dolphins, and

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 191

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species the current version was implemented in the SPF in May 2017. The strategy sets out the requirements for trawl operations in the SPF, including performance criteria that each individual operator must comply with, through both a maximum interaction rate (number of shots per dolphin interaction) over a six month period, and a maximum interaction cap during a six month review period. Sanctions consistent with the strategy were applied following the interaction with the current vessel (AFMA, 2017g). Considering the: - existing information on common dolphins abundance on the south- eastern Australia coast, - evidence that interactions are not commonly occurring in the SESPF mid-water trawl, and - when interactions occur, there are stringent consequences for the vessel involved (acting as prompt for fishers to make every possible effort to prevent future interactions), - Electronic monitoring with 100% coverage during the UoAs vessel operations verifies the accuracy of dolphin interactions reporting in logbooks and ensures that any increase in risk will be timely identified, it is highly likely that the UoAs do not hinder recovery of common dolphin population and any potential increases in risk will be timely identified (SG 80 met) There is no high degree of confidence that current rate of interaction does not produce significant detrimental effects on common dolphin populations. The SESPF mid-water trawl targets seem to represent a relatively high proportion in the species diet (11.4% jack mackerel, GAB area, Lack et al, 2014), thus common dolphins being susceptible to be caught. In addition, species population structuring and the impacts the SESPF might have on sub-populations are not fully understood (SG 100 not met).

Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus (common) and T. aduncus (Indo-Pacific)) Bottlenose dolphins are listed as a cetacean species under the EPBC Act and assessed as Data Deficient in Australian waters (Woinarski et al. 2014 in Lack et al). The common bottlenose dolphin is listed globally as Least Concern for the IUCN Red Data list while the Indo-Pacific, is listed as globally Data Deficient (Woinarski et al. 2014 in Lack et al, 2014). Bottlenose dolphins, not identified to species level, have been recorded as bycatch in the SPF in waters off eastern Tasmania (Mackay et al, 2016). Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins have a wide but discontinuous distribution from tropical to warm temperate coastal regions ranging from southern Africa to the Red Sea and eastwards to China and southern Japan, through south-east Asia and southward to New Guinea, Australia and New Caledonia (Ross 2006, Jefferson et al. 2008, Wang and Yang 2009 in Lack et al, 2014). In Australian waters, this species has an extensive coastal distribution from eastern, northern and western Australian regions and some parts of southern Australia. Therefore, the southern Australian range of this species overlaps partly with the SPF area (Lack et al, 2014). There are no abundance estimates for offshore bottlenose dolphins available for the Australian region and limited information on their distribution outside coastal and near-shelf areas. For inshore areas, where common bottlenose can occur sympatrically with Indo-Pacific bottlenose, sightings in most cases, have not been assigned to species. Identification is further complicated by the recent description of an additional Tursiops sp., the Burrunan dolphin (T. cf. australis) (Mackay et al, 2016). A number of abundance estimates exist for inshore bottlenose dolphin populations, but these tend to be for small restricted areas, where dolphins exhibit some degree of

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 192

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species residency, although the abundance and population structure of inshore bottlenose dolphin species across the range of the SPF is unknown (Mackay et al, 2016). For the Indo-Pacific dolphins in NSW waters, surveys between 2003 and 2005 in the Byron Bay and Ballina region provided an abundance estimate of 865 (CI 95%: 861– 869) dolphins, with average group sizes of 21 for female-calf groups and smaller adult-only groups (Hawkins and Gartside 2008 in Lack et al, 2014). Repeated surveys from 2003 to 2006 provided abundance estimates of 34 (95 per cent CI 19– 49) dolphins in the Richmond River estuary near Ballina, and 71 (95 per cent CI 62– 81) dolphins in the larger Clarence River estuary further south (Fury and Harrison 2008 in Lack et al, 2014). In Port Stephens in central NSW, minimum abundance of these dolphins was estimated to be 160 (95 per cent CI = 148–182) in 1998–99 and 143 (95 per cent CI = 132–165) in 1999–2000, with about 90 resident individuals that were genetically differentiated from adjacent coastal communities (Möller et al. 2002, 2007, Wiszniewski et al. 2010 in Lack et al, 2014). Abundance estimates in Jervis Bay in southern NSW varied from 108 (95 per cent CI = 98–128) dolphins in 1997–98, to 61 (95 per cent CI = 58–72) dolphins in 1998–99 (Möller et al. 2002 in Lack et al, 2014). For common bottlenose dolphins, there are no robust estimates of total population size or trends in Australian waters (Hale 2008, Woinarski et al. 2014 in Lack et al, 2014). Hammond et al. (2008f in Lack et al, 2014) suggested a minimum global abundance estimate of 600,000 common bottlenose dolphins based on a summation of estimates from parts of their range. The global population trend is unknown, but some populations are declining, and one subspecies and two subpopulations are assessed as threatened (Hammond et al. 2008f in Lack et al, 2014). Groups of up to 100 dolphins have been recorded in deeper waters off the coast of NSW and Queensland (Hale 2008 in Lack et al, 2014), and 151 individuals were photographically identified foraging in association with a trawler off north-western Australia in 2011 (S. Allen pers. comm. in Woinarski et al. 2014 in Lack et al 2014). Two small resident communities of bottlenose dolphins identified as Burrunan dolphins occur in Port Phillip Bay (about 80–100 dolphins) and in the Gippsland Lakes, Victoria (Charlton-Robb et al. 2011, Howes et al. 2012). (Lack et al, 2014). The CTW concluded that average lowest population estimates ranged from a few tens to less than 200 individuals. A PBR was calculated only for a hypothetical population of 100 individual (PBR=1) (Mackay et al, 2016). 2017-18 Interaction reports show that four bottlenose dolphins were killed in the SESPF mid-water trawl nets, in the last quarter of 2017 (www.afma.gov.au/sustainability-environment/protected-species- management/protected-species-interaction-reports/). It is highly likely that interactions with the SESPF mid-water trawl are uncommon, based on: - The death of the four dolphins reported occurred in one single interaction. It is believed that the interaction occurred due to fishing at night and the fishery adopted a voluntary measure to ban night fishing to prevent future interactions (Josh Cahill pers com, February 2019). - No other interactions with bottlenose dolphins were recorded for the current UoAs. - SESPF target species seem to not constitute a high proportion of bottlenose dolphin diets (less than 2% of their stomach content in GAB area, Lack et al, 2014). SPF mid-water trawl vessels have to use a mammal excluder device (top opening SED). It is mandatory for mid-water trawl vessels to have an AFMA-approved vessel management plan (VMP) and dolphin management plan. AFMA has developed Dolphin Mitigation Strategy to mitigate interactions with dolphins and the current version was implemented in the SPF in May 2017. The strategy sets out the requirements for trawl operations in the SPF, including performance criteria that

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 193

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species each individual operator must comply with, through both a maximum interaction rate (number of shots per dolphin interaction) over a six-month period, and a maximum interaction cap during a six-month review period. Sanctions consistent with the strategy were applied following the bottlenose dolphin interaction with the current UoAs and the investigation that followed the interaction has led to adopting a voluntary measure to prevent further interactions (AFMA, 2017g). The available information suggests that it is highly likely that the UoAs do not hinder recovery of the species. The UoAs meet SG 80 requirements. There is no high degree of confidence that the UoAs do not create significant detrimental direct effects on bottlenose dolphin populations because information on their abundances and population structuring is limited. The UoAs do not meet SG100.

Pinnipeds (seals) There are three resident pinniped species that breed in coastal areas and islands off southern Australia. These are the Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinereal), the New Zealand fur seal (Arctocephalus forsteri), and the Australian fur seal (A. pusillus doriferus). All species are native to Australia, occur within the SPF and occur in sympatry (overlap in ranges) over parts of their range. However, the Australian sea lion’s distribution does not overlap with the SESPF UoAs, occurring only in the western SPF sub-area.

Australian fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus) The Australian fur seal is listed as Marine under the EPBC Act. Globally the species is listed as least concern under the IUCN Red List and is listed in Appendix II of CITES. There are two subspecies of the Afro-Australian fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus), the Cape or South African fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus) and the Australian (or brown fur seal) (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus). The Australian subspecies is endemic to south-eastern Australian waters and found from the coast of New South Wales (NSW), Tasmania to Victoria and across to SA with the centre of their distribution in Bass Strait (Kirkwood et al. 2010 in Lack et al, 2014). There are 21 known breeding sites that include nine established colonies in Bass Strait, Lady Julia Percy Island, Seal Rocks, The Skerries, and Kanowna Island in Victoria; Judgment Rocks, Moriarty Rocks, Reid Rocks, West Moncoeur Island, and Tenth Island in Tasmania; eight colonies that have established in the past 10 to 15 years, which are Rag Island and Cape Bridgewater (Victoria), Wright and Double Rocks (Tasmania), Bull and Sloop rocks (Tasmania), Montague Island (NSW) and North Casuarina Island (SA); and three haul-outs, with accessional pupping at Iles des Phoques (Tasmania), Williams Island and Baudin Rocks (SA) (Kirkwood et al. 2010, Shaughnessy et al. 2010, McIntosh et al. 2014, Shaughnessy et al. 2014 in Lack et al, 2014). The range of the species is expanding, with the new colonies in NSW and SA all establishing in the past 10 years. Historical ranges prior to colonial sealing (pre- 1800s) are unknown (Lack et al, 2014). Three national surveys of pup production for the species have been done at approximately five-yearly intervals since 2002– 03. One undertaken in 2002–03 estimated a pup production of 19,820, another undertaken in 2007–08 estimated a pup production of 21,881, and the most recent survey undertaken in 2013–14 estimated a pup production of 15,063 (Kirkwood et al. 2005, Kirkwood et al. 2010, McIntosh et al. 2014 in Lack et al, 2014). The rate of increase in pup production between 1986 and 2002–03 was estimated to be 5 per cent per year, slowing to 0.3 per cent per year between 2002–03 and 2007–08 seasons (McIntosh et al. 2014 in Lack et al, 2014). It is not clear if the apparent 6 per cent per year decline between the 2007–08 and 2013–14 estimate is due to a poor pupping season in 2013–14 or

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 194

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species represents a real decline in population over that period, as there is no colony that is monitored on an annual basis (McIntosh et al. 2014 in Lack et al, 2014). Based on the 2007–08 surveys, two colonies adjacent to the Victorian coast, Seal Rocks (5660 pups) and Lady Julia Percy Island (5574 pups), account for more than half (51 per cent) the total pup production (Kirkwood et al. 2010). Based on these surveys the total Australian fur seal population is estimated to be 120,000 individuals (Kirkwood et al. 2010 in Lack et al, 2014). Australian fur seals have an annual synchronous breeding season, with most pups born over a five-week period between early November and mid-December, with the peak in breeding usually in late November/early December (Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013in Lack et al, 2014). Most pups are weaned when they are 10–11 months old, just prior to the commencement of the next breeding season, although some may continue into a second year. The Australian fur seal forages almost exclusively in association with the sea floor and rarely leaves the continental shelf, which reflects the benthic nature of their foraging (Arnould and Kirkwood 2008, Kirkwood and Arnould 2011, Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013 in Lack et al, 2014). Satellite tracking studies show that lactating adult females from the main breeding colony in eastern Bass Strait (The Skerries) travelled the shortest distance (20–60 km) while those in central Bass Strait (Seal Rocks, Kanowna Island) and western Bass Strait (Lady Julia Percy Island) typically forage out to 60 and 150 km from the colony (Arnould and Kirkwood 2008, Kirkwood and Arnould 2011 in Lack et al, 2014). Foraging trip durations of lactating females last approximately six days, with most (greater than 90 per cent) time spent within 150 km of the colony (Kirkwood and Arnould 2011 in Lack et al, 2014). Analysis of habitat use has indicated that individual seals selected areas with depths of 60–80 m, significantly more than other depths (Arnould and Kirkwood 2008 in Lack et al 2014). Females from colonies adjacent to productive shelf-edge waters (e.g. Lady Julia Percy Island and The Skerries) typically have shorter foraging trips, have smaller foraging ranges, forage closer to colonies and exhibit less diversity in foraging trip strategies than females from colonies more distant from the shelf-edge (e.g. Seal Rocks and Kanowna Island) (Kirkwood and Arnould 2011 in Lack et al 2014). Females typically show strong fidelities to individual foraging hotspots (Arnould and Kirkwood 2008, Kirkwood and Arnould 2011 in Lack et al 2014). Information on the movement of adult males comes mainly from animals satellite tracked from one colony (Seal Rock). Most foraged in western Bass Strait with many also travelling down the west coast of Tasmania to forage in southern Tasmanian waters, 500 km from Seal Rocks. One adult male travelled west of the Eyre Peninsula (SA), 1200 km from Seal Rocks (Kirkwood et al. 2007 in Lack et al, 2014). A number of adult male Australian fur seals interacting with mid-water trawl gear on freezer vessels off the west coast of Tasmania in the winter blue grenadier (Macruronus novaezelandiae) fishery have also been satellite tracked (Tilzey et al. 2006 in Lack et al 2014). The tracked seals continually targeted the fishing operations, resting between foraging trips at haul-outs on Tasmania’s west coast, until the fishing season ended. The seals then moved on to forage in southern Tasmania or Bass Strait (Tilzey et al. 2006 in Lack et al 2014). Juvenile Australian fur seals tracked from Lady Julia Percy Island and Seal Rocks display similar ranges to adult females (Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013 in Lack et al 2014). The diet of Australian fur seals is reasonably well understood, with dietary studies having been undertaken across most of the species’ range. In Bass Strait, southern Tasmania and SA they predominantly forage benthically but also eat a wide range of pelagic fish and cephalopod species. Key fish prey include redbait, leatherjackets, jack mackerel, barracouta, red rock cod and flatheads. Cephalopods are also important prey with key species being Gould’s squid, octopus, and cuttlefish. Most of the dietary studies have used analyses of prey hard parts recovered from faecal (scat) samples, a method that can both under and over-represent prey species. One

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 195

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species study analysed faecal DNA from samples collected at the three main Victorian colonies (Lady Julia Percy Island, Seal Rock, The Skerries). The study confirmed, based on the prevalence of sequences from redbait and jack mackerel, the importance of these species in seals diet. However, blue mackerel was also found to be important, suggesting hard-part analyses methods may have under-represented the importance of this species in the diet (Deagle et al. 2009 in Lack et al 2014). Kirkwood et al. (2008 in Lack et al 2014) analysed annual variation in the diet of Australian fur seals at Seal Rocks over a nine-year period (1997–2006). The importance in the diet of redbait and jack mackerel varied considerably across the period, prevalent in some years, and near absent in others when it was replaced by increased proportions of barracouta, red cod and leatherjackets (Figure 2). Statistical analyses indicated that annual variation in redbait prevalence in the diet was significantly related to changes in mean sea surface temperatures in western Bass Strait where the seals foraged (Kirkwood et al. 2008 in Lack et al 2014). They found no correlation between the prevalence of redbait in the diet with fishing effort (annual fisheries catch-per-unit-effort) nor the annual mean Southern Oscillation Index (Kirkwood et al. 2008 in Lack et al 2014). Mackay et al (2016), estimated the potential maximum cumulative anthropogenic mortality limits (PBR) of key marine mammal species, including seals, to inform management in the SPF area. The most conservative PBR for Australian fur seal was estimated within the proposed single management zone over the SPF range as 2,623 individuals (Figure 3). In 2017-18 season ten interactions of SESPF UoAs with Australian fur seal have been reported, in all cases the animals being dead (www.afma.gov.au/sustainability- environment/protected-species-management/protected-species-interaction-reports/). The current interaction rate is low compared to the estimated PBR and the expanding range of the species suggests that the UoAs are highly unlikely to hinder recovery, thus the SG 80 is achieved. Seals are the ETPs that most commonly interact with the SESPF mid-water trawl. In addition, Australian fur seal diet profile includes high proportions of the species targeted in the UoAs, making them very susceptible to interact with the gear for food. There is no high degree of confidence that the fishery does not create significant detrimental direct effects to Australian fur seal populations (SG 100 is not achieved).

New-Zealand Fur Seal (Arctocephalus forsteri) The New Zealand fur seal is listed as Marine under the EPBC Act. Globally, the species is listed as Least Concern under the IUCN Red List, and are listed in Appendix II of CITES. The New Zealand (or long-nosed) fur seal is a native mammal of Australia that occurs in both New Zealand and Australian waters. The species was subject to heavy exploitation by colonial sealers between 1800 and 1830, resulting in major reductions in range and abundance (Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013 in Lack et al, 2014). Numbers remained at very low levels for almost 140 years, after which they slowly began to build up and new colonies were established across their former range. In Australia, New Zealand fur seals occur in the coastal waters and on the offshore islands of South and Western Australia, from just east of Kangaroo Island, west to the south-west corner of the continent in WA, and also in southern Tasmania (Shaughnessy et al. 1994 in Lack et al 2014). Small populations have recently been establishing in Bass Strait and Victorian and southern NSW coastal waters (Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013 in Lack et al 2014). In New Zealand, this species occurs around both the North and South Islands, with newly formed breeding colonies now established on the North Island and established and predominantly expanding breeding colonies around the entire South Island (Boren et al. 2006,

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 196

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Bouma et al. 2008 in Lack et al 2014). There are well established and expanding colonies also found on Stewart Island and all of New Zealand’s subantarctic islands. Their range extends to Australia’s Macquarie Island. Vagrants have been recorded in New Caledonia (Shaughnessy 1999 in Lack et al 2014). The Australian population is centred off SA where more than 80 per cent of the national population occurs, with key breeding sites at Kangaroo Island, the Neptune Islands and Liguanea Island (Shaughnessy et al. 2014 in Lack et al 2014). In Tasmania, the New Zealand fur seal mainly occurs on the west and south coasts with a small number breeding on remote islands off the south coast (Lack et al 2014). There are 65 known breeding sites for the species in Australia, most (86 per cent) are in South and Western Australia (SA 36; WA 20; Tasmania four; Victoria four; NSW one) (McIntosh et al. 2014, Shaughnessy et al. 2014, Campbell et al. in press in Lack et al, 2014). Pup production surveys were undertaken over the 2013–14 breeding season in SA, Victoria, Tasmania and NSW, and in the 2011–12 season in WA, which provide a comprehensive and current assessment of the status of the species’ Australian population. The maximum pup production for the Australian population based on these surveys is 24,656 (about 25,000), with most pup production in SA (83 per cent) and WA (14 per cent). Based on a pup-to-total-population multiplier of 4.76 (developed by Goldsworthy and Page 2007 in Lack et al 2014) the Australian population is currently estimated to number approximately 117,400. Populations of New Zealand fur seals in Australian waters appeared to begin their major recovery in the 1970s and 1980s. Between the 1989–90 and 2013–14 breeding seasons, the fur seal population in SA has increased 3.6 fold, with the average annual increase in pup production being 5.3 per cent (Shaughnessy et al. 2014 in Lack et al 2014). Recovery rates at some sites have been much greater. For example, in the Cape Gantheaume Wilderness Protection Area on Kangaroo Island, annual monitoring of pup production over a 26-year period from 1988–89 (457 pups) to 2013–14 (5333 pups), demonstrates a remarkable 11.7-fold increase at an average rate of 10 per cent per year (Goldsworthy et al. 2014c in Lack et al 2014). In contrast, pup production at the Neptune and Liguanea islands appears to have peaked in the mid-2000s, with most of the available breeding habitat now full (Shaughnessy et al. 2014 in Lack et al 2014). The centre of population expansion is now on Kangaroo Island. The growth of New Zealand fur seal populations since the 1970s and 1980s in Australia is attributable to recovery from 19th century sealing (1800– 1830) and subsequent take (Shaughnessy et al. 2014 in Lack et al 2014). New Zealand fur seals have an annual synchronous breeding season, with most pups (90 per cent) being born over a five-week period between late November and early January. On Kangaroo Island the breeding season peaks around 25–26 December (Goldsworthy and Shaughnessy 1994 in lack et al 2014). Lactating females alternate between shore bouts lasting approximately 1.7 days in duration (when pups are nursed) and foraging trips to sea which increase in duration from about three to five days early in lactation, to eight to 11 days late in lactation (Goldsworthy 2006 in Lack et al 2014). However, foraging trips lasting more than 20 days are not uncommon (Goldsworthy 2006 in Lack et al 2014). The core of Australia’s New Zealand fur seal breeding distribution in SA is distributed across a relatively small geographic range characterised by narrow shelves in proximity to localised seasonal upwelling in summer and autumn. Satellite tracking studies show that early in lactation (December to March), females undertake short foraging trips to mid-outer shelf waters (70–90 km from the colony), in regions associated with localised upwelling (Page et al. 2006, Baylis et al. 2008a in Lack et al 2014). However, between April to May most females switch to foraging in distant oceanic waters associated with the Subtropical Front, 700–1000 km to the south of breeding colonies and continue foraging in these waters up until the weaning of their pups in September/October (Baylis et al. 2008a, Baylis et al. 2008b, Baylis et al. 2012 in Lak et al 2014). These winter foraging trips last between 15 and 25 days.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 197

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Once weaned, the pups head for oceanic waters south of Australia, and as juveniles, also forage in distant oceanic waters (mean maximum distance of 1095 km from the colony) (Baylis et al. 2005, Page et al. 2006 in Lack et al 2014). In contrast to juveniles and adult females, adult males focus their forage efforts along the continental slope (Page et al. 2006 in Lack et al 2014). New Zealand fur seals forage both on the shelf, where they target pelagic and bentho-pelagic prey, and off the shelf, where they target epipelagic prey that exhibit daily, vertical migrations (Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013 in Lack et al 2014). Adults can therefore forage both near or on the benthos in water depths ranging up to 200 m, and in the water column where the sea-floor might be less than 20 m or greater than 2000 m (Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013 in Lack et al 2014). New Zealand fur seal diet profile does not include high proportions of the SESPF UoAs target species (0.13% on average red bait and much lower for the other species) (Lack et al, 2014). Mackay et al (2016) estimated a conservative PBR of 81 seals for management zone 3 (partially overlapped by the SESPF range, Figure 4). The reason for the low PBR estimate is that zone 3 does not contain the core of the population distribution which is in zone 2 (PBR = 2499). Seventeen New Zealand fur seals interactions were reported since of the UoAs activity started (2017-18), with two being released alive (www.afma.gov.au/sustainability-environment/protected-species- management/protected-species-interaction-reports/). The SESPF does not overlap with the core population of the New Zealand fur seal, although pup production in the area is increasing. The SESPF UoAs are highly unlikely to hinder recovery of this species. SG80 is achieved. There is some evidence of population structuring across the breeding range, with genetic variation observed between individuals from SA, Tasmania and New Zealand (Mackay et al, 2016). There is no high degree of confidence that the SESPF mid-water trawl does not create significant detrimental effect to New Zealand fur seal local populations. SG100 is not met. Unidentified seal interactions Not all reported seals interacting with the SESPF could be identified to species level, although reporting to species has improved in recent years. Since the start of the current vessel operations, five unidentified seals were reported as dead (www.afma.gov.au/sustainability-environment/protected-species- management/protected-species-interaction-reports/). These were most likely either Australian or New Zealand fur seals because these are the species with distribution ranges overlapping SESPF. The number of unidentified seals interactions do not significantly increase the risk to the populations and do not change the above scoring for each species. Unobserved mortality in Pinnipeds Although there is no conclusive information on the superior effectiveness of the upward opening SED compared to a downward large opening SED (Lack et al, 2014), the upward opening is more likely to retain a dead seal in the net rather than allowing it to fall through the opening and create unobserved mortality (Josh Cahill, pers com February, 2019). In addition, from seal satellite tracking studies, it is apparent that male seals are more likely to interact with trawl fishing (Lack et al, 2014) thus lactating females are less likely to die due to the fishery and create unobserved mortality of their pups as a consequence. Seabirds South-eastern Australia coast is known for the richness of seabird species. There are 89 protected species of birds that occur within the SPF area. Of those, the groups most impacted by direct interactions with fisheries are albatrosses and petrels (Baker

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 198

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species et al. 2002 in Lack et al 2014). The initial ERA for the SPF mid-water trawl sector (Daley et al. 2007) assessed 76 bird species of which 53 were albatrosses and petrels. The remainder comprised penguins, cormorants, gannets, boobies, tropicbirds, skuas, gulls and terns, which are considered likely to be of lower risk from mortality in trawl fishing operations. Of the 76 bird species assessed in the ERA, only three (shy albatross - Thalassarche cauta, Chatham albatross - T. eremita and black-browed albatross - T. melanophris) were assessed at ‘high’ risk (Daley et al. 2007). These assessments were reduced to ‘medium’ risk as a result of the residual risk assessment (AFMA 2010). Thus, as a result of the ecological risk assessment and management processes, all bird species assessed were found to be at medium (43) or low (33) risk from mid-water trawl operations in the SPF. At the most recent ERA, no birds were identified as being at medium or high risk from the SESPF at the current level of fishing (Bulman et al, 2017). Interactions of the mid-water trawl with birds are rare. Since the current vessel is in operation, 2 shy albatrosses have been recorded as interacting. Both birds were released alive. Mid-water trawl vessels cannot fish in the SPF without an AFMA approved VMP which details, among others, mitigation measures and procedures for seabird management. There is a high degree of certainty that the SESPF UoAs do not create significant detrimental direct effects to seabird populations, and SG 60, 80 and 100 are met. c Indirect effects Guidepost Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of considered and are thought confidence that there are no to be highly likely to not significant detrimental create unacceptable impacts. indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. Met? Y Y Justification Cetaceans For ETP species, MSC standard requires that, in addition to assessing the direct effects from the fishery, indirect effects have to be considered as well. Such effects could relate to behaviour modification, discarding of unwanted catch, discarding domestic litter, chemical pollution, localised depletion of their prey, with effects on population long-term viability. - Discards Discarding domestic litter and chemicals is prohibited under MARPOL and observers are required to report such incidents. No pollution incidents were reported so far in the SESPF. Indirect effects of pollution on protected species were assessed at ERA Level 1 (SICA) and found to be non-existent (Bulman et al, 2017). The impacts of potential lost gear were also assessed at the latest ERA and considered to be negligible (Bulman et al, 2017). The UoAs discards of target species are very low and uncommon, occurring only under special circumstances (e.g. pump malfunction, Josh Cahill pers com, February 2019, Tony Muollo pers com, February 2019). Primary species discards are also very low (less than 1% of primary species catch), thess species being commercially valuable. Although more than 50% of the secondary species catch is discarded, these discards represented only 0.1% of total 2017-18 SESPF mid-water trawl catch. Also, discards are monitored through logbooks and observer reports. Fishers must report in their logbooks the retained and discarded quantity of each species, which are verified by observers reports. The current level of discarding in the SESPF UoAs is considered to be unlikely to create significant indirect detrimental impacts such as behavior modifications (dolphins feeding on discards) on dolphin populations.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 199

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species - Localised depletion Indirect impacts from the UoAs may also occur due to prey depletion through overfishing. These indirect effects have been explored in ecosystem modelling studies and other research on localised depletion. Common dolphin’s diet profile showed that Australian sardine and anchovy had a significant percentage contribution (64.1%), while mackerel (11.4%) and other species contributed less (Lack et al, 2014). Bottlenose dolphin’s diet profile showed even less dependence on SPF mid-water trawl targets (less than 2%, Lack et al, 2014). Low dependence of dolphin species on the small pelagic fish caught by the UoAs suggest that localised depletion of these species would not significantly affect dolphins. Ecosystem modelling has shown that south-eastern Australia coastal ecosystems are resilient to significant biomass removal from these species and trophic cascade effects are unlikely to occur (Smith et al 2015). In addition, although the risk of localised depletion occurring in the SPF is considered to be low (Lack et al, 2015), AFMA’s SPF spatial management (move-on triggers) is likely to further minimise this risk (AFMA, 2018c). The risks of behavior modification, effects of discards, gear loss, waste disposal and chemical pollution from the SPF mid-water trawl fishery on marine mammals (with bottlenose dolphin considered the most vulnerable element) were also assessed under the ERAF framework at Level 1 (SICA) and were considered to be minor/insignificant (Daley et al, 2007). There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on cetacean species and the UoAs achieve SG 80 and 100. Pinnipeds For ETP species, MSC standard requires that in addition to assessing the direct effects from the fishery, indirect effects be considered as well. Such effects could relate to behaviour modification, discarding of unwanted catch, discarding domestic litter, chemical pollution, prey localised depletion, with effects on population long- term viability. - Behaviour modification Behaviour modification for animals habituated to feed from fishing nets, other than increasing their susceptibility for direct effects, can create indirect negative effects if the population would not be able to find food outside fishing seasons. A novel satellite telemetry study was undertaken to understand the movement patterns of seals directly interacting with freezer trawler vessels in the blue grenadier fishery. Nine male Australian fur seals were tracked for up to seven months. All seals tracked foraged almost exclusively within the blue grenadier fishing grounds throughout the duration of the fishing season and rested between foraging trips at either Hibbs Point or Reid Rocks (the nearest haul-out site/breeding colonies to the south and north, respectively). When leaving the fishing grounds, seals typically swam in a direct line towards haul-out sites, but on return, swam to the nearest edge of the continental shelf, possibly to enhance the likelihood of intercepting fishing vessels (Goldsworthy et al. 2003b, Tilzey et al. 2006 in Lack et al 2014). For seals that were tracked beyond the duration of the winter blue grenadier fishing season, there was a noticeable change in the focus of foraging effort. The tracking studies clearly demonstrated the habitual nature of fur seals feeding in the fishing grounds in between resting at nearby haul-outs. The number of resights of satellite-tagged seals alongside fishing vessels (including one live capture and release in a trawl net), and the intensity of movements to and from the fishing grounds between haul-outs, suggested that the seal population interacting with the fishery may be relatively small and transient during the period of the fishery (Goldsworthy et al. 2003b, Tilzey et al. 2006 in Lack et al 2014). In the SPF, Lyle and Willcox (2008 in Lack et al 2014) used underwater video to monitor seal interactions in 98 trawls amounting to more than 700 hours of video

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 200

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species footage. This project has shown that a much higher number of seals enter the net for feeding, compared to the number of seals caught and brought on board of the vessel. The number of seals entering the net was higher in autumn and winter months. This evidence suggests that trawl fishing creates behavior modification in seals, although it is thought that the population feeding on trawl fishing grounds is small and transient, and the seals are able to change their feeding habits when the trawl fishing is not operating, thus not creating long term behavior modification. - Discards Discarding domestic litter and chemicals is prohibited under MARPOL and observers are required to report such incidents. No pollution incidents were reported so far in the SESPF. Indirect effects of pollution on protected species were assessed at ERA Level 1 (SICA) and found to be non-existent (Bulman et al, 2017). The impacts of potential lost gear were also assessed at the latest ERA and considered to be negligible (Bulman et al, 2017). The UoAs discards of target species are very low and uncommon, occurring only under special circumstances (e.g. pump malfunction, Josh Cahill pers com, February 2019 and Tony Muollo pers com, February 2019). Primary species discards are also very low (less than 1% of primary species catch), this species being commercially valuable. Although more than 50% of the secondary species catch is discarded, these discards represented only 0.1% of total 2017-18 SESPF mid-water trawl catch. The current level of discarding in the SESPF UoAs is considered to be unlikely to create significant indirect detrimental impacts on seal populations. - Localised depletion Indirect impacts from the UoAs may also occur due to prey depletion through overfishing. These indirect effects have been explored in ecosystem modelling studies and other research on localised depletion. Australian fur seal’s diet profile showed that redbait (31%) and jack mackerel (20%) had significant percentage contributions, although for the New Zealand fur seal, the SESPF UoAs targets these percentages were not significant (Lack et al, 2014). Nevertheless, ecosystem modelling studies suggest that current level of fishing in the SPF does not significantly affect seal populations. Ecosystem modelling has also shown that south- eastern Australia coastal ecosystems are resilient to significant biomass removal from these species and trophic cascade effects with serious effects on top predator species are unlikely to occur (Smith et al 2015). In addition, although the risk of localised depletion occurring in the SPF is considered to be low (Lack et al, 2015), AFMA’s SPF spatial management (move-on triggers) is likely to further minimise this risk (AFMA, 2018c). The risks of behavior modification, effects of discards, gear loss, waste disposal and chemical pollution from the SPF mid-water trawl fishery on marine mammals (although not specifically for seals because they were not considered the most vulnerable elements) were also assessed under the ERAF framework at Level 1 (SICA) and were considered to be minor/insignificant (Daley et al, 2007, Bulman et al 2017). Although Australian fur seals show dependence on small pelagic species that constitute targets for the UoAs, there is evidence that the population is expanding, and they are able to switch opportunistically from one prey to another. In addition, there are measure in place to limit the potential effect of localised depletion. There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on pinniped species and the UoAs achieve SG 100 for both, Australian and New Zealand fur seals. Seabirds Indirect effects on seabirds might be related to behavior modification, with long-term consequences for the population, trophic effects due to localized depletion of prey

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 201

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species species, catch and waste discards, chemical pollution, and other causes. Such indirect effects were assessed at ERAEF Level 1 (SICA) and were considered minor/negligible (Daley et al, 2007, Bulman, 2017). The three SESPF UoAs meet the requirements at SG 100. AFMA and DEH (2005) Memorandum of Understanding between Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Department of the Environment and Heritage for the reporting of fisheries interactions with protected species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/uploads/2010/06/mou.pdf AFMA (2010). ‘Ecological Risk Management Report for the Midwater Trawl Sector of the Small Pelagic Fishery.’ Available at http:// www.afma.gov.au/managing-our- fisheries/environment-and-sustainability/ecological-risk-management. AFMA (2017g). Small Pelagic Fishery Dolphin Strategy. Minimising Dolphin Interactions in the Small Pelagic Fishery. https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/05/Small-Pelagic-Fishery- Dolphin-Mitigation-Strategy-FINAL.pdf AFMA (2018c), Small Pelagic Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2018-19 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/05/Final-SPF- Management-Arrangements-Booklet-2018.pdf Bulman, C., Sporcic, M., Fuller, M. & Hobday, A. (2017) Ecological Risk Assessment for Effects of Fishing. Report for the Midwater Trawl Sub-fishery of the Small Pelagic Fishery. (CSIRO, Hobart). Daley, R., Dowdney, J., Bulman, C, Sporcic, M., Fuller, M., Ling, S. and Hobday, A. (2007). ‘Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing.’ Report for the midwater trawl sub-fishery of the Small Pelagic Fishery. Report for AFMA, Canberra. Department of Environment and Energy, Environment Protection and Biodiversity References Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc Department of Environment and Energy (2018), Assessment of the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/41b182ca-9bfc-48b2-92a1- 8a21f729f337/files/assessment-commonwealth-small-pelagic-fishery-oct-2018.pdf Lack, M., Bulman, C., Goldsworthy S. and Harrison P. (2014). Report of the expert panel on a declared commercial fishing activity: Final (small pelagic fishery) declaration 2012. Lack, M., Bulman, C., Goldsworthy S. and Harrison P. (2015) Report of the expert panel on a declared commercial fishing activity: Final (small pelagic fishery) declaration (no. 2) 2013 MSC (2018a). MSC fisheries standard, v.2.1, 31 August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 133 pp.

Mackay, A., Goldsworthy, S. and Harrison, P. (2016). Critical knowledge gaps: estimating potential maximum cumulative anthropogenic mortality limits of key marine mammal species to inform management. FRDC Final Report - 2015-035. Smith, A., Ward T, Hurtado F, Klaer N, Fulton E, and Punt A. (2015). Review and update of harvest strategy settings for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery – Single species and ecosystem considerations. Hobart. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 2013/028.

All UoAs 2.3.1a (60, 80, 100) 2.3.1b (60, 80, 2.3.1c (80, 100 Total Score Scoring element 100) only)

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 202

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Common Dolphin N/A 80 100 90 Common N/A 80 100 90 Bottlenose Dolphin Indo-Pacific N/A 80 100 90 Bottlenose Dolphin Australian Fur Seal N/A 80 100 90 New Zealand Fur N/A 80 100 90 Seal Shy Albatross N/A 100 100 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 203

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

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 a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guidepost There are measures There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive in place that for managing the UoAs strategy in place for minimise the UoA- impact on ETP species, managing the UoAs impact related mortality of including measures to on ETP species, including ETP species and minimise mortality, which is measures to minimise are expected to be designed to be highly likely mortality, which is designed highly likely to to achieve national and to achieve above national achieve national international requirements and international and international for the protection of ETP requirements for the requirements for species. protection of ETP species. the protection of ETP species. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justification National and international requirements for the protection of ETP species do not set limits, thus this scoring issue is not scored. b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guidepost There are measures There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive in place that are that is expected to ensure the strategy in place for expected to ensure UoA does not hinder the managing ETP species, to the UoA does not recovery of ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery hinder the recovery of ETP of ETP species. species Met? Y Y N Justification A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome, and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts (MSC 2018a, p. 29) A “comprehensive strategy” (applicable only for ETP component) is a complete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analyses, and management measures and responses (MSC 2018a, p. 30) In 2016, the AFMA Commission approved the following protected species management principles for Commonwealth fisheries: - Management responses should be proportionate to the conservation status of affected species and Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) results. - Ensure consistency with Government policy and legislative objectives (including to ‘avoid’ and ‘minimise’) and existing national protected species management strategies such as Threat Abatement Plans and National Plans of Action. - Incentives should encourage industry-led solutions to minimise bycatch of protected species utilising an individual accountability approach.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 204

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. - Account for cumulative impact of Commonwealth fisheries on protected species when making management decisions on mitigation. - Appropriate, and where possible consistent monitoring and reporting arrangements should exist across fisheries (AFMA, 2017f) These principles are consistent with the new Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy (DAWR, 2018c).

AFMA has developed mitigation strategies to avoid interactions and to minimise impacts on high risk TEP species in accord to AFMA’s new Bycatch Strategy (2017b). AFMA undertakes reviews and updates these strategies as required. All SPF mid-water trawl vessels are required to have a vessel management plan which details vessels fishing operations and vessel specific ETP mitigation measures.

Cetaceans A Dolphin Mitigation Strategy has been developed to be consistent with the AFMA Commission principles which aims to minimise dolphin interactions in the trawl sector of the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) by adopting an individual responsibility approach to create incentives for fishers to innovate and adopt best practices (AFMA, 2017g). AFMA recognises that the strategy has been developed in the absence of important information regarding dolphin population sizes and gear-specific interaction rates, thus the strategy is aimed to be precautionary. The information gaps are due to the sporadic effort in the fishery and the absence of long-term data series rates, although since 2015, when fishing effort has increased, comprehensive data has been collected. The management areas and responses in the Strategy are not based on specific dolphin population status but rather aim to minimise and avoid interactions while also creating incentives to drive changes in fishers’ behaviour (AFMA, 2017g). SPF dolphin strategy aims to minimise dolphin interactions in the trawl sector by adopting an individual responsibility approach and creates incentives for fishers to innovate and adopt best practices to minimise dolphin interactions. Under the individual responsibility approach fishers are responsible for their actions to minimise interactions and stay within defined performance criteria. This strategy implements a framework to minimise dolphin interactions by: - improving information on the nature of interactions between dolphins and fishing gear, and species identification - providing incentives for individual operators to minimise dolphin interactions and implement and develop mitigation measures best suited to their circumstances and location - identifying options and best practice mitigation measures to support fishers in minimising dolphin interactions. SPF Dolphin Mitigation Strategy framework includes: Monitoring and data collection - Logbooks: all protected species interactions, including dolphins, must be reported under AFMA’s legislation and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). A Listed Marine and

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 205

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Threatened Species form in the daily fishing logbook must be completed for all protected species interactions (AFMA, 2017g). AFMA has distributed a dolphin identification guide to assist operators to record interactions at species level (AFMA, 2006). - Dolphin Interaction Evaluation Report: In addition to completing a Listed Marine and Threatened Species form in the daily fishing logbook, a Dolphin Interaction Evaluation Report must be completed and sent to AFMA within 48 hours of landing. This report contains more specific detail about the circumstances of the interaction, and allows AFMA to evaluate if there are any factors trends that contribute to interactions for consideration by the Commonwealth Marine Mammal Working Group (CMMWG) (AFMA, 2017g). - Electronic monitoring: All trawl vessels in the SPF are required to have electronic monitoring systems installed. Electronic monitoring ensures that AFMA and scientists have an accurate record of the catch and effort in the fishery and of interactions with large animals. Electronic monitoring footage is used as independent verification of logbook data. If an AFMA observer is not present, a minimum of 10 percent of trawling fishing activity recorded by electronic monitoring will be independently reviewed across the fishery to verify interactions with protected species. If there is an increase in dolphin interactions, or concerns about non- reporting of dolphin interactions, AFMA may increase the review of electronic monitoring footage for an operator or require the carriage of an AFMA observer (fee-for-service), to ensure that they are operating in accordance with their Dolphin Mitigation Plan (AFMA, 2017g). Note that 100% of electronic monitoring has been reviewed during the large freezer trawler operations (2015-16 and 2016-17) (Josh Cahill, pers com, February 2019). - Scientific (AFMA) observers: SPF concession holders are required to carry an observer at any time when directed to do so by AFMA. The baseline coverage for the SESPF mid-water trawl is 20%. For new boats entering the fishery observer coverage for at least the first 10 trips is required. Observers collect detailed information on dolphin interactions (AFMA, 2018c).To be noted that the achieved observer coverage for the UoAs in the fishing season 2017-18 was 36% (Marton & Mobsby, 2018) Reporting Enforcement - Where an operator fails to report a dolphin interaction, potential penalties may apply under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 or the EPBC Act. In addition, to ensure that this strategy is supported by accurate information, AFMA may require 100 per cent monitoring (observer or 100 per cent electronic monitoring review) for protected species interactions, charged on a fee-for-service basis. ERA - AFMA, working with CSIRO, undertakes regular risk assessments for all major Commonwealth fisheries, SPF mid-water trawl, included (Daley et al, 2007, AFMA, 2010, Zhou et al, 2009). The SESPF mid-water trawl has been recently reassessed under a revised Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing (ERAEF) framework (Bulman et al 2017).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 206

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Consultation - To help ensure that the latest research and science is being used to support fisheries management, AFMA has formed a new Commonwealth Fisheries Marine Mammal Working Group (CFMMWG) which provides advice across AFMA-managed fisheries. The group also provides advice on priorities arising from AFMA’s Protected Species Strategy. Members of the Working Group include marine mammal scientists, an industry expert, a conservation member, a recreational fishing science expert, the DAWR and DEE representatives and an independent chair (www.afma.gov.au). Measures - Dolphin Mitigation Plan: To fish in the SPF, all trawl vessels in the fishery must have an AFMA approved Dolphin Mitigation Plan that outlines what actions are being taken by the fishers to minimise dolphin interactions on that particular vessel. Given that this Strategy is based on an individual responsibility approach, AFMA does not prescribe specific mitigation measures that must be included in the Dolphin Mitigation Plan. AFMA will only approve a Dolphin Mitigation Plan where it is satisfied the plan details actions to minimise interactions being taken in the following areas: - fishing practices (e.g. the SESPF is only setting gear during daylight hours – allows good visibility to check for dolphin presence before setting the gear to fish and postpone fishing or move to different area if dolphins are present, avoid offal discharge while shooting and hauling) - gear setup (e.g. the SESPF fishers remove ‘stickers’, entangled fish from the net after each shot) - mitigation devices (e.g. the SESPF uses mammal excluder device – top opening SED) Dolphin Mitigation Plans must be updated by an operator if there are any changes to actions being taken to minimise dolphin interactions. The updated version must be approved by AFMA before implementation and recommencing fishing. AFMA may review electronic monitoring footage of any dolphin interactions to ensure that operators are operating in accordance with their Dolphin Mitigation Plan, and may require increased monitoring (observer or electronic monitoring) to confirm appropriate mitigation strategies are being used by the operator (AFMA, 2017g). - Vessel Management Plan: Any holder of an SPF concessions must not fish using the mid-water trawl method unless a Vessel Management Plan (VMP) for the boat has been approved by AFMA. A VMP sets out the day-to-day operational rules that apply and includes measures aimed at reducing interactions with protected species and reporting requirements. For an example of VMP see https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/10/Vessel- Management-Plan-for-the-Geelong-Star-Version-2.0.pdf. Responses The Strategy implements a management response for any dolphin

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 207

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. interaction. For any subsequent interactions, a series of escalating management responses are applied to individual fishers, culminating in closures for fishers who are unable to minimise their interactions (Table 8). Analyses AFMA aimed to review the Strategy’s performance against its objectives after the first year, and every two years thereafter, with advice from the CMMWG (AFMA, 2017g). The strategy is intended to be adaptive and integrate improved information as needed on: - any trends identified in Dolphin Interaction Evaluation Reports - dolphin conservation status and population abundance - the cumulative impacts of dolphin interactions on populations - the effectiveness of management measures in mitigating interactions. AFMA, with advice from the CMMWG, will also continue to review the cumulative level of dolphin interactions across Commonwealth fisheries. The first review of the SPF Dolphin Strategy was completed in 2018 https://www.afma.gov.au/news-media/news/review-gillnet-dolphin- mitigation-strategy-and-small-pelagic-fishery-dolphin. It can be concluded that SPF dolphin strategy has all the elements required to meet the definition of a comprehensive strategy, although, because of the short implementation time, it cannot be said that it is a fully tested strategy. SG60 an SG80 are met but not SG100. Pinnipeds Some of the elements included in dolphin strategy apply for the management of seals as well: Monitoring and data collection - Logbooks: all protected species interactions, including seals, must be reported under AFMA’s legislation and the EPBC Act. A Listed Marine and Threatened Species form in the daily fishing logbook (paper or electronic) must be completed for all protected species interactions, including seals (AFMA, 2018c). AFMA has distributed a protected species identification guide to assist operators to record interactions at species level (AFMA, 2006). - Electronic monitoring: All trawl vessels in the SPF are required to have electronic monitoring systems installed. If an AFMA observer is not present, a minimum of 10 percent of trawling fishing activity recorded by electronic monitoring will be independently reviewed across the fishery to verify interactions with protected species. - Scientific (AFMA) observers: SPF concession holders are required to carry an observer at any time when directed to do so by AFMA. The baseline coverage for the SESPF mid-water trawl is 20%. For new boats entering the fishery observer coverage for at least the first 10 trips is required. Observers collect detailed information on dolphin interactions

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 208

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. (AFMA, 2018c). Reporting Enforcement - Where an operator fails to report a seal interaction, potential penalties may apply under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 or the EPBC Act. In addition, to ensure that management measures are supported by accurate information, AFMA may require 100 per cent monitoring (observer or 100 per cent electronic monitoring review) for protected species interactions, charged on a fee-for-service basis. Consultation - CFMMWG provides advice on best practice management of seal interactions (www.afma.gov.au). Measures - Vessel Management Plan: Any holder of an SPF concessions must not fish using the mid-water trawl method unless a Vessel Management Plan (VMP) for the boat has been approved by AFMA. A VMP sets out the day-to-day operational rules that apply and includes measures aimed at reducing interactions with protected species, including seals, and reporting requirements. The current management arrangements booklet requires a top opening SED (AFMA, 2018c). Fishing only during daylight is a voluntary measure introduced to increase the probability that mammals, if present, are seen before fishing starts (Josh Cahill pers.com February 2019). For an example of VMP see https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/10/Vessel- Management-Plan-for-the-Geelong-Star-Version-2.0.pdf. Responses AFMA has not set general management responses in case of seal interactions, although the Vessel management plan must include such responses (e.g. suspend fishing immediately, review the effectiveness of the SED). For an example of VMP see https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/10/Vessel- Management-Plan-for-the-Geelong-Star-Version-2.0.pdf The SPF management measures for seals meet the definition of a ‘strategy’ because the SED has been introduced and developed to manage seal interactions specifically. SG60 and SG80 are met. The strategy however, has not been tested sufficiently and there is still uncertainty related to the effectiveness of the SED type used. SG 100 not met. Seabirds AFMA has produced Seabird Bycatch Operational Guidelines for Commonwealth Fisheries (AFMA, 2018h) which provides an operating framework to support implementation of government policies and legislation relating to the protection of seabirds during fishing operations. These Operational Guidelines have been drafted to pursue the five overarching principles documented in the AFMA Bycatch Strategy (AFMA, 2017b). • Management responses are proportionate to the conservation status of bycatch species and Ecological Risk Assessment results • Consistency with Government policy and legislative objectives (including

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 209

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. to ‘avoid’ and ‘minimise’) and existing national protected species management strategies such as Threat Abatement Plans (TAP) and National Plans of Action. • Incentives should encourage industry-led solutions to minimise bycatch of protected species utilising an individual accountability approach. • Cumulative impact of Commonwealth fisheries on protected species is accounted for when making management decisions on mitigation. • Appropriate, and where possible, consistent monitoring and reporting arrangements across fisheries. Although the new Commonwealth Bycatch Strategy is not yet fully implemented, for the SESPF mid-water trawl, management measures and reporting requirements are in place and detailed in the VMP. Part 13 accreditation of the SPF under the EPBC Act requires that mid-water trawl boats must have in place effective mitigation approaches and devices to minimise interactions with seabirds. AFMA enforces this by requiring the development and implementation of an approved seabird VMP. These plans are developed by AFMA in consultation with the Department of the Environment and with the Industry. All SPF mid-water trawl operators are required to comply with and enforce them onboard. The VMP sets out individually tailored mitigation measures for the boat that minimise seabird interactions. These include requirements for physical devices to minimise interactions. The VMP may also include measures to manage the discharge of biological waste from boats to reduce seabird attraction (i.e. no discharge of biological waste while the gear is in the water) and move-on provisions for any interactions (Lack et al, 2014). For an example of VMP see https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/10/Vessel-Management- Plan-for-the-Geelong-Star-Version-2.0.pdf. Elements of the SPF seabird strategy include: Monitoring and data collection - Logbooks: all protected species interactions, including birds, must be reported under AFMA’s legislation and the EPBC Act. A Listed Marine and Threatened Species form in the daily fishing logbook (paper or electronic) must be completed for all protected species interactions, including birds. AFMA has distributed a protected species identification guide to assist operators to record interactions at species level (AFMA, 2006). - Electronic monitoring: All trawl vessels in the SPF are required to have electronic monitoring systems installed (AFMA, 2018c). - Scientific (AFMA) observers: SPF concession holders are required to carry an observer at any time when directed to do so by AFMA. Observers collect detailed information on bird all interactions (AFMA, 2018c). Reporting Enforcement - Where an operator fails to report an interaction, potential penalties may apply under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 or the EPBC Act. In addition, to ensure that management measures are supported by accurate information, AFMA may require 100 per cent monitoring (observer or 100 per cent electronic monitoring review) for protected species interactions,

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 210

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. charged on a fee-for-service basis.

Measures - Vessel Management Plan: Any holder of an SPF concessions must not fish using the mid-water trawl method unless a VMP for the boat has been approved by AFMA. A VMP sets out the day-to-day operational rules that apply and includes measures aimed at reducing interactions with protected species, including a seabird management plan. Such measures include: • No discharge of biological material while fishing gear is in the water is allowed. • The third wire is required to be close to the water, greatly reducing its aerial extent behind the boat and consequently reducing the risk of seabirds accidentally flying into the wire • Tori lines (lines with streamers on them) must be used on either side of the third wire. The tori lines are highly visible and create a barrier to seabirds (all the mitigation devices that are in use in the SESPF mid-water trawl are presented in AFMA 2018h, Appendix A). Responses - Responses are also included in the approved VMP. Since 2016, the following responses were set for the SPF mid-water trawl: - If a seabird is killed by the third wire the boat must stop fishing and cannot recommence until AFMA has reviewed the circumstances of the mortality and provided written approval to recommence. - If two or more seabirds are killed on a single trip (regardless of what caused the mortalities) the boat must stop fishing and cannot recommence until AFMA has reviewed the circumstances of the mortality and provided written approval to recommence. Seabird management measures and responses constitute a ‘comprehensive strategy’ which has been tested in similar mid-water trawl fishery (SESSF) and SG 80 and SG 100 are achieved. c Management strategy evaluation Guidepost The measures are There is an objective basis The strategy/comprehensive considered likely to for confidence that the strategy is mainly based on work, based on measures/strategy will work, information directly about plausible argument based on information the fishery and/or species (e.g. general directly about the fishery involved, and a quantitative experience, theory and/or the species involved. analysis supports high or comparison with confidence that the strategy similar will work. fisheries/species). Met? Y Y N

Justification Cetaceans The management responses in case of dolphin interactions are very stringent acting as a deterrent for fisher misbehaviour and an incentive continuously developing mitigation measure to reduce the risk of interactions. For the two occasions when interactions resulting in dolphin mortality occurred, the investigations into the cause of mortality have led to the fishers being able to address the cause (i.e. fix the malfunctioning gear and banning night fishing). No other interactions occurred

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 211

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. after the causes have been addressed. There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. SG 80 is met. However, a quantitative analysis that supports high confidence that the strategy will work is not available (SG100 is not met). Pinnipeds Excluder devices are commonly used in trawl fisheries globally as a means to mitigate bycatch of marine megafauna. SEDs are mostly used in New Zealand and Australian fisheries and are typically tailored to individual fisheries, fishing vessels and bycatch species because a single design is not suitable for all circumstances. SED functioning under optimal operating conditions reduce the incidence of bycatch mortality of pinnipeds, but will not eliminate it (Lack et al, 2014). Nevertheless, underwater video footage has shown that seal mortality rate is relatively small, due to the use of SEDs. In the SPF, Lyle and Willcox (2008 in Lack et al 2014) used underwater video to monitor seal interactions in 98 trawls amounting to more than 700 hours of video footage. This project has shown that a much higher number of seals enter the net for feeding, compared to the number of seals caught and brought on board of the vessel. Most seals (87 per cent) entered the trawl net via the net mouth and exited via the SED opening (64 per cent), with a smaller percentage entering through the SED opening (13 per cent) and exiting via the net mouth (22 per cent, exit point of 14 per cent unknown). This suggests that the SED is effective in allowing seals to escape (Lack et al, 2014). This is an objective basis of confidence that the use of top opening SED, together with other measures included in the VMP, such as not setting if seals are seen in the water, will work, based on information directly about the fishery and the species involved. Studies using video, in the SPF and other fisheries, have been quantified the number of seals interacting with trawl gear, compared to the number of seals caught, and revealed that most seals escape safely from the net. Nevertheless, a full quantitative analysis that supports high confidence that the strategy will work, is not available. SG 60 and 80 are met but not SG 100. Seabirds There have been no bird mortalities since the current UoAs started their fishing activity. The effectiveness of the mitigation devices adopted in the SESPF mid- water trawl have been assessed in the SESSF and they were proven to be effective for the shy albatross, the species that most often interacts with trawl gear (Pierre et al, 2014). The same study found also support for the effectiveness of offal management, which is consistent with previous research (Pierre et al, 2014). 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. SG60 and SG80 are met. As the fishery is developing, a quantitative analysis that supports high confidence that the strategy will work is not available. SG 100 is not met. d Management strategy implementation Guidepost There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/strategy is the strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 212

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Met? Y Y

Justification All ETPs The high observer coverage and electronic monitoring in place offer is clear evidence that the ETP strategies in place are being implemented successfully and the fact that interactions are relatively rare, suggests that the strategies are achieving their objective to not hinder recovery of ETP species populations. SG 80 and 100 are met. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guidepost There is a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of the potential the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness effectiveness and and practicality of and practicality of practicality of alternative measures to alternative measures to alternative minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related measures to mortality of ETP species and mortality ETP species, and minimise UoA- they are implemented as they are implemented, as related mortality of appropriate. appropriate. ETP species. Met? Y Y Y Justification All ETPs The Bycatch and Discarding Workplans, describing the mitigation measures for ETP interactions have been reviewed annually and renewed every two years. With the implementation of the new AFMA Bycatch Strategy, bycatch and discarding workplans are going to be integrated in the bycatch section of the Fishery Management Strategy for each fishery, which will contain annual deliverables, thus reviewed annually (AFMA, 2017b). Also, there is an ongoing development and review of the effectiveness of mitigation devices (SEDs for mammals and mitigation devices for seabirds) through scientific and industry trials, as well as by follow-up investigations after an interaction occurs. 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. SG60, 80 and 100 are met.

AFMA (2017b) AFMA Bycatch Strategy Mitigating protected species interactions and general bycatch 2017-2022 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/07/Fishery-Management- Paper-Number-15-Final-AFMAs-bycatch-strategy-030717.pdf AFMA (2017g). Small Pelagic Fishery Dolphin Strategy. Minimizing Dolphin Interactions in the Small Pelagic Fishery. https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/05/Small-Pelagic- References Fishery-Dolphin-Mitigation-Strategy-FINAL.pdf AFMA (2018c), Small Pelagic Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2018- 19 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/05/Final-SPF- Management-Arrangements-Booklet-2018.pdf AFMA (2018h) Seabird Bycatch Operational Guidelines for Commonwealth Fisheries https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/seabird_bycatch_operational_gu

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 213

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. idelines.pdf Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2018c). Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy: Framework for managing the risk of fishing-related impacts on bycatch species in Commonwealth fisheries. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/environment/bycatch/review Marton, N. and Mobsby, D. (2018). Small Pelagic Fishery, Fisheries status reports 2018. ABARES, http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research- topics/fisheries/fishery-status/small-pelagic MSC (2018a). MSC fisheries standard, v.2.1, 31 August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 133 pp. Pierre, J., Gerner, M. and Pennrose, L. (2014). Assessing the effectiveness of seabird mitigation devices in the trawl sectors of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery in Australia. https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/12/Seabird-Mitigation- Assessment-Report.pdf All UoAs 2.3.2a (60, 2.3.2b (60, 2.3.2c (60, 2.3.2d (80, 2.3.2e (60, Total Score Scoring element 80, 100) 80, 100) 80, 100) 100 only) 80, 100)

Common Dolphin N/A 80 80 100 100 90 Common Bottlenose N/A 80 80 100 100 90 Dolphin Indo-Pacific N/A 80 80 100 100 90 Bottlenose Dolphin Australian Fur Seal N/A 80 80 100 100 90 New Zealand Fur N/A 80 80 100 100 90 Seal Shy Albatross N/A 80 80 100 100 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 214

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • 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 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guidepost Qualitative Some quantitative Quantitative information is information is information is adequate to available to assess with a adequate to estimate assess the UoA related high degree of certainty the the UoA related mortality and impact and to magnitude of UoA-related mortality on ETP determine whether the UoA impacts, mortalities and species. may be a threat to protection injuries and the and recovery of the ETP consequences for the status species. of ETP species. OR

OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: Qualitative Some quantitative information is information is adequate to adequate to estimate assess productivity and productivity and susceptibility attributes for susceptibility ETP species. attributes for ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justification Fishery-dependent information AFMA collects fishery dependent information through fishery logbooks. All protected species interactions must be reported under AFMA’s legislation and the EPBC Act. Daily logsheet forms contain a field where the fisher must fill ‘yes’ if an interaction occurred, and then they need to complete the Wildlife and other Protected Species form and return the form and corresponding logsheets to AFMA. If there is an observer present, they must be informed of the interaction immediately, although the fishers are still required to report the interaction in their logbook. The information collected in logbooks includes: - The total number of each species/species group interacted with; - Life status for each interaction - dead; alive; injured; - Interaction type - netted; entangled; collision; and - Method of fishing (AFMA and DEH, 2005). For whales and dolphin species and for some sharks (e.g. great white shark) more specific information for individual interactions is collected such as: - Location (latitude/longitude verified by VMS); - Time and date; - Whether an observer was present; - Sex (if identified); and - Life stage - Adult/juvenile (if identified) As part of the requirement under the EPBC Act 1999, AFMA licensed fishers must report any interactions of their fishing activity with threatened, endangered and protected species to the DEE. Based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU),

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 215

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. AFMA supplies interaction data on behalf of the fishers who report ETP interaction in logbooks (AFMA 2018c). These reports are published on AFMA’s website at: www.afma.gov.au/sustainability-environment/protected-species- management/protected-species-interaction-reports/. Fishery independent information Fishery independent information is collected by AFMA through the observer program, electronic monitoring and VMS (provides the exact location and time of the interaction). In addition to monitoring program, other independent sources of information are used to inform management. Population surveys are used to inform on ETP species abundance and distribution (Mackay et al, 2016, offers a synthesis of such surveys). Ecological risk assessments (ERAEF) inform on the level of risk the fishery poses to ETP species (Daley et al, 2007, AFMA, 2010, Bulman et al, 2017). The effectiveness of the mitigation devices and other management measures is assessed in scientific studies and industry trials in the SPF or other similar fisheries. Some quantitative information that is collected is adequate to assess the UoA related mortality and impact (through ecological risk assessments) and to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. SG60 and 80 are achieved. Quantitative information is not yet available to assess with a high degree of certainty the magnitude of UoAs-related impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species. SG100 is not achieved. b Information adequacy for management strategy Guidepost Information is Information is adequate to Information is adequate to adequate to support measure trends and support support a comprehensive measures to manage a strategy to manage impacts strategy to manage impacts, the impacts on ETP on ETP species. minimize mortality and species. injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y Y N Justification Information is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. Quantitative information on ETP interactions is available from the current UoAs, as well as from previous periods of mid-water trawl activity in the SPF. In addition, considerable knowledge and understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation devices and practices used, is available to support management strategies for ETP species (e.g. in Lack et al, 2014) (SG80 is achieved). 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. Data insufficiency is due to the fact that this is a new fishery (SG100 is not achieved). AFMA (2010). ‘Ecological Risk Management Report for the Midwater Trawl Sector of the Small Pelagic Fishery.’ Available at http:// www.afma.gov.au/managing-our- fisheries/environment-and-sustainability/ecological-risk-management. AFMA (2018c), Small Pelagic Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2018-19 References https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/05/Final-SPF- Management-Arrangements-Booklet-2018.pdf AFMA and DEH (2005) Memorandum of Understanding between Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Department of the Environment and Heritage for the reporting of fisheries interactions with protected species under the

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 216

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/uploads/2010/06/mou.pdf Bulman, C., Sporcic, M., Fuller, M. & Hobday, A. (2017) Ecological Risk Assessment for Effects of Fishing. Report for the Midwater Trawl Sub-fishery of the Small Pelagic Fishery. (CSIRO, Hobart) Daley, R., Dowdney, J., Bulman, C, Sporcic, M., Fuller, M., Ling, S. and Hobday, A. (2007). ‘Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing.’ Report for the midwater trawl sub-fishery of the Small Pelagic Fishery. Report for AFMA, Canberra. Lack, M., Bulman, C., Goldsworthy S. and Harrison P. (2014). Report of the expert panel on a declared commercial fishing activity: Final (small pelagic fishery) declaration 2012. Mackay, A., Goldsworthy, S. and Harrison, P. (2016). Critical knowledge gaps: estimating potential maximum cumulative anthropogenic mortality limits of key marine mammal species to inform management. FRDC Final Report - 2015-035. All UoAs Scoring element 2.3.3a (60, 80, 100) 2.3.3b (60, 80, 100) Total Score Common Dolphin 80 80 80 Common Bottlenose 80 80 80 Dolphin Indo-Pacific 80 80 80 Bottlenose Dolphin Australian Fur Seal 80 80 80 New Zealand Fur 80 80 80 Seal Shy Albatross 80 80 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 217

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by PI 2.4.1 the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Commonly encountered habitat status Guidepost The UoA is unlikely The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the to reduce structure to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to and function of the function of the commonly reduce structure and commonly encountered habitats to a function of the commonly encountered habitats point where there would be encountered habitats to a to a point where there serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be would be serious or serious or irreversible harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justification Mid-water trawl does not normally touch the sea bottom (it is occasionally possible) and it is not considered to have a significant impact on benthic habitats (Daley et al, 2007, Tingley, 2014, Daume and Brand Gardner, 2017). Twenty-four benthic habitats and two pelagic habitats were identified as overlapping SESPF range were assessed at ERAEF Level 1 (SICA) (Daley et al, 2007). All the identified habitat types scored as low risk from the SPF mid-water trawl and their assessment did not progress to Level 2. At the recent ERA, all ecological component, including habitats, were eliminated at Level 1, being considered at a low risk from the SPF mid-water trawl (Bulman et al, 2017). Under a recent project (Pitcher et al. 2016, 2018), the impact of AFMA trawl fisheries on demersal habitats was assessed with consideration of existing spatial management. The project aimed to quantify the overlap of mapped seabed assemblages with trawl footprints, and with areas of spatial management that exclude trawling, by building on previously collated data and assemblage mapping as well as data for Commonwealth demersal trawling effort (not mid-water trawl), fishery closures and marine reserves. These trawl exposure and protection estimates provide information that AFMA can use to focus on priorities or gaps, regarding the needs for future for habitat ERAs. 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, although south-east habitats had the most exposure and the least protection (Figure 6 and Figure 7). Pitcher et al (2018) have estimated the Relative Benthic Status (RBS) of the predicted assemblages as a measure of the habitat status. 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). Recent fishing effort in the SESPF mid-water trawl was restricted to a very small area of the total allowable range (Figure 8). This area corresponds to assemblages #16 in Figure 7, and #4 in Figure 6. These are considered commonly encountered habitats. The MSC standard requires, at SG80, that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats (main) to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. For the habitat component, this is the reduction in habitat structure, biological diversity, abundance and function such that the habitat would be unable to recover to at least 80% of its unimpacted structure, biological diversity and function within 5-20 years, if fishing were to cease entirely (MSC, 2018a). An average RBS estimate of >.80 might be compatible with the MSC requirement, although MSC has not yet adopted this measure. The assemblage #16 from region #8 had an average RBS of .89 while assemblage #4 from region #5 had an average RBS of .87, suggesting that commonly encountered habitats are in a fairly good status.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 218

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by PI 2.4.1 the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Although there were many possible sources of uncertainty and the assemblages defined and mapped are surrogates for habitats at meso-scale, the strength of the project is that the method provides a spatial mapping approach that could be applied consistently Australia‐wide, when habitat data per se were not available. On the positive side, the uncertainty was higher where less fishing occurred, thus less impact, and less data was available, while where data density was higher (higher impact), the uncertainty was lower. The weakness of the method is that only potential risk can be assessed not actual habitat risk, due to the lack of information on susceptible habitat components within assemblages and their fine‐scale distribution relative to trawling (Pitcher et al, 2018). Based on the best available science, the habitats that are commonly encountered by the SESPF are highly likely to be in a status consistent with the MSC standards. In addition, mid-water trawl’s marginal impact is likely to be negligible compared to the impact from demersal trawl fisheries. There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG60, 80 and 100 are achieved. b VME habitat status Guidepost The UoA is The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the unlikely to reduce to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to structure and function of the VME reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where function of the VME habitats to a point there would be serious or habitats to a point where where there would irreversible harm. there would be serious or be serious or irreversible harm. irreversible harm.

Met? Y Y N Justification The latest SPF assessment under Part13 of the EPBC has identified a lack in information regarding the risk of fishing to the Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South- east Australia threatened ecological community (EPBC listed as endangered) (DEE, 2018). Kelp forests are shallow coastal ecological communities of cold-water regions organised around the structure and productivity of members of the order Laminariales (Tegner and Dayton, 2000, in CofA, 2012). The Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia is a unique ecological community that extends from the ocean floor to the ocean surface and exhibits a ‘forest-like’ structure with a diverse range of organisms occupying its benthic, pelagic and upper-canopy layers. The ecological community is characterised by a closed to semi-closed surface or subsurface canopy of M. pyrifera. M. pyrifera is the only species of kelp able to provide this three-dimensional structure from the sea floor to the sea surface, so if giant kelp plants are lost or removed, the ecological community no longer exists. The Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia ecological community occurs on rocky substrate, generally at depths greater than eight metres below sea level, along the east and south coastlines of Tasmania (from Eddystone Point in the north east, along the east coast and around to Port Davey in the south) (Edgar, 1981; 1982; Sanderson, 1997; Barrett et al., 2001; Edyvane 2003 in CofA, 2012). Some patches of the ecological community may also occur at greater than eight metres bsl in the coastal waters of western and northern Tasmania, south eastern South Australia as

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 219

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by PI 2.4.1 the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. far west as Margaret Bock Reef near Robe and Victoria as far east as Gabo Island (Edyvane 1999; Edyvane and Bakker, 1999; Crozier et al., 2007; Millar pers. comm. 2011; Shepherd and Edgar, 2012 in CofA, 2012). This distribution encompasses the Otway, Central Victoria, Two Fold Shelf, Flinders, Boags, Freycinet, Bruny, Davey and Franklin marine bioregions (DPIWE, 2001; Commonwealth of Australia, 2006 in CofA, 2012). VME Status This ecological community provides valuable habitat for a range of marine species. Patches of M. pyrifera included in the Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia ecological community act as habitat engineers by providing vertical structure to the water column and altering the immediate light and hydrological environment with their stipes and canopy (hence their likeness to terrestrial ‘forests’). This habitat structure is inhabited by a diverse assemblage of animals and smaller seaweeds. The primary production of giant kelp is also utilised by a broad community of organisms (Hobday et al., 2006; Okey et al., 2006 in CofA, 2012) making the ecological community a distinctive and important habitat type on shallow sub-tidal reefs in south eastern Australia (Johnson et al., 2011 in CofA, 212). The high primary and secondary productivity of the giant kelp forests create and provide a number of ecosystem services to the local environment including settlement habitat for juvenile life stages of commercially important fisheries, improvements in local water quality conditions and coastal protection via buffering strong wave conditions from reaching the shore. VMEs have one or more of the following characteristics, as defined in paragraph 42 of the FAO Guidelines: • Uniqueness or rarity – an area or ecosystem that is unique or that contains rare species whose loss could not be compensated for by similar areas or ecosystems • Functional significance of the habitat – discrete areas or habitats that are necessary for survival, function, spawning/reproduction, or recovery of fish stocks; for particular life-history stages (e.g., nursery grounds, rearing areas); or for ETP species • Fragility – an ecosystem that is highly susceptible to degradation by anthropogenic activities • Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult – ecosystems that are characterised by populations or assemblages of species that are slow growing, are slow maturing, have low or unpredictable recruitment, and/or are long lived • Structural complexity – an ecosystem that is characterised by complex physical structures created by significant concentrations of biotic and abiotic features Although the FAO Guidelines do not identify kelp communities as indicative of a VME, the MSC guidance specifies that “when the FAO Guidelines are applied in shallow, inshore waters, the definition of VME could include other species groups and communities (e.g., seagrass beds, complex kelp-dominated habitats, biogenic reefs)” (MSC, 2018a, p 83). The giant kelp forests of south-east Australia have all the characteristics of a VME, as defined in FOA guidelines, which are adopted by the MSC standard. Conservation Status The Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia ecological community is listed as endangered. The Threatened Species Scientific Committee's (TSSC) determined that this ecological community met Criterion 1 of the eligibility criteria for listing as vulnerable because it has undergone a substantial decline in geographic distribution. The ecological community also met the relevant elements of Criterion 2 to make it eligible for listing as vulnerable under this criterion. The ecological

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 220

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by PI 2.4.1 the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. community met Criterion 3 as endangered as it has undergone a severe decline of functionally important species and met the eligibility criteria as endangered for Criterion 4 due to the severe change in integrity experienced by the ecological community such that regeneration is unlikely within the near future, even with positive human intervention (CofA, 2012). The Conservation Advice for giant kelp community does not identify mid-water trawl commercial fisheries as a threat. The SESPF mid-water trawl fishing usually occurs in waters deeper than 100 m (Bulman et al, 2017). Although an accurate map of giant kelp forest distribution was not available for this assessment, these threatened ecological communities are likely to be found in shallower waters. There are no records of the SESPF to have ever encountered giant kelp forests while fishing (Josh Cahill pers com February 2019). Some of giant kelp community might occur in areas that are closed to mid-water trawl, such as Flinders and Freycinet marine parks (Figure 5). The UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of giant kelp habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The requirements at SG60 and 80 are achieved. There is no evidence that the UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of giant kelp habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm and SG100 is not achieved. Other Possible VMEs Recent studies (e.g. Williams et al. 2006 & 2009 in Pitcher et al 2016) have indicated that vulnerable habitat-forming benthos types are present in exposed assemblages identified in south-east trawl area. For example, sub-cropping friable sandstone supporting gardens of large sponges are restricted within a few exposed mid-shelf assemblages; aggregations of the relict stalked crinoid Metacrinus cyaneus are restricted within a few exposed shelf-break assemblages; a ribbon of delicate bryozoan communities occur in a limited depth range within many shelf-edge assemblages, some of which are exposed; and tree-forming octocorals and black corals are restricted to high flow, steep banks in upper-slope assemblages, some of which are exposed. Some of these vulnerable types occur in places potentially accessible to and removable by trawls and may be at risk (Williams et al. 2011 in Pitcher et al 2016) at least locally within assemblages, if not at regional landscape scale (Pitcher et al. 2016). It is more likely that such habitats are affected by demersal trawl, while impact from mid-water trawl is highly unlikely. The SESPF does not use a bottom-contact gear and is highly unlikely to have any impact on these assemblages. The UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of other potential VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm and the requirements at SG60 and 80 are achieved. Nevertheless, 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. c Minor habitat status Guidepost There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Justification Minor habitats are all the other habitats that overlap the SESPF range. No fishing effort from the SESPF mid-water trawl occurred over these habitats. This is evidence that the UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 221

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by PI 2.4.1 the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm and SG100 is achieved. Bulman, C., Sporcic, M., Fuller, M. & Hobday, A. (2017) Ecological Risk Assessment for Effects of Fishing. Report for the Midwater Trawl Sub-fishery of the Small Pelagic Fishery. (CSIRO, Hobart) Daley, R., Dowdney, J., Bulman, C, Sporcic, M., Fuller, M., Ling, S. and Hobday, A. (2007). ‘Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing.’ Report for the midwater trawl sub-fishery of the Small Pelagic Fishery. Report for AFMA, Canberra. MSC (2018a). MSC fisheries standard, v.2.1, 31 August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 133 pp. References Pitcher, C.R., Ellis, N., Althaus, F., Williams, A., McLeod, I., Bustamante, R., Kenyon, R., Fuller, M. (2016) Implications of current spatial management measures for AFMA ERAs for habitats — FRDC Project No 2014/204. CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Published Brisbane, November 2015, 50 pages. Pitcher, C.R., Rochester, W., Dunning, M., Courtney, T., Broadhurst, M., Noell, C., Tanner, J., Kangas, M., Newman, S., Semmens, J., Rigby, C., Saunders T., Martin, J., Lussier, W. (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 — FRDC Project No 2016‐039. CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Brisbane, 71 pages. All UoAs 2.4.1.a (60, 2.4.1.b (60, 80, 2.4.1.c (80, 100 Total score Scoring element 80,100) 100) only) Commonly 100 N/A N/A 100 encountered habitats VMEs N/A 80 N/A 80 Minor habitats N/A N/A 100 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 222

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy 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 a Management strategy in place Guidepost There are measures There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place in place, if necessary, place, if necessary, that is for managing the impact of that are expected to expected to achieve the all MSC UoAs/non-MSC achieve the Habitat Habitat Outcome 80 level of fisheries on habitats. Outcome 80 level of performance or above. performance. Met? Y Y Y Justification AFMA recognises that fishing has impacts on marine habitats beyond the direct effects of harvesting individual species. The ERAEF for habitats and communities (Hobday et al. 2007) was designed to include risk assessments for habitats, to prioritise high risk elements and introduce appropriate measures and policies within an ERM framework that is consistent with the ESD principles. The “Pitcher reports” have shown that it is possible to quantify cumulative risks to habitats and estimate a relative status measure (RBS) of habitat health when limited data is available (AFMA, 2017f). AFMA and CSIRO have also completed a new ERA which accounted for habitats and ecological communities in the SESPF area and found low risk from the fishery. If future ERAs will identify any increase in risk, and the new information will be integrated in the ERM (Bulman et al, 2017). A cohesive strategic arrangement is “in place” to ensure known sensitive habitats are protected, and this consists in a vast system of closed areas to demersal trawling (from SESSF). One closure, the East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector Exclusion Zone (Schedule 4, AFMA, 2016a), has been introduced specifically to protect benthic habitats. SPF concession holders are exempt from this prohibition with the following condition: If the holder of a Small Pelagic Fishery concession finds any evidence of benthic impacts while fishing under the authority of a concession granted in accordance with the Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan 2009 in the area specified in Schedule 4 the holder must notify AFMA and not engage in fishing in the area described in the relevant Schedule under that fishing concession until further notified by AFMA in writing (AFMA, 2016a). There has been no fishing by the SESPF mid-water trawl in this area. Only mid-water trawling is allowed over sensitive areas such as seamounts (e.g. over Britannia Guyots and Barcoo and Taupo seamounts, part of the Central Eastern marine park) even though the closures were introduced primarily for the protection of certain species of fish (e.g. gulper shark. AFMA, 2018f). Other areas are closed to demersal trawl as well as to mid-water trawl, such as the Derwent Hunter seamount closure that protects upper slope dogfish, and all national park zones within marine parks (AFMA, 2018c, 2018g). Figure 9 shows mid-water trawl closures. VMS is compulsory for all AFMA managed fisheries, monitoring vessels position in near real time, and combined with observer coverage and compliance monitoring, ensure that SESPF operators comply with spatial closures. Other measures such as the fishery being limited entry and the catch quantity move-on trigger are likely to limit impact on habitats if the fishery will expand to full quota. Although the information on the type and range of the benthic habitats is limited, there is a precautionary strategy in place for managing all, MSC UoAs and non-MSC fisheries impacts. This is supported by a demonstrable understanding on how mid- water trawl gear works to avoid benthic impact, and the differences in the operation between demersal and mid-water trawl (e.g. Tingley, 2014). There is also some understanding about the impacts of lost gear on habitat and the relative effects of such impacts are deemed to be low risk for overall habitat health (Daley et al, 2007).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 223

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. Periodic assessments such as risk assessment (Daley et al, 2007, Bulman et al, 2017) and research to gain a better understanding of the state of benthic habitats and cumulative impacts from the fisheries (e.g. Pitcher et al, 2016, 2018) are undertaken to inform management decision makers. SG60, 80 and 100 are achieved. b Management strategy evaluation Guidepost The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial work, based on measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, plausible argument will work, based on based on information (e.g. general information directly about directly about the UoA experience, theory or the UoA and/or habitats and/or habitats involved. comparison with involved. similar UoAs/habitats). Met? Y Y N Justification 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 (i.e. Pitcher report showing that most habitats have low levels of impact from fishing). The requirement is achieved at SG80. However, testing does not support high confidence that the strategy will work because there is still a high level of uncertainty related to actual risk to the habitats and only the potential risk could be determined (Pitcher et al, 2018). SG100 is not achieved. c Management strategy implementation Guidepost There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative evidence that the evidence that the partial measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justification There is clear quantitative evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue 2.4.1a (more exactly that the mid-water trawl does not reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitat to a point of serious or irreversible harm). Such evidence can be derived from the distribution of the fishing effort only on small areas of the fishery, which can be verified through VMS and scientific observers. Also, there have been no compliance issues related to mid-water trawl vessel not respecting closed areas or having impact on benthic habitat. The UoAs vessel did not operate over the benthic habitat protection areas. SG80 and SG100 are met. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guidepost There is qualitative There is some There is clear evidence that the quantitative evidence quantitative evidence UoA complies with that the UoA complies that the UoA complies its management with both its management with both its management requirements to requirements and with requirements and with protect 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? Y Y Y Justification Although giant kelp forest has been identified as VME, there are no specific

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 224

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. requirements for mid-water trawl fisheries most likely because they do not operate in areas where giant kelp communities occur. The latest DEE assessment of the fishery concluded that although there is no specific strategy to avoid impact with to giant kelp threatened ecological community, fishing operators are unlikely to operate in areas where this occurs (DEE, 2018) and the SPF fishery has received wildlife trade accreditation with no conditions related to VMEs, thus it was considered compliant. Interviews with observers and fishing operator showed no evidence of the SESPF vessel having encountered giant kelp during fishing. The UoAs meet this scoring issue requirement at SG80 and 100. AFMA (2016a) Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark fishery and Small Pelagic Fishery (Closures) Direction 2016. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00549 AFMA (2018c), Small Pelagic Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2018-19 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/05/Final-SPF- Management-Arrangements-Booklet-2018.pdf AFMA (2018f), Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2018-19 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/SESSF-Management- Arrangements-Booklet-2018-FINAL.pdf Bulman, C., Sporcic, M., Fuller, M. & Hobday, A. (2017) Ecological Risk Assessment for Effects of Fishing. Report for the Midwater Trawl Sub-fishery of the References Small Pelagic Fishery. (CSIRO, Hobart) Department of Environment and Energy (2018), Assessment of the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/41b182ca-9bfc-48b2-92a1- 8a21f729f337/files/assessment-commonwealth-small-pelagic-fishery-oct-2018.pdf Hobday, A. J., A. Smith, H. Webb, R. Daley, S. Wayte, C. Bulman, J. Dowdney, A.Williams, M. Sporcic, J. Dambacher, M. Fuller, T. Walker. (2007) Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing: Methodology. Report R04/1072 for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. Tingley, G. (2014). An assessment of the potential for near-seabed midwater trawling to contact the seabed and to impact benthic habitat and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs). Available at: https://www.sprfmo.int/assets/Meetings/Meetings-2013-plus/SC-Meetings/2nd-SC- Meeting-2014/Papers/SC-02-10-Midwater-trawls-potential-for-benthic-impacts.pdf All UoAs 2.4.2a (60, 80, 2.4.2b (60, 80, 2.4.2c (80, 2.4.2d (60, 80, Total score Scoring element 100) 100) 100 only) 100) Commonly 100 80 100 N/A 95 encountered habitat VMEs 100 80 100 100 95 Minor habitat 100 80 100 N/A 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 225

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guidepost The types and The nature, distribution and The distribution of all distribution of the vulnerability of the main habitats is known over their main habitats are habitats in the UoA area are range, with particular broadly understood. known at a level of detail attention to the occurrence relevant to the scale and of vulnerable habitats. intensity of the UoA. OR

OR If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate information is available and the types and is adequate to estimate the distribution of the types and distribution of the main habitats. main habitats. Met? Y Y N Justification Information on the level of impact the SESPF mid-water trawl has on benthic habitats is available from the initial ERA (Daley et al 2007), where 24 benthic habitat types occurring in the SPF range have been assessed at LEVEL 1 (SICA). Scale, Intensity, Consequence Analysis (SICA) is a qualitative assessment to evaluate the risk from a stakeholder-agreed set of fishery’s activities to the ecological components, on a plausible ‘worst case scenario’ base, instead of considering all possible interactions (AFMA, 2017f). This means that one element that is considered most vulnerable is chosen as representative for that component (i.e. one benthic habitat out of 24) to be used as a unit of assessment. SICA elements are scored on a scale from negligible (1) to extreme (6), with score 3 or higher within a component resulting in that component being scored at Level 2. If risks to the most vulnerable elements score 1 (negligible) or 2 (low), that means risks to all the other elements are lower and the whole component can be eliminate from Level 2 assessment. The chosen most vulnerable habitat type to mid-water trawl component of the SPF was characterized by fine sediment, subcrop, large sponge, outer-shelf. All the hazards/activities (e.g. fishing, chemical pollution, discards, noise pollution etc.) were considered to cause low or negligible impact to this habitat type, thus the whole benthic habitat component was eliminated from Level 2 assessment (Daley et al, 2007). Although the assessment of pelagic habitats considered only areas where fishing effort occurred (mainly east Tasmania), thus it may not be relevant to the current spatial distribution of the fishing effort, benthic habitat types from the entire SPF were identified and qualitatively assessed to determine a plausible ‘worst case’ scenario. A new ERA has been completed following the revised ERAEF methodology and habitats were eliminated at Level 1, thus considered at low risk from the fishery (Bulman et al, 2017). Quantitative information on the SESPF benthic habitats is available from the “Pitcher project”, which over the last four years, has developed a methodology to predict and map species assemblages and quantify their exposure to trawling, as well as their relative status (Pitcher et al, 2016, 2018). The project aimed to quantify the overlap of mapped seabed assemblages with trawl footprints, and with areas of spatial management that exclude trawling, by building on previously collated data

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 226

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. and assemblage mapping as well as data for Commonwealth demersal trawling effort, fishery closures and marine reserves. These trawl exposure and protection estimates provide information that AFMA can use to focus on priorities or gaps, regarding the needs for future for habitat ERAs. The report investigated the intensity of trawl footprints on different habitat types to assess the probable impact of fishing on these habitats in association with knowledge of existing spatial management plans. The results 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. Thus, managers can focus future analyses on the remaining at-risk habitats to better assess their risk to fishing activities. This allows fishery managers to minimise the need to conduct resource intense ERA analyses for habitats that are known to be at low risk. The techniques employed are not intended to replace ERA, but instead streamline resource use by excluding low-risk habitats/fisheries from subsequent resource-intense ERA. Consideration of existing fisheries management actions is an important component in assessing the overall risk of ecosystem components to fishing activities and allows managers to better prioritise resource use (AFMA, 2017f). It is AFMA’s intent to continue to develop and progress ERA and ERM for habitats and communities. As it stands, development of level 3 methodologies has not been undertaken. Prior to the development of level 3 techniques, there is a need for improved data collection at appropriate scales to better inform level 1 and 2 analyses. Furthermore, research into the selection of appropriate reference points to inform ERM decisions is required. These values currently do not exist for these habitat and ecological community components or are somewhat arbitrarily determined (Hobday et al. 2011). ERAEF with the overall three-tiered hierarchical structure is scheduled to be undertaken at five-year intervals, with assessors investigating the previous five years of fishery (and other relevant) data to best reflect the current management of each fishery (AFMA 2017f). AFMA’s intent is to improve data collection at appropriate scales for each fishery. So far, data on benthic habitats has been collected mainly from demersal trawl fisheries overlapping SESPF and knowledge of the gear’s level of impact is available from other mid-water trawl fisheries. For the MSC assessment, the Information PI is assessed taking account of the scale and intensity of the UoA. For the SESPF UoAs the current scale of the fishery is small (one vessel), and the intensity low, considering the fishing gear does not normally come in contact with the benthic habitats. There is potential for the expansion of the fishery and this needs to be considered when assessing the Information PI. Nevertheless, as long as demersal trawl fisheries are operating on overlapping habitats, the marginal impact of the mid- water trawl will always be minimal. There are areas potentially containing sensitive habitats where only mid-water trawl is allowed, e.g. the East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector Exclusion Zone (Schedule 4, AFMA, 2016a), introduced for habitat protection. For this area, there are reporting requirements and management actions likely to restrict mid-water trawl impact, if there will be evidence of such impact. The current UoAs do not operate in sensitive habitat closure area or other sensitive areas such as over seamounts. The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoAs area are considered to be known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA (SI 2.4.3a requirement is achieved at SG60 and 80). However, the distribution of all habitats is not known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitats and SG 100 is not achieved. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guidepost Information is Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the adequate to allow for identification of gear on all habitats have broadly understand the main impacts of the

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 227

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. the nature of the UoA on the main habitats, been quantified fully. main impacts of and there is reliable gear use on the information on the spatial main habitats, extent of interaction and including spatial on the timing and location overlap of habitat of use of the fishing gear. with fishing gear. OR OR If CSA is used to score If CSA is used to PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Some quantitative information is available and Qualitative is adequate to estimate the information is consequence and spatial adequate to estimate attributes of the main the consequence and habitats. spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Y Y N Justification 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. Nonetheless, the physical impacts of the gear on all habitats have not been quantified fully and SG 100 is not achieved. c Monitoring Guidepost Adequate information Changes in habitat continues to be collected to distributions over time are detect any increase in risk to measured. the main habitats. Met? Y N Justification AFMA continues to collect adequate information continues to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats from overlapping demersal trawl fisheries. The ERAEF for habitats and communities is expected to occur every five years, which is adequate and sufficient for the current scale and intensity of the fishery. If the fishery is to expand any increase in risk will be considered at the annual surveillance audits or at the reassessment. SG 80 is achieved but not SG 100 because changes over time in habitat distributions cannot yet be measured (the uncertainty in actual habitat distribution is currently too high to be able to measure changes in their distribution). AFMA (2016a) Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark fishery and Small Pelagic Fishery (Closures) Direction 2016. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00549 AFMA (2017f) Guide to AFMA’s Ecological Risk Management. https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/08/Final-ERM- References Guide_June-2017.pdf Daley, R., Dowdney, J., Bulman, C, Sporcic, M., Fuller, M., Ling, S. and Hobday, A. (2007). ‘Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing.’ Report for the midwater trawl sub-fishery of the Small Pelagic Fishery. Report for AFMA, Canberra. Hobday, A. J., Bulman, C., Williams, A., and Fuller, M. (2011). Ecological risk

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 228

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. assessment for effects of fishing on habitats and communities. FRDC Project 2009/029, Canberra. Pitcher, C.R., Ellis, N., Althaus, F., Williams, A., McLeod, I., Bustamante, R., Kenyon, R., Fuller, M. (2016) Implications of current spatial management measures for AFMA ERAs for habitats — FRDC Project No 2014/204. CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Published Brisbane, November 2015, 50 pages Pitcher, C.R., Rochester, W., Dunning, M., Courtney, T., Broadhurst, M., Noell, C., Tanner, J., Kangas, M., Newman, S., Semmens, J., Rigby, C., Saunders T., Martin, J., Lussier, W. (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 — FRDC Project No 2016‐039. CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Brisbane, 71 pages. Tingley, G. (2014). An assessment of the potential for near-seabed midwater trawling to contact the seabed and to impact benthic habitat and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs). Available at: https://www.sprfmo.int/assets/Meetings/Meetings-2013-plus/SC-Meetings/2nd-SC- Meeting-2014/Papers/SC-02-10-Midwater-trawls-potential-for-benthic-impacts.pdf A ll UoAs 2.4.3a (60, 80, 2.4.3b (60, 80, 2.4.3c (80, 100 Total score Scoring element 100) 100) only) Commonly 80 80 80 80 encountered habitat VME 80 80 80 80 Minor habitats 80 80 80 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 229

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key PI 2.5.1 elements of ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Ecosystem status Guidepost The UoA is unlikely The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the to disrupt the key to disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to elements underlying underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements ecosystem structure structure and function to a underlying ecosystem and function to a point where there would be a structure and function to a point where there serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be a would be a serious or serious or irreversible harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Justification Impacts on ecosystem’s structure and function can arise from the reduction of the target species stocks, or just localised depletion of these stocks, followed by consequence on their predators. Impacts from discarding are negligible because discarding are avoided as much as possible (Josh Cahill, Tony Muollo pers com February 2019). South-eastern Australian waters are characterised by a low productivity, although localised coastal upwelling zones (CUZs) as well as nutrient enrichment zones (NEZs) create high productivity regions, with high temporal variability, which support valuable fisheries of small pelagic fish, including the SESPF. Discrete upwelling hotspots have been identified at five coastal locations along the NSW shelf while large NEZs have been identified along the eastern Bass Strait shelf front and off eastern Tasmania (Figure 10). The small pelagic fishery operates in an oceanographically dynamic area, (Mcleod et al, 2012). Changes in physical ocean conditions have been linked to to shifts in dominance of small pelagic fish in a range of marine ecosystems. Mcleod et al (2012) found that changes in prey availability might have contributed to the observed shifts in relative abundance of redbait and jack mackerel in the past. Earlier ecosystem modelling studies undertaken in the area, cover the whole southern half of the AFZ, although each of these models were developed for different purposes. Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) models developed for East Bass Strait (EBS) (Bulman et al., 2006), the eastern Great Australian Bight (EGAB) (Goldsworthy et al., 2013) and the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (Young et al., 2009 in Bulman et al 2011); and the Atlantis-SE models developed for South East Australia (Fulton et al., 2004 in Bulman et al 2011) and the NSW shelf (Savina et al., 2008 in Bulman et al 2011). Bulman et al (2011) updated and compared the EwE models of EBS and EGAB to identify what types of controls are operating in the southern Australia ecosystems that overlap SPF and explore wider effects of predator-prey interactions on the ecosystem, then compared the EwE and Atlantis outputs (Figure 11). The most recent update of the Atlantis-SE model was used to evaluate the harvest strategy setting for the SPF (Atlantis-SPF model) (Smith et al 2015). The earlier models have investigated scenarios of depletion of a single species, while Smith et al (2015) considered also simultaneous depletion of the target species in the SESPF mid-water trawl. The main findings of the ecosystem studies were: - that the SPF mid-water trawl target species do not have a keystone role in the ecosystem analogous to that of the large biomasses of prey fish in upwelling ecosystems elsewhere in the world; - the current catches in the fishery are unlikely to negatively impact predators, which are typically not highly dependent on SPF target species and have the capacity to switch to other prey species; - EBS system (corresponding to the Bass Strait Cascade (Figure 10) was

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 230

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key PI 2.5.1 elements of ecosystem structure and function. more top-down controlled compared to the GAB and the open ocean systems (from Atlantis model) which makes it more sensitive to fishing pressure and other stressors; - Evidence from all ecosystem studies suggest that current target and limit reference points in line with AFMA’s Harvest Strategy Policy are safe from an ecosystem perspective; - Studies using different ecosystem models have reached similar conclusions. Risks of Localised Depletion There have been concerns related to the potential of localized depletion of the target species, resulting in negative effects on the game fish species that prey on the small pelagics caught in the SPF, and wider effects to the ecosystem. These concerned were in particular about the potential of large factory freezer trawlers to produce localized depletion (CofA, 2016). To be noted that factory freezer trawlers do not currently operate in the fishery, the UoA vessel being of a much smaller capacity (40m). Nevertheless, some stakeholders are still concerned of the possibility of new vessels entering the fishery and utilizing the full quota and potentially producing localized depletion (see interview in stakeholder Appendix). The DEE has appointed an expert panel to investigate the effects of fishing using a factory freezer trawler in the SPF (Lack et al, 2015). The issues addressed by the panel included localized depletion. The panel defined ‘localised depletion’ as a spatial and temporal reduction in the abundance of a targeted fish species that results from fishing and considered factors that would influence the extent and impact of localised depletion such as the scale and persistence of the depletion and the vulnerability of the SPF species to localised depletion. Although the expert panel assessment was directed towards large factory freezer trawler, useful information can be derived that is relevant for the current UoAs MSC assessment. The expert panel (Lack et al 2015) concluded: - Vessels of a smaller capacity tend to concentrate effort around their home ports because their limited fish handling and storage facilities, and fuel and provisioning capacity, restrict their range. A fleet of many smaller vessels has the potential to create localised depletion if the fishing intensity is spatially and temporally dense. - With regard to small pelagic species’ vulnerability to fishing, the panel found that SPF target species had characteristics that made them both vulnerable to fishing (detection and size of schooling behaviour and association with environmental features) and resilient to fishing (swimming proficiency, reproductive capacity and unpredictability of schooling behaviour). These latter qualities are able to reduce the temporal and spatial extent of any depletion that occurs from fishing or natural causes and therefore on the extent of adverse environmental impacts either on the target species themselves or on dependent predator species. - With regard to current and past harvest rates of small pelagic species in southern Australia, the panel was unable to find evidence of discernible adverse impacts on the target species. The available genetic evidence for jack mackerel did not suggest that past, apparently high, levels of fishing had significantly affected reproductive capacity. There have been no significant changes in the age or size composition of redbait in recent years that might indicate a potential impact on reproductive capacity. There were too few data available for blue mackerel to determine significant changes on age, size structure or reproductive capacity to date but the low levels of effort and catch suggest that there is little likelihood that this has occurred. There is no evidence to suggest that localised depletion has caused any impacts on genetic diversity. Furthermore, the panel considered that any localised depletion of SPF target species that might arise from the SPF fishing activity was unlikely to affect the overall status of stocks of those

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 231

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key PI 2.5.1 elements of ecosystem structure and function. species, assuming that TACs are set in accordance with the current Harvest Strategy Policy and with the best possible stock estimates. - Since it is recognised that purse seine fishing has more capacity to take a whole school of fish by encircling the school compared with mid-water trawl which trawls through the school, a reduced purse seine capacity (in favour of mid-water trawl) might reduce the potential for localised depletion. - The issue of ecological allocation of resources to dependent predators and the ‘trade-offs’ that might be necessary to support growing demand for food supplies was examined in the first declaration report (Lack et al 2014). The critical issue was to determine the level of removal of the prey species that, when added to the requirements of the overall ecosystem and taking into account natural variability, would not cause unacceptable adverse impacts to the ecosystem or components. Ecological modelling of the southern Australia region has found that current exploitation rates under the SPF Harvest Strategy appear to provide an adequate ‘ecological allocation’ to central place foragers and other dependent predators, and that no adverse impacts were likely at the current level of allowable harvest. - However, the available ecological models gave results at a spatial scale that is less finely resolved than is required to identify adverse impacts on particular species of central place forager species such as fur seals, and birds. The ability of predators to switch prey in times of reduced prey availability can mitigate the effects of depletion. This ability is inherent in predators of small pelagic species so they can cope with the fluctuations of abundance of their prey that are caused by environmental variability, and which may be indistinguishable from the fluctuations caused by fishing. However, some predators, while being able to switch prey when necessary may be switching to sub-optimal diets that in the long term reduce breeding success or longevity. - Small pelagic fish distribution is highly likely to depend on the prevailing oceanographic conditions.

It can be concluded that localized depletion is possible, although this risk is lower for highly mobile species such as the SESPF mid-water trawl targets. In addition, measures are in place, such as conservative catch limits and spatial management with move-on triggers, that minimise the risk of localized depletion. Considering all the available information it is justified to assume the UoAs are highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm and the SG80 requirement for is achieved. The evidence that fishing small pelagic species in south eastern AFZ does not have significant negative effects on the ecosystem is at a too broader scale to identify localised depletion. Even though management measures are in place to minimise this risk, there is no clear evidence that the UoAs are highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point of serious or irreversible harm. The requirement at SG100 is not achieved.

Bulman CM, Condie SA, Neira FJ, Goldsworthy SD, Fulton EA (2011) The trophodynamics of small pelagic fishes in the southern Australian ecosystem and the implications for ecosystem modelling of southern temperate fisheries. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Technical Report. Final report for FRDC project References 2008/023 Goldsworthy SD, Page B, Rogers PJ, Bulman C, Wiebkin A, McLeay LJ, Einoder L, Baylis AMM, Braley M, Caines R (2013) Trophodynamics of the eastern Great Australian Bight ecosystem: Ecological change associated with the growth of Australia’s largest fishery. Ecological Modelling 255: 38– 57

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 232

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key PI 2.5.1 elements of ecosystem structure and function. Lack, M., Bulman, C., Goldsworthy S. and Harrison P. (2015) Report of the expert panel on a declared commercial fishing activity: Final (small pelagic fishery) declaration (no. 2) 2013 Smith, A., Ward T, Hurtado F, Klaer N, Fulton E, and Punt A. (2015). Review and update of harvest strategy settings for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery – Single species and ecosystem considerations. Hobart. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 2013/028. All UoAs Scoring element 2.5.1a Total score South-eastern AFZ 80 80 ecosystem OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 233

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy 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 a Management strategy in place Guidepost There are measures There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that in place, if necessary, place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place which take into takes into account available which contains measures to account the potential information and is expected address all main impacts of impacts of the fishery to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem, on key elements of UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these the ecosystem. to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Y Y Y Justification The Ecosystem Management PI takes into consideration existent measures which are based on available information and are expected to restrain impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem so as to achieve at least the Ecosystem Outcome at SG80 (MSC, 2018b, p.98). AFMA manages Commonwealth fisheries, including the SPF, applying the principles of ecologically sustainable development and the precautionary principle, as prescribed by the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Australian Gov, 1991a) to ensure long-term sustainability of all the elements of the marine ecosystem. Currently, AFMA manages SPF primary species under the SPF Harvest Strategy (AFMA, 2017a) consistent with Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy (DAWR, 2018a), while secondary species (general bycatch) and protected bycatch species are managed under AFMA’s Bycatch Strategy (AFMA, 2017b), consistent with Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy (DAWR, 2018c). 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 monitors all fishing activities and compliance with regulations (compliance monitoring) (AFMA, 2018c, AFMA, 2017d). AFMA applies Ecological Risk Assessments to all ecosystem components (target species, byproduct, bycatch, habitats, ecological communities) and, based on these assessments results, develops and implements measures, prioritized by risk level, within an Ecological Risk Management (ERM) framework (AFMA, 2017f). The most recent ERA was completed in 2017 (Bulman et al, 2017). Due to low effort in the fishery and 100% observer coverage for period assessed, all ecological components were eliminated at Level 1 (SICA). This means that all species (target, primary, secondary or ETP), habitat types and ecological communities were assessed as being at low risk from the UoAs. However, the new ERA did identify areas of possible future concern if the fishery increases and expands. The ERA report indicates that next steps for each fishery would be to consider and implement appropriate management responses to address the immediate risks using the Ecological Risk Management (ERM) framework developed by AFMA, although in the case of SPF, there is no reason to proceed to this step (Bulman et al, 2017). Comprehensive monitoring system is in place and it is expected that any increase in risk will be timely addressed. There is a commitment for ERAs to be updated every five years (AFMA, 2017f). In addition to the management strategies in place to address the main risks to target and non-target species, ETPs and habitats, there are measure in place specifically introduced to minimise the risk of localized depletion of the target species and consecutive ecosystem effects. These measures consist of: - a spatial management of the stocks (separate TACs for each area: eastern – part of the UoAs- and western – not assessed here).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 234

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. - a move-on trigger of 2 000 tonnes (all species combined), within a rolling 30-day period as the limit at which vessel/s must move out of a fishing grid (AFMA, 2018c). - closed areas where mid-water trawl is prohibited (Marine Parks and AFMA closures, AFMA, 2016a) There is a strategy that consists of a plan, in place which contains measures to address all main impacts of the UoAs on the ecosystem (ERM), and at least some of these measures are in place. The requirement is achieved at SG60, 80 and 100. b Management strategy evaluation Guidepost The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial work, based on measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, plausible argument will work, based on some based on information (e.g., general information directly about directly about the UoA experience, theory or the UoA and/or the and/or ecosystem involved comparison with ecosystem involved similar fisheries/ ecosystems). Met? Y Y N Justification There is some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on some information directly about the UoAs and the ecosystem involved. This is supported by the ecosystem modelling studies, using alternative software, which show similar results, in that SPF target species do not have a keystone role in the ecosystem and no predators are highly dependent on them. The requirement is achieved at SG60 and 80. The strategy has been tested using ecosystem modelling studies. Testing supports some confidence that the strategy will work, based on the Harvest Strategy Testing (Smith et al, 2015), although the fishery is new and sufficient data series high confidence testing are not available yet. SG100 is not achieved. c Management strategy implementation Guidepost There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented is being implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justification There is some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Such evidence can be derived from compliance monitoring, where no systematic non- compliance issues related to ecosystem regulations have been identified (AFMA, 2017d). SI 2.5.2c is achieved at SG80. There is not yet clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) because the fishery is a new developing fishery. SG100 is not achieved. AFMA (2016a) Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark fishery and Small Pelagic Fishery (Closures) Direction 2016. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00549 References AFMA (2017a). Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy, 2017 (Revised from 2008). Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/04/SPF- Harvest-Strategy_April-2017_FINAL.pdf AFMA (2017b) AFMA Bycatch Strategy Mitigating protected species interactions and general bycatch 2017-2022

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 235

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. https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/07/Fishery-Management- Paper-Number-15-Final-AFMAs-bycatch-strategy-030717.pdf AFMA (2017d) National Compliance and Enforcement Policy 2017 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/07/2017-National- Compliance-and-Enforcement-Policy-with-signed-page.pdf AFMA (2017f) 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 (2018d), Small Pelagic Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2018-19 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/05/Final-SPF- Management-Arrangements-Booklet-2018.pdf Australian Government (1991a), Arrangement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales in Relation to the Finfish Fishery, Gazette GN 2, 16 January, 1991. Bulman, C., Sporcic, M., Fuller, M. & Hobday, A. (2017) Ecological Risk Assessment for Effects of Fishing. Report for the Midwater Trawl Sub-fishery of the Small Pelagic Fishery. (CSIRO, Hobart) MSC (2018b). MSC guidance to fisheries standard, v.2.1, 31 August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 156 pp. 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/harvest_strategy_policy Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2018b). Guidelines for the Implementation of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/domestic/harvest_strategy_policy Smith, A., Ward T, Hurtado F, Klaer N, Fulton E, and Punt A. (2015). Review and update of harvest strategy settings for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery – Single species and ecosystem considerations. Hobart. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 2013/028. All UoAs 2.5.2a(60, 80, 100) 2.5.2b (60, 80, 2.5.2c (80, 100 Total score Scoring element 100) only) South-eastern AFZ 100 80 80 85 ecosystem OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 236

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guidepost Information is Information is adequate to adequate to identify broadly understand the key the key elements of elements of the ecosystem. the ecosystem. Met? Y Y Justification There is on-going global and Australian interest in the impact of small pelagic fisheries on the ecosystem. Internationally, the LENFEST Forage Fish Task Force has been established, comprising 13 International scientific experts, including Dr Keith Sainsbury from Australia (Pikitch et al, 2012). The primary purpose of the Task Force was to provide practical, science-based advice for the management of species known as forage fish, because of their crucial role in marine ecosystems (Pikitch et al, 2012). Australian research on small pelagic fish acknowledges the work of LENFEST, and recently an FRDC project was finalised that aimed to ensure appropriate coordination of small pelagics research in Australia (Buxton 2016). This coordinated approach provides additional confidence that the SESPF will continue to be managed in a manner that does not pose risk to its underlying ecosystem. Regional and local research, specifically aiming to study the effects of the SESPF mid-water trawl on target species and the associated predators includes ecosystem- modelling studies, for the EBS region (Bulman et al, 2011) and for the EGAB region (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). Alternative studies in the region include an MSC study on impacts of fishing small pelagic species on the south-eastern Australian coast (Johnson, 2011) and fishery-specific study of four Commonwealth SPF target species aimed to determine sustainable harvest levels in an ecological context (Smith et al 2015). The MSC study compared the application of Ecopath with Ecosim software that is freely available and Atlantis software that was developed specifically for Australian marine ecosystems by CSIRO. Modelling the effects of small pelagics biomass variations on various groups of the trophic web, neither Ecosim nor Atlantis exhibited large-scale system changes as a result of the loss of small pelagic fish, but the number of responding groups and the size of the responses were greater in Ecosim. Ecosim produced a slightly larger response to the loss of small pelagic fishes than to the loss of mackerel, whereas Atlantis-SE showed less of a response. The impacts up the food chain in Ecosim extended to predators and competitors of the small pelagics. In comparison, Atlantis-SE did not produce any changes in the standing stock of the major prey groups of small pelagics. There is also a more variable, but less substantial, response from the higher trophic groups in Atlantis. These differences suggest a larger ecosystem dependence on small pelagic fishes as a link between higher and lower trophic levels in the Ecosim model than in the Atlantis model. This may be caused by diets being more constrained by the presence/absence of small pelagics in Ecosim. In Atlantis alternative prey items (e.g. other forms of small fish) readily take the place of small pelagic fishes in the diets of most of their predators and few predators are as highly dependent upon the presence of small pelagic fishes as they appear to be in Ecosim (Johnson, 2011). Although it is not clear which of the two models is more representative of the reality, the Ecosim results are more conservative while Atlantis model allows for a more flexible and compensatory system. These results suggest that a higher degree of switching behaviour leads to a more resilient ecosystem (Johnson, 2011). These conclusions add confidence that Ecosim, yielded conservative results and still indicate that the SPF had low impacts on ecosystem structure and function and the impacts will continue to be low at the current level of exploitation. Alternative ecosystem modelling studies yielded similar results, showing that the small pelagic species targeted by the SESPF mid-water trawl are not key elements in

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 237

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. the ecosystem. In contrast, mesopelagic species play a key role in the food web of the south-eastern ecosystem (Bulman et al. 2011). Simulated removals of mesopelagic fishes and squid had cascading consequences up and down the foodweb (Griffths et al., 2009). Myctophids or mesopelagic fishes, play an important role in the diets of many fishes including those of commercial importance such as ling and blue grenadier. The available information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. SG60 and SG80 are achieved. b Investigation of UoA impacts Guidepost Main impacts of the Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between UoA on these key these key ecosystem the UoA and these ecosystem elements elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can be can be inferred from from existing information, inferred from existing existing information and some have been information and have been but have not been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. investigated in detail. Met? Y Y Y Justification Main impacts of the UoAs on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and some have been investigated in detail. No predator of the small pelagic species targeted in the SESPF mid-water trawl are highly dependent on these species, and this is supported by diet profiles of predator species and ecosystem studies results. SG60 and SG80 are achieved. Main interactions between the UoA and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information and have been investigated in detail. Interactions between ecosystem elements in the south- eastern AFZ have been investigated in detail in several ecosystem models covering the whole SPF managed area, with consistent results. SG 100 is achieved. c Understanding of component functions Guidepost The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on components (i.e., P1 target P1 target species, primary, species, primary, secondary secondary and ETP species and ETP species and and Habitats are identified Habitats) in the ecosystem and the main functions of are known. these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Y N Justification The main functions of the components (i.e., P1 target species, primary, secondary and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known from the ecosystem studies based on long term data series from the previous operating periods of the SPF as well as from other fisheries. SG80 is achieved. Not all the impacts of the UoAs on target species, primary, secondary and ETP species and Habitats are identified and the main functions of all these components in the ecosystem are not perfectly understood. SG100 is not achieved. d Information relevance Guidepost Adequate information is Adequate information is available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the UoA on these the UoA on the components components to allow some and elements to allow the of the main consequences main consequences for the for the ecosystem to be ecosystem to be inferred. inferred. Met? Y N Justification Adequate information is available on the impacts of the UoA on these components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Adequate information is available Impacts on target, primary and secondary species as well as

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 238

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. on ETPs is available to allow for some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. SG80 is achieved. Not all the elements of the secondary species and habitats to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred and SG100 is not achieved. e Monitoring Guidepost Adequate data continue to Information is adequate to be collected to detect any support the development of increase in risk level. strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Y N Justification Adequate data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level, as shown for each component, primary, secondary and ETP species and habitat (mainly from demersal trawl fisheries). This information is being integrated within the ERM and the FMS, thus SG80 is achieved. However, information is not yet adequate to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts and SG100 is not achieved. Bulman CM, Condie SA, Neira FJ, Goldsworthy SD, Fulton EA (2011) The trophodynamics of small pelagic fishes in the southern Australian ecosystem and the implications for ecosystem modelling of southern temperate fisheries. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Technical Report. Final report for FRDC project 2008/023 Buxton, C.D., 2016. Small Pelagics Co- ordination Program. Final Report FRDC Project 2013/064. Colin Buxton & Associates. http://www.frdc.com.au/Archived- Reports/FRDC%20Projects/2013-064-DLD.pdf Goldsworthy SD, Page B, Rogers PJ, Bulman C, Wiebkin A, McLeay LJ, Einoder L, Baylis AMM, Braley M, Caines R (2013) Trophodynamics of the eastern Great Australian Bight ecosystem: Ecological change associated with the growth of References Australia’s largest fishery. Ecological Modelling 255: 38– 57 Griffiths, S. P., Young, J. W., Lansdell, M. J., Campbell, R. A., Hampton, J., Hoyle, S. D., Langley, A., Bromhead, D., Hinton, M. G. (2010). Ecological effects of longline fishing and climate change on the pelagic ecosystem off eastern Australia. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 20: 239-272. Johnson P, Bulman C, Fulton B and Smith T (2010) MSC Low Trophic Level Project: South Eastern Australia Case Study. Marine Stewardship Council Science Series 1: 111 –170. Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. 2012. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp. All UoAs 2.5.3a (60, 2.5.3b (60, 2.5.3c (80, 2.5.3d (80, 2.5.3e (80, Scoring Element 80 only) 80, 100) 100 only) 100 only) 100 only) South-eastern AFZ 80 100 80 80 80 85 ecosystem OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 239

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • 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 a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management Guide There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective post national legal system and a national legal system and national legal system and framework for cooperation organised and effective binding procedures with other parties, where cooperation with other governing cooperation necessary, to deliver parties, where necessary, to with other parties which management outcomes deliver management delivers management consistent with MSC outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with Principles 1 and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2. MSC Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Y Y Y Justifi Australia is a signatory to a number of international agreements and conventions (which it cation applied within its EEZ). These include: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (regulation of ocean space); Convention on Biological Diversity and Agenda 21 (sustainable development and ecosystem based fisheries management); Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; protection of threatened, endangered and protected species); Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (standards of behaviour for responsible practices regarding sustainable development); United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement; and State Member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (marine protected areas). The Offshore Constitutional Settlement provides for the demarcation of fisheries management responsibility between the States and Australian Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has responsibility for management outside to manage fisheries beyond 3 nautical miles (Borthwick,2012). There are 59 OCS arrangements. Gazette no 2, 1991 demarcate management responsibility for the SPF target species between the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales GoA, 1991a and GoA 1991b). These are binding arrangements requiring both State and Commonwealth to implement fisheries management arrangements in their respective jurisdictions. The fishery is managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) in accordance with the Fisheries Management Act (FMA) of 1991, the Fisheries Administration Act and Fisheries Management Regulations 1992, 1and the Fisheries (Administration) Regulations 1992. Commonwealth-managed fisheries are also subject to aspects of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000. The SPF commercial export fisheries have been assessed using the Australian National ESD Framework for Fisheries, in particular, the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries (DEWR, 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 Fisheries Administration Act establishes AFMA to manage Commonwealth fisheries. The overall objectives of the FMA 1991 form the basis for the management of all Commonwealth fisheries. The key EPBC Act 1999 requirements that apply relate to the need for a strategic assessment of the fishery management arrangements, and the management of protected areas and species. Key aspects of the policy framework for Commonwealth fisheries are articulated in: The AFMA Corporate Plan (2015-2018), and the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy (DAWR, 2018).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 240

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • 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. Therefore, the national legal system and governing binding governance cooperation meets SG60, SG80 and SG100. b Resolution of disputes Guide The management system The management system The management system post incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the law to a transparent law to a transparent resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the mechanism for the arising within the system. resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be that is appropriate to the effective in dealing with context of the fishery and most issues and that is has been tested and proven appropriate to the context of to be effective. the UoA. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The consultation and decision-making process in place actively seeks to avoid legal cation challenges. Five forms of dispute resolutions are as follows: (1) 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. These dispute resolution mechanisms have been tested (Weir & Loke, 2007) and proven to be effective. Cases such as Arno Blank vs AFMA (AAT, 2000) challenged the application of the precautionary principle. AFMAs application of the precautionary principle was upheld. (2) Plans of Management (made pursuant to section 17) where AFMA must, in writing, after consultation and after giving due consideration to any representations mentioned in subsection (3), determine plans of management for all fisheries. Before determining a plan of management for a fishery, AFMA must prepare a draft of the plan and, by public notice: (a) state that it intends to determine a plan of management in respect of the fishery; and (b) invite interested persons to make representations in connection with the draft plan by a date specified in the notice, not being less than one month after the date of publication of the notice in the Gazette; (3) AFMA Agreement with the SPF contain a dispute mechanism clause which encourages both AFMA and the SPF to enter into Alternative Dispute Resolution process in an attempt to settle any dispute with the view to avoiding a Tribunal or Court. (4) Fishers are advised of their appeal rights and the processes involved. In addition to these processes, the consultation and advisory processes established by AFMA provide mechanisms for the airing and discussion of different perspectives on fisheries management and arguably serve to avoid potential legal disputes. Legal advice on management and appeals is provided by legal expertise within AFMA and by external, independent legal advisers as required. Historically one legal challenge was made to NPF 1989 Management Plan in relation to the compulsory reduction in effort within the fishery. The main arguments were that the amendments to the plan to implement the reduction in effort were ultra vires, and the restructuring program represented an acquisition of rights on unjust terms under the constitution. The challenge was unsuccessful. (5) AFMA has set out a Client Service Charter (https://www.afma.gov.au/about/corporate- publications/afmas-client-service-charter/7) which sets out AFMA’s Our service commitments accord with the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct and provides for any deficiencies in AFMA’s administration to the attention of the Commonwealth Ombudsman have certain fisheries management decisions.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 241

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • 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. Therefore, the national legal system provides for a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes and meets SG60, SG80 and SG100. c Respect for rights Guide The management system has The management system has The management system has post a mechanism to generally a mechanism to observe the a mechanism to formally respect the legal rights legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights created explicitly or or established by custom of created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Special provision for ‘traditional fishing’ is made where they might apply in the contexts of cation both Commonwealth and State Fisheries Law. A system or mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicit or established by custom on people dependent on fishing for food (non-commercial use) is enshrined in the Native Title Act”. This allows for special provision for ‘traditional fishing’ is made where they might apply in the contexts of both Commonwealth and State Fisheries Law. The Small Pelagic fishery is a specialist offshore commercial fishery. Indigenous rights are not specifically relevant. The Aboriginal Land Act 1978 (NT) 12(1) empowers the Administrator to close the seas adjoining and within 2km of Aboriginal land to others who are not Aborigines entitled by tradition to enter and use the seas in accordance with that tradition. Therefore, the management system formally commits to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people and meets SG60, SG80 and SG100. Australian Government (1991a), Arrangement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales in Relation to the Finfish Fishery, Gazette GN 2, 16 January, 1991. Australian Government (1991b), Arrangement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales in Relation to the Silver Trevally and Related Species Fishery, Gazette GN 2, 16 January 1991. Australia Government, Fisheries Management Act 1991. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A04237 Australian Government, Fisheries Administration Act 1991. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A04236 References Australian Government, Fisheries Management Regulations 1992. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017C00241 Australian Government, Fisheries (Administration) Regulations 1992. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2005C00266 Australian Government, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act, 1999. Available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consolact/epabca1999588/ Australian Government, Environment, Protection and Biodiversity Regulations, 2000. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/F2000B00190 AFMA (2015a). AFMA Corporate Plan, Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/about/corporate-publications/afma-corporate-plan-2015-

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 242

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • 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. 2018 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 Weier A and Loke P (2007), Precaution and the Precautionary Principle: two Australian case studies, Productivity Commission, Commonwealth of Australia, 2007 AAT, 2000. Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Arno Blank V AFMA, AAT 1027, 15 November, 2000 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2000/1027.html) Challenge to the application of an effort control system in the Northern Prawn Fishery, Josh Fielding, AFMA, email of 21/12/2011, cited in MRAG, 2018 Government of Australia, Native Title Act, 1993. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00178 The Aboriginal Land Act 1978 (NT) 12, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consolact/ala126/s12.html OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 243

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities

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 a Roles and responsibilities Guide Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and post individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process have management process have management process have been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are roles and responsibilities are roles and responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and well explicitly defined and well understood for key areas understood for all areas of of responsibility and responsibility and interaction. interaction. Met? Y Y Y Justifi AFMA undertakes the day to day management of the Commonwealth fisheries under cation powers outlined in the FMA and Fisheries Administration Act 1991. Overarching policy direction is set by the Australian Government through the relevant Minister responsible for fisheries, acting upon advice from the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 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). • Fisheries Administration Paper Series No. 12 Resource Assessment Groups - Roles, Responsibilities and Relationship with Management Advisory Committees (AFMA, 2018b) Roles and responsibilities are divided between the respective management organisation (AFMA), the South Eastern Management Committee (SEMAC) and the Small Pelagic Fishery Scientific Panel. As part of AFMA's partnership approach to fisheries management, it has established SEMAC, which is AFMA's main point of contact with client groups in the SPF and plays an important role in helping AFMA to fulfil its legislative functions and pursue its objectives (Smith et al., 1999). The MAC comprises representatives of the SPF industry, an environmental representative, research interests and fishery managers. Invited observers may also attend, which may include the Australian States, with specific transboundary interests in the fishery, Recreational interests, The Department of Environment, Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARES), and representatives of CSIRO. SEMAC provides advice to AFMA on a variety of issues, including the harvest strategy and other on-going measures required to manage the fishery, including the development of management plans, research priorities and projects for the fishery. The functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction and meet SG60, SG80 and SG100 b Consultation processes Guide The management system The management system The management system post includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 244

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 relevant information from seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local including local knowledge, knowledge. The knowledge. The to inform the management management system management system system. demonstrates consideration demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. of the information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The MACs are intended to complement the work of fishery managers by providing a cation broader perspective on management options and a wide range of expertise. MACs therefore provide a forum where issues relating to a fishery are discussed, problems identified and possible solutions developed. The outcomes of these deliberations determine the recommendations that the MAC will make to the AFMA Commission. AFMA’s legislation limits the number of members on a MAC to ten, in addition to the Chairperson and an AFMA officer. Increasingly, and where appropriate, AFMA has included a broader range of interest groups in this consultative process. The AFMA Commission decides on a fishery- by-fishery basis whether membership of a MAC should also reflect these wider community interests. As a general rule, revised membership arrangements are considered upon expiry of terms of appointment of existing members. Specific arrangements are being made to review the role of recreational and indigenous groups on each MAC (AFMA, 2018c). The MAC that covers the management of the SPF is known as the South East Management Advisory Committee (SEMAC), and includes three fisheries, the Small Pelagic Fishery and the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) and the Southern Squid Jig Fishery (SSJF). There are currently seven statutory members of SEMAC comprising the Chairman, four from industry, one from the conservation community, a research member, and an AFMA Member (usually the Fishery Senior Manager). Historically, with SEMAC State Government representatives (New South Wales, Tasmania, and Victoria) and a recreational stakeholder are invited participants. A recreational member is therefore not currently on SEMAC. Indigenous fishing members may be appointed where there are identifiable fishing interests in a particular fishery. Invited Observers usually include one or more AFMA Commissioner, and the Chair of the SPF Scientific Panel, if not already a member of the MAC. SARDI scientists, and a representative from ABARES. Invited observers can also include indigenous and recreational fisher representatives. The first meeting of SEMAC was held in 2013. Minutes of SEMAC meetings are publicly available on the AFMA website51. The SPF stock assessment process is reviewed by SPF Scientific Panel which provides advice to SEMAC. The SPF Scientific Panels is not a body of the MACs and operate independently from them, although the two groups work closely together. All advice presented by SPF Scientific Panel is given without bias. The MACs consider the advice of SPF Scientific Panel and provide recommendations to the Commission based on how the alternatives will contribute to meeting overall objectives for the particular fishery (risk management) and, ultimately, to the pursuit of AFMA’s legislative objectives.

The SPF Scientific Panel is required to engage with stakeholders to ensure its advice to the Commission is sound, well-founded and takes account of stakeholders’ views and

51 https://afma.govcms.gov.au/fisheries/committees/south-east-management-advisory-committee-semac/south- east-mac-past-meetings

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 245

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 experience. The Stakeholder Forums is the main avenue to capture stakeholder views and provide interested stakeholders with the opportunity to consider and discuss the scientific advice of the panel.

The forum, whilst going through an 18-month trial process, is open to members of peak recreational fishing bodies, environmental non-government organisations (e-NGOs), indigenous groups, individual community stakeholders and commercial fishing industry members. Attendance at Stakeholder Forums will be by invitation only after registration with AFMA. Attendance at the SPF forum to date has seen some 17 people present: Five from the recreational fishing sector, one each from third party certification, Tasmanian state fisheries department, New South Wales state fisheries department and the balance made up of members of the Scientific Panel and AFMA. Stakeholder Forum attendees may, after giving previous notice to AFMA, deliver presentations on their views or topics relevant to the Small Pelagic Fishery. Outcomes from Stakeholder Forums are provided to the Commission, the Scientific Panel and SEMAC by the forum facilitator, who then submit a report on the key issues raised and any outcomes to AFMA. The reports are not consensus based but cover key discussions and outcomes of the Stakeholder Forum. The Scientific Panel Chair contributes to the development of Stakeholder Forum agendas, in conjunction with AFMA and the Stakeholder Forum facilitator. The Scientific Panel also reports on any undertakings given at past Stakeholder Forums and what progress has been made towards these. This advice is also be reported to the Commission, AFMA and to SEMAC. In response, any advice sought by the Commission from the Scientific Panel is posted on the AFMA website. An Independent Facilitator, along with the Scientific Panel Chair, reports on the Scientific Panel’s annual work-plan, any Scientific Panel recommendations and decisions made as well as reporting on any research outcomes to the Stakeholder Forums. Recreational stakeholders were interviewed by the assessment team (), and the current representational system was discussed. Key comments were: 6. Broadly the management system and discussions were transparent including access to management and the state of the stocks. However, they would very much like greater access to data and better understanding about what is and isn’t available 7. The need to have a greater understanding of the relative economic importance of the recreational fishing sector against the commercial fishery. 8. That they were largely excluded from direct dialogue on management issues, largely through SEMAC. They acknowledged that they had a good working relationship with AFMA but would prefer that AFMA would support improved communication between recreational interests and the fishery. 9. Experience with the Forum had been restricted to one meeting in Sydney and a tele conference call. It was too early to assess how effective these processes were. 10. Recreational interests had shown a consistent track record of wanting to participate but faced particular barriers in terms of funding to attend meetings (flight costs and lack of financial support to participate in meetings outside the State’s jurisdictional members. The environmental and ecosystem issues member on SEMAC indicated her broad satisfaction in her participation at meetings (Anissa Lawrence, pers com, 6 February, 2019). As the member specialist on environmental issues, she would liaise with the principal NGOs that had an interest in the fishery on key issues. The eNGOs were invited as stakeholders but chose not to comment. The invited participant from New South Wales (Veronica Silberschneider, pers com, 6 February 2019), an invited representative to SEMAC, also indicted her broad satisfaction

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 246

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 with the MAC processes.

The structure of the current consultation process does demonstrate that the management system includes consultation processes that regularly seeks and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. Minutes of the Stakeholder Forum’s Independent Adjudicator, the Scientific Panel and the RAG explains how information from the consultation process is used or not used in support of the management system. In addition to the opportunities for stakeholder engagement provided by the MACs and the Stakeholder Panel, AFMA provide opportunities for public comment on fisheries management plans; requires each MAC to hold an annual public meeting; and holds around half of AFMA’s Commission meetings in regional centres providing opportunities for direct access to AFMA Commissioners by stakeholders and the general public. The Small Pelagic fishery was subject to a State Expert Enquiry (Lack et al 2014) and a Senate Enquiry (Sentate, 2016), at which time various stakeholders, including eNGOs and Recreational fishers, along with AFMA, provided input. The Government subsequently to a series of recommendations, including amongst other things, implementing the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Act, 2017. The evidence available also demonstrates that the consultation process does provide opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved and facilitates their effective engagement. The assessment team is of the view that this scoring requirement is met, but again points to the disproportionality of representation at the MAC level between environmental and recreational interests. It is also acknowledged that AFMA is currently reviewing whether there should be permanent representation of recreational and indigenous interests on each MAC, and whether the Stakeholder Panel (currently on a trial basis) is effective. The functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction and meet SG60, SG80 and SG100. c Participation Guide The consultation process The consultation process post provides opportunity for provides opportunity and all interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Y Y Justifi DAWR consulted government organisations, the commercial fishing industry, cation environmental non-government organisations, the recreational fishing industry, state fisheries departments, scientific research organisations and government organisations. The department also developed a discussion paper for public consultation, as part of the review process. The discussion paper was released in November 2012 for a 6-week public consultation period (see above). AFMA holds an annual public meeting and holds around half of AFMA’s Commission meetings in regional centres providing opportunities for direct access to AFMA Commissioners by stakeholders and the general public. SEMAC is made up of key stakeholders (see above). AFMA Commission decides on a fishery-by-fishery basis whether membership of a MAC should also reflect these wider

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 247

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 community interests. The Government of Australia enacted the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Act, 2017, in order to ensure effective representation of indigenous and recreational fishing interests onto MACs. Discussions are presently ongoing with the MAC, which would allow for permanent representation of both recreational and indigenous representative as full members on each MAC. Recreational interests are members of the SPF Stakeholder Forum. This Forum, which is a trail arrangement, is unique to the SPF, provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.

Stakeholder Forum attendees may, after giving previous notice to AFMA, deliver presentations on their views or topics relevant to the Small Pelagic Fishery. Outcomes from Stakeholder Forums are provided to the Commission, the Scientific Panel and SEMAC by the forum’s Independent Adjudicator, who then submit a report on the key issues raised and any outcomes to AFMA (AFMA, 2018c). The reports are not consensus based but cover key discussions and outcomes of the Stakeholder Forum. The Scientific Panel Chair contributes to the development of Stakeholder Forum agendas, in conjunction with AFMA and the Stakeholder Forum facilitator. The Scientific Panel also reports on any undertakings given at past Stakeholder Forums and what progress has been made towards these. This advice is also be reported to the Commission, AFMA and to SEMAC. In response, any advice sought by the Commission from the Scientific Panel is posted on the AFMA website. An Independent Facilitator, along with the Scientific Panel Chair, reports on the Scientific Panel’s annual work-plan, any Scientific Panel recommendations and decisions made as well as reporting on any research outcomes to the Stakeholder Forums. Recreational fishers attend these meetings along with State Fisheries Departments and the balance made up of members of the Scientific Panel and AFMA. There have been no representatives from either the commercial or environmental sectors at the forums, despite being invited.

The MAC considers the wide range of information including local knowledge as part of its advisory processes. It has in, the past invited, observers to MAC meetings. As motioned above, SEMAC also considers the undertakings made by The Scientific Panel Chair ND AFMA given at past Stakeholder Forums. The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved and facilitates their effective engagement. SG60, SG80 and SG 100 are met SG100.

Smith, A. D. M. Sainsbury, K. J., and Stevens, R. A. (1999), Implementing effective fisheries-management systems – management strategy evaluation and the Australian partnership approach, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56: 967–979. 1999. Available at http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/6/967.abstract AFMA (2018a) Management Advisory Committee, Fisheries Management Paper. No 1 AFMA, 1999. Fisheries Administration Paper (FMP) No.7 - Information and Advice for References Industry Mem. bears on AFMA Committees. AFMA, 2018b. Fisheries Administration Paper Series No. 12 Resource Assessment Groups - Roles, Responsibilities and Relationship with Management Advisory Committees ( DAFF (2013). Final Report of the Review of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/fisheries/environment/bycatch/repo rt-harvest-strategy.pdf Lack et al (2014), Report of the Expert Panel on a Declared Commercial Fishing Activity

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 248

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 (Final Small Pelagic Fishery Declaration 2012 The Senate (2016), Environment and Communications References Committee: Factory freezer trawlers in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery, November, 2016. Available at Factory freezer trawlers in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery.

Australia Government (2017), Australian Government response to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee report: Factory freezer trawlers in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery, December 2017. Available at https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Australian+Government+respons e+to+the+Senate+Environment+and+Communications+References+Committee+report:+Fa ctory+freezer+trawlers+in+the+Commonwealth+Small+Pelagic+Fishery,+December+2017 &ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 SEMAC minutes. Available at https://afma.govcms.gov.au/fisheries/committees/south-east- management-advisory-committee-semac/south-east-mac-past-meetings SPF Panel minutes> Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/small-pelagic- fishery/small-pelagic-fishery-scientific-panel The Stakeholder Forum. Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/small-pelagic- fishery/small-pelagic-fishery-stakeholder-forum AFMA 2018d, 61st AFMA Commission meeting - Chairman's summary. Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/61st-afma-commission-meeting-chairmans-summary OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 249

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives

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 a Objectives Guide Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives post guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the fisheries standard and the fisheries standard and the precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and policy. policy. required by management policy. Met? Y Y Y Justifi [The long-term objectives of the management system are specified in the FMA and the cation EPBC Act, and further defined in the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines; and the Commonwealth Bycatch Management Policy. 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. 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. Australian Government, Australian Fisheries Management Act of 1991. Available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consolact/fma1991193/ Department of Environment and Environment (1992a). National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/about- us/esd/publications/national-esd-strategy Department of Environment and Environment (1992a). Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/about- us/esd/publications/intergovernmental-agreement

References Australian Government, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Available at 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 (2018c). Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy: Framework for managing the risk of fishing-related impacts on bycatch species in Commonwealth fisheries. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/environment/bycatch/review OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 250

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives

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 a Objectives Guide Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and post broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving the long-term objectives, which expressed by MSC’s outcomes expressed by are demonstrably consistent Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, with achieving the outcomes implicit within the fishery- are explicit within the expressed by MSC’s specific management fishery-specific management Principles 1 and 2, are system. system. explicit within the fishery- specific management system. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan 2009 reinforces the long-term objectives of the cation FMA as the long-term objectives of the Plan. Fishery specific (short -term) objectives are identified in the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy (2017), and these are reviewed on a regular basis (the previous strategy set out in 2008). developing and implementing appropriate management measures (including directions referred to in subsection 17 (5A) of the Act). The short-term objectives within the Harvest Strategy include: • Principles for recommending TACs and Recommended Biological Catches (RBCs) • Assessment and monitoring; • Harvest Strategy Framework • Decision Rules and Reference Points • Review The Strategy contains well defined measurable indicators, with supporting key performance indicators: • Indicators (data from the fishery) • Monitoring (agreed protocols to get data) • Reference points (targets and limits) • Method of assessment (e.g. stock assessment, Catch per Unit of Effort (CPUE) standardisation) • Decision rules (agreed rules for setting catch levels).

A by-catch action plan conforms to the requirements as laid down in the EPBC Act, 1999 and the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries, 2007. Objectives of the Work Plan include: • information gathered about the impact of the fishery on by-catch species; and • all reasonable steps are taken to minimise incidental interactions with seabirds, marine reptiles, marine mammals and fish of a kind mentioned in sections 15 and 15A of the Act; and • the ecological impacts of fishing operations on habitats in the area of the fishery are minimised and kept at an acceptable level; and • by-catch is reduced to, or kept at, a minimum, and below a level that might threaten by- catch species. Work Plan’s strategies include: • Respond to high ecological risks assessed through AFMA’s Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effect of Fishing (ERAEF) and other assessment processes; • Avoid interactions with species listed under the Environment Protection and

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 251

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. Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act); • Reduce discarding of target species to as close to zero as practically possible; and • Minimise overall bycatch in the fishery over the long-term.

The Bycatch and Discarding Workplan identifies three areas of action:

• Monitor the trial and use of top-opening seal excluder devices (SEDs) in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector of the SESSF and adapt as appropriate (having regard for health and safety issues) for SPF mid-water trawl boats • Develop and implement VMPs for mid-water trawl operators to minimise ETPS interactions and record procedures for reporting on catch and wildlife interactions • Develop triggers to identify shifts or expansion in effort within the fishery, including increased interactions with TEPS.

The Midwater trawl fishery applies a 20% observer program, SEDs and Individual Vessel Management Plans (IVMPs). SPF Bycatch and Discard actions are defined in Table 2 of the Work Plan and include Responsible Parties (Industry supported by Government), Performance Indicators, and milestones. Well-defined and measurable short and long-term objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system achieving SG60, SG80 and SG100. Australia Government (2009), Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan 2009. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2014C01077 AFMA (2017a). Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy, 2017 (Revised from 2008). Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/04/SPF-Harvest- References StrategyApril-2017FINAL.pdf AFMA (2014) Small Pelagic Fishery Bycatch and Discarding Workplan 2014-2016 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/11/Bycatch-and-Discard- Work-Plan-SPF-2016.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 252

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Decision-making processes Guide There are some decision- There are established post making processes in place decision-making processes that result in measures and that result in measures and strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives. Met? Y Y Justifi DAWR has delegated the management of specific fisheries to AFMA (Australia cation Government, 1991), DAWR having overarching responsibility for the development of laws and policy. The decision-making processes by AFMA is based on advice from SEMAC (working with the SPF Scientific Panel. The workings of the MAC and Scientific Panel are transparent with feedback provided by the Commission directly from SEMAC and to stakeholders through media such as the regular AFMA Update and through the Annual public meeting of both the MAC and AFMA. The decision-making process for the SPF is consistent with those for the broader management system and responds to the defined harvest and bycatch management strategies, which respond to research, outcomes evaluations and monitoring programs. The AFMA website contains an extensive list of evaluations, research reports and assessments, and evidence exists within the SEMAC and the SPF Scientific Panel that decisions respond to these findings (https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/small-pelagic-fishery). Therefore, both SG60 and SG80 have been met. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guide Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes post respond to serious issues respond to serious and respond to all issues identified in relevant other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The decision-making process for the SPF is consistent with those for the broader cation commonwealth management system and responds to the defined harvest and bycatch management strategies, which respond to research, outcome evaluations and monitoring programd. Specific and relevant issues are evaluated through the MAC and Scientific Panel and mechanisms are in place that take account of the wider implications of decisions, including reference to the AFMA commissioners. Important decisions relating to harvest strategy development, and bycatch management are all encompassed through these groups. Therefore, SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 have been met. c Use of precautionary approach Guide Decision-making processes post use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 253

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Met? Y Justifi The harvest strategies and control rules applied to the fishery incorporate a precautionary cation approach to the decision-making process by requiring a review when the target reference level is not met. This ensures that any warning signs are recognised and investigated / addressed in their early stages. The frequency of evaluation (annually) and review means that management action to investigate and, where required, alleviate adverse impacts on stocks is always taken before the performance indicators reach the limit reference level. The application of the research, monitoring and evaluation within the SPF Management Plan, Harvest Strategy and Bycatch Management Strategy provides a good tool to assess the relative risks to target species, bycatch, ETP species and ecosystem impacts in the fishery, initiating when appropriate, actions to deal with at risk species. Examples of precautionary actions include adopting precautionary harvest limits; and the application of a dolphin catch mitigation plan and SEDs. Since there is strong evidence of precautionary actions covering both P1 and P2 management issues, the SG80 has been met. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guide Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all post fishery’s performance and fishery’s performance and interested stakeholders management action is management action is provides comprehensive generally available on available on request, and information on the request to stakeholders. explanations are provided fishery’s performance and for any actions or lack of management actions and action associated with describes how the findings and relevant management system recommendations emerging responded to findings and from research, monitoring, relevant recommendations evaluation and review emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y Y Justific AFMA and SARDI provide a comprehensive range of reports which confirm fishery ation performance and how management has responded to findings from recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. (https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/small-pelagic-fishery). These include stock status reports and DEPM surveys; catch data including target species, monitoring of marine mammal interaction and critical knowledge gaps in estimating potential cumulative anthropogenic mortality limits of key marine species.

Explanations are provided for actions or lack of actions by the organisations tasked with implementation. Failure to achieve the management reference levels is discussed at SEMAC and advice provided to AFMA. AFMA provide responses through the MAC how information is reviewed and the management decisions made (See SEMAC past meetings (https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/committees/south-east-management-advisory- committee-semacIt then becomes the responsibility of AFMA to rectify failure to achieve specific management outcomes. As part of comanagement functions, The Harvest Strategy and Bycatch Workplan contain monitoring and performance indicators and provided the basis for incorporating relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity Therefore, both SG80 and SG100 have been met. e Approach to disputes Guide Although the management The management system or The management system or post authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 254

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. challenges, it is not with judicial decisions rapidly implements judicial indicating a disrespect or arising from any legal decisions arising from legal defiance of the law by challenges. challenges. repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The consultation and advisory processes ensure that the management system in the fishery cation acts proactively to avoid legal disputes. In addition, licence conditions provide for a system of dispute resolution in the event that the prescribed licence holder is not satisfied with the conditions (Part 8 161-162 of the Fisheries Management Act). No legal challenges or judicial decisions have taken place in the SPF. An appeals procedure exists to the Federal Court for Statutory Fishing Rights Allocations, but has not been tested. The scoring guidance outcomes SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. Australian Government, Fisheries Administration Act, 1991. Available at https://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=fisheries+administration+act+1 991&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gferd=cr&ei=10J8WJe-As7u8wfTroXwBg AFMA (2018a), Management Advisory Committee, 2018. Available at https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/revisedfmp1toreflectlegislativ References echanges-october2018.pdf AFMA Publications are available at https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/small-pelagic- fishery Australian High Court Judgement. Available at http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2013/hca47-2013-11- 06.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 255

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement

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 a MCS implementation Guide Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive post surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are implemented been implemented in the surveillance system has been in the fishery and there is a fishery and has implemented in the fishery reasonable expectation that demonstrated an ability to and has demonstrated a they are effective. enforce relevant consistent ability to enforce management measures, relevant management strategies and/or rules. measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y Y Justifi AFMA deploys a comprehensive enforcement system, including at sea patrols and cation boardings, pre-inspection checks and inspections on offloading (AFMA, 2017d, AFMA (2018-2019)). The effectiveness of the inspection system is underlined by a system of risk assessment (AFMA 2017c), where systematic offenders are likely to be singled out. Specific non-compliance areas have been prioritised, notably Sea bird mitigation- vessels complying with concession conditions and vessel management plans, Dolphin mitigation - vessels complying with concession conditions and vessel management plans, Seal mitigation - vessels complying with concession conditions and vessel management plans, Accurate reporting of all TEP species, Accurate reporting of all migrative species, VMS and EM operational at all times, Log books vessels complying with concession and log book conditions, Logbook and Catch disposal book accuracy and closure monitoring (AFMA pers com, 5 February, 2019).

The effectiveness of AFMA’s compliance system has been evaluated by the Auditor- General (ANO), 2013. Therefore, SG60, SG 80 and SG100 have been met. b Sanctions Guide Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- post compliance exist and there is compliance exist, are compliance exist, are some evidence that they are consistently applied and consistently applied and applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Y Y Y Justifi AFMA operates an effective compliance system but focuses primarily of awareness raising cation prior to the start of the fishing season. If infringements were to be detected, the penalty process implemented equates to the seriousness of offence, culminating in a sequence of warnings, expedited offences and prosecutions, leading to license confiscation for serious offences. The main tool applied is AFMA Commonwealth Fisheries Infringement Notices (CFINs), which are on the spot fines. The schedule of fines is based on a penalty unit system defined in Section 95 of the FMA, 1991, with fines offences specified on the Fisheries Management regulations (1992) with defined Index to offences. The combination of substantial enforcement and no offences taking place is evidence that sanctions are a demonstrably effective deterrent. Therefore SG60, SG80 and SG100 have been met. c Compliance Guide Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 256

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. post thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers management system for the with the management system comply with the fishery under assessment, under assessment, including, management system under including, when required, when required, providing assessment, including, providing information of information of importance to providing information of importance to the effective the effective management of importance to the effective management of the fishery. the fishery. management of the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The Division measures compliance outcomes by estimating compliance and non-compliance cation rates. No offences have been detected in the SPF. AFMA compliance has inspected 8 SPF vessels since 27 September 2016, covering 4 different vessels. No offences were detected. Before this date AFMA compliance regularly inspected the Geelong Star (AFMA, email response, 5 February, 2019).

Therefore SG60, SG80 and SG100 have been met. d Systematic non-compliance Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non-compliance. Met? Y Justifi There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance by the licensees and skippers in the SPF. cation SG80 has been met. AFMA (2018e) National Compliance and Enforcement Program 2018–19 https://afma.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5531/f/10017-afma-national-compliance-and- enforcement-programfa.pdf AFMA (2017c). National Compliance 2017-19 Risk Assessment Methodology “The compliance risk assessment process. Available at https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/05/National-Compliance-Risk- Assessment-Methodology-2017-19.pdf AFMA (2017d) National Compliance and Enforcement Policy 2017 https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/07/2017-National-Compliance- References and-Enforcement-Policy-with-signed-page.pdf Administration of the Domestic Fishing Compliance Program. The Auditor-General Audit Report No.20 2012-2013, Performance Audit. Available at https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/net2446/f/201213%20Audit%20Report%20No%2020. pdf AFMA email response (pers com, 5 February 2019) Australia Government, Fisheries Management Act 1991. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A04237 Australian Government, Fisheries Management Regulations 1992. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017C00241 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 257

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation

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 a Evaluation coverage Guide There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in post place to evaluate some parts place to evaluate key parts place to evaluate all parts of of the fishery-specific of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific management system. management system management system. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The Australia Government commissioned two independent reviews of the core Acts (EPBC cation Act and FMA) governing the environment and fisheries (Hawke, 2009, and Borthwick, 2012). The Borthwick review also included reviews of policy settings, recasting AFMA’s objectives, fisheries management plans, the Minister’s powers to vary fisheries management plans, integrating fisheries and environmental assessments, Research, fisheries management and industry levies, Offshore Constitutional Settlements (OCS), Recreational Fishing, Aquaculture, Compliance and enforcement and Co-management. The Government response to the Borthwick Review was announced in March 2013. DAWR thereafter initiated a public consultation process DAFF (2012/2013), followed by specific Reports on Harvest Strategy and Bycatch management strategy (DAFF 2013a, DAFF 2013b). Thereafter, this prompted the formulation revisions to the national harvest strategy (GoA, 2018a) and bycatch management policy (GoA, 2018c) The Government also commissioned an expert panel review of the Small Pelagic fishery (Lack et al,2014), providing support to the Australia Government is responding to the Senate (2016), Environment and Communications References Committee. AFMA regularly undertake reviews into their management system. These include Productivity Commission review (AFMA,2016a) of commercial fisheries regulation in Australia; and an independent review of AFMA’s fisheries management, organisation and governance. The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system. Therefore SG60, SG80 and SG100 have been met. b Internal and/or external review Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific post management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular internal subject to regular internal internal review. and occasional external and external review. review. Met? Y Y Y Justifi In addition, AFMA’s management system is subject to internal and external performance cation evaluation including (Nick Rayns, AFMA, January 2017, MRAG, 2017): Internal peer reviews, which include: • The requirement to report in AFMA’s Annual Report on overall performance against the legislative objectives, statutory requirements and financial reporting, the effectiveness of internal controls and adequacy of systems; and the Authority’s risk management processes; • AFMA and the MAC to periodically assess the effectiveness of the management measures taken to achieve the objectives of this Management Plan by reference to the performance criteria specified in the Plan

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 258

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. • An AFMA MAC/Scientific Panel Workshop focusing on managing conflicts of interest, the Productivity Commission review of commercial fisheries management, the regulatory outlook etc. • AFMA and SEMAC developing performance measures • SEMAC research proposals reviewed by the AFMA Research Committee and those for FRDC funding by the Commonwealth Research Advisory Committee • The SPF harvest strategy to be reviewed based on the revised Australian Government’s Harvest Strategy Policy • Review of AFMA’s ERA-ERM Framework – new Guidelines for fisheries have been were finalised in 2017; and • AFMA also has an internal quality assurance program to determine whether Compliance best practice has been followed External reviews, which include: • Questioning by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport in Senate Estimates hearings (three times/year); • Annual reporting of SPF performance against protected species and export approval requirements under the EPBC Act consistent with the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries (See below); • The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) annual reports (last published late 2016) on the ecological and economic sustainability of fisheries managed by AFMA; • The draft Productivity Commission review of commercial fisheries regulation in Australia which has made a number of recommendations relevant to AFMA (GoA, 2016); • The Australian National Audit Office periodic reviews of aspects of AFMA’s performance. This includes an audit of AFMA’s risk management procedure (AFMA, 2016). • An independent review of AFMA’s fisheries management, organisation and governance, has also just been completed. All SARDI reports are subject to an internal review process by in-house scientists. SARDI stock assessment work of SPF target species have not been reviewed (Tim Ward, 7 February, 2019). This issue is scored under PI 1.2.4 All FRDC funded research papers are also subject to external review. The ANAO regularly reviews the AFMA Compliance Program (ANAO, 2013a), and these recommendations are adopted into the AFMA Compliance Program (AFMA 2017-2018). The implementation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) requires the Australian Government to assess the environmental performance of fisheries and promote ecologically sustainable management. The independent assessment of all export and all Australian Government managed fisheries is required. These assessments ensure that, over time, fisheries are managed in an ecologically sustainable way. The Assessment (DoEE, 2018) is available at DoEE website, Assessment of the Small Pelagic Fishery. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/41b182ca-9bfc- 48b2-92a1-8a21f729f337/files/assessment-commonwealth-small-pelagic-fishery-oct- 2018.pdf;

Hawke, A. (2009) Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999., October, 2009, Available at References https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/5f3fdad6-30ba-48f7-ab17- c99e8bcc8d78/files/final-report.pdf Borthwick, D (2012). Review of Commonwealth Fisheries: Policy, Legislation and Management, DAFF,

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 259

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. https://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Review+of+the+operation+of+ the+Fisheries+Act&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gferd=cr&ei=d7J-WI6LNsbr8Af37PACw Australia Government, Government Response to the Commonwealth Fisheries Review, Statement by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig, 21 March 2013. Available on http://www.tarfish.org/documents/Borthwick%20Review%20Report%20Govt%20Response %2020130321.pdf DAFF (2012/2013), Summary of stakeholder consultation for the review of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/fisheries/domestic/harvest- strategy-policy/hspsummary.pdf DAFF (2013a). Final Report of the Review of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/fisheries/environment/bycatch/repo rt-harvest-strategy.pdf DAFF (2013b), Report on the review of the Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/fisheries/environment/bycatch/sub missions/fisheries-bycatch.pdf 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 Australia Government (2016a), Productivity Commission nquiry Report, No 81, December 2016. Available at https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/fisheries- aquaculture/report/fisheries-aquaculture.pdf Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2018c). Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy: Framework for managing the risk of fishing-related impacts on bycatch species in Commonwealth fisheries. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/environment/bycatch/review Australia Government (2017), Australian Government response to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee report: Factory freezer trawlers in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery, December 2017. Available at https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Australian+Government+respons e+to+the+Senate+Environment+and+Communications+References+Committee+report:+Fa ctory+freezer+trawlers+in+the+Commonwealth+Small+Pelagic+Fishery,+December+2017 &ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 The Senate (2016), Environment and Communications References Committee: Factory freezer trawlers in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery, November, 2016. Available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj H2byil57gAhWWfn0KHVoJB_cQFjAAegQICBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov .au%2FParliamentary_Business%2FCommittees%2FSenate%2FEnvironment_and_Commu nications%2FSupertrawlers45th%2F~%2Fmedia%2FCommittees%2Fec_ctte%2FSupertraw lers45th%2Freport.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0jaD_5tHoALEHpHJudYWrQ Australia National Audit Office (2013). Administration of the Domestic Fishing Compliance Program https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/administration-domestic-fishing- compliance-program

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 260

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.

Department of Environment and Energy (2018), Assessment of the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/41b182ca- 9bfc-48b2-92a1-8a21f729f337/files/assessment-commonwealth-small-pelagic-fishery-oct- 2018.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 261

Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs

The RBF was not used in this assessment.

Appendix 1.3 Conditions

Table A1.3: Condition 1 1.2.2 SIa: There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place. Performance SG80: Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is Indicator reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. Score 75

The HCRs are documented in the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy (SPFHS). Smith et al (2015) determined conservative exploitation levels that aimed to maintain stocks above B50% with a high degree of confidence (<8% probability) of falling below B20% in 50 years for a range of MSE scenarios. Therefore even at maximum exploitation rates the fishery is highly likely to be operating below FMSY under average conditions. The MSE results provide the basis for the HCRs, with maximum exploitation rates of 15% for blue mackerel, 12% for jack mackerel and 10% for redbait. The HCRs provide a framework where exploitation rates are reduced as uncertainty in population status increases. This is reflective of the developing nature of the fishery. The HCRs have 3 Tiers. At Tier 1, where the maximum exploitation rate can be applied, a biomass estimate must be completed every five years and a Fishery Assessment is completed annually. At Tier 2, where a DEPM survey is between 5 and 10 or 15 years old (depending on the species), a Fishery Assessment is completed annually and the exploitation rate is half of the maximum. At Tier 3, where a DEPM survey is greater than 10 or 15 years old a review of available catch and effort data is required, and the exploitation rate is 25% of the maximum. The MSE work (Smith et al 2015) determined exploitation rates of 23%, 12% and 9%, at Tier 1 for blue mackerel, jack mackerel and redbait, respectively. The SPFHS uses 15% for blue mackerel because there is uncertainty regarding some Rationale of the biological parameters. The exploitation rate for redbait is 10% which reflects the levels determined for the western redbait stocks (as opposed to 9% for UoA stocks), however redbait exploitation rates are highly unlikely to reach these levels as redbait are only caught as a byproduct during targeted jack mackerel and blue mackerel fishing. Smith et al (2015) also reported that there was negligible benefit in conducting surveys every two years compared to five years, however uncertainty increased substantially when DEPM surveys were conducted more than five years apart. This led to the Tier 2 recommendation to halve exploitation rate to maintain stocks above B50% with the same degree of confidence. A further halving of the exploitation rate occurs at Tier 3 when surveys become either 10 or 15 years old, depending on the species. By including these decision rules, the Harvest Strategy explicitly accounts for the uncertain event that PRI is approached in the absence of a direct biomass measure by automatically reducing exploitation to levels that will ensure recovery of the stock to levels above B50%. While it cannot be argued that these HCRs are responsive to the state of the stock, they do ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is theoretically approached, and they can be expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level at least consistent with BMSY. At Tier 1, where DEPM surveys are conducted at least every 5 years, the constant maximum exploitation rate is applied. The model indicates that this approach is sufficient to ensure that PRI is unlikely to be approached with a high degree of certainty, as a decline in survey biomass will result in a decline in the RBC (i.e.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 262

catch / total exploitation). However this in itself will not ensure a reduction in exploitation rate as required for SG80. Thus, even if the DEPM spawning biomass declines to very low levels relative to previous surveys, the harvest strategy allows the maximum exploitation rate to be applied. The HCRs currently lack an explicit LRP that equates to PRI and it also lacks an explicit mechanism to reduce exploitation if PRI is approached. Importantly, it should be noted that the risks of approaching PRI are directly related to the catch (i.e. exploitation rate) harvested by the fishery. The fishery is currently in a developmental phase and catches to date have been below half of the TAC available at Tier 1. While HCRs that reduce exploitation rate do not currently exist for Tier 1, the systems implemented by the fishery agency do provide substantial confidence that exploitation would likely be reduced if evidence were presented that PRI was being approached. Firstly, while direct measures of biomass are only conducted every five years at the most, annual assessments of catch, effort, CPUE and age and length frequencies for each species are presented in a Fishery Assessment Report. While the data gathered to date during the exploratory phase of the fishery are limited, they are nonetheless likely to provide a useful baseline for determination of changes in population parameters that may reflect declines in biomass in the future. Secondly, the exploitation rates at Tier 1 are maximum exploitation rates only. The Scientific Panel recommends on an annual basis what the appropriate TAC should be given the information provided in the latest DEPM surveys and Fishery Assessment report. The Minister makes the final decision on what the TAC should be for any given year. Thus if signs of population decline became evident, the agency has mechanisms in place to reduce exploitation as required. Finally, although the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy document does not contain explicit LRPs, it is directly linked to the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy which states that when a stock falls below the LRP (which is generally at least equivalent to PRI) a Stock Rebuilding Strategy must be implemented, with exploitation rates reduced to levels that ensure stock recovery within a timeframe that by definition fits with the MSC PI 1.1.2. AFMA has already implemented several Stock Rebuilding Strategies under the Harvest Strategy framework (e.g. blue warehou). In summary, the fishery is currently underexploited and stocks of all three UoA species are highly likely to be well above BMSY. A range of tools are available to manage the fishery including a TAC based on conservative exploitation rates, DEPM surveys to estimate spawning biomass, and annual assessment of key population parameters and fishery statistics. TAC decisions are recommended by a Scientific Panel following a Harvest Strategy decision framework that is linked to the Australian Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy. Given the favourable current status of the stocks, it is considered that generally understood HCRs are in place or available that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as PRI is approached. On this basis, the PI 1.2.2a SG60 is met. These tools have been developed into explicit HCRs complicit with the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy. At Tiers 2 and 3, which determines exploitation rates in the absence of ongoing biomass surveys, exploitation rates are reduced when the age of surveys exceeds 5, 10 or 15 years based on a statistical probability that PRI is being approached. To this extent, the Tier 2 and Tier 3 components meet SG80. However, at Tier 1 there are currently no explicit reference points or HCRs to reduce exploitation if PRI is approached and thus it cannot be argued that well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached. On this basis, PI 1.2.2(a) SG80 is not met. For all three target species, within 3 years of the fishery reaching Tier 1 exploitation Condition rates, well-defined HCRs will be in place at Tier 1 that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, and are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. At subsequent surveillance audits, the client will provide evidence that it is Milestones actively working to ensure that the HCRs at Tier 1 reduce exploitation as PRI is approached. This evidence will include a summary of the actions taken by the client and other relevant parties to achieve this

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 263

outcome. By 2024, the client will provide evidence that the HCRs in place will ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached for Tier 1 of the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy. Action plan: Year 1 (by 2020 surveillance audit): A proposal to establish well defined HCRs that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached for the three SPF target stocks, that are expected to keep the stocks fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, in the event that exploitation rates reach Tier 1 levels, will be taken to the SEMAC and RAG for consideration and recommendation to AFMA. Year 2 (by 2021 surviellance audit): AFMA considers this and makes a Client action recommendation to the Commission. This recommendation will consider all plan available data from egg production surveys and fishery-dependent data provided in the Annual Fishery Assessment Report. The recommendation will also consider the original MSE work undertaken by Smith et al (2015). Year 3 (by 2022 surveillance audit): The commission will make a decision on a revised harvest strategy with a control rule that is consistent with the MSC 80 requirement as laid out above for all three stocks. Year 4 (by 2023 surveillance audit): The revised harvest strategy will be implemented.

The assessment team and client have consulted with SPF fishery manager Sally Consultation Weekes, and stock assessment scientist Tim Ward regarding this plan. In addition, on condition the client and assessment team have consulted with representatives of the AFMA commission and has received endorsement of this plan.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 264

Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports

Peer Reviewer A General Comments

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Is the scoring of the fishery No The rationales and scoring for some SIs under Principle 1 PIs Thank you, these issues have been addressed where raised consistent with the MSC have some inconsistencies that may be easily remedied with under the individual PI PR comments. Regarding the scoring standard, and clearly based clearer or revised justifications. The score for PI 1.2.4 may be protocol used in Principle 2, the justifications and on the evidence presented in justifiably higher. representation of the scores have been changed so as to the assessment report? avoid confusion. There has been no scoring error--all of the Scoring for Principle 2 is more problematic. Either the met/not met scoring issues have been tallied up correctly for justifications for some of the Scoring Issues do not hold up each scoring element to arrive at the correct overall scores, so based on the cited information/rationale, or the MSC the issue seems to have been one of the way this was all Standard appears to have been mis-applied. There are explained. Regarding the P3 typo and omission, the P3 instances where Scoring Issues that only list an SG100 are scoring (3.1.2) and justification (3.2.3) has been amended. given "default 80" scores, or the justifications cite meeting non-existent 60 or 80 scores for some SIs. The implications for the scoring on these Performance Indicators is unknown. The most problematic appears to be the scoring and justification for SIs concerning secondary minor species which are listed as data deficient in Table 12 and scored under PI 2.2.1

Principle 3 scoring is agreed without amendment. There appears to be a typo in the justification for scoring in SIc for PI 3.1.2. And the justification for SIc for PI 3.2.3 appears to be incomplete. Are the condition(s) raised No The single condition is worded incorrectly on pages 161 and Thank you, this has been fixed. See above regarding P2 appropriately written to 273. A simple addition of the words "Well defined" will scoring--no score changes were made in Principle 2. achieve the SG80 outcome remedy that. within the specified timeframe? Other conditions may be indicated if scores under Principle 2

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 265

[Reference: FCP v2.1, 7.18.1 change. and sub-clauses] Is the client action plan clear Yes The client action plan is clear and appears sufficient to close No response required and sufficient to close the the one condition raised in relation to Harvest Control Rules conditions raised? under Principle 1 [Reference FCR v2.0, 7.11.2- 7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Enhanced fisheries only: NA No response required Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities? Key Low Trophic Level (LTL) Peer Reviewer added this row/section to comment on the No response required stocks justification given for not considering any of the three UoA target species as key LTL stocks/species.

Genus scomber (i.e., including blue mackerel) is mentioned explicitly in MSC Certification Requirements & Guidance (v2.0) as a default key LTL species. However, the Assessment Team has provided sound rationale, citing evidence, against the MSC criteria and sub-criteria for not considering blue mackerel to be a key LTL stock in the ecosystem under assessment. Similarly, the Assessment Team has also provided sufficient rationale for not considering jack mackerel or redbait as key LTL stocks/species in the ecosystem under assessment. Therefore, this Peer Reviewer agrees with the decision to assess each UoA target species against the the default assessment tree PI 1.1.1. Inseparable or Practicably Peer Reviewer added this row/section to comment on the No response required Inseparable (IPI) stocks justification given for considering certain species as inseparable or practicably inseparable stocks.

The justification provided appears to meet the MSC standard as set out in Annex PA of the MSC Certification Requirements & Guidance (v2.0). Optional: General Comments N/A Page 23, Section 3.3.3, para 2, first sentence - incomplete - References have been disambiguated, though we have kept on the Peer Review Draft words missing, presumably something like "and catch references to v2.1 of the Standard and ensured the

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 266

Report (including comments restrictions". documents used in this assessment are clearly laid out in the on the adequacy of the tables and other process descriptions. Page numbers have background information if From page 30 - Section 3.4 on Principle 2 - throughout the been removed from references., errors corrected and the necessary) P2 section and in the Evaluation Tables, the author explanation for Page 34 comment is given above, and on the consistently references MSC 2018a, MSC 2018b or simply next Tab. MSC 2018, including page numbers - i.e., version 2.1 of the MSC Standards; whereas in Section 4.3, p.121, the report states "The MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements version 2.0 and accompanying guidance and corresponding MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template were used to assess this fishery." This appears to be an inconsistency. Perhaps not major, as long as the substantive matters quoted repeatedly from the MSC Standard have not changed from v2.0 to v2.1, although the pages numbers will be different.

Page 34, first sentence under the Table - states "There is no specific requirement at SG80 for the Outcome PI for ‘minor’ primary species, thus SG80 is achieved by default." This appears to be a misinterpretation of what is permissible under the MSC scoring requirements. It appears to be in reference to 'minor primary species', which is not then applied to scoring under PI 2.1.1, but is later applied to scoring for 'minor secondary species' under PI 2.2.1 (see detailed PI comments). General comments continued N/A Evaluation tables for Principle 2 - pages 169-248 - almost P2 has been changed so there is no separate met/not met for every PISG has a separate section 'Met? Y/N' for each of the the different UoAs. This now only occurs at the scoring three UoA species - this seems completely unnecessary element level where required. The reference to 'example given that P2 is not about target species, and given the above' was found in section 4.4.3 and deleted. Thank you for nature of the fishing method/operations where everything is pointing this out. caught together using a single fishing gear/method. Also inconsistent with the way Principle 1 is written up - all UoAs for each PISG are given a 'single Met? Y/N' evaluation rather than identifying each UoA uniquely.

Page 124, Section 4.2.4, para 4, first sentence - "in the case of the example above etc..." does not make sense in this context as there is no "example above".

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 267

Peer reviewer A Specific PI Comments

Perfor- Has all Does the Will the PRs should provide support for their answers in the left CABs should summarise their response to the Peer See codes mance available information condition(s) three columns by referring to specific scoring issues Reviewer comments in the CAB Response Code column page for Indica- relevant and/or raised and/or scoring elements, and any relevant and provide justification for their response in this column. response tor (PI) information rationale improve the documentation as appropriate. Additional rows should options been used to used to fishery’s be inserted for any PIs where two or more discrete Where multiple comments are raised by Peer Reviewers score this score this PI performance comments are raised e.g. for different scoring issues, with more than one row for a single PI, the CAB PI? support the to the SG80 allowing CABs to give a different answer in each case. response should relate to each of the specific issues given score? level? Paragraph breaks may also be made within cells using raised in each row. the Alt-return key combination. CAB responses should include details of where different Detailed justifications are only required where answers changes have been made in the report (which section #, given are one of the ‘No’ options. In other (Yes) cases, table etc). either confirm ‘scoring agreed’ or identify any places where weak rationales could be strengthened (without any implications for the scores). 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No response required

1.1.2 NA No response required

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Amended – Reference to endorsement by the Accepted Rationale for SIb - paragraph 7 beginning "As Minister was removed. (no score described above.." contains the statement that a change) recommended TAC is endorsed "by the Minister" - this is later contradicted in statements for P2 PIs which say the AFMA Commission is the decision- maker and earlier contradicted in Section 3.5.5 which also states that the AFMA Commission is delegated to make decisions on the implementation of fisheries policy. Inconsistency needs to be clarified or rectified.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 268

1.2.2 Yes Yes No Scoring agreed Amended - Reference to endorsement by the Accepted Condition incorrectly phrased: technically the Minister was removed. (no score condition should state "Well defined" HCRs are in change) place Rationale for SIa - paragraph 7 beginning "While HCRs that reduce exploitation rate…" contains the sentence "The Minister makes the final decision on what the TAC should be for any given year." Inconsistent with statements in Section 3.5.5 about the AFMA Commission's decision-making authority and statements made under some P2 PIs. Needs to be clarified or rectified. 1.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed for jack mackerel No response required

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed for blue mackerel No response required

1.2.3 No (scoring No (scoring NA Rationale for SIb twice implies DEPM surveys are agreed and the SG80 justification has been Accepted implications implications undertaken every five years without explicitly improved as suggested by the reviewer. (no score unknown) unknown) mentioning that for redbait no survey has been change) conducted for 13 years. The rationale should either be explicit that redbait meets SG80 by justifying how monitoring is regular and accurate enough to be considered consistent with the harvest control rule with reference to the relevant Tier; or the score should be reduced for this SI for redbait and, if indicated, a relevant condition raised.

1.2.4 Yes No (score NA Scoring Issue d achieved 100 and all the other Yes. Score changed as suggested Accepted increase issues achieved 80. On that basis shouldn't the PI (score expected) score be 85? increased)

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 269

2.1.1 No (no Yes NA References section incomplete: main body of the References were added in the Reference List in Accepted score text references sources of information that are not the Report (no score change listed fully in the References part of the Evaluation change) expected) Table - e.g., AFMA catch data; CDRs; SESSF and ABARES reports; Eastern Tuna & Billfish Fishery 2.1.2 Yes No (scoring NA SIa - justification includes a lot of information about Sia. The following statement shows that SPF Not implications management measures for the UoA target species, primary species, which are target species in other accepted unknown) or management measures in other overlapping fisheries, are managed in SPF: "In areas where (no score fisheries not part of the UoA to justify a score of SESPF overlaps with the relevant sectors of the change) 100. The rationale should explain more explicitly SESSF, mid-water trawl boats nominated to SPF the specific 'strategy in place for the UoA' for SFRs must also be nominated to fishing managing main/minor primary P2 species (i.e., in concessions that allow access to trawl fishing in the midwater trawl fishery itself) that justifies 100. the SESSF fishery and the catch of SESSF Otherwise, this justification seems only to support managed species" (main text of the report, p.36). a score of 80 because the collection of measures To clarify SPF's specific management measures appear to be a partial strategy that "may not have for primary species, the following was added to the been designed to manage the impact on that main text (p.36): "SPF catch is counted against component specifically". Alternatively, adequately each species TACs or limt triggers. SPF specific justify the reason for 100 on some basis relating to management measures for primary species are to the fact that no primary species exceeds 5% of comply with fishing concessions that allow access total landings. to fish in overlapping fisheries where these species are target". CAB realised that some information about general management measures was repetitive in this PI's justification, in the scoring table: this was deleted. CAB believes that a score of 100 for this SI is justified. 2.1.2 No (scoring No (scoring NA SIc - the justification cites only compliance-related The following justification that the strategy is Accepted implications implications information as evidence that the partial achieving its objective was addedd: "The fact that (no score unknown) unknown) strategy/strategy is being implemented mid-water trawl method is very selective and all change) successfully and is achieving its overall objective primary species are caught in very low quantities is as set out in scoring issue a. The jusitification clear evidence that the strategy is achieving the should include some reference to scoring issue a overall objective of maintaining primary species which relates to stock status (i.e., partial stock above PRI or not hindering recovery of strategy/strategy to manage impact on the stocks that are under stock rebuilding strategies." main/minor primary species).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 270

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA SIa - justification simply requires a statement that Agreed. Only this statement was retained: Accepted there are no primary main species that exceed 5% "Quantitative information is available and adequate (no score of the total catch. Could move the text to the to assess with high degree of certainty that all non- change) justification for SIb as it relates to minor primary target species are under 2% of total catch and no species. primary species classifies as ‘main’. SG 60, 80 and 100 are met." 2.2.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA SIb - There is no Scoring Guidepost at SG80 - This appears to be an issue of semantics rather Accepted implications implications there is only SG100 which the Team judges is not than interpretation and hopefully we have amended (no score unknown) unknown) met because "there is insufficient information to the justifications to the reviewer’s satisfaction. The change) assess these minor species under the Outcome MSC require that every scoring issue in each PI PI" therefore not meeting SG100. But the Team are scored against scoring guidepost 60, if these has assigned a default 80 score. This appears to are met, score against SG80, if all are met, against be technically incorrect, because there is no SG80 SG 100-- with a 'yes' or 'no' put in the SI "met?" against which to judge performance. Please point box as appropriate. Then, when the overall PI to the specific part of the MSC Certification score is being determined, we use the rules as Requirements & Guidance (v.2.0) that allows this specified in the FCR 7.10.5 to arrive at the overall result. Or provide justification for a partial score in PI score. These rules ask about the proportion of accordance with Clause 7.10.5.3.a outlining which, SIs are met or not met, so when there is no text at if any, of the SG100 scoring issues are met. a certain SG level, it is irrelevant. For example, in 2.2.1, if only main species are scored (or there are References section incomplete: main body of the none) then SIa meets the 60, 80 and 100 SGs, but text uses footnote references, these should be SIb does not meet the single 100 SG. Therefore, transferred to the References section of the all the 80s are met (there is only 1) and half of the Evaluation Table for completeness. 100s are met (1 of 2) and the PI scores 90. This answer from MSC interpretation log says the same about minor species meet SG80 automatically: https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Minor- species-and-scoring-element-approach-at-SG100- 7-10-7-1527586956233) 2.2.2 No (scoring No (scoring NA SIc - the justification cites only compliance-related This text was addedd to the rational of Sic: "The Accepted implications implications information as evidence that the partial fact that mid-water trawl method is very selective (no score unknown) unknown) strategy/strategy is being implemented and all primary species are caught in very low change) successfully and is achieving its overall objective quantities is clear evidence that the strategy is as set out in scoring issue a. The jusitification achieving the overall objective of minimizing the should include some reference to scoring issue a catch of bycatch species (no main bycatch species, which relates to stock status (i.e., partial all minor bycatch species account for les than 0.5% strategy/strategy to manage impact on the of the catch." main/minor secondary species).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 271

2.2.3 No (scoring No (scoring NA SIb - There is no Scoring Issue at SG80 - how can The same explanation as for 2.2.1 Accepted implications implications it achieve 80 by default on the SI? There is only (no score unknown) unknown) one requirement - SG100 - and the fishery does change) not meet it. This SI requires a more robust justification linked to the MSC Certification Requirements & Guidance (v2.0) that allows a default 80 score, or it requires a different result. 2.3.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No response required

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No response required

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No response required

2.4.1 No (no Yes NA SIa - justification states that midwater trawl does References added. Accepted score not normally touch the sea bottom and it is not (no score change considered to have a significant impact on benthic change) expected) habitats. There is no reference cited to support this statement - according to whom is midwater trawliing not considered to have a significant impact on benthic habitat? While it may sound like common sense, as an unsupported assertion it is hard to justify a score of 100 for this SI on that basis. E.g., the Tingley 2014 reference is cited under the justification for PI 2.4.2 about the differences in operation between demersal and midwater trawl gears (albeit related to New Zealand pelagic (midwater) trawl operations).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 272

2.4.1 Yes No (no NA SIc - justification cites SG scores of 60 and 80 Same response as for 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 Accepted score being met - there are no SGs at 60 or 80, only 100 (no score change for Scoring Issue 'c'. change) expected)

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No response required

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No response required

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No response required

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No response required

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No response required

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No response required

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA SIc - last sentence of the justification states that Changed to SG 100 is met, as is justified in the Accepted SG60 and SG80 are met, but not SG100. But the scoring (no score preceding full text in the justification implies that change) SIc does meet SG100, and the score given for the PI is 100. This may just be a typo to remedy. If score is 100, scoring agreed.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 273

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No response required

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No response required

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No response required

3.2.3 No (no Yes NA Scoring agreed Added Accepted score AFMA compliance has inspected 8 SPF vessels (no score change SIc - justification appears incomplete for a score of since 27 September 2016, covering 4 different change) expected) 100 against this SG. Is it the Division's vessels. No offences were detected. Before this measurement of non-compliance that gives a high date AFMA compliance regularly inspected the degree of confidence that fishers comply with the Geelong Star (AFMA, email response, 5 February, management system? A reference to a Division 2019). report would support the justification for scoring 100. The text of the justification needs to include the language of the SG100 guidepost. 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No response required

Peer Reviewer B General Comments

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Is the scoring of the fishery No The vast majority of the scoring is correct and well justified No response required; specific responses provided under PI

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 274

consistent with the MSC but there are some PIs that the reviewer considers comments tab where indicated standard, and clearly based incorrectly scored and/or inadequately justified as shown in on the evidence presented in the PI comments sheet. the assessment report? Are the condition(s) raised No The single condition requires some additional wording to Addressed under PI 1.2.2 comments appropriately written to ensure that HCR(s) for these UoAs are robust to the main achieve the SG80 outcome uncertainties (see PI comments under PI 1.2.2). within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCP v2.1, 7.18.1 and sub-clauses] Is the client action plan clear No The client action plan is appropriate for the condition as Addressed under PI 1.2.2. comments and CAP has also been and sufficient to close the currently drafted but will need text added to ensure that amended following several discussions in the intervening period conditions raised? HCR(s) for these UoAs are robust to the main uncertainties between the industry and management agency and commission. [Reference FCR v2.0, 7.11.2- (see PI comments under PI 1.2.2). 7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Enhanced fisheries only: N/A No response required. Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities? Optional: General Comments N/A This is well written and informative report. Minor P2 catch quantities are not given for reasons of data on the Peer Review Draft improvements would be to replace American spellings for confidentiality, in accord to Australian law, considering data Report (including comments program(mme) and behavior (behaviour), also typo of comes from one vessel only. This circumstace is allowed within on the adequacy of the ‘probeagls’; Figures 2 & 9 & 11 are of poor quality; page 31 the MSC requirements (see FCR v2.0 clause 4.3.3.3.) and the background information if - Vessels >130m cannot operate in the fishery occur twice team was given access to the data for review and scoring under necessary) in separate bullets of input controls. the terms of confidentiality agreements with AFMA. --ACAP has - Page 32 (and elsewhere): text refers to ‘independent been added. --Related to discarding litter this text has been observers’. As AFMA employees, observers cannot be added: "Discarding domestic litter and chemicals is prohibited described as ‘independent’ (AFMA are a key player in the under MARPOL and observers are required to report such fishery and its management). They could be described as incidents. No pollution incidents were reported so far in the independent of the UoA (which may have been the SESPF. Indirect effects of pollution on protected species were intention) but some correction here is warranted. assessed at ERA Level 1 (SICA) and found to be non-existent - Catch data for P1 stocks and P2 primary and secondary (Bulman et al, 2017). The impacts of potential lost gear were species for the UoA and most recent historic fishery are also assessed at the latest ERA and considered to be negligible scattered in the text. It would be helpful and appropriate to (Bulman et al, 2017)." ---Regarding seal diet, this has been present these data in tables in the appropriate locations in added under Localised Depletion: Australian fur seal’s diet the background text. This will assist in understanding both profile showed that redbait (31%) and jack mackerel (20%) had the he scale and subsequent interannual variability of significant percentage contributions (Lack et al, 2014).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 275

catches. If there is an issue with the presentation of single Moreover, Kirkwood et all found that in some years these vessel data by AFMA, for transparency, the UoA Fishery percentages were much higher, although changes in diet were can and should make this available. not correlated with SPF fishing effort, but rather they were - Page 41 ETP (and elsewhere) ACAP is missing from the statistically significantly related to changes in mean sea surface lists of international agreements and is of particular temperatures (Kirkwood et al. 2008 in Lack et al 2014). --.The relevance for southern hemisphere fisheries. VMP for the current vesel is not publically available and this is - The report places some reliance on EM to monitor both the reason why the Geelong Star VMP is mentioned because it ETP and other bycatch. Ongoing studies are reporting includes the same management measures as for the curent information that raises doubts about the reliability of EM, vessel. --The VMP for the current SPF vessel could be specifically these include vessels with EM only reporting requested from AFMA. substantially lower bycatch levels than when EM and observers operate on the same vessel. Until EM has been fully implemented and tested reliance on EM as the sole means of monitoring fisheries for ETP is probably unwise and would benefit from some comment. - The report refers to MSC requirements to address discarding domestic litter and chemical pollution in a number of places specifically with respect to ETP but makes no further mention of the practices of the current vessel, its VMP or other codes of conduct. - In excess of 80% of the diet of Australian fur seals at Seal Rocks is composed of redbait and jack mackerel in some years (e.g. 2002-2005, Figure 2), exceeding 90% in 2003 – notable but not noted upon, especially with respect to possible indirect effects (local depletion of prey) on P58 and elsewhere. - links to an example VMP are provided for a different, larger vessel and date back to 2015. It would be more transparent, informative and appropriate to provide links to the VMP for the current UoA vessel.

Peer Reviewer B Specific PI Comments

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Res- Information Scoring Condition Peer Review stage) (as included in the Public Comment Draft ponse Report - PCDR) Code Perfor- Has all Does the Will the PRs should provide support for their answers in the left CABs should summarise their response to the Peer See codes

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 276

mance available information condition(s) three columns by referring to specific scoring issues and/or Reviewer comments in the CAB Response Code column page for Indica- relevant and/or raised scoring elements, and any relevant documentation as and provide justification for their response in this column. response tor (PI) information rationale improve the appropriate. Additional rows should be inserted for any PIs options been used to used to fishery’s where two or more discrete comments are raised e.g. for Where multiple comments are raised by Peer Reviewers score this PI? score this performance different scoring issues, allowing CABs to give a different with more than one row for a single PI, the CAB PI support to the SG80 answer in each case. Paragraph breaks may also be response should relate to each of the specific issues the given level? made within cells using the Alt-return key combination. raised in each row. score? Detailed justifications are only required where answers CAB responses should include details of where different given are one of the ‘No’ options. In other (Yes) cases, changes have been made in the report (which section #, either confirm ‘scoring agreed’ or identify any places where table etc). weak rationales could be strengthened (without any implications for the scores). 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Corrected Accepted (no score Scoring element b incorectly refers to jack mackerel change) rather than blue mackerel. 1.1.1 Yes No (non- NA Redbait has a reported life-span up to about 20 We have modified the rationale here however the Not material years. Within the model framework redbait does not team disagrees with this interpretation. Firstly, as it accepted score live longer than about 10 years. The modelling and was stated in the PI rationale, we examined fishing (no score reduction outcomes rely on key assumptions about recruitment mortality not biomass to assess the PI, which is change) expected) and stock estimates made in 2005 and 2006. Even allowed under GSA 2.2.4. The MSE work aimed to with the accepted high quality of the modelling, for a maintain stocks above target levels with a <10% species that, at most, lives 20 years, and typically probability that stocks would decline below PRI does not live into its teens, relying on biomass over a 50 year period. For redbait, there was an estimates that are 13 and 14 years old is stretching 8% chance of falling below PRI under a scenario of credibility. A number of biological changes, including 9% exploitation for the first five years and 4.5% for example, poor recruitment since 2006, could have exploitation for the following 45 years. Following resulted in a much reduced stock abundance and a the last biomass survey in 2006 exploitation rates lower level of confidence in being above the PRI. on the stock were around 1% for the first five Thus, while may be justified that it is highly likely that years, and have been negligable thereafter, the stock is above the PRI (SG80), it is, in the inclduing recent years when caught as a byproduct reviewer’s opinion, not credible on the evidence of targeting jack and blue mackerel. presented to accept that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI (SG100). The reviewer therefore does not accept that achievement of SG 100 has been adequately demonstrated and would argue that this would be very difficult or impossible to achieve for this stock

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 277

given the age of the most recent biomass estimates.

Scoring element b incorectly refers to jack mackerel rather than redbait. 1.1.2 Yes Yes NA Correctly, not scored. No response required 1.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 1.2.1 Yes No No Given the age of the biomass estimates for this We disagree with the reviewer. Given the age of Not (material stock, the statement in the 1st paragraph of the the survey for redbait, the fishery is assessed as accepted score justification for scoring element (a) that “the data being at Tier 2 and the TAC reflects half of the (no score reduction available to underpin the harvest strategy are maximum exploitation rate as per the HCRs. The change) expected adequate.” is not correct. information that underpins the harvest strategy is to <80) as relevant for redbait at Tier 2 as it is for blue Scoring element (c): the age of the biomass mackerel and jack mackerel at Tier 1, as estimates for this stock (2005 & 2006) argues that, determined in the formal MSE studies. We have while there is monitoring in place that should be able provided additional clarity in the justifications. determine whether the HS is working, the monitoring is not sufficiently frequent to be informative for adequately managing the fishery given the biology of the stock. 1.2.2 No (material No No Scoring element (b): in Smith et al (2015), it is stated We have modified the condition and it now requires Not score (material (page 68) that “Retuning the Atlantis model to focus a change to the Harvest Strategy within 3 years of accepted reduction score on the small pelagic fishery and its target species the fishery reaching exploitation levels within the (no score expected to reduction proved more difficult than anticipated. Only one Tier 1 range (i.e. a catch greater than 50% of the change) <80) expected credible Parameterisation was found for the model, maximum exploitation rate). We disagree regarding to <80) so testing the robustness of the conclusions to the robustness of the HCRs. It is true that alternative Parameterisations was not possible.”. parameterising the Atlantis ecosystem model was This statement in the principal P1 reference indicates more difficult than anticipated, however the that robustness testing of the HCR was, at best, very ecosystem model was used only to determine limited, and thus is at odds with the current scoring of appropriate reference points. The reference points PI 1.2.2 (b) which requires “The HCRs are likely to chosen to determine the HCRs were much more be robust to the main uncertainties.”. conservative than those suggested by the ecosystem model (i.e. target B50% compared to Wording should be added to Condition 1 to ensure MSY B35%). The maximum exploitation rates were that new HCRs are likely to be robust to the main then determined by using these target and limit uncertainties. (B20%) RPs, ensuring that a 50% probability of target was mainntained with a <10% probability of The condition gives five years to implement improved the LRP being breached. This was a very robust HCRs, which over-generous; this should be easily assessment. achievable with two to three years and thus a

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 278

somewhat shorter period than five years would be more appropriate. 1.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 1.2.3 Yes No No Scoring element (b) requires “….indicators are Disagree – As described above, while surveys Not (material available and monitored with sufficient frequency to have not been conducted for redbait for >10 years, accepted score support the harvest control rule.”. However, the age annual monitoring of the catch, effort and CPUE is (no score reduction of the most recent estimates of abundance (egg- done as per the Tier 2 requirements of the harvest change) expected based biomass estimates from 2005 & 2006) strategy (i.e. harvest control rules). Thus for redbait to <80) strongly suggest that the frequency of biomass the fishery explicitly meets the requirements of the monitoring does not meet the ‘sufficient frequency’ harvest control rule for Tier 2. test for this stock and thus the SG80 is not met. 1.2.4 Yes No (non- NA Scoring element (c): given the comments in the Disagree – As described above, the Atlantis model Not material assessment report about the difficulty of had some uncertainty, however to address the accepted score parameterising the Atlantis model (see 1.2.2. above), uncertainty a very conservative target reference (no score reduction I would have expected to see more discussion on the point of B50% was used instead of the suggested change) expected) adequacy of addressing the needs of understanding BMSY of B30-35%. We have improved the uncertainty. rationale here to more clearly explain this.

Scoring element (d): the justification text focusses on As described above, the stock assessment model the biomass estimation procedure (DEPM, acoustics) was based on limited data from the fishery itself and the MSE not on the robustness testing of the due to the exploratory nature of the fishery. stock assessment. While consideration of alternative Nevertheless, the approach taken to inform the data sources to drive the assessment is undoubtedly assessment process was very robust. The use of good practice, as is the development and use of an the Atlantis ecosystem model examined the single MSE, the focus of this PI is the testing and thought and multispecies impacts of the fishery. Highly behind alternative approaches to the assessment conservative approaches were used to determine itself. No evidence is presented that alternative target reference points to take uncertainty into hypotheses (e.g. stock structure) have been account. Also, examinations of the stock examined and reported. Similarly, no evidence is assessment modelling included scenario testing of presented that alternative assessment approaches variance around DEPM survey results and the have been tried. As it stands, the evide3nce stock recruitment relationship. Finally, the DEPM presented does not achieve the SG100 for scoring approach itself has been extensively studied and element (d). the uncertainties in this approach are very well understood. 2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 2.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 2.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. CAB could not find reference to EM in the Not

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 279

justification text for this PI. accepted Reference is made to EM in the justification text. (no score The reason for this is unclear as it is difficult to see change) without further explanation how EM in its current form could inform in any meaningful way on fish bycatch in this type of fishery. 2.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 2.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 2.3.1 No (no Yes NA Scoring agreed. The following text was added for indirect effects on Accepted score protected species: "Discarding domestic litter and (no score change The report references the MSC requirements to chemicals is prohibited under MARPOL and change) expected) address discarding domestic litter and chemical observers are required to report such incidents. No pollution in a number of places, specifically with pollution incidents were reported so far in the respect to ETP but makes no further mention of the SESPF. Indirect effects of pollution on protected practices of the current vessel, its VMP or other species were assessed at ERA Level 1 (SICA) codes of conduct. and found to be non-existent (Bulman et al, 2017). The impacts of potential lost gear were also assessed at the latest ERA and considered to be negligible (Bulman et al, 2017)." 2.3.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 2.3.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 2.4.1 Yes No (non- NA The Assessment Team (AT) have assumed that The text was changed to the issues raised as Not material bottom contact in the SPF is uncommon. Evidence follows: "An assessment of the potential for near- accepted score for low bottom contact by the mid-water gear used in seabed midwater trawling to contact the seabed (no score reduction the SPF is drawn from Tingley (2014), however: and to impact benthic habitat and vulnerable change) expected) (i) the information quoted from Tingley (2014) is marine ecosystems (VMEs) in SPFRMO partial as it only refers to benthic material brought up Convention Area was shown to be low but not in different gear types showing a minimum 3% zero. The frequency with which benthic material is bottom contact for mid-water gear. Not quoted were brought up when using midwater trawl gear was from the same paper were estimates for bottom relatively low, with six of 238 (3%) midwater tows contact for mid-water-gear which are considerably during the period 2011–2013 with a recorded higher (13% to 19%, Table 4 in Tingley 2014) (these presence of benthic material. Over the same time data were also for the southwest Pacific high seas period, the rate for demersal trawl tows with and not from New Zealand waters as stated). benthic material was 37% (Tingley, 2014). The (ii) the AT have assumed that the scale of bottom study shows that using a different approach to contact in one fishery (high seas alfonsino, NZ quantify the evidence of bottom contact (i.e. gear vessels) is transposable to the SPF, which is events such as tears in the net, net caught/net fast incorrect. The use of mid-water gear and the degree were added to events of benthic material caught,),

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 280

of ‘normal’ bottom contact is operationally specific estimated benthic habitat interaction were up to and cannot be assumed to be similar for different 19% ) (Tingley, 2014). However, fishing methods fisheries. For example, fisheries for blue grenadier and fishing areas descrided in Tingley (2014) are (NZ) and southern blue whiting (NZ and the not similar to those in SESPF, the target species Southwest Atlantic) use mid-water trawl gear that is for the former being Alfonsino, a deep water fish, frequently fished hard on the bottom for long periods very rarely caught in the history of SPF and never of time, comparing these fisheries with the SPF caught in the current UoA, SESPF targets being would give very much higher rates of bottom contact pelagic species. than currently assumed. Nevertheless, at the current level of effort in the Data from the SPF that define the seabed contact SESPF, even in a worse scenario when benthic rate and extent are required to be able to evaluate interaction would occur 20% of the time, this is the risk of this fishery to benthic habitats and VMEs. highly unlikely to produce serious harm to habitats, No data about seabed contact rates are presented or the marginal harm would be insignificant for the SPF. Without such data to accurately define compared to impact from the SESSF trawl sector the scale, spatial distribution and intensity of bottom overlapping SESPF." *The response contact scoring element (a) cannot achieve the continues below this table ‘highly likely’ level of confidence and so the SG100 is not met for this scoring element. For scoring element (c), while it would not be an unreasonable inference from the scale of the UoAs (a single vessel) that the UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce the structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm, without some information about the relative distribution of the habitats and fishing effort, it is difficult to make a case for evidence to support this. As such, SG 100 for scoring element (c) is not met. A specific study for the SPF would be required to address this and may warrant a recommendation. 2.4.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 2.4.3 Yes No (no NA Given the information deficit identified for CAB considers that there is sufficient information to Not score bottom contact at PI 2.4.1, it might be expected demonstrate that mid-water trawl impact on bethic accepted change habitats is not significant to justify a score of 80. (no score expected) to also give an issue for information at PI 2.4.3b. The justification that is already in the scoring table change) However, if all effort is assumed to have bottom is very detailed and in CABs opinion there is no contact then the sufficient information is need for extra justification. No text was added and available to meet PI 2.4.3b as scored. Some no scores were changed.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 281

additional justification may need to be added. 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 3.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 3.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 3.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 3.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 3.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Corrected Accepted (no score In the PI references ,the link to the Senate report on change) Factory Freezer Trawlers exists by is not obviously visible. * Continuation of the response for 2.4.1: the justification for a score of 100 for commonly encontered habitsts (i.e. There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm., highly unlikely being defined as reduce structure and function of the habitats with more than 20%) is based on Pitcher studies, which predict the distribution and ranges of assemblages (as proxy for benthic habitats) and found that habitats under SESPF fishng area, although significantly affected by bottom trawling, habitat health is estimated to by at levels higher than 80. This is accepted as best available science, even though no formal habitat mapping is available. MSC accepted predicted habitat mapping for the certification of several prawn trawling fisheries in Australia and it is expected that this is appropriat for mid-water trawling as well. To be noted that the estimated damage to benthis habitats is due to bottom trawling that occur in the area and mid-water trawling cannot have a significant marginal impact. No scores were changed. Giant Kelp is the only community that is declared VME, however, there is no overlap between the UoAs effort and Giant kelp distribution because fishing occurs at depth higher than 100m. There are no other declared VMEs and while potential VMEs might occur, these are more likely to be affected by the overlapping demersal trawl fishery. The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. For issue c, there is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm, and this evidence is based on the fact that marginal impact from mid-water trawl would be negligible compared to the overlapping demersal trawl impact. No scores were changed.

Peer Reviewer B follow up comments (during Public Comment period) and team responses

PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at Public CAB response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in CAB PR Comm- Comment Draft Report (PCDR) stage) the Final Draft Report) Res- ent Code ponse Code

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 282

Perfor- Is the CAB PR's should describe any concerns with the CAB's responses CAB response to the PR's PCDR stage comments (as included in the See codes mance response to to their initial comments, on either PI scoring (including the Final Draft Report). page for Indica- the PR's RBF) or conditions. Comments at this stage should response tor (PI) comments summarise any initial comments made by the PR at the CABs should summarise their response to the Peer Reviewer comments options adequate? previous PRDR stage, and detail those responses of the CAB in the CAB Response code column and provide justification for their (as provided in the PCDR) which are regarded as either response in this column. incomplete or inconsistent with the MSC requirements. The comments in this column should be summarised in the PR Comment Code Column H.

Additional rows should be inserted for any PIs where two or more discrete comments are raised e.g. for different scoring issues, allowing CABs to give a different answer in each case. Paragraph breaks may also be made within cells where useful, using the Alt-return key combination.

Detailed justifications are only required at this stage where answers given are one of the ‘No’ code options and the CAB responses are regarded as insufficient to address the PR's previous concerns. In other (Yes) cases, either confirm ‘scoring agreed’ here or identify any places where weak rationales could still be further strengthened (without any implications for the PI scores).

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 283

RBC’s are calculated from biomass estimates and We have made no changes to the report. The crux of the mis- Not exploitation rates. The biomass estimates come from understanding here is captured where the peer-reviewer states accepted DEPM surveys. For redbait the most recent DEPM "The approach to the reduction in the applied TAC was based on (no score survey is 13 years old. Scoring element c specifically MSE testing of a two and a five year frequency between surveys; change) refers to the DEPM survey and its age. Even with a longer intervals did not appear to be tested and it further appears precautionary management approach (setting TACs to that the CAB is assuming that the MSE is robust to this, for which half the maximum indicated by the HCR), if the no evidence is provided". The modelling was run over a 50-year biomass estimate is sufficiently old, this approach may time span. The exploitation rates are reduced to 50% at Tier 2 and not be sufficient to ensure sustainability. Cumulative 25% at Tier 3 as the age of the DEPM survey increases. These and multiplicative errors in the estimation of exploitation reductions in exploitation rate explicitly maintain the risk profile No (material rate, changes in the patterns of spawning success, regarding stock collapse over the full 50 years at levels at SG80. score recruitment etc., could all contribute to a As long as the assumptions of the modelling are maintained then 1.2.1 reduction misunderstanding of the status of the stock that may the harvest strategy covers each species adequately as the DEPM expected to not be addressed by the 50% reduction in maximum survey estimate ages. Unforseen events such as regime shifts <80) HCR TAC. The approach to the reduction in the applied cannot be managed for in a predictive manner, which is why the TAC was based on MSE testing of a two and a five harevst strategy is aiming to include an improved suite of year frequency between surveys; longer intervals did performance measures over time as more data is gathered. not appear to be tested and it further appears that the CAB is assuming that the MSE is robust to this, for which no evidence is provided. Given the very long interval between surveys the Peer Reviewer maintains the view that the current evidence is inadequate to support the scoring and that either more evidence that this approach really is robust needs to be provided or the scoring should be amended for this UoC.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 284

Scoring element (d): the CAB response does not Upon further consideration we accept the reviewers position. We Accepted adequately address the issue raised (lack of alternative argue that the DEPM surveys are robust and explore alternative (non- hypotheses tested, rigorous exploration). The CAB approaches, and argue that the ecosystem modelling was robust, material focusses on precautionary management measures as a however only one model was succcessfully fitted and thus score way of responding to uncertainty, and on the level of alternative approaches have not been successfully examined. reduction) understanding of uncertainty in some components such SG100 is not met for 1.2.4(d). as the DEPM survey but does not consider the core for this PI. This PI scoring element is asking about the No (non- range of exploration and robustness of the modelling. material That the Atlantis model could only be parameterised for 1.2.4 score a single model; no alternative assessment approaches reduction were tried even given the issues in the Atlantis model; expected) no alternative stock structures were considered, collectively do not support achievement of the requirement for this SG100 of ‘robustness’ and exploration of alternatives.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 285

The changes to the text and the additional text is The estimated frequency of bottom contact based on other similar Not helpful. fisheries is presented as background information but not material accepted to the Outcome score. The frequency of contact is irrelevant in the (no score However, the ’worst case’ of a 20% bottom contact rate conditions of evidence of estimated habitat health status for change) is still being assumed by direct comparison with a habitats overlapping SESPF (Pitcher et al 2018) and current ERA different fishery. It is completely inappropriate to assessment (Bulman et al, 2017) which were used to score assume comparability in bottom contact rates for two commonly encountered habitats at SG100. These assessments different fisheries. The degree of bottom contact for are precautionary in their nature and offer solid grounds for the midwater trawls is defined by how the gear is fished score. In addition, the same habitats are trawled by demersal trawl and is fishery-specific (and may also be temporally and fishery (East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector) and it can be spatially specifc within a fishery), a marked difference assumed that demersal trawl had a significantly higher impact over from demersal gear, which is only effective when fished decades of fishing, and still, the habitats are estimated by Pitcher hard on the bottom for all fisheries. et al to be in good condition (over 80% of the structure and No (scoring function retained, consistent with the MSC standard). This leads to 2.4.1 implications No information or evidence on bottom contact rates for the assumption that in the future, the cumulative impact from unknown) the SPF has been provided, this therefore remains demersal trawl and mid-water trawl will not be significant at the unknown – it could be 0%, 100%, or anything in- current level of effort and the marginal impact from mid-water trawl between. The assessment should either provide will be minimal. A score of 100 is justified. Pitcher reports were evidence from the UoC (not other fisheries) for rates of accepted by the MSC as evidence for habitat status for other bottom contact, likelihood of bottom contact (based on, certified fisheries such as Northern Prawn Fishery. for example, an analysis of net and bottom depth for tows in the UoC) or recognise that this is unknown and evaluate the likely impact in a suitably precautionary manner.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 286

Appendix 3 Stakeholder Submissions

The following stakeholder submissions were received by the assessment team during or shortly following the site visit.

Interview with recreational fisheries stakeholders Meeting summary The assessment team met with the following stakeholders via teleconference representing recreational fisheries interests in the SPF fishery: • Malcolm Poole: Recreational Fisher representing the RFANSW as a State based and Commonwealth Advisor with interest knowledge on predator/prey relationships of food web species • Phil Bolton: New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, manager for recreational fisheries • John Burgess: ARRF (Australian Recreation Fishing Foundation), ANSA (Australian National Sportsfishing Association), IGFA (International game Fish Association) and advisor to government on NSW and Commonwealth Fisheries • Mark Nikolai: TARFish, which is the marine recreational fishing peak body association for the State of Tasmania Recreational fishing, primarily for tuna, marlin, and other billfishes is an important economic activity in coastal areas of Australia. Concerns were raised regarding the commercial SPF fishery in the following areas: 1. The three species under assessment in this fishery are prey for the large pelagic fish targeted by recreational fisheries. Recreational fishers are therefore concerned about the impacts of the commercial fishery on the availability of prey for the primary recreational fisheries targets. Although it was acknowledged that the commercial fishery is not likely to compromise the sustainability of the small pelagic stocks as a whole, there is a concern that localized depletion of these prey species due to the commercial fishery may impact on the ecosystem balance, and make it more difficult to find and catch the large pelagic species that are the targets of the recreational fisheries. Also, trawl activity may directly impact the behavior of baitfish schools (i.e. scattering the baitfish) which would in turn impact the behavior of the pelagic species that recreational fishers target. a. It was acknowledged that the small pelagic stocks were at the current low level of exploitation, but localized depletion is less likely to be an issue, however there is the potential for the effort in the SPF fishery to increase with new vessels (40,000 MT), particularly if it becomes MSC certified, and that would increase the likelihood of localized depletion occurring such that the recreational fisheries might be adversely impacted. The comment made that in response to fishing between 10-20 miles offshore, large pelagic fish had moved away as the food source had become depleted. It was suggested that the stock of jack mackerel collapsed after the peak of 40,000 MT was harvested in the early 1980s but has now recovered. It was cited that no recreational capture of SBT occurred in Tasmania for some 30 years while the SPF stocks were depleted and likewise in NSW SBT captures were rare. SBT have recovered in both these states in line with the SPF recovery. b. There was a specific concern raised regarding the decision by AFMA not to revise the move-on rule in place within the fishery that requires commercial fishers to move to a new spatial grid square once a certain amount of quota is

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 287

taken at one place over a given time period. Recreational interests would have liked this aspect of the harvest strategy to be amended to make the threshold for move-on lower than the current 2,000t limit to be more precautionary on the issue of potential localized depletion.

2. There was an economic concern raised pertaining to the “best use” of fish resources in this system. On the one hand, the commercial fishery targets and markets the lower value small pelagic species directly, and on the other hand, these small pelagic fish contribute as prey to high value large pelagic species such as Tuna and Billfish species which are of high economic significance to the commercial fishery and iconic target species for the recreational fishing sector. . Recreational fishers suggested that a more holistic approach to management of these resources would consider the relative economic importance of the two sectors and that the optimum economic use of this national resource might be for it to be left in the water. Part of this concern was directed at the MSC itself pertaining to the way sustainability is defined within its standards. AFMA’s management had focused on commercial as opposed to recreational fisheries for too long.

3. It was identified that research existed to suggest that stocks of jack mackerel off the East Coast of Tasmania may be a separate stock to the remainder of the stock in Eastern Australia (i.e. to the north). Report is titled Management zones from small pelagic fish species stock structure in southern Australian waters (specifically page 38). There was some concern at the lack of knowledge regarding some stocks to the west of Tasmania (including the western coast of Tasmania) however this is out of the scope of this assessment.

4. It was suggested that there was some uncertainty in the validity of the current estimates of recreational catch for jack mackerel and blue mackerel in NSW and Tasmania. Also, commercially caught blue mackerel and jack mackerel were sold as bait to recreational fishers which complicated these estimates. A recent recreational survey was close to being published by the NSW Fisheries Department. Overall though the recreational catch and bait use by recreational fishers was considered to be very minimal.

5. There was concern raised that process of engagement with recreational fisheries interests within the AFMA system to manage commonwealth fisheries could be improved. The interviewees accepted that broadly the management system and discussions were transparent including access to management and the state of the stocks. However, they would very much like greater access to data and better understanding about what is and isn’t available.

6. Recreational interests had shown a consistent track record of wanting to participate. Recreational fisheries interests have felt they have not been afforded adequate opportunities to effectively engage. Specifically, stakeholders indicated that whilst they had previously attended MAC and RAG meetings, recreational fisheries did not have adequate representation on these committees, and were not consulted during the establishment of new harvest strategies for the SPF fishery. The interviewees did acknowledge that they had a good working relationship with AFMA but would prefer that AFMA would support improved communication between recreational interests and the fishery as and when they had been afforded representation – SEMAC and the

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 288

Stakeholder Forum, they faced time and financial constraints if asked to attend meetings. Similarly, they were not always available at these times. This lack of representation meant that the recreational sector was at a loss how new policies are integrated into the fishery management system. Stakeholders on the call also pointed the assessment team to some studies that would be pertinent to the evaluation of the fishery in this context. Relevant reports: • Estimating catches of small pelagic species in eastern Australian fisheries • Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery: Fishery Assessment Report 2011 • Impacts of Fishing Low-Trophic Level Species on Marine Ecosystems, Science 333, 1147 (2011) Anthony D.M. Smith, et. al. • Projected climate change in Australian marine and freshwater environments, CSIRO (2011), Hobday & Lough

Assessment Team Response: The specific concerns of the recreational fishery stakeholders have been addressed in the main body of the text. Specifically, the issue of localized depletion and the current move-on rule is discussed in the Principle 2 section, starting on page 86 of the report. The issue pertaining to equitable opportunities for involvement in management by all sectors is addressed in section 3.5.2, starting on page 97. The assessment team reviewed the citations provided by the recreational fisheries stakeholders and addressed issues related to stock definition, and predator/prey interactions in the Principle 1 and 2 sections of the report. The issue of climate change and it’s potential impact on these fisheries has been covered. The team akso reviewd comments relating to consultation (P 3.1.2). Issues related to the MSC standard and requirements themselves have been recorded and forwarded to the MSC for their consideration.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 289

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 290

Assessment team response: Regarding gear interactions, ESPF fishing operations do not occur within three nautical miles from the coast. In addition, mid-water trawl gear does not normally contact sea-bottom (see Habitat Outcome section 3.4.10) and fishing generally occurs in areas over 100 m deep (Bulman et al, 2017, ERA report will be publically available from March 2019). Regarding yellowtail scad, estimates of catch composition from mid-water trawling indicate that yellowtail scad comprises 0.01% of the total catch. Yellowtail scad are a permitted bycatch species of the Small Pelagic Fishery and an assessment of yellowtail scad stock status, including catches from NSW and Commonwealth sectors, is reported annually in the Small Pelagic Fishery Assessment Report (e.g. Ward and Grammer 2018). Potential impacts on yellowtail scad stocks are therefore monitored on a regular basis. Regarding the interactions with recreational fisheries for large billfish and tuna, the assessment team has provided a response following the summary of the meeting with the recreational fisheries stakeholders.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 291

The following stakeholder submission was received from Tasmanian Conservation Trust during the Public Comment phase of the assessment.

General comments Evidence or references CAB response to stakeholder input

General comments on the assessment. Objective evidence or references should CABs should respond in this column. be provided in support of any claims or Stakeholders should note that input is most useful for assessment teams when attributed to claimed errors of fact. CAB responses should include details of where different changes an MSC Performance Indicator or Principle, and provided with objective evidence and have been made in the report (which section #, table etc). references in support of any claims or claimed errors of fact.

Animal Welfare – The animal welfare of seals and dolphins killed or injured by midwater MSC and AFMA documentation does not No changes were made in the report. Please refer to the response trawls has not been considered. appear to refer to this for Principle 2 in 2_PI_comments tab

MSC Consultation With Stakeholders The Tasmanian Conservation Trust (TCT) has been Personal experience Reference to MSC consultation refers to MSC outreaach. This involved with the management of this fishery since the 1990's. I have represented the TCT assessment team made contact with the Recreational sector on 7 on Tasmanian Government advisory committees relating to this fishery, as well as relevant February, 2019 and in response reviewed the evidence. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority Committees, including SPFMAC and SPFRAG, Minutes of the discussion are shown in Appendix 3 and were until they were dissolved. The TCT also participated in the last attempt to get MSC circulated to Recreational interests for approval. The Report also accreditation for this fishery. It is therefore surprising that the TCT have not been properly highlights an extensive consultation processes applied, which consulted or informed of this process, despite the fact that I am supposed to be on the MSC includes direct contact with AFMA, a stakeholder forum and a mailing list. There also appears to have been a lack of effective consultation with MAC. There is a designated place on the MAC for a recreational recreational fishers and environmental NGOs (ENGOs). Any suggestion that ENGOs are represenative, which has not been assigned. No recommendation happy with AFMA's management of this fishery because they did not attend AFMA briefing was made by the assessment team to add a recreational member sessions would be false. In the case of the TCT and other organisations, after many years as the process to appoint a member is in place. Recreational of engaging with AFMA we have concluded that it is a waste of time and resources to deal interests are also invited to attend MACs as observers. The fishery directly with AFMA due to the lack of action on any of our concerns. As far as I recall, we has also been subject to a Senate enquiry. have never been briefed or consulted about any aspect of the SPF by the conservation member of SEMAC. In my view, when issues became too difficult for AFMA in its own dedicated SPF committees (SPFMAC and SPFRAG), AFMA dissolved the committees rather than attempt to resolve long-standing issues. MSC consultation with recreational fishers seems to be largely based on consultation with a tiny number of small self selected fishers who may not always represent the majority held view on this fishery, which in our view is that it will have severe local impacts on recreational fishing and that AFMA is not looking after their interests.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 292

SPF Fishery Failures – Two fisheries failures have occurred in the SPF since the 1980s. MSC documentation The Harvest Strategy Evalutaion, underpinned by stock These were the Tasmanian jack mackerel fishery and the Tasmanian Redbait fishery. The assessment models for each sepcies, suggests that it is second event in particualr my have been a result of localised depletion and is an indication statistically highly unlikely that the stock will collapse at the that care needs to be taken in managing this fishery. Even if large srocks of target species exploitation rates in the harvest strategy. The modelling used exist, that may not mean that localised depletions athat result from fishing activitiy will not historical catch data for both of these species to determine occur. sustainable harvest levels. An independent expert panel considered that localised depletion was not considered to pose a risk to the stock if the harvest strategy rules are maintained, which they have been.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 293

The SPF and the Fisheries Management Act 1991 Important objectives of the Commonwealth Fisheries Management Act 1991 do not appear to have been taken into account by AFMA and will not be achieved in the SPF under AFMA's current management processes. Many impacts on recreational fisheries and marine mammals have not been considered in any meaningful way, and certainly not with regards to the precautionary principle as stated in Objective 1 (b) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991. As there has been no economic assessment of the SPF, no consideration that much of the money generated by this fishery will leave Australia, and no consideration of recreational fisheries, there is no way to tell if the fishery is being managed to maximise the net economic returns to the Australian community as stated in Objective 1 (c) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991, or if there is an optimum utilisation of the living resources of the AFZ, as stated in Objective 2 (b) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991. Stakeholder The Precautionary approach to fishries management is applied concerns have been ignored for years by AFMA. There is no indication that they are going explicitly by AFMA for target and bycatch species and specifically to be addressed in any meaningful way under AFMA's current or future management includes actions to mitigate against interactions with dolphins and arrangements. AFMA is not ensuring accountability to the fishing industry and to the seals. The assessment report explicitly considers the risk of Australian community in its management of the SPF as stated in Objective 1 (d) of the serious or irreversible environmental damage exists in this fishery Fisheries Management Act 1991. The lack of ongoing and adequate observer coverage and Fisheries Management Act 1991 and can find very few faults in AFMA's application of management video monitoring (particularly underwater video monitoring) means that it may be impossible actions against the MSC's scoring criteria. Where these are to verify if Australia is complying with its obligations under international law or that there will identified, Conditions are raised. For observer coverage and be preservation, conservation and protection of all species of whales, as stated in Objective electronic monitoring please refer to the response for Principle 2 in 2 (d) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991. There has been no attempt by AFM to 2_PI_comments tab integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equity considerations, as stated in Objective 3A (a) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991. The risk of serious or irreversible environmental damage exists in this fishery. AFMA appears to be using the lack of scientific certainly about stock size, fish movements within stocks and impacts on marine mammals to justify its failure to address these concerns outside the current assessment process. They are not addressed at all in this assessment under the EPBC Act, contradicting Objective 3A (b) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991. There is no consideration of inter-generational equity, as stated in Objective 3A (ac of the Fisheries Management Act 1991. Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity (as referred to in Objective 3A (d) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991) has not been a fundamental consideration in AFMA's management of the SPF and stakeholder's long- standing concerns in these areas have not been adequately addressed.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 294

Performance Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested CAB response to stakeholder input Indicator (PI) summary references score change Performance Summary Detail of stakeholder input Objective evidence or If suitable, The CAB shall respond in this column. Indicator - please sentence references should be please copy and insert rows provided in support of provide a CAB responses should include details of where different changes to raise more than any claims or claimed suggested have been made in the report (which section #, table etc). The CAB one input against a errors of fact. score shall respond in this column. Performance change IndicatorPerformance based on CAB responses should include details of where different changes Indicator - please your input have been made in the report (which section #, table etc). The CAB copy and insert rows and evidence shall respond in this column. to raise more than one input against a CAB responses should include details of where different changes Performance have been made in the report (which section #, table etc). IndicatorPerformance Indicator - please copy and insert rows to raise more than one input against a Performance Indicator Page 8 Executive ENGOs and Greater effort should have been made to The CAB and assessment team made all required efforts to reach Summary many involve ENGOs and recreational fishers. potentially interested stakeholders, including ENGOs and interested Recreational fishers. We received good involvement from recreational recreational fishers at the site visit, as evidenced by the record fishers not part included earlier in this section. of site visit

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 295

Principle 1 Lack of No information on fish movements within Australian Fish Stocks No changes were made in the report. observer stocks. Modeling is not done at a scale that Reports/ Minutes No information on fish movements within stocks. – There is coverage/lack informs about localised depletions. Lack of SPFRAG/AFMA SPF a general understanding of fish movements that are of ongoing required observer coverage beyond the first protocols sufficient to fit with the modelling and harvest strategy. DEPM 10 trips or any requirement for underwater requirment/lack video monitoring means that regulations Modeling is not done at a scale that informs about localised of responsive may be breached and dolphins and seals depletions. - An independent expert panel considered that management killed without adequate scrutiny. The low localised depletion was not considered to pose a risk to the frequency DEPM survey requirement stock if the harvest strategy rules are maintained, which means fisheries may collapse without they have been. Lack of required observer coverage warning, given previous timeframe of beyond the first 10 trips or any requirement for underwater previous 2 fishery failures in this fishery video monitoring means that regulations may be breached (redbait in 2000s and jack mackerel in and dolphins and seals killed without adequate scrutiny.- 1980s). There is no mechanism to reduce TAC as information value degrades over For the UoA vessel, the achieved observer coverage was time. 100% for the 2016-17 fishing season and 36% for the 2017- 18 season (100% for the first 10 trips and 20% thereafter) (Marton and Mobsby 2018). The low frequency DEPM survey requirement means fisheries may collapse without warning, given previous timeframe of previous 2 fishery failures in this fishery (redbait in 2000s and jack mackerel in 1980s).- The Harvest Strategy Evalutaion, underpinned by stock assessment models for each sepcies, suggests that it is statistically highly unlikely that the stock will collapse at the exploitation rates in the harvest strategy. The modelling used historical catch data for both of these species to determine sustainable levels. There is no mechanism to reduce TAC as information value degrades over time. This is incorrect, regardless of what is meant by “information value”. At Tier 1, the harvest strategy will reduce the TAC linearly if spawning biomass declines, and if the “information” declines, i.e. scheduled DEPM surveys are not conducted, then the exploitation rate and therefore TAC is halved or quartered depending on the time after the last DEPM.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 296

Principle 2 Midwater trawl Midwater trawl poses great risk to dolphins MSC documentation No changes were made in the report. poses great and seals. A relatively large number have risk to dolphins been killed in this fishery given the relatively For the UoA vessel, the achieved observer coverage was 100% for and seals low levels of exploitation. Night fishing will the 2016-17 fishing season and 36% for the 2017-18 season animal welfare guarantees further unacceptable deaths. (100% for the first 10 trips and 20% thereafter) (Marton and and may Existing strategies do not work- given the Mobsby 2018). Observer coverage was set at 20% at the time of trhreatedn number of deaths that have occurred. the assessment. This level of coverage is considered adequate for local There is no requirement for underwater the monitoring of regular bycatch species (MSC, 2018, p.72). In populations video monitoring to ensure seals and addition, electronic monitoring records video footage of fishing and even the dolphins are not being killed then discarded activity on board with 100% coverage. 10% of this footage, chosen survival of before they can be observed on the at random, is independently reviewed by AFMA. EM system has Tursiops surface. Night fishing remains a permitted sensors capable to identify large animals in the catch, such as a australis activity even though it poses a major threat dolphin or seal or large shark. The sequence of the footage to seals and dolphins. There is no showing large animals in the catch is flagged (marked) and it can consideration of animal welfare problems be easily found during the review. Electronic monitoring has the associated with the regular killing of seals main role to verify interactions with protected species. If there is an and dolphins and other animals that are increase in interactions or concerns regarding potentially not likely to occur under current management reported interactions AFMA may increase the review of electronic arrangements. When dolphins or seals are monitoring footage or require the vessel to carry an AFMA observer killed there is no requirement to collect (services paid by the fishery operator) until AFMA is satisfied the tissue samples or even photos to allow vessel operates in accordance to their Vessel Management Plan positive identification. As stated there is "no and Dolphin Mitigation Plan (AFMA 2017). reliable population abundance estimates are available for dolphin species and All commercial fishing, to some extent, poses the risk of interacting genetic structures of these populations are with protected species. While there have been some dolphin and not fully understood" and "ecological seal interactions, the evidence suggests that the SESPF mid-water models are at a spatial scale that is less trawl poses a low risk to these species comparative to other finely resolved than is required to identify fisheries. In 2017 and 2018, only 5% of dolphin mortality in AFMA adverse impacts of localized depletion". managed fisheries was caused by the fishery (4 out of 78 and 3 out There is no justification for the claim that "... of 65 respectively) Similarly, less than 10% of seal mortality (2 out at the current level of exploitation localized of 143 seals in 2017 and 23 out of 249 in 2018, see interaction depletion is unlikely". The most vulnerable reports on AFMA website). AFMA's dolphins and seals mitigation species of dolphin, Tursiops australis, has strategies have an overarching objective of minimising interactions not been properly considered in this through individual fisher accountability while encouraging fishers to context, either by AFMA or by the MSC pursue innovations in bycatch mitigation tailored to their particular assessment. Its range may extend into SPF fishing operations. fishing grounds and the likely population size and restricted range may make it The strategy implements escalating management responses for particularly vulnerable to SPF midwater dolphin interactions, including fishing restrictions that are designed trawl fishing operations. Animal welfare as it to minimise future interactions. Night fishing ban represents such relates to injuring and killing dolphins and tailored mitigation strategy aimed at avoiding escalating seals has not been considered. consequences (i.e. the vessel not being allowed to fish for six months or longer, while identifying and addressing the cause of interaction). Given the relative low mammal mortality in the fishery, the strategies work. SPF Dolphin Strategy has been reviewed by AFMA recently. The strategy works by excluding the SPF vessel from fishing for a given period, thus reducing the chance of further interactions in that fishing season. The use of a top opening SED is

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 297

the main measure to reduce seal mortality. Evidence was given by studies that used underwater video and showed that only a small fraction of the number of seals that feed from the net (seals feeding from the net is unavoidable) get caught, most seals swimming out of the net through the opening (Lyle & Wilcox in Lack et al 2014).

The potential for localised depletion has been evaluated by the Minister assigned expert panel investigating fishing activity of the previous, much larger, vessel operating in the SPF. Based on all the available evidence, the panel concluded that localised depletion was unlikely (Lack et al, 2015). Nevertheless, AFMA's SPF spatial management and move-on triggers were introduced to further minimise the risk (AFMA, 2018).

The Burrunan dolphin Tursiops australis described by Charlton- Robb et al. (2011), has not been fully recognised and it is not included in the mammal species lists by the global Society for Marine Mammalogy considering that the basis of this being described as a new species is questionable because of several potential problems including the specimens were compared morphologically only with bottlenose dolphins from Australia; 2) small sample sizes and other more technical explanations. A rigorous re-evaluation of the relevant data and arguments is needed (The Society for Marine Mammalogy).

The potential of dolphins and seals being injured has been considered and this is addressed by the requirements that mid- water trawl nets in AFMA fisheries are required to have a top opening SED with certain specifications ( e.g. large opening) installed. The large opening allows animals entered in the net to escape while the top position ensures any incapacitated or dead animals will be retained by the net and accounted for as interaction.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 298

Principle 3 Long standing AFMA has consistently failed to take into Issues still remain of No changes have been made to the report in the context of the stakeholder account concerns raised about the concern to consultation process. Evidence has been provided that a concerns have management of this fishery raised by stakeholders so this is Stakeholder Forum is functioning not been stakeholders. There also appears to have self evident https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/small-pelagic-fishery/small- addressed by been a lack of effective consultation with pelagic-fishery-stakeholder-forum), and supported by an AFMA recreational fishers and environmental Independent facilitator. SPF Scientific Panel responds to issues NGOs (ENGOs) in general. Any suggestion raised, and attendance at these meetings demonstrates that ENGOs are happy with AFMA's participation of the recreational fisheries and conservation sectors. management of this fishery because they State Fisheries Departments, members of the Scientific Panel and did not attend AFMA briefing sessions AFMA are also present and AFMA provides fpr approximately 4 would be false. In the case of the TCT and weeks’ notice for each of the four forums held under the provided other organisations, after many years of Scientific Panel/Stakeholder Forum model. The notices are engaging with AFMA we have concluded published on the AFMA website, sent out to the AFMA News that it is a waste of time and resources to subscribers and advertised on the AFMA Facebook page. In deal directly with AFMA due to the lack of addition, notification of the stakeholder forums are also sent out to action on any of our concerns. As far as I the list of interested persons which included all people known by recall, we have never been briefed or AFMA at the time of each meeting to have an interest in the SPF consulted about any aspect of the SPF by (~70-80 people). An Independent Facilitator, along with the the conservation member of SEMAC. In my Scientific Panel Chair, reports on the Scientific Panel’s annual view, when issues became too difficult for work-plan, any Scientific Panel recommendations and decisions AFMA in its own dedicated SPF committees made as well as reporting on any research outcomes to the (SPFMAC and SPFRAG), AFMA dissolved Stakeholder Forums. A submission was made at the Stakeholder the committees rather than attempt to forum by a conservation group (Tasmanian Conservation Trust) resolve long-standing issues. MSC made at the January 2016 Stakeholder Forum. See minutes here: consultation with recreational fishers seems https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/06/ATT-B- to be largely based on consultation with a 28-Jan-2016-Stakeholder-forum-report-FINAL.pdf. The minutes tiny number of small self-selected fishers also show that the outputs of the paper were considererd, most who may not always represent the majority notably, the risk of localised depletion and the need for improved held view on this fishery, which in our view DEPM data for the SPF. The Commonwealth Marine Mammal is that it will have severe local impacts on Research Group (https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/committees) recreational fishing and that AFMA is not held meetings in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The group includes both a looking after their interests. Conservation Recreational representative (Dr Julian Pepperel) and a and recreational fisheries members of both conservayion member (Ms Alexia Wellbelove). There were also two the South East Management Advisory marine mammal workshops held for the SPF, both funded by Committee (SEMAC) and the Small Pelagic FRDC. The first Technical workshop to explore options for Resource Assessment Group (SPFRAG) mitigating marine mammal interactions in the Small Pelagic Fishery recommended that the catch of target (FRDC Project 2014-046) was held in 2015. Workshop attendees species be reduced to the lowest level (Tier included the Conservation Council for South Australia. Apologies 3/500 tonnes) due to lack of information for non attendance were received from the Tasmanian about stock size and other concerns. AFMA Conservation Trust. A second FRDC project also included an continues to maintain the catch at a level expert workshop held in 2015 to “review current information that will support the operation of very large available to inform th factory freezer vessels such as Geelong e establishment of trigger limits for key marine mammal species Star. AFMA refers to consultation via public (especially the short-beaked common dolphin, Australian fur seals forums in its assessment, but fails to point and long-nosed fur seal).” The link to this project, including the final out that access to a workshop and a report is at: https://www.frdc.com.au/project?id=2958. This stakeholder forum was limited by late workshop was organised and run by SARDI. notice, and in the case of the SPF Technical Marine Mammal Mitigation

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 299

Workshop, failure to invite key stakeholders. The Second SPF Stakeholder Forum for conservation and recreational stakeholders included a presentation form the conservation sector that outlined problems with the management of risk to marine mammals. This concern was dismissed by AFMA. The Geelong Star started fishing after this event, and many marine mammals have subsequently died. The South East Management Advisory Committee (SEMAC) is the current management committee which oversees the operation of this fishery appears to currently be lacking a member from the recreational fishing sector. Stakeholders have raised concerns about a wide range of issues associated with the operation of the small pelagic fishery, including: - animal welfare of marine mammals drowned in nets - the failure to ensure ongoing observer coverage (currently only required for the first 10 trips for midwater trawlers, for example) - the lack of underwater video monitoring of gear to ensure excluder devices are actually protecting seal and dolphins, and not just dumping dead and injured animals back into the ocean before they are brought aboard and observed - lack of stock assessments based on the Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM) of stock assessment - lack of a mechanism based on scientific evidence that prevents localised depletion harming recreational fisheries or central place foragers (local seal populations, for example). I was a member of SPFRAG before it was dissolved. SPFRAG received advice that the CSIRO modelling does not operate at a scale that can address concerns about localised depletion, for example. None of these concerns have been adequately addressed, despite AFMA being aware of them for many years. These concerns are likely to apply to any future operations larger boats in the SPF. Timing of DEPM surveys every 5 years will not provide sufficient warning of fishery failures. Previous failures in this fishery (jack

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 300

mackerel and redbait) occurred over a much shorter time period.

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 301

Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency

Table 4.1: Surveillance level rationale Year Surveillance Number of auditors Rationale activity 1 On-site audit 1 auditor on-site with It will be possible to verify progress against the remote support from single condition remotely; however it may be 2 auditors necessary for at least one team member to be on-site to meet in person with stakeholders.

Table 4.2: Timing of surveillance audit Year Anniversary date Proposed date of Rationale of certificate surveillance audit 1 August 2020* Around August Planned for around the expected anniversary 2020 date 2 August 2021 Around august Planned for around the anniversary date 2021 3 August 2022 Around August Planned for around the anniversary date 2022 4 August 2023 Around August Possibly will change depending on needed 2023 timing considerations for re-assessment *Expected—pending conclusion of objections process and publication of PCR

Table 4.3: Fishery Surveillance Program Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level Level 3 On-site Off-site Off-site On-site surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 302

Appendix 5 Objections Process

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.

(Reference: FCR 7.19.1)

MRAG Americas—Australia SPF Fishery Final Report and Determination 303