21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Marine Stewardship Council fisheries assessments

Australian West Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery

Announcement Comment Draft Report

Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) bio.inspecta (mandated by q.inspecta)

Dr Sabine Daume Assessment team Dr Klaas Hartmann Jo-Anne McCrea

Fishery client Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC)

Assessment type Re-assessment

Date 23 March 2021

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 1 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

1 Contents

2 Glossary...... 4 3 Executive summary ...... 4 4 Report details ...... 6 4.1 Authorship and peer review details ...... 6 4.2 Version details ...... 8 5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification and results overview ...... 8 5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification ...... 8 5.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment ...... 8 5.1.2 Unit(s) of Certification ...... 8 5.2 Assessment results overview ...... 9 5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement ...... 9 5.2.2 Principle level scores ...... 9 5.2.3 Summary of conditions ...... 9 5.2.4 Recommendations ...... 10 6 Traceability and eligibility ...... 10 6.1 Eligibility date ...... 10 6.2 Traceability within the fishery ...... 10 6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody ...... 11 7 Scoring ...... 12 7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores ...... 12 7.2 Principle 1 ...... 13 7.2.1 Principle 1 background ...... 13 7.2.1 Crystal Crab (Chaceon albus) ...... 13 7.2.2 Commercial Fishery ...... 14 7.2.3 Assessment ...... 15 7.2.4 Harvest Strategy ...... 16 7.2.5 Catch profiles ...... 24 7.2.6 Catch profiles ...... 25 7.2.7 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data ...... 25 7.2.8 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 25 ...... 25 ...... 28 ...... 30 ...... 34 ...... 37 ...... 39 7.3 Principle 2 ...... 42 7.3.1 Principle 2 background ...... 42 Aquatic ecosystem, status and features as well as critical environments...... 42 Primary or secondary species and endangered threatened and protected species...... 43 Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 2 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

7.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 53 ...... 53 ...... 55 ...... 58 ...... 60 ...... 62 ...... 64 ...... 65 ...... 68 ...... 71 ...... 72 ...... 74 ...... 77 ...... 78 ...... 80 ...... 82 7.4 Principle 3 ...... 85 7.4.1 Principle 3 background ...... 85 7.4.2 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 99 ...... 99 ...... 103 ...... 109 ...... 115 ...... 118 8 References ...... 120 9 Appendices ...... 124 9.1 Assessment information...... 124 9.1.1 Previous assessments ...... 124 9.1.2 Small-scale fisheries...... 125 9.2 Evaluation processes and techniques ...... 125 9.2.1 Site visits ...... 125 9.2.2 Stakeholder participation ...... 125 9.2.3 Evaluation techniques ...... 125 9.3 Peer Review reports ...... 126 9.4 Stakeholder input ...... 127 9.5 Conditions ...... 128 9.5.1 Summary of conditions closed under previous certificate...... 128 9.5.2 Conditions ...... 128 9.6 Client Action Plan ...... 129 9.7 Surveillance ...... 130 9.8 Harmonised fishery assessments ...... 131 9.9 Objection Procedure – delete if not applicable ...... 133

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 3 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

2 Glossary AMM Annual Management Meeting ACDR Announcement Comment Draft Report BMSY Biomass that provides maximum sustainable yield. CAB Conformity Assessment Body CAES Catch and effort statistics. CDR Catch disposal returns CITES Conventions on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CL Carapace length CMS Conventions on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals CPUE Catch-per-unit-effort. CW Carapace width DBCA Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions DPIRD Department of Primary Industry and Regional Development DoF Department of Fisheries EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) ERA Ecological risk assessment ESD Ecologically sustainable development ETP Endangered, threatened and protected. FRMA Fish Resources Management Act 1994 FRMR Fish Resources Management Regulations MCS Monitoring control and surveillance. MSC Marine Stewardship Council MFL Managed fishing licence NCB North Coast Bioregion OCS Offshore Constitutional Settlement SCCMF South Coast Crustacean Managed Fishery TAC Total Allowable Catch UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification WA Western Australia WAFIC Western Australian Fishing Industry Council WC Act West Australian Wildlife Conservation Act WCB West Coast Bioregion WCDSC West Coast Deep Sea Crab WCDSCF West Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery WCDSCMF West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery

3 Executive summary

Draft determination to be completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage This report is the Announcement Comment Draft Report (ACDR) which outlines the MSC assessment process for the West Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery. The assessment team consists of Dr. Sabine Daume (Team Leader and Principle 2 expert), Dr. Klaas Harmann (Principle 1) and Jo-Anne McCrea (Principle 3).

This report does not present a final scoring outcome or a certification decision. The final scoring and certification decision will take place after the assessment team has conducted a site visit when possible and has had the opportunity to review additional information and the views of stakeholders about this fishery.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 4 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The scoring presented in this report has not been reviewed by stakeholders, or peer reviewers – these steps will all take place from here onwards. Stakeholders are encouraged to review the scoring presented in this assessment. If you have any comments you must use the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ to provide evidence to the team of where changes to scoring need to be considered. All stakeholder comments will be published ahead of the site visit. Stakeholders can speak with the assessment team during the site visit which is scheduled for the 13th to the 14th May 2021 (remote if needed and following the MSC’s Covid-19 September 2020 derogation). bio.inspecta confirms that this fishery is “within scope” and eligible for MSC certification. The default assessment tree of MSC Fisheries Standard version 2.01 and the MSC Fisheries Certification Process version 2.2 is being used for this assessment.

Fishery strengths

• The fishery has been operating at a stable TAC since its introduction in 2008 and CPUE (the primary indicator) has remained relatively stable and above an MSY proxy (the threshold reference point) since that time. • The commercial sector is small, well understood and easily regulated. It is the only sector accessing this stock. • Fisheries dependent data has been collected with a high level of accuracy for an extended period. The new fisheries independent survey is providing promising results and is enabling the development of new assessment approaches. • The implemented size limit guarantees a reasonable level of egg production. • The reference points that have been established are conservative in that they aim to maintain the stock above a level corresponding to MSY and implement TAC reductions once this level is breached.

Fishery weaknesses

• A sudden decline of CPUE in a single year remains poorly understood and is likely due to issues unrelated to biomass. This causes some concern about the reliability of the CPUE index and its susceptibility to future changes. • There is currently no reliable indicator of undersize abundance or recruitment, this could be particularly useful for such a slow growing species. • The harvest strategy is based on past experience and the current TAC was set on the basis of limited evidence. • The harvest control rule specifies broad TAC reduction ranges to be implemented if the reference points are breached. It does not specify the method by which the reduction will be decided. • The harvest control rule is based on a constant catch approach and consequently, by design the harvest control does not respond until a reference point is breached. Thus, even with a slow ongoing decline in CPUE it is not as responsive to the stock as may be desirable. This is particularly relevant for a relatively long-lived species where there is likely to be a notable lag in stock response to management measures.

The key issues that require further investigation during the site visit stage include:

• Obtain a description of the planned revision of the assessment process and likely future indicators. • Information regarding discard rates and post release survival.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 5 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

• Any available information relating to the sex ratio of the landed catch and likely sex ratio of the population. • Any additional insight into stock structure, connectivity between the part of the stock accessed by the WCDSCF and the SCCMF, and the impact of the reduced stock state in the SCCMF. • Details on the fishing footprint in recent years and knowledge of main habitat types encountered. • Evidence of accuracy and verification of the CDRs during the most recent fishing season. • Further information is sought on more recent incidental catch of species like sea urchin, octopus and other finfish and their status. • Further exploration of the consultation and participatory mechanisms employed in the fishery. In particular, understanding of how the Stakeholder Guidelines have been operationalised with regards to this fishery; and the means for non-industry stakeholders have been able and encouraged to participate in operational or strategic level management • The extent of information about the fishery’s performance and management actions made available to interested stakeholders; including how the management system has responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. • The system of management plan review in Western Australian fisheries and for this fishery. • Gain a clear understanding of revised strategic review and evaluation process for WA fisheries, following the transition to DPIRD.

4 Report details 4.1 Authorship and peer review details Peer reviewer information to be completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage Together the team meets all competency requirements laid out in FCP v2.2 Section(s) 7.6, 7.14, Annex PC Table PC3.

Team Leader: Dr Sabine Daume

Dr Daume is the Managing Director of bio.inspecta Pty Ltd, Centre for Seafood Certification based in Melbourne Australia which covers MSC, ASC and Fisheries Improvement programs. Since 2009, Dr Daume has led numerous MSC evaluation audits including several large and controversial assessments, and many assessments in Australia.

Dr Daume led the WA rock lobster and Heard Island and McDonald Islands (HIMI) icefish annual surveillance and re-assessments as well as the HIMI and Macquarie Island toothfish full assessment in Australia, and numerous audits in USA, Canada, Mexico and Japan. Dr. Daume led the PNA surveillance audits and expedited P! assessment for yellowfin tuna of the PNA fishery in 2014-2015 and 2016. She also successfully led five new full assessments in Western Australia between 2015 and 2018 (Peel Harvey Estuarine Fishery, West Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery, Australian Silver-lipped Pearl Fishery, Western Australian Abalone Fishery, Western Australian Octopus Fishery). She has been trained by the MSC to use the Risk Based Framework (RBF) and the most recent MSC Certification Requirements (v2.0 Oct. 2015). She is a certified lead auditor under the ISO 9001:2008 standard.

She holds a PhD in marine biology from La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia and an MSc in Marine Biology and Marine Chemistry from Kiel University in Germany. Dr Daume has expertise in the biology and ecology of exploited marine resources. Dr Daume has over 25 years’ experience working with the fishing and aquaculture industry in Australia and worked as a Senior Research Scientist at the Research Division of the Department of Fisheries in Western Australia.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 6 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Team Member and Principle 1 Expert: Dr Klaas Hartmann

Dr Hartmann is a Senior Research Fellow and Mathematician at the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) University of Tasmania whose research involves bio-economic modelling across a broad range of fisheries. Throughout his career he has worked on resource and conservation management from a mathematical ecology and ecological economics perspective. After working in fisheries at CSIRO for two years, Klaas focused on prioritising resources for biodiversity conservation, particularly using phylogenetic information. Since commencing work at IMAS in 2009, Klaas has returned to his initial interest in fisheries modelling. At IMAS Dr Hartmann works on bio-economic models and developing/evaluating novel management strategies in collaboration with fisheries managers and industry. This work has helped support large changes in a number of fisheries that have substantially increased their profitability whilst improving environmental outcomes. Klaas has been responsible for conducting or overseeing Southern Rock Lobster and Giant Crab assessments in Tasmania for over ten years and Victoria for five years. Klaas is a committee member of the Tasmanian Crustacean Fisheries Advisory Committee and the Status of Key Australian Fish Stocks Advisory Committee. Dr Hartmann has been the P1 expert on several confidential pre-assessments and the recent annual surveillance audits of WA fisheries including the Peel Harvey Estuarine Fishery.

Team Member and Principle 3 Expert: Jo-anne McCrea

Jo-anne (Jo) is a marine scientist with 25 years of experience in the area of sustainable fisheries and aquaculture management across the private, government and environmental non-government sectors. Jo worked in the Government fisheries and aquaculture regulatory sector for over a decade, specialising in environmental management of seafood industries; and as an independent consultant for 6 years, advising Government, non-government and academic sectors. During this time Jo developed and implemented marine protection policies such as bycatch action plans for commercial fisheries, protected species management measures, resource allocation, vulnerable habitat protection. Jo also led the Aquaculture and Pearling program of Western Australia where she was responsible for the development of policies to guide the development and sustainable management of these activities.

Most recently, Jo worked for the World Wildlife Fund for over 8 years, managing its Sustainable Seafood Program for the last 5 years. In this role, Jo was responsible for reviewing the environmental risk associated with the seafood supply chains of Australia’s largest seafood companies, with the use of her deep understanding of sustainable harvesting and management of seafood. Jo also led the fisheries legislative and policy engagement work for WWF Australia. This included involvement in the development of commonwealth level fisheries policies and management approaches, including the Harvest Strategy Policy, Bycatch Policy, Climate Change Adaptation Tools and Australia Fisheries Standards. Over this period, she also represented the conservation sector on numerous fisheries and jurisdiction specific advisory groups, as well as national level committees.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 7 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

4.2 Version details

Table 1 – Fisheries program documents versions

Document Version number

MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.2

MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01

MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.4.1

MSC Reporting Template Version 1.2

5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification and results overview 5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification 5.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment

Table 2 – Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA)

UoA 1 Description

Crystal Crab (Chaceon albus) Species

Crystal crab stock in waters of the Indian Ocean and the Timor Sea. Stock

Fishing gear type(s) and, Traps if relevant, vessel type(s) Western Australia Fishing Industry Council, Inc. on behalf of: Allplain Corporation Pty. Ltd., Peter Kyros Pty. Ltd., Deep Sea Water Client group Services Pty Ltd., Silverbay Asset Pty Ltd. Panorama Management Pty Ltd, Yennet Pty. Ltd. and Bouvard Fisheries. None Other eligible fishers

Western Australian waters of the Indian Ocean and the Timor Sea north Geographical area of 34° 24’ S latitude to the Northern Territory border, on the seaward side of the 150 m isobath out to the extent of the Australian EEZ.

5.1.2 Unit(s) of Certification

Table 3 – Unit(s) of Certification (UoC)

UoC 1 Description

Crystal Crab (Chaceon albus) Species

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 8 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Crystal crab stock in waters as north of 34° 24’ S and the Timor Sea. Stock

Fishing gear type(s) and, if Traps relevant, vessel type(s) Western Australia Fishing Industry Council, Inc. on behalf of: Allplain Corporation Pty. Ltd., Peter Kyros Pty. Ltd., Deep Sea Water Client group Services Pty Ltd., Silverbay Asset Pty Ltd. Panorama Management Pty Ltd, Yennet Pty. Ltd. and Bouvard Fisheries. Western Australian waters of the Indian Ocean and the Timor Sea north of 34° 24’ S latitude to the Northern Territory border, on the seaward Geographical area side of the 150 m isobath out to the extent of the Australian EEZ.

5.2 Assessment results overview 5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage

The CAB shall include in the report a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the assessment team on whether the fishery should be certified.

The CAB shall include in the report a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the CAB’s official decision-maker in response to the determination recommendation.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2, 7.20.3.h and Section 7.21

5.2.2 Principle level scores To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Table 4 - Principle level scores

Principle UoA 1

Principle 1 – Target species

Principle 2 – Ecosystem impacts

Principle 3 – Management system

5.2.3 Summary of conditions To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Table 5 – Summary of

conditions Carried Related to Performance Condition Exceptional over from previous Condition Indicator Deadline number circumstances? previous condition? (PI) certificate?

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 9 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Yes / No Yes / No / Yes / No / NA NA Yes / No Yes / No / Yes / No / NA NA Yes / No Yes / No / Yes / No / NA NA

5.2.4 Recommendations To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage If the CAB or assessment team wishes to include any recommendations to the client or notes for future assessments, these may be included in this section.

6 Traceability and eligibility 6.1 Eligibility date

The target eligibility date for product from the fishery to bear the MSC label is 14 December 2021 which is the anticipated re-certification date.

6.2 Traceability within the fishery

Within the commercial fishery, all landings are recorded and reported via mandatory catch and disposal records, where the amount of catch and the fishing area are recorded for each fishing trip.

All 7 licensees are included in the unit of certification with 5 consolidated quota holders operating 3 vessels in the fishery. The main ports within the fishery are Fremantle, Bunbury, Geraldton, Dampier, Port Hedland and Broome. In the Gascoyne Coast Bioregion, where the majority of fishing effort is focused, commercial fishing vessels utilise the Carnarvon and Denham Boat Harbour.

Table 6 – Traceability within the fishery

Factor Description

Will the fishery use gears that are not part of the Unit of Certification (UoC)?

No only baited traps are permitted in the If Yes, please describe: fishery and no other gears are used. - If this may occur on the same trip, on the same vessels, or during the same season; - How any risks are mitigated. Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC The risk of vessels fishing and landing catch geographic area? from outside the permitted fishing area is low

due to compliance checks which are If Yes, please describe: appropriate for the size and scale of the - If this may occur on the same trip; fishery. - How any risks are mitigated. Do the fishery client members ever handle certified No all licence holders are included in the and non-certified products during any of the fishery. All product is landed at Fisheries activities covered by the fishery certificate? This approved landing ports, and all product landed refers to both at-sea activities and on-land activities. by individual license holders is transported in

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 10 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

- Transport company owned and operated vehicles to - Storage processing facilities where it is sold. - Processing - Landing - Auction

If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. Does transhipment occur within the fishery?

If Yes, please describe: - If transhipment takes place at-sea, in port, or There is no transhipment within the fishery. both; - If the transhipment vessel may handle product from outside the UoC; - How any risks are mitigated. Are there any other risks of mixing or substitution between certified and non-certified fish? There is no other risks of mixing certified and non-certified product. If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated.

6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report a determination of whether the seafood product will be eligible to enter certified chains of custody, and whether the seafood product is eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel.

The CAB shall include in the report a list of parties, or category of parties, eligible to use the fishery certificate, and sell product as MSC certified.

The CAB shall include in the report the point of intended change of ownership of product, a list of eligible landing points, and the point from which subsequent Chain of Custody certification is required.

If the CAB makes a negative determination under FCP v2.2 Section 7.9, the CAB shall state that fish and fish products from the fishery are not eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. If the client group includes other entities such as agents, unloaders, or other parties involved with landing or sale of certified fish, this needs to be clearly stated in the report including the point from which Chain of Custody is required.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.9

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 11 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

7 Scoring 7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores Indicative scoring ranges at this stage of the assessment are presented below.

Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) Score

1.1.1 Stock status ≥80 Outcome 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 60-79 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools ≥80 Management 1.2.3 Information & monitoring ≥80

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status ≥80

2.1.1 Outcome ≥80 Primary 2.1.2 Management strategy ≥80 species 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring ≥80

2.2.1 Outcome ≥80 Secondary 2.2.2 Management strategy ≥80 species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring ≥80

2.3.1 Outcome ≥80

Two ETP species 2.3.2 Management strategy ≥80

2.3.3 Information strategy ≥80

2.4.1 Outcome ≥80

Habitats 2.4.2 Management strategy ≥80

2.4.3 Information ≥80

2.5.1 Outcome ≥80

Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management ≥80

2.5.3 Information ≥80

3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework ≥80 Governance 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities ≥80 and policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives ≥80

Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives ≥80 Fishery 3.2.2 Decision making processes ≥80 specific management 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement ≥80 system Monitoring & management performance 3.2.4 ≥80 evaluation

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 12 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

7.2 Principle 1 7.2.1 Principle 1 background This section is largely based on How et. al. (2015), How and de Lestang (2019), How and de Lestang (2020) and How et. al. (2021). In some sections the Principle 1 background draws directly on text from How et. al. (2015), the initial MSC assessment and audit reports for this fishery.

7.2.1 Crystal Crab (Chaceon albus)

Distribution Crystal crab (Chaceon albus) have a geographical distribution restricted to WA waters. They occur on the continental shelf at depths of 300 – 1200 m. On the west coast of WA crystal crabs are caught primarily in depths of 500 – 800 m, although they are found over a broader range on the south coast of WA (i.e. 400 – 900 m depths; Melville-Smith et al. 2007). The habitat within these depth ranges are generally sand/mud or broken shell (Wadley & Evans 1991; Jones & Morgan 1994).

Crystal crab were originally classified as C. bicolor (Wadley & Evans 1991) which is a species similar in appearance which occurs on the Eastern Australian coast and has a broader distribution through the Western Pacific. Visually C. bicolor is distinguished from crystal crabs by shorter and stouter walking legs as well as being paler in colour (Davie et al. 2007).

Little is known about the stock structure of crystal crab on the west or south coast of WA but How et al. (2015) report that linkages between stocks on the west and south coast are unknown, therefore they may be separate stocks. A project has recently commenced which will use genetic analyses to compare the South and West coast stocks (FRDC 2020-014).

A tagging study found that the majority of crabs of both sexes moved less than 50 km between release and recapture, even after three and four years at large; that only ~2% of the crabs that were recaptured moved more than 100 km; and that because of the amount of movement relative to the size of the fishing zones, there were few crabs that were recorded as being tagged in one zone and moving to another (Melville-Smith et al. 2007).

Chaceon species in other parts of the world have shown a gradient of size or sex ratio with depth, and a decline in the proportion of undersize crystal crabs at depths < 600 m has been previously reported (How et. al. 2015). More recent fishery independent survey results conducted on this stock have found no evidence of this (Figure 5).

Given the limited movement of adult crabs the main mechanism for connectivity between regions is through larval dispersal. The larval duration of crystal crabs remains unknown (How et. al. 2015) hence the potential scales for connectivity through larval dispersal are also uncertain.

Growth

The growth rate of crystal crabs was studied by Melville-Smith et al. (2007) using information from tag returns. Growth increments were consistent across the range of sizes sampled, with females increasing in size by 10-15 mm CL per moult increment (size range 90-110 mm CL). Males increased by 15-20 mm CL for a moult increment across sizes of 90-120 mm CL. Growth increments for males were used to provide an estimate of age at maturity (12 years), age at legal size (14 years) and maximum age (25-30 years).

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 13 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The maximum size and age of female crystal crabs has not been clearly defined; however length- frequency data indicates that few females reach the minimum legal size (Figure 6). Consequently, in the commercial catch the male catch rate is 5.5 times that of legally retainable females (How et. al. 2015).

Reproduction How et al. (2015) report that there is only weak seasonality in the reproductive cycle of crystal crabs. Size at maturity (CL50) of female crystal crabs has been estimated at 90.5 mm CL (89.7 – 91.2 mm CL, 95% confidence interval [CI]). Ovigerous or egg remnant females had a mean CL of 108.2 mm (91 – 140 mm C [95% CI]; Smith et al. 2004). This is above the legal minimum size (103 mm CL) but may also represent an underestimate of the size of female maturity (Smith et al. 2004).

Male crystal crabs attain physiological sexual maturity (CL50) at 94.3 mm CL (95% CI 93.7 – 94.9 mm CL), with 95% male maturity at 99.9 mm CL (98.2 – 101.6 mm CL). Sperm limitation is not believed to be a factor with the male legal minimum size above the size at maturity so that males are mature for around 2 years before they recruit to the fishery.

Fecundity on crystal crabs ranged from 15 592 (CL = 98 mm) – 288 512 (95% CI = 133 mm), with a mean of 192 070 (95% CI ± 33 640). This is significantly less than other local deep sea crab species (e.g. champagne crab) and may be a result of continued spawning and the lack of need to maximise egg production at a particular time.

7.2.2 Commercial Fishery

Interest in establishing commercial fishing operations for giant (P. gigas) and champagne (H. acerba) crabs in WA began the 1960s, but significant catches of these deep sea crabs have only been reported from the late 1980s onwards. Champagne crabs were extensively targeted for three years between 1997 and 1999; however, a decline in the abundance of champagne crabs in 1999 led to the targeting of crystal crabs (C. albus) in waters deeper than 500 m since this time (DoF 2003).

In 2003, management arrangements for deep sea crabs were formalised by the introduction of the West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean (Interim) Managed Fishery Management Plan. The Plan limited fishing activity to seven permit holders, with effort divided into five zones along the west coast. Fishers were only permitted to operate in specific zones, with one or two fishers permitted to operate in each zone. Between 2003 and 2007, catches of crystal crabs were maintained around 200 tonnes (t) annually, with a peak of 227.5 t in 2007.

In 2008, a quota system was introduced with an annual TAC set at 140 t for crystal crabs. This TAC was set using the precautionary approach, as the species is known to be slow to mature and long-lived (Melville-Smith et al. 2007). Fishing zones were removed when quota was introduced, meaning that fishers were no longer restricted to specific areas. Consequently, fishing effort is no longer spread along the entire west coast but is concentrated in a few areas (Figure 3).

The fishery transitioned from an interim to a fully managed fishery on 1 January 2013. The TAC for crystal crabs remained at 140 t from its introduction in 2008 until ongoing increases in CPUE saw a TAC increase to 154t in 2015 (Figure 10). An annual combined quota of 14 t was introduced for giant and champagne crabs.

Whilst the fishery originally covered a large part of the permitted region (Figure 2) it has since contracted substantially to an area that has been relatively consistent in recent years (Figure 3). The part of the stock along the Southern WA coast is fished by the South Coast Crustacean Managed Fishery (SCCMF) fishery which is part of the UoA but not the UoC. The SCCMF is an effort controlled

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 14 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template fishery which operates at the extremity of the range of crystal crab and consequently crystal crab catches in this fishery have been consistently lower than in the WCDSC fishery, with 5.1t landed in 2017/18 (Figure 11; Gaughan and Santaro 2020).

Fishery Operation

Fishers in the WCDSCMF are only permitted to fish using traps. Currently, fishers use moulded plastic rock lobster traps with a 5 – 10 kg flat piece of metal wired to the base of the trap to act as ballast (Figure 1). It is a legislated requirement that each trap has two escape gaps (294 × 54 mm) to allow undersized crabs to escape.

Traps are operated in long-lines, which have between 80 and 150 traps attached to a main line marked by a weighted float at each end. The traps are generally left soaking for three to seven days before retrieval and approximately 400 – 500 traps are pulled per day (DoF 2003, 2009).

The WCDSCMF is open to fishing for the entire year with catch taken relatively consistently throughout the year, with some slight increases during periods of high price such as the Chinese New Year. Traps remain in the water throughout the year and are only retrieved to collect the catch and for rebaiting. On some occasions traps can be left in the water for between 10 – 14 days if weather conditions are unfavourable for fishing. Depending on where they are operating, most fishers tend to spend around 12 hours steaming to the fishing grounds, leaving in the late afternoon and retrieving the traps at first light.

Traps are retrieved using a hydraulic winch, and crabs are removed by hand, placed on a sorting tray and sexed and measured. The claws of the crabs are bound to their bodies using a cable tie to minimise the risk of injury to both fishermen and other crabs. Legal-sized crabs are placed in a 5° C brine holding tank for transport back to port. Any undersize crabs are returned to the water as soon as possible. Retrieved traps are re-baited and stacked at the back of the vessel. Once all traps have been retrieved from one or more longlines, the traps are reset.. Due to the low productivity of the fishery, fishermen typically re-set traps in different grounds to where they were retrieved.

7.2.3 Assessment

Data Collection

An extensive range of fishery-dependent data has been collected on crystal crabs throughout the history of the fishery, with some datasets extending back to the commencement of the fishery in the early 2000s. These data include information on size composition of landings, detailed effort and discarding, as well as environmental conditions.

A key component of this dataset is the fishery dependent data collected through paper logbooks (Figure 7). This contains the catch disposal record, catch and effort data and voluntary data on discards from high grading and returns of undersize or berried females.

An onboard observer program was initiated in 2000 to collect detailed information on both the target and non-target species. This provided a level of detail not present in logbooks and provided independent verification of logbook data. The coverage was limited to approximately four trips per year and ceased in 2017 with the resources reallocated to the new fishery independent survey.

The fishery independent survey (FIS; How et. al. 2021) is primarily industry funded through supply of a commercial vessel with the management agency providing additional support through an observer.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 15 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The survey involves fishers setting lines of pots across a range of depths in a specified region. Approximately 1000 pots are sampled each year in each site. The survey initially covered one site and expanded to a second site in 2020 (Figure 4).

Assessment CPUE is the primary indicator for crystal crab in the WCDSC fishery. CPUE is measured in kg/potlift and is standardised to correct for the effects of skipper, area, month, depth and soak time. This standardisation process was updated in 2020 in collaboration with industry to adjust for recent changes in the fishing sector.

The CPUE index shows an initial period of increase from 2003 to 2013, followed by a decrease through to the present. The decrease through the present has been relatively gradual except for a major drop from 2015 to 2016. Such a substantial drop in biomass for a long-lived species with suspected low exploitation rates is unlikely. Consequently, substantial observed changes in the processing and fishing sectors in this season that led to changes in fishing behaviour are thought to be the likely cause of this decrease. Whilst the CPUE standardisation method has been reviewed and updated it has been unable to address this and many of the changes that occurred in 2016 are thought not to be apparent in the data (e.g. high grading reporting which was more limited at the time).

The previous harvest strategy (DoF 2015) utilised secondary indicators consisting of catch rates of berried females and undersize crabs; measured in number per potlift as recorded in logbooks during normal commercial fishing. These secondary indicators fell below the threshold value in 2017 and remained below this level in 2018. In response a review was undertaken by DPIRD (How and de Lestang 2019, Appendix 2). This review found that the secondary indicators are unreliable and may not represent true changes in abundance of undersize and berried females. Two key issues identified in the review are i) the accuracy of the reported numbers and ii) changes in fishing behaviour biasing these indices. Due to these issues the secondary indicators were not reported on from 2019 onwards and were removed from the 2020-2025 harvest strategy (DPIRD 2020).

Due to the removal of the secondary indicators there is at present no regularly evaluated indicator of undersize abundance, recruitment or egg production. The data collected by the FIS seeks to address this and is showing promising signs with length and sex composition data (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

Work has commenced to produce an integrated assessment of the range of data sources available for this fishery including the FIS data. Assessment approaches being trialled/considered range from a simply Catch-MSY approach through to the application of a fully integrated size structured model currently being developed for the Western rock lobster fishery.

7.2.4 Harvest Strategy

The harvest strategy was updated in 2020 (DPIRD 2020). The objectives in the harvest strategy related to P1 are to maintain the biomass of the target species above the level of recruitment impairment and to provide “flexible opportunities to ensure fishers can maintain or enhance their livelihood, within the constraints of ecological sustainability”. This is operationalised by an objective to maintain the resource above the threshold level (MSY proxy).

The harvest control rule is based on a constant catch approach with no TAC adjustments required whilst CPUE is above the threshold level (Figure 9). The broad range of TAC reduction required if the fishery falls below this level or the limit reference point is indicated (0-50% and 50-100% reductions respectively) however the process or objectives that should be met by such a TAC reduction are not defined.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 16 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The harvest strategy includes a range of supporting measures that ensure the sustainability of the stock including spatial management (Figure 2), limited entry, well defined gear limitations, strict reporting requirements, a minimum size limit of 120mm and strict unloading requirements to facilitate compliance.

The minimum size limit is a particularly important component as it protects a high proportion of females and is well above the mean size of ovigerous females. It also ensures males have two years of sexual maturity before becoming legal size.

Figure 1: Deep sea crustacean vessel “Napolean” alongside the Denham fisherman’s jetty (top) and Crab traps used by fishers inthe WCDSCMF

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 17 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Figure 2: The location and boundaries of the West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery and specified Port Areas (from DPIRD 2020)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 18 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Figure 3: Spatial distribution of fishing effort in 10x10nm blocks. Left panel: Effort during the 2019 season (green) compared to the reference period (2003-2012; red). Middle panel: 2018 effort (green) compared 2017 effort (orange). Right panel: 2019 effort (green) compared to 2018 effort (orange).

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 19 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Figure 4 Location of the lines sampled by year (2017-black, 2018-red, 2019-green and 2020-blue) within and adjacent to the a) Carnarvon ISS and b) Kalbarri ISS areas (dotted blue polygon) and c) location of Carnarvon and Kalbarri (open dot) ISS locations relative to average crystal crab catches from 2017-2019. 100 m isobaths (black) are presented with the 300 and 700m isobaths in red. (from How et. al. 2021)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 20 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Figure 5 Mean carapace length (closed circle and line; ±SE) of crystal crabs caught off a) Carnarvon and b) Kalbarri with individual carapace lengths of undersize (red) and legal sized (black) crabs denoted with open dots Squares indicate the location of meshed pots with the mean biomass also presented (triangles and thick line) (from How et. al. 2021)

Figure 6. Proportion of females (grey bars) and mean biomass (triangle and line) of all crystal crabs caught by 10 m depth increments for the sites off a) Carnarvon and b) Kalbarri. The dotted horizontal line denotes the equal proportions of males and females in the catch. (from How et. al. 2021)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 21 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Figure 7: The revised logbook which contains the catch disposal record, the catch and effort data and the voluntary data forms.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 22 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Figure 8: Annual standardised catch rate (± 95% CI) of retained legal crystal crab (kg/potlift) and associated reference points with a three-year moving average (heavy line).

Figure 9: Harvest control rule decision tree designed to achieve the ecological objective of maintaining crystal crab spawning stock biomass.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 23 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

7.2.5 Catch profiles

Figure 10: Annual catch of crystal crab (tonnes) in the WCDSC fishery and the associated target region (green), threshold (orange) reference points

Figure 11: Annual catches in the South Coast Crustacean Managed Fishery (SCCMF) fishery which is part of the UoA but not the UoC. From Gaughan and Santoro 2020.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 24 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

7.2.6 Catch profiles 7.2.7 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data

Table 7 – Total Allowable Catch

(TAC) and catch data

TAC* Year 2019 Amount 154.0t

UoA share of TAC Year 2019 Amount 154.0t

UoA share of total TAC Year 2019 Amount 154.0t

Year (most Total green weight catch by UoC 2019 Amount 153.3t recent) Year (second Total green weight catch by UoC 2018 Amount 152.2t most recent) * The TAC is set for the WCDSC fishery. Catch in the geographically separated South Coast Crustacean Managed Fishery (SCCMF) fishery which is part of the UoA but not the UoC is not regulated by a TAC.

7.2.8 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

PI The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Stock status relative to recruitment impairment It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of a Guide is above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is post recruitment would be above the PRI. impaired (PRI). Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The harvest strategy (DPIRD 2020) identifies the “annual standardised commercial catch rate of legally-retainable crystal crabs” as the primary indicator for assessing stock status. A reference period is defined from 2003 to 2012, during this period CPUE started at a record low and increased to a near record high (Figure 8). A threshold RP is set to the lowest value during the reference period and is considered a proxy for MSY. This appears appropriate as CPUE has increased from this lowest level for an extended period of time without a notable change in catch. A limit RP is set at 80% of the threshold RP and is considered a point below which “recruitment impairment may occur”. Setting this limit threshold reference point at 80% of the MSY reference point provides a conservative estimate of PRI.

CPUE has never fallen below the threshold and consequently has remained well above the limit RP.

Standardised CPUE increased for a decade before dropping for the last six years despite steady TACs and catches from 2008 onwards (Figure 8, Figure 10). The sudden drop in CPUE in 2016 remains poorly understood. It is thought this is likely due to a large-scale shift in both the catching and processing sectors that led to a sudden change in crab targeting and fishing strategies which cannot be corrected for using conventional CPUE standardisation techniques. The alternative explanation that the

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 25 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

CPUE drop is due a sudden decline in biomass seems less likely as the species is long-lived reaching legal size at 14 years of age (males) and after the sudden drop in one year the CPUE has continued at the lower CPUE level and returned to the previous lower levels of inter-annual variability.

Females grow slower and to substantially smaller maximum sizes than males. Consequently, an application of the same size limit across both sexes results in a catch dominated by males with less than 15% of the catch typically consisting of females (How et. al. 2015). Growth modelling indicates that males reach legal size two years after reaching sexual maturity. Sex ratios at which sperm limitation becomes an issue have not been studied for this species and a reliable estimate of the sex ratio of the stock is unavailable as there is a substantially lower selectivity of the smaller female crabs. However, the combined effect of a high level of protection for females coupled with a legal size limit two years above the SOM for male crabs provides a substantial additional safeguard for recruitment in an output controlled fishery.

A weight of evidence assessment was also applied in the 2020 stock assessment (DPIRD 2020). It identified two issues of potential concern. Firstly, that there has been an increasing trend in spatial extent which is not understood and one possible cause may be stock depletion. Secondly the discussed CPUE decline. This assessment concluded that the likelihood of the stock being above the limit RP (PRI proxy) is remote (<5%).

Along the Southern coast of WA the stock is fished by South Coast Crustacean Managed Fishery (SCCMF) fishery. It is likely that there is limited connectivity between the crystal crab population fished by the WCDSC fishery and the SCCMF, both due to the geographical separation, the dominant currents in this area, the low movement of adults and being separated by Cape Leeuwin. However due to a lack of definitive results (e.g. larval dispersal or genetic studies) to support this, the status of the entire distribution of crystal cab is assessed (UoA). The Status reports of the fisheries and aquatic resources of Western Australia 2018/19 assessed this southern “stock” as having an unacceptable level of depletion on the basis of standardised CPUE declines (Gaughan and Santoro 2020). The population of crystal crab accessed by the SCCMF is at the extreme range of the species distribution, and low abundance has translated into consistently low catches (Figure 11) in contrast to the WCDSC fishery. Consequntly while this portion of the stock may have been reduced to a lower level, the impact on the overall stock in relation to the PRI is highly likely to be negligible.

There are some concerns about the CPUE indicator and recent changes in the spatial extent of the fishery, however the evidence above shows that it is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI, meeting the requirements for SG80.

Secondary indicators of recruitment were used until 2018 – these were undersize discards and catch rate of berried females. Both indices were abandoned on justifiable grounds including selectivity being highly sensitive to depth range and fishers actively avoiding catches of these animals. Consequently, there is no recruitment index.

Due to the identified issues with the primary index, a lack of indices that directly measure recruitment, uncertainty about the component of the stock accessed by the SCCMF fishery and concerns about shifting fleet dynamics it cannot be said that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI and SG100 is not met.

Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) The stock is at or There is a high degree of fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock b Guide consistent with MSY. has been fluctuating around post a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Yes No

Rationale

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 26 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

During the last 16 years CPUE has remained above the threshold RP which the harvest strategy considers to be a proxy for MSY (Figure 8). Early catches in the fishery were above 200t and catches have been stable and more precautionary since the introduction of the TAC in 2008 (Figure 10). Consistent attainment of the crystal crab TAC (>95% caught) is an indicator used in the harvest strategy and has been consistently met (the TAC was set at 140t from 2008 to 2014 and at 154t since 2015).

Whilst the CPUE has been declining in recent years, as discussed in PI 1.1.1.a this is likely to be the result of a shift in both fishing and processing sectors which was not captured in the parameters recorded in logbooks and consequently cannot be accounted for in CPUE standardisation.

The weight of evidence assessment (How et. al. 2020) reports that it is unlikely (between 5% and 30%) that the stock is between the MSY proxy and the PRI proxy. It is important to note here that a stock fluctuating at a level consistent with MSY could be between these proxies 50% of the time whilst meeting the requirements of 1.1.1.b SG80; however, the harvest strategy has a more conservative objective of maintaining the stock above the MSY proxy.

Due to a similar rationale in 1.1.1.a, whilst the component of the stock accessed by the SCCMF may have been reduced, this area has always had substantially lower catches and the reduction in production from this area which has typically produced less than 20t/annum will not have had a notable impact on the overall ability of the stock to achieve MSY.

Catches close to or exceeding the current TAC have been taken for twenty years. Coupled with observations of CPUE trends during this period this provides sufficient evidence to satisfy SG80.

Some uncertainty remains regarding the recent decline in CPUE, larger changes in the fishing fleet that could have impacted earlier CPUE trends and spatial shifts that may have influenced more recent CPUE trends. Consequently, there is an insufficient level of certainty to satisfy SG100.

References

DPIRD (2020). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resource Harvest Strategy 2020-2025, Fisheries Management Paper No. 302, http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp302.pdf

Gaughan, D.J. and Santoro, K. (eds). 2020. Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2018/19: The State of the Fisheries. Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western Australia.

How, J, Webster, F., Travaille, K and Harry, A. (2015) MSC Assessment Document for the West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

How, J. and de Lestang, S. (2020). Stock Assessment, TAC Advice and MSC Audit Reporting for West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resource. Pp 17.

Stock status relative to reference points Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference point Limit reference point, 1.66 kg /potlift 1.72 kg / potlift used in scoring proxy for 80% BMSY stock relative to PRI (SIa) Reference point Threshold reference 1.38 kg /potlift 1.72kg / potlift used in scoring point, proxy for BMSY stock relative to MSY (SIb)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 27 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

PI Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a 1.1.2 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Rebuilding timeframes A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable specified for the stock that rebuilding timeframe is is the shorter of 20 specified which does not years or 2 times its exceed one generation Guide a generation time. For time for the stock. post cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. Met? Yes / No Yes / No

Rationale

The CAB shall insert sufficient rationale to support the team’s conclusion for each Scoring Guidepost (SG).

Rebuilding evaluation Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that There is strong evidence determine whether the the rebuilding strategies that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are are rebuilding stocks, or it strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the is likely based on stocks, or it is highly stock within the specified simulation modelling, likely based on simulation b Guide timeframe. exploitation rates or modelling, exploitation post previous performance that rates or previous they will be able to rebuild performance that they will the stock within the be able to rebuild the specified timeframe. stock within the specified timeframe. Met? Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No

Rationale

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 28 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The CAB shall insert sufficient rationale to support the team’s conclusion for each Scoring Guidepost (SG).

References

The CAB shall list any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.

Draft scoring range NA More information sought / Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator If more information is sought, include a description of what the information gap is and what is information is sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 29 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue Harvest strategy design The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state of responsive to the state of stock management the stock and the the stock and is designed Guide objectives reflected in PI elements of the harvest to achieve stock a post 1.1.1 SG80. strategy work together management objectives towards achieving stock reflected in PI 1.1.1 management objectives SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The objectives in the harvest strategy (DPIRD 2020) related to P1 are to maintain the biomass of the target species above the level of recruitment impairment and to provide “flexible opportunities to ensure fishers can maintain or enhance their livelihood, within the constraints of ecological sustainability”. This is operationalised by an objective to maintain the resource above the threshold level (MSY proxy). As such the objectives aim to maintain the stock at a higher level of abundance than required by PI 1.1.1 SG80 and thereby achieve the “stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80”.

The primary performance indicator for crystal crabs is standardised CPUE. Strict limitations on fishing equipment and reduced turn-over in vessels (due to limited entry) work together to maintain a consistent CPUE time series. Coupled with reporting requirements and compliance processes these elements of the harvest strategy aim to ensure that CPUE data is reliably and accurately reported and sufficient information is available to conduct a standardisation.

The harvest strategy is based on a constant catch approach using the rationale that recruitment is a stable process which is suitable for long-lived crustaceans where inter-annual variability in recruitment is mitigated by slow growth. However, it is unclear that this assumption is suitable for crystal crabs which have a shorter lifespan (25-30 years maximum age; How et. al. 2015) than other crustaceans such as Giant Crab (to which this constant catch approach is also applied).

CPUE showed a long-term increasing trend (2003-2013) followed by a decreasing trend (2013-2019), note that this period of decrease is still evident even if the big decline in 2016 is dismissed as a step down due to industry structural changes. During this period of increase and decline, catches have been relatively stable (especially since the introduction of the TAC in 2008). With such consistent long-term CPUE trends it may be desirable for the harvest strategy to be more responsive to the stock and maintain a more consistent legal-size biomass. Due to concerns about their reliability, the indicators for undersize abundance and egg production in the first harvest strategy (DoF 2015) were removed in the 2020-2025 harvest strategy. Consequently, there is no capacity for the harvest strategy to respond to early signs of changing sublegal abundance.

Whilst the harvest strategy could benefit from being more responsive to the stock state it is responsive to the stock state below the MSY proxy. Due to a relatively conservative TAC the fishery has not yet reached this point and consequently the TAC has only been changed once (an increase due to high CPUE) since it’s inception.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 30 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The size limit in place ensures a low exploitation rate on females and is two years after sexual maturity for males (discussed in more detail in PI1.1.1a). This provides an additional safeguard for egg production that works together with the TAC to ensure robust sustainable management.

The elements of the harvest strategy (the harvest control rules and tools, the monitoring system and the assessment method) form a coherent package of measures that are expected to work together and achieve the intended stock management objectives. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels.

Choices of elements of the harvest strategy such as size limits, the HCR, gear regulations and spatial restrictions have not been designed and considered collectively. For example the role of the size limits and the current TAC levels have not been formally designed to achieve the stock management objectives. Consequently SG100 is not met.

Harvest strategy evaluation The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the likely to work based on not have been fully harvest strategy has been prior experience or tested but evidence fully evaluated and Guide plausible argument. exists that it is achieving evidence exists to show b post its objectives. that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

The harvest strategy (DPIRD (2020)) defines a limited entry fishery with TACs, a size limit that safeguards a period of egg production and a HCR based on standardised CPUE. Harvest strategies with such characteristics are appropriate for this type of fishery and species and have been successfully used in similar fisheries. Furthermore the individual elements of the harvest strategy are examined here under their respective PIs and generally found to be satisfactory. Consequently, we consider that the harvest strategy is highly likely to work based on both prior experience and plausible argument and the requirements of SG60 are easily met.

The stock has been in a high state (above the MSY proxy) since the introduction of the TAC, providing evidence that those elements of the harvest strategy that have been in place during this period have worked to achieving its current objectives (noting that the primary indicator whilst remaining above the threshold RP, has been decreasing since 2013.)

The harvest strategy was updated in 2020 with substantial changes including removal of the secondary indicators. Promising alternatives are being developed but are not explicitly referred to in the harvest control rule. The developmental nature of potential secondary indicators and the lack of clarity around the TAC reduction process (if CPUE falls below the threshold RP) means that there is no evidence (based on past performance or analysis) that the harvest strategy will work towards achieving its objectives during periods of low abundance. Consequently there is insufficient evidence to meet SG80.

The harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated, consequently SG100 is not met.

Harvest strategy monitoring Monitoring is in place that c Guide is expected to determine post whether the harvest strategy is working.

Met? Yes

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 31 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Rationale

The fisheries dependent logbook data is comprehensive, particularly since 2003 (from which point onwards the standardised CPUE is calculated). The harvest strategy has reporting requirements and compliance measures that ensure this data is of the required quality to calculate standardised CPUE – the primary indicator in the harvest strategy.

Length-frequency data was collected via an observer program until 2017 when resources were shifted to supporting an annual fishery independent survey (How and de Lestang 2021). A system is being developed for automated data collection of size and weight composition data of the entire catch landed to one processor (How et. al. 2015).

The fishery independent survey is an annual depth stratified survey that has been conducted since 2017 (How et. al. 2021). Early analyses suggest this survey may provide a key piece of data for future assessment methods.

Length-frequency and catch composition data collection programs are evolving. However, regardless of these additional data sources the core data available through the CDRs and catch and effort statistics (from logbooks) is sufficient to determine whether the harvest strategy is working, thus meeting the requirement of PI1.2.1c at the (only) SG60 level.

Harvest strategy review The harvest strategy is Guide d periodically reviewed and post improved as necessary. Met? Yes

Rationale

The harvest strategy is reviewed regularly with each version covering a five year period (DoF 2015, DPIRD 2020). This meets the requirements of SG100.

Shark finning It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree e Guide finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark post place. finning is not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Scoring Issue is NA as sharks are not a target species.

Review of alternative measures There has been a review There is a regular review There is a biennial of the potential of the potential review of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and f practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative Guide measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise post UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 32 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The unwanted portion of the catch consists of non-legal crabs (undersize and berried females) and low value crabs that may be discarded due to high-grading, especially recently moulted animals. Mechanisms affecting the mortality related to unwanted catch are i) selectivity for these animals and ii) post release survival.

As part of the formal harvest strategy review (which occurs every five years) the associated management rules are also reviewed. This includes a review of elements related to the both selectivity and post release survival. As part of the 2020 harvest strategy review, escape gap positioning was reviewed and is in the process of being revised in the management plan to ensure a higher level of undersize escapement across the fleet. Once implemented this will significantly reduce the catch of undersize crabs.

As a result of the small size of the fishery individual operators have a heightened incentive for resource stewardship. Consequently, there have been regular industry driven voluntary measures to reduce mortality of unwanted catch. This includes: • the adoption of discard chutes which reduce damage on impact with the ocean surface (reduces discard mortality), and • conducting the industry independent survey which contributes to an understanding of the depth based size and sex distribution of crabs, allowing improved targeting of legal size animals and consequent reduction of unwanted catch.

The above provides sufficient evidence of regular review and implementation of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch to meet the requirements of SG60 and SG80.

Whilst there is a regular review, it does not take place on a biennial cycle, consequently SG100 is not met.

References

DoF. (2015). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resources Harvest Strategy 2015-2020 Version 1. West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Fishery Management Paper No. 272. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

DPIRD (2020). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resource Harvest Strategy 2020-2025, Fisheries Management Paper No. 302, http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp302.pdf

How, J, Webster, F., Travaille, K and Harry, A. (2015) MSC Assessment Document for the West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

How, J. and de Lestang, S. (2020). Stock Assessment, TAC Advice and MSC Audit Reporting for West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resource. Pp 17.

How, Hebiton, de Lestang (2021). Development of an industry-funded fishery independent survey and associated indices for managing a deep sea crab resource. Draft report

Draft scoring range 60-79 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 33 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 HCRs design and application Generally understood Well defined HCRs are The HCRs are expected HCRs are in place or in place that ensure that to keep the stock available that are the exploitation rate is fluctuating at or above expected to reduce the reduced as the PRI is a target level consistent exploitation rate as the approached, are expected with MSY, or another a Guide point of recruitment to keep the stock more appropriate level post impairment (PRI) is fluctuating around a taking into account the approached. target level consistent ecological role of the with (or above) MSY, or stock, most of the time. for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The HCR detailed in the harvest strategy (DPIRD 2020) uses the standardized commercial catch rate (CPUE) on an annual basis and compares this against threshold and limit reference points (RPs).

A threshold RP is set to the lowest value during the reference period and is considered a proxy for MSY. A limit RP is set at 80% of the threshold RP and is considered a point below which “recruitment impairment may occur”. CPUE has never fallen below the threshold and consequently has remained well above the limit RP.

If CPUE is above the threshold RP it is considered to be in the target range and no explicit TAC change is indicated for the Ecological Objective. If CPUE is above the highest standardized CPUE in the reference period (+95%CI) a proposal to increase the TAC by 10% for a single season will be considered. If CPUE falls below the threshold RP, it is considered to be approaching the limit RP and the HCR requires a TAC reduction of up to 50%. If CPUE falls below the limit RP the HCR requires a TAC reduction of 50-100% (Figure 9).

This meets the requirement at both SG 60 and SG 80 for the exploitation rate to be reduced as the PRI is approached.

The HCR has well defined thresholds, indicates the broad range of required catch reductions and as the fishery is TAC controlled, has a clear mechanism for achieving the required catch reduction. The HCR does not indicate the mechanism for deciding on the level of the required TAC reduction or clear objectives that the TAC reductions should achieve (e.g. the rate of rebuild). Despite these aspects, the detail provided in the HCR is sufficient to consider the harvest strategy well defined as required for SG 80.

The harvest strategy is conservative in that it aims to maintain the stock above the threshold RP which is the MSY proxy. The HCR provides a clear mechanism for achieving this using an effective management tool (TAC).

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 34 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Consequently, it is expected that the HCR will keep the stock fluctuating above the a level consistent with MSY most of the time, thereby satisfying SG 100.

HCRs robustness to uncertainty The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account robust to the main of a wide range of uncertainties. uncertainties including b Guide the ecological role of the post stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties.

Met? Yes No

Rationale

The key assumptions underpinning the harvest control rule is that standardised CPUE is a good indicator for biomass and the derived reference points are appropriate. For crustacean pot based fisheries there is good correlation between biomass and CPUE. The reference points are based on a period during which CPUE increased and are set somewhat conservatively from this period. Consequently, adjusting the TAC on the basis of comparison between standardised CPUE and these reference points is likely to achieve the harvest strategy’s objectives.

There have been ongoing concerns that changes in the fishing sector have influenced CPUE. This resulted in a review of the CPUE standardisation methodology and a subsequent revision of the methodology (How et. al. 2020). This process was undertaken in consultation with industry via a comprehensive survey and workshop in 2020. The new method incorporates a larger region and standardises by skipper instead of vessel. As well as providing a more robust index this enables inclusion of a greater proportion of available data in the standardisation process. Additional factors included in the standardisation process include the month, depth and soak time.

Concerns about standardised CPUE are common in most fisheries. We consider that the concerns expressed here are not unusual and the ongoing process to refine this index particularly with formal industry collaboration is re-assuring.

What is unusual about the standardised CPUE in this fishery is a large reduction in a single time step (2016) that is thought to be related to an abrupt change in both the fishing and processing sectors in that year. Given the broad number of age classes fished in such a slow growing species and the consistently low inter-annual variation in CPUE before and after this change-point, it seems likely that an explanation unrelated to biomass is likely responsible for this decrease. Unfortunately due to the nature of the changes in that year (including changing targeting and high grading) it has not been possible to correct for this change in the CPUE standardisation.

This change in CPUE has likely resulted in lower CPUE values for the same given biomass from 2016 onwards. Given that the HCR compares current CPUE against reference points based on a pre-2016 period this change results in more conservative management and a likelihood of achieving the harvest strategies objectives of remaining above BMSY.

The 2016 change in the CPUE index causes some concern about the utility of CPUE as a biomass index, however it has resulted in potentially more conservative management. The CPUE standardisation process and its ongoing development and refinement, particularly in response to changes in the fishing fleet ensure that the HCR is likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. Thereby meeting the requirement of SG80.

c HCRs evaluation

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 35 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly that tools used or indicates that the tools shows that the tools in Guide available to implement in use are appropriate and use are effective in HCRs are appropriate and effective in achieving the achieving the post effective in controlling exploitation levels exploitation levels exploitation. required under the HCRs. required under the HCRs.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The TAC is the primary tool used to regulate the exploitation rate. It is strictly implemented and has not been exceeded since introduced in 2008.

Other elements that control the exploitation rate on different sex/size classes and spatially include: • spatial limitations • limited entry • minimum size limit, and • gear restrictions.

Combinations of input and output controls similar to this have been widely used with success in similar fisheries and are clearly appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation.

The implemented tools have worked together to maintain the stock above the threshold RP since the commencement of the CPUE time series in 2003 (although the TAC was only introduced in 2008).

There have been improvements in understanding discards through better logbook records (although these remain voluntary) and onboard camera monitoring (How et. al. 2019). Nevertheless, post release survival remains poorly understood and the total mortality of discards is poorly defined, although considered likely to be small. However, the HCR is based around a reference period including reported catch levels that likewise did not include discard mortality. Consequently, the TAC set by the HCR implicitly allows for additional discard mortality.

The above evidence indicates that the implemented tools are appropriate for controlling exploitation as required by the HCR and have clearly been effectively achieving this for an extended period. Consequently, the requirements of SG60, SG80 and S100 are met.

References

DPIRD (2020). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resource Harvest Strategy 2020-2025, Fisheries Management Paper No. 302, http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp302.pdf

How, J, Webster, F., Travaille, K and Harry, A. (2015) MSC Assessment Document for the West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

How, J. and de Lestang, S. (2019). Stock Assessment, TAC Advice and MSC Audit Reporting for West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resource. Pp 20.

How, J. and de Lestang, S. (2020). Stock Assessment, TAC Advice and MSC Audit Reporting for West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resource. Pp 17.

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 36 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Range of information Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range information related to information related to of information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available composition and other composition, stock a Guide to support the harvest data are available to abundance, UoA removals strategy. support the harvest and other information post strategy. such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The key biological parameters of crystal crabs are understood and these provide sufficient detail for the harvest strategy (see P1 background section for details).

Information on stock structure remains limited and a new research project (FRDC 2020-014) has commenced using genetics to investigate this further.

The fishery consists of a small fleet fishing with well established methods and techniques all of which are well understood. Changes in market demand have been cited as driving some changes in selectivity (e.g. size-specific pricing) and a regular time series of such data may be desirable for understanding shifts in spatial patterns, however this is not a key requirement to support the harvest strategy.

A critical supporting element of the harvest strategy is the CPUE index. The key data for this is collected through a mandatory logbook program that is well established and has a high level of completion.

The above evidence meets the requirements of SG60 and SG80.

The harvest strategy would benefit from a better understanding of a number of biological characteristics including abundance of undersize, female abundance and sex ratio, female egg fertilisation rate as a function of sex ratio, larval dispersal period, connectivity and stock structure.

Consequently, the requirements of SG100 are not met. Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 37 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Monitoring Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required removals are monitored removals are regularly by the harvest control and at least one monitored at a level of rule is monitored with indicator is available and accuracy and coverage high frequency and a high monitored with sufficient consistent with the degree of certainty, and b Guide frequency to support the harvest control rule, there is a good harvest control rule. and one or more understanding of inherent post indicators are available uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and sufficient frequency to the robustness of support the harvest assessment and control rule. management to this uncertainty. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

UoA removals and the data for the standardised CPUE index are regularly monitored through a comprehensive logbook and quota monitoring system (Figure 7). By definition these are consistent with the HCR. The collection of this data is rigorous in its coverage and the removals in particular are highly regulated and monitored as part of compliance with the quota system. This is sufficient to meet the requirements of SG60 and SG80.

The information required by the HCR is monitored with high frequency as all fishing events are recorded. However, some of the information, in particular voluntary records of discards (non-legal and high-grading) is not recorded with a high degree of certainty.

The sudden decline in CPUE in 2016 is thought to be due to changes in the fishing and processing sectors. However, the exact nature of this change remains poorly understood and the collected monitoring data does not permit the CPUE index to be adjusted to take this into account. Hence the uncertainty in the data is not well understood, including the potential for future industry changes to impact the CPUE index.

Due to these issues SG100 is not met.

Comprehensiveness of information There is good information Guide c on all other fishery post removals from the stock.

Met? Yes

Rationale

There is no recreational catch of crystal crab due to the significant challenge of recreationally fishing a deep-sea resource and the consequent low recreational effort.

No other commercial fisheries impact on this stock.

The above meets the requirements of SG80.

References

FRDC 2020-014, Kennington, J., How, J., de Lestang, S., Genetic stock structure of commercially important deep sea crab species, FRDC Project. Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 38 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration The assessment is The assessment takes into appropriate for the stock account the major Guide a and for the harvest features relevant to the post control rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Yes No

Rationale

The assessment relies on the calculation of an annual standardised CPUE index. The standardisation process was updated in 2020 and corrects for effects of skipper, area, month, depth and soak time (How et. al. 2020). As discussing in PI 1.2.2.b the standardisation process has undergone refinement using a process that drew on industry expertise regarding changes in fishing behaviour that are likely to affect catch rate. The harvest control rule has been explicitly developed to utilise this indicator.

The component of the stock fished by the South Coast Crustacean Managed Fishery (SCCMF) fishery (part of the UoA but not UoC) is not assessed or taken into consideration by the WCDSC fishery. However this is not of concern as the two populations are likely to be weakly connected (or potentially different stocks) and based on past productivity the SCCMF component of the stock is highly likely to constitute only a small proportion of the overall stock. Therefore it’s relevance to the WCDSC HCR is negligible and does not affect the appropriateness of the assessment used.

This assessment method is appropriate for a stock of this nature which exhibits a high degree of correlation between biomass density and CPUE. Thereby meeting the requirement of SG80.

The CPUE index features a substantial reduction in 2016 which is considered unlikely to be related to the stock and instead a consequence of changes in the fishing and processing sector. The inability to adjust or standardise for this change indicates that the assessment is unable to take into account a major feature of the nature of the UoA. Consequently, the requirements of SG100 are not met.

Assessment approach The assessment estimates The assessment estimates b stock status relative to stock status relative to Guide generic reference points reference points that are post appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock category. and can be estimated.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 39 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Reference points have been derived from a historical reference period. The choice of these reference points is appropriate for this stock and represents a conservative management decision. As the reference points are based on the primary indicator the stock status relative to these reference points can be readily calculated. This meets the requirements of the SG80 level.

Uncertainty in the assessment The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into identifies major uncertainty into account uncertainty and is c Guide sources of uncertainty. account. evaluating stock status post relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The CPUE standardisation approach used by the assessment explicitly takes into account major uncertainties including spatial and temporal changes in fishing and changes in operator. This approach is reviewed and updated regularly to consider alternative hypothesis and additional changes that occur in the fishing sector. Uncertainty in the logbook data used to conduct the assessment is minimised through regulatory and compliance measures and cross validation (e.g. with observers or onboard camera data). This meets the requirements of SG60 and SG80.

The assessment presents confidence intervals for yearly CPUE estimates. However, the current point estimate of CPUE is simply compared against the point estimate of CPUE for the reference year. This evaluation is not probabilistic and does not take into account the uncertainty in the most recent estimate (which may vary from one assessment to the next). Consequently, SG100 is not met.

Evaluation of assessment The assessment has been tested and shown to be Guide robust. Alternative d hypotheses and post assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? No

Rationale

There are some concerns about the assessment including the long-term reliability of the primary indicator and the lack of any indicators for undersize abundance and recruitment. Consequently, new data sources including the industry independent survey have commenced. Comprehensive assessments based on these data sources are in development however they have not yet been finalised or implemented. Consequently, the requirements of SG100 are not met.

Peer review of assessment e Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been status is subject to peer internally and post review.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 40 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

externally peer reviewed.

Met? Yes No

Rationale

The assessment is peer reviewed internally, including a process that is part of the annual production of the DPIRD “State of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Report” (Gaughan et. al. 2020). This meets the requirements of SG60.

The assessment has not been externally reviewed, consequently the requirements of SG100 have not been met.

References

Gaughan, D.J. and Santoro, K. (eds). 2020. Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2018/19: The State of the Fisheries. Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western Australia.

How, J. and de Lestang, S. (2020). Stock Assessment, TAC Advice and MSC Audit Reporting for West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resource. Pp 17.

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 41 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

7.3 Principle 2 7.3.1 Principle 2 background This section draws heavily on information provided in How et al. (2015) which was submitted to the first assessment. The information was updated with submission during the surveillance audits following certification as well as supplementary information provided at the writing of the ACDR.

Aquatic ecosystem, status and features as well as critical environments. The WCDSCMF operates off the west coast of Western Australia (WA), on the seaward side of the 150 m isobath out to the extent of the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; 200 nm boundary). The fishery covers three WA management bioregions1: North Coast, Gascoyne Coast and West Coast (How et al. 2015). Most of the fishing activities are centered in the Gascoyne and West Coast Bioregions (Figure 2).

The North Coast Bioregion (NCB) extends from just south of Onslow (114° 50’ E) to the Northern Territory border. The NCB has a unique combination of features that distinguish it from other marine regions around Australia, including a wide continental shelf, very high tidal regimes, high cyclone frequency, unique current systems, warm oligotrophic surface waters and unique geomorphological features (Brewer et al. 2007). Ocean temperatures in the NCB range between 22° C and 33° C with localised higher temperatures in coastal waters, particularly along the Pilbara coastline. Fish stocks in the NCB are entirely tropical (Fletcher and Santoro 2014).

The Gascoyne Coast Bioregion (GCB) extends from the NCB boundary at Onslow to north of Kalbarri (27° 00’ S). The GCB represents a transition between the fully tropical waters of the NCB and the temperate waters of the southwest region. The waters off the GCB are strongly influenced by the southward-flowing Leeuwin Current, a shallow, narrow (less than 300 m deep and 100 km wide) current that transports warm, low-nutrient water from the tropics southward. Although the Leeuwin Current flows year-round, it is strongest in the Austral autumn / winter (April to August). The current is variable in strength from year-to-year and is related to El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events in the Pacific Ocean (Fletcher and Santoro 2014). The subsurface Leeuwin Undercurrent flows beneath the Leeuwin Current in the opposite direction along the west coast. The majority of the fishing effort in the WCDSCMF has been concentrated in the GCB since 2011, following the introduction of TAC limits for crystal, giant and champagne crabs in 2008.

The West Coast Bioregion (WCB) extends form 27° 00’ S to the southern coast at 115° 30’ E. Water temperatures range between 18° C and 24° C, which is higher than would be expected for waters at these latitudes and is largely due to the Leeuwin Current, which transports warm tropical water southward along the edge of the continental shelf. Fish stocks in the WCB are mainly temperate, becoming more tropical in the northern areas (Fletcher and Santos 2014). WCDSCMF fishing effort in the WCB has declined significantly since 2011, and presently, there is only one licensee operating in this area.

Crystal crabs are a deep-water species occurring on the continental shelf at depths of 300 –1200 m. On the west coast of WA crystal crabs are caught primarily in depths of 500 – 800 m, although they are found over a broader range on the south coast of WA (i.e. 400 – 900 m depths; Melville-Smith et al. 2006). The habitat within these depth ranges are generally sand / mud or broken shell (Wadley and Evans 1991; Jones and Morgan 1994).

1 A ‘bioregion’ refers to an area defined by common oceanographic characteristics in its marine environment and / or by climate / rainfall characteristics in its inland river systems (CoA 2006). Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 42 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The coastal and oceanic waters off Western Australia are characterised by low nutrients, in comparison to the west coasts of other continents such as South Africa and South America (Waite et al. 2007). Productivity, especially in the deeper waters, is low and associated ecosystems are not likely to show high diversity.

Broad scale mapping indicates that deep water habitats off the GCB, where the majority of fishing in this fishery occurs, are relatively featureless (Brewer et al. 2007). Benthic environments are fairly uniform due to the lack of geomorphological heterogeneity and hard substrates for sessile benthic invertebrates and are dominated by fine particulate matter deposited from the water column and fine shelf sediments. Communities of infauna and epifauna are likely to be sparse (Brewer et al. 2007). Sediments at depths greater than 300 m are likely to be mostly mud, with macrobenthic fauna decreasing with increasing depth (Levings et al. 2001).

The location (longitude and latitude) of fishing activities is reported in voluntary daily logbooks and statutory CDRs and is used to monitor fishing location.

Primary or secondary species and endangered threatened and protected species. In accordance with MSC standard v 2.01 (MSC, 2018); Primary species are species that;

• are in the catch but not covered under P1 because they are not included in the UoA (SA 3.1.3.1) • are within scope of MSC program as defined by FCR 7.4 (SA 3.1.3.2) and • have management tools and measures in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points (SA 3.1.3.3)

Secondary species are species that are;

• not considered ‘primary’ as defined in SA 3.1.3; or • out of scope for MSC certification (i.e. birds, reptiles or mammals) but are not ETP species. The Main species (Primary or Secondary) are species that;

• comprise 5% or more by weight of the total catch of the UoC (FCR 2.01 SA 3.4.2.1) or • are classified as ‘less resilient’ (e.g. sharks) and comprise 2% or more by weight of the total catch (CR 2.01 SA 3.4.2.2).

Therefore, all species that are not assessed under Principle 1 and are managed with reference points are considered “primary” and are considered under PI 2.1.1 - 2.1.3 while secondary species are assessed under PI 2.2.1 - 2.2.3.

Prior to scoring Principle 2, the Assessment Team decided whether a species would be considered a “main” primary species or “main” secondary species.

In an MSC assessment, the bait used in the fishery, if caught by the same fishermen or bought from other sources, is also considered either under primary or secondary species. Species that are not caught in the fishery but are used as bait or species that may be affected indirectly by the fishery are also considered and discussed in Principle 2 Performance Indicator rationales.

Deep sea crab is fished using baited pots, which could also capture a range of other species. However, as the fishery is conducted at great depth not many other species are caught.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 43 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Primary Species Crystal crabs are the target species in the fishery and form over 90 % of the total catch. Therefore, there is little other catch in the fishery. Other species are champagne crabs (Hypothalassia acerba) and giant crabs (Pseudocarcinus gigas). Catch history data and composition are provided above in Section 7.2.8. Neither of these species has comprised more than 5 % of the total catch since 2001 (Figure 12, Error! Reference source not found. 8). Both species are minor primary species for the MSC assessment.

Figure 12. Annual catch of a) champagne and b) giant crab (tonnes) and the respective total allowable catch (TAC) limits that were established in 2019.

Champagne crabs are an endemic species distributed between Kalbarri and the Eucla in WA at depths of 90 to 310 m. There are currently two managed fisheries that target this species – the fishery under assessment and the South Coast Deep-Sea Crustacean Fishery (SCDSCMF).

Giant crabs are distributed between Western Australia and Tasmania and there are seven managed fisheries that capture this endemic species, across the different states. Across the jurisdictions these fisheries are: Tasmania (Giant Crab Fishery), Victoria (Giant Crab Fishery), South Australia (Northern Zone Giant Crab Fishery and Southern Zone Giant Crab Fishery), and WA (South Coast Crustacean Managed Fishery, South Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery (SCDSCMF) and the fishery under assessment. Giant crab is considered to be a single biological stock from WA to Tasmania because the species occurs in a continuous distribution across the range. The larval distribution is around 50 days, with larval release occurring along the edge of the continental shelf which is a high current area and will facilitate dispersal. Giant crabs are typically found in depths of 18 to 550 m.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 44 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Table 8. Catch of primary species (kg) in the UoA from 2015 to 2019. Each comprises less than 5% of the fishery’s total catch.

2019 Species Catch (kg)

Crystal Crab 153,257

Champagne Crab 2,259

Giant Crab 212

2018

Crystal Crab 152,202

Champagne Crab 0

Giant Crab 557

2017

Crystal Crab 153,731

Champagne Crab 10,711

Giant Crab 0

2016

Crystal Crab 153,313

Champagne Crab 0

Giant Crab 0

2015

Crystal Crab 153,745

Champagne Crab 0

Giant Crab 347

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 45 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The status of Key Australian Fish Stocks Reports (Hartmann et al. 2014) classified giant crabs to be in a transitional-depleting phase based on declining catches in Tasmania and Victoria. For the purposes of MSC assessment giant crabs has been considered as a main retained species due to its vulnerable status following MSC guidance (MSC 2018, SA3.4.2).

Giant and champagne crabs used to have a combined annual TAC in the WCDSCMF of 14 t. Since January 2019, the B Class units are split into B Class (champagne crab) and C Class (giant crab) units. The TAC for these units are currently set at 20,020 and 980 kilograms for B and C Class units, respectively.

Annual catch of each species closely monitored through statutory catch and disposal records and assessed as part of the west coast deep sea crustacean resources harvest strategy (DPIRD 2020c).

The annual catch rate of champagne and giant crabs have both been below their respective threshold levels of the new split units since 2019 (Figure 12). Across Australia the giant crab stock is classified as vulnerable (Hartmann et al. 2014) due to decreasing catches in Tasmania and Victoria. Management authorities in these states have reduced the TAC progressively over several years with the aim of increasing abundance and catch rates. The WCDSCMF has a marginal contribution to the total catch of giant crabs within Australia. The majority component of the biomass and historical catch of the stock occurred in Victoria and Tasmania. The latest assessment for giant crab from 2018 (Status of the Australian Fish Stocks Report - https://www.fish.gov.au/report/180-Giant-Crab-2018) classified the stock separately in each state. It also classified the fishery as sustainable in Western Australian, South Australia and Victoria but depleted in Tasmania. Given that those components of the stock closest to the UoC are classified as sustainable we do not consider Giant Crab to be particularly vulnerable. Furthermore, as catches in the UoC are very low we do not consider giant crab a “main retained species”.

Bycatch is extremely low in the fishery and some years other species caught in the traps and subsequently discarded by fishers include other deep-sea crabs (e.g. hermit crabs, red sponge crab), sea lice (Bathynomus sp.), deep water sharks, echinoderms, and octopus. Catches of these species are very rare (< 1 per 1000 pot-lifts), are recorded and returned alive. Validation of bycatch catch rates using on-board cameras is conducted with complete camera coverage of the line and incidences of bycatch. Other species caught in traps as bycatch are recorded on a trip-by-trip basis through catch disposal returns (CDRs) and validated using an on-board camera system. The revised CDR form developed and implemented during the 2017 season includes details on spatial information, bycatch and bait species as well as ETP interactions, with a box to tick if no interactions occurred to be provided for each of the fishing trip.

Bait

Australian salmon (Arripis truttaceus) pilchards (Sardina pilchardus), both sourced from Western Australia, are the dominant species used as bait in the fishery over the last five seasons, respectively. Both species are managed by the Department of Primary Resource and Regional development (DPIRD) in Western Australia. Australian salmon stock is considered to be under a sustainable harvest regime, with stock biomass well above the target level of 40% and fishing mortality lower than natural mortality (Wise and Molony 2018). Similarly, pilchards are considered within limits and sustainable.

Since both of these bait species comprise more than 5% (9.5% and 7% respectively in 2019) of the total catch by weight they will be considered as a “main” primary species in this MSC assessment (Table 9).

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 46 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Whole blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus) from New Zealand is also used but recently only at <5 % (1% and 3% in 2019 and 2020 respectively). Blue mackerel stocks are included in New Zealand’s Quota Management System (QMS) and managed in accordance with a Total Allowable Catch (TAC), which includes a Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC). Blue mackerel is considered a minor primary species for this MSC assessment. A partial quantitative stock assessment was undertaken for New Zealand blue mackerel in 2016, which found CPUE had continued to decline since 2009. The stock status in relation to the specified hard (10% B0) and soft (20% B0) limits is unknown. Whether the stock is overfished is also unknown (Fisheries New Zealand 2019). As New Zealand blue mackerel has been used at <5 % for the last 2 years and the fishers (represented by WAFIC) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to adhere to the government guidelines (DPIRD 2019) to select sustainable bait types, this species is considered a minor primary species for the MSC assessment.

Hoki (Macruronus novaezelandiae) and barracouta from New Zealand are “out of scope” as only heads are used.

Small amounts of Western Australian herring (Arripis georgianus), tuna (spp.) and jack mackerel as well as orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) heads have been used as bait in the past but are not used any longer.

WA herring stocks are in recovery due to poor recruitment and overfishing (Fletcher and Santoro 2014). Western Australian herring would be considered as a main species if used again in the future due to its vulnerability.

Bait information and bait species management

Bait information is obtained annually from fish processors who supply fishers with bait. The CDR forms also contains information on the type of bait used but not the quantity Government guidelines for selecting sustainable bait types for all Western Australian fisheries that use bait were published in 2019 (DPIRD 2019), and a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by WAFIC on behalf of the fishers, to encourage sustainable bait use.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 47 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Table 9. Type, source and amount of bait used in the fishery from 2015-2019. Main species for the purpose of the MSC assessment are in bold (<5%).

2019

Amount Percentage of total Bait Origin Type Status (kg) catch (incl. bait)

Australian Salmon Western Australia Whole 18,800 in scope 8

Pilchards Western Australia Whole 14,000 in scope 6

Blue Mackerel New Zealand Whole 8,000 in scope 3

Hoki New Zealand Heads 12,520 out of scope 8

Barracouta New Zealand Heads 6,000 out of scope

2018

Australian Salmon Western Australia Whole 31,000 in scope 13

Pilchards Western Australia Whole 4,000 in scope 2

Blue Mackerel New Zealand Whole 2,700 in scope 1

Hoki New Zealand Heads 23,100 out of scope 10

2017

Pilchards Western Australia Whole 12,785 in scope 5

Blue Mackerel New Zealand Whole 12,179 in scope 5

Australian Salmon Western Australia Whole 9,264 in scope 4

Hoki New Zealand Heads 13,089 out of scope 12

Tuna Thailand Heads 13,320 out of scope

Atlantic Salmon Tasmania Heads 3,925 out of scope

2016

Blue Mackerel New Zealand Whole 22,260 in scope 7

Australian Salmon Western Australia Whole 20,350 in scope 7

Pilchards Western Australia Whole 11,100 in scope 4

Hoki New Zealand Heads 14,76 out of scope 5

2015

Blue Mackerel New Zealand Whole 43,000 in scope 17

Hoki New Zealand Heads 16,200 out of scope 6

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 48 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

ETP Species Overview

Endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species in WA are protected by various international agreements and national and state legislation. International agreements include: • Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1979 (Bonn Convention); • The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); • 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)2; • 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) • The Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea on the Protection of Migratory Birds 2007 (ROKAMBA); and • Any other international agreement, or instrument made under other international agreements approved by the Environment Minister.

A comprehensive legal framework is in place to manage ETP interactions with Australian fisheries. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 is central to this framework at the federal level. The EPBC Act lists southern right whale (Eubalaena australis), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea), marine turtles, and whale shark (Rhincodon typus) as marine species which are threatened. State legislation also applies, including the protections of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950.

International agreements relating to ETP that interact with this fishery include the Conventions on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) and Conventions on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). (Appendix 1 of both agreements lists marine turtles, humpback and southern right whales, and whale shark is listed on CMS Appendix 1).

Interactions with endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species are recorded by fishers in their Catch Disposal Records (CDR). The performance measures for the fishery include that there should not be any increase in interactions with any ETP species, and no more than 3 entanglements per year (Harvest Strategy: FMP 302).

ETP species most likely to interact with the fishery include cetaceans. There were only 2 interactions with a humpback whale reported in the fishery, one in 2014 and one in 2020, both reported by the public.

Marine mammals

Various whale species are likely to be encountered throughout the waters of the fishery. Blue and sperm whales are often observed well offshore and migrating humpback whales can be seen approximately 10 – 20 km from the shoreline (Shaw 2000). Dolphins and dugongs are abundant in more coastal areas but are likely to migrate onto the shelf at times and may be important tertiary and primary consumers (respectively) in this area (Brewer et al. 2007). Pinnipeds, dugongs and dolphins interactions would be highly unlikely as their dive profiles would not overlap with the gear set in deep water.

Turtles

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles can also be encountered in coastal areas, along with various sea snakes, including the critically endangered short-nosed sea snake, A. apraefrontalis. Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) and manta rays are abundant in the Ningaloo region, although their occurrence Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 49 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template offshore is not well documented (Brewer et al. 2007). The grey nurse sharks (Carcharias taurus) and white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) also occur in these waters.

Fish and Sharks

In Western Australia, all whaler sharks (Family Carcharhinidae), including the dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus, are “Totally protected Fish in the South Coast and West Coast regions” (schedule 2 Part 2 Division 2 of the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995).

The fishery operates in offshore areas where the majority of ETPs are not found. It is likely that main impact of crab fishing will be from interactions such as boat strikes and/or entanglement with ropes/lines (see below). Interactions with ETPs may also occur via entanglement in the ropes attached to pots (e.g. turtles and cetaceans). Given the very few vertical lines (<25) in the water, the likelihood of entanglements with whales is low. Furthermore, the use of relatively heavy ropes spaced a long distance apart and low fishing effort, significantly reduces the risk of entanglement in this fishery.

The 2003 risk assessment concluded that this fishery was of negligible risk to whale and dolphin species because of the extremely low potential for interactions and also because no interactions had been reported at that stage. Since the improved CDR form was implemented for the fishery no ETP interactions were reported.

Fishers are required to report all interactions with ETPs. Additional information on ETP interactions is also provided through observer monitoring activities. The Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) now part of the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA), are responsible for attending to stranding and entanglements of ETPs.

Habitats

Benthic environments, in the deeper area (>150m; mainly in depths of 500 to 800 m) where the fishery operates, are fairly uniform due to the lack of geomorphological heterogeneity and hard substrates for sessile benthic invertebrates and are dominated by fine particulate matter deposited from the water column and fine shelf sediments. Communities of infauna and epifauna are likely to be sparse (Brewer et al. 2007). Sediments at depths greater than 300 m are likely to be mostly mud, with macrobenthic fauna decreasing with increasing depth (Levings et al. 2001).

Baited traps used to catch crabs sink through the water column and sit on the substrate until they are lifted to remove catch, rebaited and deployed again.

Commonly encountered habitats: These include the (epipelagic) waters that the gear is set in, and benthic habitats where traps are placed. Based on information about deep sea habitats by Levings et al (2001) and Brewer et al. (2007), benthic habitats identified as commonly encountered are fine sand to mud habitat.

Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems: For the purpose of this assessment, habitats including VMEs were not identified and therefore VMEs will not be assessed. VMEs include habitats identified as Sessile Invertebrates (which include corals and sponges). Solitary coral and sponges are occasionally brought to the surface after being entangled in the traps, although this is very rare (TBC at site visit). Therefore, this is not considered indicating interactions with VMEs. At the site visit the frequency of encountering coral and sponges will be explored further.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 50 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Table 10 – Scoring elements

Component Scoring elements Designation Data-deficient

Crystal crab (Chaceon Not data deficient Target species albus) N/A

Giant crab Not data deficient Primary (Pseudocarcinus gigas) minor

Champagne crab Not data deficient Primary (Hypothalassia acerba) minor

Not data deficient Primary Australian Salmon main

Western Australian Not data deficient Primary pilchards main

(Sardina pilchardus) New Zealand blue mackerel (Scomber Not data deficient Primary minor australasicus)

Octopus Not data deficient Primary minor

Whales N/A Not data deficient

ETP Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)

N/A Not data deficient ETP Dolphins

N/A Not data deficient ETP Sea snakes

Commonly encountered N/A Not data deficient Habitat Sand/mud in deep water

habitat with some Minor (?) Habitat sparce benthos

Ecosystems N/A Not data deficient Trophic structure

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 51 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Cumulative impacts

For Principle 2 PIs, cumulative impacts were considered for the Australian Western Rock Lobster Fishery alongside the following fisheries which overlap with the area in which lobster fishing can occur: • Australian Western Rock Lobster Fishery (https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/australian- western-rock-lobster/@@view) • Western Australian Octopus Fishery (https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/western-australian- octopus-fishery/@@view) • Shark Bay Prawn Fishery (https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/shark-bay-prawn/@@view) • Western Australia Abalone Fishery (https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/western-australia- abalone-fishery/@@view)

The MSC expectation is noted that “… fisheries assessed against v2.0 of the standard shall only be required to consider cumulative impacts with other v2.0 fisheries… However, it should be noted that it may be in the interest of v1.3 fisheries to consider their cumulative impacts with v2.0 fisheries to assist with transition to the new version of the standard.”2

For the purposes of this assessment, all of the above fisheries are considered with respect to cumulative impacts. Some are now in reassessment under v2.1 certification requirements.

Primary and secondary species

Consideration of the cumulative impacts of overlapping MSC UoAs is required for primary and secondary species classified as “main”.

Australian salmon is also used as bait in the Australian Western Rock Lobster Fishery but is only used in small amounts and not categorised as main (Daume and Hartmann 2019). Pilchards are not used as bait in the Australian Western Rock Lobster Fishery.

Blue mackerel sourced from New Zealand is a bait species also categorised as main in the Australian Western Rock Lobster Fishery (Daume et al. 2016). However, more recently this species has been used less as bait and it is no longer main in this fishery under assessment (3rd surveillance audit: Daume and Hartmann 2019). Therefore cumulative impacts of MSC-certified fisheries is not required for blue mackerel.

ETP species

There are no national or international catch limits for ETP species, therefore cumulative impacts are not considered.

Habitats

For habitats, recognition of VMEs must be harmonised where both UoAs operate in the same “managed area”.

Among the MSC UoAs listed above, VMEs are only identified for Shark Bay Prawn Fishery (a VME comprising seagrass beds, in that case) (Banks et al. 2020). Therefore no consideration of cumulative affects are required for habitats.

2 https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Assessing-P2-species-cumulatively-between-v2-0-and-1-3- fisheries-GSA3-1-9-1527262006140 [Accessed 26 August 2020] Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 52 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

7.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where PI 2.1.1 recruitment would be impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Main primary species stock status Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree likely to be above the highly likely to be above of certainty that main PRI. the PRI. primary species are above the PRI and are OR OR fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. If the species is below the If the species is below the a Guide PRI, the UoA has PRI, there is either measures in place that evidence of recovery or post are expected to ensure a demonstrably effective that the UoA does not strategy in place hinder recovery and between all MSC UoAs rebuilding. which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Yes Yes Yes (TBC)

Rationale The primary retained species are giant crab (Pseudocarcinus gigas) and champagne crab (Hypothalassia ascerba). Neither giant crab nor champagne crab have comprised more than 5% of the total catch since 2001.

The TAC for B and C class units are set at 20,020 B Class (champagne crab) and 980 kilograms for C Class (giant crab), respectively. The annual catch rate of champagne and giant crabs have both been below their respective threshold levels of the new split units. The latest stock assessment for giant crab from 2018 (Status of the Australian Fish Stocks Report - https://www.fish.gov.au/report/180-Giant-Crab-2018) classified stocks separately for the four stocks and considered stocks as sustainable in Western Australian and South Australia and Victoria. Therefore, both primary species are considered a minor primary species for the MSC assessment.

Two deep sea sharks were caught in 2012 and would have been considered “main” primary species due to their vulnerability. However, deep sea sharks have not been caught since. Data from on-board monitoring by Departmental research staff (observers) and remote on-board surveillance cameras indicated very low incidences of bycatch.

The few species that were caught included other deep sea crab species, sea urchin, octopus and unidentified finfish. All of which would be minor primary species. Further information is sought at the onsite on more recent incidental catch and their status. At this stage none of these are likely to be main primary species for the purpose of the MSC assessment.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 53 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Bait Species: Australian Salmon (Arripis truttaceus) and Western Australian Pilchards comprises more than 5% of the total WCDSCMF catch (incl. bait) and hence considered main primary species. Australian herring has not been used since the original assessment of the fishery in 2016. The use of New Zealand Blue Mackerel was reduced during the 2018 season and is below 5% of total catch in weight and would therefore be considered a minor primary species.

Other species used in the last five years include small amounts of orange roughy (~0.2%; Hoplostethus atlanticus), and jack mackerel (0.2%; Trachurus declivis). Tuna from Thailand (unknown species and orange roughy from New Zealand have also been used as bait. Both species have not been used in recent years. These would be minor species For the main species, Australian Salmon and Pilchards are managed by the DPIRD with a TAC and both Australian Salmon current catches are within biologically-based limits.

Therefore the SG 60 and 80 is met. The SG 100 may also be met but this will be further explored at the site visit.

Minor primary species stock status Minor primary species are highly likely to be above the PRI.

Guide OR b post If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species. Met? No

Rationale

Several bait species are considered minor (see scoring issue a) there may be some other bycatch species that would be consider minor due to the very low amount of bycatch overall. Together this did not warrant an RBF or consideration under SG 100. For example NZ blue mackerel status is poorly known and no estimates of current and reference biomass, or yield, are available for any blue mackerel area (Ministry for Primary Industries, 2014). Therefore the SG 100 is not met as the status of minor species is not known.

References

Hartmann et al. 2014; How et al. 2015, http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/wamsc_reports/wamsc_report_no_4.pdf MPI 2013, Smith 2017, SAFS 2018

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought More information on incidental catch Information gap indicator (species and amount) will be sought at the onsite assessment meeting

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 54 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Management strategy in place There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for the UoA, if strategy in place for the place for the UoA for necessary, that are UoA, if necessary, that is managing main and minor expected to maintain or to expected to maintain or to primary species. a Guide not hinder rebuilding of not hinder rebuilding of post the main primary species the main primary species at/to levels which are at/to levels which are likely to be above the PRI. highly likely to be above the PRI.

Yes Met? Yes Yes

Rationale There are two formal measures in place for the two primary (retained) species. First, landings of giant crab and champagne crab are controlled through quotas. Second, each species has designated threshold levels which were set based on catches of each species since the introduction of quota in 2008 through 2012 (How et al. 2015). There is a scientific evaluation on the catches for both species and a review is triggered if the catches exceed the threshold. Therefore, the SG 80 is met. There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch species that are retained consists of multiple measures for the WCDSCMF Management Plan (2012). This strategy utilizes limited entry, minimum size limits, an annual TAC for giant and champagne crabs, protection of undersized and berried female crabs and spatial closure within the 150m depth contour. In addition, the baited traps are fitted with species restrictions as follows: • Have an internal volume that is less than 0.257 m3; • Have two escape gaps, with each gap being (as nearly as practicable) rectangular in shape and when measured internally are ≥ 294 mm in length by 54 mm in height.

Other Species Restrictions include: Rock lobster (Jasus or Panulirus spp.) or finfish, must be released within five minutes of being brought onto the boat and before any other trap is pulled. When fishing in the waters of the Fishery east of 126° 58‘ E, any scampi (Family Nephropidae) or white tailed bug (Ibacus spp.) brought on board must be released within five minutes of being brought on board the boat and before any other trap is pulled. Therefore, the SG 100 is met.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 55 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Bait species: The impact of this fishery on the NZ blue mackerel stock is likely to be minimal. The species is managed with input and output controls and assessment are conducted. The TAC for blue mackerel is 11,550 therefore the quantity of bait used in the fishery under assessment is negligible with significantly less than 0.001% of the catch used as bait in the fishery at any given year. In addition, reliance on NZ blue mackerel has been reduced over recent years. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) amongst the Deep Sea Crustacean License Holders was signed by WAFIC as the client group representative to move towards adhering to the key principle of the bait guidelines for commercial fisheries in Western Australia, published in 2019 (DPIRD 2019, FOP 136) after consultation with industry and other stakeholders. The bait guidelines can be seen as a strategy to manage both main and minor bait species Therefore the SG 100 met for bait and met overall.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the b Guide based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on post experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species fisheries/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Each main crab species (champagne and giant crab) has designated threshold levels which were set based on catches of each species since the introduction of quota in 2008 through 2012 (How et al. 2015). There is a scientific evaluation on the catches for both species and a review is triggered if the catches exceed. Therefore, these measures are likely to work. Neither champagne nor giant crab have exceeded threshold levels since the separate TAC was introduced. Therefore, the SG 60 and 80 is met.

Australian salmon and Western Australian pilchard are “main” primary species for the purpose of the MSC assessment. However, since the amount of bait used is monitored and small compared to the size of the bait fishery, the fishery has signed an MOU to adhere to the principles of the bait guidelines, there is confidence that the strategy will work. Therefore SG 80 is met.

The annual catch is closely monitored through annual catch and disposal records (CDRs). However, there is no formal testing of the strategy and, therefore SG 100 is not met. Management strategy implementation There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being c Guide implemented implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The partial strategy is based on the limit reference points on catches and ongoing catch monitoring of the main primary crab species. The results of the monitoring suggest that biologically based limits are not being exceeded for either crab species. Therefore, the SG 80 is met. Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 56 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

For the bait species there are threshold levels set and input and output controls for NZ blue mackerel for example. Levels have not been exceeded and reliance on NZ blue mackerel as a bait species have been reduced following the implementation of the bait guidelines by DPIRD.

All indicates that the partial strategies have been implemented, are working and achieving overall objectives. Overall, the SG 100 is met.

Shark finning It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree d Guide finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark post place. finning is not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no catches of Sharks in the fishery in recent years. This will be confirmed at the onsite assessment meeting. If it is confirmed the scoring issues is NA.

Review of alternative measures There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative e Guide minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise post mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main primary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. primary species and they primary species, and they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Overall there is very little bycatch and also not much catch is discarded in the fishery. Undersized or berried crabs are returned but to the teams knowledge there has not been any reviews of minimising unwanted crab (champagne and giant crab) catches in the fishery which are minor primary species and the SG 100 is not met.

As bait is purchased it is not considered “unwanted”.

References

The CAB shall list any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought More information on “unwanted species catch” and any review to minimise. Any Information gap indicator information on recently caught deep-sea sharks will also be sought.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 57 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information adequate to estimate information is available is available and is the impact of the UoA on and is adequate to adequate to assess the main primary species assess the impact of the with a high degree of with respect to status. UoA on the main primary certainty the impact of species with respect to the UoA on main primary OR status. species with respect to a Guide status. If RBF is used to score OR post PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is If RBF is used to score adequate to estimate PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: productivity and Some quantitative susceptibility attributes information is adequate to for main primary species. assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species. Met? Yes Yes Yes / No

Rationale

There is quantitative data on all primary species including bait in statutory catch and disposal record (CDR). Therefore, a score of SG80 is met. Catches are reported in daily CDRs. There is high confidence that the reported catches of giant and champagne crabs are accurate, with Departmental research staff returns and compliance monitoring of the CDRs for quota-management purposes.

Bait species: Australian salmon and Western Australian pilchards are considered “main” species for the purpose of the MSC assessment. Information on bait use in this fishery in statutory catch and disposal record (CDR) for type of bait and through processors which supply bait to the industry. Processors provide information on bait origin, species and amounts used. The status of main bait species is known.

Therefore, the fishery has quantitative information and the impact of the UoA on main primary species with respect to status can be assessed with a high degree of certainty. The SG 100 is met (TBC). b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 58 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Some quantitative information is adequate to Guide estimate the impact of the post UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? No

Rationale

The information is not sufficient for all bait species to determine if the strategy is achieving its objective. Therefore, the SG 100 is not met.

Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to c manage main primary strategy to manage manage all primary Guide species. main primary species. species, and evaluate with post a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Available information is adequate to support a strategy to reduce the impact of the fishery on primary crab species stocks by limiting overall fishing effort and annual catches of champagne and giant crabs. As mentioned in (2.1.2) this is a partial strategy and is achieving its objective. Sufficient data on catches are collected on an ongoing basis and are reported in daily CDRs, which also include bait species information used to monitor status for the species. Therefore, the SG 80 is met. used to monitor status for the two main retained species. Therefore, the SG 80 is met. The new West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resources Harvest Strategy 2020 – 2025 (FMP No 302) also includes acceptable catch levels for both champagne and giant crabs. Main bait species also have quota and threshold limits

Information is not sufficient for minor primary species and the SG 100 is not met.

References Fisheries Management Papaer No 302 (2020)

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 59 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Main secondary species stock status Main secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree are likely to be above are highly likely to be of certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits. above biologically based OR limits. OR If below biologically based limits, there are If below biologically based measures in place limits, there is either expected to ensure that evidence of recovery or the UoA does not hinder a demonstrably recovery and rebuilding. effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and a Guide rebuilding. post AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The fishery has extremely low levels of bycatch. None of the species are likely to be regarded as a “main” secondary species following MSC guidance CR v2.01 due to their level of catch. Some of the bait species used in the past may have not been “managed” with reference points and therefore would have been considered secondary “minor” species. None have been used in the last 5 years.

Therefore, there are no main or minor secondary species, and the SG 100 is met.

Minor secondary species stock status b Minor secondary species Guide are highly likely to be post above biologically based limits. Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 60 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

OR

If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? Yes

Rationale

The fishery has extremely low levels of bycatch. Some of the bait species used in the past may have not been “managed” with reference points and therefore would have been considered secondary “minor” species MSC guidance CR v2.01 due to their level of catch.

References

How et al. 2015

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 61 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and PI 2.2.2 the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place, if necessary, which strategy in place, if place for the UoA for are expected to maintain necessary, for the UoA managing main and minor or not hinder rebuilding of that is expected to secondary species. main secondary species maintain or not hinder at/to levels which are rebuilding of main a Guide highly likely to be above secondary species at/to post biologically based limits or levels which are highly to ensure that the UoA likely to be above does not hinder their biologically based limits or recovery. to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

As there are no main or minor secondary species, the SG 100 is met by default.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the b Guide based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on post experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or species UoAs/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

There are no main or minor secondary species, the SG 100 is met by default.

Management strategy implementation There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being c Guide implemented implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes Yes

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 62 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Rationale

There are no main or minor secondary species, the SG 100 is met by default.

Shark finning

d Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark post place. finning is not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no secondary species. The scoring issue is NA.

Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative e Guide minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise post mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main secondary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. secondary species and secondary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no secondary species. The scoring issue is NA.

References

The CAB shall list any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 63 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information adequate to estimate information is available is available and adequate the impact of the UoA on and adequate to assess to assess with a high the main secondary the impact of the UoA on degree of certainty the species with respect to main secondary species impact of the UoA on status. with respect to status. main secondary species with respect to status. OR OR a Guide post If RBF is used to score If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: PI 2.2.1 for the UoA:

Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate information is adequate to productivity and assess productivity and susceptibility attributes susceptibility attributes for main secondary for main secondary species. species. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Fishers are required to report all bycatch in catch disposal records, with additional bycatch information collected during periodic on-board monitoring trips undertaken by departmental staff (How et al. 2015). Additional bycatch information has also been obtained through the use of a remote on-board camera deployed on two commercial crab vessels (which account for over 90% of the landed catch). Therefore SG 60 is met. Quantitative data is collected sporadically in the form of observed bycatch species recorded during on- board monitoring (scientific observer and video). As there are no secondary species, the SG 100 is met.

Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Some quantitative information is adequate to b Guide estimate the impact of the post UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. Met? Yes

Rationale

There are no main or minor secondary species, the SG 100 is met.

c Information adequacy for management strategy

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 64 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to to support measures to to support a partial support a strategy to manage main secondary strategy to manage manage all secondary Guide species. main secondary species. species, and evaluate post with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

There are no main or minor secondary species, the SG 100 is met. References

How et al. 2015

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection PI 2.3.1 of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, a Guide the effects of the UoA the combined effects of there is a high degree of post on the population/ stock the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the are known and likely to population /stock are combined effects of the be within these limits. known and highly likely MSC UoAs are within to be within these limits. these limits. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no national or international requirements that set limits for ETP species.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 65 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Direct effects Known direct effects of Direct effects of the UoA There is a high degree the UoA are likely to not are highly likely to not of confidence that there b Guide hinder recovery of ETP hinder recovery of ETP are no significant post species. species. detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Potential list of ETP species the fishery could interact with:

Whales The migratory paths of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) along the Western Australian Coast are typically within the 200 m isobath (Jenner et al. 2001), which is typically outside of where the fishery under assessment operates, and there is no high overlap between the fishery and humpback whales. Various whale species are likely to be encountered throughout the waters of the WCDSCMF. Blue and sperm whales are often observed well offshore and migrating humpback whales can be seen approximately 10 – 20 km from the shoreline (Shaw 2000). The migratory paths of humpback whales along the Western Australian Coast are typically within the 200 m isobath (Jenner et al. 2001), which is typically outside of where the fishery operates.

Dolphins and dugongs Dolphins and dugongs are abundant in more coastal areas but are likely to migrate onto the shelf at times and may be important tertiary and primary consumers in this area (Brewer et al. 2007).

Turtles Loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles can also be encountered in coastal areas.

Sea snakes Various sea snakes, including the critically endangered short-nosed sea snake, A. apraefrontalis, also occur in coastal waters.

Whale sharks and manta rays Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) and manta rays (Manta alfredi, M. birostris) are abundant in the Ningaloo region, although their occurrence offshore is not well documented (Brewer et al. 2007).

Sharks Shark species, such as grey nurse sharks (Carcharias taurus) and white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) also occur in these waters. They are fully protected. Five international agreements are put in place to protect endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species in Western Australia. Primary pieces of national and legislation include the Commonwealth EPBC Act, the Western Australian Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WC Act) and the Fishery-specific management act (FRMA).

ETP species most likely to interact with the fishery include cetaceans. There were only 2 interactions with a humpback whale reported in the fishery, one in 2014 and one in 2020, both reported by the public. One was disentangled (2014) the other one escaped the disentanglement.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 66 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The revised CDR form were implemented during the 2017 season and include a box to tick if no interactions with ETP species occurred during the fishing trip. No ETP interactions have been reported on CDRs.

The 2002 ERA concluded that this fishery was a negligible risk to whale and dolphin populations on the west coast of Australia because of the extremely low potential for interactions. More recently, the PSA rated the risk to humpback whales (as the most-vulnerable whale species for this fishery) as medium primarily due to the life history characteristics of this species (long-lived, low productivity) (How et al. 2015).

Overall there is still a high degree of confidence that the 2 recorded interactions (successfully disentagling one) would not have a significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species Therefore the SG 100 is met.

Indirect effects Indirect effects have been There is a high degree considered for the UoA of confidence that there c Guide and are thought to be are no significant post highly likely to not detrimental indirect create unacceptable effects of the UoA on ETP impacts. species.

Met? Yes No

Rationale

There is sporadic independent observer (scientific) program and video surveillance which included information on ETP species. Indirect effects like boat strikes have been considered in a risk assessment are likely to be negligible (How et al 2015) as there are only 4 vessels operating in the fishery. However, a high degree of certainty cannot be achieved as independent observation and consideration of indirect effects on ETPs has only been considered sporadically and the SG 100 is not met.

References

How et al. 2015

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 67 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. PI 2.3.2 Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a place that minimise the place for managing the comprehensive UoA-related mortality of UoA’s impact on ETP strategy in place for ETP species, and are species, including managing the UoA’s expected to be highly measures to minimise impact on ETP species, a Guide likely to achieve mortality, which is including measures to post national and international designed to be highly minimise mortality, which requirements for the likely to achieve is designed to achieve protection of ETP species. national and international above national and requirements for the international requirements protection of ETP species. for the protection of ETP species. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no requirements for protection or rebuilding are provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements. Therefore this scoring issue is NA.

Management strategy in place (alternative) There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a place that are expected to place that is expected to comprehensive ensure the UoA does not ensure the UoA does not strategy in place for b Guide hinder the recovery of ETP hinder the recovery of ETP managing ETP species, to post species. species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 68 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

There is a strategy in place to manage fishery impacts on ETPs that is designed to achieve national and international requirements for protection of these species. This strategy uses several management measures under the West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery Management Plan 2012 and operational activities, including: • Limited entry. • Gear restrictions. • Fishing methods (use of longlines); and • Spatial closures within the 150 m depth contour.

The strategy to stay outside the migration path of humpback whales and operate with little possible interaction by spacing ropes far enough apart.

These management measures work together to reduce the impact of the fishery on ETP populations by limiting overall fishing effort and minimising the likelihood of an interaction through reducing the number of lines in the water at any given time and fishing in offshore areas where the majority of ETPs are not found.

The West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resources Harvest Strategy 2020 – 2025 (DPIRD 2020) also includes acceptable interaction and risk levels for all ETPs. Should the number of interactions or risk to any species exceed the threshold level (i.e., more than three interactions with any particular species in a year or fishing impacts considered a high risk to species populations), a review of the causes will be undertaken within three months. Should the assessed risk level exceed the limit reference level (i.e., a severe risk), management strategies to further protect the species’ population will be implemented. The limit has never been breached and overall, there have only ever been two interactions reported with humpback whales (one in 2014 and one in 2020).

The use of heavy ropes and the low number of lines in the water, spaced long distances apart, is considered to reduce the risk of entanglement of whales, dolphins, manta rays and turtles. The SG 100 is met.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is an objective The considered likely to basis for confidence strategy/comprehensive work, based on plausible that the strategy is mainly based argument (e.g.,general measures/strategy will on information directly c Guide experience, theory or work, based on about the fishery and/or post comparison with similar information directly species involved, and a fisheries/species). about the fishery and/or quantitative analysis the species involved. supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The strategy to stay outside the migration path of humpback whales and operate with little possible interaction by spacing ropes far enough apart seems to achieve its objective because there has been no record of a humpback whale becoming entangled with fishing gear associated with the fishery since one interaction was recorded in 2014. The number of interactions with ETPs are monitored and assessed annually as part of the West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resources Harvest Strategy 2020 – 2025 (FMP 302), with the number of annual interactions and outcomes used to measure fishery performance in the form of risk assessments. There has been one interaction reported by the public Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 69 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template since the improved CDR forms were implemented therefore there is high confidence that the strategy will work, and the SG 100 is not met.

Management strategy implementation There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the measures/strategy is strategy/comprehensive d Guide being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully post and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Yes Yes (?)

Rationale

The traps and ropes used in deep sea crab longlines have minimal capacity to interact with ETP species. There is estimated to be fewer than 25 vertical rope lines deployed at any given time. Furthermore, these lines are generally spaced far apart to allow the 120 traps between them. Other limits have been implemented successfully as well. No entanglements have been reported on CDR forms and therefore there is clear evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective and the SG 100 met. Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of ETP species There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and Guide alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative e minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise post mortality of ETP species. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality ETP ETP species and they are species, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

If the limit of > 3 entanglements is reached a review is undertaken. Number of interactions is assessed annually but it is not clear if there are rgular review that look at alternative measures to minimise mortality of ETP species. Since there have not been any more entanglements it could be argued that a review of alternative methods to minimise mortalities is not necessary. The SG 80 is met.

References

FMP 302 (2020) http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp302.pdf

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought It is unknown if alternative measures have Information gap indicator been considered to minimise ETP mortalities by the UoA, in this fishery.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 70 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: - Information for the development of the management strategy; PI 2.3.3 - Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and - Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information adequate to estimate information is adequate is available to assess with the UoA related mortality to assess the UoA a high degree of certainty on ETP species. related mortality and the magnitude of UoA- impact and to determine related impacts, OR whether the UoA may be mortalities and injuries a threat to protection and and the consequences If RBF is used to score recovery of the ETP for the status of ETP PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: species. species. a Guide Qualitative information is post adequate to estimate OR productivity and susceptibility attributes If RBF is used to score for ETP species. PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Fishers fill in improved CDR forms for each fishing trip (typically multiday trips) and are required to report interactions. Records are assessed annually. Considering the scale of the fishery this is adequate to assess the UoA related mortality and impact with a high degree of certainty. The SG 100 is met. Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate b to support measures to to measure trends and to support a Guide manage the impacts on support a strategy to comprehensive post ETP species. manage impacts on ETP strategy to manage species. impacts, minimise mortality and injury of Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 71 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The information is assessed annually and a limit of <3 interactions has be set in the West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean harvest strategy (FMP 302). Given the scale of the fishery the information is adequate to evaluate with a high degree of certainty that the strategy is achieving its objectives. There has been no entanglements since one entanglement of a humback whale was recorded in 2014. The SG 100 is met.

References

How et al. 2015, FMP 302

Draft scoring range ≥≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Commonly encountered habitat status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the commonly structure and function of to reduce structure and a Guide encountered habitats to a the commonly function of the commonly post point where there would encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a be serious or irreversible point where there would point where there would harm. be serious or irreversible be serious or irreversible harm. harm. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 72 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Benthic environments, in the deeper area where the fishery operates, are fairly uniform due to the lack of geomorphological heterogeneity and hard substrates for sessile benthic invertebrates, and are dominated by fine particulate matter deposited from the water column and fine shelf sediments. Fine sand to mud is classified as commonly encountered habitat for the purpose of this MSC assessment. Communities of infauna and epifauna are likely to be sparse (Brewer et al. 2007). Sediments at depths greater than 300 m are likely to be mostly mud, with macrobenthic fauna decreasing with increasing depth (Levings et al. 2001).

The impact of traps on benthic habitats depends on the size, weight and material of the trap; hauling speed, ocean conditions, depth of haul and substrate where the trap is set (Fuller et al. 2008). In general, sand and mud bottom habitats are less affected by traps than sensitive bottom habitats, i.e., corals and sponges (Barnette et al. 2001). Studies on the effects of crab and lobster traps on deep-water benthic fauna have identified that flexible species, such as sea pens, tended to bend in response to wave pressure before the traps made contact. After contact, smothering and even uprooting, they re-established themselves when in contact with muddy substrate (Eno et al. 2001). Hard corals are likely to be more vulnerable to impacts from traps; however, as the fishery is restricted to areas deeper than 150 m, it is unlikely that hard coral communities exist in the fishing areas.

There is evidence that a trap fishery with floating ground lines on a predominantly soft mud bottom with minimal vertical structure is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible effects. However, there is some evidence that coral in localized areas occur and are sometimes brought up by traps. Therefore, there is the potential to cause limited harm on a localized basis. Evidence from other trap fisheries in more productive communities where corals and sponges are more common indicate that the overall structure or function of the habitat is still not reduced to any significant extent. The SG score of 100 is met.

VME habitat status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the VME structure and function of to reduce structure and b Guide habitats to a point where the VME habitats to a function of the VME post there would be serious or point where there would habitats to a point where irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible there would be serious or harm. irreversible harm. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Given the descriptions of habitats where the fishery operates in deeper water >150m the team determined there are no VMEs. The scoring issue in NA. This will be confirmed at the onsite assessment meeting.

Minor habitat status There is evidence that c the UoA is highly unlikely Guide to reduce structure and function of the minor post habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 73 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Met? Yes (TBC)

Rationale

To date there are no minor habitats identified in the fishery. This will be confirmed at the onsite assessment meeting. Further information will be required on records of invertebrates like solitary corals, sponges etc brought to the surface with traps to identify if any minor habitats or VMEs are encountered.

References

Barnette (2001), Brewer et al. (2007), Eno et al. (2001), Fueller et al. (2008), Levings et al. (2001), Lewis et al. 2010 Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought More information is sought on other Information gap indicator habitats in the deep area that may be encountered by the fishery.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place, if necessary, that strategy in place, if place for managing the a Guide are expected to achieve necessary, that is impact of all MSC post the Habitat Outcome 80 expected to achieve the UoAs/non-MSC fisheries on level of performance. Habitat Outcome 80 level habitats. of performance or above. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Habitat impacts are mainly managed by the selection and implementation of gear types. There is little movement of the traps once they are in contact with the benthos. The traps at each end of the lines are heavier, with additional ballast to ‘anchor’ the ends of the line. The rope used to connect the traps in a line is positively buoyant and is not in contact with the benthos. This prevents any damage that may occur from rope movement across the benthos such as occurs from ‘anchor scarring’. The SG 80 is met.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 74 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

For the fishery under assessment there are spatial closures within the 150 m depth contour. Like with other fisheries in the region, e.g. the Western Australian Rock Lobster fishery, similar strategies are applied through the harvest strategies:

• Limited entry; • Species restrictions; • Gear restrictions

The new harvest strategy 2020-2025 identifies limits and thresholds for extent of area fished (blocks) and annual fishing effort as well as specific management responses (FMP 302). The SG 100 is met.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the b Guide work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on post experience, theory or on information directly information directly comparison with similar about the UoA and/or about the UoA and/or UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

These management measures work together to reduce the impact of the fishery on benthic habitats by limiting overall fishing effort, minimising benthic impacts through the methods and gear used and providing refuge from fishing activities within the 150 m depth contour. Traps are mainly set over muddy bottom habitats, which are likely to have a low density of sessile invertebrates.

The strategy is based on knowledge and understanding of habitat within the fishing grounds, and there is confidence it will work through occasional scientific observer and video surveillance work. This meets the SG 80, but the strategy has not been tested and the SG 100 is not met.

Management strategy implementation There is some There is clear quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the measures/partial that the partial c Guide strategy is being strategy/strategy is being post implemented successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No

Rationale

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 75 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Fishing impacts on benthic habitats are monitored and assessed annually as part of the West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resources Harvest Strategy 2020 – 2025 (FMP 302), with the extent of the area fished and risk assessment outcomes used to measure fishery performance (see below). The harvest strategy also includes reference levels for benthic habitats. Performance indicators for habitat impacts are the extent of the area fished annually (number of 10°’x 10°’ blocks) and annual fishing effort, measured in number of trap lifts. Target levels of ≤ 125 blocks and ≤ 169 000 traplifts/year have been identified, based on the highest levels recorded during the reference period (2003 – 2012). Should the area fished, or fishing effort exceed the threshold level (i.e., > 125 blocks or > 169 000 traplifts), with additional management action required. If fishing impacts are considered to be at risk to a habitat a review will be triggered within a month and management actions taken to reduce the risk. Some evidence for the successful implementation of the partial strategy is provided in the form of statutory CDRs (used to monitor fishing location), which therefore meets SG 80. The SG 100 is currently not met as only the fishing location is monitored but not any potential change to habitats that are impacted.

Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs There is qualitative There is some There is clear evidence that the UoA quantitative evidence quantitative evidence d complies with its that the UoA complies that the UoA complies with

Guide management with both its management both its management requirements to protect requirements and with requirements and with post VMEs. protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. fisheries, where relevant. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no VMEs identified. TBC at onsite assessment meeting

References

FMP 302 Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Information gap indicator more information is sought to confirm that no VMEs are encountered in the fishery.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 76 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the PI 2.4.3 UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information quality The types and distribution The nature, distribution The distribution of all of the main habitats are and vulnerability of the habitats is known over broadly understood. main habitats in the UoA their range, with area are known at a level particular attention to the OR of detail relevant to the occurrence of vulnerable scale and intensity of the habitats. If CSA is used to score UoA. PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: a Guide Qualitative information is OR post adequate to estimate the types and distribution of If CSA is used to score the main habitats. PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Yes Yes Met? No

Rationale

The fishery operates in 150 m to 1200 m water depths. The nature of the habitats at these depths are known only at the bioregion level (Baker et al, 2008, Richardson et al. 2005). However, at these depths, communities of infauna and epifauna are likely to be sparse (Brewer et al. 2007). Sediments at depths greater than 300 m are likely to be mostly mud, with macrobenthic fauna decreasing with increasing depth (Levings et al. 2001). Therefore, habitat types are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery.

Sponges and small solitary corals are infrequently brought to the surface with traps. The impacts to these sessile invertebrates are thought to be minimal due to the infrequency that they are brought to the surface and minimal footprint of the traps to the benthic substrate. The SG 60 and 80 are met but a score of 100 is not warranted.

Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Information is adequate Information is adequate The physical impacts of to broadly understand the to allow for identification the gear on all habitats nature of the main of the main impacts of have been quantified impacts of gear use on the UoA on the main fully. b the main habitats, habitats, and there is including spatial overlap reliable information on Guide of habitat with fishing the spatial extent of post gear. interaction and on the timing and location of use OR of the fishing gear.

If CSA is used to score OR PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 77 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score adequate to estimate the PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: consequence and spatial Some quantitative attributes of the main information is available habitats. and is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The location (longitude and latitude) of fishing activities is reported in statutory CDRs and is used to monitor fishing location. Details on sponge and coral entanglements are also reported in daily logbooks. In addition, monitoring by observers and remote video surveillance also provides some limited information on potential entanglements and habitats where fishing is occurring.

Due to the low abundance of benthic biota and low probability of encounters with traps, the fishery is considered to be a low risk to benthic mud habitats. Sessile invertebrates are infrequently encountered in traps when brought to the surface (How et al, 2015). Therefore, the information available is considered sufficient to meet the requirements of SG 60 and SG 80. The SG 100 is not met as physical impacts of the gear on all habitats have not been quantified.

Monitoring Adequate information Changes in all habitat c Guide continues to be collected distributions over time post to detect any increase in are measured. risk to the main habitats. Met? Yes No

Rationale CDRs can provide only limited information on the amount of organic material like corals and/or sponges that can be encountered in the traps. The location (longitude and latitude) of fishing activities is also reported in CDRs. Considering the scale of the fishery and the deep areas where the fishery is conducted this still seems adequate information to detect increase in risk. The SG 80 is met. The SG 100 is not met as changes of all habitat types are not measured and analysed over time.

References

Baker et al, (2008), Brewer et al. (2007), Richardson et al. (2005), How et al. (2015), Levings et al. (2001).

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 78 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Ecosystem status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the the UoA is highly unlikely underlying ecosystem key elements underlying to disrupt the key a Guide structure and function to ecosystem structure and elements underlying post a point where there would function to a point where ecosystem structure and be a serious or there would be a serious function to a point where irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The fishery predominantly operates in areas offshore between 500 and 800 m depth. Productivity, especially in the deeper waters, is low and associated ecosystems are not likely to show high biodiversity. There are only 4 vessels active in the fishery. As has been noted previously, the fishery has negligible bycatch of other species. Additionally, the fishery has a minimal effect on the physical habitat because the trap fishery affects a minimal area, and the area that is impacted, and gear interactions with any other species like ETPs are minimal. Direct removal of the targeted resource is the only real effect of the fishery on the ecosystem. The total annual landings of all species captured in the fishery represent a very small amount of biomass (How et al, 2015).

Deep sea crabs are not known to concentrate on a particular prey species and are not a preferred prey for higher trophic levels. As such, the current level of removal of deep-sea crabs in the fishery is highly unlikely to have any major impacts on trophic relationships (How et al., 2015). Therefore, the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. As such, the SG 60, 80 and 100 are met.

References How et al., (2015).

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 79 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that place, if necessary which strategy in place, if consists of a plan, in take into account the necessary, which takes place which contains potential impacts of the into account available measures to address all a Guide UoA on key elements of information and is main impacts of the the ecosystem. expected to restrain UoA on the ecosystem, post impacts of the UoA on and at least some of the ecosystem so as to these measures are in achieve the Ecosystem place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The level of catch of each crab species and the potential risk of fishing activities on ecological processes are monitored and assessed as part of the West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resources Harvest Strategy 2020 – 2025 (FMP 302), with risk assessment outcomes used to measure fishery performance (How 2015).

The main strategy to ensure there is minimal impact on the broader ecosystem is the maintenance of significant stock/biomass levels of the target species, crystal crabs. This serves to minimise the potential for any trophic interactions Since the implementation of a TAC, catches of crystal crabs have remained at or just below the limit. Other measures, such as limited entry, minimum size limits, spatial closures, biological restrictions and gear restrictions further minimise the potential for impacts through the protection of other species, as well as benthic habitats.

The Harvest Strategy has clearly defined target threshold and limits set for ecosystem with management responses (FMP 302) which indicated here is a full strategy for protection of ecosystem function. If fishing impacts are considered to generate an undesirable level of risk to the ecosystem, (i.e. high risk, a review will be undertaken within three months to develop an appropriate management response. Management action will be taken to reduce risk to an acceptable level before the next season. Should the risk to the ecosystem (or more than one component of the ecosystem) exceed the limit reference level (i.e. a severe risk), management strategies to further protect the ecosystem will be implemented. Therefore, the SG 100 is met.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/ partial partial strategy/ strategy b Guide argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on post experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or UoAs/ ecosystems). and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 80 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Rationale

The harvest strategy (FMP 302) includes acceptable risk levels for ecosystem processes. Given the size and nature of the fishery and the measures in place there is confidence that these will work as limits have not been breached. The SG 60 and 80 are met. The SG 100 is not met as the assessment team has not seen any evidence of testing the partial strategy.

Management strategy implementation There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being c Guide implemented implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes Yes

Rationale There is evidence that this partial strategy is being implemented through scientific monitoring and video surveillance by research staff (How et al., 2015). Clear evidence for effective implementation exists in the form of low amounts of bycatch, no interactions with ETP species, and monitoring of temporal and spatial closures. The SG 80 and 100 are met.

References

How et al., 2015, FMP 302

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 81 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information quality Information is adequate Information is adequate a Guide to identify the key to broadly understand post elements of the the key elements of the ecosystem. ecosystem.

Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Community composition and productivity for the North West Shelf ecosystem have been described by Brewer et al. (2007).

Appropriate levels of information are available for each ecosystem component which has allowed for a sensible assessment of the level of risk (How et al. 2015). This information includes data collected is primarily from fishery-dependent reporting but verified by some scientific fishery-independent monitoring. The SG 60 and 80 are met.

Investigation of UoA impacts Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions between on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem the UoA and these elements can be inferred elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can b Guide from existing information, from existing information, be inferred from existing post but have not been and some have been information, and have investigated in detail. investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The available information about the target species, its biology and place in the food web of the ecosystem, the low level of retained and bycatch as well as unlikely interaction with ETP and habitat that would cause irreversible harm all indicates that the fishery has negligible impact on the key elements of the ecosystem. Actual catch of the main target species, crystal crab, is considered the only likely component that may be impacted. Any changes are monitored and evaluated annually but have not been investigated in detail. Therefore, SG 60, 80 are me but not the SG 100.

Understanding of component functions The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on components (i.e., P1 P1 target species, c target species, primary, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP ETP species and Habitats Guide species and Habitats) in are identified and the post the ecosystem are main functions of these known. components in the ecosystem are understood.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 82 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Actual catch of the main target species, crystal crab, is considered the only likely component that may be impacted. The number of finfish and invertebrate bycatch is small and is unlikely to impact marine food webs or community structure. The fishing activities are considered to be a negligible risk to trophic interactions in the deep-sea ecosystem. Deep sea crabs are considered to be both scavengers and opportunistic predators, and their exploitation is, therefore, unlikely to have a significant effect on species at higher trophic levels. In terms of the effect that their removal might have on the lower trophic levels, the minimum sizes are such that only a small portion of the standing stock is harvested, with sufficient levels of crabs remaining to maintain trophic structure. Therefore, the SG 80 and 100 are met.

Information relevance Adequate information is Adequate information is available on the impacts available on the impacts of the UoA on these of the UoA on the d Guide components to allow components and post some of the main elements to allow the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Considering the size and scale of the fishery, adequate information is available to infer the main consequences for the ecosystem. The SG 80 and 100 are met.

Monitoring Adequate data continue to Information is adequate be collected to detect any to support the Guide e increase in risk level. development of strategies post to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Yes No

Rationale

Data continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk level on the ecosystem and the SG 80 is met. This information, however, may not be sufficient to support the development of a strategy to manage impacts on the deep-water ecosystem across the range of the fishery if fishing levels increase. Overall, very little data is collected to help inform or modify strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. The SG 100 is not met. References Brewer et al. (2007), How et al. (2015).

Draft scoring range ≥80

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 83 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 84 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

7.4 Principle 3 7.4.1 Principle 3 background Area and Target Species

The WCDSCMF operates off the west coast of WA, on the seaward side of the 150 m isobath out to the extent of the Australian EEZ from the Northern Territory/WA border in the north, to Cape Leeuwin (34° 24' S latitude) in the south.

The fishery covers three WA management bioregions: North Coast, Gascoyne Coast and West Coast however, the majority of fishing activities are centred in the Gascoyne and West Coast Bioregions (see Figure 2), concentrated on the continental slope between depths of 500 to 800 m (How and Nardi 2014).

The fishery primarily targets crystal crab (Chaceon albus), champagne crab (Hypothalassia ascerba) and giant crab (Pseudocarcinus gigas), and the WCDSCMF is the primary fishery to access these resources while some species are accessed by the West Coast Rock Lobster Managed Fishery (WCRLMF). In particular, the WCRLMF take champagne crab as a by-product when deep-water fishing as part of the annual “whites” migration of western rock lobster (Panulirus cygnus).

Jurisdiction

The OCS sets out arrangements between the different Australian jurisdictions regarding responsibilities for fisheries. Under the OCS, the Australian states and the Northern Territory manage fisheries out to 3 nm from the coast, and for the Australian Government to manage fisheries from three to 200 nm (which is the extent of Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)). The settlement is not set out in a single document rather it is found multiple pieces of legislation that implements it. The OCS arrangements provide for the Commonwealth, the States and the NT to agree to adjust these arrangements by passing management responsibility for particular fisheries exclusively to the Commonwealth or to the adjacent States/Northern Territories (NT); or alternatively, for the Commonwealth and the States/NT to jointly manage a fishery in waters relevant to the Commonwealth and one or more States/NT (Borthwick, 2012). These are binding arrangements requiring both the State and the Commonwealth to implement fisheries management arrangements in their respective jurisdictions.

Under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) (Brayford & Lyon 1995), WA retains control of crustacean resources out to the 200 nm limit of the EEZ and therefore the WCDSCMF falls entirely within the management jurisdiction of the WA Government.

National Legislation and International Obligations

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 1999) is the Australian Commonwealth Government’s central piece of environmental legislation. The EPBC Act is administered by the Commonwealth Department responsible for environment (currently the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, DAWE) 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 (MNES).

The DAWE, through the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, has a legislative responsibility under the EPBC Act 1999, to ensure that all managed Commonwealth fisheries undergo strategic environmental impact assessment before new management arrangements are brought into effect; and that all fisheries in Australia from which product is exported undergo assessment to determine that the fishery is managed in an ecologically sustainable way in the long term. Assessments are required to be conducted against the 2nd edition of the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries (the Guidelines) (Department of the Environment and Water Resource (DEWR), 2007). The Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 85 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Guidelines outline specific principles and objectives designed to ensure a strategic and transparent way of evaluating the ecological sustainability of fishery management arrangements. The Guidelines include the principles of ecologically sustainable target and bycatch species, ecological viability of bycatch species, and impact on the broader marine ecosystem.

The WCDSCMF was last assessed as meeting the Guidelines in 2015 (Department of the Environment, 2015) and the products of the fishery were included on the list of exempt native specimens established under section 303DB of the EPBC Act until May 2025.

Australia is a signatory to a number of international agreements and conventions (which it applies within its EEZ), such as: • United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; • Convention on Biological Diversity; • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; • FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; • United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement; and • State Member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The DAWE’s Environment Division 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 legal rights for people dependent on fishing for food (non-commercial use) is enshrined in the Native Title Act 1993. This allows special provision for ‘traditional fishing’ to be made where they might apply in the context of both Commonwealth and State Fisheries Law.

Management framework and objectives

Western Australian fisheries are managed by Western Australia’s Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) under the following legislation: • Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA); and • Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 (FRMR).

These functions were previously performed by the Department of Fisheries (DOF) prior to a government restructuring process which resulted in the amalgamation of several government functions, including the DOF, into the DPIRD.

The fishery-specific management framework for the fishery is outlined in the West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery Management Plan 2012 (Management Plan) and the West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resource Harvest Strategy 2020-2025 (Harvest Strategy, DPRID 2020c). These arrangements are applied under powers of the FRMA and the FRMR. The management objectives within the tiers of the management are explicit, clear and consistent. These are outlined below.

The Western Australian government is currently in the preparatory phases of introducing an Aquatic Resources Management Act 2016 (ARMA) which will become the primary legislation used to manage fishing, aquaculture, pearling and aquatic resources in Western Australia. The ARMA will replace the FRMA (and the Pearling Act 1990), providing a set of new management methods and a modern, flexible framework designed to deliver more effective, efficient and integrated fisheries and aquatic resource management. It will allow for existing management arrangements for commercial and recreational fishing sectors to remain in place to enable a smooth transition between legislative frameworks.

The new Act was scheduled for commencement on 1 January 2019, however, this has been delayed due to required amendments to address some structural issues and to ensure DPIRD can continue to manage at the sub-resource level e.g.: zones or different TACCs for specific species.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 86 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Fish Resources Management Act 1994

The FRMA provides the overarching legislative framework to implement the management arrangements for the WCDSCMF and contains the head powers to determine a Management Plan.

The objects of the FRMA are:

(a) to develop and manage fisheries and aquaculture in a sustainable way; and (b) to share and conserve the State’s fish and other aquatic resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations.

The FRMA sets out that the two primary objects will be achieved, in particular, by the following means:

(a) conserving fish and protecting their environment; (b) ensuring that the impact of fishing and aquaculture on aquatic fauna and their habitats is ecologically sustainable and that the use of all aquatic resources is carried out in a sustainable manner; (c) enabling the management of fishing, aquaculture, tourism that is reliant on fishing, aquatic ecotourism and associated non-extractive activities that are reliant on fish and the aquatic environment; (d) fostering the sustainable development of commercial and recreational fishing and aquaculture, including the establishment and management of aquaculture facilities for community or commercial purposes; (e) achieving the optimum economic, social and other benefits from the use of fish resources; (f) enabling the allocation of fish resources between users of those resources, their reallocation between users from time to time and the management of users in relation to their respective allocations; (g) providing for the control of foreign interests in fishing, aquaculture and associated industries; (h) enabling the management of fish habitat protection areas and the Abrolhos Islands reserve

Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995

The Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 (FRMR) contain a number of requirements pertaining to all commercial fisheries in WA. For example, regulation 64 requires commercial fishers to submit mandatory catch returns in the form approved for that fishery. The WCDSCMF Management Plan provides the framework for the management measures for the fishery.

West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery Management Plan 2012 (Management Plan)

WA Management Plans are subsidiary legislation which set out the operational rules that control managed commercial fishing activities. The Management Plan provides the power to issue and restrict the number of authorisations, to set the capacity of the fishery and to regulate other conditions and grounds relating to fishing.

The management arrangements for deep sea crabs were formalised in 2003 by the introduction of the West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean (Interim) Managed Fishery Management Plan 2003. The Management Plan limited fishing activity to seven permit holders, and effort was divided into five zones along the west coast. Fishers were granted permission to operate in specific zones, with one or two fishers permitted to operate in each zone. The fishery transitioned from an interim to a fully-managed fishery on 1 January 2013.

The 2012 Management Plan for the fishery does not contain objectives rather it contains the management measures for the fishery, to administer and apply the harvest control rules outlined in the Harvest Strategy, amongst other things. More details of the Management Plan are contained in the Section: Details of individuals or groups granted rights of access to the fishery and particulars of the nature of those rights.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 87 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resource Harvest Strategy 2020-2025

The long-term ecological objectives of the WCDSCMF, consistent with the overarching objective of the FRMA, are defined in the Harvest Strategy (DPIRD, 2020c) are as follows:

(1) Ecological Sustainability:

• To maintain spawning stock biomass of the target species (i.e. crystal / champagne / giant crabs) above the level recruitment impairment. • To ensure fishing impacts do not result in serious or irreversible harm1 to bycatch species populations. • To ensure fishing impacts do not result in serious or irreversible harm to ETP species populations. • To ensure the effects of fishing do not result in serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function. • To ensure the effects of fishing do not result in serious or irreversible harm to ecological processes. 1 Serious or irreversible harm relates to a change caused by the fishery that fundamentally alters the capacity of the component to maintain its function or to recover from the impact.

(2) Social and Economic Objective

• To provide flexible opportunities to ensure fishers can maintain or enhance their livelihood, within the constraints of ecological sustainability.

Long-term management objectives are operationalised as short-term (e.g. annual), fishery-specific objectives through one or more performance indicators that can be measured and assessed against pre- defined reference levels so as to ascertain actual performance. Within the context of the long-term objectives provided above, operational objectives aim to maintain each resource above the threshold level (and, where relevant, close to the target level), or rebuild the resource if it has fallen below the threshold or the limit levels.

Environmental Risk Assessment

A risk-based Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) process forms part of the WCDSCMF management framework. The framework assesses the impacts of fishing on all parts of the marine environment, including target species, retained non-target species, bycatch, ETP species, habitats and the ecosystem. A periodic risk assessment is undertaken for the fishery which is employed to prioritise research, data collection, monitoring needs and management actions for this fishery, with the objective of fishing activities that are managed both sustainably and efficiently.

The first risk assessment was undertaken for the fishery in 2002 by the (then) DOF3. The WCDSCMF was considered to be a moderate risk to crystal crab stocks, and a low or negligible risk to all other assets. A further risk assessment was conducted in 2014. The risk assessment again was conducted internally using the Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) methodology. Fifteen retained, bycatch and ETP species or species groups were assessed and the risk posed by the fishery was found to be low for all species.

Risk assessments is planned to be undertaken periodically (every 3 – 5 years) (DPIRD, 2020c) to reassess any current or new issues that may arise in the fishery. The fishery’s Harvest Strategy states that a risk assessment can also be triggered if there are significant changes identified in fishery operations or management activities or controls that may change current risk levels. With this schedule,

3 With the exception of an external workshop held for the risk assessment of the WCRLMF which considered champagne crab which is a byproduct in that fishery. Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 88 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template a risk assessment was due for the fishery in approximately 2017-2019. DPIRD advise that the next ERA for the fishery is scheduled for mid-2023.

Other relevant legislation

In addition to the FRMA, FRMR and the Management Plan, fishers must also comply with these pieces of legislation:

• Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act); • Western Australian Marine Act 1982; and • West Australian Wildlife Conservation Act 1950

Details of individuals or groups granted rights of access to the fishery and particulars of the nature of those rights.

The WCDSCMF is a limited entry fishery and there are currently seven Managed Fishery Licences (MFL) issued under the Management Plan. Currently, the quota is consolidated onto three vessels.

The Western Coast Rock Lobster Fishery are permitted to retain defined volumes of deep sea crab as defined in this fishery’s Management Plan (and outlined below in the Section: Fishery Specific Management).

As an offshore and deep water resource, the recreational sector has no history of targeting these deep sea crab species of this fishery. There is no evidence of customary fishing for deep sea crabs of Western Australia’s west coast.

Fisheries specific management

The WCDSCMF is managed through a combination of input and output controls and control rules as contained in: • FRMA and FRMR • Management Plan • Harvest Strategy • Licence conditions Since 2008, the fishery has been quota managed with the quota units spread evenly across the licenses and fully transferable between licence holders. Previously implemented zones with efforts and licensees assigned to particular zones, was disbanded in 2008.

Traps are the only permitted gear type in the WCDSCMF, with specification applied regarding configuration to facilate escape of non target species.

The WCDSCMF is open to fishing for the entire year; however, most fishing effort is focused between January and June, when weather conditions are typically more favourable. The highest level of fishing effort is generally aligned with Chinese New Year (January/February) when there is strong market demand.

A summary of all the management controls placed on operators, as a combination of the primary and subsidary legislation described above is contained in Table 11.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 89 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Table 11 – Summary of WCDSCMF Management Measures (from DPIRD, 2020c)

There are currently three conditions listed on each licence that is permitted to operate in the fishery:

• Condition No. 16: Not to engage in fishing between Pt. Maud and Tantabiddi Well; • Condition No. 17: The crew of this vessel shall not live ashore at the Abrolhos Islands; and • Condition No. 18: No river or estuarine fishing.

Retention of deepsea crabs (mostly champagne crabs) in the West Coast Rock Lobster Managed Fishery is permitted under the following circumstances:

• not more than 12 deep sea crabs to be on the boat at any time; and • not more than 12 deep sea crabs to be landed ashore from the boat in any one day, • no deep sea crab is permitted to be transferred to another boat from; or from another boat to the authorised boat while the boat is at sea in the waters of the Fishery • no transfer of any deep sea crab is permitted to another boat from; or from another boat to an authorised boat while at sea in the waters of the fishery

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 90 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Consultation and interest groups

The recognised interest groups in the WCDSCMF are: • DPIRD; • The Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), representing the interests of commercial fishers; • Recfishwest, representing the interests of recreational fishers; • Representatives from the conservation sector, including the Conservation Council of Western Australia and World Wildlife Fund; • Organisations/institutions undertaking research relevant to the deep-sea environment off WA (e.g. oil and gas sector) and any protected species (e.g. the Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australia (DPaW)); • Companies exploring the area for other commercial investment opportunities; • The Australian Fisheries Management Authority, which manages other fisheries operating in the area; • Investors, banking representatives, boat brokers, etc.; • Fish processors, retailers and consumers; and • The wider community

The DPIRDs approach to stakeholder engagement follows its Stakeholder Engagement Guideline (DOF, 2016) designed to assist with selecting the appropriate level of engagement for different stakeholder groups. The framework consists of four levels of engagement as set out in Table 12 below.

Table 12 – Level of Stakeholder Engagement (from DOF, 2016)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 91 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The WA Minister for Fisheries and DPIRD are responsible for advising licensees, WAFIC and Recfishwest of Ministerial/Departmental decisions that are the subject of a consultation process.

The WA Government formally recognises WAFIC and Recfishwest as the key sources of coordinated industry advice for the commercial and recreational sectors, respectively. The Department or Minister may seek and provide advice directly through these peak bodies and/or sector associations. WAFIC and Recfishwest undertake the statutory consultation functions, such as those associated with developing and amending Management Plans, on behalf of DPIRD under service level agreements (SLAs). They have direct input into the annual planning and priority setting process used to determine management, compliance, research and other priorities.

WAFIC is the peak industry body representing professional fishing, pearling and aquaculture enterprises, as well as processors and exporters in WA. WAFIC works in partnership with the WA Government to set the direction for the management of commercial fisheries in WA. In relation to WAFIC’s consultation role, the Department provides annual funding to WAFIC, equivalent to 0.5% of WA commercial fishing gross value of production (based on a three year average), plus a pro-rata amount equivalent to 10% of water access fees paid by aquaculture and pearling operators.

WAFIC’s responsibilities can be summarised as:

• Providing effective professional representation of commercial fishing interests and the commercial fishing sector to government, industry, other relevant organisations and the community by engaging, facilitating and consulting, as necessary (e.g. WAFIC representatives attend WCDSCMF Management Meetings held annually) to advocate on behalf of commercial fishers); • Providing representation of commercial fishing interests on fisheries management and Ministerial committees, as required; • Documenting priority issues for commercial fishing interests (by 30 March) each year to DPIRD; • Providing feedback to DPIRD on proposed deliverables and budget priorities for expenditure of the Fisheries Research and Development account; • Engaging with Recfishwest and other appropriate parties with a view to identifying joint priorities and solutions to issues of shared concern; and • Engaging in promotion, education and awareness of key sustainability messages consistent with best practice fisheries management and the objectives of the FRMA.

Recfishwest is an incorporated association and receives 15% of the revenue raised from recreational fishing licence fees to advocate for and represent the recreational fishing sector. Recfishwest undertakes numerous key roles including consultation on management reforms, advocating for the sector on significance issues, education, and overseeing recreational fishing initiatives. Recfishwest’s peak body operations and its representation role includes: • Effective representation of the WA recreational fishing community; • Provision of professional advice to Government on issues affecting recreational fishing; • Coordination of recreational fishing stakeholder views on management proposals; • Advice on use of the Recreational Fishing Account; and • Assistance with education of fishers and promotion of responsible fishing.

Recfishwest’s monthly electronic newsletter reaches over 32,000 recreational fishers, keeping subscribers up to date with recreational fishing initiatives, research results and issues affecting the recreational fishing sector.

DPIRD holds Annual Management Meetings with fishery licensees to discuss research, management, compliance and other specific issues affecting the fishery. These meetings are usually held at the start or the end of the licensing year and are attended by DPIRD personnel, WAFIC and licence holders, but are also open to other stakeholder groups such as Recfishwest, processors, universities, other

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 92 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template government departments, the conservation sector and the general public following “appropriate consultation with industry” (How et al. 2015).

DPIRD also seeks public comment on research, management and discussion papers from time to time. Draft Fisheries Management Papers are released for public comment and those comments must be taken into account before a decision is made on future management (How et al. 2015). For example, in the drafting of the revised WCDSC Harvest Strategy, DPRID made the draft policy available for public comment for a four-week period. DPIRD also proactively drew attention to the draft Harvest Strategy and the availability to make comment through direct email to WAFIC (who under the SLA were asked to consult with industry), as well as to the Western Rock Lobster Council.

Decision Making Processes

Decisions about management of the WCDSCMF are driven by two main processes: • Annual decision-making processes that may result in measures to meet the short-term fishery objectives, driven by the control rules contained in the harvest strategy (DPIRD, 2020c). • Longer-term decision-making processes that result in new measures and/or strategies to achieve the long-term fishery objectives (i.e. changes to the management system) (DPIRD, 2020c).

The harvest strategy guides management responses in the event that a short-term objective is not met i.e. the Performances Indicators (PIs) are not maintained above the threshold reference level following an annual assessment. T

Table 13 – Harvest Strategy Performance Indicators and Harvest Control Rules

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 93 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The Harvest Strategy makes the decision-making considerations and processes for the management of aquatic resources publicly transparent and provides a basis for informed dialogue on management actions with resource users and other stakeholders. The Harvest Strategy Control Rules provide guidance for decision-makers, but do not undermine or limit the exercise of discretion required for independent decision-making under the FRMA by the Minister for Fisheries, the DDG of DPIRD or other delegated decision makers. The PIs and associated Control Rules are outlined in Table 13 above.

Where a PI is below the threshold level but above the limit level the harvest control rules require either a management review or specific changes e.g. to the TAC. The outcomes from the previous season’s assessment against the defined reference levels (including any additional reviews undertaken as

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 94 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

described above) are provided to industry by DPIRD at the Annual Management Meetings. At this stage issues arising from the annual evaluation of the fishery’s performance are discussed. Where there are sustainability concerns identified, changes to the management arrangements are discussed with the licensees, with responsive changes implemented for the following fishing season.

Established decision-making processes are also in place to ensure long-term management objectives are met. This process is triggered mostly as a result of analysing longer-term patterns or trends in the annual fishery performance. Variations in the operating environment caused by other factors (e.g. environmental conditions, market forces, fishing behaviour, conflicts with other sectors etc.) can also prompt examinations and discussions that may result in longer lasting changes (i.e. lasting more than one season) in the management system.

Longer-term changes are often implemented in legislation. The decision-making process that results in changing legislation involves significant consultation with industry and other stakeholders that may be affected by the proposed change. In developing management options, consultation is undertaken with affected parties and relevant experts through a number of mechanisms, including: • Directly in writing; • At licensee meetings; • At internal workshops, e.g. harvest strategy development, compliance risk assessments; • Through the establishment of a tasked working group; and/or • As part of external/expert workshops (e.g. an ecological risk assessments).

These forums are used to work through options for addressing emerging issues and provide the opportunity for decision-makers to consider advice from all interested stakeholders. Comments provided during this process also allow managers to take into account the broader implications of management options.

Following this consultation process, any new proposed management measures or strategies that require changes to legislation or publication are provided to the statutory decision maker (usually the DDG of DPIRD or the Minister) by the relevant Departmental aquatic management staff. For example, throughout 2020, the drafting of the revised Harvest Strategy involved discussion with licensees and WAFIC and multiple opportunity to comment on the issues and respond to the draft plan.

Review and Evaluation of Management

Neither the FRMA nor the WCDSCMF Management Plan provide for the review of the WCDSCMF Management Plan. However, there are mechanisms in place for monitoring and evaluating the performance of various aspects of the management system of the WCDSCMF, including:

(1) Strategic Planning and Risk Assessments • An internal Department strategic management planning meeting is held annually prior to Annual Management Meetings to discuss the issues of importance to the management of the fishery. Such reviews may identify management or compliance projects or may indicate the need for major changes to the management system. • Aquatic Reosurce Program Briefs outline annual operations, short and long-term projects, workload requirements, priorities and risks associated with the Offshore Crustacean Resource. • Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management (EBFM) risk assessments are reported on every year in the Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia (DPIRD, 2020b). • Internal Department compliance risk assessment meetings are held annually. • Internal Department committees that convert Department and stakeholder (WAFIC and Recfishwest) priorities into operational deliverables set within the budget context.

(2) Review Workshops

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 95 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

• Annual Management Meetings are held with all WCDSCMF licence holders to discuss current research programs, management changes and future research needs. Additional meetings may also be held, on an as needs basis, throughout the year to address specific issues or initiatives. • Where appropriate, research workshops are held with stakeholder groups.

• An annual evaluation of the performance of fisheries is undertaken by Departmental research, management and compliance staff, with outcomes used to assess the extent to which the management system has met both the long- and short-term objectives of the fisheries.

• To evaluate how well the Department is meeting the overarching long-term objectives, performance against its key performance indicators is measured annually, with results published in the Department’s Annual Report to Parliament (see, for example, DPIRD 2020a).

• Performance against fishery-specific short-term (operational) objectives for WCDSCMF has been measured annually using the performance indicators, reference levels and management control rules that are explicitly identified in the previous 2015-2020 harvest strategy and will continue under the newly revised Harvest Strategy 2020-2025.

• The fishery has been subject to assessment against the Commonwealth EPBC Act’s Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries in 2003, 2007, 2009 and 2013.

• There have been a number of reviews of the legislative framework (Act and regulations) under which the WCDSCMF operates. Additional reviews have focused on the effectiveness of compliance/enforcement.

Monitoring, Control and Surveillance

The FRMA provides a wide range of compliance powers and controls relating to entry, search, inspection, seizure, arrest, prosecution, forfeiture and penalties, including imprisonment. These powers are exercised by Fisheries Officers appointed under the relevant legislation.

Compliance Strategy

Compliance planning and implementation in WA fisheries is directed by the Western Australian Fisheries Compliance Strategy (the Compliance Strategy) which has been developed to: provide an understanding of the principles underlying the Department’s compliance role and how its compliance services are delivered to the Western Australian community. The Strategy aligns with, and complements, the Department’s Compliance Framework and Risk Assessment Policy which informs the risk-based model, compliance planning and the governance structure applied to fisheries compliance services.

The Department’s compliance model is based on the Australian Fisheries National Compliance Strategy 2016-2020 (National Strategy). Senior compliance fisheries practitioners across Australia and New Zealand were consulted in the production of the National Strategy.

The Department’s compliance program promotes three key compliance strategies recommended by the National Strategy: (1) maximising voluntary compliance; (2) effective deterrence; and (3) organisational capability and capacity.

Enforcement tools and their application

A set of enforcement tools and sanctions exist and may be taken in respect to offenders under Fisheries legislation: • Infringement Warning Notice – involves issuing a written warning in lieu of a penalty; • Infringement Notices – involves a penalty; • Letter of Warning – a written warning in lieu of a prosecution; and

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 96 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

• Prosecution – instigation of legal proceedings and/or proposed court action.

In addition to these enforcement tools, Fisheries Officers also have the power to seize fish and fishing gear that on reasonable grounds is believed to be the subject of, or used in the commission of an offence. Likewise, Fisheries Officers may seize any item where the item may afford evidence of the commission of an offence.

The compliance program deploys a wide range of tools to encourage compliant behaviour with the Department’s control measures, ranging of encouraging voluntary compliance through educative means, through to the use of sophisticated compliance tools such as covert surveillance and covert operations, and the establishment of a FISHWATCH number where illegal fishing can be reported and intelligence collected.

Resourcing compliance

The Department has a regionalised compliance model to support the need for a compliance presence statewide. Four compliance regions have been defined: Northern; Gascoyne Mid-West; Metropolitan; and Southern. Regional compliance staff operate from four regional and 13 district offices. Within these regions, Fisheries Officers and Community Education Officers are generally located in coastal towns. Regional Compliance Managers oversee and support the works of the Fisheries. Further support is provided by Perth-based specialist compliance units which provide intelligence, prosecution, surveillance and investigation, training, quality control and governance services.

The compliance program comprises about 120 Fisheries Officers, in addition to eight regional Compliance Managers and four Regional Managers.

Fisheries Officers raise community awareness and provide advice, in relation to: • liaise with the fishing and marine industry, community groups, volunteer organisations, clubs, the public and other government agencies and advise on fisheries matters; • the public and other government agencies and advise on fisheries matters; • provide advice and assist with the effective delivery of volunteer programs if required; and • promote fisheries initiatives and messages through liaison, presentations and provision of advice.

Fisheries Officers also lead compliance actions, including: • undertake inspections, investigations and enforce legislation; • plan and lead patrols, issue notices and infringements; and • apprehend and prosecute offenders, seize illegal equipment and evidence as authorised.

Compliance resources are allocated in accordance with the Regional Services Division’s Compliance Framework and Risk Assessment Policy.

Compliance risk assessments

The Department conducts compliance risk assessments every 1 – 2 years in major fisheries or those perceived to be at high risk and every 3 – 5 years in minor fisheries such as the WCDSCMF. The risk assessment process regularly involves DPIRD management staff, field-based FMOs and researchers. If appropriate, the process could also include commercial and recreational fishers, fish processors and representatives from other interested stakeholder groups. The risk assessment process is a significant input into the development of an Operational Compliance Plan (OCP) for the fishery, which provides the formal framework for the delivery of specific compliance services that remove or mitigate those identified risks.

The Department also uses the State-wide Tasking Coordination Group (STCG) as an oversight body for state-wide high priority investigations and operations. STCG provides advice on the allocation of high priority intelligence for investigation, allocating resources, monitoring and reviewing outcomes and operational assessments, managing risks and recommending process improvements. Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 97 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Operational Compliance for the WCDSCMF

For the WCDSCMF, management arrangements are enforced under the combined OCP for minor commercial fisheries in the Midwest region of Western Australia. The OCP is informed and underpinned by compliance risk assessments that have been conducted for the fishery. Annual planning meetings are held for OCPs, with regular specific planning of day-to-day targeted and non-targeted patrols linked to the OCP based on resources and competing priorities.

The primary monitoring activity in the WCDSCMF relates to the reporting and validation of crystal, champagne and giant crab catches for quota-monitoring purposes. Other activities undertaken by Fisheries Officers in relation to the WCDSCMF include opportunistic in-port inspections, which may include catch, licence and gear checks.

References

Brayford, H. and Lyon, G. (1995). Offshore Constitutional Settlement 1995. Fisheries Management Paper 77, WA Department of Fisheries, Perth.

Department of the Environment and Water Resources (2007). Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries. Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/97ff9461-5ccf- 49cb-9368-8bde5f243c0b/files/guidelines.pdf

Department of the Environment (2015). Western Australian West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery Environmental assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. https://www.environment.gov.au/marine/fisheries/wa/deep-sea-crab

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00440

Fish Resources Management Act 1994. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/frma1994256/index.html

Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995. https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1458_homepag e.html

DOF (2016). Guideline for stakeholder engagement on aquatic resource management-related processes. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop131.pdf

DPIRD (2018). Fisheries compliance strategy September 2018. https://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/corporate_publications/fisheries_compliance_strategy.pdf

DPIRD (2020a). Annual Report to Parliament 2020, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. https://www.dpird.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/DPIRD%20Annual%20Report%202020%20-%20PDF.pdf

DPIRD (2020b). Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2018/19: The State of the Fisheries. Government of WA http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/sofar/status_reports_of_the_fisheries_and_aquatic_resources_2018- 19.pdf

DPIRD (2020c). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resources Harvest Strategy 2020-2025 Version 1. West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Fishery Management Paper No. 302. Government of Western Australia, November 2020. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp302.pdf

How, J. and Nardi, K. (2014). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery Status Report. In: Fletcher, W.J. and Santoro, K. (eds.), Status Report of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2013/14, pp.133- 136. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

How, J.R., Webster, F.J., Travaille, K.L. & Harry, A.V. (2015). MSC Report Series: West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

Western Australian Marine Act 1982. https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1046_homepage.html

Western Australian Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1080_homepage.html

West Coast Rock Lobster Managed Fishery Management Plan 2012. https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/3815493a75e584d01a64d8ce4825 7aa1001a4675/$file/5493.pdf Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 98 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

7.4.2 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: - Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); PI 3.1.1 - Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and - Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective national legal system and national legal system and national legal system and a framework for organised and effective binding procedures cooperation with other cooperation with other governing cooperation a Guide parties, where necessary, parties, where necessary, with other parties which post to deliver management to deliver management delivers management outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2. MSC Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

In accordance with the Offshore Constitutional Settlement 1995 (OCS) (Brayford and Lyon 1995), the WCDSCMF falls under the management jurisdiction of the WA Government. The WA Government provides management, licensing (where applicable), research and compliance and education services for commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries and customary fishing.

Under the OCS, the Commonwealth Government retains responsibility for implementing Australia’s commitments under a range of international fisheries legislation and instruments. This responsibility is undertaken through the Commonwealth EPBC Act. The WCDSCMF is subject to assessment under the EPBC Act’s Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries (Department of the Environment and Water Resources, 2007). The WCDSCMF is also subject to the provisions of the EPBC Act related to protected and threatened species under that Act.

The key legislative elements of the fisheries management system in WA are the FRMA, the FRMR and the statutory Fishery Management Plan. Commercial fishers must also comply with the requirements of the Western Australian Marine Act 1982 and the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WA).

These legislative instruments are supported by a range of high level policies including: • The WA Government’s Fisheries Policy Statement (DOF 2012); • The Harvest Strategy Policy and Operational Guidelines for the Aquatic Resources of Western Australia (DOF 2015); • Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (as described in DPIRD 2020b).

The Minister for Fisheries is the responsible Minister in the WA Government and has legislative power to act upon knowledge and advice he is provided with. Administration of the management arrangements is the responsibility of the Deputy Director General (DDG) of the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD). DPIRD is governed by the Public Sector Management Act 1994, which requires, among other things, that DPIRD provide an Annual Report to Parliament that includes an assessment of the extent to which the Department has achieved its goal of conserving and sustainably developing the State’s aquatic resources (e.g. DPRID, 2020a).

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 99 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

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 fishery meets the requirements of SG 60, 80 and 100.

Resolution of disputes The management system The management system The management system incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism by law to a transparent by law to a transparent for the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the b Guide disputes arising within the resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal disputes post system. which is considered to that is appropriate to the be effective in dealing context of the fishery and with most issues and that has been tested and is appropriate to the proven to be effective. context of the UoA. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The following is noted regarding mechanisms for the resolution of legal disputes:

• Changes to existing or new fisheries legislation, including subsidiary legislation such as the Fishery Management Plans, are potentially subject to review through the disallowance process of State Parliament. All subsidiary legislation is also reviewed by the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, which may seek further advice on the reasons for the legislation and potentially move to disallow. These processes provide for parliamentary and public scrutiny of all fisheries legislation.

• There are well-established formal dispute mechanisms for administrative and legal appeals of decisions taken in respect to fisheries (contained in Part 14 of the FRMA).

• Most decisions made by the DDG of the DPIRD and disputes regarding the implementation and administration of fisheries legislation can be taken to the Western Australian State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) for review, or to the WA (and Commonwealth) Court System. The decisions of the SAT and Courts are binding on DPIRD, and all SAT decisions must be carried out by the Department (under section 29(5) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004). These mechanisms have been used and tested.

• Dispute resolution mechanisms have been used in the WCDSCMF. In particular, the SAT was used to assess a variation of permit under the WCDSCMF interim Management Plan in 2005. There have been no further appeals lodged related to the WCDSCF since this time.

• Disputes in the fishery are also informally avoided or addressed through a system of ongoing of communication and consultation processes between the fishery’s management and research staff and industry.

The assessment team saw no evidence of ongoing disputes or disagreements between the DDG and WAFIC, commercial fishers or other individuals or sectors. This suggests that the mechanisms for dispute resolution are effective. The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is appropriate to the context of the fishery and has been tested and proven to be effective. The fishery meets the requirements of SG 60, 80 and 100.

Respect for rights c Guide The management system The management system The management system post has a mechanism to has a mechanism to has a mechanism to Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 100 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

generally respect the observe the legal rights formally commit to the legal rights created created explicitly or legal rights created explicitly or established by established by custom of explicitly or established by custom of people people dependent on custom of people dependent on fishing for fishing for food or dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner food and livelihood in a manner consistent with consistent with the manner consistent with the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The management system provides access rights to the commercial fishery by way of the issue of a limited number of licenses and through the allocation of individual transferable quota units. Licences and quota units are issued in accordance with the WCDSCMF Management Plan which derives its power from the FRMA.

In 1992, the High Court of Australia recognised native title, i.e. that indigenous Australians may continue to hold native title and to be uniquely connected to the land. Australian law recognises that native title exists where Aboriginal people have maintained a traditional connection to their land and waters, since sovereignty, and where acts of government have not removed it. A 2013 High Court decision concluded that State fisheries legislation in South Australia did not extinguish native title rights to fish. It is likely that this decision also means that WA fisheries legislation does not extinguish native title rights to fish where that right is exercised for a traditional, non-commercial purpose by an Aboriginal person. There are currently no native title claims that relate to the waters in which the WCDSCMF occurs.

The rights of Aboriginal persons fishing for customary purposes are recognised under Section 6 of the FRMA and S258(1)(ba) of the Act provides the power to make regulations to manage customary fishing. In addition, the Western Australian Government have developed a Customary Fishing Policy (DOF, 2009a) which acknowledges the importance of customary fishing to the continuing Aboriginal cultures in Western Australia, and to ensures a comprehensive and sustainable integrated fisheries management framework.

The State’s Integrated Fisheries Management (IFM) policy (DOF, 2009b) seeks to share resources between fishing sectors i.e. commercial, recreational and customary. The Aquatic Resources Management Bill (which will ultimately replace the FRMA when enacted) establishes the ability for a quantity of an aquatic resource to be reserved for conservation and reproductive purposes before setting a sustainable harvest level for by the fishing sectors. It is proposed that this ‘reserve’ include an allowance for customary fishing, where appropriate. There is no known customary fishing for deep sea crab.

The management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. The fishery therefore meets the requirements of SG 60, 80 and 100.

References

Brayford, H. and Lyon, G. (1995). Offshore Constitutional Settlement 1995. Fisheries Management Paper 77, WA Department of Fisheries, Perth.

Department of the Environment and Water Resources (2007). Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries. Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/97ff9461-5ccf- 49cb-9368-8bde5f243c0b/files/guidelines.pdf

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 101 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Fish Resources Management Act 1994. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/frma1994256/index.html

Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995. https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1458_homepag e.html

DOF (2009a). Customary Fishing Policy of Western Australia. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/customary_fishing/customary_fishing_policy.pdf

DOF (2009b). Integrated Fisheries Management Government Policy.http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/ifm/IFMGovtPolicy_2009.pdf

DOF (2012). Western Australian Government Fisheries Policy Statement March 2012.Department of Fisheries, WA, 12 pp. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/corporate_publications/wa_govt_fisheries_policy_ statement.pdf

DOF (2015). Harvest Strategy Policy and Operational Guidelines for the Aquatic Resources of Western Australia. Fisheries Management Paper No. 271 Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

DPIRD (2020b). Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2018/19: The State of the Fisheries. Government of WA http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/sofar/status_reports_of_the_fisheries_and_aquatic_resources_2018- 19.pdf

How, J. and Nardi, K. (2014). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery Status Report. In: Fletcher, W.J. and Santoro, K. (eds.), Status Report of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2013/14, pp.133- 136. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

How, J.R., Webster, F.J., Travaille, K.L. & Harry, A.V. (2015). MSC Report Series: West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

Public Sector Management act 1994. https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_771_homepage.html

Western Australian Marine Act 1982. https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1046_homepage.html

Western Australian Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1080_homepage.html

West Coast Rock Lobster Managed Fishery Management Plan 2012. https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/3815493a75e584d01a64d8ce4825 7aa1001a4675/$file/5493.pdf

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 102 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Roles and responsibilities Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process management process management process have been identified. have been identified. have been identified. a Guide Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and post responsibilities are responsibilities are responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and explicitly defined and well understood for key well understood for all areas of responsibility areas of responsibility and interaction. and interaction. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The following is noted regarding the functions, role and responsibilities of organisations and individuals involved in the management of the fishery:

• The roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth and WA Governments in the management of fisheries resources are well articulated in the OCS (Brayford and Lyons, 1995). • The Commonwealth EPBC Act sets out in the roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth Government with respect to ecological sustainability and conservation of marine resources in WA marine waters. • The FRMA sets out the roles and responsibilities of the WA Government in relation to the management of Western Australian commercial fisheries are set out in. DPIRD has identified the key organisations and individual positions relevant in the Department and their roles and responsibilities are clearly articulated. (How et al. 2015).

Within the State Government, the key roles and responsibilities are well described and understood:

• DPIRD provides management, licensing, research and compliance and education services for commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries, customary fishing, pearling and aquaculture in all State waters (including marine parks) and the fish processing and charter boat industries. • The Minister for Fisheries has legislative power to turn knowledge and advice he is provided within into action, while the administration of these management arrangements is the responsibility of the DDG of the Department, and the Department more generally.

DPIRD is structured around three key service delivery areas:

• Aquatic Management: provides management, policy development, licensing and legislation related to the State’s commercial and recreational fisheries, pearling, aquaculture, fish processing, the charter boat industry, customary fishing and protection of aquatic ecosystems; • Compliance and Education: provides state-wide fisheries compliance and community education, in accordance with the provisions of relevant legislation; and • Research and Monitoring: provides timely, quality scientific knowledge and advice to support the conservation and sustainable use of the State’s fish resources and aquatic systems.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 103 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The roles and responsibilities of each of these areas are outlined in more detail out in the DPIRD’s Annual Report to Parliament (for example, DPIRD, 2020a).

WAFIC is the peak industry body representing professional fishing, pearling and aquaculture enterprises, as well as processors and exporters in WA. WAFIC is an incorporated association, created by the industry more than 40 years ago to work in partnership with Government to set the directions for the management of commercial fisheries in WA. WAFIC plays a central role in the management system of commercial fisheries as the Government’s principle source of coordinated advice from the commercial fishing industry. A Service Level Agreement with DPIRD formalises and outlines WAFIC’s consultation roles and responsibilities and interactions with DPIRD.

WAFIC’s responsibilities include coordinating Government funding for industry representation and taking on a leadership role for matters which involve or impact on or across a number of fisheries, or are of an industry-wide or generic nature. WAFIC also represents those commercial fishing sectors that do not have capability of self-representation.

Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. The fishery therefore meets the requirements of SG 60, 80 and 100.

Consultation processes The management system The management system The management system includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information seek and accept seek and accept from the main affected relevant information, relevant information, b Guide parties, including local including local knowledge. including local knowledge. post knowledge, to inform the The management system The management system management system. demonstrates demonstrates consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The following is noted regarding consultation processes included in the management system:

• The WA Government’s commitment to consultation with stakeholders is stated in the Government’s Fisheries Policy Statement (2012) which specifies that WAFIC and Recfishwest are the key sources of coordinated industry advice for the commercial and recreational fishing sectors respectively. Under Service Level Agreements, these two peak sector bodies work in partnership with DPIRD to ensure adequate consultation is conducted with their constituents on broad or fishery/specific species policy issues.

• The FRMA requires the Minister to consult with ‘affected persons’ (commercial licence holders) when developing a new Management Plan or amending an existing plan (Sections 64 and 65, FRMA).

• Annual Management Meetings are held with licensees in managed fisheries throughout WA, including the WCDSCMF. These meetings provide an opportunity for fishers, managers and researchers to discuss and exchange information on the fishery.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 104 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

• DPIRD seeks public comment on research, management and discussion papers from time to time. Draft Fisheries Management Papers are released for public comment and those comments must be taken into account before a decision is made on future management (How et al. 2015).

• The Department published its Stakeholder Engagement Guidelines in August 2016, which outlined the processes through which the Department is to provide opportunities for all interested and affected parties to be involved (DOF, 2016).

• The Stakeholder Engagement Guidelines sets out the overarching processes through which the Department seeks out relevant information from, and involvement by, stakeholders and interested parties on proposals relating to the management of WAs aquatic resources. The guideline was an outcome of the Non-Fisher Stakeholder Engagement Project, which included a key stakeholder consultation phase during which more than 20 key stakeholders were interviewed. The Stakeholder Engagement Guidelines suggests levels of stakeholder engagement for each stakeholder group and for each of a number of key processes associated with the management of the State’s fisheries and aquatic resources. • DPIRD has created a public comment space on its website (http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/About- Us/Public-Comment/Pages/default.aspx), which provides for interested and affected parties to view information and make submissions on draft documents released for public.

• Specific examples of consultation processes within the WCDSCMF are: - As part of the development of a revised Harvest Strategy for the fishery, licensees of the fishery were given an early version prior to the Annual Management Meeting and provision was made for discussion of the harvest strategy revision at the meeting.

- As part of the fishery’s assessment processes, in September 2020, the Department held a meeting with all licence holders to consult on considerations for the fishery’s assessment including high grading, weight estimation, skipper combinations and fishing efficiency. Subsequently, all licence holders were encouraged to complete a ‘fisher survey’ to provide individual feedback and advice to the Department on matters raised. The results were collated and presented back to industry in document which also included advice on how the information was used in forming the DPIRD final decision.

- In the drafting of the revised WCDSC Harvest Strategy, DPIRD made the draft policy available for public comment for a four week period. DPIRD also proactively drew attention to the draft Harvest Strategy and the availability to make comment through direct email to WAFIC (who under the SLA were asked to consult with industry), as well as to the Western Rock Lobster Council and REcfishwest. However DPIRD did not proactively inform any other groups that the harvest strategy was in review, or draw their attention to the opportunity to comment on the draft strategy during the public consultation period.

The management system is open to stakeholders and information that is viewed as important by those parties and demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. The fishery therefore meets the requirements of SG 60, 80 and 100. The issue of participation by non-fishing groups is addressed below in 3.1.2c.

Participation The consultation process The consultation process provides opportunity provides opportunity c Guide for all interested and and encouragement for affected parties to be all interested and affected post involved. parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 105 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Met? Yes No

Rationale

There are both statutory and nonstatutory consultation processes in place which encourage and provide opportunity for involvement in the management of the fishery. In particular the legislation requires that the Minister consult with respect to changes to Management Plans.

The Department has implemented a number of mechanisms to ensure that non fishing stakeholders have an opportunity to engage:

• The revised Harvest Strategy (DPIRD, 2020c) outlines legislative consultation requirements, as well as requirements with the industry and with other stakeholders. The Harvest Strategy requires that consultation with customary fishers and non-fisher stakeholders, including Government agencies, marine users, Native Title parties, conservation sector Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and other affected/interested parties, is undertaken in accordance with the Stakeholder Engagement Guidelines

• Annual Management Meetings are also open to other stakeholder groups such as Recfishwest, processors, universities, other government departments, the conservation sector and the general public following “appropriate consultation with industry” (How et al. 2015). In practice it appears that details of these upcoming meetings are not made available to other stakeholders; nor are the outcomes of the meetings.

• In August 2016, the Department published its Stakeholder Engagement Guidelines which outlined the processes through which the Department will provide opportunities for all interested and affected parties to be involved (DOF, 2016). The Stakeholder Engagement Guidelines set out the overarching processes through which the Department seeks out relevant information from, and involvement by, stakeholders and interested parties on proposals relating to the management of WAs aquatic resources. The guideline was an outcome of the Non-Fisher Stakeholder Engagement Project, which included a key stakeholder consultation phase.

The Stakeholder Engagement Guidelines suggests levels of stakeholder engagement for each stakeholder group and for each of a number of key processes associated with the management of the State’s fisheries and aquatic resources. The Stakeholder Engagement Guidelines was used to develop a consultation strategy for the recent revision of the fishery’s Harvest Strategy.

Applying the Guidelines, DPIRD defined four groups of people/organisations with which various levels of engagement would be facilitated. The category titled “Involve” included WAFIC, the Western Rock Lobster fishery, Southern Seafood Producers WA, Recfishwest, Marine Tourism WA (Charter representative), and Traditional owners (i.e customary fishers). The consultation strategy that DPIRD would work directly with key stakeholders to ensure that their concerns and needs are understood and considered. The category titled “Consult” including a number of government departments and environmental non-government organisation.

In the drafting of the revised WCDSC Harvest Strategy, DPIRD made the draft policy available for public comment for a four week period. DPIRD also proactively drew attention to the draft Harvest Strategy and the availability to make comment through direct email to WAFIC (who under the SLA were asked to consult with industry), as well as to the Western Rock Lobster Council and to Recfishwest. DPIRD did not advise the other parties it identified in the categories of “Involve” and “Consult” of the availability of the draft strategy for comment. DPRID did not provide a copy of the final strategy to these groups.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 106 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

• The Department conducts external communications through corporate Facebook and Twitter accounts.

• DPIRD has created a public comment space on its website (http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/About- Us/Public-Comment/Pages/default.aspx), which provides for interested and affected parties to view information and make submissions on draft documents released for public.

• It is noted that the Environmental Risk Assessments conducted for the fishery (2002, 2014) were both conducted internally from the Department. There are significant opportunities for industry sectors to be involved and engaged in the fishery’s management. There are some opportunities provided for non-industry sectors to be involved. However, DPRID do not currently “encourage” all interest groups to be involved and facilitate effective engagement. DPIRD has identified parties that would be appropriate to “Involve” and “Consult” but has not followed through with these engagement activities. The fishery therefore meets the requirements of SG 80 but not SG100.

References

Brayford, H. and Lyon, G. (1995). Offshore Constitutional Settlement 1995. Fisheries Management Paper 77, WA Department of Fisheries, Perth.

How, J.R., Webster, F.J., Travaille, K.L. & Harry, A.V. (2015). MSC Report Series: West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

DOF (2012). Western Australian Government Fisheries Policy Statement March 2012. Department of Fisheries, WA, 12 pp. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/corporate_publications/wa_govt_fisheries_policy_ statement.pdf

DOF (2016). Guideline for stakeholder engagement on aquatic resource management-related processes. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop131.pdf

DPIRD (2020a). Annual Report to Parliament 2020, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. https://www.dpird.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/DPIRD%20Annual%20Report%202020%20-%20PDF.pdf

DPIRD (2020c). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resources Harvest Strategy 2020-2025 Version 1. West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Fishery Management Paper No. 302. Government of Western Australia, November 2020. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp302.pdf Fish Resources Management Act 1994. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/frma1994256/index.html

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought / Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator If more information is sought, include a description of what the information gap is and what is information is sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 107 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Objectives Long-term objectives to Clear long-term Clear long-term guide decision-making, objectives that guide objectives that guide consistent with the MSC decision-making, decision-making, Fisheries Standard and consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Guide a the precautionary Fisheries Standard and Fisheries Standard and post approach, are implicit the precautionary the precautionary within management approach are explicit approach, are explicit policy. within management within and required by policy. management policy. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The long-term objectives of the management system are specified in the FRMA (see section 3.5.4) and are consistent with the MSC Principles and Criteria. Section 4A of the FRMA requires that the precautionary principle be applied in exercising functions or powers under the Act.

The long-term objectives are reflected in DPRID’s Strategic Intent 2018-2021 document (DPRID 2018) which outlines the following goals: • Protect - To manage and provide for sustainable use of our natural resources and soils, and to protect Western Australia’s brand and reputation as a reliable producer of premium, clean and safe food, products and services. • Grow - To enable the primary industries sector and regions to increase international competitiveness, and grow in value and social amenity, strengthening these key pillars of the State’s economy. • Innovate - To support a culture of scientific inquiry, innovation and adaptation across primary industries and regions to boost industry transformation, economic growth and employment.

The Strategic Intent document also includes fisheries specific initiatives and targets: • Sustainable fisheries management - WA benefits from sustainable fisheries that support and optimise social, economic and environmental outcomes • Natural resource management planning and assessment - WA’s natural resources are sustainably used and managed using a sound risk-based planning and assessment approach, incorporating partnerships with traditional landowners and custodians

The legislative long-term objectives are translated into clearly-defined operational arrangements and procedures for commercial resource/fisheries in the form of harvest strategies (see Harvest Strategy Policy and Operational Guidelines for the Aquatic Resources of Western Australia (DOF, 2015)). A Harvest Strategy for the WCDSCMF was first implemented in 2015. A revised Harvest Strategy was finalised in 2020 and is now in force. The Harvest Strategy (DPIRD, 2020c) contains long term objectives: • Ecological Sustainability: a. To maintain spawning stock biomass of the target species (i.e. crystal / champagne / giant crabs) above the level recruitment impairment. b. To ensure fishing impacts do not result in serious or irreversible harm to bycatch species populations.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 108 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

c. To ensure fishing impacts do not result in serious or irreversible harm to ETP species populations. d. To ensure the effects of fishing do not result in serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function. e. To ensure the effects of fishing do not result in serious or irreversible harm to ecological processes. 1 Serious or irreversible harm relates to a change caused by the fishery that fundamentally alters the capacity of the component to maintain its function or to recover from the impact. • Social and Economic Objective a. To provide flexible opportunities to ensure fishers can maintain or enhance their livelihood, within the constraints of ecological sustainability.

The available evidence indicates that clear long-term objectives that guide decision making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy. The fishery therefore meets the requirements of SG 60, 80 and 100.

References

DOF (2015). Harvest Strategy Policy and operational Guidelines for the Aquatic Resources of Western Australia. Fisheries Management Paper No. 271. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia

DPIRD (2018). DPIRD Strategic Intent. https://dpird.wa.gov.au/our-strategic-intent

DPIRD (2020c). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resources Harvest Strategy 2020-2025 Version 1. West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Fishery Management Paper No. 302. Government of Western Australia, November 2020. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp302.pdf

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Objectives Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving long-term objectives, a expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed which are demonstrably Guide Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 and consistent with achieving post implicit within the 2, are explicit within the the outcomes expressed by fishery-specific fishery-specific MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, management system. management system. are explicit within the fishery-specific management system.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 109 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The long-term ecological objectives of the WCDSCMF, consistent with the overarching objective of the FRMA, are defined in the Harvest Strategy (DPIRD, 2020c) are as follows:

• Ecological Sustainability: a. To maintain spawning stock biomass of the target species (i.e. crystal / champagne / giant crabs) above the level recruitment impairment. b. To ensure fishing impacts do not result in serious or irreversible harm to bycatch species populations. c. To ensure fishing impacts do not result in serious or irreversible harm to ETP species populations. d. To ensure the effects of fishing do not result in serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function. e. To ensure the effects of fishing do not result in serious or irreversible harm to ecological processes. Serious or irreversible harm relates to a change caused by the fishery that fundamentally alters the capacity of the component to maintain its function or to recover from the impact.

• Social and Economic Objective a. To provide flexible opportunities to ensure fishers can maintain or enhance their livelihood, within the constraints of ecological sustainability.

Long-term management objectives are operationalised as short-term (e.g. annual), fishery-specific objectives through one or more performance indicators that can be measured and assessed against pre- defined reference levels so as to ascertain actual performance. Within the context of the long-term objectives provided above, operational objectives aim to maintain each resource above the threshold level (and, where relevant, close to the target level), or rebuild the resource if it has fallen below the threshold or the limit levels. These indicators are provided in Table 1 of the Harvest Strategy (DPIRD, 2020c).

The assessment team concluded that there are 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, and are explicit within the fishery’s management system. SG 60, 80 and 100 are therefore met.

References

DPRID (2020c). Fisheries Management Paper No. 302 West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resource Harvest Strategy 2020-2025. Government of WA, November 2020.

Fish Resources Management Act 1994. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/frma1994256/index.html

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 110 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Decision-making processes There are some decision- There are established making processes in place decision-making a Guide that result in measures processes that result in post and strategies to achieve measures and strategies the fishery-specific to achieve the fishery- objectives. specific objectives. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The FRMA, together with the WCDSCMF Management Plan 2012, provide the framework for decision- making on short and long-term management of the WCDSCMF. Decisions are generally taken by the DDG of DPIRD or the Minister, after consultation with commercial and recreational fishers and other stakeholders as identified through the Stakeholder Engagement Guidelines (DOF, 2016). The FRMA also provides for decisions to be taken without such consultation where there is an urgent need for action.

The Harvest Strategy (DPRID, 2020c) contains the following decision making process to support the management of the fishery:

• A formal, resource-level review process is undertaken by the Department to assess the status of relevant target stocks and performance in relation to each other ecological management objective. Suitable indicators have been selected to describe the status of the deep sea crustacean resource, and other ecological assets, against defined reference levels established to separate acceptable from unacceptable performance. Where relevant, these levels include: (a) a target level (i.e. where you want the indicator to be), (b) a threshold level (i.e. where you review your position); and (c) a limit level (i.e. where you do not want the indicator to be).

• For each ecological performance indicator and reference level, an associated Harvest Control Rule (HCR) directs the management required to meet the sustainability objectives. These are in Table 1 and Figure 2 in the Harvest Strategy. These HCRs are set to maintain the resource above the threshold level (i.e. within the target range), or rebuild it where it has fallen below the threshold (undesirable) or the limit (unacceptable) levels.

• The extent of management action taken (e.g. to reduce catches) is determined by the scale to which a performance indicator has breached a reference point. Timeframes and ability to implement are dependent on the legal instrument under which the management measure occurs. The Annual Management Meetings provide a forum for discussion and consultation in support of these decision-making processes.

• Decision-making in pursuit of longer-term objectives responds to others management processes for example periodic ecological risk assessments, results of monitoring programs and research projects, market conditions changes, changes in fleet and fishing behaviour and resource allocation issues. These drivers may dictate the need for higher level changes to the management regime for the fishery, often through changes to legislation e.g. the adoption of a Management Plan for the WCDSCMF. Decisions to proceed with such changes involve a higher Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 111 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

level of consultation with industry and other stakeholders. This may include the provision of written information, meetings, internal workshops, external/expert workshops or tasked working groups.

The assessment team concluded that decision-making roles and responsibilities are well defined; and there are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives and that the requirements of SG 60 and SG 80 are met.

Responsiveness of decision-making processes Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to all serious issues identified serious and other issues identified in in relevant research, important issues relevant research, monitoring, evaluation identified in relevant monitoring, evaluation b Guide and consultation, in a research, monitoring, and consultation, in a post transparent, timely and evaluation and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take consultation, in a adaptive manner and take some account of the wider transparent, timely and account of the wider implications of decisions. adaptive manner and take implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Harvest strategy control rules (DPRID, 2020c) dictate the management response to performance of the fishery against established indicators. While this Harvest Strategy has only recently been revised, it builds on the previous Harvest Strategy which has proven effective.

More broadly, decision-making processes respond to other issues raised through: • Ecological risk assessments; • Results of research, management or compliance projects or investigations, and • Relevant workshops and peer review of aspects of research and management.

Overarching changes to the fishery-specific management system are the subject of broader consultation and examination. This provides a mechanism to identify and consider the broader implications of management options.

The assessment team notes examples of the responsiveness of the decision making processes to operational matters raised by industry:

- The creation of a bait Memorandum of Understanding in response to sustainability and management issues raised around the various species employed for this function

- The use of fisher survey inputs in the development of a revised fisheries assessment; and responsiveness to this information in the form of a new assessment which takes account of this input.

- Based on operational and behavioural changes in the fleet, it was recognised that a new CPUE standardisation methodology was required and led to a shift from using vessel to using skipper in the standardisation and expanding the spatial domain further South.

The decision-making processes are subject to various transparency requirements which are met through:

• Publication of Fisheries Management Papers, Fisheries Occasional Papers and Fisheries Research Reports on the DPIRD website;

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 112 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

• Written advice to licence holders and other stakeholders regarding new statutory arrangements; • A requirement to report annually to the WA Parliament on the performance of the Department against the objectives of the FRMA (e.g. DPIRD, 2020a);

• Public access to relevant legislation including the FRMA, FRMR and the WCDSCMF Management Plan, harvest strategies, the Department’s research plan and annual status report of fisheries.

No evidence of the management system not responding to relevant issues in a timely and transparent manner were observed. As a result the assessment team considered that decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. The requirements of SG 60, 80 and 100 are met.

Use of precautionary approach Decision-making c Guide processes use the precautionary approach post and are based on best available information.

Met? Yes

Rationale

Decision making is driven by the Harvest Strategy (DPRID, 2020c) which is consistent with the Harvest Strategy Policy (DOF, 2015) which is based on the application of the precautionary approach and the use of EBFM and responds to the assessed risk that fishing poses to target, other retained species, bycatch, ETP species, habitats and ecosystems.

The use of threshold reference levels in the Harvest Strategy demonstrates the use of the precautionary approach by triggering a review where fishery performance is below the target. This ensures that any significant impacts are detected, examined and responded to if necessary in a proactive way, effectively minimising the risk that the limit reference point will be approached.

The performance indicators in the Harvest Strategy rely on the best available information on catch, effort, catch rates, interactions with protected species and periodic risk assessments of target, other retained species, bycatch, ETP species, habitats and ecosystems. Specifications regarded the data collected to inform the strategy are explicitly included in the Harvest Strategy.

Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. The requirements of SG 80 are met.

Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all fishery’s performance and fishery’s performance interested stakeholders management action is and management provides generally available on action is available on comprehensive d request to stakeholders. request, and information on the Guide explanations are provided fishery’s performance for any actions or lack of and management post action associated with actions and describes findings and relevant how the management recommendations system responded to emerging from research, findings and relevant monitoring, evaluation recommendations and review activity. emerging from research, Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 113 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

DPIRD provides information on fishery performance and management action to stakeholders through • Annual Management Meetings– where annual reports against the Harvest Strategy Performance Indicator have been presented together with relevant recommendations. • Annual status reports (e.g. DPIRD, 2020b). • Fisheries management papers, fisheries occasional papers and fisheries research reports.

While a revised Harvest Strategy has been only recently implemented, it builds significantly on the previous strategy and is considered to be highly likely to be as effective as that which has been in place for the last 5 years.

The assessment team found that information on fishery performance and management action is available on request, and explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity and the requirements of SG80 were met.

However, the assessment team considered that the fishery management system has not yet demonstrated that it provides comprehensive information on fishery performance and management actions to all interested stakeholders, and that SG100 was not met.

Approach to disputes Although the management The management system The management system authority or fishery may or fishery is attempting to or fishery acts proactively be subject to continuing comply in a timely fashion to avoid legal disputes or court challenges, it is not with judicial decisions rapidly implements Guide indicating a disrespect or arising from any legal judicial decisions arising e defiance of the law by challenges. from legal challenges. post repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The fishery system is not subject to continuing court challenges. The management system for the WCDSCMF proactively avoids legal disputes through inclusion of key stakeholders, notably commercial and recreational fishers, in its management decision making.

Where legal challenges have been made to the management system (see, for example, http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/SAT/SATdcsn.nsf/PDFJudgmentsWebVw/2005WASAT0031/$FILE/20 05WASAT0031.pdf), the Department (then Department of Fisheries) has responded promptly to the judicial decision.

The management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. The requirements of SG 60, 80 and 100 are met.

References

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 114 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

DPIRD (2020c). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resources Harvest Strategy 2020-2025 Version 1. West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Fishery Management Paper No. 302. Government of Western Australia, November 2020. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp302.pdf

DOF (2015). Harvest Strategy Policy and Operational Guidelines for the Aquatic Resources of Western Australia. Fisheries Management Paper No. 271. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

DOF (2016). Guideline for stakeholder engagement on aquatic resource management-related processes. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop131.pdf

DPIRD (2020b). Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2018/19: The State of the Fisheries. Government of WA http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/sofar/status_reports_of_the_fisheries_and_aquatic_resources_2018- 19.pdf

West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery Management Plan (2012). https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/gazette/gazette.nsf/gazlist/ACDB1FCC927524F648257AC2001D19B6/$file/gg217.pdf

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 MCS implementation Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are been implemented in the surveillance system has implemented in the fishery and has been implemented in the a Guide fishery and there is a demonstrated an ability to fishery and has post reasonable expectation enforce relevant demonstrated a consistent that they are effective. management measures, ability to enforce relevant strategies and/or rules. management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The Western Australian Fisheries Compliance Strategy (the Strategy; DPIRD 2018) was published in 2018 with the purpose of outlining the principles underlying the DPIRD’s compliance role and how its compliance services are delivered to the WA community.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 115 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

The Strategy aligns with, and complements, DPIRD’s Compliance Framework and Risk Assessment Policy which informs the risk-based model, compliance planning and the governance structure applied to fisheries compliance services.

The Department’s compliance model is based on the Australian Fisheries National Compliance Strategy 2016-2020 (the National Strategy). DPIRD’s compliance program contains three key compliance strategies recommended by the National Strategy: • maximising voluntary compliance; • effective deterrence; and • organisational capability and capacity.

Operational Compliance Plan Management arrangements are enforced under the combined Operational Compliance Plan (OCP) for minor commercial fisheries. The OCP is informed and underpinned by compliance risk assessments conducted for each fishery. Annual planning meetings are held for OCPs, with regular specific planning of day-to-day targeted and non-targeted patrols linked to the OCP based on resources and competing priorities.

The primary monitoring activity in the WCDSCMF relates to the reporting and validation of crystal, champagne and giant crab catches for quota-monitoring purposes. There is a comprehensive MCS system in place including: • Departmental checking of processor reported weights and those in CDRs; • Wholesale and retail inspections targeting records and catch; • Boat inspections to detect bycatch and off-quota product; • Attending industry meetings; • Intel-driven investigations; • Land patrols, including opportunistic inspections of catch, licenses and bycatch; • Sea patrols; • Processor inspections; and • Road-side check points (in collaboration with the WA Police) for protected fish species (e.g. undersize or berried females).

These strategies are supported by appropriately trained staff, suitable sanctions in the forms of fines and administrative penalties and targeted education campaigns to promote voluntary compliance.

Regarding, the scale of compliance operations, from 2015 to 2020, the following contacts were made: • 2015 – 4 • 2016 – 23 • 2017 – 11 • 2018 – 14 • 2019 – 6 • 2020 – 3 • Total - 61

From a total of 61 contacts, there were a total of 8 compliance briefs, 1 infringement and 2 warnings, all in 2018. There were no compliance issues in any other year.

The assessment team concluded that a comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules and that SG 60, 80 and 100 are met.

b Sanctions Guide Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with post non-compliance exist and non-compliance exist, are non-compliance exist, are

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 116 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

there is some evidence consistently applied consistently applied and that they are applied. and thought to provide demonstrably provide effective deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The FRMA contains an explicit sanction framework, including the nature and extent of sanctions to be applied to non-compliance with commercial fishing regulations. A tiered system of sanctions includes infringement warnings, infringement notices, letter of warning and prosecutions. Sanctions arising from prosecution can include monetary penalties, licence cancellations or suspensions and confiscation of gear or catch. The penalties are commensurate with the value of illegal fish and the type of illegal activity.

Between 2015 and 2020 three compliance briefs were prepared, all in 2018. In addition, one infringement notice and two warning were issued in this period.

The 2016 MSC assessment of this fishery (SCS Global Services, 2016) notes that between 2009 and 2013, 3 prosecution briefs in relation to one offence involving three alleged offenders, were prepared.

Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and are consistently applied and there is a low level of infringements suggesting that the sanctions demonstrably provide an effective deterrence. It is considered that SGs 60, 80 and 100 are met.

Compliance Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers management system for the with the management comply with the management c Guide fishery under assessment, system under assessment, system under assessment, post including, when required, including, when required, including, providing providing information of providing information of information of importance to importance to the effective importance to the effective the effective management of management of the fishery. management of the fishery. the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The offending rate in the WCDSCMF is very low, with no offences detected in the last 2 years, and there is a comprehensive MCS system in place which provides confidence that the available data are credible. The reported level of compliance is also supported by the positive status of the target fish stock.

While the absolute level of compliance contacts is relatively low, this rate of contact is significant and appropriate given the small number of vessels and record of highly compliant operators. Also, the primary compliance issue relates to ensuring that the quota is not exceeded and this is done primarily through desk-based review of documentation (processor records and CDRs) that is not reflected in the contact statistics.

Fishers participate actively in the collection of data through submission of mandatory logbook data and reports on interactions with ETP species. Fishers also provide additional information for the effective management of the fishery, particularly through the provision of industry boats for Department surveys and the collection of additional data through industry surveys delivered under a SLA with the Department.

There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery and SG 60, 80 and 100 are met.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 117 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Systematic non-compliance There is no evidence of Guide d systematic non- post compliance.

Met? Yes

Rationale

The level of detected offences in the commercial fishery in the WCDSCMF is extremely low with a maximum of 3 infringements issued in any of the six years to 2014. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance and the requirement of SG 80 is met.

References

DPIRD (2018). Fisheries compliance strategy September 2018. https://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/corporate_publications/fisheries_compliance_strategy.pdf

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Evaluation coverage There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in place to evaluate some place to evaluate key place to evaluate all parts a Guide parts of the fishery- parts of the fishery- of the fishery-specific post specific management specific management management system. system. system. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Most parts of the WCDSCMF management system are subject to evaluation. Evaluation processes include

• Ecological risk assessments are reported to occur every 3-5 years but in practice for this fishery there will be an almost 10 year gap between assessments.

• A process of Aquaculture Resource Program Briefs are used to internally review management systems. The resource program brief outlines annual operations, short and long-term projects, workload requirements, priorities and risks associated with the Offshore Crustacean Resource consistent with the DPIRD Strategic Intent 2018-2021 and Primary Industries Plan. The Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 118 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

document forms a key part of the annual governance framework used for fisheries management within DPIRD, and is provided to key stakeholders being Recfishwest and WAFIC for comment on an annual basis. The Department monitors these reports on project deliverables on a quarterly basis and reports to Government and these key stakeholders on an annual basis.

• Compliance risk assessments are performed every 3 years • Annual Management Meetings held with licence holders and stakeholders (if agreed) to discuss current research programs, management changes and future research needs.

• Additional meetings may also be held, on an as needs basis throughout the year to address specific issues or initiatives.

• The recently developed Harvest Strategy requires annual evaluation of performance of the fishery against specified performance indicators across biological, ecological and socioeconomic aspects of the fishery.

• The Harvest Strategy itself was reviewed in 2020 and a revised strategy implemented. • Fishery performance against objectives is evaluated annually through the Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia: The State of the Fisheries (see for example DPIRD, 2020b) and more broadly through DPIRD’s Annual Report to the Western Australian Parliament (DPIRD, 2020a).

• Performance against the Harvest Strategy indicators is evaluated annually and reported at the Annual Management Meetings.

By-catch is recorded on a trip-by-trip basis through catch disposal returns (CDRs) and validated using an on-board camera system.

The performance of the management target, bycatch, ETP species and habitats is also evaluated under the Commonwealth EPBC Act for the purposes of export approval for the target species.

However, neither the FRMA nor the WCDSCMF Management plan provide for the regular review of the Management Plan. Therefore, the fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key, but not all, parts of the management system. The requirements of SG 60 and 80 are met.

Internal and/or external review The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific Guide management system is management system is management system is b subject to occasional subject to regular subject to regular post internal review. internal and occasional internal and external external review. review. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The following is noted with regards to internal and external review of the management system: • The management system of the WCDSCMF is subject to periodic external review under the EPBC Act. This review must be conducted at least every 5 years in order to remain accredited for export of the target species. • The Harvest Strategy underwent a formal comprehensive review in 2020 and resulted in a revised and updated Harvest Strategy. • The Environmental Risk Assessment was undertaken in 2002 and 2014, conducted internally.

The fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and external review and SG60, 80 and 100 are met.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 119 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

References

DPIRD (2020a). Annual Report to Parliament 2020, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. https://www.dpird.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/DPIRD%20Annual%20Report%202020%20-%20PDF.pdf

DPIRD (2020b). Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2018/19: The State of the Fisheries. Government of WA http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/sofar/status_reports_of_the_fisheries_and_aquatic_resources_2018- 19.pdf

How, J.R., Webster, F.J., Travaille, K.L. & Harry, A.V. (2015). MSC Report Series: West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

SCS Global Service (2016). West Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery MSC Full-Assessment Public Certification Report. file:///C:/Users/Jo-anneMcCrea/Dropbox/My%20PC%20(DESKTOP-1IBII1C)/Downloads/SS- F_RPT_WestCoastDeepSeaCrab_PCR_071116%20(1).pdf

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

8 References

Principle 1 References

FRDC 2020-014, Kennington, J., How, J., de Lestang, S., Genetic stock structure of commercially important deep sea crab species, FRDC Project.

Davie, P.J.F., Ng, P.K.L, Dawson, E.W. (2007). A new species of deep-sea crab of the genus Chaceon Manning & Holthuis, 1989 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Braychyura: Geryonidae) from Western Australia. Zootaxa 1505:51-62.

DoF. (2003). Application to Environment Australia on the West Coast Deep Sea Crab Interim Managed Fishery; against the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries; for initial listing on Section 303DB of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. 81 p.

DoF. (2009). Application to the department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts on the Western Australian West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Interim Managed Fishery (WCDSCIMF) against the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries. Perth, WA. 10 p.

DoF. (2015). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resources Harvest Strategy 2015-2020 Version 1. West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Fishery Management Paper No. 272. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

DPIRD (2020). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resource Harvest Strategy 2020-2025, Fisheries Management Paper No. 302, http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp302.pdf

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 120 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

How, J, Webster, F., Travaille, K and Harry, A. (2015) MSC Assessment Document for the West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

How, J. and de Lestang, S. (2019). Stock Assessment, TAC Advice and MSC Audit Reporting for West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resource. Pp 20.

How, J. and de Lestang, S. (2020). Stock Assessment, TAC Advice and MSC Audit Reporting for West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resource. Pp 17.

How, Hebiton, de Lestang (2021). Development of an industry-funded fishery independent survey and associated indices for managing a deep sea crab resource. Draft report

Jones, D.S. and Morgan, G.J. (1994). A field guide to crustaceans of Australian waters. Reed. Sydney Australia. 216pp

Melville-Smith, R., Norton, S.M.G., Thomson, A.W. (2007). Biological and fisheries data for managing deep sea crabs in Western Australia. Fisheries Research Report No. 165, Department of Fisheries WA, Perth. 248 pp. Retrieved from http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/research_reports/frr165.pdf

Smith, K.D., Potter, I.C. and Hall, N.G. (2004). Biological and fisheries data for managing the deep-sea crabs Hypothalassia acerba and Chaceon bicolor in Western Australia. Final report to Fisheries Research and Development Corporation on Projects 1999/154 and 2001/055. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. Retrieved from http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/19800/.

Wadley, V. and Evans, D. (1991). Crustaceans from the deepwater trawl fishery of Western Australia. CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Australia 44pp.

Principle 2 References

Brewer, D; Lyne, V; Skewes, T & Rothlisberg, P (2007) Trophic systems of the North West Marine Region. CSIRO, Cleveland: Department of the Environment and Water Resources.

Department of Fisheries (2015a). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resources Harvest Strategy 2015- 2020 Version 1. West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Fishery Management Paper No. 272. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development - DPIRD (2019). Bait guidelines for commercial fisheries in Western Australia. Fisheries Occasional Publication No. 136. Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, January 2019. https://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop136.pdf

DPIRD (2020c). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resources Harvest Strategy 2020-2025 Version 1. West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Fishery Management Paper No. 302. Government of Western Australia, November 2020. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp302.pdf

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00440

Fisheries New Zealand. 2019. Fisheries Assessment Plenary May 2020: Stock Assessment and Stock Status. Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington.

Fletcher, W.J. and Santoro, K. (eds). (2014). Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2013/14: The State of the Fisheries. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. Retrieved from http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/sofar/status_reports_of_the_fisheries_and_aquatic_resources_ 2013-14.pdf

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 121 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Hartmann, K., Gardner, C., Linnane, A., Gorfine, H., How, J. (2014). Status of key Australian Fish stocks reports 2014. Giant Crab. 161-166.

How, J.R., Webster, F.J., Travaille, K.L. & Harry, A.V. (2015). MSC Report Series: West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

Jones, D.S. and Morgan, G.J. (1994). A field guide to crustaceans of Australian waters. Reed. Sydney Australia. 216pp

Levings, A., Mitchell, B. D. McGarvey, R., Mathews, J., Laurenson, L., Austin, C., Heeron, T., Murphy, N., Miller, A., Roswell, M. and Jones, P. (2001). Fisheries biology of the giant crab Pseudocarcinus gigas. FRDC Final Report 93/220 and 97/132. 390 p.

MSC (2018). MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01. London: Marine Stewardship Council. Retrieved from https://www.msc.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/for- business/program-documents/fisheries-program-documents/msc-fisheries-standard-v2- 01.pdf?sfvrsn=8ecb3272_11#page=134

Melville-Smith, R., Norton, S.M.G., Thomson, A.W. (2007). Biological and fisheries data for managing deep sea crabs in Western Australia. Fisheries Research Report No. 165, Department of Fisheries WA, Perth. 248 pp. Retrieved from http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/research_reports/frr165.pdf

Waite, A.M., Thompson, P.A., Pesant, S., Feng, M., Beckley, L.E., Domingues, C.M., Gaughan, D., Hanson, C.E., Holl, C.M., Koslow, T., Meuleners, M., Montoya, J.P., Moore, T., Muhling, B.A., Paterson, H., Rennie, S., Strezelecki, J., and Twomey, L. (2007). The Leeuwin Current and its eddies: an introductory overview. Deep-Sea Research 54: 789-796.

Wadley, V. and Evans, D. (1991). Crustaceans from the deepwater trawl fishery of Western Australia. CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Australia 44pp.

Principle 3 References

Brayford, H. and Lyon, G. (1995). Offshore Constitutional Settlement 1995. Fisheries Management Paper 77, WA Department of Fisheries, Perth.

Department of the Environment and Water Resources (2007). Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries. Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/97ff9461-5ccf-49cb-9368- 8bde5f243c0b/files/guidelines.pdf

Department of the Environment (2015). Western Australian West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Environmental assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. https://www.environment.gov.au/marine/fisheries/wa/deep-sea-crab

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00440

Fish Resources Management Act 1994. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/frma1994256/index.html

Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995. https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1458_homepag e.html

DOF (2016). Guideline for stakeholder engagement on aquatic resource management-related processes. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop131.pdf

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 122 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

DPIRD (2018). Fisheries compliance strategy September 2018. https://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/corporate_publications/fisheries_compliance_strategy.pdf

DPIRD (2020a). Annual Report to Parliament 2020, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. https://www.dpird.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020- 10/DPIRD%20Annual%20Report%202020%20-%20PDF.pdf

DPIRD (2020b). Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2018/19: The State of the Fisheries. Government of WA http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/sofar/status_reports_of_the_fisheries_and_aquatic_resources_ 2018-19.pdf

DPIRD (2020c). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Resources Harvest Strategy 2020-2025 Version 1. West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Fishery Management Paper No. 302. Government of Western Australia, November 2020. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp302.pdf

How, J. and Nardi, K. (2014). West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery Status Report. In: Fletcher, W.J. and Santoro, K. (eds.), Status Report of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2013/14, pp.133-136. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

How, J.R., Webster, F.J., Travaille, K.L. & Harry, A.V. (2015). MSC Report Series: West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

Western Australian Marine Act 1982. https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1046_homepage.html

Western Australian Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1080_homepage.html

West Coast Rock Lobster Managed Fishery Management Plan 2012. https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/3815493a75e584d01a6 4d8ce48257aa1001a4675/$file/5493.pdf

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 123 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

9 Appendices 9.1 Assessment information 9.1.1 Previous assessments

The fishery was first certified to the MSC requirements in 2016 using the default assessment tree MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements Version 1.3, January 2013. All reports including the 4 annual surveillance reports are available on the MSC website (here).

Three conditions were raised during the original assessment certification of the fishery (Table 14 below). All the conditions are closed.

Table 14 – Summary of previous assessment conditions

Year Condition PI(s) Justification closed 1 By the 3rd surveillance The time series of primary indicators and ongoing audit, the client shall achievement of the harvest strategy objectives is 2019 provide evidence that the 1.2.1 sufficient evidence that the harvest strategy for (year 3) harvest strategy for crystal crystal crab is achieving its objectives. crab is achieving its objectives. The annual catch rate of other retained species, champagne and giant crabs are both below their respective threshold levels. (Status of the Australian Fish Stocks Report - 2 https://www.fish.gov.au/report/180-Giant-Crab- By the 3rd annual surveillance 2018) considered stocks as sustainable in audit, the client shall provide Western Australian. Therefore, this species is no evidence that all retained 2019 longer considered a main species for the MSC 2.1.1 species including giant crab (year 3) assessment. and bait species with concern are highly likely to be within Only Australian Salmon is considered as a main biologically based limits. scoring element. Australian herring is no longer used as a bait species in the fishery and New Zealand Blue Mackerel was reduced to below 5% of total catch in weight.

3 The Department will have developed, published By the first surveillance (online) and implemented a new Stakeholder audit, the client shall liaise Engagement Guideline (SEG), setting out the with DoF and demonstrate 2017 processes through which the Department will that consultation processes 3.1.2 (year 1) provide opportunities for involvement to all have been amended to interested and affected parties in the provide opportunity for all management arrangements for the state’s interested and affected aquatics resources. parties to be involved.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 124 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

9.1.2 Small-scale fisheries

Table 15 – Small-scale fisheries

Percentage of vessels with Percentage of fishing activity completed Unit of Assessment (UoA) length <15m within 12 nautical miles of shore

1 0 0

9.2 Evaluation processes and techniques 9.2.1 Site visits

The CAB shall include in the report:

- An itinerary of site visit activities with dates. - A description of site visit activities, including any locations that were inspected. - Names of individuals contacted.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16

If remote audit is chosen and qualifies under the Covid-19 derogation, include explanation, “the site visit was not conducted due to COVID19 and meetings were conducted remotely.” 9.2.2 Stakeholder participation

The CAB shall include in the report:

- Details of people interviewed: local residents, representatives of stakeholder organisations including contacts with any regional MSC representatives. - A description of stakeholder engagement strategy and opportunities available.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16

9.2.3 Evaluation techniques

At Announcement Comment Draft report stage, if the use of the RBF is triggered for this assessment, the CAB shall include in the report:

- The plan for RBF activities that the team will undertake at the site visit. - The justification for using the RBF, which can be copied from previous RBF announcements, and stakeholder comments on its use. - The RBF stakeholder consultation strategy to ensure effective participation from a range of stakeholders including any participatory tools used. - The full list of activities and components to be discussed or evaluated in the assessment.

At Client Draft Report stage, if the RBF was used for this assessment, the CAB shall include in the report: - A summary of the information obtained from the stakeholder meetings including the range of opinions. - The full list of activities and components that have been discussed or evaluated in the assessment, regardless of the final risk-based outcome.

The stakeholder input should be reported in the stakeholder input appendix and incorporated in the rationales directly in the scoring tables.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16, FCP v2.2 Annex PF Section PF2.1

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 125 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

9.3 Peer Review reports To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report unattributed reports of the Peer Reviewers in full using the relevant templates. The CAB shall include in the report explicit responses of the team that include:

- Identification of specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made; and, - A substantiated justification for not making changes where Peer Reviewers suggest changes, but the team disagrees.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.14

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 126 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

9.4 Stakeholder input To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ to include all written stakeholder input during the stakeholder input opportunities (Announcement Comment Draft Report, site visit and Public Comment Draft Report). Using the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’, the team shall respond to all written stakeholder input identifying what changes to scoring, rationales and conditions have been made in response, where the changes have been made, and assigning a ‘CAB response code’.

The ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ shall also be used to provide a summary of verbal submissions received during the site visit likely to cause a material difference to the outcome of the assessment. Using the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ the team shall respond to the summary of verbal submissions identifying what changes to scoring, rationales and conditions have been made in response, where the changes have been made, and assigning a ‘CAB response code’.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Sections 7.15, 7.20.5 and 7.22.3

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 127 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

9.5 Conditions 9.5.1 Summary of conditions closed under previous certificate Three conditions were raised during the original assessment (PI 1.2.1, 2.1.1 and 3.1.2) of the fishery (see Table 14 above). All the conditions are closed.

9.5.2 Conditions To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall document in the report all conditions in separate tables.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.18, 7.30.5 and 7.30.6

Table 16 – Condition 1

Performance Indicator

Score State score for Performance Indicator.

Cross reference to page number containing scoring template table or copy Justification justification text here.

Condition State condition.

Condition deadline State deadline for the condition.

Exceptional Check the box if exceptional circumstances apply and condition deadline is circumstances longer than the period of certification (FCP v2.2 7.18.1.6). Provide a ☐ justification.

Milestones State milestones and resulting scores where applicable.

Verification with other Include details of any verification required to meet requirements in FCP v2.2 entities 7.19.8.

Complete the following rows for reassessments.

Check the box if the condition is being carried over from a previous certificate and include a justification for carrying over the condition (FCP v2.2 7.30.5.1.a). Carried over condition

☐ Include a justification that progress against the condition and milestones is adequate (FCP v2.2 7.30.5.2). The CAB shall base its justification on information from the reassessment site visit. Check the box if the condition relates to a previous condition that was closed during a previous certification period but where a new condition on the same Related condition Performance Indicator or Scoring Issue is set. ☐ Include a justification – why is a related condition being raised? (FCP v2.2 7.30.6 & G7.30.6). Condition rewritten Check the box if the condition has been rewritten. Include a justification (FCP ☐ v2.2 7.30.5.3).

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 128 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

9.6 Client Action Plan To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report the Client Action Plan from the fishery client to address conditions.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.19

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 129 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

9.7 Surveillance To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report the program for surveillance, timing of surveillance audits and a supporting justification.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.28

Table 17 – Fishery surveillance program

Surveillance level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site surveillance audit e.g. Level 5 surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

Table 18 – Timing of surveillance audit

Anniversary date of Proposed date of Year Rationale certificate surveillance audit e.g. Scientific advice to be released in June 2018, proposal e.g. 1 e.g. May 2018 e.g. July 2018 to postpone audit to include findings of scientific advice

Table 19 – Surveillance level justification

Year Surveillance activity Number of auditors Rationale

e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced that information needed to verify progress towards conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided remotely in year 3. Considering e.g. 1 auditor on-site with that milestones indicate that e.g.3 e.g. On-site audit remote support from 1 most conditions will be closed out auditor in year 3, the CAB proposes to have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on-site with remote support – this is to ensure that all information is collected and because the information can be provided remotely.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 130 of 133 21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

9.8 Harmonised fishery assessments The fishery shares a management system with the MSC-certified fisheries in Western Australia. Harmonisation is, therefore, required with the Governance and Policy PIs (3.1.1-3.1.3). Efforts have been made to harmonise those parts of Principle 3 with the most recent full assessment and certification outcome from a Western Australian fishery.

For this assessment, harmonization is required for the following fisheries (latest certification at the end) and PIs in accordance with FCP v2.2 Annex PB:

Table 20 – Overlapping fisheries

Performance Indicators to Fishery name Certification status and date harmonise Peel Harvey Estuarine fishery: Recreational and Commercial blue June 2016 – Jan. 2022 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 swimmer crab and Commercial sea mullet

Western Australia Abalone Fishery April 2017-Oct. 2022 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3

Western Rock Lobster May 2017-Nov. 2022 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3

Australia Silver-lipped Pearl Oyster Sept. 2017 - March 2023 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 (WA only)

Western Australia Octopus Fishery Oc.t 2019- April 2025 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3

Sea cucumber Dec. 2019 – Dec. 2025 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3

Exmouth Gulf Prawn Trawl Dec. 2020-December 2025 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3

Shark Bay Prawn Trawl Dec. 2020-December 2025 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3

Table 21 – Overlapping fisheries

Supporting information

The PI 3.1.2 will be further examined and more evidence attempted to be identified at the site visit, in order to seek a harmonised outcome for all PIs.

Was either FCP v2.2 Annex PB1.3.3.4 or PB1.3.4.5 applied when NA at this stage harmonising?

Date of harmonisation meeting NA at this stage

If applicable, describe the meeting outcome

- e.g. Agreement found among teams or lowest score adopted.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 131 of 133

21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

Table 22 – Scoring differences

Western Western Western Performance Silver Lipped Peel Harvey Shark Bay Australian Australian Exmouth Australia Pearl Oyster Estuarine Prawn Rock Sea Indicators Gulf Prawn Abalone Fishery Fishery Fishery Lobster Cucumber (PIs) Fishery Fishery Fishery

PI 3.1.2 100 100 85 95 100 100 100

Table 23– Rationale for scoring differences

If applicable, explain and justify any difference in scoring and rationale for the relevant Performance Indicators (FCP v2.2 Annex PB1.3.6). 3.1.2 c is scored 80 in the ACDR for this fishery which varies from other assessments as outlined below based on a review of other initial, surveillance and re-assessment reports for WA fisheries:

- Exmouth Gulf Prawn - In this fishery assessment, evidence was required to demonstrate that consultation processes provide an opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved, resulting in a score of 75 for PI 3.1.2. This PI has been re-scored at the SG100 level in subsequent surveillance audits. - Silver Lipped Pearl Oyster Fishery – A score of 100 was awarded for this fishery for PIs 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 in WA. The score of 75 for PI 3.1.2 in UoC1 of this fishery relates to Governance and Policy issues in the Northern Territory, and is not therefore relevant to Western Australia. - Peel Harvey Estuarine Fishery – a score of 75 for PI 3.1.2 was awarded due to limited stakeholder engagement. This was increased to 85 at the first surveillance audit in 2017. A higher score was not deemed to be appropriate because there was at that time a lack of evidence about how the consultation processes established by the new WA Stakeholder Engagement Guidelines have been applied to the specific fishery. - Shark Bay Prawn Fishery – a score of 75 was awarded for PI 3.1.2 when the fishery was certified, in response to concern about the level of stakeholder engagement in management. This score was revised to 95 at the first surveillance audit in 2016. f). - Western Australia Abalone Fishery – scores of 100 were awarded for 3.1.2 when this fishery was certified in April 2017. - Western Australian Rock Lobster Fishery – the original score of 95 for PI 3.1.2 was revised to 75 at the third surveillance audit as a harmonisation response to the Shark Bay Prawn Fishery assessment. At the fourth surveillance audit, progress with the condition raised in response to this issue was found to be on target. A score of 100 was awarded when the fishery was re-certified in 2016. - Western Australian Sea Cucumber Fishery. 3.1.2 was awared 100.

This PI will be further examined and more evidence attempted to be identified in the site visit, in order to seek a harmonised outcome for all PIs.

If exceptional circumstances apply, outline the situation and whether there is agreement between or among teams on this determination.

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 132 of 133

21_390EN MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template

9.9 Objection Procedure – delete if not applicable To be added at Public Certification Report stage The CAB shall include in the report all written decisions arising from the Objection Procedure.

Reference(s): MSC Disputes Process v1.0, FCP v2.2 Annex PD Objection Procedure

Approval Date: 19.10.2020 05:53:29 Page 133 of 133