South East
M a n a g e m e n t Ad vi s o r y C o m m i t t e e
( S o u t h E a s t M AC )
MAC CHAIR’S SUMMARY
MEETING 9
24 - 25 MAY 2012
SOUTH EAST MAC (SEMAC)
CHAIR: Steve McCormack
Dates 24 and 25 May 2012
South East MAC met in Canberra on the 24th and 25th of May and the meeting focused on:
Financial matters

Consideration of the draft fishery budgets (cost recovered components - SESSF, SPF and SSJF)

Update on the review of the SESSF levy allocation model

Options to facilitate the conduct of the winter component of the Fishery Independent Survey (FIS) in
light of research funding constraints for 2012/13 financial year.
Management issues

Additional refinements to the Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy to better align it with
biological rebuild targets adopted for the Harrison’s and Southern Dogfish.

The monitoring and evaluation plan for the industry trial of longer gillnets (6,000m).
The MAC was pleased to note that the grant of Statutory Fishing Rights (SFRs) had been made in the
Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) and that the fishery was now operating under Individual Transferable Quota
(ITQs) for the 2012/13 season. The MAC welcomed an update on industry plans to introduce a freezer
trawler into the fishery to produce high quality frozen product for export to west-African markets for
human consumption. The MAC regarded industry’s plans to consult directly with recreational bodies and
conservation NGOs as a positive development given concerns expressed about the introduction of larger
vessels.
The Committee noted the resignation of Mr Anthony Ciconte (invited industry participant) and
welcomed new appointees, Ms Frances Seaborn (invited state participant) and Mr Brian Bailey (invited
industry participant).
The MAC appreciated the participation of Dr James Findlay (Chief Executive Officer) for key agenda
items.
The MAC Chair noted apologies from Mr Les Scott (industry member), Dr Ian Knuckey (invited scientific
participant) and Mr Jeff Moore (GAB invited participant). Mr Louis Hatzimihilas, the newly appointed
invited squid industry participant, was unable to attend due to his involvement in the upcoming Bass
Strait Scallop pre-season survey. The MAC appreciated Mr Michael Tudman (industry observer) travelling
up to Canberra to provide expertise from the auto-longline sector at short notice.
Ms Beth Gibson (AFMA member) advised she would be stepping down from the MAC and her position as
Senior Manager Demersal and Midwater Trawl Fisheries to take up another position within AFMA. The
Committee thanked Ms Gibson for her service to the fishery both as Senior Manager and as a MAC
member for the last five years and wished her well in her new appointment.
Monitoring and evaluation plan for extended maximum gillnet length
The MAC reviewed the report Preliminary power analysis of AFMA gillnet observer data for selected
species (Power Analysis) prepared by the Western Australian Department of Fisheries. The MAC noted
that the AFMA Commission had agreed, after extensive consultation, to increase the maximum gillnet
length to 6,000 metres for a trial period. AFMA then commissioned the Power Analysis to identify the
amount of data to be collected and the potential analyses that could be conducted.
Members recalled that distinguishing differences statistically between 4,200m nets and 6,000m nets
would be quite difficult and that large sample sizes would be needed. The scientific member considered
that the 5% effect size modelled in the report was quite small and accordingly would difficult to detect.
The MAC asked AFMA to liaise with SharkRAG to get their views on the suitability of a 5% effect size.
South East MAC Meeting 9
24 and 25 May 2012
2 of 12
The MAC noted that Figure 2 in the report suggested there was a non-linear relationship between
sample size and probability of detecting a 5% change in dolphin bycatch rate. The Committee asked
AFMA to raise this with the authors.
The MAC noted that the report makes it clear that not all questions about effects could be answered
after ‘x’ number of shots and that for rare events the analysis showed it could take hundreds of shots
before statistical power was available to examine if for example dolphin bycatch occurred at a different
rate in 6,000m net operations than in 4,200m operations.
The Committee, faced with uncertainty about when enough observations would be achieved to answer
questions about differences (or not) in catch rates for various species, recommended that a review be
conducted 1 year after the trial commences.
The MAC also supported a suggestion from the GHaT Manager, made in response to concerns raised
about quality and lice damage, that soak time be recorded by observers noting this was a factor
considered to be important and may also be a factor for other catch attributes.
The shark invited participant indicated that about 90% of the operators opposed changes to the
maximum net length based on all the work done to rationalise the fishery over the years. The MAC noted
many in the sector were concerned over the potential for longer nets to increase the proportion of
‘green fish’ on the market. The shark invited participant observed that the fishery relied heavily on the
Victorian market and poor quality fish could have impacts on all operators. The Committee understood
industry concern on this issue but were mindful that AFMA’s objectives did not support intervention in
relation to fish handling practices.
The shark industry member supported the trial and advised that those boats that took up the option to
use more net could manage their operations effectively to maintain quality. The member considered
that the observer coverage would demonstrate if concerns held by a number of Victorian and Tasmanian
operators are occurring.
The MAC acknowledged the contribution made by the Department of Fisheries – Western Australia by
way of in-kind support in undertaking the Power Analysis for SharkRAG without charge.
Actions
That:
AFMA consult with SharkRAG regarding their views on the suitability of a 5% effect size for the
simulations.
AFMA check with the authors regarding Figure 2 in the Power analysis (apparent non-linear relationship).
Observer protocols and e-monitoring be structured so that net soak time can be recorded.
AFMA review the dataset after one year of the trial and report back to South East MAC.
Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy
The MAC noted that recent principles agreed by the AFMA Commission had clarified and confirmed that
the core objective of the Upper-Slope Dogfish Management Strategy (the Strategy), was to rebuild
Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish above a limit reference point of 25% of unfished biomass (B25)
derived from an MSY estimate of B50. Members understood that an MSY and limit reference point higher
than the general setting in the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy (HSP) (B40) was chosen because
these sharks were long lived and were characterised by low biological productivity.
The MAC noted that the Scientific Working Group had, for largely similar biological reasons, advised that
a significantly longer recovery period than the default setting in the HSP would be required and
recommended that 3 mean generation times would be appropriate for these species. The MAC noted
that this would translate to approximately 60 and 85 years for Southern Dogfish and Harrisson’s Dogfish
respectively.
South East MAC Meeting 9
24 and 25 May 2012
3 of 12
The Committee noted that there had been a very significant commitment both in terms of research and
management actions for relevant Commonwealth sectors to survey grounds, better understand the
biology and behaviour of these dogfish and identify and evaluate measures and strategies to protect
remaining populations and important habitat.
In this context the MAC was pleased to note that scientific advice and independent review appeared to
indicate that depletion of Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish had been stopped.
The MAC noted that the Minister for the Environment is required to make a listing decision on
Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish by the 31st July 2012. The Committee also recognised that
unless the Minister is confident that Strategy will ensure rebuilding of these species, then these dogfish
could be listed as vulnerable or threatened which would result in industry being subject to direct
management oversight under terms of the EPBC Act.
The MAC noted that there was emerging confidence that further refinements to the Strategy could align
the measures with the agreed biological targets however, after being briefed on recent initiatives,
considered that there was insufficient time available to consolidate the breadth of scientific information
and analyses (some projects are still underway) and translate this into management measures.
The MAC was mindful that its role was not one of advocacy in regard to Departmental matters but
supported (with one reservation) AFMA’s decision to seek a four month extension to the listing process
on the basis that the Strategy’s effectiveness would be enhanced against AFMA’s legislative objectives if
there was more time available. The MAC considered that a four month extension would allow AFMA to
adjust the Strategy to reflect the new targets with more certainty, by:

responding to CSIRO’s current scientific projects;

consulting with stakeholders on the translation of the latest scientific advice into management
measures; and

reducing impacts on industry by ensuring management actions are considered in the context of
complementary measures by New South Wales and Western Australia and with regard to
Commonwealth decisions on reserves in the East Bioregional Marine Plan.
The Conservation member acknowledged that there was merit in seeking an extension but noted that
the conservation sector was still waiting for a reply to its letter to the Minister for the Environment
about the process and on this basis could not support a request for an extension.
The MAC considered that the following projects and areas of work would generate positive inputs to the
Upper-Slope Dogfish Management Strategy (refer to Table 1) if AFMA’s request for a four month
extension is supported by the Minister for the Environment.
South East MAC Meeting 9
24 and 25 May 2012
4 of 12
Table 1: South East MAC’s assessment of sources of pending refinements to AFMA’s Upper-Slope Dogfish Management Strategy
Factor
CSIRO Management Strategy
Evaluation (MSE)
Expectation
Primary tool to assess the effectiveness of proposed
measures against the Strategy’s new management
objectives (rebuild above B25).
CSIRO Depletion Analysis
CSIRO/Industry survey
Tasmantid seamounts
Provides important inputs to the MSE work.
Underway - identify areas where Gulper Shark stocks
are largely intact. Demonstrates whether specific
hook fishing methods can be conducted with low risk
to these sharks.
Note that the closures below 700m depth contour
(Orange Roughy Conservation Program) provide
some protection to Gulpers however recognise that
imprecise placement of the 700m line in some areas
has effectively protected shallower waters.
Identify separate stocks of Upper Slope Dogfish.
May add complexity to management (choice of
closures) in the short to medium term.
Identifies any operational or logistic issues with
proposed management measures.
The NSW Government is expected to provide further
clarification on its intended course of action
particularly with respect to closures.
Examination of protection
provided by the closure of
waters below the 700m
contour
Genetic work
Consultation with industry
and other stakeholders
Harmonisation with NSW
management actions
Marine Bioregional Planning
Temperate East Marine
Region
While it is desirable to harmonise the marine
planning process with AFMA’s processes for resolving
gulper shark protection, this may not be possible.
Industry is concerned about closures enacted under
the FM Act (which are reviewable) compromising
concession holder’s right to seek compensation for
subsequent permanent closures implemented under
Marine Bioregional Plans.
AFMA’s legislative objectives
Balancing ESD objective with the net economic return objective
Strategy that meets its biological objectives having given consideration to moderating
economic impacts on the fleet.
Provides a mechanism by which habitat areas (proxies for biomass) can be summed
towards the revised limit reference point (B25).
ESD objective – improves certainty around closure options.
ESD objective – better fit of closures to high value dogfish habitat.
Net economic returns – maintain fishing access to more productive seamounts.
Net economic returns provided this protection is formally accepted in the Strategy it
may assist in reducing impacts on industry as they have already adjusted to being
excluded from these waters.
ESD objective – provides the evidence base for management measures in the Strategy
to be tailored to provide commensurate protection for all sub-stocks.
Sensible adjustments may improve net economic returns and provide more cost
effective management outcomes with little change in the level of biological safeguard.
Ensuring accountability to the fishing industry and Australian community – the burden
of protection should not be borne disproportionately by one jurisdiction.
Cost effective management – if Commonwealth and state closures can be harmonised
particularly in cases where boundaries abut then their effectiveness can be enhanced.
ESD objective - enables harmonised measures to enable the recovery of Harrisson’s
Dogfish and Southern Dogfish
Net economic returns - may be direct impacts on individual operators but AFMA
required to consider net economic returns to the community as a whole
Cost effective management –coordination should minimise duplication in regulation
and better separate the processes in relation to fisheries adjustment provisions under
SEWPaC’s marine planning process.
South East MAC Meeting 9
24 and 25 May 2012
5 of 12
Recommendation
South East MAC, with the reservation of the conservation member, supports AFMA’s decision to seek an
extension to listing process for Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish on the basis that:
• scientific advice indicates that the depletion of these dogfish stocks has been arrested;
• scientific advice indicates that measures and practices now in place will also provide significant
protection to other high risk species like Endeavour Dogfish and Greeneye Spurdog; and
• a short extension will enable important scientific research currently underway time to better
quantify the net protection provided by management options (closures, restrictions on night shots,
strengthened codes of conduct etc) against the interim target B25 noting that B50 (MSY) is a very
long term goal.
The MAC noted that if an extension was not forthcoming then AFMA would have to run a very
compressed process and that the MAC may need to convene an emergency meeting.
The AFMA member indicated that AFMA would welcome out of session comments on the draft CSIRO
MSE paper and other technical documents and would forward any comments onto CSIRO or the
Scientific Working Group.
Draft 2012/13 Fishery budgets (cost recovered components)
The MAC appreciated Dr Findlay (AFMA CEO) briefing the Committee on the broader budgetary climate
facing Commonwealth departments and agencies. The MAC noted that since last year the Government
has required its agencies (with four exemptions) to meet a 4% efficiency dividend in their budgets. Dr
Findlay explained that this meant budgets would be cut by 4% with the expectation that savings would
come from internal efficiencies, advances in information technology, whole of government processes
etc. The MAC noted that AFMA anticipated overall cost increases of 3% as a result of a new enterprise
bargaining agreement and increases in rent and electricity prices which, in combination with the 4%
efficiency dividend, effectively meant a 7% tightening against the government cost centres.
The Committee also noted that AFMA had maintained its commitment to keep the cost recovered
budgets at the 2005/06 level with any increases over time limited to within the consumer price index.
The MAC agreed to adopt a generally strategic approach toward the draft fishery budgets.
The Committee noted that observer costs accounted for 25% of AFMA’s cost recovered component and
that all major SESSF sectors were subject to substantial levels of observer coverage. Industry members
welcomed AFMA’s commitment to reducing costs associated with verification and biological sampling
and identified outsourcing of observer services and use of electronic monitoring as paths to savings.
Industry members and observers welcomed advice that AFMA was committed to market testing the
observer program again and noted that, if an equivalent service could be provided, there were
potentially significant savings if industry was able to enter into contracts with independent providers.
AFMA however cautioned against expectations based on low per day costs quoted for observers in other
jurisdictions and that previous reviews had found that AFMA was the most cost effective provider.
Industry members recognised the potential of electronic monitoring to reduce observer costs however
recognised that work to date suggested that breakeven costs for a switch to electronic monitoring were
around an observer coverage rate of 10% of fishing effort.
Industry and scientific members noted that coverage rates around 3.5 % of fishing effort had proved
adequate for biological sampling and discard estimates, with higher levels needed to gather robust data
on rare events like TEP species interactions.
The MAC noted endorsement of AFMA’s e-monitoring systems from the South Australian gillnet sector
and auto-longline sectors. The auto-longline observer advised that industry needed to know what level
of observer coverage would still be required (for hands-on work) before the sector could provide full
endorsement.
South East MAC Meeting 9
24 and 25 May 2012
6 of 12
The shark invited participant indicated that gillnet operators outside South Australia held a range of
views regarding cameras but, provided that cost savings were there, many were open to e-monitoring.
AFMA’s CEO indicated that while AFMA had been able to secure one-off funds to assist with set-up costs
in South Australia that there was no capacity to further assist operators financially with the purchase and
installation of e-monitoring equipment.
The shark industry member reminded the MAC that another benefit of e-monitoring was that it
circumvented space and manning issues associated with taking an observer to sea for smaller vessels.
The MAC was comfortable with the range of options for reducing ‘observer costs’ including adoption of
e-monitoring where it is consistent with AFMA’s cost effective management objective.
The MAC recognised that AFMA had used government funding made available as part of the Securing our
Fishing Future package to develop its systems capacity to enable a shift to electronic transactions and
processes. The AFMA member explained that increased take-up of e-logs and licensing transactions
through business portals had the capacity to reduce industry’s costs and indicated that AFMA was now
developing a policy for fee for service arrangements. Members noted that AFMA envisaged that
traditional transactions would incur a fee for service (costs removed from the levybase) to enable
concession holders prepared to adopt electronic transactions to realise costs savings. The MAC noted
that AFMA would endeavour to contain costs for those operators who preferred to continue doing
business using the telephone and paper records but advised that the aim was to reduce costs for those
operators who chose electronic methods.
The MAC also endorsed the important role of industry associations in working directly with AFMA on a
range of matters which helped keep levy costs down. Members noted that both SETFIA and GABIA had
been able to deliver strategic outcomes for their members on a number of research and management
matters. The MAC recognised efforts being made in the shark sector and encouraged the two
associations to maintain an open dialogue in regard to a possible future amalgamation.
Strategic budget advice
Support Market testing of AFMA’s Observer Program
Adoption of e-monitoring where it is cost effective to do so
AFMA providing advice on the level of physical observer coverage and/or port sampling
needed in each sector to meet biological sampling requirements
Endorse The aim of making electronic transactions the default setting for Commonwealth
fisheries
Support The development of a fee for service policy to facilitate an equitable transition to
electronic transactions
Recognised The ability of strong industry associations to develop, in conjunction with AFMA, more
cost effective arrangements for research, assessment and consultation.
Specific budget advice
Small Pelagic Fishery
The MAC noted that industry was pleased to see that the budget was now in line with expenses
following a number of higher budgets in the lead-up to quota management.
The Committee noted that research costs for a Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM) survey was exbudget for 2012/13 and would be met by Seafish Tasmania. The MAC recognised that a successful egg
survey would underpin Tier 1 assessments (higher TACs) which would benefit all concession holders.
The Committee considered that in the absence of a cohesive industry association that the funding of
future DEPMs should be recovered through the levybase. The MAC recognised that, while a survey had
South East MAC Meeting 9
24 and 25 May 2012
7 of 12
the potential to grow the fishery significantly, the incorporation of DEPM costs in next year’s budget was
likely to create a similar squeeze up against the budget cap as the SESSF FIS was creating in the draft
budget for 2012/13.
The Committee noted that blunt measures (budget caps), while addressing a broad industry desire to
keep management cost downs, had the potential to prevent a willing SPF industry sector from
supporting research which was fundamental to the operation of the recently implemented ITQ
management plan. The MAC acknowledged growing pressure on industry to administer these projects
directly with research providers to minimise AFMA research overheads. Industry members however
noted that in the case of SPF prospects of the sector establishing an association would be strongly
enhanced by the setting of higher TACs which would require regular fishery independent egg surveys.
The MAC agreed that this was potentially a perverse outcome and one ultimately inconsistent with a
number of AFMA’s legislative objectives, notably: ecologically sustainable development, maximising net
economic returns to the community and achieving optimum utilisation of the living resources of the AFZ.
The MAC considered that AFMA should consult with the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) to
investigate ways of exempting specific research expenditure from the agreed cap provided the relevant
industry sector supports it.
Action
AFMA to raise the potential impact of the cap (cost recovered budgets) on research expenditure which
has the potential to deliver more reliable estimates for Recommended Biological Catches (RBCs).
Recommendation
That, subject to negotiations with CFA and consultation with the SPF sector, AFMA recover costs for the
2013/14 DEPM from the SPF levybase.
Trawl budget
The trawl industry member, noting an increase in the current budget of 18% over last year,
acknowledged an 8% reduction in the draft budget for 2012/13. The MAC noted that the trawl sector
was concerned about the quantum of change in a number of cost centres. SETFIA reported that 10 of the
18 trawl cost centres changed by more than 10% and that the average change in those was 35% and
accordingly the association had found it difficult to meaningfully review these components of the
budgets for the trawl sector (CTS, ECDWT and VIT).
The MAC noted AFMA’s willingness to engage with SETFIA to provide a detailed explanation including
changes arising from a greater emphasis on the user pays principle and in regard to the application of
overheads.
Action
AFMA to liaise with SETFIA to explain the basis behind change in the draft trawl budget costs centres.
Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector
The MAC recognised concerns regarding the implications of surrenders of SFRs and permits on the
levybase and noted AFMA’s would continue to try and find savings to offset the loss of revenue.
The MAC also noted the desire of the auto-longline sector to not be exposed to direct costs associated
with gillnet research and management costs.
Southern Squid Jig Fishery
The MAC noted that there had been a slight increase in the squid budget (2.24%) and noted there were
no specific submissions from the sector. The MAC recognised industry’s desire to discuss options for
improving net economic returns and confirmed that AFMA was committed to convening an industry
workshop in conjunction with the next Squid RAG meeting.
South East MAC Meeting 9
24 and 25 May 2012
8 of 12
Research
The MAC noted that AFMA and SESSF RAG had recently agreed that the SESSF’s research and assessment
framework needed to be reviewed to develop a more strategic and cost effective integration of the
various monitoring, assessment and research components. The Committee noted that the SESSF
research program currently accounted for almost 50% of AFMA’s research budget and agreed that this
wasn’t sustainable under current budgetary conditions. The MAC recognised that improvements in the
status of a number of stocks and general confidence in assessments meant there was scope to move a
number of species off the full annual research and assessment cycle without significantly increasing risk.
The Committee also noted that once the FIS and the ISMP were bedded down it was reasonable to
consider adjusting the frequency of the FIS (biennial) or sampling intensity in the case of the ISMP.
The MAC supported the development of a research and monitoring strategy for the SESSF to better
integrate the fishery dependent data collection schemes (ISMP, logbooks, industry surveys), the fishery
independent data streams (FIS and acoustic surveys), the stock assessment contract and associated RAG
processes. The MAC noted that the SESSF data collection and assessment program had been built up
over time to address uncertainties associated with data quality and to ensure the assessments for quota
species were consistent with the harvest strategy framework. Members agreed that things had improved
since then (particularly with respect to target stocks) and it would be timely to review the scale of the
program and where savings and efficiencies could be found.
Recommendation
That AFMA establish, in consultation with stakeholders, a research and monitoring strategy for the
SESSF.
Research funding shortfall for the FIS
The MAC noted that AFMA estimated that approximately $194,000 to $294,000 must be found to
support the conduct of the winter FIS. The scientific member, in his capacity as SESSF RAG Chair,
indicated that SESSF RAG placed a high priority on running the winter FIS noting that it would constitute
the third successive year which was considered to be the minimum needed to establish the basis for an
index of abundance. The scientific member indicated that SESSF RAG had provided clear advice that
reductions to the stock assessment schedule and ISMP coverage were justified to generate savings to
support the third leg of the winter FIS. The MAC noted that from a scientific perspective the third leg was
essential but that once this core dataset was established there was a capacity to review the frequency of
the FIS and whether a biennial timetable or an annual winter only survey would provide a more cost
effective model.
The MAC recognised that industry was generally supportive of the FIS and noted that a recent analysis
had shown it had provided good indices of abundance for 83% of the species by value and 88% by catch.
Members also noted it delivered useful indices for a number of species, including School Shark and Blue
Warehou, for which current assessments had become less informative due to commercial CPUE data no
longer tracking abundance reliably.
The RAG Chair indicated that if changes to the current stock assessment contract could be negotiated
then realising savings would require deferring Tier 1 assessments (Tier 3 and 4 assessments are largely
automated). The MAC noted that following SESSF RAG’s March meeting and after further discussions the
Pink Ling, School Shark and Tiger Flathead were identified as high priorities for assessments this year
with Orange Roughy, School Whiting, Silver Warehou and Western Gemfish being tentatively identified
as candidates for deferred assessments.
South East MAC Meeting 9
24 and 25 May 2012
9 of 12
Recommendation
The MAC endorsed AFMA negotiating a rationalisation in the 2012 SESSF stock assessment schedule and
managing a temporary reduction in ISMP coverage to generate savings to support the conduct of the
2012 Winter FIS.
In making this recommendation South East MAC notes that there still may be a shortfall that industry
would have to pick up either by foregoing levy acquittal monies or through increases in levies. The
Committee noted that industry members will need time to consult with their sectors regarding their
capacity to support the proposed course of action.
South Australian Shark sector
The MAC recognised that South Australian based shark sector was very concerned about the future
viability of their operations under closures enacted under the Australian Sea Lion (ASL) Management
Strategy and to reduce interactions with Dolphins.
The Committee noted that a core concern related to the appropriateness and evidence base for the
performance criteria (triggers). Industry indicated they felt like they were on a downhill slope with
regard to triggers with AFMA being boxed into adopting more precautionary settings every time there is
a review. Industry considers this is due in part to the lack of coherent policy regarding acceptable
minimum settings for sea lion and dolphin mortalities given that more workable ‘understandings’ seem
to exist for fur seals, seabirds (TAP based on rates) and terrestrial situations.
The MAC noted that operators also wanted to know if these triggers would eventually be applied to all
methods.
The MAC was pleased to note that AFMA had appointed an experienced officer to develop a strategic
plan to help facilitate a more certain future for the shark sector based in South Australia.
SESSF Levy allocation model
The MAC appreciated a briefing from Mr Andy Bodsworth who had been appointed by AFMA to work
with the Levy Allocation Working Group to revise the model used to allocate the recoverable component
of the SESSF budget across the various concessions.
Mr Bodsworth acknowledged the progress made by the Levy Allocation Working Group and noted that
the approach he was working on reflected the principles identified by the Group. The MAC noted that
the main challenge was establishing good estimate of the management costs for each sector of the SESSF
fishery and how those management costs could be attributed fairly and transparently (user pays
principle) through the levybase.
The Committee noted that the existing model directed a proportion of management costs against Boat
SFRs and permits with the remainder being split across the ITQ SFR pool on the basis of a rolling Gross
Value of Production (GVP) average (valuable species are charged more).
Mr Bodsworth noted that the revised approach proposed to collect less against the entry right (Boat
SFRs and coastal waters permits) and assign more to the ITQ SFRs but noted that doing this in a manner
which reflected costs of management either for a species or a gear sector added complexity.
Mr Bodsworth indicated that the draft model being developed envisaged a levy schedule for Boat SFRs
and coastal waters permits which more closely reflected the administrative costs of managing access to
the fishery however recognised that some management costs are gear specific (bycatch) which tended to
align best with Boat SFRs and permits as these were method specific. The MAC noted that currently
some of the significant costs associated with TEP interactions are amortised across a broader range of
SFRs which was not accurate or equitable.
The MAC noted that the allocation of Tier 2 costs across ITQ SFRs was currently based on GVP and
acknowledged Mr Bodsworth’s observation that this was not a robust proxy for management costs for all
South East MAC Meeting 9
24 and 25 May 2012
10 of 12
species. The MAC noted, for example, that some high value species enjoyed stable stock status and did
not require intensive management. The MAC was receptive to an alternative approach whereby the 34
quota species would be assigned to three (or five) management cost categories i.e. High, Medium and
Low which would then determine the proportion of the Tier 2 costs which would be assigned to a
species’ ITQ SFRs.
The MAC was pleased with the direction of the review and noted that Mr Bodsworth would be working
closely with the Levy Working Group and welcomed further input from the MAC, industry associations
and concessions holders. The MAC, noting that Fisheries Management Paper No. 1 allowed the
appointment of individuals outside the Committee to MAC sub-committees, supported extending the
Levy Working Group membership to include representatives from the shark sector and the scalefish hook
sector.
Mr Bodsworth noted that the draft model would be subject to testing before going out for broader
consultation and the key tests would be to examine if it was accurate, fair and cost effective to run.
The MAC noted a number of suggestions on the approach so far:
1. That the review not extend to consideration of business structures (broadly supported).
2. That AFMA, as part of the review, investigate the system adopted by Fisheries Victoria to monitor
staff workload and expenditure against cost centres (noted).
3. That AFMA consider aligning its SESSF management structures more closely with areas of
expenditure.
SESSF RAG Chair’s Meeting
Mr Morison (scientific member), in his capacity as SESSF RAG Chair, briefed the Committee on the recent
RAG Chair’s Meeting held in Melbourne on the 20-21 March 2012. The MAC noted that the RAG
considered that the 2011/12 assessment and TAC recommendation process had worked well and that
the streamlining of the RAG Chairs’ presentations to South East MAC had been well received.
Mr Morison noted that SESSF RAG had reviewed a range of technical matters referred by the RAGs and
South East MAC:
Tier 4 assessments
The RAG’s view was that these were generally being handled consistently but agreed that species
specific flexibility was still needed and that the individual RAGs were best placed to make these sorts of
judgements. SESSF RAG agreed to provide a summary of the Tier 4 assumptions for distribution to the
RAGs to encourage more consistent reporting of the RAG’s confidence in their Tier 4 assessments.
Tier 3 assessments
The RAG acknowledged concerns that large RBCs produced by Tier 3s could undermine stakeholder
confidence in the assessment method. The RAG agreed that the reporting of large RBCs did not add
useful information to the RAG and MAC processes.
The RAG has asked CSIRO to investigate if there are statistical approaches which might provide a less
arbitrary moderation of Tier 3 outputs. The MAC noted that if there isn’t a satisfactory way to moderate
outputs then the SESSF RAG’s secondary recommendation is that Tier 3 RBCs which trigger the 50% large
change limiting meta-rule should be reported qualitatively i.e. RBC > Current TAC + 50%.
Alternatives to current Tiers
The MAC welcomed news that CSIRO would trial its average length method on a number of problematic
Tier 4 species to facilitate consideration of the method at SESSF RAG’s Data Meeting in August 2012.
Multiple Year TACs
South East MAC Meeting 9
24 and 25 May 2012
11 of 12
The MAC noted that SESSF RAG was comfortable with the existing breakout rules (Tier 1s).
The MAC noted that SESSF RAG had reaffirmed its general view there were limited benefits in
implementing MYTACs for Tier 3 and 4 species from a scientific workload and efficiency point of view. Mr
Morison noted that SESSF RAG recognised that MYTACs could however provide industry with more
certainty and reduce management workload for those species where there no significant sustainability
issues.
Discount factors
Mr Morison advised that SESSF RAG would need to review Dr Fay’s (CSIRO) final report (pending
clearance) before formulating more specific advice on the application (or waiving) of discount factors for
Tier 3 and 4 assessments.
Research
Mr Morison noted the RAGs were now responsible for setting research priorities and updating research
plans and advised that SESSF RAG had established a schedule for individual RAGs to develop research
priorities during the latter half of the year so that these could be considered collectively by SESSF RAG at
its next Chair’s Meeting (late February 2013). The MAC observed that this would allow SESSF RAG to
provide structured advice to both the AFMA Research Committee (ARC) and the Commonwealth
Fisheries Research Advisory Body (ComFRAB) at the appropriate stage of their annual research cycles.
Review of the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy
The RAG noted the pending review of the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy by DAFF and agreed
that this would necessitate a review of the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework. The RAG also recognised
the need for the framework to better reflect existing flexibility in the current policy. There was broad
support for identifying economic benefits which could be realised by managing some byproduct species
around MSY (B40) rather than trying to maintain the suite of quota species at MEY (B48).
Specific issues
The RAG Chair advised that SESSF RAG had provided formal advice in relation to funding constraints
facing this year’s SESSF research program and in regard to AFMA’s Draft Quota Administration Policy and
noted that copies of these letters had been included in the MAC papers.
State concerns - Striped Trumpeter
The MAC recognised concerns over gillnet impacts on state managed species and noted AFMA confirmed
its commitment to the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
(DPIPWE) to examine Commonwealth impacts on Striped Trumpeter in the context of DPIPWE’s request
that the Commonwealth implement a complimentary closure to the state spawning closure.
Next meeting
The MAC noted that its next full meeting normally would be scheduled for mid-September 2012 however
members recognised that the Committee may need to meet in session or by teleconference prior to that
depending on the Minister for the Environment’s decision on the listing process for Harrison’s Dogfish
and Southern Dogfish.
Mr Steve McCormack
South East MAC Chair
13 June 2012
South East MAC Meeting 9
24 and 25 May 2012
12 of 12