Attachment 3. Species where SEMAC delivered split recommendations
Deepwater shark basket (west)
Recommendation
RBC / TAC
Discount
factor
Over
%
Under
%
Research
quota
Tier 4 - 374t
0
10
10
0
AFMA
215 t
0
10
10
5t
MAC endorsed
with a reservation from the
Conservation member
215 t
0
10
10
5t
RAG
Significant additional management safeguards
No discount factor recommended as 54% of the habitat is
closed under 700m closure
700 m isobath closure offers substantial protection
Ongoing port monitoring of species composition and
biological data
Other Meta-rules invoked
The application of the 50% change rule resulted in a recommended TAC of 215 t.
Discussion
The MAC noted a concern raised by the conservation member regarding the signal from the Tier 4 (under low catches) which generated a higher RBC and TAC
recommendation (moderated by the 50% rule) which was in contrast to some industry feedback suggesting local depletion (arising from the 700m closures) was
affecting profitability. The conservation member added that while not that much was known about these species it was reasonable to assume they were long
lived, slow growing and had low fecundity and as such the experience with Gulper Shark suggested precaution was paramount.
The SharkRAG Chair noted one aspect of these concerns was similar to problems identified by SharkRAG in relation to the suitability of CPUE as an indicator of
abundance for Saw Shark and Elephantfish. The SharkRAG Chair noted that large changes in CPUE observed from year to year could not happen biologically within
these populations which suggested that catch rates were a poor indicator of abundance. The MAC was mindful that this was a Basket TAC and that one species,
Brier Shark (Deania calcea), had dominated recent landings.
The MAC noted that AFMA intended to seek SESSF RAG’s advice on the suitability of the reference period (and associated adjustments) in context of the current
fishery situation. AFMA’s previous commitment to progress consideration of SETFIA’s proposal regarding the deepwater closures was also noted.
Recommendation - split
The MAC with the reservation of the conservation member supported the recommended 215 t TAC noting that it was consistent with the harvest strategy
framework.
Chair’s Summary South East MAC 8 Attachment 3
Page 1 of 3
Attachment 3. Species where SEMAC delivered split recommendations
School Shark
Recommendation
RAG
AFMA
MAC
Split recommendation –
was opposed by shark
industry members
RBC / TAC
Zero RBC Tier 1
Conservation dependent listing
under the EPBC Act.
SharkRAG recommended a
continuation of 2011/12
unavoidable bycatch level at 176 t
150 t Bycatch TAC
150 t Bycatch TAC
Discount
factor
Over
%
Under
%
Research
quota
Not
applied to
Tier 1
0
0
0
as above
as above
0
0
0
0
0
0
Significant additional management safeguards
Current estimate of unavoidable bycatch was
176 t
20% School Shark to Gummy Shark catch ratio
Discussion
The SharkRAG Chair noted that the RAG had tried to improve the School Shark stock assessment but advised that no new data had been incorporated. The MAC
noted that the majority view of the RAG was that the stock was still below B 20. The MAC noted that the RAG had advised that they didn’t have a good way of
measuring the abundance of School Shark and even though they could run an assessment it wasn’t informed by an index of abundance.
The MAC noted that the introduction of 20% School Shark to Gummy Shark catch ratio was expected to further reduce the bycatch of School Shark. The MAC
noted however that the RAG wasn’t in a position to determine its effectiveness as there was only six months of data available since the measure had been
implemented.
The MAC noted that the RAG had recommended the current Bycatch TAC of 176 t be rolled over whereas AFMA proposed reducing the Bycatch TAC to 150 t. The
MAC noted that AFMA’s view was based on earlier scientific advice that catches over 150 t were unlikely to allow rebuilding of the stock.
Shark industry members and observers were concerned that this continued the trend of cutting back the Bycatch TAC before the effectiveness of voluntary
measures or more recently statutory measures (20% ratio) in reducing the School Shark bycatch had been assessed. The shark industry member considered that
the impact of the reduction would have a significant impact off South Australia as operators there were currently trying to adapt to fishing wider with gillnets or
with hook gear, both of which would lead to an increase in School Shark bycatch until crews became familiar with operating in different environments.
The invited industry participant expressed concern that this stepped reduction now positioned the TAC below the level currently agreed to be the unavoidable
bycatch level across three gear sectors. The participant acknowledged AFMA’s commitment to working with SharkRAG and industry to establish a methodology to
deliver a fishery independent index of abundance for School Shark. The participant however cautioned that, even if successful, it might take at least three years of
surveys/monitoring before sufficient information was gathered which could inform the rebuilding strategy. The MAC noted that industry was concerned that, in
the interim period, they were facing another two or three TAC cuts of this magnitude.
Chair’s Summary South East MAC 8 Attachment 3
Page 2 of 3
Attachment 3. Species where SEMAC delivered split recommendations
The AFMA member considered that the cut to 150 t needed to be considered in the context of a Gummy Shark fishery still operating at a capacity capable of taking
its full TAC. The member considered that if the School Shark TAC was reduced to levels recommended in the rebuilding strategy then there would be an impact on
the Gummy Shark catch.
Shark industry members and observers objected strongly to the MAC not endorsing SharkRAG’s recommendation of a 176 t Bycatch TAC and noted this was
inconsistent with the Committee’s normal practice. The shark industry member and observers (SSIA) indicated that they were not aware of any operators who
would support a reduction in the Bycatch TAC from 176 t. The alternative view was that the TAC needed to be within the bounds of estimates that would allow
rebuilding and the advice before the MAC was that there was no prospect of rebuilding within decades while catches remained above 150 t. The shark industry
members and observers stated that they had been presented with a number of thresholds in recent years 240 t, 176 t and now 150 t and they had lost confidence
in the assessment, the rebuilding strategy and the way both were being interpreted by AFMA.
Recommendation - split
South East MAC recommended that the TAC for School Shark be set at 150 t noting that models suggest no prospect of recovery within decades while catches
remain above 150 tonnes. The Committee noted:

Strong objections from the shark industry members and observers who did not support a reduction from a 176 tonne TAC, the level recently agreed to be
the level of unavoidable bycatch for the gillnet, hook and trawl sectors.

Concern that in recent years the reduction in the gillnet bycatch of School Shark has not been matched by commensurate reductions in the School Shark
bycatch in the trawl and auto-longline sectors noting that for both sectors it is a genuine bycatch which suggests it may be harder to reduce.

Advice from other members that, should 150 t be preferred, that this setting be maintained for a number of years to provide some certainty to the shark
industry as they restructure in response to new management regimes including a possible shift to hook methods in some areas of the fishery.
The MAC noted that the shark industry member and observers emphasised that a reduction in the TAC would just lead to more discarding and a further
deterioration in the utility of CPUE as an indicator of abundance.
Index of abundance
The MAC noted strong support for initiatives to identify new survey methods or other approaches to establish a more robust indicator of abundance than CPUE in
order to more reliably inform the assessment process and establish, with more certainty, if rebuilding is occurring. The MAC noted that SharkRAG was cognisant of
advice from operators from a number of sectors who considered that School Shark was more abundant in recent years than was suggested by the model.
Chair’s Summary South East MAC 8 Attachment 3
Page 3 of 3