Chair – South East MAC

Draft Minutes

SOUTH EAST

MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SEMAC)

Meeting No. 12

6 June 2013

Keelty Room - Novotel

Canberra

Attendance

Members

Mr Steve McCormack (Chair)

Mr Sandy Morison (scientific member)

Mr George Day (AFMA member)

Mr Simon Boag (industry member)

Mr Les Scott (industry member) 2

Mr Philious Toumazos (industry member)

Observers

Mr Ross Bromley (AFMA)

Mr Mike Gerner (AFMA) 3

Mr Ryan Keightley (AFMA) 4

Mr Clayton McCloud (AFMA) 5

Mr David Power (AFMA)

Dr Nick Rayns (AFMA)

Apologies

Mr Gerry Geen (industry member)

Ms Anissa Lawrence (conservation member) 1

Mr Brian Bailey (industry invited participant)

Mr Jeff Moore (GAB invited participant)

Mr Malcolm Poole (recreational invited participant)

Ms Frances Seaborn (state invited participant)

Mr Anthony de Fries (executive officer)

Mr Patrick Sachs (AFMA) 3

Mr Steve Shanks (AFMA) 6

Mr Richard Stevens (OA) Acting Chair AFMA

Ms Di Tarte (incoming Chair SEMAC)

Ms Charlene Trestrail (AFMA) 3

Dr Ian Knuckey (scientific invited participant)

Mr Louis Hatzimihilas (industry invited participant) Mr Sandy Morison (scientific member)

1 Arrived at 9:29 am

4 Joined at 2:25 pm

1 Preliminaries

2 Arrived at 10:16 am 3 Attended the middle session

5 Presented Agenda Item 2.3 6 Presented Agenda Item 4.6

1.1

Welcome and apologies

Mr McCormack (MAC Chair) opened the meeting at 9.12 am and welcomed members and observers to

South East MAC’s eleventh meeting. Mr McCormack advised that this would be his last meeting as Chair and indicated he was pleased to be able to introduced incoming Chair Ms Diane Tarte to the Committee.

Mr McCormack noted that this would also be the last meeting of the current MAC and that AFMA was currently in the process of appointing members for the Committee’s next three year term.

Mr McCormack noted that MAC meetings tended to finish in a hurry as agendas were typically full and with members hurrying to catch flights. Mr McCormack indicated that he would like to formally thank members, observers and AFMA management at the start of the meeting for their support help over the last eight years with SEMAC and its predecessors GHaTMAC and SPFMAC. Mr McCormack acknowledged

Mr Stevens (representing the AFMA Commission) and Mr Scott and recalled his long and productive professional relationship with them during through the development of Offshore Constitutional

Settlements and implementation of quotas in the early 1990s. Mr McCormack indicated that industry had come a long way since then and that he had really enjoyed being part of the process. Mr

McCormack sincerely wished all present well for the future.

Mr Richard Stevens (OA) then addressed the Committee. Mr Stevens firstly noted an apology from the

Hon. Michael Egan (AFMA Chair) who was overseas and indicated that in Mr Egan’s absence it was his

DRAFT pleasure, as Acting Chair of AFMA, to formally thank Mr McCormack for his service to AFMA. Mr

Stephens also noted the appreciation of his fellow AFMA Commissioners for Mr McCormack’s service.

Mr Stevens noted that he and fellow Commissioners Mr Ian Cartwright and Professor Keith Sainsbury had maintained longstanding professional relationships with Mr McCormack and noted that both gentlemen conveyed their best wishes.

Mr Stevens spoke about the challenges of fisheries management from the perspective of a regulator and in particular the difficult decisions that needed to be made but which were not always welcomed by industry and other stakeholders. Mr Stevens reflected on AFMA’s early days when he was Managing

Director and acknowledged the close working relationship with Mr McCormack when he was with

Victorian Department of Fisheries. Mr Stevens indicated that these cooperative approaches had improved stock assessments, paved the way for the allocation of quota and the overall harmonisation of

Commonwealth and state management arrangements. Mr Stevens noted that this had been a difficult period but considered that these arrangements had stood the test of time and had helped prepare industry for contemporary challenges.

Mr Stevens then recognised Mr McCormack’s work with GHaT MAC and SEMAC and indicated his chairmanship had been instrumental in establishing strong and effective management measures in the

SESSF. Mr Stevens considered there had been a continual improvement in the status of the stocks in fishery although noted that it had at times being difficult. Mr Stevens noted that Mr McCormack had skilfully guided members from diverse backgrounds to provide high quality, considered management advice to AFMA. Mr Stevens paid tribute to Mr McCormack’s cooperative and inclusive approach which had been an important factor in dealing with contentious issues such as the protection of Gulper Sharks and Australian Sea-lions.

Ms Tarte thanked Mr McCormack for the opportunity to participate in the meeting and acknowledged the roles of the MACs in the substantial progress made on a range of difficult issues. Ms Tarte thanked

AFMA for its confidence in offering her the appointment and hoped to continue the positive approach

Mr McCormack had fostered in SEMAC.

The Chair recorded apologies from Mr Geen (SPF industry member), Mr Morison (research member), Dr

Knuckey (research invited participant) and Mr Hatzimihalis (squid invited participant). The Committee welcomed the participation of Dr Nick Rayns (Executive Manager Fisheries Branch) during the

Committee’s consideration of management items.

The Chair thanked AFMA for getting papers out early for the meeting in electronic format.

1.2

Declaration of interests

The Committee then reviewed the draft table of member’s and invited participant’s standing declarations. Ms Lawrence (conservation member) and Mr Scott (industry member) arrived after this item had been discussed and with the support of the Chair addressed the requirements of Agenda Item

1.2 directly. Mr Scott asked it be noted that in relation to this meeting he had a conflict with those agenda items requiring decisions. Table 1 reflects the updated record of members’ and invited participants’ declared interests and those of a number of observers.

South East MAC 12 – 6 June 2013 Draft Minutes Page 2 of 30

DRAFT

Table 1: Members’, observers’ and officers’ declared interests as at the 6 th June 2013.

Member Declared Interest

Mr Stephen McCormack No pecuniary interest

Mr George Day

Ms Anissa Lawrence

Acting Senior Manager Demersal and Midwater Fisheries. No pecuniary interest.

Consultant.

Conservation member on SharkRAG (and have submitted a nomination for its next term)

Co-investigator (conservation advisor) in the hook trial design project. Undertakes environmental work with Southern Shark Industry Alliance on an ad-hoc basis. Undertakes contracts for a number of Conservation NGOs (with only one currently related to fisheries but in the Asia Pacific region). Contracted to the MSC – outreach management training.

Provides environmental advice to industry associations. No pecuniary interest.

Mr Simon Boag

Mr Theophilos Toumazos Gillnet sector permits. Shark quota holder

Mr Les Scott I Ronald Leicester Scott (Les) in my capacity as a member of the South East

Management Advisory Committee (SEMAC) provide below a disclosure of my interests that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of my functions as a member of the SEMAC:



Managing Director: Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing P/L an Australian resident company which holds various fishing rights in, and operates vessels in the SESSF,

GHAT, East Coast Deepwater Fishery, Coral Sea and International fisheries operating a vessel under an Australian Flag;



Managing Director: Australian Longline P/L an Australian resident company which holds various fishing rights in, and operates vessels in the Australian Sub-Antarctic fisheries (Heard Island and McDonald Islands, Macquarie Island Fisheries) and waters under the jurisdiction of CCAMLR; and

 Advisor to PG&UM Rockliff – Petuna Fisheries who hold various fishing rights in the

SESSF, GHAT, Commonwealth and State (Tasmania) Scallop Fishery, Small Pelagic

Fishery, East Coast Tuna Fishery, Off Shore Fisheries and Tasmanian State Fisheries.

RAG / Other Memberships



SlopeRAG;



Sub-Antarctic RAG;



Threat Abatement Plan - (Sub-Antarctic demersal longline member); and

 Industry representative - Australian Delegation to CCAMLR.

Fishing Associations



Director of CFA;



Director of SETFIA.

Neither myself, or the company’s I represent are aware of, or involved in any litigation with AFMA. My pecuniary interest is limited to the extent of: an employee of the company’s and partnership disclosed.

Mr Malcolm Poole

Executive Officer South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association (SETFIA)

Board member Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA)

Non-beneficiary Director of two fishing companies in the SESSF.

SETFIA accept funding from AFMA, Caring for our Country and other funding sources to manage research projects including fishery surveys (FIS, Eastern Orange Roughy AOS and shortened codend project). Involved in the delivery of industry training courses through

East Gippsland TAFE. Undertakes contracts as an independent consultant

Chairman - Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW. Member – New South Wales Maritime

Ministerial Advisory Council. Treasurer and Board member RECFISH Australia

Member of Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation (ARFF)

Member of the NSW Recreational Fishing Saltwater Expenditure committee (subcommittee of the Advisory Council of Recreational Fishing (ACoRF))

Member NSW DPI Baitfish Working Group


DRAFT

Ms France Seaborn

Mr Brian Bailey

Mr Jeff Moore

1

3

Mr Anthony de Fries

Employed by the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and

Environment (DPIPWE)

A/g President of Sustainable Shark Fishing Incorporated, permit holder. SharkRAG member.

Executive Officer GABIA

Member on GABMAC and on GABRAG

Board Member CFA

Industry Liaison Officer Commonwealth MPAs

Executive officer for South East MAC and SESSF RAG. No pecuniary interest in the SESSF,

SPF or SSJF. Fisheries consultant.

Observers

Mr Richard Stevens (OA) Acting Chair AFMA

Member of the Fisheries Council of South Australia

Ms Diana Tarte

Mr Ross Bromley

Mr Mike Gerner

Mr David Power

Dr Nick Rayns

Mr Patrick Sachs

Mr Steve Shanks

Ms Charlene Trestrail

Incoming Chair - SEMAC.

AFMA - Senior Management Officer (CTS). No pecuniary interest.

AFMA Bycatch Program

AFMA - Acting Manager Gillnet Hook and Trap Fisheries and Southern Squid Jig Fishery. No pecuniary interest.

AFMA - Executive Manager Fisheries Branch

AFMA

AFMA - Manager Scallop and Small Pelagic Fisheries

AFMA

1.3

Acceptance of agenda

The MAC adopted the draft agenda and agreed to adopt a flexible approach to the order in which some items were discussed. A copy of the final agenda is provided as Attachment 1.

1.4

Confirmation of minutes from South East MAC Meeting No. 11

The MAC supported, with editorial amendments, the minutes of South East MAC Meeting Number 11

(TAC recommendations) held in Canberra on the 30 th and 31 st January 2013 as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

The Committee noted minutes from two SEMAC teleconference held on the:

18 March 2013 Pink Ling TAC, School Shark rebuild timeframe and Bycatch TAC,

Australian Sea-lion closures and Deepwater Shark Direction.

5 April 2013 Small Pelagic Fishery TAC recommendations.

The Executive Officer confirmed that both sets of minutes had been finalised by email exchange.

1.5

Correspondence

The MAC noted three items of incoming correspondence, two items copied to the MAC for information and one letter from the and one outgoing email from the MAC Executive Officer in relation to member nominations for SEMAC’s next term of office.

The Committee referred to a copy of AFMA’s letter to the MAC and industry associations which set out the draft 2013 Budgets for the SETF, GHaT, SPF and SSJF. The Committee recalled that budget matters were formerly were a major item before the MACs but noted that they now occupied much less of the

Committee’s time. The AFMA member explained that AFMA worked closely with industry in developing the draft budgets. The trawl member indicated that the trawl sector was happy with the process and that we were working towards a number that is survivable. The MAC noted that the other industry members were comfortable with the co-management approach for financial matters.


DRAFT

Industry members acknowledged AFMA Management’s following up quickly in relation to their concerns through budget iterations. The AFMA member noted that AFMA was committed to providing quick feedback but needed to ensure that their advice on budget questions was consistent across its all fisheries (document control). The MAC noted there had been further reductions in the draft fishery budgets.

1.6

Action arising from SEMAC 11

The MAC considered that satisfactory progress had been made against 4 of the 16 action items recorded at its January 2013 meeting.

The MAC noted that technical items referred to GABRAG/GABMAC (Old Action 6), ShelfRAG (Old Action

8) and SharkRAG (Old Action 10) had not been addressed as those RAGs hadn’t convened in the intervening period. Four items were referred to SESSF RAG and progress against those is reported under

Agenda Item 5.1 - Update from SESSF RAG Chair’s Meeting.

Mr Bromley AFMA provided an update on Old Action Item 3 noting that AFMA had made a submission on Blue Warehou to SEWPaC’s Threatened Species Scientific Committee (copies tabled at the meeting).

Mr Bromley understood that the Environment Minister was required to make a decision on Blue

Warehou by September 2014. Mr Bromley advised that AFMA had convened a Blue Warehou workshop in May in Melbourne to investigate assessment options and had appreciated a presentation from Dr

Jeremy Prince in relation to the potential suitability of Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR) analysis for Blue

Warehou. The trawl industry member noted that the trawl sector was supportive if fresh approaches and hoped its industry based length frequency collection would feed into improved assessments. Mr

Bromley noted the targeting analysis by CSIRO indicated that there was negligible targeting by trawl and gillnet sectors and this greatly assisted AFMA defend its Bycatch TAC approach.

The MAC then discussed old action items (2, 4, 7, 14 and 16) in more detail and noted that these would be assigned new numbers in the Action List developed from this meeting (SEMAC 12).

Old Action 2 Sustainable Shark Fishing Incorporated (SSFI) to report back to South East MAC regarding progress with the Code of Conduct.

Mr Bailey (shark invited participant) referred to the association’s decision to include manual set hook methods in its Code of Conduct had meant additional consultation was needed with fishers who used demersal longlines to target shark. Mr Bailey explained, in his capacity as Acting President of SSFI, that he had decided to travel around to meet with the line fishers as the costs in trying to get them all along to a central meeting were prohibitive given the generally smaller scale of these operations. Mr Bailey noted that there were only a few fishers in Victoria and a couple in South Australia that he was yet to catch up with. The MAC was pleased to note that feedback on the gillnet section from that sector had been positive.

The MAC looked forward to Sustainable Shark Fishing Incorporated (SSFI) executive finishing the consultation with hook fishers to enable a section on traditional longlining practices to be added to their

Code. Mr Bailey expected that SSFI would then be able to finalise their Code once this additional work was completed.

The Conservation member noted that the Shark Industry Alliance (SSIA) were close to or had finalised their Code of Conduct and recalled earlier discussion about the potential complications which might arise though comparisons of the two shark associations’ respective Codes of Conduct. The Conservation member emphasised that these codes need to be brought together. The Committee agrred that two codes could create inconsistencies in relation to standards and could be perceived unfavourably if other stakeholders considered that operators could pick and choose different strategies or courses of action.


DRAFT

The MAC recognised that the shark associations held different positions on a number of issues but didn’t think this should preclude the development of a unified Code of Conduct noting it was primarily about mitigating interactions with protected species and addressing bycatch obligations.

Mr Bailey indicated that SSFI remained open about amalgamating its Code with SSIAs however noted that SSFI had decided against incorporating guidance for the auto-longline method as its use in the shark fishery wasn’t supported by its membership.

The shark industry member noted that, as a member of SSIA, he considered that industry should only be operating under one Code and acknowledged the good work of the Victorian based shark fishers in relation to gillnet protocols. The Committee welcomed a willingness from SSFI to work cooperatively and appreciated Mr Toumazos (shark member) agreeing to raise the need for a unified code with SSIA.

Status – ongoing

Action 1 – Shark industry member

Shark industry member to raise amalgamation of the shark Codes of Conduct with the SSIA Executive.

Action 2 – Sustainable Shark Fishing Incorporated (SSFI)

SSFI to continue to report back to South East MAC regarding progress with their Code of Conduct.

Old Action 4.

AFMA to develop a MAC review paper on historic closures in the SESSF

The AFMA member noted that AFMA had commenced this project and initial work was directed at historic closures in the GHaT. The AFMA member advised that AFMA intended to revoke a number of closures in the GHaT because they were now overlayed by other closures (i.e. marine reserves).

The trawl member indicated that the trawl sector would welcome a similar review of trawl closures. The member cited the Portland inshore closure as an example of a closure originally intended to limit the creep of the ‘trawl footprint’ rather than provide specific protection as a potential candidate for removal given recent implementation of large deepwater closures nearby. The member added that the trawl sector would appreciate a review being given a high priority as they were struggling in response to recent Gulper closures and other constraints. The AFMA member commented that even the removal of closures which were now redundant because they were enclosed within Commonwealth Marine

Reserves would simplify AFMA’s workload and reduce the amount of paperwork in AFMA’s annual

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet (73 pages).

Mr Stevens agreed that were sound reasons for simplifying arrangements, firstly because it represented sensible fisheries management, secondly because industry had to comply and because AFMA had to administer them.

The GAB invited participant indicated that most fishery specific closures in the GAB were now overlayed by MPAs which reflected in part GABIA’s anticipation of the planning process for the South-west Marine

Reserves Network . The GAB participant agreed that closures now contained within marine reserves should be removed once the network is gazetted in 2014.

The MAC welcomed AFMA making a start on the review of historic closures in the GHaT and sought assurances from AFMA that this process would be applied to other gear sectors.

Action 3 – AFMA Management

AFMA to develop a paper reviewing historic closures across all SESSF gear sectors for SEMAC 13.


DRAFT

Old Action 6 That AFMA request GABRAG and/or GABMAC review the GABTF trigger for Western

Gemfish in light of recent assessment advice (whole stock RBC) and the shared nature of the stock

The Executive Officer provided background on this matter and noted the split in management arrangements for Western Gemfish across the SESSF and the GABTF and advised that the responsibility for undertaking the stock assessment for this species was vested with GAB RAG.

The Chair noting this had been a sensitive matter before the MAC sought the GAB Invited participant’s perspective. The GAB participant recalled that the action had been agreed with himself, the trawl and auto-longline members absenting themselves from the meeting prior to the recommendation being agreed.

The GAB participant’s view was that the Tier 1 assessment was an improvement over past Tier 4 approaches but that it was important to be cognisant of the assumptions (and potential uncertainties) underlying the assumption to treat Western Gemfish as one stock. The GAB participant recognised that

SEMAC had limited preparation time given the tabling of the assessment report at the TAC meeting. The

MAC noted that, since SEMAC 11, FRDC had supported a research proposal to investigate the stock structure of Western Gemfish. The GAB participant agreed that it was important to review what was happening on both sides of the line but it was equally important not to place too much weight on the single stock assumption.

The GAB participant indicated that the MAC needed to tread carefully given that AFMA would eventually need to implement an allocation of this species between the two fisheries. The participant recalled advice flowing from an AFMA paper to both GABMAC and SEMAC that AFMA consider issuing an investment warning in relation to Western Gemfish. The MAC asked the Executive Officer to circulate the relevant section form the previous minutes.

Mr Bromley advised that AFMA had not issued an investment warning. The AFMA member agreed it was a key issue and welcomed news that FRDC had supported the research proposal.

Action 4 – Executive Officer

Executive Officer to circulate the section containing the SEMAC’s discussion on the potential need for a cross fishery allocation of the Western Gemfish resource.

Old Action 7 Circulate Dr Thomson’s (CSIRO) hook selectivity analysis when it is completed and cleared by SharkRAG.

The AFMA member advised that SharkRAG hadn’t convened a face to face meeting since SEMAC 11. The

MAC noted that CSIRO had supplied a draft of the selectivity analysis and this would be discussed during

Agenda Item 4.1 GHaT Future Directions.


Circulate Dr Thomson’s (CSIRO) hook selectivity analysis when it is completed and cleared by SharkRAG.

Action 15 SETFIA to develop a basic Code of Conduct for Deepwater Sharks

Mr Boag (speaking in his capacity as SETFIA EO) firstly acknowledged the support from SEMAC, AFMA and CSIRO in working with industry to one up grounds to allow trawlers to spread their fishing effort out. Mr Boag noted that closure was intended to protect Orange Roughy and he believed the vessels concerned could fish in that area without catching Orange Roughy. Mr Boag added that the operators involved had provided assurance that they would not target Orange Roughy.


DRAFT

Mr Boag envisaged it would be similar to the Blue Warehou Code that was recently provided to the MAC i.e. a two page document that could be laminated and displayed in wheelhouses but indicated a bit more work was needed before it could be cleared through SETFIA.

Action 6 – Trawl member

Trawl Industry member to update SEMAC on the Code of Conduct for Deepwater Sharks.

Action 16 AFMA to seek out of session comments on the SAFE assessment and the draft residual risk for the SESSF gear sectors

The auto-longline industry member was concerned with the process that allowed errors in the SAFE

Assessment to make it through to a final version. The member sought direction from AFMA on how it intended to address this because he considered it very important that significant factual errors would compromise the upcoming strategic assessment of the fishery (EPBC Act accreditation).

The member noted that report indicated that the auto-longline sector had caught 65 seals which was completely wrong and was the sort of ‘information’ that was very hard to manage once it was in the public arena.

The AFMA member indicated that there was a project underway looking at Ecological Risk Assessment

(ERAs) and Ecological Risk Management (ERM) documents and considered that this should provide the scope to seek corrections to the SAFE assessment.

The MAC noted that Dr Knuckey (invited scientific participant) had raised a number of queries at the last

MAC meeting which needed also to be formally referred to CSIRO.

The auto-longline member emphasised that the status of the SAFE assessment should be downgraded to a draft.

Action 7 – AFMA, SEMAC members

(a) Members to provide additional comments on the SAFE assessment to AFMA Management.

(b) AFMA to formally request that CSIRO review the SAFE Report in relation to queries identified by

SESSF RAG and SEMAC.

2 State of the fishery

2.1

Industry reports

Commonwealth Trawl - Offshore Constitutional Settlement with New South Wales

The trawl member provided the MAC on SETFIA’s perspective on the unexpected relaxation of NSW state trip limits for Flathead. The Committee welcomed advice that New South Wales had acted quickly to reverse the decision.

Members noted that New South Wales was the only state adjacent to the SESSF which did not have a contemporary Memorandum of Understanding underlying the Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) agreement with the Commonwealth to manage areas of commercial fisheries overlap. Members noted that addressing this shortcoming had been identified in the Borthwick review and in the Independent

Review of NSW Commercial Fisheries Policy, Management and Administration 1 by Stevens et al.

The trawl member acknowledged the support of the Commonwealth Minister, conservation NGOs and recreational fishing groups in sorting the NSW shared species matter out at least in the short term. The

1 Stevens, R.A., Cartwright, I., and Neville, P. March 2012 - Independent Review of NSW Commercial Fisheries Policy,

Management and Administration.


DRAFT trawl member noted that the upside of this was recognition by Commonwealth and State departments that it was time the broader issue was addressed. The MAC agreed with this view noting that the lack of a functional OCS and associated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NSW confounded assessment and management processes for a range of species and gear sectors in both jurisdictions.

The Committee noted a suggestion from the conservation member that the Commonwealth commercial sector, the Conservation NGOs and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW consider developing a joint letter to both the Commonwealth and state ministers encouraging resolution of this issue urgently. The

MAC noted that while the stakeholders held different positions on a number of matters there seemed to be common ground in relation to the status of the OCS.

The Chair noted that in his view it was really unfortunate that the terms ‘state fishermen’ and

‘Commonwealth fishermen’ had become established in the lexicon when in reality they were all

Australian operators who landed fish into the same ports.

Action 8 – Conservation member, industry members, recreational member

Conservation member to canvass conservation NGOs, industry and recreational peak bodies to gauge their interest in relation to developing a joint submission to the Commonwealth and NSW fisheries ministers (and shadow ministers) urging attention be paid to fixing up the Offshore Constitutional

Settlement agreement.

Supermarket fish procurement policy

The trawl member noted that Coles had announced it would only be sourcing sustainable fish from

2015. The MAC was concerned that the sustainability audits used to determine which species would be accepted were not made public. The Committee noted that WWF which was in a corporate partnership with Coles.

Orange Roughy survey

The MAC noted that AFMA had approved a 165 tonne (t) research catch allowance which will allow

SETFIA to run an Acoustic Optical Survey (AOS) on eastern Orange Roughy in mid-July 2013. The trawl member noted that that New Zealand now relies on AOS surveys.

Training for trawl crew

The trawl member advised that with the support of the Australian Government’s Caring for our Country program that a second round of four TAFE accredited training courses had been completed in Lakes

Entrance, Sydney and Ulladulla. The MAC noted that about forty fishers participated and passed the course.

Accreditation

The MAC noted news that Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing had appointed SGS Australia to assist with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification for the winter Blue Grenadier fishery.

Shark sector

The shark industry member reported MAC noted that gillnet activity off South Australia remained low with some boats switching to demersal longlines. The shark member noted there were hook workshops scheduled for mid-June in Adelaide and Robe and was he was encouraging South Australian based shark fishers to attend the workshop.

The shark invited participant noted that Gummy Shark catches in the east had been variable but noted this was part of normal seasonal variability. The Committee noted widespread industry concern over changes to the 10 kilogram take home pack which industry would like to see the ability to take fish home retained. This view was endorsed by the shark industry member.


DRAFT

The AFMA member noting that similar concerns had been raised directly when AFMA staff visited Lakes

Entrance recently. The AFMA member explained that it was essentially a compliance issue related to having fish on board a boat that was not accounted for under normal processes and to try and establish consistency across fisheries. Industry noted that under the current policy take home packs would have to be unloaded through a fish receiver which added complexity and at times costs to what was traditionally a simple arrangement. The MAC noted that some Coops still charged a processing fee even for fish destined for home consumption.

The MAC encouraged AFMA to pursue a more workable mechanism.

GAB Trawl Fishery

Mr Moore (GAB invited participant) noted that it had been a difficult year in the GAB due to a drop in the availability of shelf associated species and because prices had been a bit depressed. The MAC noted however that when the Lakes Entrance Coop started to run out of Flathead quota the price for

Deepwater Flathead improved markedly.

The MAC noted that GABIA had reaffirmed its position on its equal allocation agreement across the GAB endorsements and that this policy also applied to attribution of management costs (levies) and research outside of the levybase. The MAC was pleased to note that Mr Jim Raptis had been elected as President of GABIA and Mr Moore had been reappointed as Executive Officer (part time basis).

The GAB invited participant outlined the GAB’s schedule for stock assessments and Fishery Independent

Surveys (FISs) and suggested that striking a balance on the risk, cost catch framework was a matter worthy of attention by SEMAC and SESSF RAG. Mr Moore suggested the rollover of the very expensive stock assessment contract on an annual basis was a potential area for reform and more transparency.

The AFMA member indicated that costs had been reduced in this area.

Mr Moore noted GABIA’s view on cost recovery arrangement for FISs was that these should attract 20%

Government contribution as there were clearly broader public benefits from regular surveys. The MAC noted this issue was being advanced by joint AFMA/Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) Working

Group.

Mr Moore, speaking in his capacity as GABIA Executive Officer, noted that GABIA’s view was the GAB was in a different Bioregion and that most of the issues in were not related to the SESSF and a such there was a sound argument for retaining GABMAC. GAB participant indicated that cross fishery dialogue was very valuable and that could be maintained with invited participant status on SEMAC. The auto-longline member endorsed this view and saw no merit in the GAB being rolled into the ‘SuperMAC’ and suggested that AFMA might wish to consider a reciprocal arrangement for an invited participant from the SESSF being appointed to GABMAC.

The GAB invited participant encouraged SEMAC to try and elevate more strategic discussions on its agenda.

Listing of Upper Slope Dogfish

Dr Rayns confirmed that the Minister for the Environment has listed Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern

Dogfish as conservation dependent and that the nomination of trawl fishing as a key threatening process had been declined. The MAC noted that formal advice on the listings was anticipated.

Auto-longline sector

The auto-longline member advised that the sector was facing a perfect storm as a result of loss of access to the Coral Sea and eastern seamounts (Commonwealth Marine Reserves) which basically meant fishing north of latitude 30 o south. The member noted the loss of productive Blue-eye Trevalla grounds around Flinders Island as a result of Gulper Shark closures. The MAC noted that as a result of this the


DRAFT auto-longline fleet would have to shift its effort on Blue-eye Trevalla to the eastern continental slope.

This would however be problematic as experience has shown there will be a significant bycatch of Pink

Ling - which under normal circumstances would be covered by quota. The auto-longline member noted that the anticipated measures to reduce the catch of Pink Ling in the east would threaten the sector’s viability because this could prevent them fishing their Blue-eye entitlements. The member explained that the vessels still experienced a bycatch of Pink Ling despite having their gear configured differently to target for Blue-eye Trevalla (hooks floated off the bottom a bit).

The auto-longline member welcomed AFMA’s commitment to review historic closures in the SESSF. The member noted that the GHaT Future Directions Working Group had recommended investigating lifting the restriction on auto-longline vessels fishing the Cascade Plateau because the original reasons for applying the closure were no longer relevant. The member noted that opening the Cascade Plateau would provide an avenue for the auto-longline sector to fish a proportion of their Blue-eye Trevalla holdings away from slope habitat where Pink Ling was a companion species.

The auto-longline member expressed interest in any opportunities through gear handling (i.e. brake lining) that might allow hook access in the north of the fishery. The member noted that these methods fell within the existing auto-longline permit parameters.

2.2

Recreational sector report

The recreational invited participant advised that AFMA had scheduled a workshop with recreational sector representatives on 20 June 2013 as part of its response to the Borthwick Review which recommended closer engagement with the sector.

The recreational participant noted that New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI) had proposed a 50% reduction in the bag limits across a range of species and particularly those that were shared between the recreational and commercial sectors. The participant considered that the discussion paper didn’t include enough scientific rationale for the proposed reductions.

The MAC noted that the NSW State-wide Recreational Fishing Survey 2013-14 was scheduled to commence on 1 July 2013 for a 12 month period. The recreational participant explained that the survey design involved large screening survey which would be done by phone and a subsample of those screened would be invited to keep fishers diaries.

The MAC noted that NSW DPI had now implemented zero take requirements for Harrisson’s Dogfish and

Southern Dogfish and a precautionary bag limit of two for other dogfish species.

The recreational participant indicated that the NSW Baitfish Working Group appeared to have stalled.

The participant explained this Group was working to resolve conflicts associated with the collection of bait by Commonwealth tuna fishers (own use) noting that some tuna vessels had access under NSW

Section 37 permits and others didn’t. The MAC noted that this was a complex matter with access to small pelagic species being important to recreational sector, the NSW Ocean Hauling Fishery, the tuna fleet (own use provisions) and operators in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery.

The recreational participant noted additional research work in relation to improving DEPM survey would be being undertaken by SARDI with funding support from the FRDC.

The recreational participant concluded by noting that recreational fishing had generally being good.

2.3

Protected Species Interactions

The MAC Chair indicated that he had decided to elevate this item on the agenda to ensure that it wasn’t consigned to the usually compressed closing minutes of the meeting. The AFMA member noted advice from the scientific member suggesting reviews of logbook data were useful but that there were


DRAFT limitations associated with summaries of raw data. The AFMA member indicated that obtaining trends from logbook data would be sensitive to distribution of effort spatially and temporally and in particular to reporting rates for interactions. The MAC considered it was still useful to review the data and welcomed the preparation of maps and considered that this could help identify emerging issues.

Mr Clayton McCloud (AFMA Environment Section) presented the logbook data and indicated that the summary tables and maps should be viewed a snapshots for each sector. Mr McCloud also explained

AFMA’s reporting mechanisms to SEWPaC and noted these reports were posted on AFMA’s website .

Mr McCloud noted there were different reporting mechanisms for listed migratory shark species

(Shortfin Makos, Porbeagles) between the trawl sector and longline and gillnet sectors.

The auto-longline member asked what constituted an interaction. Mr Gerner (AFMA) clarified and noted that interactions were defined as stress or harm caused by contact with fishing gear. Mr Gerner agreed to provide additional information for distribution to the Committee.

Action 9 – AFMA Bycatch Section

AFMA Bycatch Section to provide additional information on the definition of ‘interaction’ in the context of operators’ obligations to report interactions with protected species in their logbooks.

The MAC discussed the range of measures and initiatives in place to reduce interactions in various sectors and noted substantial progress in a number of areas. The discussion is summarised in Table 2.

The trawl member provided an update on the short codend trial on wet boats in the CTS. The MAC noted that there wasn’t the room on most of the trawl fleet to use conventional seal-excluder devices.

The trawl member explained that SETFIA was working with AFMA’s Bycatch Section, with funding support from Exxon and Caring for Our Country, trialling nets with short codends against standard nets

(controls) on a local trawler in the SESSF. The member explained that the shorter codend was thought to make it easier for seals that entered the net to get back out. The MAC noted that a fairly large sample size would be need before an analysis could be undertaken.

Mr Scott noted that further tuning of the seal excluder devices used on factory boats was going well. Mr

Scott noted that the devices were now successful in preventing fur seals entering the net when it was being hauled and work was now focused on preventing seals getting in as the trawl net was being set.

The MAC noted that if seals managed to enter the net before it descended there was a much higher risk of drowning. Mr Scott explained that they were now testing acoustic releases on net binding which, when triggered, allowed the mouth of the net to open at around 300m which was deeper than the fur seals could go to. The MAC noted that these devices were not (at this stage) portable to smaller wet boats.

The MAC agreed that a detailed discussion of seabird hook interactions be held over to Agenda Item 4.1

- GHaT Fishery Future Directions. The conservation member noted that the level of interactions has triggered the Longline Fishing Threat Abatement Plan triggers. The auto-longline member expressed concern that seabird interactions associated with the Gummy Shark auto-longline trial were included in the summary for the auto-longline sector and not separately against access associated with a research program (temporary permits). The member acknowledged that these were being treated separately in discussions between AFMA and SEWPaC but considered it important that presentations were also consistent with this separation of normal fishing activity and fishing activity associated with research projects.


DRAFT

The conservation member mentioned that the Humane Society International (HSI) was concerned about the apparent scale of reported interactions with Shortfin Makos between 1 January 2009 and 31

December 2012 2 :



770 in the GHaT sector and 20 from the trawl sector



9,000 interactions across all Commonwealth fisheries.

The conservation member noted that HIS was concerned about this given limited understanding of this species population status. The auto-longline member noted that the recreational sector also caught this species and the Environment Minister had made special arrangements at the time of its listing on the

EPBC Act which allow recreational anglers to still fish for these sharks.

The MAC noted a couple of unusual circumstances:



Two Australian Sea-lions (ASLs) and a fur seal reported hooked on hand set demersal longlines (the

ASLs were reported as being released alive).



A Hawksbill Turtle reported as being caught on auto-longline gear (the Committee noted it was possible the crew misidentified the turtle’s species identification).

The MAC recognised that detailed analysis belonged with the RAGs and research institutions who were able to compare logbook data with observer data and consider other factors like changes in populations of some protected species (like fur seals).

The conservation member thanked the Chair for promoting this matter on the agenda and thanked

AFMA for the summary and noted it was important to regularly assess reported interactions in order to detect trends or areas where issues are emerging so we can respond before thresholds like the TAP limits are breached.

2 Obtained from AFMA’s public reports to SEWPaC


Table 1: Summary of SEMAC 12’s consideration of gear specific interactions

Sector

Trawl

CTS (wet boats)

Trawl

CTS (wet boats)

Factory trawlers

Gummy Shark auto-longline trial

(inshore in SA)

Auto-longline sector (outside

183m)

Gillnet sector

Gillnet sector

Gillnet sector

Issue

Logbook reporting of fur seal interactions have been at around

80% of the scale suggested by extrapolations of observer data

Seabird interactions with warps. The trawl member noted that these interactions can be difficult for skippers and crew to observe due to their cryptic nature.

Mitigation measures/initiatives

A formal SETFIA project supported by AFMA and ExxonMobil is trialling shortened codends to reduce seal mortalities in the wet boat sector with the support of Caring

for our Country and Exxon (approximately 150 shots (including controls) conducted to date).

Wet boats are not big enough to be able to use Seal Excluder Devices (SEDs)

The introduction of towed deterrents appears to be very effective in reducing seabird contacts with trawl warps. Recent work by SETFIA and AFMA has resulted in good compliance with Seabird Management Plans. Sprayers developed by industry members are yet to be reviewed.

‘Net binding’ with acoustic releases to exclude seals from the net until the gear is 300 to 400 m below the surface.

The MAC noted SED grids are effective in preventing fur seals entering the end of the net as it is hauled.

Reliable reporting of fur seal interactions (100% observer coverage).

Measure in place to exclude seals from codend on shooting and hauling.

Industry working with New Zealand counterparts to mitigate entry of seals into the net during setting.

Seabird interactions - Noted that seabird interactions in the autolongline Gummy Shark significantly exceeded the TAP limit.

A lower level of seabird interactions occurred in the commercial auto-longline sector but still exceeded the TAP limit.

AFMA stopped the trial and implemented stronger mitigation requirements however these were not able to be tested within the time frame of the trial Caring for our country project with NZ seabird mitigation expert visiting Australia pending.

The auto-longline sector is redesigning their Tori lines to improve coverage of hooks entering the water and will use Brickle curtains when hauling. If improved Tori lines aren’t sufficient the use of weighted lines may be considered. Also a fishery wide response to the interactions is being developed (see page 11 below) and AFMA is ensuring timely monitoring of the rates of interaction under the TAP.

No ASL mortalities reported since March 2012. Australian Sea-lions closures have reduced ASL interactions off

South Australia (effort decrease)

Dolphin interactions ––there has been a lower level of interactions with dolphins than the rate which triggered the dolphin closure occurring across the fishery.

Shortfin Mako Sharks – concern noted over the apparent disparity in the proportion of White Sharks reported released alive compared to Makos released alive and the significant numbers of Makos that are now being reported.

Research proposal for trialling acoustic deterrents being considered by AFMA.

Industry have suggested further work is required on greater specification in relation to higher slinging ratios and increasing weighting on the footrope to tighten up nets.

Consideration of lighter nets (smaller denier) to allow mammals to break free.

No mitigation strategies discussed at the meeting. The conservation member noted that further action is needed to understand what impact these catches may be having on populations.

3 Managers Report

The AFMA Member noted that AFMA was meeting with representatives from a number of recreational bodies on the 20 th June 2013 and would also be meeting with Conservation Non-government organisations (NGOs) in the same week. The AFMA member explained that AFMA was looking to improve consultation with both sectors which was raised in the Borthwick Review

The AFMA member noted Commission and Executive decisions in relation to:



Pink Ling TAC for 2013/14 set at 834 tonnes



The School Shark TAC set at 215 tonnes (with further work required on the rebuilding time frame)



Approval of jigging as a fishing method in the Small Pelagic Fishery (subject to a high level of observer coverage)

The MAC noted the final catch against quota percentages for a number of SESSF species:

Species

Blue-eye Trevalla

Blue Warehou

Flathead

Gemfish (east)

Gummy Shark

Pink Ling

School Shark

Percentage of quota landed

86%

41%

95%

63%

74%

97 %

74%

Notes

The Committee considered this was a great result and noted that catch was also below both the eastern and western triggers.

Noted a higher level of discards and the need for work on other sources of fishing mortality

Down from 79% and 98% in past two seasons respectively and largely attributed to the increased difficulties in fishing with the closures off South Australia in force.

Active avoidance and characterised by a fair amount of discarding (quota hard to obtain)

The trawl member indicated that SETFIA had down of lot of work with operators in relation to minimising catches of Blue Warehou and Eastern Gemfish. The trawl member emphasised that it was crucial that the AFMA did not further reduce the Bycatch TACs, the member explained that collectively good outcomes can be achieved but if the TACs were reduced substantially then the unfortunate operator that gets the one big hit is then impacted significantly.

The AFMA member noted that only 400 kgs of Gummy Shark have been caught since the decision was made not to impose closures on the auto-longline fleet in response to that sector exceeding Autolongline Gummy Shark trigger (10 t).

The AFMA member noted that the AFMA Research Committee had supported a review of SESSF assessment and monitoring arrangements and expected that the details would be announced by late

July 2013. The MAC noted that AFMA had established a scoping group to assist with development of the call for research.

The Committee noted that the Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy had been implemented and that AFMA was looking at research proposals in relation to the power handline method and Gulper

Shark exclusion devices in Royal Red Prawn trawl sector.

The AFMA member advised that the 6,000 m gillnet trial was proceeding more slowly than envisaged and that it was likely to be some time before an analysis could be undertaken. The MAC noted that the target number of shots for the trial was 600 and that to date 132 shots using 4,200 m nets and 38 shots

DRAFT using 6,000m nets had been observed. One of the issues complicating the data collection was that some operators were using intermediate lengths.

The AFMA member noted that the 2013/14 budgets were nearly finalised and advised there had been a reduction from the draft budgets consulted on earlier in the year.

The AFMA member advised that AFMA would be examining the levy allocation model although qualified that this was more about some fine tuning. Industry members indicated they were pleased with the revised model but did have a few concerns that they would like AFMA to consider. The MAC noted an industry request to contribute to the discussions about adjustments to the model. There was general comfort that the principles underpinning the current model were appropriate. The Committee, noting that AFMA intended to examine if refinements to the model were needed, encouraged management to continue liaising with the levy working group.

4 Management arrangements

4.1

Gillnet, Hook and Trap Fishery (GHaT) Future Directions

The MAC Chair introduced Mr Power (Acting Manager GHaT) who was presenting AFMA’s paper.

Mr Power explained that AFMA was keen to get SEMAC’s input on the recommendations from the GHAT

Future Directions Working Group. The MAC noted that the Working Group had met three times and its tenure concluded with its final meeting in April 2013. The MAC noted that the fishery had been through a difficult period in recent years following implementation of large closures to protect marine mammals and that AFMA was keen to try and establish a vision for the fishery.

The Committee welcomed the development of a strategic outlook for the GHaT noting that the gillnet sector in particular had been had been through a difficult period which was characterised by reactive management responses in relation to marine mammal interactions. Members also recalled advice raised earlier in the meeting in relation to challenges facing the hook sector as a result of Upper Slope Dogfish closures, the pending gazettal of large Commonwealth Marine Reserves and seabird bycatch.

Mr Power advised that the AFMA Commission had provided guidance on the scope for the review process. Mr Power noted that essentially the approach was to review management measures and where necessary identify where arrangements could be rationalised to ensure they more closely followed AFMA’s legislative objectives. Mr Power reported that the Working Group identified three main areas for reform:

1.

Reduce complexity in the management arrangements and review the input controls which currently apply. Mr Power observed that while this was an output control fishery that input controls may still be needed to address protected species interactions and other bycatch obligations. The MAC noted that the Working Group considered the range of input controls, their history and why they were initially implemented (and if they were still relevant).

2.

Review of concessions noting that there were three sorts of concessions in the GHaT; i.

Boat SFRs. ii.

Around 20 different permit types that restrict access to particular areas of the fishery and also place restrictions on fishing gear that can be used. The MAC noted that the Working Group investigated if there was room for consolidation of these permits and it was suggested that these could be simplified into permits for outside 3nm and permits within 3nm (state waters) and appropriate conditions could be put on these respective classes. Mr Power noted that there was a strong case for administrative simplicity in this area but considered that such a transition would take time given that these permit classes had different values associated with them.


DRAFT iii.

Quota SFRs.

3.

Individual accountability which involved structuring management measures to reduce protected species interactions on individual fishers rather than the entire fishing sector. Mr Power advised that Working Group had provided in-principle support for individual accountability but recognised that further consultation was needed along with more detail about the role of electronic monitoring.

Mr Power noted that monitoring was the most expensive cost centre in the GHaT and that AFMA had engaged Archipelago Marine Research Ltd (preferred supplier) to provide more detailed costings to move the auto-longline sector and fulltime gillnet boats to electronic monitoring. The auto-longline member noted that, subject to satisfactory costings, industry had indicated a preference for buying the cameras and providing AFMA with the information they needed in order to maintain control over the camera footage. Industry members advised that they were also interested in using camera technology to monitor OH&S matters on vessels and this was the main reason for wanting to own the system (to avoid having to piggyback extra functions). The MAC also recognised there were privacy and confidentiality concerns around footage.

The GAB invited participant noted that latest AFMA Update ( Volume 10, Issue 5 - 22 May 2013 ) indicated that:

AFMA retains ownership of the data including the footage and protects this information according to AFMA policy and Commonwealth legislation requirements. AFMA may be required to disclose e-monitoring and other information where it is necessary to perform its functions under legislation or required by law such as under freedom of information provisions. AFMA cannot disclose any information unless authorised or required by law. In certain circumstances information collected by AFMA may be exempt from legal disclosure on a number of grounds.

The GAB invited participant sought clarification on the ownership of the data/information. The MAC considered that the ownership referred to the information that you are required to forward to AFMA.

The Committee recognised strong industry interest in e-monitoring provided AFMA was able to address broader industry concerns relating to data ownership, the protection of commercially sensitive information and ensuring appropriate data security (no leaked footage). Industry members noted that the CFA was engaged on the strategic aspects and concerns associated with e-monitoring. The

Committee noted that these were complex issues and that the MAC remained interested in advice on these matters.

The Committee then considered interim arrangements and noted that the Working Group supported rolling over the interim hook permits to allow gillnet operators with a history off South Australia to fish using hook methods inside the ASL Management Zone.

The MAC noted that the current temporary hook permits issued to fishers with a history of gillnet effort in the closures off South Australia were due to expire on the 30 th of October 2013. Mr Power advised that AFMA was seeking preliminary advice on a rollover of these permits for another two years (possibly with additional conditions). The MAC indicated in-principle support for renewing the temporary

permits to provide relief for gillnet operators directly affected by closures and asked that AFMA would give further consideration to the following potential concerns (list not exhaustive):

Catches of state species and GABTF quota species

Mr Power noted it was generally agreed there was capacity to simplify management by removing some of the current input controls but acknowledged advice from the state participant that the Department of Primary Industries and Resources of South Australia (PIRSA) was concerned about the potential removal of some input controls.


DRAFT

The MAC recognised the need for simplification of the multi-layered access arrangements in the GHaT and a reduction in input controls. Member were also cognisant that any transition in the operating methods needed to be facilitated in a manner which did not diminish the access rights (and relative equity) of existing hook and auto-longline concessions (and in other fisheries –e.g. GABTF).

The Committee recognised that the Commonwealth had entered into certain agreements when the OCS arrangements were negotiated and that most of the bycatch limits were administered as trip limits which to large extent were configured around a gillnet fishery. The state invited participant noted that simplification of access arrangements could increase Commonwealth impacts on state managed species.

The state invited participant advised that South Australia was concerned about the expansion of hook effort and its potential impact on Snapper stocks 3 . The state participant explained that PIRSA considered that bycatch data from the research and industry trial should be analysed before any expansion in autolongline effort in shelf waters was approved. The state participant recommended that efforts be made to minimise the bycatch of Snapper and other state species rather than pushing for increased trip limits etc. The MAC indicated that close involvement with the states, particularly South Australia, was important in working through this issue. Mr Stevens declared an interest as a member of the Fisheries

Council of South Australia and supported the state invited participant’s advice noting that it was important to work closely with states on both interim matters and in the development of longer term measures arising from possible reforms.

The state participant noted that the Working Group document indicated there was an offer to send video footage of Snapper being discarded but noted that this hadn’t been actioned. The AFMA member clarified that AFMA had not made this commitment and that it may have been an industry participant on the Working Group. A number of members considered that AFMA’s obligations were to pass on data from the trial not footage.

The MAC also recognised that GABIA was concerned about the potential for catches/impacts of GAB quota species (shelf-associated) by auto-longline methods under these temporary permits and had not yet seen an analysis of trial data which addressed this. The GAB invited participant noted that the GAB

Trawl Sector had long attributed the resilience in the Bight Redfish resource to its propensity to aggregate in reefy areas which were not suitable for trawling. The GAB invited participant observed that hook boats could fish this sort of terrain and asked if they started targeting Bight Redfish would they have to cover it with quota and would they be subject to costs associated with data collection and stock assessments for that species etc ?

The GAB invited participant indicated that GABIA was also concerned about the potential impacts on existing SFRs that may flow from changes to other access rights with a similar area of waters. The autolongline member and GAB invited participant recognised the need for interim relief through temporary hook permits and supported this approach but emphasised that any future changes to Commonwealth access rights needed to take into account existing access rights in both the SESSF and GABTF.

Seabird interactions

AFMA advised that seabird catches in the commercial auto-longline trial had exceeded the Longline

Fishing TAP demersal threshold. The MAC recognised that addressing the seabird issue was paramount because breaching the TAP could close a particular hook sector and while these interactions occurred in the trial, it highlights the importance of managing this issue to avoid any greater impacts within the fishery. Members noted that using hooks was a new method for many operators and will require time to tailor appropriate mitigation techniques for each vessel. The Committee was pleased that AFMA had

3 Documented in a letter from PIRSA - June 2011


DRAFT responded to these interactions with a range of measures (minimum sink rates) and per boat triggers.

Members noted that if longer term measures were based around individual accountability then the triggers would need to be calibrated against the overall TAP requirement for the SESSF which was currently expressed as a fleet wide interaction rate of < 0.01 birds per 1000 hooks.

The MAC noted that observer data showed there were different seabird risk profiles for hook operations under temporary permits (inshore waters, new operators) and established auto-longline operations in deeper water. The auto-longline member noted that the inshore trial had been compromised by a bycatch of Fleshy footed Shearwaters whereas it appeared there was a different seabird assemblage for auto-longline vessels working outside of 200m (White-chinned Petrels). The MAC considered that AFMA should ensure that the temporary hook permits be treated as separate ‘temporary sector’ under the

TAP.

The conservation member reminded the MAC that staged review intervals were needed to avoid situations where breaches of TAP rates were detected after they occurred.

Selectivity

The MAC noted that AFMA had also sought scientific advice on potential impacts on shark stocks that might arise from higher catches by hook methods given hook methods had a different selectivity to gillnets. The Committee noted that AFMA had the capacity to apply additional measures to minimise impacts on School Shark and to keep catches of Gummy Shark under levels which would not disproportionally impact the stock due to a different selectivity pattern.

Clarity around temporary permits

There was a strong MAC view that AFMA must continue to make it clear that the temporary permits provide only temporary access, hold no value and are non-transferable. The MAC supported a suggestion to link the temporary permits to existing permits rather than to the holder to avoid complications if a ‘holder’ died.

The MAC noted that access to the trial summary information would assist stakeholders evaluate current concerns and noted that AFMA expected that the report would be finalised by July 2013.


AFMA to circulate the Gummy Shark auto-longline trial report to MAC members and state agencies.

4.2

Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) management response for hook sectors of the GHAT

Mr Power advised that both the auto-longline and demersal longline sectors had breached the Seabird

TAP interaction rate of 0.01 observed seabird interactions per 1000 hooks set in the summer 2012-13 season. Members noted that this rate could also be expressed as 1 seabird every 100, 000 hooks. Mr

Power noted that in the event of a breach AFMA was required to implement a management response and if the limit was breached in the 12 months following the implementation of additional measures then AFMA was obliged to close the fishery.

Mr Power reported that the auto-longline sector there had been 9 interactions with White-chinned

Petrels (7 while setting and 2 during hauling). The auto-longline member indicated that this species was particularly bold around fishing boats in offshore waters

Mr Power indicated that AFMA intended to implement new measures by the end of July 2013 and had been consulting closely with auto-longline operators. The MAC noted that the auto-longline sector had already responded with improvements to their Tori (seabird scaring) lines and with the adoption of

Brickle curtains for hauling.


DRAFT

Mr Power advised that AFMA had written to the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) which administers the TAP on behalf of SEWPaC in relation to scope for implementing individual accountability in the

SESSF. The Committee noted that the Threat Abatement Plan 2006 for the incidental catch (or bycatch)

of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations was up for review this year and this provided a good opportunity for broader formalisation of individual accountability.

Mr Power noted that AFMA had approached the TAP because AFMA’s view was that specifications can only achieve so much whereas accountability promotes diligence in how a vessel organises its mitigation strategy, constructs its mitigation devices and particularly with regard to how carefully they are deployed each time (take account of the weather etc). The MAC welcomed news that AFMA was holding a seabird workshop for the demersal hook sector in July 2013. AFMA also noted it would also be ensuring timely monitoring and assessment of rates under the TAP. The AFMA member emphasised that individual accountability sheets home the responsibility for diligence and encourages effectiveness in contrast to AFMA trying to further specify its regulations or SFR conditions.

The conservation member asked if recent training programs include expertise from leading seabird mitigation practitioners and industry champions which had been successful in the Eastern Tuna and

Billfish Fishery (ETBF). The auto-longline member advised that Dr Graham Robertson (AAD) had been working with industry in recent years.

The AFMA member indicated that line weighting (by way of minimum sink rates) was another established mitigation approach and had been incorporated in the auto-longline temporary permits. The trawl member noted that AFMA had aligned their specifications with the CCAMLR sink rate. The autolongline member acknowledged that weighted line was a significant mitigation tool but cautioned that it would complicate targeting of Blue-eye Trevalla. The auto-longline member preferred to concentrate on improving Tori lines, Brickle curtains and attention to other measures (offal control) before resorting to weighted lines. The AFMA member cautioned that under current policy that we may not be afforded another review option if catches exceed the rate. The conservation member noted the auto-longline member’s views and noted that the TAP was scheduled for review but supported AFMA’s concern that half way house measures carried a risk of shutdown in the period the new TAP was being consulted on and then when it was being considered by the Minister for the Environment. The auto-longline member made it clear he didn’t disagree with the cautionary views being put forward but emphasised that while ever the sanction (closure) was applied at a fishery wide level then as an operator his investment was at risk. The member suggested that his $60,000 investment on weighted line (for example) could be jeopardised by another operator who let his Tori line blow away from the corridor it should be protecting. The auto-longline member reiterated his preference for individual accountability in these scenarios. The shark invited participant observed that there were still professionals operating in the fishery and considered that individual accountability provided an opportunity for them to maintain their access rather than have the actions of ‘cowboys’ close them down. The conservation member supported individual accountability but emphasised that there had to meaningful linking of the overall impact with the sum of the parts.

The MAC endorsed the conservation member’s earlier suggestion to AFMA to introduce a more regular check on seabird mortalities across its hook fisheries to ensure we knew where things were at with respect to the TAP thresholds.

The Committee noted that, due to the small scale of the demersal shark sector, one shearwater mortality could trigger the TAP threshold for the whole sector and supported AFMA raising this situation with the TAP team. Mr Power explained that the vessel in question was complying fully with its mitigation responsibilities and that the shearwater was hooked when hauling. The MAC welcomed

AFMA raising the appropriateness of rate triggers in small scale sectors of the hook fishery.


DRAFT

Pink Ling

The MAC agreed, given the Pink Ling Items (4.3 and 4.4) included recommendations that the Committee should review specific conflicts of interest.

Member

Mr Boag

Mr Scott

Interests and Committee’s decision

Mr Boag indicated that he did not hold Pink Ling quota. Mr Boag noted his role with SETFIA.

Mr Boag stepped outside the meeting room at 2:46 pm.

The Chair noted that now there was a formal process whereby the MAC decided if Mr Boag had a conflict of interests with agenda items 4.3 and 4.4 and if how it should be addressed. The Chair indicated that he believed there was level of conflict but that we needed Mr Boag’s expertise in the room for the Pink Ling items.

Members categorised Mr Boag’s conflict as indirect and supported his return to the meeting to participate in agenda items 4.3 and 4.4. Mr Boag rejoined at 2:48 am.

The Committee noted that Mr Scott had direct and indirect conflict of interests with the agenda items

4.3 and 4.4 which were set out in a statement of conflicts of interest.

Mr Scott had already stepped outside the meeting room at the close of Item 4.2 at 2:45 pm.

The MAC Chair acknowledged Mr Scott’s direct conflict of interest (as a holder of Pink Ling quota) and asked MAC members’ views on Mr Scott’s role in the discussion of, and in the forming of recommendations for agenda items 4.3 and 4.4. The Chair considered that we recognise Mr Scott’s direct conflict of interest but that we needed his expertise in the room for these items.

The recreational invited participant indicated he was not comfortable with industry members with a direct conflict of interest being involved in those items. The participant noted that involvement in the discussion could influence the MAC’s forming of recommendations and did not think there was necessarily a clear line that could be drawn in that regard.

Mr Boag suggested that if the objection was upheld then industry members should be either in the room or out for the entire item. The recreational participant responded noting that he was only one person and would abide by the Committee’s decision and move on but would like his concerns recorded.

Mr Boag indicated that his terms were that he was here for all or none and was happy to step outside if that was the Committee’s wish.

The Chair indicated we couldn’t operate on that basis as we would not have a quorum. The GAB invited participant considered that it constituted proper process as long as the MAC minutes record that Mr Boag has an indirect conflict and that Mr Scott had both a direct conflict and an indirect conflict and that the MAC wished both to participate in the relevant agenda items because they were the experts in relation to Pink Ling management matters.

The recreational invited participant confirmed that he was happy with what the MAC decides. The

GAB invited participant, speaking generally, noted that recommendations could be agreed by the whole MAC or a majority with one or two dissenting views which would be also be reported.

The MAC Chair invited Mr Scott back into the meeting at 2:50 pm.


DRAFT

4.3

Implementation of Pink Ling closures in eastern Bass Strait; and

4.4

Managing the mortality of eastern stock of Pink Ling

The MAC Chair introduced Mr Bromley (Acting Trawl Manager) to present the Pink Ling papers. Mr

Bromley noted that while there were two papers that were interrelated and could be discussed together. Members were comfortable with this approach.

Mr Bromley explained the management challenge of managing the eastern and western stocks of Pink

Ling under one ‘Global TAC’. Mr Bromley noted that the Pink Ling TAC of 834 tonnes (t) therefore needed to be managed with reference to the biological status of eastern and western stocks. Mr

Bromley advised that AFMA has identified a ‘notional TAC’ for the eastern zone based on assessment advice that the stock was around B

26

.

Mr Bromley advised that this translated to a notional TAC of 584 t for the western zone and a notional

TAC of 250 t for the eastern zone. The MAC noted industry advice that constraining Pink Ling catches in the east would be very difficult as while it could be targeted it was also taken in operations targeting other quota species. Mr Bromley advised that catches in the eastern zone in the last fishing year were about 358 t and that a significant adjustment by industry would be needed to constrain catches in the east under 250 t.

The MAC recalled its 18 March 2013 Teleconference where the Committee reviewed the utility of three

Ling closures (Seiners Horseshoe, Everard Horseshoe and Maria Island) in the east and noted that these for these closures had previously being enacted to reduce impacts on spawners and thereby enhance recruitment. The MAC recalled that there was little evidence available to support that these closures improved recruitment however the Committee noted that targeting of Pink Ling by the auto-longline sector and to a lesser extent by trawlers did occur in these features and that the reinstatement of the three eastern closures could be justified on the basis of reducing catches in the east.

The trawl member first qualified his opening comments by noting that he didn’t accept the Pink Ling assessment but noted that from a process perspective that it was the assessment and we had to deal with it. The member noted the extent of the problem was that probable catch was 108 t > Eastern RBC based on last year’s catch as a guide. The trawl member advised that a large quota owner had agreed to lease 30 t of quota to Portland (the west) based boats but reducing the remaining 78 t would be very difficult because there was virtually no trawl targeting of Pink Ling in the east. The trawl member, speaking in his capacity as SETFIA Executive Officer member indicated that SETFIA supported closures to all fishing methods in Maria Canyon, Everard Horseshoe and Seiners Horseshoe. The MAC noted that the closures weren’t expected to reduce catches sufficiently to bring the anticipated eastern catch in under 250 t. The trawl member observed that there were no other obvious solutions to contain eastern catches and noted that recent industry reports in the east were that the fishery was experiencing higher catch rates of that species.

The MAC noted that these closures had previously been applied during the spawning periods but recalled advice from the SlopeRAG Chair (MAC’s scientific member) that there was no scientific evidence available to suggest that the closures had improved recruitment. The auto-longline member indicated that these closures had a greater impact on auto-longline vessels. The member was however prepared to support the closures provide it was documented that the only justification for the closures was to constrain the catch of eastern Pink Ling and not to increase recruitment. The MAC spent some time discussing the period of the closure but settled on 1 year given the Tier 1 assessment was being updated and the rationale for the closure was linked to TAC settings.

The MAC supported the proposed shelf edge closures on the basis that it would constrain catches of

Pink Ling however noted that because these areas were productive grounds that this could reduce economic efficiency.


DRAFT

The MAC Chair noted that that further reductions would still be required even if the AFMA Commission supported the closures. The Chair noted it was an elegant solution wasn’t available. Mr Bromley agreed and encouraged the MAC to look at this as a total mortality equation and accordingly noted that AFMA was seeking the best way of limiting the catch of Pink Ling in the east without driving up discarding. .

The MAC paused to consider the longer term settings and noted that AFMA had previously proposed mechanisms to convert SFRs into east and west components. Mr Bromley observed that even if that could be achieved in a short time frame there would still be fishers with large holdings who had structured their fishing operations around catching most of their Pink Ling in the east.

The MAC agreed that splitting the SFR pool for species which had different stocks was a high priority (i.e. regionalise the quota). Members agreed that this would promote adjustment but accepted industry advice that it would cause hardship in the short term. The MAC recalled a mechanism proposed by

AFMA Management previously which was considered feasible at the time and suggested that this be given a high priority and advice also be sought on issues raised at the time like legal aspects and capital gains tax implications.

The trawl member spoke of industry’s concern about the Pink Ling situation and appreciated the AFMA

CEO and Executive’s preparedness to meet with SETFIA Directors to discuss this and important matters recently. The trawl member advised that SETFIA and a number of auto-longline operators had committed funds to support independent scientific input into the upcoming Pink Ling assessment. The

MAC recognised industry concern in relation to the Pink Ling stock assessment and welcomed industry’s initiative to bring additional expertise to the 2013 stock assessment.

The Committee also welcomed the AFMA Commission’s support for a step down approach in its TAC determination and appreciated industry’s commitment to try and work within current management settings despite their lack of confidence in recent assessment outputs.

The MAC noted that the auto-longline sector caught much of its Blue-eye Trevalla in the east however due to recent seamount and Gulper closures would now have to concentrate more of its fishing effort along the continental slope. The MAC noted industry advice that fishing for Blue-eye Trevalla along the continental slope would be characterised by a significant bycatch (30 to 40%) of Pink Ling.

The auto-longline member, noting earlier discussion about reviewing historic closures, suggested that

AFMA consider re-opening up the Cascade Plateau to the auto-longline sector. The member noted that the sector had previously fished there but that it had been closed to auto-longline for reasons which were no longer applicable. The auto-longline member suggested this would allow redirection of a significant proportion of auto-longline effort to features where Blue–eye Trevalla could be targeted but with an insignificant bycatch of Pink Ling. The MAC noted that the Cascade was open to the trawl sector for Blue Eye Trevalla.

The MAC recommended that AFMA review opening up the Cascade Plateau to the auto-longline sector taking into account the reasons for the original closure and with regard to potential shift of effort away from fishing grounds where Pink Ling was reported to be a significant bycatch component of operations targeting Blue eye Trevalla.

The MAC then considered management options available to AFMA should catches of eastern Pink Ling approach the notional TAC of 250 t recognising that AFMA was determined to keep total mortalities in the east under 250 t. The MAC identified a need for short interval monitoring once catches reached

200 t in the east. Industry members also suggested that the early implementation of a reporting arrangement would help promote industry ownership of the issue. The MAC considered a number of proposed options put forward by AFMA:


DRAFT

No take Direction - once landings of Pink Ling in the eastern zone once 200 t

The MAC was not able to support a proposed ‘No take Direction’ once 200 t was reached noting that such a measure would encourage a race to fish and that the auto-longline sector could be disadvantaged due to seasonality being a factor in Ling’s availability to that sector (better catches in

Spring).

Industry members suggested if a ‘No take Direction’ was in place that this would lead to high grading in the lead up to the trigger and discarding afterwards so any biological objective would be compromised.

The auto-longline member raised concerns that the high grading in the lead-up to the 200t trigger would mean smaller fish would be discarded (mostly dead) and this would exacerbate the biological impact.

Trip limits

Industry members did not support the implementation of trip limits from season commencement because they would be economically efficient and because, as a standardised measure, would not reflect people’s shares and were therefore inequitable.

The MAC was not able to identify suitable instruments to constrain catch and mortality of eastern Pink

Ling once landed catches approached 200 t. The MAC was optimistic that the voluntary shifting of quota, the recommended shelf edge closures and possible opening of the Cascade Plateau to autolongline sector could significantly reduce the take of eastern Pink Ling.

The Committee encouraged AFMA to work with industry to determine what the most equitable measures were to constrain catch and mortality of eastern Pink Ling as landings approached the notional TAC.

Recommendations

That AFMA pursue stock regionalisation options in the SESSF as matter of priority.

That AFMA implement full year closures to all fishing methods in the Maria Canyon, Everard Horseshoe and Seiners Horseshoe to reduce catches of the eastern Pink Ling stock for one fishing season.

That AFMA investigate removing the prohibition on auto-longlining on the Cascade Plateau.

Action 11 – Co-management AFMA, SETFIA and the auto-longline sector

AFMA to consult with industry regarding voluntary and statutory measures to constrain catch and take of eastern Pink Ling once landings reach 200 t.

4.5

Striped Trumpeter arrangements for Commonwealth operators

AFMA circulated information showing the catch of Striped Trumpeter by all GHaT sectors had fallen significantly from 2011 and 2012 levels (Attachment 2). The Committee noted that AFMA expected that the reduction in the Commonwealth trip limit to 150 kg for Striped Trumpeter would be implemented before the Tasmanian state spawning closures were enacted. The state invited participant advised that

Tasmania would have preferred to see the Commonwealth mirror the state’s seasonal (spawning) closures but could live with a year round reduction in the Commonwealth trip limit.

The shark invited participant supported the reduction noting that the extra 100 kgs (formerly available) was an incentive for some Commonwealth operators to target Striped Trumpeter.

The recreational participant took issue with the length of time (since December 2012) to implement the reduction in the trip limit. The AFMA member explained that AFMA had signed off on the amendment internally but noted that trip limits were enacted in fisheries management regulations which took longer to amend (rather than as conditions on fishing concessions). The recreational participant indicated that


DRAFT the recreational sector supported the reduced trip limit but reiterated that they would have still like to see a zero take requirement apply during the period of the Tasmanian spawning closure.

The recreational participant thanked AFMA for providing the information but asked next time if the associated levels of fishing effort could be included. The member suggested that a frequency histogram of catches i.e. 0 to 25 kgs, 26 to 50 kgs etc would help the Committee better understand the nature of the Striped Trumpeter bycatch.

4.6

Catches of Australian sardine under NSW and Victorian state fishing concessions

The Chair noted that with departures of members to catch flights 4 the MAC was now operating without a quorum. The Chair indicated that the discussion was also weakened due to the absence of the Small

Pelagic Fishery member.

The MAC Chair introduced Mr Shanks (Manager SPF) to present this item. The Chair then provided background information on the Victorian fishery noting that the state had supported a significant fishery for Australia Sardine (formerly Pilchards) at various times for over 100 years and that it was now centred in Lakes Entrance. The Chair noted that the fishery in Port Phillip Bay used to take between 3,000 and

5,000 tonnes of Australian Sardine each year up until the dieback in the late 1990s.

Mr Shanks noted that the NSW Ocean Hauling Fishery also took significant volumes of Australia Sardine and that Commonwealth SPF concession holders had access to Australia Sardine outside 3nm off New

South Wales. The MAC noted that some of the NSW operators also held concessions in the SPF.

The meeting noted that the way the Commonwealth assessment process and translation of

Recommended Biological Catches (RBCs) to TACs was structured resulted in the Commonwealth

‘accepting’ the residual once state catches had been deducted from the RBC. The meeting recognised this was inequitable and noted that neither of the states currently had the capacity to implement hard limits on catches (through routine instruments). Mr Shanks noted that if economic circumstances improved it was possible that the NSW and Victorian catches could exceed the RBC. Mr Shanks advised that AFMA had contacted NSW DPI and Fisheries Victoria about sharing within the RBC but added that

AFMA was also considering establishing a threshold below which it wouldn’t reduce the Commonwealth

TAC even if the states did not rein in their catches.

The meeting noted that AFMA however was required to act consistently with the SPF Harvest Strategy.

The meeting supported AFMA consulting with the respective jurisdictions and industry representatives in relation to establishing cooperative research and management arrangements.

5 Research

5.1

Report from SESSF RAG’s Chair’s Meeting

The MAC was not able to discuss outcomes of SESSF RAG’s Chair’s Meeting (February 2013).

5.2

Royal Red Prawn fishery Gulper exclusion device trials in the Sydney Endeavour Dogfish closure.

Mr Boag (trawl member) briefed the MAC on the impact of the Endeavour Dogfish Closure off Sydney on the trawl vessels that targeted Royal Red Prawns. Mr Boag noted that extensions to the closure in combination with the existing no trawl zones around submarine cables essentially closed the ground where Sydney operators usually caught most of their prawns. The MAC noted that most of catch was taken from around 400 to 500m but was associated with muddy substrates which weren’t considered to be preferred habitat for Upper Slope Dogfish (Gulper Sharks).

4 Mr Scott, Ms Seaborn and Mr Toumazos left the meeting at 4:03 pm, Mr Boag left at 4:10 pm.


DRAFT

Mr Boag provided a draft research proposal to test Gulper Shark Excluder in the vessels targeting Royal

Red Prawns. The MAC noted that further refinements were needed including dialogue with researchers involved with excluder devices in other trawl fisheries.

The MAC noted that the proponents were seeking support from AFMA Research Fund. The conservation member suggested approaching WWF as they would be prepare to consider this sort of work particularly given reports that the fishery for these deepwater prawns had low levels of bycatch.

The MAC provided in principle support for an industry research proposal to trial a ‘Gulper Shark Excluder

Device’ in trawl nets used in the Royal Red Prawn sector which operated out of Sydney and NSW south coast ports. The MAC considered it was a worthwhile initiative and noted that it would be subject to normal RAG scrutiny and comment.

5

6 Other business

6.1

Enquiry about local depletion in the Small Pelagic Fishery

The conservation member asked AFMA if any additional work had been done or commenced to address concerns raised about localised depletion in the Small Pelagic Fishery. The AFMA member noted that there were arrangements (based on advice of SPFRAG) which were to be put in place if large scale fishing resumed (i.e. freezer trawler) which would involve a review of fishing effort (heat maps). Mr

Shanks noted that in period leading up to, and since, the Interim (Small Pelagic Fishery) Declaration (No.

2) 2013 there had only been small scale fishing taking place in the SPF. Mr Shanks added that given the low levels of activity there had been no basis for engaging the RAG to review effort levels.

The AFMA member noted there had been a modest amount of fishing by a small purse seine boat off northern NSW.

The MAC noted that further consideration may be given to this issue by the Expert Panel on the

Declared Commercial Fishing Activity convened by the Minister for the Environment.

There was no other business.

7 Date and timing of upcoming meetings

Prior to Agenda Item 4.5 Mr Boag, on behalf of the MAC, presented Mr McCormack with a farewell gift from all the members. Mr Boag thanked Mr McCormack for his hard work in a difficult role adding that we had mostly run to time, goodwill had prevailed and that members had enjoyed the Chair’s company.

Mr McCormack noted that he had been involved with MACs for a long time and observed that it wasn’t always an easy task and thanked Mr Boag for his kind words. Mr McCormack wished members the best for the future and indicated that if you were going to work in a bureaucracy that having a career in fisheries management was a great place to be. Mr McCormack added that it could be tough but that it was a good industry to work with and that he had a real buzz out of it over the years. Mr McCormack acknowledged Ms Tarte as incoming Chair and was confident that the MAC would afford her the same respect they had shown to him over the years. Mr McCormack then asked members to resume deliberations on the last few items so we could hand over a clean slate to the new Chair.

The Chair suggested that AFMA consult with the new Chair in regard to the timing of the next meeting but noted that the two day TAC meeting was routinely held in late January.

5 Mr Moore left at 4:26 pm.


DRAFT

The MAC Chair then thanked members, invited participants and observers for their interest and input and closed the meeting at 4.32 pm.

Stephen McCormack

Chair – South East MAC xx October 2013

Attachments

1 Final agenda South East MAC 12

2 Information on Striped Trumpeter bycatch in the GHaT 2008 to 2013 (tabled at the meeting)

Action Arising

Action items shading indicates an ongoing item

1 Shark industry member to raise amalgamation of the shark Codes of Conduct with the SSIA Executive.

2 SSFI to continue to report back to South East MAC regarding progress with their Code of Conduct.

3 AFMA to develop a paper reviewing historic closures across all SESSF gear sectors for

SEMAC 13.

4 Executive Officer to circulate the section containing the SEMAC’s discussion on the potential need for a cross fishery allocation of the Western Gemfish resource.

5 Circulate Dr Thomson’s (CSIRO) hook selectivity analysis when it is completed and cleared by SharkRAG

6 Trawl Industry member to update SEMAC on the Code of Conduct for Deepwater

Sharks.

7a Members to provide additional comments on the SAFE assessment to AFMA

Management

7b AFMA to formally request that CSIRO review the SAFE Report in relation to queries identified by SESSF RAG and SEMAC.

8 Conservation member to canvass conservation NGOs, industry and recreational peak bodies to gauge their interest in relation to developing a joint submission to the

Commonwealth and NSW fisheries ministers (and shadow ministers) urging attention be paid to fixing up the Offshore Constitutional Settlement agreement.

9 AFMA Bycatch Section to provide additional information on the definition of

‘interaction’ in the context of operators’ obligations to report interactions with protected species in their logbooks

10 AFMA to circulate the Gummy Shark auto-longline trial report to MAC members and state agencies.

11 AFMA to consult with industry regarding voluntary and statutory measures to constrain catch and take of eastern Pink Ling once landings reach 200 t.

Member to action

Mr Toumazos

SSFI

AFMA Management

Executive Officer

AFMA Management

Trawl member

AFMA

SEMAC members

Conservation member, industry members, recreational member

AFMA Bycatch Section

AFMA Management

AFMA, SETFIA and the auto-longline sector


South East Management Advisory Committee

South East MAC 12

Agenda

9:00 am

6 June 2013 Keelty Room Novotel – Canberra

ITEM

1 Preliminaries

1.1 Welcome and introductions

1.2 Pecuniary interest declarations

1.3 Acceptance of agenda

1.4 Acceptance of minutes from South East MAC 11

1.5 Correspondence

1.6 Action arising

(40 minutes)

Chairman

2. State of Fishery

2.1 Industry reports

2.2 Recreational sector report

2.3 Protected species interactions

(30 minutes)

3. Managers Report

3.1 Decisions by the AFMA Commission and Executive

4. Management Arrangements

(30 minutes)

(4 hours)

4.1 Gillnet, Hook and Trap Fishery (GHaT) Future Directions

4.2 Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) management response for hook sectors of the GHAT

4.3 Implementation of Pink Ling closures in eastern Bass Strait

4.4 Managing the mortality of eastern stock of Pink Ling

4.5 Striped Trumpeter arrangements for Commonwealth operators

4.6 Catches of Australian sardine under NSW and Victorian state fishing concessions

DRAFT

5 Research (35 minutes)

5.1 Report from SESSF RAG’s Chair’s Meeting

5.2 Royal Red Prawn fishery Gulper exclusion device trials in the Sydney Endeavour Dogfish closure.

6 Other business

6.1 Enquiry about local depletion in the Small Pelagic Fishery

7 Date and venue of upcoming meetings (10 minutes)

Information Items

The following items are presented for the information of South East MAC members, no discussion is usually undertaken on these items.


DRAFT

Attachment 2. Agenda Item 4.5 Striped Trumpeter catch in the GHaT (2008 to 2013)

Striped Trumpeter Catch

Table 1: Striped Trumpeter catch (kg) 2008 – 2013 by GHaT sector (AFMA logbooks)

Sector

Dropline

Rod and reel

Mechanised handline

Gillnet

Auto-longline

Demersal longline

Totals

2008

61

0

750

946

0

888

2645

2009

1309

0

0

1555

0

373

3237

2010

72

150

0

1556

0

1568

3346

2011

2357

25

944

2996

52

1020

7394

2012

593

0

2986

0

506

4085

Figure 1: Striped Trumpeter Catch (kg) 2008 – 2013 by GHAT sector (AFMA logbooks)

0

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

Kilograms

1,500

2013

0

20

0

1043

0

276

1339

Dropline

Rod and reel

Mechanised handline

Gillnet

Auto-longline

Demersal longline

1,000

500

0

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Chair – South East MAC

Draft Minutes

SOUTH EAST

MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SEMAC)

Meeting No. 12

6 June 2013

Keelty Room - Novotel

Canberra

1 Preliminaries

2 State of the fishery

3 Managers Report

4 Management arrangements

5 Research

6 Other business

7 Date and timing of upcoming meetings

Attachments

Action Arising

South East Management Advisory Committee

South East MAC 12

Agenda

9:00 am

6 June 2013 Keelty Room Novotel – Canberra

Related documents

Products

Support

Chair – South East MAC

Draft Minutes

SOUTH EAST

MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SEMAC)

Meeting No. 12

6 June 2013

Keelty Room - Novotel

Canberra

1 Preliminaries

2 State of the fishery

3 Managers Report

4 Management arrangements

5 Research

6 Other business

7 Date and timing of upcoming meetings

Attachments

Action Arising

South East Management Advisory Committee

South East MAC 12

Agenda

9:00 am

6 June 2013 Keelty Room Novotel – Canberra

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib