Download - S F A C 6 5 - Meeting...Requirement for fishing licences to be attached to a vessel licence 19 8.3 Date and potential agenda items for meeting number 66 19 S F A C 6 5 DPIPWE, Wild

S F A C 6 5

DPIPWE, Wi ld F i sher ies Management Branch

MEETING NUMBER 65, 29 AUGUST 2018

Scalefish Fishery Advisory Committee MINUTES Banksia Room, Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens, Queens Domain, Hobart

AGENDA

ITEM NO. TITLE PAGE

Table 1 Declaration of Pecuniary Interests 2

1 Welcome and preliminaries 3

1.1 Action Items from previous meetings (Table 2) 4

2 Research Priorities (Table 3) – additional paper in Appendix 1 4

3 2017/18 Banded Morwong Performance and Model Outputs – summary of reviewed model outputs in Appendix 2

5

4

2019/20 Banded Morwong Total Allowable Catch

(a) Banded Morwong Fishery Forum Outcomes(b) Recommendation to the Minister for the 2019/20 TAC

9

5 Review of Calamari Fishery Management 10

6 Remake of the Fisheries (Mackerel) Rules 12

7 Reports - additional paper from Marine Police in Appendix 3 13

8.1

Transferability of endorsements

(a) Beach seine endorsement held by Mr David Osborne(b) Endorsements generally

17

8.2 Requirement for fishing licences to be attached to a vessel licence 19

8.3 Date and potential agenda items for meeting number 66 19

S F A C 6 5

DPIPWE, Wi ld F i sher ies Management Branch

TABLE 1: DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Member Interest declared

Stephen Bartels Owner of a processor licence and scalefish licence package with scalefish B, wrasse and banded morwong licences and banded morwong quota.

Dave Blake Owner operator. Holder of a scalefish licence package with a scalefish A, banded morwong licence, wrasse and southern calamari, and beach seine B and quota.

Jon Bryan Tasmanian Conservation Trust representative. Member of other Tasmanian FACs, TARFish Board, and a couple of recreational diving clubs. No pecuniary interest.

David Cannon Owner operator of a scalefish licence package with a scalefish B, wrasse.

Todd Francis Owns and operates two scalefish licence packages. Package 1: scalefish B. Package 2: scalefish B, purse seine net (non-transferable), wrasse and southern calamari licences. Generally targets calamari, garfish and flathead.

Craig Garland Owner operator. Holder of a scalefish licence package with a scalefish A and beach seine B. Small mesh gillnet licence. Is also endorsed to use small mesh gillnets on the north coast.

Julian Harrington Chief Executive of Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council. Holds most recreational licences. Member of various fisheries committees and forums. No pecuniary interest.

Ashley Kent Marine Police Officer. Holds recreational licences. No pecuniary interest.

Max Kitchell Independent Chair. No pecuniary interest.

Jeremy Lyle Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies research scientist. No pecuniary interest, although noted that he does research for Tasmanian fisheries.

Rob Milner

Co-Vice President of the Tasmanian Scalefish Fisherman’s Association. Owner/operator of licence package with Scalefish A, Small Mesh Gillnet, Wrasse, Beach Seine A. Holds endorsements for the Tamar River for gillnet, beach seine and dip net. Also holds all recreational licences.

Grant Pullen DPIPWE Manager, Wild Fisheries Management. No pecuniary interest.

John Sansom Chief Executive Officer of the Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fishermen’s Association. Member of CFAC. Director of Southern Rock Lobster Ltd. Owns a rock lobster entitlement and quota.

Frances Seaborn DPIPWE Fisheries Management Officer. No pecuniary interest.

Angela Iles DPIPWE Fisheries Compliance & Systems Officer. No pecuniary interest.

2 of 24

3 DPIPWE, Wi ld F i sher ies Management Branch

A C 6 5FS

ATTENDANCE

Mr Max Kitchell Chair Mr Craig Garland Industry representative Mr Dave Blake Industry representative Mr Todd Francis Industry representative Mr David Cannon Industry representative Mr Jon Bryan Community and conservation representative Mr Julian Harrington TSIC representative Mr John Sansom TRLFA representative Mr Rob Milner TSFA representative Constable Ashley Kent Marine Police representative Dr Jeremy Lyle Research representative Dr Bradley Moore IMAS presenter Mr Grant Pullen Fishery Manager representative Ms Frances Seaborn DPIPWE Executive Officer Ms Angela Iles DPIPWE Observer

APOLOGIES An apology was received from Mr Malcolm Budd, Manager Fisheries Compliance and Licensing.

1. Welcome and preliminaries

The Chair opened the meeting at 9:02 am and welcomed members to the meeting. Members were advised that the meeting will be recorded to assist with the preparation of the minutes and no objections were raised.

1.2 There was an apology recorded from Malcolm Budd for this meeting and Stephen Bartels was not present.

1.3 Members were reminded of FAC procedure.

1.4 The declaration of pecuniary interests were updated for members present at this meeting in Table 1 (pp.2).

1.5 The agenda was accepted with an additional item from Mr Jon Bryan who asked to provide a report for item 7.

1.6 DPIPWE updated the FAC on the calamari closure noting the changes that were required to facilitate use of frozen bait that has been purchased or from the holder of an FLP taken in an open season in an open area. The FAC was also advised that industry would be advised of the changes via email or post.

1.7 Action arising from previous meetings was discussed with the outcomes as follows.

3 of 24


A C 6 5FS

Action item 1 (meeting 63, item 3) the FAC was advised that DPIPWE, TSIC and IMAS researchers met and discussed how we could improve the recording of seal interaction data by fishers and the following outcomes were recorded.

1. Discussion occurred around what seal interactions have an effect on — i.e., catch rates, fisherbehaviour and economic loss from damage to gear and catch.

2. It was noted that having the nature of the problem acknowledged may improve recording ofseal interaction data by fishers.

3. An explanatory sheet included in the logbook would be useful with clearer descriptions ofinteraction categories.

4. It was noted that improved seal interaction records can be both a carrot and a stick withregard to TAC setting for banded morwong — i.e., biomass is potentially underestimated oroverestimated subject to the level of interactions.

5. DPIPWE would use the fishery forum as an opportunity to highlight the importance of fishersrecording interaction data on their catch and effort returns — improve fisher awareness.

6. DPIPWE would remind fishers of the importance of recording seal interactions in the annualguide for the banded morwong fishery.

No magic bullet for recording of seal interactions, but importance of recording was emphasised. Not precise but important. Item complete

The following was noted by industry:

• The presence of seals in productive areas disperses potential catch — thus impactingoperations.

• There are incidences of seals taking up to 28 banded morwong during a trip.• Seals are also taking calamari from jigs now.

Note research proposed by IMAS in item 3 and included in Appendix 1.

2. Research priorities (Table 3)

The FAC reviewed Table 3 and the research member asked the FAC to consider the following:

1. Is there an appetite from industry to be involved in a RAG?2. If so, who would be interested? Noting that RAGs are not limited to FRDC, and would also

assist with directing Sustainable Marine Research Collaboration Agreement (SMRCA) fundingwithin IMAS.

The FAC agreed there was value in holding a specific Scalefish RAG meeting at least once a year as this would enable discussion on wider issues. However, this meeting would need to be tacked on to an event that would encourage fisher attendance — noting that if the weather is good fishers will prioritise fishing. It was agreed that the FAC is still a good forum for determining projects that would benefit the management of the fishery and prioritising them for TasRAC and RAG processes. It was

4 of 24


A C 6 5FS

also requested that IMAS confirm that travel and accommodation expenses incurred by industry members attending any RAG meeting would be covered.

The FAC supported the addition of the proposed research that would improve the Tasmanian Scalefish Fishery Assessment by addressing gaps in the understanding of key biological processes for species that are currently classified as “undefined” or where there is little or no basic biological information for these species in Tasmanian waters.

Also supported was the proposed research that would assess the impacts and implication of seal-fishery interactions in Tasmania — which would potentially lead to:

• improved species assessments through better understanding of interactions and seal-inducedmortality

• better-informed management of commercially; and• recreationally exploited species

The outlines for the wrasse and bastard trumpeter project proposals were also supported.

The research member also proposed a project — primarily driven by the salmon industry and recreational fishers — on “Interactions between the salmonid aquaculture industry and Tasmania’s key recreational and commercial fisheries: have marine farm operations affected wild fish abundance?” Industry were interested in this project, however DPIPWE does not believe that this project will inform management of the Scalefish Fishery — which is the priority of this FAC.

Table 3 has been updated to reflect the discussion on current research priorities. The research member tabled an outline of the proposed Scalefish RAG research priorities for the FAC to consider — which is attached in Appendix 1.

3. 2017/18 Banded Morwong Performance and Model Outputs

A summary of the 2017/18 Tasmanian Banded Morwong Fishery Assessment was tabled (Appendix 2).

Summary of presentation

• Statewide catch of 29.1 t in 2017/18 — with 28.9 from quota region.• In tonnage catches reduced in the NEC, EC and SEC regions (in accordance with decreasing

quota).• As a percentage of the TAC, spatial distribution of catches relatively stable in recent years.• Catch rates increased slightly in all areas in the quota region from 2016/17.• Under current (‘2017/18’) model stock trajectory has improved since quota reductions came

into effect; stock performance current management strategy (TAC of 30,992 kg and currentmin and max sizes limits) meets the limit reference point.

• Model review provides greater confidence, but more questions relating to assumptions.

5 of 24


A C 6 5FS

IMAS modeller Dr Bradley Moore summarised the catch and standardised catch rate data for the 2017/18 Banded Morwong Fishery Quota Year — noting that this was presented at SFAC 64 and the Banded Morwong Fishery Forum. Catch rates in all regions have increased relative to 2016/17 levels. Overall a net TAC area wide increase of approximately 19% from 2016/17 was observed and are the highest observed since 2009/10 (refer to pp. 1 of Appendix 2 for graph)

In August 2018 the model was reviewed by IMAS and New Zealand’s National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) CASAL model software developers. This type of model is generally used on NZ’s larger (~1,000 to 2,000 t) fisheries. From that review IMAS made a few modifications to the model based on NIWA’s suggestions and on some analyses completed with IMAS.

Stock performance (current biomass relative to initial biomass) was assessed using the banded morwong population model implemented in CASAL v 2.30 (Bull et al. 2012). The model was based on the model used in the 2016/17 banded morwong assessment — with the following modifications (hereafter the ‘2017/18 model’) and noting that the text highlighted in green are the updates to the model since the Banded Morwong Forum presentation held on 3 August 2018:

• Inclusion of catch and CPUE from the 2017/18 fishing season;

• Re-estimation of initial spawning stock biomass (SSB) and prior recruitment;

• Alteration of the years used to project recruitment beyond the current assessment year —from 1983-2012 in the 2016/17 model to 2005-2014. This parameter is basically now sayingthat recruitment into the future will be similar to what has occurred in the last 10 years ratherthan 25 years before that);

• Inclusion of temporal changes in minimum and maximum size limits;

• Down-weighting the fit to the standardised catch-per-unit effort data, based onmathematically-derived coefficients of variation (CVS); [down-weighting really drives thevariability band and smooths everything out a bit more — it narrows the grey bands in theprojections unlike the wider grey bands shown in the Forum examples.]

• Inclusion of sex-specific size-at-age data for 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2017;

• Assumption of constant natural mortality in each month; and

• Assumption of interpolated growth in non-biological sampling years. This means that everytwo years (the odd numbered years) IMAS gets growth information from the samplingprogram which is inputted into the model. In the even numbered years the model has beencoded to assume that if you have growth in 2011 and 2013 then growth in 2012 will bebetween those two points. The previous model was using an average across the whole period— from the 1990s through to 2017 — for the missing years.

With these modifications to the model Figure 1 indicates the most appropriate interpretation of what is happening out in the water based on the data received.

Under this current model, the banded morwong spawning stock biomass (SSB) stock is estimated to be at 43% of initial SSB — having increased from 37% in 2011. Forward projections suggest that under

6 of 24


A C 6 5FS

the current management strategy — i.e. TAC of 31.0 t and current minimum and maximum size limits — biomass will remain above the limit reference point of 30% initial biomass with a > 90% probability by 2023 (i.e. the 5-year reference period).

Figure 1: Current stock estimate and forward projections of BMW spawning stock biomass (SSB) expressed as a percentage of the unfished SSB, based on the current size limit and TAC of 31.0 t (and assuming a 5% undercatch). The red vertical line indicates the 5-year period in which SSB is required to meet the limit reference point of 30% initial SSB (indicated by the grey horizontal line) with a 90% probability (as shown by the dark shaded area). [Source: IMAS presentation to SFAC and in Appendix 2]

The assumptions in the model were highlighted and IMAS have used those most appropriate for this fishery. Examples were then given about the sensitivity of the model when the assumption for selectivity was changed — which sent the SSB below the Limit Reference Point as shown in Figure 2 of Appendix 2. The differences between Figures 1 [the model output] and 2 [the sensitivity analysis] provided in Appendix 2 was explained. The commercial catch sample used in Figure 1 does not include the undersize and oversize fish as they are accounted for as part of the population. The commercial gear currently used under-represents the small and really large fish. Figure 2 is not truly representing the fishery as the mesh size used by commercial fishers does not catch everything as Figure 2 implies — therefore IMAS believe that Figure 1 is more representative of the fishery.

If the assumption of growth is changed for the missing years to the “mean” then the SSB is slightly reduced to that shown in Figure 2 (below).

30% LRP

7 of 24


A C 6 5FS

Figure 2: Sensitivity analysis using mean growth. Current stock estimate and forward projections of BMW spawning stock biomass (SSB) expressed as a percentage of the unfished SSB, based on the current size limit and a TAC of 31.0 t (assuming a 5% undercatch). Note that the SSB is slightly lower than predicted in Figure 1, but still above the LRP. The red vertical line indicates the 5-year period in which SSB is required to meet the limit reference point of 30% initial SSB (indicated by the grey horizontal line) with a 90% probability (as shown by the dark shaded area). [Source: IMAS presentation to SFAC]

It was noted that the “assumptions in a model” are key and processes are required to ensure IMAS has the data to address some of those assumptions into the future. It was noted that modellers are trying to create a mathematical expression for a species that lives underwater, is not easily observed and moves. There are two sources of complementary, but slightly different, data going in — commercial data and biological sampling data — with the age composition and the growth the real driver of some parameters utilised in this model. This fishery started in 1993 and the research data in terms of age structure has been tracked through time since 1994 — almost since the start of the fishery. What drove the early decline was the dramatic changes in the population’s age structure as a result of fishing the older, larger fish in the early years. The model is saying that this is a sustainable fishery as a result of the management decisions that have been taken through time.

The Community and conservation member noted that if you were starting this fishery again the TAC would be set to maximum sustainable yield. Maintaining the fishery to a steady state is not an ideal place to be. The DPIPWE member observed that most Commonwealth fisheries have biomass targets of around 40% and the model is suggesting the SSB for banded morwong is currently at 43% of virgin biomass.

The biennial sampling program will collect biological data during the 2019 closed season that will assist with some of the assumptions being made on growth. If another fast year of growth, similar to 2017, is observed then IMAS will have more confidence in how growth is predicted into the future.

30% LRP

8 of 24


A C 6 5FS

Selectivity, particularly the age composition data, will also be reviewed. At the moment IMAS is assuming a single selectivity across the entire time series of that biological data — which has always been the case with the model — noting early in the fishery 133mm mesh was used but most are now using 140mm. The sampling data will be reviewed to reflect that transition through time.

The assumption of seal mortality is another that needs reviewing. Currently it is assumed that all fish returned to the water survive. This is unlikely due to the increased interactions with fishing operations but the proportion of fish that don’t survive is unknown — is it 5%, 50% or 99% of fish returned to the water eaten by seals. If IMAS can receive estimates based on anecdotal evidence from fishers — then a rough estimate of what the seal effect on banded morwong can be factored into the model.

IMAS is considering undertaking an external review of the model to increase the confidence of the model projecting the SSB back in time. It’s a process conducted for other Tasmanian fisheries. The research member emphasised that this process would also validate confidence in the model outputs that IMAS provides to managers and industry.

There was some discussion of utilising industry to collect extra size composition data through the commercial year to provide additional information to support developing the model further. It was noted that IMAS collects data within the spawning season and uses that to predict the population. As a secondary point of strengthening that data any extra length information taken within the fishing season would be used to check whether they are comparable. IMAS attempted to do this with processors in the past but the extra handling put additional stress on the fish. There is also potential for the use of smart technologies to estimate lengths or weights to make it easier for fishers. The research member noted that if there are any industry members willing to measure fish then IMAS can set it up in a way that that would have minimal effect on individual fishing operations. IMAS will also review the data they already have to determine if there are any gaps that need to be filled.

4. 2019/20 Banded Morwong Total Allowable Catch

(a) Note the outcomes from the Banded Morwong Fishery Forum.

The FAC noted the position from industry members present at the Forum that the TAC unit value remains the same as for the current 2018/19 quota year.

(b) Determine the recommendation to the Minister for the 2019/20 Total Allowable Catch.

There was some discussion about the setting of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for the 2019/20 quota year. The Community and conservation member — while encouraged by the new outputs of the model — noted that the projections did not see a marked increase in spawning stock biomass (SSB) into the future. He believes the TAC should continue to be reduced to allow the biomass to rebuild above the current estimate and enable a clear projected upward trend of the SSB into the future and therefore does not support maintaining the 2019/20 TAC at the current level.

The TSIC member stated that there no need to further reduce the TAC as the model clearly indicates that it is well above the limit reference point in five years’ time and the projection appears fairly stable

9 of 24


A C 6 5FS

if not heading slightly up into the future. Industry members supported maintaining the TAC at the current level of 26 kilograms per quota unit (total of 31 t). The DPIPWE member also supported the TAC for the 2019/20 quota year remaining at the status quo — noting the improved outputs as a result of the review of the model and that the model will continue to be reviewed over the next year. Also highlighted was that the performance measures in terms of the Limit Reference Point (LRP) and establishing a Target Reference Point (TRP) will be required by the FAC in the future — noting that standard procedure in most fisheries is that confidence limits for LRPs are very high (hence 90% confidence) and there is generally a lower confidence requirement for the TRP.

The Chair — noting the Community and Conservation member’s position — clarified that the general view of the FAC is that no change to the TAC for the 2019/20 quota year will be recommended to the Minister and that the model might be able to assist the FAC in the future to establish a Target Reference Point — which may affect the FAC’s consideration of the unit value in years to come.

The FAC recommended the following:

RECOMMENDATION

That the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for the 2019/20 quota year be set at 26 kilograms per quota unit (30,992 kilograms) — i.e., maintaining the current TAC for the 2019/20 quota year.

5. Review of Calamari Fishery Management Options

The DPIPWE member summarised the purpose of the review which was generated from SFAC 64 noting the review would not be focussed on a particular management tool and would investigate all the options available to assess how they might operate, including possible scenarios. The second part of the SFAC recommendation was about issuing a warning to licence holders if past activity in the fishery were to be used for any of the outcomes of the review process in the future.

More information on the media release can be found on the DPIPWE website at https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/sea-fishing-aquaculture/commercial-fishing/scalefish-fishery/southern-calamari-fishery and DPIPWE will be sending out an email or letter to licence holders informing them of that warning.

It was noted that this will be a qualitative review and will not be investigating dollar values in terms of cost and benefit. It was stressed that this will be an open and transparent process of genuinely having a look at the management options available and investigating a whole range of aspects that would apply to each of the management options — i.e., How might they be effective or ineffective? What are the implications on the water? What are the implications for compliance? What are the implications for management with regard to administering the option — recognising that whatever the outcome DPIPWE will have to administer this management into the future.

10 of 24

https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/sea-fishing-aquaculture/commercial-fishing/scalefish-fishery/southern-calamari-fishery

https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/sea-fishing-aquaculture/commercial-fishing/scalefish-fishery/southern-calamari-fishery


A C 6 5FS

The paper tabled for this meeting will canvass all SFAC and RecFAC members, peak bodies and key industry groups to provide their views on the attributes of each management option. Recognising that in the Scalefish Fishery the levers that might actually be open to us may be limited.

There was some discussion around initial views of the strengths and weaknesses of the attributes of each management option. It was noted that input controls by definition will have an impact on fishing. What area would any of these measures apply over and why? Some of the options discussed in some detail were:

• Seasonal closures — which DPIPWE implemented on the north coast in 2017.

• Commercial Trip limits — noting it would need to be determined if a trip limit would bewarranted in the licensed area particularly has there has been a limited number of operatorsover a long period of time. The imperative for a trip limit would be different on the north coastthan in the south east. A high number of vessels would potentially reduce the effect.

• Catch Cap — what limit would you set and for what area of the fishery? How would youmonitor the catch cap it in real time and who would pay for it? The shorter the season and themore rapid the increase in catch, the closer it will need to be monitored — more challengingto manage.

• Size limits — if all calamari are going to die within that year, would a size limit provideadditional resilience to the fishery? It was noted you get better prices for larger fish. Calamarigrow fast and if the smaller ones are released they have the potential to grow and then becaught a month later at a much larger size and subsequently receive a higher price. Also notedwas that calamari are quite robust and can be successfully released alive if treated well whencaught. According to research they start breeding at around 150-180 mm. One fisher hasn’ttaken a fish under 200 mm since the licence was introduced. Market wants bigger fish.

• Area closures — the concept of a calamari area closure, which might be a permanent “no takeor possession” calamari closure to provide some resilience to the fishery. Existing examples —although not areas closed specifically for the take of calamari — were the D’EntrecasteauxChannel where there is no commercial access and little recreational targeting of calamari, andthe Maria Island Marine Reserve. Calamari are known to spawn and lay eggs in both locations.It was noted that the impact on fishers may not be that significant if some localised areasaround the State were shut permanently that would potentially provide some level ofprotection for a portion of the spawning population and provide resilience to the fishery —subject to how these areas were designed.

• Limited entry was briefly discussed as had been talked about at length in previous meetings —noting that if this option was pursued in the future that DPIPWE would want to see a reallystrong administrative, equitable process around how the limited entry would work and whatwould need to be done to facilitate that, including determination of qualifying criteria.

11 of 24


A C 6 5FS

There was some discussion around seine gear having the capacity to take large amounts of calamari in a short period of time — compared to use of squid jigs — and that this may also need to be considered in this review.

Managing a species that is strongly effected by environmental fluctuations is a challenge and is not a reason to not pursue doing certain measures. It was noted that good egg production in one year does not guarantee good catches the following year. Also noted was that there is no option that is guaranteed to be the one that will fix all the issues and there may be a need for a combination of management tools to provide for some resilience to the fishery.

DPIPWE will formally release the paper to TSIC and TARFish next week and will also send to RecFAC members out of session. FAC members were encouraged to talk to calamari fishers located within their regions and provide written comments by early October 2018. The next meeting would review the collated written comments received from TSIC, TARFish, RecFAC members and SFAC members. DPIPWE will then summarise the comments received into a report for the Minister.

A handout was provided to FAC members detailing the current catch and effort for calamari for the 2017/18 FY produced by IMAS — using data provided by DPIPWE based on returns received by 20 August.

6. Remake of the Fisheries (Mackerel) Rules

The Executive Officer provided some background on the remake of the Fisheries (Mackerel) Rules and highlighted the process and timeframe for this statutory review. The draft changes were initially provided to TSIC and TARFish for their feedback before the Office of Parliamentary Counsel was directed to draft the new legislation for public comment. There will be an information paper detailing the proposed changes which will be released along with the draft legislation in September 2018.

Table 1: Process for the 2018 Remake of the Fisheries (Mackerel) Rules.

Draft review document and

consult with TSIC and TARFish

Consultation with OPC re drafting of

rules

Release paper and draft rules for

public comment (60 days)

Review submissions, finalise rules and

draft report to Minister

Final Report and Rules submitted to

Minister for approval

New Rules in

place

Jun

e to

July

201

8

Late

July

to m

id-A

ugus

t 20

18

Sep

tem

ber t

o O

ctob

er

2018

Nov

embe

r 201

8

Mid

-Dec

embe

r 201

8

By 1

1 M

arch

201

9

The TAC setting process for the Mackerel Fishery was clarified (they are set via the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995) and it was noted that only the holders of a fishing licence (mackerel) are bound by the TAC. Holders of a scalefish licence are permitted to take jack mackerel, blue mackerel and redbait outside of the TAC.

12 of 24


A C 6 5FS

The FAC will be notified when the paper and draft legislation has been released for public comment. This will be the opportunity for industry and members of the public to provide a written submission on this draft legislation.

7. Reports

7.1 Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies

The Research member advised that the main activities relevant to the Scalefish Fishery that IMAS are working on include:

• Calamari – the dive surveys are scheduled to commence in October 2018 — this will be thefinal survey year for this project.

• Banded morwong – model review as previously mentioned in item 3.• Garfish – the honours project as previously mentioned in item 2.• Socio-economic survey – waiting to hear from the RAC process• Southern Bluefin Tuna – the national survey of recreational catch (TAS, SA, VIC & NSW).• Survey of recreational fishers regarding fish farm escapees. Would be interested in

information on any commercial catch.

Again it was emphasised that IMAS are keen to receive samples of any species from commercial fishers and these will be paid for. Also highlighted the value of commercial fishers keeping your heads and frames for IMAS, as this will increase the length data and otoliths for aging — particularly for those species that are not primary target species.

IMAS is also providing data in the FRDC’s Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) Reports — which brings together available biological, catch and effort information to determine the status of Australia’s key wild catch fish stocks. The latest report will be based on 2016 catch.

7.2 Marine Police

The Marine Police member provided an update on statistics for current reporting period of July and August — which had logged 65 marine offenders across all fisheries. This was down from 76 for the same reporting period last year. Of these there were 34 fisheries specific offences (19 commercial and 13 recreational). There were 12 scalefish offences — which is down by four compared to the same period last year. There were also 31 MAST offences (two commercial and 29 recreational). Also noted was that now that MAST offences have transitioned to AMSA these types of offences will no longer be reported by Tasmania Police.

Vessel patrols are planned for the striped trumpeter closure and for the calamari closures. PV Cape Wickham will be covering Bass Strait and PV Vigilant will cover the east coast waters closure. PV Van Diemen will concentrate on striped trumpeter closure as part of their patrols.

13 of 24

http://www.fish.gov.au/Reports


A C 6 5FS

Fishwatch phone calls are starting to increase — in line with the weather. The Marine Police have received some good information from both commercial and non-commercial fishers. Some of this information has resulted in proceedings pending in court.

REMINDERS FOR INDUSTRY

• Changes to PFD (life jacket) standards [now AS4758.1] which must be in place by 2020.

• Operation conducted with Parks and Wildlife Service Officers with regard to seals — i.e., theharassment of and shooting of and/or possession of firearms.

Anecdotally this behaviour has been escalating, and the number of firearms Marine Police have seized from vessels has increased. The Marine Police had a meeting with Parks Wildlife Officers recently to discuss the best way to approach this. It was noted that there are a lot of myths about who can and cannot possess firearms on the water. It was clarified that unless a person holds the right permits and the correct genuine reason on their firearms licence a firearm cannot be present on a vessel. It was noted that State waters are classified as a public open space under the relevant legislation. Many people misinterpret section 37(fa) of the Firearms Act 1996 to be “if you are a commercial fisher then you can carry a firearm on your vessel”. This section actually describes who is a commercial fisher under the Act. A genuine reason would be being the holder of a seal deterrent permit and a device to deter seals (sections 27 and 42 respectively) in addition to a firearms licence.

A short paper has been drafted highlighting the relevant legislation which will be distributed to members via email (Appendix 3).

7.3 Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council

The TSIC member reported that most of his time has been spent on the MAST to AMSA transition — fielding calls from commercial fishers who are confused with the process. ASMA is using complicated language and not following up with confirmation of compliance for vessels in survey — which is leaving commercial operators at risk as the onus is on them to comply. Industry members were advised to contact the AMSA Industry Liaison in the first instance, but if they don’t seem to be getting anywhere, to then contact TSIC.

There are four companies all proposing to conduct seismic survey activity in the Otway Basin at around the same time and some of these surveys will overlap each other. The area that concerns Tasmania is west of King Island. Research by IMAS indicates that the cumulative impact on zooplankton and larvae in addition to adult species is more serious than previously thought. The current process is fairly ad hoc. TSIC and TRLFA believe this process needs to be reviewed as it currently takes up a considerable amount of time by industry associations to work through.

Upcoming events that TSIC is involved with include the “Rural Alive and Well” fundraising event at Hadleys Hotel, in partnership with Seafood and Maritime Training (formerly Seafood Training Tasmania) and TRLFA to increase mental health awareness and support to seafood industry. TSIC will again be involved in Wooden Boat Festival in February 2019 and would welcome any interested

14 of 24


A C 6 5FS

industry volunteers to assist. TSIC also has “Working on Water” — the educational careers pathway promotional program — coming up in late October both in the south and the north.

7.4 Tasmanian Scalefish Fishermen’s Association

The TSFA member expressed industry concern about continued increased expansion of salmon farms — starting in Macquarie Harbour, D’Entrecasteaux Channel, Port Arthur and in the Tamar and now expanding to Storm Bay, Norfolk Bay, the east coast and potentially the north west coast. Noted was the increased biosecurity risk of towing of pens containing fish to an area that did not previously have Atlantic salmon.

Industry member Mr Craig Garland reported that he and five others (including representation from the yachting sector) met with the Premier asking for a moratorium on further expansion of fish farms to new areas — and are yet to receive a formal response from the Minister. Industry is not being consulted and that became apparent at the salmon farm forum — noting that a monitoring buoy has already been deployed off Three Hummock in the north west and feasibility studies for the suitability of Stanley Wharf are underway. Mr Garland emphasised that the single biggest threat to livelihoods and our way of life is the unrestrained expansion of salmon farms. This expansion will affect our [clean green] brand and our inshore marine areas — which are fish nursery areas. For species such as King George whiting whose eggs float on the upper surface — if there were salmon farms present this would negatively impact on the survivability of this species during its planktonic and larval stages as salmon eat them. This would also be the case for many species around the State where salmon farms are located. There has been no research to date that has investigated this potential effect on wild stocks. Industry are supportive of a viable salmon industry, but also need to be included in consultation process and have their concerns addressed. Additionally the salmon farms are not providing the regional jobs that were promised. These marine areas belong to everyone in the community — including commercial and non-commercial fishers — not just salmon farms.

The TSIC member advised that he had met with Minister’s advisor two weeks ago and there is a real appetite to pursue a marine farm spatial planning process within the coming month. A moratorium on expansion was not on the agenda for discussion. New spatial planning will disregard the original map that was released detailing “go zones” and “no go zones” and will use an evidence based process to determine what areas have higher values to different marine users and what process would need to be completed to drive social licence for salmon farm expansion.

Mr Garland requested that the FAC support a moratorium of salmon farm expansion until the spatial planning process has been undertaken and there is peer reviewed independent science available that investigates the reproductive dependency of marine species (planktonic and larval stages and as adults) with regard to currents etc.

The Community and conservation member pointed out that the current planning process for aquaculture is quarantined from mainstream planning in Tasmania. There are a number of processes associated with marine aquaculture that exclude people with a genuine public interest. A transparent

15 of 24


A C 6 5FS

public process has to deal with public submissions; is required to have a transparent decision making process; is required to report on its process in a particular way; and there has to be an appeals process. The marine farm planning process is not required to have these attributes.

There are two main aspects — the first is the Marine Farming Planning Review Panel (the Panel) which has no appeals process or requirements for transparency and the second is the Minister who makes the final decision. The Panel has limited scope as to what they can look at and do not have the option to reject a project outright under the newly amended Marine Farming Planning Act 1995 — which gives the Minister more power and also integrates the Environment Protection Agency. There is no appeals process regardless of any documented impact of a proposal.

The DPIPWE member noted that this FAC’s role is to advise the Minister on the management of the Scalefish Fishery — not marine farming. There is a Marine Farming Planning process in place and noted that all members at this table are able to represent directly to the Minister with regard to marine farming.

The Chair suggested that he include this discussion — specifically with regard to the impact on the Scalefish Fishery — within his Chair’s Report to the Minister as a formal resolution may not be appropriate for this FAC. Industry members were supportive of this way forward.

7.5 DPIPWE Marine Resources

Grant Pullen advised the FAC that the position of Director (Marine Resources) will be formerly filled by Dr Ian Dutton on 18 September 2018. Dr Ian Dutton is Tasmanian by birth and has been working overseas for a long time. He is currently a Director of a marine science consultancy with a diverse range of experience in fisheries policy through to ecological type projects.

The Chair, on behalf of the committee, extended an invitation to the new Director to attend our next meeting.

7.6 Tasmanian Conservation Trust

The Community and conservation member highlighted the Centrostephanus barrens, which is of some interest to the Scalefish Fishery.

It is well known that barrens once they are established basically eliminate the abalone and rock lobster fisheries. What is lesser known is that they seem to impact reef fish like wrasse and morwong. Since 2002 there has been an increase of urchin barrens to and is likely to further increase over the next few years. IMAS modelling has shown that up to 32% of the reef on the east coast will be lost to urchin barrens by 2021 and an ongoing expansion of barrens beyond that point — which is a significant impact on fisheries dependent on those reefs. There is also no recovery of these urchin barrens. The modelling is optimistic and doesn’t factor in climate change or fleet behaviour preferentially targeting particular reefs.

16 of 24


A C 6 5FS

The Community and conservation member had proposed at other FACs to have a stakeholder driven forum with industry (including TRLFA and TSIC), IMAS scientists etc to talk through solutions as the steps taken to this point have been largely ineffective. It was noted that the cost to the of urchin barrens to the abalone industry is around $41M per year.

The TSIC member believes that the Minister has asked DPIPWE to facilitate a stakeholder forum sometime in the near future — to progress and agree on activities and strategies to control the spread of urchin barrens. It is believed that this forum will complement the $5.1M over five years that the Tasmanian Abalone Council has directed towards tackling Centrostephanus.

8. Other Business

8.1 Transferability of endorsements (TSIC)

(a) Beach seine endorsement held by Mr David Osborne

The Osborne’s formally wrote to the Minister asking for consideration to review the non-transferability of their endorsement for a number of reasons outlined in their letter. Fundamental to their argument is their ability to plan their business and long term business structure and support other family members who would like to be involved in the industry and investing in the opportunity they believe is there with regard to tourism operation ventures and people wanting to consume locally caught fish etc. There is no appetite, desire or justification to invest in new boats or new processing equipment when that endorsement will disappear for no other reason apart from a policy that was developed back in 1985.

The Osborne’s received a response from the Minister dated the 14 August 2018. The TSIC member emphasised that the letter did not say a clear “no this will not be reviewed” and just reverts to the policy and a statement that the policy will continue until they exit the fishery.

It was noted that Mr Osborne is currently in his 70s and has a team of six to eight people who are actively involved in beach seining. An industry member was recently selling Australian salmon to a rock lobster fisherman for bait and that fisher said that using fresh bait halved his turnaround and increased his catch rate. Mr Osborne supplies the whole north west coast with Australian salmon as bait. This is a sustainable species and currently everywhere. As far as employment and engaging people – there will be six to eight people who won’t be engaged in the future if there is no ability to pass that endorsement on to the next generation. Recreational fishers also buy their bait from the Osbornes before they head down the west coast to fish for rock lobster. There is a market, the resource and demand for that resource. We have a whole industry that revolves around one person that cannot go forward into the future if the endorsement is not made transferable.

The Chair noted that it was not appropriate for the FAC to deal with individual cases. However, it would be appropriate for the FAC to consider the broader issue of transferability of endorsements within which the individual case could be considered.

17 of 24


A C 6 5FS

(b) Endorsements generally.

Is the policy still relevant? TSIC has on more than one occasion approached current and past Ministers to request a review of all endorsements that are deemed non-transferable — and sit on a fishing licence (personal) — with the aim of taking into account the current status of what is being caught, gear types being used, social acceptability and where there is a case for transferability to look at allowing those endorsements to be placed on a scalefish licence and become transferable and/or used by a supervisor to allow the continuation of the activity on that endorsement without the person named on the endorsement having to be present when the fishing activity occurs.

In the past there has been no appetite by DPIPWE to review the current policy. TSIC will continue to push for a review of that policy which would allow a review of non-transferable endorsements — this would potentially accommodation the Osborne’s request.

The FAC considered the request from TSIC to recommend to the Minister that a review of the current endorsement policy should be conducted — noting the following comments from the DPIPWE member:

• This request (transferability of endorsements per se) was considered by the previous Ministerin 2015 and was declined.

• Endorsements came from a proposal to change management of an area. There were twooptions when the management was changed – 1. Everybody out and that’s it or 2. Those whowere reliant on the area retained access by endorsement until they left the fishery.

• The main criticism levelled at DPIPWE by some is that this process has taken way too long —that there should have been a sunset of say 10 years max before the endorsed fishers had topermanently exit that area of the fishery.

• These are long standing management arrangements, which are heavily supported in differentareas around the State which recognise that these endorsements will eventually disappear.

The TSIC member asked the DPIPWE member if the policy was still relevant for all cases — with regard to the justification for why the policy was brought into effect in the first place. Circumstances are different now to what they were in 1985. Has the environment changed? Would restaurants and community access to locally caught seafood benefit from allowing these endorsements to be made transferable? Would allowing that effort in a sustainable fishery to continue within the community be of benefit to that community?

The DPIPWE member advised that TSIC is welcome to ask the Minister to review the status of those endorsements, but suggested that they provide the Minister with a rationale as to why the policy is no longer relevant and/or appropriate in some cases — i.e., please can a review be conducted on the basis of a, b, c and d.

It was suggested that a precedent was set when the Macquarie Harbour endorsements were made transferable, although this was refuted as they were different circumstances.

18 of 24


A C 6 5FS

The research member suggested that there is probably an appetite to review the rationale for that management decision — which was basically to close that area to commercial inshore effort — as that situation and that environment has now changed. The heat which caused that management decision is no longer there. Further discussion noted that there was no Australian salmon around back then and there was heavy pollution along the north west coast. There was conflict between the recreational and commercial sectors because of the lack of fish, but there is no lack of fish now. Everything has changed, that [polluting] industry has gone and the whole north west coastline is a lot different. It’s about servicing the community — if you are providing a service to a lot of people on the coast why not let it continue.

The TSIC member stated that falling short of a recommendation coming from the FAC perhaps this request could be noted in the Chair’s report and TSIC will continue to work with industry to pursue this further. The Chair repeated that it is not appropriate that the FAC make recommendations on Osborne’s case specifically. Secondly it seems that the overall issue of transferability is not urgent — it’s been around for a while — and suggested that the TSIC member comes back to the next meeting with a more worked up proposal for review taking on board what the DPIPWE member suggested.

The TSIC member agreed to this suggestion and indicated that a formal position will be put forward for discussion at the next meeting.

8.2 Requirement of fishing licences to be attached to a vessel licence

Industry member Mr Todd Francis briefly described his issue as per the tabled paper, which is basically trying to make it easier for fishers to obtain the licences they need. The DPIPWE member described the how licence packages work in the Scalefish Fishery — i.e., the fishing licence (vessel) is the basis of every package and the gear and species licences sit on that — and also explained the current policy with regard to licence splitting where you can apply to split a licence off from one package to another, but the underlying principle is that the split will not increase effort into the Scalefish Fishery or the fishing industry more widely. There are a whole range of input controls on the Scalefish Fishery and this policy is one of those controls used to limit effort in the fishery. If you are asking for a licence split DPIPWE would need to know where that licence is coming from and where it is going to before assessing if it meets the licence splitting policy.

It was decided that further discussion would occur between DPIPWE and Mr Francis after the meeting.

8.3 Date and potential Agenda items for meeting number 65

It was proposed that the next meeting be held on Tuesday, 13 November 2018.

The meeting was closed at 2:55 pm.

19 of 24

20 of 24

S F A C 6 5

Table 2: SFAC action arising from previous meetings

Meeting no., Agenda Item no. &

date Action item Action by Outcome

63, item 3

8 November 2017

DPIPWE to discuss a way forward with TSIC to develop a small working group to discuss options for better recording of seal interactions then communicate to wider industry.

DPIPWE

TSIC Complete

21 of 24

S F A C 6 5

Table 3: Research priorities for the scalefish fishery

Meeting no. & Date

Species/Fishery Research need Status/Planned outcomes Priority

61

3/10/2016 (updated)

Garfish

Better understanding of if the fishery is undergoing availability issues or recruitment failure. Review existing closures and determine if timing and zones are appropriate, particularly for the north.

Honours project currently underway. IMAS have been paying for samples from the north, Flinders and south east. Would welcome more.

This project will provide an update of where stocks are at.

61

3/10/2016 (updated)

Wrasse

Status of wrasse stocks: assessing the impacts of fishing at localised and regional scales.

There is currently no research on these species besides reviewing catch and effort trends.

Likely to be the highest value species in the scalefish fishery. Anecdotal reports from industry that localised depletions and serial depletions have occurred in some regions.

IMAS included a proposal on their proposed Scalefish RAG Research Priorities list (Appendix 1)

61

3/10/2016 Striped Trumpeter

Require more information to enable determination of the size and age structure of the stock.

Samples are being collected mainly from the recreational sector. Would like samples from the commercial sector if possible.

22 of 24

S F A C 6 5

62

3/03/2017

Socio-economic characterisation of the Tasmanian Scalefish Fishery: barriers and opportunities for future profitability and a strategic vision for the sector.

An assessment of the socio-economic characteristics of the Tasmanian Scalefish Fishery, opportunities to improve economic and social outcomes for the sector and a more holistic approach to the management of the fishery. RAC title: What is the economic/social trend and future of the Tasmanian Scalefish Fishery

Was ranked as number 1 priority from Scalefish Sector to TasRAC. Was considered by TasRAC at the 26 July meeting, but have not been advised of the outcome from FRDC as yet. The next TasRAC meeting will be held in September 2018 and will follow up there.

63

8/11/2017

IMAS

Bastard Trumpeter &

Blue Warehou

Both classified as “overfished”.

Recreational sector is main catcher of both species and require targeted research specifically on the recreational gillnet fishery.

Population biology of and status of bastard trumpeter to enable improved management of bastard trumpeter, and in particular a review of the suitability of existing management measures in achieving long term sustainability.

Blue warehou is predominantly a Commonwealth managed species — although managed by the State in State waters. Unaware of any research happening in the


Bastard Trumpeter: still trying to get samples of larger individuals from Commonwealth shark fishers.

23 of 24

S F A C 6 5

Commonwealth and is currently managed under a bycatch TAC in the SESSF.

64

13/04/2018

IMAS

Southern calamari Scope out required research for statewide and potentially a regional assessment.

IMAS to provide preliminary project proposal for SFAC 65.

65

29/08/2018

IMAS

Species currently assessed as “undefined”

Improving the Tasmanian Scalefish Fishery Assessment by addressing gaps in the understanding of key biological processes for certain species.

Related to this diversity and the limited economic value of individual species, there is a general paucity of basic biological information directly relevant to Tasmania populations for many species. Such information is necessary to underpin stock status determinations and assess the likely impacts of fishing, and is either absent or inferred from populations outside of Tasmania.


65

29/08/2018

IMAS

Assessing the impacts and implications of seal-fishery interactions in Tasmania

Anecdotally, interactions between seals and fishers (commercial and recreational) are increasing across the State. However, these interactions remain poorly quantified, and


Improved species assessments through better understanding of interactions and

24 of 24

S F A C 6 5

their effect on fishery performance and abundance is poorly understood.

In terms of fisheries assessment, seals pose two confounding issues – alterations in catch rates caused by fishers trying to reduce interactions (e.g. through the deployment of ‘dummy’ fishing gear), and increased rates of mortality of fish from seals preying on captured individuals (either those to be retained or discards).

Research components could include: documenting nature of interactions to better quantify this in logbooks; trialling activities and gear to reduce interactions, or assessing the fate of discards under increasing seal interactions.

seal-induced mortality, better-informed management of commercially and recreationally exploited species

Download - S F A C 6 5 - Meeting...Requirement for fishing licences to be attached to a vessel licence 19 8.3 Date and potential agenda items for meeting number 66 19 S F A C 6 5 DPIPWE, Wild

Top Related