Black Jewfish

Fishery Overview

This overview is adapted from NTG (2017):

The NT Demersal Fishery extends out from 15 nm from the low water mark to the outer limit of the AFZ (excluding the area of the Timor Reef Fishery) and targets a range of tropical snappers (Lutjanus spp. and Pristipomoides spp.) using a variety of gear. Fish traps, hand lines and droplines are permitted throughout the fishery and demersal trawl nets are permitted in two defined zones (Figure 1).

Figure 1:  Map of the NT Demersal Fishery (grey area). Red lines indicate trawl area (NTG, 2014). 

The harvest by the Demersal Fishery is limited by TACs applied to Golden Snappers (Pristipomoides spp.) (400 t), Saddletail Snapper (L. malabaricus) and Crimson Snapper (L. erythropterus) (2500 t) and a “grouped fish” category (915 t). The latter group includes all fishes other than Barramundi (Lates calcarifer), King Threadfin (Polydactylus macrochir), Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson), shark and Mud Crabs (Scylla spp.).

A total of 3107 t of fish was harvested by Demersal Fishery licensees in 2015. Red snappers (Saddletail and Crimson Snapper) and Golden Snappers formed the bulk of the harvest (74 per cent and 9 per cent, respectively) with Painted Sweetlip (Diagramma labiosum) being the primary byproduct species (4 per cent of the total). Reported bycatch of other species (by weight) during 2015 was less than 1 per cent of the dropline and trap harvest and the average bycatch recorded by observers for the trawl harvest in 2015 was 20 per cent of reported landed catch. Non-retained species included trevallies, scads (Family Carangidae) and sharks. On-board observers routinely verify the proportion and composition of bycatch in the trawl component of this fishery.

Figure 2 Trend in total catch

Risk Scores

Summary of main issues

• Black Jewfish is a very minor catch in the trawl sector of the Demersal Fishery, and is predominantly caught in the Coastal Line Fishery.  The stock is considered by the management agency to be recruitment overfished.  New management measures including commercial quotas and spatial closures to all sectors were introduced in the Coastal Line Fishery in 2015 to promote stock recovery.  These measures are expected to work, although measurable improvements in biomass are yet to be detected.
• There are no well-developed harvest control rules for Black Jewfish, although the Northern Territory Government has committed to developing harvest strategies for all major fisheries consistent with a new Northern Territory Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy.

Outlook

1A: Stock Status

CRITERIA: (i)The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing.

Black Jewfish is a widespread Indo-Pacific species found from the Pilbara and Kimberley regions in Western Australia, across Northern Australia, to the east coast of Queensland. The stock structure for this species has been investigated in the north western part of its range from the western Gulf of Carpentaria to its southern extent along the west Australian coastline (Saunders et al, 2016a). The results indicated that separate stocks exist at the scale of tens of km.  However, given the recent nature of these findings, here assessment of stock status is presented at the jurisdictional level— Northern Territory.

Saunders et al (2016b) report that “the most recent assessment estimates that the biomass and egg production was 28 per cent of unfished levels (1973). The model used was an update of the 2011 Stock Reduction Analysis model including data up until 2014. The outputs indicated that there was a high probability (98 per cent) that Black Jewfish stocks have been overfished and that overfishing is still occurring (80 per cent). Given the recent new information on the stock structure of this species, it is likely that the assessment incorporates several populations. As the model is driven by the populations that receive the highest harvest rates in the Northern Territory the assigned status can be assumed to be representative of the highest level of exploitation that occurs on any population. The immediate area of concern is in waters around Darwin where most of the fishing pressure occurs. The fisheries accessing these exploited stocks are those that operate inshore including the Coastal Line Fishery, Barramundi Fishery, fishing tour operators and recreational fishers. Black Jewfish have also been shown to be highly susceptible to barotrauma when caught in waters deeper than ten metres. Management in the form of catch limits and area closures have been put in place to reduce harvest rates by the necessary 20 per cent to allow for the biomass of Black Jewfish stocks to recover. The stock is considered to be recruitment overfished.”

Accordingly, the stock is not likely to be above the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) and there is evidence that the stock is currently overfished.

1B: Harvest Strategy

CRITERIA: (i)There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place.

The main commercial fishery harvesting Black Jewfish in the Northern Territory is the Coastal Line Fishery (CLF), with small amounts taken in the trawl sector of the DF.  The main elements of the harvest strategy in the CLF and inshore recreational sector include:

• Limited entry in the commercial sector (52 licenses);
• Commercial quotas on Black Jewfish and Golden Snapper;
• Gear restrictions;
• Possession limits for the recreational and FTO sectors;
• Monitoring through commercial logbooks, occasional observer coverage and periodic recreational fishing surveys (e.g. West et al, 2012);
• Periodic stock assessments (e.g. Grubert et al, 2013).

In the trawl sector of the Demersal Fishery (DF), catch is managed through limited entry, a basket quota applying to all species other than red snappers and gold band snappers, gear limits and spatial restrictions which limit the fishery to areas beyond 15nm from the coast (i.e. outside of areas where the majority of Black Jewfish occur).  In the Barramundi Fishery (BF), catches are controlled through limited entry, gear restrictions (only 10.7 km of net is allowed to be used in the fishery), as well as a substantial system of closures that includes almost all waters in river systems inland of the coastline.  Catches in the DF and BF are minor in comparison to the CLF and recreational sector.

Following evidence of overfishing, new measures were introduced in 2015 designed to reduce overall catches by 20% to promote stock recovery (Grubert et al, 2013).  These included limiting commercial catch in the CLF western zone (Western Australian border to Vashon Head on Cobourg Peninsula) to 145t, limiting the recreational in possession limit to 2 fish per person and a boat limit of 8 fish, as well as introducing a number of ‘reef fish protection areas’[1].

The harvest strategy has recently been adapted in response to the state of the stock, and current measures appear to work together to reduce fishing mortality towards sustainable levels.  However, there are no well-defined HCRs in place and, while the new harvest arrangements are expected to achieve the stock management objectives reflected in criterion 1A(i), the arrangements have only recently been implemented and there is insufficient evidence to date that they are achieving these objectives.  This issue should be rescored based on updated monitoring results over time.

[1] https://nt.gov.au/marine/recreational-fishing/reef-fish-protection-areas

NA

CRITERIA: (ii) There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) and tools in place.

There are currently no well-defined HCRs in place for Black Jewfish, although the fishery operates under the requirement of the Fisheries Act 1988 which requires that aquatic resources be managed in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development and tools exist to reduce exploitation where required.  There is also evidence that the management system has acted to reduce exploitation where research and monitoring indicate overexploitation.  Nevertheless, it is not clear that the existing arrangements are sufficient to reduce exploitation as the PRI is approached, given that the recent management measures were introduced only after evidence that the stock was overfished.  Accordingly, we have scored the fishery precautionary high risk.

Notwithstanding that, we note that the Northern Territory Government has recently released a Northern Territory Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy which requires that harvest strategies with well-defined HCRs be implemented in all key NT fisheries when their respective fishery regulations or management plan is next reviewed (DPIR, 2016). Future assessments of the fishery should take into account any developments under the policy.

1C: Information and Assessment

CRITERIA: (i) Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy.

There is substantial information available on the biology of the target species including; age, reproductive biology, growth and impacts of barotrauma (e.g. Grubert et al. 2013). The stock structure of Black Jewfish has also recently been investigated in detail (Saunders et al, 2016a).  The composition of the commercial and recreational sectors is well understood and catch and effort are recorded for all sectors that target these species through daily logbooks and recreational fishing surveys (NTG, 2016a). While Indigenous harvest is relatively unknown it is considered to be very low (NTG, 2016a).  This information is sufficient to support the rebuilding strategy currently in place.

There is a current monitoring program that aims to assess the recovery of coastal reef fish species (including the target species) in and outside of the recently implemented closed fishing areas. Additionally, there is an ongoing tagging program aimed at providing independent estimates of fishing mortality by all sectors (NTG, 2016a). Patterns in catch and effort by the commercial and FTO sectors are monitored annually and recreational sector catch has been estimated periodically through surveys (e.g. West et al, 2012).  Stock abundance is monitored through periodic assessments (e.g. Grubert et al, 2013).

CRITERIA: (ii) There is an adequate assessment of the stock status.

The status of Black Jewfish is assessed using SRA models (e.g. Grubert et al. 2013, NTG, 2016a), most recently using data up to 2014.  Estimates of current harvest levels in relation to those required to attain MSY are produced.  The assessment is appropriate for the stock and estimates status relative to reference points that can be estimated.

Black Jewfish
The stochastic SRA Black Jewfish assessment takes into account the major sources of uncertainty, and has been peer reviewed externally (Grubert et al, 2013). 

2A: Other Species

CRITERIA: (i) The UoA aims to maintain other species above the point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of other species if they are below the PRI.

The intent of this scoring issue is to examine the impact of the UoA on ‘main’ other species taken while harvesting the target species.  ‘Main’ is defined as any species which comprises >5% of the total catch (retained species + discards) by weight in the UoA, or >2% if it is a ‘less resilient’ species.  The aim is to maintain other species above the point where recruitment would be impaired and ensure that, for species below PRI, there are effective measures in place to ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

NTG (2017) report that Red Snappers and Golden Snappers formed the bulk of the harvest (74 per cent and 9 per cent, respectively) in the DF with Painted Sweetlip (Diagramma labiosum) being the primary byproduct species (4 per cent of the total). Saddletail snapper, one of the “red snappers” is assessed under Component 1 in the full assessment report, Reported bycatch (by weight) during 2015 was less than one per cent of the total dropline and trap harvest and the average bycatch recorded by observers for the trawl harvest in 2015 was 20 per cent.

The most abundant bycatch species in the trawl sector are a variety of trevally and scads (Carangidae) (NTG, 2012b; 2017).  Sharks and rays reportedly make up a high proportion of discards by weight although are almost always released live, consistent with a regulation prohibiting their retention.  The presence of larger species, such as sharks and rays, has declined as a result of improvements in design of the Bycatch Reduction Device (BRD) (NTG, 2012b). DRDPIFR (2009) assessed the ecological risks associated with the trawl sector on eight target and bycatch species/groups (Crimson Snapper, Golden Snapper, Redspot Emperor, Painted Sweetlip, Purple Spotted Bigeye [Priacanthus tayenus], scads, trevally, sharks and rays) rating the risk to each as negligible.  Nevertheless, we note that effort in the trawl sector has increased in recent years and the risk assessment should be updated.

The trap gear tends to catch very few species that are discarded, although some poisonous fish such as Chinaman Fish and Red Bass and some unmarketable fish such as Trigger Fish and Catfish are discarded. Longline gear is very seldom used in the fishery but there are some sharks as well as the above trap bycatch species that are discarded.  DBIRD (2003) note “the fishing methods used, baited drop lines and traps, rely upon passive means of capture which exclude the majority of bycatch species caught in the 1990 and 1992 trawl surveys. In addition, the size of hooks used (11/O-13/O) and mesh size of traps (75mm X 50mm) effectively exclude the majority of demersal species found on the grounds, while allowing the large and commercially valuable snapper species to be targeted. Currently bycatch levels are at less than 1% of the total annual catch.”  DRDPIFR (2009) assessed the risk of the trap/line sector to four bycatch species (Chinaman fish, red bass, bigeye trevally and trigger fish) rating each as negligible.

Based on the reported catch composition of both sectors, as well as low impact on non-target species, we have assessed Crimson Snapper as the only main other species in the trawl sector and both Golden Snappers and Crimson Snapper as main other species in the trap/line sector.

Crimson Snapper

Martin et al (2016b) report that Crimson Snapper is assessed on the basis of the status of Saddletail Snapper as an indicator for the combined red snappers group.  Preliminary analysis using the MSC’s Risk-Based Framework indicates that the productivity scores for both species are comparable.  Based on the outcomes of the Saddletail Snapper assessment (see above), Martin et al (2016b) conclude that the Crimson Snapper stock is unlikely to be recruitment overfished.

Golden Snappers

Golden Snappers (Pristipomoides multidens, P.typus and P. filamentosus) are a key target species for the trap/line sector, with P. multidens accounting for >90% of the Golden Snapper catch (DRDPIFR, 2009).

Martin et al (2016c) report that the Northern Australian Goldband Snapper biological stock was assessed in 2011 and 2013 using a stochastic stock reduction analysis (SRA) model. Egg production was estimated to be around 65 per cent of that prior to the start of the fishery, well above conventional fisheries target levels. The above evidence indicates that the biomass of this stock is unlikely to be recruitment overfished.

Accordingly, there is evidence that both species are highly likely to be above PRI

CRITERIA: (ii) There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of other species; and the UoA regularly reviews and implements

The harvest strategy for Crimson Snapper in the trawl sector is the same as that described for Saddletail Snapper in 1B above, these species being combined for management purposes in the group red snappers.  Similar to Saddletail Snapper, the main weakness is that the combined TAC for red snappers across the DF and TRF fisheries is set well above the estimated MSY (O’Neill et al, 2011; Martin, 2013; Leigh and O’Neill, 2016).  Increases in Crimson Snapper catch in 2015 (100% increase over 2014) (NTG, 2017) demonstrate that there is scope for increases in catch within the current trawl TAC.  While existing arrangements allow for catches in excess of MSY, the current level of fishing pressure is unlikely to cause the stock to become recruitment overfished (Martin et al, 2016b), the status of the stock is assessed regularly using saddletail as an indicator species and a framework of trigger points exists that could be expected to result in management change should the stock be approaching PRI.  To that end, the UoA has measures in place that that are expected to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of the main other species at/to levels which are likely to be above the PRI.  Nevertheless, as with Saddletail Snapper the UoA would be better placed with well-defined HCRs which ensure exploitation is reduced as the PRI is approached.

Regular stock assessments of Golden Snapper and Saddletail Snapper as an indicator for Crimson Snapper provide some objective basis that the strategy will work.

NA

CRITERIA: (iii) Information on the nature and amount of other species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage other species.

Information on the main retained species is collected via commercial logbooks, through annual observer coverage and through catch returns submitted as part of quota compliance arrangements.  Collectively, these programs provide quantitative information which is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on main other species with respect to status and to detect any increased risk.

The main weaknesses in the monitoring of non-target species appears to be the lack of estimates of discarded species by weight and the lack of species specific information for some groups (e.g. trevally).

2B: Endangered Threatened and/or Protected (ETP) Species

CRITERIA: (i) The UoA meets national and international requirements for protection of ETP species.
The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

NTG (2017) report that “the Demersal Fishery operates beyond the geographic range of many ETP species and so the risk of interaction with this group of species is low. Turtle excluder devices are required by law and square mesh codends are used voluntarily to reduce the retention of non-target species and increase the value of the landed product. Fishery observers reported eight TEPS interactions during 31 days of fishing in 2015. Bycatch species included sea snakes, Narrow Sawfish (Anoxypristis cuspidata) and a Grey Nurse Shark (released alive)”. Fishery observers reported 18 ETP species interactions during 40 days of fishing in 2014 (NTG, 2016a).  In 2014, interactions were reported with sea snakes, Narrow Sawfish (Anoxypristis cuspidata, dead), two dolphins (dead) and a turtle (released alive) (NTG, 2016a).

Neither the Australian or NT Government’s set numerical limits on the number of the above species that may be incidentally captured in the fishery.  Based on the low rates of interaction, the direct effects of the UoA appear highly unlikely to hinder recovery of ETP species.  These outcomes are consistent with the ERA undertaken in 2009 which rated the risk to ETP species as negligible (DRDPIFR, 2009), although NTG (2016b) indicate there would be benefit in updating the ERA given increases in fishing effort since 2011.

CRITERIA: (ii) The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:

• meet national and international requirements; and
• ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

The main management measure used to limit the impact of the fishery on ETP species is the use of bycatch reduction grids in trawl gear. Overall limits on licenses, catch of quota species and limits on the spatial area of the fishery are also likely to further reduce interactions.  All interactions with protected species are required to be recorded in logbooks, and interactions are independently monitored by DPIF annually by onboard observers (31 fishing days in 2015) (NTG, 2017).  Objectives, performance indicators and trigger points for ETP species interactions are set out in the decision rules framework for the fishery and aim to maintain interactions at 2012 levels (NTG, 2015). These measures are likely to be considered a strategy which is expected to ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

The outcomes of the 2009 ERA (DRDPIFR, 2009) rating risk to ETP species in both sectors as negligible, together with low rates of interaction reported by observers, provides some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work and the measures are being implemented successfully.  Accordingly, we have scored this SI low risk.  Nevertheless, we note the recommendation in NTG (2016b) to update the ERA in light of increased effort in the trawl sector since 2011.  Future assessments should take into account the outcomes of any ERA update.

CRITERIA: (iii) Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including:

• information for the development of the management strategy;
• information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and
• information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

All ETP species interactions must be reported in commercial daily catch logs recording the type of interaction, species and whether it was released alive or dead. In addition, independent observers provide some level of independent monitoring of rates of interaction (NTG, 2016; 2017).   While rates of observer coverage are relatively low, information available through logbooks and observers provides some quantitative information to assess the level of mortality associated with each sector and to support a strategy to manage impacts.  Nevertheless, NTG (2016b) notes that observer data are considered more reliable than logbook reports and reporting from non-observed trips should be improved.  To that end, there is some uncertainty around the adequacy of the available quantitative information to assess UoA related mortality and we have scored this SI medium risk.

2C: Habitats

CRITERIA: (i) The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management

Examples of “serious or irreversible harm” to habitats include the loss (extinction) of habitat types, depletion of key habitat forming species or associated species to the extent that they meet criteria for high risk of extinction, and significant alteration of habitat cover/mosaic that causes major change in the structure or diversity of the associated species assemblages (MSC, 2014).

The potential impact of the fishery on habitats and ecosystem structure and function is addressed by DBIRD (2003).  Broadly, they conclude that the limited number of operators in the fishery (one vessel then, four now) together with the very large area of the fishery and the design of the gear used would likely combine to result in a negligible impact on habitats or ecosystem function.

A number of studies have been undertaken assessing the benthic impact of the semi-demersal ‘Wendy’ trawl gear used in the fishery.  For example, Moran and Stephenson (2000) tested similar semi-demersal trawl gear on the continental shelf of north-western Western Australia, which is likely to have a similar habitat structure as the area fished by the NTDF.  These authors concluded the gear had ‘no measurable effect’ on the benthic community (whereas standard demersal trawl gear reduced benthos density by 15.5% on each tow).

NTG (2017) report that the trawl gear used by the Demersal Fishery does disturb the benthic environment and the area impacted in 2015 was 1.6 per cent of the total areas zoned for trawling (1.17% in 2014; NTG, 2016a).

The very limited spatial coverage of the fishery, together with studies showing limited benthic impact from the type of gear used in the fishery, indicate that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

CRITERIA:  (ii) There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats.

The main management measures used to limit potential habitat and ecosystem impacts from the fishery include spatial closures, the use of semi-pelagic trawl gear which flies slightly above the bottom, indirect effort restrictions through the TACC and limitations on the use of trawl apparatus through minimum holdings requirements.  A management objective to minimise the effects of fishing on ecosystem components is included in the management framework for the fishery, together with associated trigger points and requirements to review fishing gear and operations if triggers are breached (DPIF, 2012a).  These measures constitute at least a partial strategy which is expected to achieve the outcome reflected in criterion 2C(i).

In addition, a network of marine reserves has also been declared by the Australian Government off northern Australia, although supporting management plans are required to give the network practical effect.

Spatial restrictions on the fishery, together with VMS/trawl track information demonstrating very limited gear coverage compared to the size of the fishery and the independent studies demonstrating the semi-demersal ‘Wendy’ type trawl gear used in the fishery has limited impact on benthic habitats (e.g. Moran and Stephenson, 2000), provide some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work and measures are being implemented effectively.

CRITERIA: (iii) Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat.

While there has been some characterisation of the habitat in the DF over several decades which has been compiled to support recent marine reserve planning (e.g. Australian Museum, 2005; DEWHA 2007) there are large offshore areas that remain unmapped.  Accordingly, the habitats in the fishery are broadly known, but the nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats may not be known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery.  The fishery would be better placed against this indicator with a quantitative analysis of trawl position and coverage data in the context of the main habitat types encountered.

Information is likely to be adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impacts of gear use on the main habitats, including spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear. The impacts of trawl and trap gear on similar habitats has been studied (e.g. Moran and Stephenson, 2000; Shester and Micheli, 2011), and VMS and logbook reporting provides good information on the spatial extent of interaction and the timing and location of the use of fishing gear.

2D: Ecosystems

CRITERIA:  (i) The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function.

Serious or irreversible harm in the ecosystem context should be interpreted in relation to the capacity of the ecosystem to deliver ecosystem services (MSC, 2014). Examples include trophic cascades, severely truncated size composition of the ecological community, gross changes in species diversity of the ecological community, or changes in genetic diversity of species caused by selective fishing.

The overall impact of the trawl sector is limited through the TAC on species groupings, spatial closures, the use of comparatively selective trawl gear and the requirement for minimum holdings which restricts the number of vessels able to be used in the fishery.  Given the large number of fish species that are likely to occupy a similar ecological niche as the target species, the healthy position of the main target stocks and the relatively minor impacts on other ecological components (e.g. ETP species, habitats) there is a reasonable argument that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. This is consistent with the qualitative ERA undertaken in 2009 which showed no high risks amongst assessed species (DRDPIFR, 2009).

CRITERIA: (ii) There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.

The main management measures to limit the impact of the fishery on the wider ecosystem are:

• limits on overall catch through the TAC and species groupings;
• the use of minimum holdings which limit the number of trawl vessels in the fishery;
• the use of a semi-pelagic trawl which limits habitat impacts;
• area closures to limit the spatial extent of the fishery;
• restrictions on the number and design of fish traps;
• prohibitions on the retention of sharks and rays;
• monitoring and periodic stock assessment of target species; and
• monitoring of non-target species impacts through independent observers.

A management objective to minimise the effects of fishing on ecosystem components is included in the management framework for the fishery, together with associated trigger points and requirements to review fishing gear and operations if triggers are breached (DPIF, 2012a).  These measures constitute at least a partial strategy which takes into account the available information and is expected to restrain the impacts of the UoAs on the ecosystem so as to achieve the outcomes reflected in criterion 2D(i).

While there have been no dedicated studies of the trophic impacts of target species harvesting in the DF, stock assessments demonstrating healthy stock status for the target species (NTG, 2017), observer information demonstrating limited interactions with ETP species (NTG, 2017), spatial information demonstrating a limited footprint for both sectors, and independent research demonstrating limited impacts from the gear used (e.g. Moran and Stephenson, 2000), provides some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work and is being implemented successfully.

CRITERIA: (iii) There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem.

The structure and function of the main elements of the northern Australian ecosystem has been relatively well studied, with much of the information compiled to support marine reserve planning processes (e.g. NOO, 2004; Australian Museum, 2005; DEWHA, 2007; 2008a; 2008b) or fisheries management (e.g. Bustamante et al, 2010).  This is likely to be sufficient to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem.  Continuing monitoring programs collect data (catch, species composition, effort, fishing location, bycatch composition and volume) that are likely to be capable of detecting any increase in risk level. Information is sufficient to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts.

It is likely that the main impacts of the fishery can be inferred from existing information from studies on similar fisheries (e.g. Moran and Stephenson, 2000; Shester and Micheli 2011), however we are not aware of any studies specifically investigating the ecosystem impacts of this fishery. This score could be improved through spatial analysis of fishing footprints on individual habitat types and ecosystem modelling of the food webs in the area of the fishery.

3A: Governance and Policy

CRITERIA: (i) The management system exists within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:

• Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s)
• Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood.

The NTDF operates in designated waters off the Northern Territory, Australia.  Under an Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) with the Commonwealth of Australia, the fishery is managed by the Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority (NTFJA).  The NTFJA comprises representatives from Australian Commonwealth and Northern Territory Governments and provides for the Australian and NT governments to jointly manage the fishery given the possibility of shared resources with adjacent national and international jurisdictions.  Day-to-day management is undertaken by the Northern Territory Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPIF) on behalf of the NTFJA.  High level objectives for fisheries managed by DPIF are set out in the Northern Territory Fisheries Act 1988.

The Northern Territory/NTFJA management and legislative framework is consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with Components 1 and 2.

Customary rights of Aboriginal people are recognised in the Northern Territory. The Blue Mud Bay agreement has resulted in waters overlying aboriginal land to the low tide mark having access controlled by the aboriginal communities in that area. Customary harvest by traditional means has no limitations in the NT Fisheries Act. The rights of customary fishers are recognised by the s53 exemption which provides that: Unless and to the extent to which it is expressed to do so but without derogating from any other law in force in the Territory, nothing in a provision of this Act or an instrument of a judicial or administrative character made under it shall limit the right of Aboriginals who have traditionally used the resources of an area of land or water in a traditional manner from continuing to use those resources in that area in that manner.  Additional customary rights may be sought under Commonwealth Native Title legislation.

CRITERIA: (ii) The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties.

The roles and responsibilities of the main people (e.g. Fisheries Minister, Director of Fisheries) and organisations (AFANT, NTSC, NLC and eNGOs) involved in the Northern Territory fisheries management process are well-understood, with relationships and key powers explicitly defined in legislation.

Consultation on management arrangements is primarily undertaken through the Offshore Snapper Advisory Group (OSAG), comprising members from industry, recreational and FTO representatives, compliance and departmental officers.  OSAG was established in 2010 to develop a comprehensive policy and management framework incorporating a mechanism to better utilise the red snapper resources. Given the small number of operators in the fishery, ad hoc consultation in relation to commercial sector arrangements is also undertaken directly with licence holders.  Formal consultation is also undertaken through the Northern Territory Seafood Council (NTSC) and the Demersal Fishermen’s Association.  NT Fisheries also produces publications, such as Fishery Reports, Fishnotes and newsletters, to inform stakeholders (e.g. NTG 2016).  Where significant management changes are proposed, public consultation documents are developed (e.g. the proposed management arrangements document to support the new quota system).

CRITERIA: (iii) The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision making that are consistent with the outcomes expressed by Components 1 and 2, and incorporates the precautionary approach.

The overarching objectives for the management of the Northern Territory’s fisheries set out in Section 2A of the Fisheries Act 1988.  These are:

(a) to manage the aquatic resources of the Territory in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development; and

(ab) to protect the environment, people and economy of the Territory from the introduction and spread of aquatic noxious species and diseases; and

(b) to maintain a stewardship of aquatic resources that promotes fairness, equity and access to aquatic resources by all stakeholder groups, including

(i) indigenous people; andindigenous people; and
(ii) the commercial fishing, aquaculture and fishing tourism industries; and
(iii) amateur fishers; and
(iv) others with an interest in the aquatic resources of the Territory; and

 (c)     to promote the optimum utilisation of aquatic resources to the benefit of the community.

The definition of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) in the Act is consistent with Australia’s National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (1992) which explicitly endorses a precautionary approach (Anon, 1992). Accordingly, clear long term objectives that guide decision making, consistent with Components 1 and 2, are explicit within the management system.

3B: Fishery Specific Management System

CRITERIA: (i) The fishery specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by Components 1 and 2.

Fishery specific objectives are outlined in the “Management Arrangements” document (DPIF, 2012a), and are explicit within the fishery’s management system.  These objectives are consistent with Components 1 and 2, although it is not explicit whether they are short or long term (or both).  Many of the indicators are measurable (e.g. maintain grouped species catch within 32% of total annual catch) while others are relatively generic (e.g. minimise effects of fishing on the ecosystem) and not easily quantified.  The fishery would benefit from more explicitly defining the short and long term objectives of the fishery.

CRITERIA:  (ii) The fishery specific management system includes effective decision making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives .

The NTFJA and DPIF fisheries decision-making process is well established.  The NTFJA has ultimate responsibility for the management of the fishery, and is empowered to make decisions in relation to the fishery, to be implemented by DPIF under the NT Fisheries Act 1988.   The NTFJA is advised by DPIF who, in turn, seek input from stakeholders and technical experts.

The decision making process appears to respond to serious or other important issues in a timely and transparent manner. The introduction of the new quota management arrangements is an example of the decision making process responding to issues raised through fishery consultative processes. The establishment of a framework of decision rules which trigger management responses provides a structured process to respond to research and monitoring outcomes.

The use of the precautionary approach is implicit in the Fisheries Act objective to manage fisheries in accordance with the principles of ESD.  Similarly, available evidence indicates that the development of the DF has been precautionary to date, with the issuance of only four finfish trawl licences and fishery decisions appear to be made based on the best available information.  Nevertheless, the main uncertainty appears to be the extent to which the combined TACCs for the DF and TRF for the main target species reflect the productive capacity of the stocks.  Accordingly, it is not clear a precautionary approach has been taken in all cases.

Information on the biological, ecological, economic and social performance of the fishery is reported annually through the Department’s Stock Status Reports (e.g. NTG, 2016a; 2017).  Explanations on management decisions appear to be made to stakeholders on a timely basis. Annual Reports of the NTFJA are available on the AFMA website, including records of decisions made and background information papers[1]. Consultation papers were developed to support the introduction of the new quota system which provided explanations of the main issues.  Given the relatively small number of operators in the fishery, consultation on trigger points and management actions are undertaken directly.

[1] http://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/joint-authority-fisheries/

CRITERIA: (iii) Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with.

The MCS system in the fishery primarily comprises commercial logbooks, quota monitoring through the compulsory notices and records, land-based fisheries inspections primarily by AFMA, annual observer coverage, satellite tracking of vessel location through VMS, clear sanctions set out in legislation enforceable through the courts and promotion of voluntary compliance through education.  A formal compliance risk assessment has reportedly been carried out of the fishery and showed no major compliance risks (NTG, 2012). There have been few reported problems with compliance in the CLF and there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance (NTG, 2017).

An effective framework of sanctions is established by the Fisheries Act and Regulations.  Part 4, Division 2 of the Act sets out broad powers of Fisheries Officers, while Division 4 establishes a framework of offences with sanctions consistent with the severity of the offence.  Part 4, Division 4A of the Act allows for infringement notices applying a monetary penalty to be issued for prescribed offences.  No systematic non-compliance is thought to exist (NTG, 2017) and fishers have provided (and funded) information of relevance to the management of the fishery (NTFJA, 2016).

CRITERIA: (iv) There is a system for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery specific management system against its objectives.
There is effective and timely review of the fishery specific management system.

Performance of the management system is monitored through the decision rules framework in the “Management Arrangements” document (DPIF, 2012a).  The decision rules set out operational objectives, performance indicators, trigger points and management actions across the main elements of the management systems: target species, byproduct species, bycatch species, ETP species and ecosystems.  Most of these indicators are measurable using existing information (e.g. increases/decreases in catch composition), while others appear more qualitative (e.g. “industry, scientists, SEWPAC or managers are satisfied with operations”).  Performance is reported annually through the Fishery Status reports process (e.g. NTG, 2017).  The effectiveness of the compliance regime is evaluated through periodic risk assessments.

Performance against the decision rules framework is subject to annual internal review.  The fishery is also periodically assessed externally by the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.  Assessments to date have been at intervals of 5 years on the basis that products from the fishery have been added to the List of Exempt Native Specimens (LENS).

T​his seafood risk assessment procedure was originally developed for Coles Supermarkets Australia by MRAG Asia Pacific. FRDC is grateful for Coles’ permission to use its Responsibly Sourced Seafood Framework.

​It uses elements from the GSSI benchmarked MSC Fishery Standard version 2.0, but is neither a duplicate of it nor a substitute for it. The methodology used to apply the framework differs substantially from an MSC Certification.  Consequently, any claim about the rating of the fishery based on this assessment should not make any reference to the MSC.