Sea Mullet – New South Wales Ocean Haul Fishery

Assessment Summary

Sea Mullet

 

Unit of Assessment

Product Name: Sea Mullet

Species: Mugil cephalus

Stock: Eastern Australia

Gear type: Haul Net

Fishery: NSW Ocean Haul Fishery

Year of Assessment: 2017

Fishery Overview

The NSW Ocean Hauling Fishery (OHF) includes the taking of fish in ocean waters by various hauling net and purse seine net methods deployed from ocean beaches and from sea going boats.  The fishery targets approximately 20 finfish species with the catch primarily made up of Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax), Sea Mullet (Mugil cephalus), Australian Salmon (Arripis trutta), Blue Mackerel (Scomber australasicus), Yellowtail Scad (Trachurus novaezelandiae) and Yellowfin Bream (Acanthopagrus australis).

The most commonly used net in the fishery is the general purpose hauling net deployed from ocean beaches using small net boats, and primarily targets travelling Sea Mullet as they move north along the coast to spawn (NSW Fisheries, 2002).  This method of fishing is one of the oldest forms of commercial fishing in NSW.

Sea Mullet comprise the largest catch by weight of all species taken in commercial fisheries in NSW. Approximately half the total catch is reported from the OHF, with half from the Estuary General Fishery (EGF) (Stewart, 2015).

The OHF is a category 1 share management fishery.  Access is limited to shareholders in the fishery, and/or their nominated fisher, who hold shares above any minimum shareholding level established in the Fisheries Management (Ocean Hauling Share Management Plan) Regulation 2006.  Access to the fishery is managed according to seven regions along the NSW coast.

Further information on the fishery is available at: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/commercial/fisheries/ocean-hauling

Figure 1 Catch trends

Risk Scores

Performance Indicator

Risk Score

C1 TARGET SPECIES

MEDIUM

1A: Stock Status

MEDIUM

1B: Harvest Strategy

PRECAUTIONARY HIGH

1C: Information and Assessment

MEDIUM

C2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FISHING

MEDIUM

2A: Non-target Species

MEDIUM

2B: ETP Species

MEDIUM

2C: Habitats

LOW

2D: Ecosystems

LOW

C3 MANAGEMENT

MEDIUM

3A: Governance and Policy

LOW

3B: Fishery-specific Management System

MEDIUM

Summary of main issues

  • The most recent quantitative stock assessment conducted for Sea Mullet was in 2005. The current assessments of stock status are limited to a weight of evidence approach based on catch, CPUE and age/size structure of the commercial catch;
  • The eastern Australian Sea Mullet stock is shared primarily between Queensland and Latency exists in the commercial
  • harvesting sector across both jurisdictions and there are no well-defined harvest control rules in place to reduce exploitation as the point of recruitment impairment is approached. Substantial management reform programs are underway in both NSW and Queensland;
  • There has been limited independent monitoring to validate logbook reporting, catch composition or ETP species interactions in the  OHF.

Outlook

Component Outlook Comments
Target species Improving Significant reform processes are underway in both main jurisdictions harvesting the eastern Australian stock of Sea Mullet.  In NSW, the Commercial Fisheries Business Adjustment Program will address excess fishing capacity by linking shares to fishing effort.  In Queensland, a harvest strategy with well-defined harvest control rules is intended to be developed by 2018 as part of the Queensland Government’s Queensland Sustainable Fisheries Strategy 2017-2027.
Environmental impact of fishing Stable Improvements in risk scoring may be made with a strengthened capacity to respond to changes in stock status of main other species and independent validation of rates of interaction with ETP species.
Management system Improving Reforms being implemented through the Commercial Fisheries Business Adjustment Program may lead to a reduction in some risk scoring.

Assessment Results

COMPONENT 1: Target species

1A: Stock Status

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

(a) Stock Status

MEDIUM RISK

Sea Mullet

Extensive tagging studies indicate a single east coast biological stock of Sea Mullet, extending from central Queensland to eastern Victoria (Stewart et al, 2016a).

The most recent quantitative assessment of the stock occurred in 2005, using data to 2002 (Bell et al. 2005).  The assessment used a number of modelling approaches (a catch-at-age model, an age based model and a Virtual Population Analysis) and found that the stock has been heavily exploited since the fishery’s introduction more than 100 years ago, with recruitment highly variable.  Point estimates of biomass at that time were uncertain but “clearly less than 60% of the virgin level”.

In recent years, both Queensland and NSW have assessed the stock using a ‘weight of evidence’ approach, based on catch, nominal catch rates and age and size composition of the commercial catch.

Stewart et al (2016a) report that:

  • The Queensland component of the Eastern Australian biological stock has a long history of stable commercial landings. In 2015, 1982 t was reported landed, which is close to the long-term average of around 2000 t. Length frequency information from routine monitoring shows stable distributions of fish sizes harvested by the Queensland fishery. Age frequency information shows fish from three to five years old dominate catches, but older fish are present. Recruitment has been consistent, with evidence of recent strong year classes. The above evidence indicates that the biomass of the Queensland component of this stock is unlikely to be recruitment overfished.”;
  • The New South Wales component of the Eastern Australian biological stock is assessed annually in terms of landings and catch rates (CPUE) in both the estuary and ocean fisheries. The annual spawning run fishery on ocean beaches is also assessed in terms of fish sizes and ages in landings. Commercial median catch rates have remained stable in the estuary fishery (kg per day of mesh netting) and increased slightly in the ocean fishery (kg per day of beach hauling) since the early 1980s. The size compositions of fish in ocean landings have remained stable, while the age compositions of fish in this fishery are generally between two and five years old, with some variations in year class strength. The above evidence indicates that the biomass of the New South Wales component of the stock is unlikely to be recruitment overfished.

On the basis of the above, it appears likely the stock is above the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) and we have scored the stock medium risk.  Given the age of the previous stock assessment there is limited evidence that the stock is currently fluctuating at or around a level consistent with MSY.  Accordingly, the stock does not meet the low risk SG.

PI SCORE – MEDIUM RISK

1B: Harvest Strategy

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

(a) Harvest Strategy

PRECAUTIONARY HIGH RISK

The east coast stock of Sea Mullet is primarily shared and harvested in NSW and Queensland. In NSW, the stock is harvested in both the Estuary General Fishery (EGF) and the Ocean Hauling Fishery (OHF).  Catches in the EGF and OHF range generally between 1000-2000t per annum per fishery (Stewart et al, 2015), while catches in the Queensland East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery (ECIFFF) have a similar long-term average of around 2000 t per year. Recreational catch in both States is thought to be minimal in comparison to the commercial catch (e.g. Taylor et al, 2012; Webley et al, 2015).

In NSW, the harvest strategy for the EGF and the OHF primarily consists of 1) a limit on the number of fishers authorized to operate in the fisheries, 2) monitoring through logbooks, 3) temporal and spatial closures (approximately 70% of estuaries are open for fishing but many of these have additional closures within them, see http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/commercial/eg, also 50% of all beaches are closed to the OHF), 4) gear restrictions (i.e. mesh sizes and maximum net lengths) and 5) a minimum size limit of 30 cm. Recreational fishers are limited to both bag and size limits (20 Sea Mullet at 30 cm).

The NSW Fishery Management Strategy (FMS) has a specific trigger point whereby if the exploitation status of a primary or key secondary species is changed to ‘overfished’ or ‘recruitment overfished’ by NSW DPI a recovery program must be implemented for the species (e.g. Mulloway)[1].

Considerable fishing effort latency has been identified in the EGF and OHF (typical rates between 40-90% latency in permits, depending on zone; Stevens et al, 2012), which would likely limit the ability of management to adjust exploitation in response to changes in stock status. In order to address latency and other issues, the NSW Government is implementing a Commercial Fisheries Business Adjustment Program (the BAP) to link shares to either catch or fishing effort, provide assistance to fishing business to adjust their operations and streamline current fishing controls that impact fishing efficiency.  In the OHF, this includes requiring shareholders to hold a minimum number of shares for each region in the haul net sector as well as linking shares to the number of unendorsed crew able to be used for the general purpose hauling net sector. In the EGF, this includes the introduction of a total allowable effort cap and individual transferable effort days issued to each region, allocated in proportion to shares held[2].

In the ECIFFF, harvest controls include a restriction on license numbers, as well as a complex series of area closures, gear limitations and size and possession limits. Access to different areas and net configurations dictated by fishery ‘symbols’ attached to commercial fishing boat licenses (FBL).  In broad terms, a FBL is required to operate a nominated primary boat and tender boats for commercial fishing, while the symbols which attach to the license dictate the types of fish able to be caught, the gear able to be used, areas able to be fished and the like.  The fishery symbols that account for the bulk of the Sea Mullet catch are the ocean beach fishery (K symbol), tunnel net symbol (N10), N1 symbol and N11 symbol.  The ECIFFF has been subject to substantial rationalization of symbol numbers in the past decade, although there are still comparatively large numbers available.  As at February 2017, there were 36 K symbols, 22 N10 symbols, 86 N1 symbols and 281 N11 symbols[3], each of which is able to harvest mullet (albeit N11 symbols are primarily for harvesting bait).  In 2015, 248 licenses reported harvesting mullet (Stewart et al, 2016a).  Catches have been roughly equally split between the ocean beach (K) fishery and the non-ocean beach sectors in recent years.

The ECIFFF also has a Performance Measurement System (PMS) including a specific review trigger based on the catch of Sea Mullet (TAC of 3620 t Qld and NSW catch combined).  If this trigger is breached then a timetable for an appropriate management response will be provided within three months of DAF becoming of aware of the breach.

There is uncertainty in the information on the likely effectiveness of the current harvest strategy.  Based on virtual population analysis, Bell et al (2005) recommended a combined TAC of 3620 t for the NSW and Queensland fisheries (assuming a F0.1 harvesting strategy), although with a very high degree of uncertainty (95%C.I. 2232t:71153t).  The trigger point in the ECIFFF PMS to review catch levels is based on this figure.  Combined catches across both jurisdictions have exceeded the recommended TAC in every year since 2006, peaking in 2010 at over 5,800t (Stewart et al, 2016a).  In response to the breaching of the PMS trigger, DAFF (2014) concluded that “the Sea Mullet stock is shared with New South Wales where the bulk of the east coast Sea Mullet harvest is caught. Queensland catches are stable and within historical levels. Sea Mullet was recently assessed by New South Wales as ‘fully fished’ due to a long history of stable landings and catch rates for estuary and ocean fisheries in both jurisdictions. Sea Mullet is considered sustainably fished in Queensland. Given the harvest of Sea Mullet is already regularly monitored by both jurisdictions for unsustainable harvest signals, the triggering of this measure will not be investigated further.” Assessments against the PMS have reportedly been largely discontinued and will be superseded by other arrangements (e.g. formal harvest strategies) to be developed as part of a broader package of reforms for Queensland fisheries.

The harvest strategies for the EGF (and OHF) and Queensland ECIFFF are unlikely to be highly responsive to the state of the stock given the considerable effort latency and the absence of other overall controls on catch or effort.  In the NSW fisheries, the respective Fishery Management Strategies for the EGF and OHF require action to be taken to limit exploitation only after a stock is classified as overfished.  The best argument for the harvest strategy meeting the medium risk SG (i.e. that it will achieve the stock management objectives reflected in Performance Indicator 1A[i]) is that a number of indicators of abundance and recruitment (e.g. CPUE, length, age) are regularly monitored by both jurisdictions and to date have remained stable.  Nevertheless, the substantial capacity for increases in effort on mullet given the combined latency in the NSW and Queensland fisheries means there is scope for catches to potentially exceed sustainable levels (particularly in the context of the recommended TAC of 3620 t, albeit uncertain) if effort is activated, such as in response to market forces.  To that end, we have scored this SI precautionary high risk.

We note however that significant reform processes are currently underway in both jurisdictions which are likely to improve the position of the fishery against this SI in coming years.

[1] The FMS notes that “‘Overfishing’ occurs when fishing mortality is much greater than natural mortality and indices of stock abundance have declined. ‘Recruitment overfishing’ is used to describe cases where the fishing pressure has reduced the spawning stock to such a low level that recruitment is significantly affected.”

[2] http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/commercial/reform/decisions

[3] fishnet.fisheries.qld.gov.au

(b) Shark-finning

 

NA – this SI is only scored if the target species is a shark.

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

(a) HCR Design and application

PRECAUTIONARY HIGH RISK

In NSW, the management strategy is assessed against the performance indicators (PI) in the FMS based on information from annual NSW DPI stock assessment workshops (e.g. NSW DPI, 2016a). The main harvest PI in NSW for target species (develop a recovery plan if a species is assessed as overfished) is reactionary and does not serve to limit exploitation as PRI is approached.  In Queensland, the best approximation of a harvest control rule is the PMS, which requires a management response to be developed within three months of the management agency becoming aware that a trigger has been exceeded (DEEDI, 2009).  The existing PMS trigger is based on the TAC of 3620t recommended by Bell et al (2005), however assessments against the PMS have reportedly been largely discontinued and will be superseded by other arrangements (e.g. formal harvest strategies) to be developed as part of a broader package of reforms for Queensland fisheries.  Notwithstanding that, a number of independent indicators of stock abundance (e.g. age/size structure of the commercial catch, CPUE) are actively monitored by both jurisdictions and have remained stable in recent years.  Ongoing monitoring of these indicators is likely to be capable of detecting stock decline and could be used to justify reductions in exploitation if PRI was approached.  Accordingly, we have scored this SI precautionary high risk.

We note that reform processes are underway in both jurisdictions which will likely improve the scoring of the stock against this SI.  In NSW, the BAP will link shares to fishing effort, with the Structural Adjustment Review Committee (SARC) recommending the introduction of a total allowable effort cap and individual transferable effort days issued to each region of the EGF Mesh and Haul net sectors, and higher minimum shareholdings in the OHF General Purpose Hauling sector to reduce endorsement numbers.  These initiatives should reduce latency and strengthen the effectiveness of tools available to adjust levels of exploitation where necessary.  In Queensland, the Queensland Sustainable Fisheries Strategy 2017-2027 commits to the adoption of harvest strategies for all major fisheries by the end of 2020, with a priority to develop trawl, crab and inshore fisheries strategies by the end of 2018 (DAF, 2017).  Harvest strategies will include well-defined harvest control rules and aim to maintain stocks at levels above MSY.

PI SCORE – PRECAUTIONARY HIGH RISK

1C: Information and Assessment

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

(a) Range of information

MEDIUM RISK

There is good information on the distribution and biology, including stock structure, for Sea Mullet (e.g. Stewart et al. 2016a). Work on the population structure of Sea Mullet indicates that they comprise a single stock on the east coast of Australia. Fleet composition of the EGF, OHF and Qld ECIFFF is well understood and catch and effort information is provided in the form of daily logbooks.  However, changes in reporting arrangements mean there is some uncertainty around whether these constitute a robust time series in NSW (Stewart, 2015a). Moreover, in Queensland only nominal cate appears to be monitored which may not be an accurate index of abundance.  For the EGF, catch is reported by the licence endorsement, which enables determination of gear type. Unpublished data provided by NSW DPI from 2009/10 to 2013/14 indicated that the proportion of mullet harvested by haul net and mesh net in the EGF during this period was approximately 30% and 70%, respectively. Periodic recreational fishing surveys are also conducted that estimate Sea Mullet catch (e.g. Henry and Lyle 2004, Webley et al, 2015, West et al, 2016), and compared to the commercial catches the recreational harvest is quite low in both jurisdictions (<10t, Stewart, 2015a, Webley et al, 2015, West et al, 2016).  Age and length frequency information is regularly collected from the commercial catch in both jurisdictions and is examined for concerning stock trends as part of regular weight of evidence based assessments (e.g. Stewart, 2015a; Stewart et al, 2016).  However, the available information is not monitored in the context of a formal harvest control rule.  While a range of information exists to support the harvest strategy, uncertainties in some components (e.g. in the NSW timeseries) mean it is not clear whether they are sufficient to support an effective HCR and harvest strategy.  Accordingly, we have scored this SI medium risk.

(b) Monitoring and comprehensiveness

MEDIUM RISK 

Stock abundance is primarily monitored using catch and effort patterns in logbooks, supported by regular monitoring of age and size classes in the commercial catch[1].  The latter provides estimates of fishing mortality and magnitude and consistency of recruitment (Stewart et al, 2016a).  In Queensland, monitoring of effort and catch rate appears to be nominal only (rather than standardised) which may not be a reliable index of stock abundance (e.g. Harley et al, 2001).  In NSW, catch and effort are collected by gear type, although changes in reporting arrangements over time mean that relative abundance may not be comparable throughout the time series.   In particular, Stewart (2015a) reports that “in 2009/10 fishing effort reporting requirements changed substantially and relative catch rates before and after this time may not be directly comparable. Relative catch rates may not be robust indicators of abundance and caution should be applied when interpreting these results”. Recreational catch is monitored periodically (the last survey in NSW was undertaken in 2013/4 – West et al, 2016 – and before that in 2000; surveys in Queensland are undertaken every 2-3 years – e.g. Webley et al, 2015). While there is good information on all removals from the stock, abundance is not monitored consistent with a harvest control rule and there is some uncertainty around the robustness of abundance indices from commercial logbook information.  Nevertheless, other indicators (age/length frequency) are monitored regularly, and together with information on catch and effort, allows assessments of stock status according to generic stock status categories (e.g. Stewart et al, 2016a).

[1] See for example, https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/monitoring-our-fisheries/commercial-fisheries/species-specific-programs/monitoring-reporting/sea-mullet-biological-monitoring-update

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

(a) Stock assessment

MEDIUM RISK

A stock assessment has been completed for the Qld/NSW mullet stock (Bell et al, 2005), but has not been updated. The current assessment of Sea Mullet in both NSW and Queensland uses a ‘weight of evidence’ approach and estimates stock status according to generic categories (e.g. ‘sustainable’, ‘overfished’; Stewart et al, 2015; Stewart et al, 2016a;).  A key information source is historical CPUE levels (approximates abundance), however there is some uncertainty in the interpretation of long-term trends in NSW due to changes in reporting methods during 2009/10. Despite this limitation, annual trends in the periods before and after 2009/10 demonstrate stability in CPUE. Size and age structure data from the commercial catch are also gathered to monitor stock response to harvest and recruitment in both jurisdictions (e.g. Stewart et al, 2015).  In combination, these measures allow for assessment of status relative to generic reference points appropriate to the species category, consistent with medium risk.

(b) Uncertainty and Peer review

MEDIUM RISK

The uncertainty of using CPUE data as an approximation of abundance is identified but not accounted for. The assessment has been peer reviewed internally in the annual stock status assessments (e.g. Stewart et al, 2015) and every two years in the national stock status report (e.g. Stewart et al, 2016a).

PI SCORE – MEDIUM RISK

COMPONENT 2: Environmental impact of fishing

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.

(a) Main other species stock status

LOW RISK

Ocean hauling is a highly species-specific operation where a school of fish is identified visually and targeted directly. An observer-based survey of ocean beach haul netting was undertaken in the mid-2000s which confirmed very limited bycatch and discards in the fishery (NSW DPI, 2017b).

Catch data from the OHF, reported by endorsement type, were provided by NSW DPI for 2009/10 to 2014/15. These data enabled determination of the composition of the retained catch for the general ocean haul net sector which targets Sea Mullet and Australian Salmon (i.e. excluding the garfish hauling and purse seine sectors). Main other species are determined as those representing >5% of the commercial catch, or >2% if the species is less resilient. For the ocean hauling sectors, Sea Mullet comprised 70% of the total catch and Australian salmon comprised 23%. No other retained species comprised >2% of the total catch.

Australian Salmon

The Eastern Australian Salmon cross-jurisdictional biological stock has components in New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria (Stewart et al. 2016b). Each jurisdiction assesses that part of the biological stock that occurs in its waters.  Stewart et al (2016b) report that Australian Salmon are lightly fished in northern NSW, with catch rates (median catch per day hauling) increasing steadily during the past decade and now at historically high levels. The size and age compositions of fish in commercial landings have remained similar since the late-1970s.  Moreover, estimates of overall fishing mortality are similar to estimates of natural mortality.  On this basis, they conclude the stock is neither overfished nor subject to overfishing.   Evidence from the Victorian and Tasmanian components of the stock also suggest current levels of fishing are not likely to result in overfishing (Stewart et al, 2016b).  Accordingly, the stock is probably highly likely to be the PRI.

CRITERIA: (ii) There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of other species.

(a) Management strategy in place

MEDIUM RISK

Harvest limitation is primarily achieved through a limit on the number of fishers authorised to operate in the fishery (although there is considerable effort latency), temporal and spatial closures (approximately 50% of beaches are open to fishing, see web link below), gear restrictions (i.e. mesh sizes and net lengths) and minimum size limits.  The Fisheries Management (Ocean Hauling Share Management Plan) Regulation 2006 prescribes the species (target and conditional target species) that may be taken in the OHF, and also prescribes that at least 80 percent of each hauling shot must be comprised of target or conditional target species (NSW DPI, 2013).

Table 2: prescribed target and conditional target species in the Hauling Net (General Purpose) sector of the OHF (Source: NSW DPI, 2013)

A daily catch limit of 3 tonnes per endorsement holder and a total annual catch trigger level of 224 tonnes applies to Australian Salmon harvested in the OHF north of Barrenjoey headland[1].  In addition, there is a specific PI in the FMS whereby if the exploitation status of these species is changed to ‘overfished’ or ‘recruitment overfished’ by NSW DPI, a recovery program must be implemented for the recovery of the stock.

To date, these measures appear to have been sufficient to maintain the Australian Salmon stock above the PRI, although the low market value of salmon has probably acted to limit catches.  Considerable effort latency exists in the OHF, which allows scope for increased harvesting if market conditions changed, although this is limited in the area north of Barrenjoey Headland through the 224t TAC.  Stock status is monitored annually by NSW DPI, providing scope to reduce exploitation as the PRI is approached.  However, under the current structure of the FMS, action to recover and rebuild stocks is required only after a stock is classified as overfished.  We have scored this SI medium risk on the basis that current arrangements are at least likely to maintain the stock above the PRI under current economic conditions.  Nevertheless, the fishery would be better placed against this SI with a well-defined strategy which linked exploitation rate to some measure of the state of the stock.

We note that in order to address latency and other issues, the NSW Government is implementing a Commercial Fisheries Business Adjustment Program (the BAP) to link shares to either catch or fishing effort, provide assistance to fishing business to adjust their operations and streamline current fishing controls that impact fishing efficiency.

[1] http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/content/archive/news-releases/fishing-and-aquaculture/2011/australian-salmon-commercial-fishing

(b) Management strategy evaluation

MEDIUM RISK

Strong recent catch rates in the commercial sector, together with substantial spatial closures and catch limits on Australian Salmon in the area north of Barrenjoey Headland, provide at least a plausible argument that the measures in place will work.  Nevertheless, substantial effort latency in the OHF allows scope for increased harvests if economic conditions changed.  This issue is being addressed through the BAP.

(c) Shark-finning

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.

(a) Information

MEDIUM RISK

Quantitative information is available on retained species catches in the fishery by gear type through commercial logbooks.  A short-term obsever-based survey was undertaken in the mid-2000s which documented discards (NSW DPI, 2017b), although no more recent information on non-retained catches appears to be available.  For Australian Salmon,  there is good quantitative information on the biology, including stock structure for Australian Salmon (e.g. Stewart et al. 2011). There is also a good understanding of the fleet dynamics and catch of the OHF through commercial logbooks (Stewart et al. 2016b).  While sufficient information is available to assess the impact of the fishery on Australian Salmon and to detect increased risk, limited recent information exists on the volume and composition of discards to determine whether a partial strategy is necessary.  Accordingly, we have scored this SI medium risk.  The fhsery would be better placed against this SI with more recent information on all catches in the fishery (retained+discarded).

PI SCORE – MEDIUM RISK

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.

(a) Effects of the UoA on populations/stocks

MEDIUM RISK

Because of the very limited area of operation, targeted fishing gear and specific habitat fished in the OHF, available information indicates that ETP interactions are likely to be very rare. Reporting of ETP interactions by the OHF was made mandatory in 2005.  In the period 2012 to 2016, four Grey Nurse sharks were reported as captured in OHF general purpose nets, although all were reportedly released alive and healthy (NSW DPI, 2017b).  However, given there has been no observer coverage in the fishery following some initial trials in the mid-2000s, information submitted through logbooks is not subject to independent verification.  The EIS for the OHF notes the possibility of interaction with 43 protected species, although concludes overall that “whilst hardly definitive or based on an abundance of scientific data, the factors listed above suggest that the Ocean Hauling Fishery in its current form is not having a direct and/or adverse impact on any threatened species, populations, ecological communities or their habitats. There is, however, a high degree of uncertainty associated with this assessment due to the paucity of quantitative data and reliance upon anecdotal or speculative information” (NSW Fisheries, 2002).

Accordingly, while the fishery probably only has very limited interactions with ETP species, the objective evidence available is not sufficient to justify a low risk score.

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.

 

(a) Management strategy in place

MEDIUM RISK

The OHF manages ETP interactions through limiting effort, gear restrictions and a series of spatial and temporal closures. The FMS also has a specific PI with a trigger for management action if there are any observations by commercial fishers or observers that are likely to threaten the survival of ETP species. Additionally, under the FM Act the take of ETP species by commercial fishers is prohibited. Consequently, there is a strategy in place that is unlikely to hinder the recovery of ETP species, however the lack of independent verification prevents a low risk score.

(b) Management strategy implementation

MEDIUM RISK

The management strategy is likely to be working based on the low number of interactions reported in commercial logbooks and the very low spatial overlap with ETP species ranges by the fishery.  However, independent evidence demonstrating the strategy is working is limited at this stage.

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.
(a) Information

MEDIUM RISK

The level of ETP interaction is monitored through mandatory reporting in commercial logbooks for the OHF which is a source of quantitative information. However, given that there has been no observer coverage in this fishery since the mid-2000s (information from which is unpublished) information in fisher submitted logbooks has not been verified.

PI SCORE – 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

(a) Habitat status

LOW RISK

The OHF EIS indicated that only the haul gear used in the fishery had any significant contact with the bottom and that there was an unknown risk to some seagrass beds that this gear interacts with (NSW Fisheries, 2002).  A study on the impacts of this gear on seagrass in NSW estuaries indicated no significant impacts (Otway and Macbeth 1999) probably due to the relatively short haul lengths fished at low speeds (Knuckey et al. 2002). This information combined with the dynamic and naturally perturbed nature of the surf zone habitats over which the OHF operates and the fact that more than 50% of the available habitat is closed to the fishery indicates that it is highly likely the fishery is not having a significant impact on habitat structure and function to the point of 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.

(a) Management strategy in place

MEDIUM RISK

The OHF manages habitat interactions through limiting effort, gear restrictions and a series of spatial and temporal closures, under fisheries and State marine parks legislation. The FMS includes a goal “to manage the OHF in a manner that promotes the conservation of biological diversity in the coastal environment”, and underneath that an objective to “minimise the impact of activities in the fishery on marine and terrestrial habitat”.  Specific management measures are set out to achieve the objective (e.g. modify the use of fishing methods that have a detrimental impact on fish habitat where necessary; identify all areas where ocean hauling takes place over the seagrass Posidonia australis (strapweed) and prohibit the use of the general purpose hauling net in such areas).  Although no specific habitat performance indicator exists, the FMS commits to reviewing the number and area of beaches totally closed to commercial fishing every two years on the basis that “significant closed areas prevent any direct impacts of the fishery on biodiversity in those areas, thus minimising the total impact on biodiversity at the regional or Statewide scale trigger point exists”.   An EIS was undertaken for the OHF which examined the impact on biophysical habitats.  While these arrangements might be considered to constitute at least a partial strategy, the main uncertainty is the extent to progress against the objectives and management measures is being monitored and reported against.  Nevertheless, given the nature of the fishery and the environment in which it operates, there is a plausible argument that the fishery has measures in place which should achieve the objectives in 2C(i).

(b) Management strategy implementation

LOW RISK

There is an objective basis that the management strategy will work based on the type and operational limitations of the haul gear used, the substantial amount of habitat that is closed to fishing and studies’ suggesting that the haul gear used has minimal impact on the habitat when it does.

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.

(a) Information quality

LOW RISK

The types and distribution of the main habitats for the NSW coastline have been well documented (http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/coastal/index.jsp). The vulnerability of these habitats and the impact of OHF operations have been identified in the EIS (NSW Fisheries, 2002).

(a) Information and monitoring adequacy

LOW RISK

Information is 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 physical impacts of the haul gear used are highly likely to be insignificant given that most gear is either surface set or hauled on unvegetated, sandy beaches and assessments of haul gear fished over much more sensitive impacts such as seagrass in estuaries showed no significant impacts (Otway and Macbeth 1999, Knuckey et al. 2002).

PI SCORE – LOW RISK

2D: Ecosystems

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

(a) Ecosystem Status

LOW RISK

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 haul net fishing in the OHF catches very few non-target species due to the highly selective nature of the gear and fishing methods (i.e. visually identifying schools of target species). Consequently, the main impact on the ecosystem is likely to be through removals of target species. The fishery catches a variety of target species that utilise numerous habitats beyond those available to the fishery and are extremely mobile. Neither the target or main other species is a low trophic level species, and both stocks appear to be in a healthy position and above the PRI.   Consequently, it is probably highly unlikely the fishery is disrupting ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

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.

(a) Management strategy in place

LOW RISK

The OHF manages ecosystem impacts through limiting effort, gear restrictions and a series of large spatial and temporal closures. The EIS for the OHF assessed possible impacts from the fishery across all key ecosystem components (NSW Fisheries, 2002).  The FMS also has a PI with a trigger for management action if there are any observations by commercial fishers or observers that are likely to impact ecosystem function. However, given the very generic nature of this PI and the low levels of observer coverage it is unlikely to be reported against. Under State marine parks legislation, six multiple user marine parks have been established covering around one third of coastal waters in NSW[1].  An underlying aim of these marine parks is to protect representative samples of biodiversity and ecosystem processes.  This strategy is likely to be sufficient to constrain harvest to levels that will not disrupt ecosystem function.

[1] http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/marine-protected-areas

(b) Management strategy implementation

LOW RISK

There is an objective basis for confidence that a strategy is in place and is likely to work, based on the fact that the target and main other species (Sea Mullet and Australian salmon) have consistently been classified as ‘sustained’ based on regular weight of evidence based assessments, and substantial spatial closures limit impacts on habitats and ecosystem processes.

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

(a) Information quality

LOW RISK

There is information available that identifies the main impacts on both the near and offshore ecosystems utilised by this fishery (e.g. NSW Fisheries, 2002; Jones et al. 2008). Catches of target species are recorded through commercial logbooks and periodic recreational fishing surveys and are probably sufficient to detect any increased risk the fishery poses to the ecosystem.

(b) Investigations of UoA impacts

MEDIUM RISK

While there have been no investigations on the impacts of removals of target species from sandy beaches, the main impacts of the UoAs on the ecosystem can be inferred from existing information.

PI SCORE – LOW RISK

COMPONENT 3: Management system

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.
(a) Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

LOW RISK

The OHF is managed under the Fishery Management Act 1994 (Act) and regulations made under this Act. NSW DPI is the State Government agency responsible for the administration of the Act.

The Act seeks to provide for ecologically sustainable development for the fisheries of NSW, through the achievement of its stated objectives, which are to conserve, develop and share the State’s fisheries resources for the benefit of present and future generations. The Act is aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with Components 1 and 2.

(b) Respect for Rights

LOW RISK

In recognition of Aboriginal peoples’ cultural fishing needs and traditions, several significant Act amendments commenced in early 2010. They included:

  • Extending the objects of the Act to now explicitly recognise the connection Aboriginal people have with fisheries resources;
  • The addition of a definition of Aboriginal Cultural Fishing to enable Aboriginal people to take fish or marine vegetation for cultural fishing purposes;
  • The establishment of the Aboriginal Fishing Advisory Council (section 229) to ensure that Aboriginal people play a part in future management of the fisheries resource;
  • Specific provisions under Section 37(c1) of the Act for issuing authorities for cultural events where fishing activities are not consistent with current regulation. This provision caters for larger cultural gatherings and ceremonies.

Aboriginal persons becoming exempt from paying a recreational fishing fee under 34C of the Act.

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.

(a) Roles and Responsibilities

LOW RISK

The Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. The Minister responsible for administering the Fishery Management Act 1994 is ultimately responsible for the management of NSW commercial fisheries.  The NSW DPI undertake day to day management of the OHF and act as a primary advisor to the Minister.  Other groups may also provide advice to the Minister or through the DPI, including the Ministerial Fisheries Advisory Council (MFAC), the Commercial Fishing NSW Advisory Council and the NSW Total Allowable Catch Setting and Review (TAC) Committee. For more information see:

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/commercial/consultation

(b) Consultation Process

LOW RISK

Revised consultation arrangements were introduced in November 2012 following an Independent Review of NSW Commercial Fisheries Policy, Management and Administration. In addition to the Deputy Director General DPI Fisheries, who acts as the primary advisor to the Minister, key groups involved in the consultation process include:

  • Ministerial Fisheries Advisory Council (MFAC) – established to provide cross-sectoral advice on strategic policy issues to the Minister for Primary Industries. It includes representatives from the commercial, recreational, indigenous, aquaculture and conservation sectors and has an independent Chair;
  • Commercial Fishing NSW Advisory Council – the council is the key advisory body providing ongoing industry expert advice to Government on matters relevant to the sector. Membership covers each restricted and share managed fishery, as well as an aboriginal person who is a commercial fisher; and
  • NSW Total Allowable Catch Setting and Review (TAC) Committee – The TAC Committee is a statutory body established under the provisions of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (the Act).  It is required to determine and keep under review total allowable catch (or fishing effort) levels, as required. It gives effect to the objects of the Act having regard to all relevant scientific, industry, community, social and economic factors. Membership of the TAC Committee includes an independent Chairperson, a natural resource economist, a fisheries scientist and a person with appropriate fisheries management qualifications.

Task based and time-limited ad hoc working groups may also be formed on an as needs basis to provide expert advice on specific issues. Working group members are appointed by the Deputy Director General, DPI Fisheries based on skill and expertise relevant to the tasks assigned to the working group. Current working groups include a Baitfish Working Group and a NSW Lobster Industry Working Group.

Where substantive changes are proposed to management arrangements, public consultations occurs through the release of a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) which sets out the proposed changes, likely impacts and alternative options considered.

Accordingly, the management system has processes in place to regularly seek and accept information from interested parties.

For more information on the full process see: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/commercial/consultation

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

(a) Objectives

LOW RISK

The objectives of the Act include:

  1. to conserve fish stocks and key fish habitats, and
  2. to conserve threatened species, populations and ecological communities of fish and marine vegetation, and
  3. to promote ecological sustainable development, including the conservation of biological diversity,

and, consistently with those objectives:

  1. to promote viable commercial fishing and aquaculture industries, and
  2. to promote quality recreational fishing opportunities, and
  3. to appropriately share fisheries resources between the users of those resources, and
  4. to provide social and economic benefits for the wider community of New South Wales.

These objectives provide clear and explicit long term guidance to decision making consistent with Components 1 and 2.

PI SCORE – LOW RISK

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.

(a) Objectives

MEDIUM RISK

The OHF FMS has the following objectives for the fishery:

  1. To manage the OHF in a manner that promotes the conservation of biological diversity in the coastal environment
  2. To maintain fish populations harvested by the OHF at ecologically sustainable levels
  3. To promote the conservation of threatened species, populations and ecological communities associated with the operation of the OHF
  4. To appropriately share the resource and carry out fishing in a manner that minimizes social impacts
  5. To promote a viable commercial fishery (consistent with ecological sustainability)
  6. To ensure cost-effective and efficient ocean hauling management and compliance programs
  7. To improve public understanding of the OHF and of the resources upon which the fishery relies
  8. To improve knowledge of the OHF and the resources upon which the fishery relies.

Additional fishery specific objectives and associated performance indicators and trigger points are set out in the Fisheries Management (Ocean Hauling Share Management Plan) Regulation 2006 (the ‘SMP’).

While these objectives are consistent with the outcomes expressed by Components 1 and 2, the main uncertainty is the extent to which the objectives as set out in the FMS and SMP actively guide management of the EGF given the age of the documents and the extent to which they have been superseded by other management initiatives (e.g. the BAP). We have scored this SI medium risk on the basis that objectives consistent with Components 1 and 2 are at least implicit within the management system, although we note that confidence in the scoring would be strengthened with additional evidence that the objectives in the FMS continue to be actively used.

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

(a) Decision making

MEDIUM RISK

Under the NSW State Government’s fisheries decision-making process, the Fisheries Minister has ultimate responsibility for the management of the fishery and is empowered to make changes to the Fisheries Regulations and Management Plan. The Minister is advised by the NSW DPI and MFAC who, in turn, seek input from stakeholders and technical working groups.

The extent to which the management system could demonstrate that it has responded over time to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring and evaluation in a timely, transparent and adaptive manner appears unclear.   There is evidence that the system process has responded to some serious issues by developing recovery plans for Mulloway (Silberschneider et al. 2009; currently overfished) and Eastern Sea Garfish (Stewart et al. 2005; historically overfished) that have provided management responses designed to limit harvest on these species.  There is also some evidence that the management system has responded to other issues including resource allocation between commercial and recreational fishers with the establishment of the 224t TAC for Australian Salmon in the area north of Barrenjoey Headland.  Nevertheless, the evidence that the management system responds to other important issues (e.g. existence of latent effort; need for better information on bycatch composition/ETP species interactions) is less clear.

(b) Use of the Precautionary Approach

MEDIUM RISK

The use of the precautionary approach is required under the Act. Examples of precautionary approach exists in some, but not all, areas of management.  For example, the high number of closed areas is likely to provide substantial protection for habitats and ecosystem processes within the fishery’s range, however the existence of substantial excess harvesting capacity is unlikely to be precautionary.  Moreover, the requirement in the FMS that action be taken to rebuild stocks only after being classified as overfished (even if in practice action may be taken beforehand) does not appear precautionary.  To that end, although fishery decisions appear to be made based on the best available information, the low risk SG is not met.

 

(c) Accountability and Transparency

LOW RISK

Information on the fishery’s performance is available on the NSW DPI website, primarily through public reports of performance against the FMA trigger points (e.g. NSW DPI, 2016a), stock status assessments (e.g. Stewart et al, 2015; NSW DPI, 2017a) and periodic reviews against the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries by the Commonwealth environment department (e.g. DPI, 2013).  Research reports relevant to the fishery are also available through the NSW DPI website (e.g. West et al, 2016) and websites of external funders (e.g. the Commonwealth Fisheries Research and Development Corporation).  The findings of relevant research are discussed through the consultative structure described under 3A(ii)(b) above, and explanations are provided for any management actions or lack of action.  Where significant management changes are required, a RIS is released calling for public comment.  The RIS provides an explanation of the background to the proposed changes and alternative options considered.

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

(a) MCS Implementation

LOW RISK

The NSW fisheries compliance program is led by the NSW DPI Fisheries Compliance Unit (FCU), which is focused on optimising compliance with the Act, the Marine Estate Management Act 2014 and their associated regulations.  The FCU is separated into seven geographic compliance zones, with a State-wide Operations and Investigations Group that undertakes major/complex investigations, and the Conservation and Aquaculture Group that provides specialist capabilities in aquatic habitat compliance management.  NSW DPI Fisheries Compliance Plans are regularly reviewed for progress against the objectives of the Australian Fisheries National Compliance Strategy (AFNCS).

MCS in the OHF is mainly achieved in the fishery primarily comprises commercial logbooks, at sea and land-based fisheries inspections of all sectors by the DPI Fisheries Officers, clear sanctions set out in legislation enforceable through the courts and promotion of voluntary compliance through education. Additionally, there is a specific PI in the FMS; facilitate effective and efficient compliance, research and management of the OHF with a trigger point of a compliance rate of less than 85% from all inspections. This PI is assessed in periodically (e.g. through EPBC WTO submissions) and compliance statistics are reported annually on the DPI website. Priorities for the MCS are set using Risk Based Compliance principles set out by NSW Department of Premier & Cabinet and the plans that are produced internally and reviewed quarterly.

Significant prosecutions and rates of compliance are publicly reported on the NSW DPI website[1].  The compliance system appears to have an ability to enforce relevant management measures and rules.

[1] http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/compliance/fisheries-compliance-enforcement

(b) Sanctions and Compliance

LOW RISK

Sanctions to deal with non-compliance are outlined in the NSW Fisheries Compliance Enforcement Policy and Procedure document which specifically stipulates that sanction for non-compliance are consistently applied.  Sanctions are publicly reported annually through the DPI website (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/compliance/fisheries-compliance-enforcement), with reports for each year from 2010/11 to 2015/16 currently posted on the website.

During 2015/16, across all NSW fisheries, around 57,000 client contacts were made (not including surveillance), resulting in 4,000 warnings, 2400 penalty notices and 69 prosecutions. There were 2400 items of fishing gear confiscated, none of which were haul nets.

In the OHF specifically, rates of compliance between 2006-07 and 2011-12 were high (DPI, 2017b):

  • 2012/13 – 87.72%
  • 2013/14 – 90.8%
  • 2014/15 – 92.54%
  • 2015/16 – 90.71%

An assessment of the mulloway recovery program was undertaken in 2016 (NSW DPI, 2016b). The assessment included an examination of the effectiveness of the program for each sector that targets mulloway, including the OHF where a 500 kg possession limit was implemented. It was noted in the report that reported mulloway catches from the OHF were very low in the three years since the implementation of the recovery strategy, implying high levels of compliance.

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.

(a) Evaluation coverage

MEDIUM RISK

Performance of the management system is monitored through the FMS.  The FMS sets out operational objectives and performance indicators across the main elements of the management systems: target species, byproduct species, bycatch species, ecosystems and social indicators. While stock status of the main species is reviewed annually (e.g. Stewart et al, 2015; NSW DPI, 2017a), and assessments of FMS trigger points are undertaken regularly (e.g. NSW DPI, 2016a) at least some trigger points are reliant on observer data which is not available for the fishery (e.g. trigger points on changes in catch composition).  Accordingly, there are mechanisms in place to evaluate some parts of the management system.

(b) Internal and/or external review

MEDIUM RISK

Performance of the management system is subject to regular review against the trigger points in the FMS (e.g. DPI, 2016b), albeit some trigger points are unable to be reviewed due to lack of data.  The fishery is occasionally assessed externally by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 with these assessments occurring every three years with the last being recorded in 2013.

PI SCORE – MEDIUM RISK

Acknowledgements

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.