NT Coastal Line Fishery

NT Coastal Line Fishery

Unit/s of Assessment:

Product Name/s:

Black Jewfish

Species:  

Protonibea diacanthus

Stock:

Northern Territory

Gear type:

Line

Year of Assessment:

2017

Performance Indicator

Black jewfish

COMPONENT 1

1A: Stock Status

HIGH RISK

1B: Harvest Strategy

PRECAUTIONARY HIGH RISK

1C: Information and Assessment

LOW RISK

COMPONENT 2

2A: Non-target Species

MEDIUM RISK

2B: ETP Species

LOW RISK

2C: Habitats

LOW RISK

2D: Ecosystems

MEDIUM RISK

COMPONENT 3

3A: Governance and Policy

LOW RISK

3B: Fishery-specific Management System

LOW RISK

Component

UoA

Outlook

Comments

Target species

Black jewfish

Improving

New management arrangements were introduced in 2015 which are expected to lead to stock recovery.  A new harvest strategy including well-developed HCRs will be developed consistent with a new Northern Territory Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy.

Bycatch and ecosystems

Black jewfish

Improving

Management arrangements introduced in 2015 are expected to lead to stock recovery for the main other species, golden snapper.

Management system

Black jewfish

Stable

The fishery is generally well-placed against P3 indicators, although the one medium risk score may reduce to low if short and long term objectives for the CLF are included in the new harvest strategy.    

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

Black jewfish

HIGH RISK

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 10s 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.

PI SCORE

HIGH RISK

1B: Harvest Strategy

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

(a) Harvest Strategy

Black jewfish

PRECAUTIONARY HIGH RISK

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].

There is clear evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock, and all of the elements appear to work together.  Nevertheless, while the new harvest arrangements are expected to achieve the stock management objectives reflected in criteria 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.

(b) Shark-finning

NA

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

(c) HCR Design and application

Black jewfish

PRECAUTIONARY HIGH RISK

There are currently no well-defined HCRs in place for black jewfish, although the fishery operates under the generic 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 acts to reduce exploitation where research and monitoring indicate overexploitation.  Nevertheless, it not clear that the existing arrangements are sufficient to reduce exploitation as PRI is approached given the most 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 (DPIR, 2016) 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. Future assessments of the fishery should take into account any developments under the policy.

PI SCORE

PRECAUTIONARY HIGH RISK

1C: Information and Assessment

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

(a) Range of information

Black jewfish

LOW RISK

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 is recorded for all sectors that target these species through daily logbooks and recreational fishing surveys (NTG, 2016). While Indigenous harvest is relatively unknown it is likely that it is very low (NTG, 2016).  This information is sufficient to support the rebuilding strategy currently in place. This assumption is quite conservative given that the strategy currently considers the entire stock to be at a much larger scale (half the NT coastline) than where the problem exists. Additionally, some of the harvest restrictions such as possession limits apply to the whole of the NT.

(b) Monitoring and comprehensiveness

Black jewfish

LOW RISK

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, 2016). 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.

(a) Stock assessment

Black jewfish

LOW RISK

The status of black jewfish is assessed using Stock Reduction Analysis (SRA) models (e.g. Grubert et al. 2013, NTG, 2016), most recently using data up to 2014. SRA is a population dynamics model that consists of leading parameters on unfished recruitment, survival, recruitment compensation from harvest, growth characteristics, maximum size, age at birth, length-weight relationship and size at maturity that describes the underlying production and carrying capacity of a population over time (Walters et al, 2006).  Estimates of biomass and egg production relative to unfished levels are produced, as well as likelihood that the fishery is causing overfishing (Grubert et al. 2013).  Estimates of current harvest levels in relation to those required to attain MSY are also produced.  The assessment is appropriate for the stock and estimates status relative to reference points.

(b) Uncertainty and Peer review

Black jewfish

LOW RISK

The stochastic SRA black jewfish assessment takes into account the major sources of uncertainty, and has been peer reviewed externally by Prof Carl Walters (Grubert et al, 2013).

PI SCORE

LOW RISK

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

MEDIUM RISK

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.

Apart from the two main target species (black jewfish and golden snapper), the CLF reports very small catches of estuary cod, tropical snappers, grass emperor and various emperor and shark species.   In 2014, a total of 140t of fishes were harvested in the CLF with Black Jewfish and Golden Snapper forming most of the harvest (94% and 2.8%, respectively) (NTG, 2016). Grass Emperor (Lethrinus lentjan) was the only byproduct species taken in any significant quantity (0.9% of the harvest).  Accordingly, only golden snapper qualifies as a ‘main’ other species.

Golden snapper

Golden snapper is a widespread Indo–Pacific species that is found from the Pilbara region of Western Australia and across northern Australia to the east coast of Queensland. The stock structure for this species has been investigated across the full extent of its Australian range (Saunders et al, 2016a). The results indicated that many separate stocks may exist at the scale of tens of km.  However, given the recent nature of these findings, assessment of stock is typically presented at the jurisdictional level (i.e. Northern Territory).

Saunders et al (2016c) reported that the most recent assessment provided an update of the 2011 stock reduction analysis model and included data up until 2014. It estimated that biomass and egg production were 18 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively, of the unfished level (1973), indicating this stock is recruitment overfished (NTG, 2016). The results are driven by the populations with the highest harvest rates so the status for the Northern Territory can be assumed to be representative of the highest level of exploitation that occurs on any population. The most heavily fished area is the waters around Darwin, where most of the fishing pressure occurs. In this area, abundance, catch and catch rate have substantially declined over the past 10 years.

Catch limits and area closures were implemented in 2015 to reduce harvest by an estimated 50 per cent, to allow for the biomass of Golden Snapper stocks to recover (Grubert et al, 2013). This level of fishing pressure is expected to allow the stock to recover from its recruitment overfished state; however, measurable improvements in biomass are yet to be detected.

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

(a) Management strategy in place

MEDIUM RISK

The harvest strategy for golden snapper is largely the same as that for black jewfish and includes limited entry in the CLF, a catch limit of 4.5t in the western zone of the fishery, gear limit and spatial closures. New measures were introduced in 2015 designed to reduce catches by 50%.  Saunders et al (2016c) conclude that the recent measures should be sufficient to allow the stock to recover, although measurable improvements in biomass are yet to be detected.  This is sufficient to meet the medium risk SG.

(b) Management strategy evaluation

MEDIUM RISK

The 2015 measures aiming to reduce catches of golden snapper by 50% are considered likely to work based on plausible argument, although there is no evidence yet of stock recovery (Saunders et al, 2016c).

(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

LOW RISK

All retained catch is recorded in the daily commercial logbooks with validation through regular onboard observer trips conducted commercial vessels (NTG 2014).  Periodic stock assessments are conducted to assess status of golden snapper. 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, 2016).  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.

PI SCORE

MEDIUM RISK

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

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

LOW RISK

The targeted nature of this fishery means that it is highly unlikely to interact with ETP species. There have been no recorded ETP interactions in the commercial and FTO logbooks for fishery. This information has been verified from onboard observer trips conducted up until 2011 on commercial vessels and more recently approximately 20 days per year aboard FTO vessels from 2010-present (NTG 2016).

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.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species

(a) Management strategy in place

LOW RISK

The strategy in place to manage impacts on ETP species largely comprises limiting entry into the fishery, restricting gear and spatial restrictions. All ETP species interactions describing type of interaction, ETP species and whether it was released alive or dead must be reported to Northern Territory Fisheries Division in daily logbook returns.  The number and type of interactions has been verified from onboard observer trips conducted up until 2011 on commercial vessels and more recently approximately 20 days per year aboard FTO vessels from 2010-present (NTG 2016).

(b) Management strategy implementation

LOW RISK

The limited number of interactions reported through compulsory logbooks as well as by independent observers provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work.

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

LOW RISK

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. There have been no recorded interactions with ETP species in the history of the fishery which has been substantiated by onboard observer trips conducted on commercial and FTO vessels (NTG 2016).  This information is adequate to assess the UoA related mortality and to support the strategy to manage impacts.

PI SCORE

LOW 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

Examples of “serious or irreversible harm” to habitats provided by MSC 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. Further, MSC specifies that if a habitat extends beyond the area fished then the full range of the habitat should be considered when evaluating the effects of the fishery. The ‘full range’ of a habitat shall include areas that may be spatially disconnected from the area affected by the fishery and may include both pristine areas and areas affected by other fisheries.

The CLF targets the demersal scalefish species using hook and line apparatus in coastal waters of the Northern Territory out to 15nm.  Line fishing  used in the CLF (i.e. hand lines and droplines) has little physical impact on the benthic environment and is likely to be a negligible risk to benthic habitats.   Accordingly, we have scored this SI low risk.

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

LOW RISK

The main ‘strategy’ to limit habitat damage in the fishery is to limit gear to benign hook and line apparatus.  The fishery is also subject to some spatial closures designed to recover stocks of the target species, as well as indirect limitations on effort through commercial quotas.   Given the negligible risk associated with line fishing, these measures are likely to be considered at least a partial strategy which is expected to achieve the outcome reflected in criteria 2C(i).

(b) Management strategy implementation

LOW RISK

Compliance information showing fishers comply with requirements to use line fishing apparatus, as well as independent observer reporting, is likely to provide an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work and that the measures are being implemented.

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 habitat types within Australia’s northern region having been relatively well characterised and mapped over several decades with much of the information compiled to support recent marine reserve planning (e.g. DEWHA, 2007), or coastal developments (e.g. Geo Oceans, 2011).  The types of habitat that the fishery interacts with is well understood based on locations from logbook returns and onboard observer trips. Collectively, this information is such that the nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitat types are likely to be known at a level of detail relevant to the nature and scale of the fishery.

(b) Information and monitoring adequacy

LOW RISK

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. While the impacts of the line gear used in the CLF on habitat haven’t been explored explicitly the physical impacts of this passive gear type is likely to be negligible.

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.

(i)(a) Ecosystem Status

MEDIUM RISK

According to the MSC, serious or irreversible harm in the ecosystem context should be interpreted in relation to the capacity of the ecosystem to deliver ecosystem services. 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.

Given the limited impact of the fishery on ETP species and habitats, the main ecosystem impact is likely to come from the removal of target and other bycatch species from the ecosystem.  While both target species have been reported as being below PRI, it is likely there are other species such as other Lutjanids and Serranids that are able to take their place in the food web. An Ecological Risk Assessment undertaken for the Coastal Line Fishery in 2010 rated all other targeted and incidentally caught species as either medium or low risk (Grubert et al, 2010).  Stock assessments of other key species in coastal/reef ecosystems in the Northern Territory suggest that these are well above PRI (e.g. sharks; Grubert et al. 2013).  Together with limited impacts on ETP species and habitats, it is at least likely that the UoAs would not result in serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.  Nevertheless, given both target species are likely to be below PRI and potential effects on the ecosystem have not been studied in any it is not clear that sufficient information is available to conclude that it is highly likely that the UoA would not result in serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.  Accordingly, we have scored the UoA medium risk.

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 main measures in place to limit ecosystem impacts are both operational (use of benign hook and line gear) and those in place to limit harvest of the target species, including the recovery program described in 1B above.  An ecological risk assessment (ERA) was conducted on the fishery in 2010 to inform management priority setting (Grubert et al, 2010). These measures constitute at least a partial strategy which takes into account the available information and is expected to restrain the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem so as to achieve the outcomes reflected in criteria 2D(i).

(b) Management Strategy implementation

MEDIUM RISK

The measures in place are likely to work based on plausible argument, although there have been no empirical studies investigating the impacts of the CLF fishery on trophic structure and function.  There are limited ETP species and habitat impacts, and modelling outputs for target species have indicated that new management controls will sufficiently reduce the harvest to allow recovery of these species.  In addition, Grubert et al (2010) rated all other species harvested in the CLF as either medium or low risk, and stock assessments for some other key species in the coastal/reef ecosystem (e.g. sharks) have indicated that stocks are well above PRI (Grubert et al, 2013).  The main limitation in information is the absence of any analysis of the effect of stock reductions of the main target species on the ecosystem.

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

(a) Information quality

LOW RISK

Information on reef associated benthic ecosystem where the fishery operates is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the pelagic ecosystem associated with coral reefs. The food chain in this ecosystem and the impacts of fishing is sufficiently understood (e.g. Valentine and Heck, 2005; Mapstone et al, 2004). Information on catch and effort location from all sectors via logbooks or periodic fishing surveys provides sufficient information to detect increased risk.

(b) Investigations of UoA impacts

MEDIUM RISK

It is likely that the main impacts of the fishery can be inferred from existing information from studies on similar fisheries (e.g. Mapstone et al. 2004), however the ecosystem impacts of the UoA have not been investigated in detail.

PI SCORE

MEDIUM RISK

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; and
• Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.

(a) Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

LOW RISK

Under Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) arrangements between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory, the Government of the Northern Territory is responsible for managing the target species in the CLF.  The NT’s Fisheries Act 1988 and Fisheries Regulations 1993 establishes an effective framework of powers for the conservation and sustainable management of fish and aquatic life resources.

(b) Respect for Rights

LOW RISK

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.

(a) Roles and Responsibilities

LOW RISK

The roles and responsibilities of the main people (e.g. Fisheries Minister, Executive 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.

(b) Consultation Process

LOW RISK

The CLF Management Advisory Committee (CLFMAC) and Recreational Fishery Advisory Committee (RFAC) provide a forum for all relevant issues to be discussed by key stakeholder groups and to provide advice to the Executive Director of Fisheries. All substantial proposed changes in management undergo a public consultation period. A good example of this process is the introduction of the new recovery plan for coastal reef fish species which went through both committees and two public consultation periods.

CRITERIA: (iii) The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision making that are consistent with FAO CRRF, and incorporates the precautionary approach.

(a) Objectives

LOW RISK

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

1. 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

2. to maintain a stewardship of aquatic resources that promotes fairness, equity and access to aquatic resources by all stakeholder groups, including

1. indigenous people; and
2. the commercial fishing, aquaculture and fishing tourism industries; and
3. amateur fishers; and
4. 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.

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 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

(a) Objectives

MEDIUM RISK

Generic cross-fishery objectives consistent with Components 1 and 2 are explicitly specified in the Fisheries Act, as well as other policy documents (e.g. Harvest Strategy Policy).  To that extent, these objectives are implicit within the CLF fishery-specific management system and therefore consistent with medium risk.  Current fishery specific management objectives are consistent with Component 1 by aiming to recover stocks of the two main target species to levels consistent with BMSY. Nevertheless, there are no long or short term fishery specific objectives consistent with Component 2.

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

LOW RISK

The decision making process to deal with serious fishery issues is through the CLFMAC and RFAC which provides advice to the Director of Fisheries.  Depending on the action required, the Director either makes internal changes to the management of the fishery or seeks a Ministerial decision based on advice provided by the Department. This process generally involves a public consultation period. There is evidence that the decision making process responds to serious or other important issues in a timely and transparent manner, given the recent suite of management changes to all sectors to ensure the recovery of key reef species.

(b) Use of the Precautionary approach

The use of the precautionary approach is implicit in the Fisheries Act objective to management fisheries in accordance with the principles of ESD.  However, both target species in this fishery have been overfished so the management arrangements have not provided sufficient protection for these stocks. There is evidence that the recovery plan that has been implemented is based on the best available information.

(c) Accountability and Transparency

LOW RISK

Information on the biological, ecological, economic and social performance of the fishery is reported annually through the Department’s Stock Status Reports (NTG 2016).  Information on recent changes to management and new scientific or monitoring results are provided in the report as well as being discussed with stakeholders during annual meetings and through the CLFMAC and RFAC processes.

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

(a) MCS Implementation

LOW RISK

Monitoring, compliance and surveillance activities are undertaken by the Water Police Section of the NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services, under the NT Fisheries Act 1988. Fishery-specific control measures are set out in the Fisheries Regulations 1993 and include:

• quota management arrangements,
• requirements for CLF operators to provide prior notification before each fishing trip in the western zone of the fishery,
• a requirement to hold quota units for black jewfish and golden snapper prior to entering the western zone,
• a prohibition on moving fish between vessels;
• requirements to unload fish in Darwin or another port approved by the Director of Fisheries;
• a requirement to land fish using calibrated scales as soon as practical after landing;
• a requirement to carry a fisheries observer on board if requested.

There have been few reported problems with compliance in the CLF and there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance (NTG, 2017). The primary area of concern is the potential for the black market sale of fish by unlicensed operators. In particular, the illegal sale of black jewfish airbags has increased due to the recent higher prices for this product.

(b) Sanctions and Compliance

LOW RISK

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.  Anecdotal evidence indicates that these are consistently applied, albeit few compliance breaches have been detected in the CLF (NTG, 2017).  Compliance issues are reported periodically through the Fishery Status Reports.

(c) Systematic non-compliance

No systematic non-compliance is thought to exist (NTG, 2017).

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

LOW RISK

Fishery performance is evaluated annually through the Fishery Status reports process (e.g. NTG, 2017).  The effectiveness of commercial and recreational management arrangements are assessed by monitoring sector catch and effort returns, conducting periodic recreational catch and effort surveys, periodic observer coverage on board commercial vessels, assessing recruitment success and monitoring key population parameters for the most heavily exploited stocks. The effectiveness of the compliance regime is evaluated through periodic risk assessments conducted by the Water Police.

(b) Internal and/or external review

LOW RISK

The management system is internally reviewed at least every five years under the Department’s Strategic Planning process.  A new harvest strategy is currently being developed for the CLF which will require regular internal review of performance against reference points which will further strengthen this system.  Occasional external review of the management system has occurred through the involvement of external experts (Prof. Carl Walters) in stock assessments and the development of management advice (e.g. Grubert et al, 2013).

PI SCORE

LOW RISK