Benchmark Appraisla: CCAMLR Krill Fishery
Benchmark appraisal: Western Rock Lobster fishery, WA.
Jon Nevill +61 422 926 515 draft September 18, 2008
The purpose of this appraisal is to compare Western Australia’s western rock lobster fishery management regime to benchmarks representing key aspects of three broad ‘modern’ management approaches: active adaptive management, and the precautionary and ecosystem approaches.
Background:
The WA western rock lobster (Panulirus cygnus) fishery is generally considered one of Australia’s best managed fisheries. Although it includes waters beyond the State (3 nautical mile) limit, it falls under the jurisdiction of the WA Government, via the WA Department of Fisheries, under an agreement with the Australian (Commonwealth) Government – the Offshore Constitutional Settlement agreement. It is also one of Australia’s most economically valuable single-species fisheries (~$m280 pa) – noting that Australian waters are relatively unproductive compared with those of most other continents.
The fishery is managed by effort restriction, and harvests around 10,000 (9000 to 14,000) tonnes of lobster per year – the annual catch being strongly related to coastal settlement of post-larvae lobsters 4 years earlier. The commercial fishery takes around 94-96% of the total reported harvest, and is limited primarily by pot (trap) licences, closed seasons, minimum and maximum lengths, and gear restrictions[1]. At present a fleet of about 500 commercial boats sets something over 55,000 pots (about 15% of which are lost each season). Entry to the recreational fishery is by licence, and is presently unlimited; with about 42,000 licences current (estimated 21,000 in active use). Recreational fishers face similar restrictions to the commercial fleet – except for their limit of two pots per recreational licence.
The fishery was one of the first worldwide to obtain Marine Stewardship Certification (MSC) in March 2000. In August 2002 the fishery received Commonwealth accreditation (necessary to enable export of lobsters to overseas markets – the primary destination of the catch). MSC re-accreditation was obtained in November 2006, and Commonwealth re-accreditation in August 2007. The MSC accreditations involved independent review, while the Commonwealth accreditation involved an independent assessment of an internal review.
Lobsters have a life-span to 20 years, but few reach this age, largely due to heavy harvest pressures on adults. Spawning mostly occurs in shelf (rather than shallow) waters, following a migration of pre-breeding adults from shallow to deeper waters around October-November each year. These lobsters are known as ‘whites’ from their pale colour. Bycatch of the fishery includes octopus, crabs, and small sharks and scalefish – all of which may be retained. Moray eels are discarded. Sea lion pups (from a declining Abrolhos Islands population) get stuck and drown in pots, and whales and turtles occasionally get tangled in pot lines, as do (rarely) mantas. The fishery has been slow to adopt strategies to remediate bycatch problems: for example sea lion exclusion devices (SLEDs) were proposed in 1999, but not included in mandatory gear requirements until 2006 (SCS 1999, DoFWA 2001, DoFWA 2007)[2]. The reason for the delay was “lack of industry support” (SLSRG 2005). Several other important management improvements have suffered similar delays (SCS 2006)[3]. A major flaw remains with regard to stakeholder consultation[4] - an issue unresolved for many years.
Benchmarks:
The benchmarks used below are derived from a review of relevant literature, as described in documents 2.22, 2.23 and 2.24 at
Each benchmark is scored as follows:
0 – no evidence of policy or implementation;
1 – policy in place or partially in place; no substantive implementation at this stage;
2 – policy in place; evidence of partial implementation;
3 – policy in place; evidence of substantial implementation.
The precautionary approach:
Benchmark / AssessmentA1 / Management strategies and plans contain clear objectives, indicators and performance targets relating to the protection of: target stocks, populations of dependent and associated species, and habitat. / Score 1.5 A primary goal of management is to maintain the WRL population egg production index above 0.1 – one of the fishery’s two limit reference points (SCS 2007:63)[5]. The second limit RP is a sea lion bycatch of zero – which is always exceeded[6]. Some other indicators are described in Fletcher et al. (2005:s5), however these indicators lack clarity[7]. No credible indicators have been defined for ecosystem structure and function[8], or habitat protection[9],
A2 / Fishery management plans use pre-agreed decision rules based partly on limit reference points equivalent to, or more conservative than, both target stock MSY and bycatch population MSY for the most vulnerable species of bycatch. / Score 1. Decision rules are used, most effectively in relation to breeding stock biomass (DoFWA 2007:63ff). However examination of rule DR1 reveals weaknesses which are mirrored in other WRL decision rules. The calculation of the indicators is not explained, and the first response triggered is “additional analysis is required” – which is not an action statement. The second trigger has a clearer response: “15% effort reduction is required” – but this, again, is not an action statement[10]. MSY levels are not presented for either the target or the most vulnerable bycatch (octopus)[11]. The sea lion limit reference point is breached each season – but perhaps the recent move to mandate SLEDs will improve this situation.
A3 / Undesirable outcomes which could result from excessive fishing pressures are identified, and monitoring programs are in place with sufficient power to rapidly detect these changes should they occur. / Score 2. Overfishing[12] the WRL spawning stock has occurred (in the early 1990s) and is clearly identified as a possible undesirable outcome. Monitoring programs to track egg production are in place, however their power has not been examined in published literature[13]. Undesirable bycatch, habitat damage and pollution outcomes are identified in risk assessments (eg: Burgman 2005) and monitoring programs (of undefined power) are in place. While ecosystem impacts were identified as requiring study by SCS (1999), monitoring programs are only now being initiated (EEFSRG 2006, DoFWA 2007:8).
A4 / The risks to ecosystem health and integrity are assessed for each major fishery, and additional caution applied to management programs for high-risk fisheries / Score 2. Ecological risk assessments have been carried out (eg: Burgman 2005). These assessments, however, have relied heavily on expert workshops rather than comprehensive reviews of best available information. On some issues workshop briefing notes appear either selective or inadequately researched (Babcock in Burgman 2005:99). Attending experts do not have expertise in all issues (see comment on criteria B5 below). Long delays in implementing SLEDs, for example, are not indicative of a precautionary management stance (see above).
A5 / Independent peer review is used as quality assurance for major management policies, strategies and plans. / Score 2. MSC certification procedures provide for independent (peer-reviewed) review – noting however that the reviewers are contracted to the WRL industry council. In other areas use of peer review needs improvement. For example SCS (2006:62 & 2006:83) note problems with peer review of risk assessment (ERA) and the operational plan. The independent stock assessment review also raises issues of bias[14].
The precautionary approach - continued
Benchmark / AssessmentA6 / Management procedures provide for rapid response in the light of unexpected declines in target stocks, bycatch populations, or habitat value. Such provisions provide for fisher compensation where necessary. / Score 1.5 Decision rule DR1 (see above) is the only decision rule clearly linked with effort reduction. Other decision rule triggers invoke the general response of ‘re-consider management arrangements’. This sort of response subverts the essential intent of decision rules to trigger pre-agreed actions aimed at protecting stock or associated values[15]. A recent history of slow management responses (see above) provides little indication of an ability to respond quickly to unexpected changes[16].
The ecosystem approach:
Benchmark / AssessmentB1 / There is formal periodic assessment of the impacts of particular fisheries against agreed objectives, including ecosystem-based objectives. / Score 2. The 5-yearly MSC re-certification process provides a formal independent review of the fishery against a range of objectives, including bycatch objectives pertaining to threatened and protected species. The fishery has not yet established quantitative ecosystem objectives other than bycatch-related. The Commonwealth accreditation process provides a similar, if weaker review mechanism. However questions remain in respect to the ability (or more correctly willingness) of the WRL fishery to respond to MSC conditions and Commonwealth recommendations – see discussion in endnotes 2, 3 & 15.
B2 / There is monitoring and reporting of agreed ecosystem indicators based on stated ecosystem objectives. / Score 1. Apart from bycatch indicators, no other quantifiable ecosystem indicators have been established. Comprehensive reporting of bycatch indicators is not accessible through the DoFWA website.
B3 / There is a substantial program in mapping, protecting and monitoring critical and vulnerable habitats, funded by the fishery agency or responsible government. / Score 1.5 The WA State government has funded marine habitat mapping in some areas. Limited mapping has also been funded by the Commonwealth. Detailed maps are available of several areas of shallow WRL habitat. Deep water habitat mapping is neglected (SCS 2006:49) but under way (SCS 2006:50). Critical and/or vulnerable habitats have not been identified at this stage. Programs to ‘protect and monitor’ are yet to be developed.
B4 / There are effective programs in place to monitor and maintain old-growth age structure in specific fisheries. / Score 1. For several years a maximum length restriction has applied to female lobsters (DoFWA 2006) to protect the breeding value of large animals[17]. Large males are not protected. No large marine protected area has been established which would protect shallow water and deep water habitats, with migration pathways. Given the size of the WRL range, a number of such MPAs appear to be needed.
The ecosystem approach - continued
Benchmark / AssessmentB5 / The agency has a substantial program to account for evolutionary change caused by fishing. / Score 0. The potential for the fishery to create genetic change in the population was considered by a risk assessment expert workshop (Burgman 2005). Although no expert briefing material was prepared, and no attending experts had published in the field of fishery-induced evolution, it was concluded that the risk of significant detrimental change was low. No further action appears to have been taken, in spite of research indicating possible fishery-induced effects[18].
B6 / There are effective programs in place to maintain the spatial extent of all major sub-populations (both target and bycatch) affected by specific fisheries, and maintain and monitor population genetic diversity. / Score 2. Post-larval settlement is monitored routinely at six locations spanning the geographical extent of the fishery. The fishery is managed through three management zones. WRLs are believed to comprise a single population (SCS 2006:47) which seems a reasonable assumption given the extended duration (and thus dispersion) of the pelagic larval stage. The only bycatch subpopulation believed to be at risk is the Abrolhos sea lion; however the size and viability of this population is not routinely monitored (Campbell 2005).
Adaptive management:
Benchmark / AssessmentC1 / The performance of the fishery management agency itself is subject to independent periodic review against stated objectives, and quantifiable indicators and performance targets. / Score 2. Although the Department (DoFWA) is never subject to independent review, it does report annually to the WA parliament, and the WRL fishery is reported in the State of the Fisheries Report (Fletcher & Santoro 2007). In the case of the WRL fishery, substantial compensation for the lack of independent departmental review is provided by the two independent reviews of the fishery itself – noting difficulties in relation to these reviews discussed above, and problems with the Commonwealth review criteria discussed by Nevill (2004). Importantly, the MSC review includes a review of the management system (Principle 3).
C2 / The management program uses mathematical modelling to pinpoint uncertainties and generate alternative hypotheses. / Score 1. Stock modelling has established a possible dependence of the population on the Abrolhos Islands spawning stock. While uncertainties have been identified, no alternative hypotheses have been prepared – as far as I can judge from published literature.
C3 / The assumptions behind the models are clearly set out and evaluated. / Score 0. No evidence is available indicating that assumptions are clearly set out and evaluated. .
C4 / Reports incorporating the use of adaptive management set out the bounding of management problems in terms of explicit and hidden objectives, and practical constraints on actions. / Score 0. There are no reports on the use of active adaptive management within the WRL fishery.
Adaptive management – continued
Benchmark / AssessmentC5 / There are changes in management controls, designed to test clearly stated hypotheses, which are sufficiently large to reasonably produce detectable effects; the size of these effects is estimated in advance, and sufficiently powerful field surveys undertaken, and statistically examined to deduce the probabilities of both Type I and Type II errors. / Score 0. Although there is clearly scope for the use of active adaptive management (see criteria C2 above) no related management action has been taken.
C6 / Formal organizational requirements are established for evaluating and reporting the results of the experimental management strategies, both to managers and stakeholders. / Score 0. No such requirements exist.
Summary and comment:
When the Commonwealth minister (David Kemp) accredited the WRL fishery on 20 August 2002, he wrote: “The fishery is managed under a comprehensive, adaptable, precautionary and ecologically based regime…” (Kemp 2002).
Under the current assessment, the Western Australian western rock lobster fishery scores 10.5/18 for adoption of precautionary management, 8.5/18 for adoption of the ecosystem approach, and 3/18 for adoption of active adaptive management. A low score in active adaptive management is not unusual – although the approach is often praised or advocated, enthusiastic implementation is rare worldwide. It should also be noted that the fishery has no formal commitment to the application of active adaptive management (noting however the minister’s comments above). The fishery does employ passive adaptive management, but this is common-place even in poorly managed fisheries globally. With respect to the precautionary and ecosystem approaches, both the Western Australian Government, and the Australian Government have formal commitments to their implementation dating back a considerable time.
The fishery is well-managed by Australian standards, and has so far escaped major output declines due to overfishing, after several decades of operation. Nevertheless a careful examination of the management of the fishery demonstrates major weaknesses, and at a practical level there is considerable room for improvement[19]. Bycatch issues, as well as the more general issues of the ecological effects of fishing, have not been adequately addressed, and effective precautionary strategies (large no-take benchmark reserves for example) are not in place.
Viewed from a precautionary perspective, the harvest rate is too high. The low spawning biomass limit reference point of 22% virgin biomass provides little if any margin or error for unexpected environmental variation, and provides virtually no ecological allowance for natural predation (or other ecological effects) of large lobsters. The Abrolhos Islands spawning stock index remains at the level it was in the early 1990s when the WRL industry was in difficulties (Fletcher & Santoro 2007:24) and is in fact only half its 1997/98 level[20]. Establishment of a large no-take marine protected area in the Abrolhos Islands would appear to provide both spawning stock security and ecological protection for predators of large lobsters, yet such a proposal has not been seriously examined in WRL fisheries management literature.
Extended delays in implementing management reforms (even those required by MSC accreditation) are a prominent feature of the fishery’s recent history (see discussion in endnotes 2, 3 & 15). Excuses offered in respect to the delay in implementing SLEDs (see above), and the continued failure of the WRL fishery management system to provide equal input to the advisory process for non-fishery stakeholders (see endnote 3 below) creates the impression of a management regime which has been ‘captured’ by fishing industry interests. This impression is reinforced by important gaps in public reporting (discussed above and below) for example with respect to the workings and findings of the scientific reference groups.
--ooOoo--
Acknowledgements:
My thanks to Russ Babcock, Tony Smith, Trevor Ward and Marcus Haward for helpful information and insights. Responsibility for matters of judgement as well as any factual errors remains, of course, my own.
References:
Babcock, RC, Phillips, JC, Lourey, M & Clapin, G (2007) 'Increased density, biomass and egg production in an unfished population of Western Rock Lobster (Panulirus cygnus) at Rottnest Island, Western Australia', Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 286-92.
Burgman, M (2005) Western rock lobster fishery: ecological risk assessment report 2005, Department of Fisheries Western Australia, Perth.
DoFWA Department of Fisheries Western Australia (1998) Opportunities for the Holding/Fattening/Processing and Aquaculture of Western Rock Lobster, DoFWA, Perth.
DoFWA Department of Fisheries Western Australia (2001) Application to Environment Australia on the western rock lobster fishery, DoFWA, Perth.
DoFWA Department of Fisheries Western Australia (2005) Western rock lobster environmental management strategy July 2002 - June 2006, DoFWA, Perth.
DoFWA Department of Fisheries Western Australia (2006) Commercial fishing for western rock lobster, DoFWA, viewed June 23 2008, <http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/pub/CommFishWestRL/index.php?0206>.
DoFWA Department of Fisheries Western Australia (2007) Application to the Department of the Environment and Water Resources on the western rock lobster fishery, DoFWA, Perth.
EEFSRG Ecological Effects of Fishing Scientific Reference Group (2006) Western rock lobster ecological effects of fishing research plan, Department of Fisheries Western Australia, Perth.