Commercial fishing

Australia’s commercial wild-caught marine fisheries are highly diverse and contribute significantly to the economy. Scallops; prawns; crabs; squid; coastal fish, such as whiting and flathead; reef fish, such as coral trout; shelf and deep-water fish, such as sardines, ling and blue-eye trevalla; and oceanic tuna and billfish are all caught in Australian fisheries. In 2013–14, wild-caught fisheries generated $1.5 billion, up from $1.4 billion in 2012–13, and produced approximately 150,000 tonnes of seafood for local, domestic and export markets (Flood et al. 2014, Savage & Hobsbawn 2015). Nearly 50 per cent of the total production value is exported, with the majority going to Asian markets, while imports account for almost 70 per cent of the fish consumed in Australia (Savage & Hobsbawn 2015).

The adoption in 1979 of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement aimed to address longstanding jurisdictional issues between the Australian Government, and the states and territories (Gullett 2013). The settlement reinforced shared responsibility for commercial fisheries between the governments of the states and the Northern Territory, and the Australian Government. State jurisdiction extends from the low-water mark to a baseline generally 3 nautical miles offshore, and Australian Government jurisdiction extends from 3 nautical miles to the edge of the national jurisdiction (Vince 2015). Under the settlement, each sector’s issues are dealt with separately within ‘agreed arrangements’.

Although commercial fisheries operate across all states and the Northern Territory, and out to the limit of the Australian EEZ, fishing effort is not evenly distributed, and commercial fisheries across jurisdictions vary in their distribution and intensity.

Most commercial fishing catches in 2012–13 were derived from South Australian (44,215 tonnes), Commonwealth (39,118 tonnes) and Queensland (24,859 tonnes) waters, with the remaining states and the Northern Territory catching less than 20,000 tonnes each (Savage & Hobsbawn 2015). The greatest value of catches is derived from the states and the Northern Territory; 23 per cent of the total value of commercial fisheries was derived from Australian Government–managed fisheries in 2012–13 (Figure MAR11).

The impact of commercial fisheries on the marine environment varies, with different fishing gear and fishing methods having different impacts on species that might be caught as bycatch and the habitats where fishing takes place. Methods are highly varied, and include the use of small-scale nets, pelagic longlines and large-scale trawl nets (Flood et al. 2014). Trophic structure and ecosystem productivity can be affected if target or nontarget species are removed at too high a level in the long term (Smith et al. 2011), or if habitats are degraded through commercial fishing (e.g. see Box MAR2). The variability in impacts associated with commercial fishing, the management arrangements in place and changes in these arrangements since 2011 mean that commercial fisheries, on a national basis, are assessed as having a low impact and an improving trend.

The status of the main species caught by commercial fisheries is regularly reported by the Australian Government, the states and the Northern Territory (e.g. QDAFF 2013, Grubert et al. 2013, André et al. 2015, Fletcher & Santoro 2015, NSW DPI 2015a, Patterson et al. 2015a, PIRSA 2015). In addition, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, in conjunction with the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, produces annual reports on commercial fisheries and aquaculture statistics, and biennial reports on the status of key Australian fish stocks across state, territory and Australian Government jurisdictions (Flood et al. 2014, Savage & Hobsbawn 2015).

Of a total of 238 identified stocks from 68 species, (Flood et al. 2014) assessed 170 stocks across state, territory and Australian Government jurisdictions, focusing predominantly on commercially fished species, but also including recreational catches, where appropriate. Of these stocks, they classified:

• 129 as sustainable
• 7 as recovering from past overfishing
• 19 as being in a state where fishing is too high (but not yet in a state of being overfished)
• 4 as being in a state where environmental processes have reduced the stock to a low point
• 11 as overfished.

Those stocks classified as overfished occurred in both Australian Government, and state and territory jurisdictions (Flood et al. 2014). The remaining 68 stocks were unable to be assigned a stock status classification, because insufficient information exists to determine stock status or information is conflicting.

In addition to target species, nearly all commercial fisheries catch species that are not the target of the fishery. These are mostly other fish or invertebrate species, but can also include species protected under the EPBC Act in threatened, migratory or marine categories, such as sea snakes, marine turtles, seabirds, sharks and marine mammals.

The EPBC Act allows interaction with listed species if they are undertaken in accordance with an accredited management plan or regime. All Australian Government–managed fisheries have been assessed and accredited under the EPBC Act, on the basis that management plans or regimes include all reasonable steps to ensure that listed species are not adversely affected by fishing operations. Sharks listed under the Act as migratory species (porbeagle, shortfin mako and longfin mako) can be kept and traded if brought up dead, if the operator is fishing in accordance with an accredited fisheries management plan. Live sharks that are listed as migratory species must be returned to the sea unharmed. All interactions (whether animals are dead or alive) must be reported. A memorandum of understanding between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) and the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy allows AFMA to report interactions with protected species in AFMA-managed commercial fisheries on behalf of fishers (Table MAR1).

Although interactions with protected species are required to be reported under state or territory legislation and the EPBC Act, information on species caught across state and territory jurisdictions is not as readily available as that for the Australian Government jurisdiction. Further, reporting is often at the species group level rather than the individual species level, and few details of individuals caught are collected. This limits the use of reporting frameworks for assessing the impacts of commercial fishing on individual species and populations (see also below). Reporting is largely based on logbook information provided by commercial fishery operators, with observations of interactions by fishery observers, in general, restricted to less than 10 per cent of all commercial fisheries (although, where interactions have been recorded, observer coverage in some commercial fisheries can be as high as 100 per cent).

Table MAR1 Number of reported interactions of AFMA-managed fisheries with species listed under the EPBC Act, 2012–15

AFMA = Australian Fisheries Management Authority; EPBC Act = Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Note: Interactions include those with animals that are reported as alive, injured, dead or unknown. Values presented are the total of all categories across all commercial fisheries managed by the Australian Government. All interactions are reported as per reporting requirements under the EPBC Act. Interactions listed are derived from commercial fisheries logbooks and may not include all interactions listed in fishery observer logbooks. Logbook data are not routinely verified, and therefore AFMA cannot attest to the accuracy of these data or authenticate that records are complete. Values are numbers reported and do not account for variability in effort across fisheries.

Source: Protected species interaction reports, Australian Fisheries Management Authority

Total bycatch has been estimated for some commercial fisheries and jurisdictions (e.g. Kangas et al. 2007, Tuck et al. 2013), but there has been no national assessment to date, largely because reporting frameworks are not consistent across jurisdictions.

A framework for assessing the ecological impacts of fishing has been developed and applied to several Australian commercial fisheries to assess the risks to the many nontarget species taken in fisheries managed by the Australian Government (Hobday et al. 2011). However, such assessments and the estimated impacts of fisheries on bycatch species are limited by a general lack of information on bycatch species, resulting in high uncertainty in assessments. Similarly, habitat assessments have been completed for only a small number of fisheries, and these have been mostly semiquantitative. The cumulative impacts of fishing on marine habitats have not been analysed on a national scale (see Box MAR2).

Recreational fishing

Recreational fishing is an important activity for many Australians and contributes substantially to the Australian economy. At a national level, recreational fishing (fresh water and marine) in 2013 was estimated to have an annual economic value of $2.56 billion, based on an expenditure evaluation approach (Colquhoun 2015). In New South Wales alone, approximately 900,000 adults were estimated to participate in recreational fishing in 2011, and it is estimated that expenditure on the marine component of recreational fishing across the state in 2012 was $1.42 million (McIlgorm & Pepperell 2013).

Recreational fishing has not been assessed at the national level to quantify participation, effort and harvest since 2001 (Henry & Lyle 2003). Surveys conducted at the state or territory level since 2001 use varying methods, therefore limiting the ability to compare jurisdictions and scale up results from surveys to provide a more recent national view of fishing activity.

Participation in recreational fishing remains high nationally in absolute terms (i.e. taking into account the number of people participating and the amount of effort put into recreational fishing by individuals). Declines in either the number of people fishing, the time spent fishing (effort) or overall harvest (the number of fish caught) have been reported in Queensland (McInnes et al. 2013), New South Wales (West et al. 2016), Tasmania (Lyle et al. 2014), South Australia (Giri & Hall 2015) and Western Australia (Ryan et al. 2015), noting that, across all states, catches and effort are highly variable across species. In Victoria, surveys of recreational fishers suggest an increase in participation, time spent fishing and overall harvest. However, although surveys in particular areas or for particular species have been carried out in Victoria, a statewide survey has not been conducted since 2008–09. In the Northern Territory, recreational fishing will be surveyed in 2016–17. This will update the results of a 2009–10 survey, which recorded decreases in participation, time spent fishing and overall harvest (West et al. 2012). Most of the overall effort in recreational fisheries is associated with a relatively small number of fishers, which means that these individuals have disproportionately large impacts in terms of total effort and catch (West et al. 2016).

Across all regions, fishing effort is often concentrated in predictable spatial areas, but can vary substantially on seasonal and interannual timescales (Lynch 2014). Most recreational fishing occurs in inshore waters. Although shore-based fishing is popular, more recreational fishers are using boats than in previous years. Boat size is increasing across most states (Lyle et al. 2014, Giri & Hall 2015, Ryan et al. 2015, West et al. 2016), and more advanced fishing technology is being used, resulting in potential increases in effective effort (i.e. the effort associated with individual catches rather than the overall time spent fishing). This has the potential for recreational fishing to have larger impacts on populations of species overall. More remote areas are now being fished, as well as offshore fisheries for pelagic fish, including southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii; Griffiths & Fay 2015, Moore et al. 2015) and deeper-water species, resulting in shifts in concentration of effort and catches onto particular areas and species. Social media is facilitating rapid transfer of information, which can also lead to concentration of effort in particular areas or on particular species.

Several states (e.g. New South Wales, Western Australia) have implemented networks of fish aggregating devices (FADs) for recreational fishing to increase catch rates for the largely pelagic fish species that aggregate around such structures (Folpp & Lowry 2006). FADs also concentrate effort into particular areas and onto particular species. Up to 30 individual FADs are used in a network. Although a number of concerns have been raised about the use of high numbers of FADs within commercial fisheries in areas outside the Australian EEZ (see Dagorn et al. 2013), little information is available on impacts on the marine environment of FAD networks deployed for recreational fishing in Australian waters. Artificial reefs, which are regulated under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, have a similar aggregating purpose. As for FADs, little information is available on impacts of artificial reefs on the marine environment, particularly in relation to recreational fishing. Further detail on artificial reefs can be found in the Coasts report.

Obligations for catch reporting and official catch recording systems are lacking for most recreational fisheries; instead, large efforts are placed on developing surveys and other methods to estimate recreational catch (e.g. Griffiths et al. 2010, Georgeson et al. 2015a). For many species, quantitative assessment of catches by the recreational sector is lacking, and few data are available for those catches that are caught and then discarded or released (because of bag or size limits, the species caught being undesired or the catch not being retained for other reasons). In addition, few robust data are available on postrelease mortality rates for most species. This limits any assessment of the impacts of recreational fishing on the marine environment.

For those species where information is available, the amount of recreational harvest can be similar to, or exceed, commercial catches. For example, the recreational tonnage of southern sand flathead (Platycephalus bassensis) in Tasmania in 2012–13 was 6 times that of the commercial fishery (Lyle et al. 2014). Of the 10 key species caught by fishers in New South Wales, recreational catches exceeded commercial catches for 5 species, and recreational catches of a further 2 were only slightly lower than commercial catches (West et al. 2016). Recreational catches of barramundi (Lates calcarifer) around Cairns are 3 times higher than the commercial harvest by net fisheries (Brown 2016). Recreational and commercial catches within the West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery in Western Australia in 2008–09 were similar to each other before management of allocations was introduced (IFAAC 2013). The estimated recreational harvest of King George whiting (Sillaginoides punctatus) in South Australia in 2013–14 was 1.46 million fish (367 tonnes), which was more than half the amount of this species caught by commercial fisheries (Giri & Hall 2015). Overall, on a national basis, although the extent of information is highly variable, recreational fishing could be having a high impact on the marine environment, with little change in trend in the past 5 years.

Although recreational catch statistics are more uncertain than commercial catches, where data are available on commercially harvested species, they are used in some fishery assessments (e.g. Linnane et al. 2015a, PIRSA 2015). Harvest strategies for some state and Australian commercial fisheries include recreational catches (DAFF 2007, Fletcher & Santoro 2015).

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing can refer to a wide range of issues associated with the reporting, quantification and management of fishing (see FAO 2001). Catches of this nature are driven by world population growth, an increasing demand for fish protein, a desire for greater economic returns in an environment of increasing costs associated with commercial fishing and overexploitation, and overcapacity and diminishing resources within both domestic and international fisheries (Le Gallic & Cox 2006, Sumaila et al. 2006, Agnew et al. 2009). IUU fishing activities undermine sustainable management frameworks for fisheries and can cause, in some cases, significant environmental damage through depletion of biodiversity (FAO 2001). Such fishing practices also harm legitimate fishing activities and livelihoods, jeopardising food security, consolidating transnational crime and distorting economic markets (Agnew et al. 2009, Young 2016).

Global assessments have estimated that IUU fishing in the eastern Indian Ocean and the south-west Pacific Ocean costs approximately US$425–900 million, noting that IUU catches in the south-west Pacific Ocean are some of the lowest in all regions examined (Agnew et al. 2009). Assessment of trends in IUU fishing showed that IUU activities in the south-west Pacific Ocean declined from 10 per cent of the total catch of the commercial fisheries assessed to 4 per cent from 1980 to 2003, while IUU fishing in the eastern Indian Ocean increased from 24 per cent to 32 per cent (Agnew et al. 2009).

In Australian waters, noncompliance with commercial or recreational fishery regulations or marine park zoning occurs, and is generally considered to be small scale or opportunistic. Most reported illegal fishing is associated with the commercial sector. However, noncompliance with fishery regulations also occurs in the recreational sector; common offences include exceeding quota or bag limits, taking undersized fish, fishing in closed or protected areas, using unauthorised equipment and attempting to sell recreationally caught fish (Putt & Anderson 2007).² Within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park area, illegal fishing (both commercial and recreational) is considered one of the greatest risks to the environmental sustainability of fishing activities (GBRMPA 2014a), although formal assessments of illegal fishing in the park area are few (Davis et al. 2004, McCook et al. 2010). Organised criminal activity is predominantly associated with high-value, low-volume commercial fisheries such as abalone, and with illegally obtained shark fins (Putt & Anderson 2007). Most illegal activity by foreign fishers occurs in Australia’s northern waters for a range of species, and in the Southern Ocean for Patagonian toothfish (see also the Antarctic report).

Some jurisdictions make information on reports of illegal fishing available.³ However, quantification of IUU fishing nationally is lacking. Further, surveys of fisheries officers tasked with enforcing requirements to prevent IUU fishing identified that many believed their jurisdiction was ineffective in both detecting criminal activity and dealing with criminal activity once it was detected (Putt & Anderson 2007).