In co-management, all parties are interested (and arguably biased). The idea of co-management is to get a better outcome. I shudder to think of the alternative - going back to public servants trying to marshal data to support what they perceive as their particular political unspoken direction from the minister of the time?

The RAGs typically (I haven't checked this one) contain not just an industry rep, but also maybe a rec rep, eco-rep, economist, often several scientists, an EO (who is mostly there as admin) plus a regulator (fishery manager). If anything it is the scientists who outnumber the others.

RAGs advise the MACs (who may ask RAGs to undertake/frame research), but the actual fisheries decisions are made by the AFMA board. OK, it is a commission rather than a government department, but for our purposes it practically is government.

I think Tony Burke doesn't have a clue about what AFMA got right or wrong, he was just panicking about a Greenpeace/GetUp-promoted voter backlash...

...and I'm calling Greenpeace on this one (GetUp was late to the party and clearly just following along). Dutch Greenpeace have had it in for this boat for a long time and without knowing anything much about Australian fisheries (you'd think they might have put in a call to Greenpeace Australia...) put out an inflammatory inaccurate/misleading press release that started the media ball rolling. Nobody stopped to check as far as I can tell.

Actually I find it ironic that rec fishers and "greens" are allying on this issue when they are close to sworn enemies on just about everything else.

Have you seen AFMA's "load both barrels and give it to them between the eyes" response on this issue to the rec fishers? http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Letter-to-TARfish-combined.pdf

Full of allegations of misquoting, failure to back up assertions with data, selective recall. Not a good look for the rec fishers.

Hi Peter

After my Mum, you're the only person to call me "Andrew"...

Again, I'd rather have the vessel here where it can't do any significant harm, than elsewhere unregulated where it could. No-one has yet given a rebuttal of this point.

Too big? Well, smaller net than others already out there.

As regards not enough/old data perhaps you should read AFMA's "take that" reply to the rec fishers on the issue - pointing out some appalling misquoting and mis-direction on the part of the rec fishers on the Small-Pelagic committee - http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Letter-to-TARfish-combined.pdf

btw, the Magnussen Act is the device setting up quota fishery management in the US - somewhat flawed in comparison to Australia's. A lot of people (including some fishers, I might add) don't understand that the boat doesn't own the fish/quota...

There was a rather generous assumption made in setting these things up initially that they would operate by consensus - that the matters would not come to a divided vote - and that decisions would be based on the input of science. Doesn't seem to be happening does it?

There's a common problem in such bodies of creeping industry capture - that the regulators come to see their role in furthering the interests of the industry rather than maintaining a public interest viewpoint.

If we are lucky - or sensible - this schmozzle will prompt a thorough review and revision of the operations of such self-managed resource industry organisations and a strengthening of the role of independent science advice. Watch this space.

Would it not be more accurate to allow the Abel Tasman to fish Australian coastal waters for a fortnight and see what it catches. No inquiry or committee can find out as much information in such a short time. Monitoring its catches would eliminate this supposition of fishing out an area and then moving on, as has been suggested. In the same vein, banning the ship for any number if years will not provide factual evidence of how many dolphins and birds become entangled in a net, but a trial run most certainly would.
And if people want to get political about the banning, they could look at the banning of live cattle to Indonesia, the imposition of a Carbon Tax and now the banning of a fishing vessel. Each one has, to a greater or lesser extent, a Green look. Perhaps Christine Milne is flexing her muscles again ?

Dunno Peter, it's the scientists names who are all over the recommendations.

Susan, SARDI (Tim Ward) and TAFI (Jeremy Lyle) are definitely scientists, plus 2 State regulators, plus 2 or 3 modellers from ABARES. Quite a zoo. And with a lot of interests in the fishery (rec and conservation members also have conflicts of interest).

The Seafish rep on SPFRAG notified his interest, asked if he should step out, but was told to stay and answer questions only (i.e. not participate in discussion or decisions). Chairman's call. Only the conservation and rec-fishing rep objected to the TAC setting (i.e. all scientists, managers, modellers, etc agreed). See http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/SPFRAG-13-meeting-record-_FINAL.pdf

Yep, industry capture *could* be a problem. Doesn't look like it in this case. More like two members throwing their toys out because the data didn't agree with their opinions.

The conservation member certainly has a financial interest - where does their salary come from? Just not a direct interest. Don't know about the rec-rep's finances, but certainly has a non-financial interest, as do the scientists.

Everyone has an interest, it's just the degree (and conflict:) that varies.

Jeremy Lyle is regarded as one of the country's top fisheries researchers. I guess he is working for a related industry - a scientific institute? The chair is also one of the most prominent researchers in small pelagics and produced the main report the harvest strategy etc relies on...

Not sure what your point is - the scientists seemed to be in "control" of this group if anyone was. Just read through the rest of the minutes.

New data collected in 2011...

Care to share? andysaun(at)gmail.com

Hmmm, interesting. I guess then co-management is illegal. I'm not a lawyer, and haven't gone through the act in any detail (and please don't make me!), but it would be strange to outlaw co-management of fisheries when it has been a force for good in keeping management on their toes.

Don't get me wrong, regulatory capture can be a problem. But going back to the bad old days of big-shots in industry having cosy lunches with politicians who then subtly pressure vulnerable bureaucrats into giving the big-shots what they want - far worse.

Are we reading the same thing? Quota interest seemed to be declared, type of vessel to exploit it is pretty much irrelevant (certainly according to the experts). Anyway, maybe (maybe...) Seafish hadn't made the decision to bring in the trawler then. Don't forget, the trawler is perfectly legal (at least, until the law is changed...!)

David, Burke's initial response was fine - if it was just about the boat.

It's now about whether Seafish can make money from the way this decision was made. That's why they sent the thing packing. Perhaps the catch could have been confiscated but that would be legally awkward.

Well, "we", being the fisheries experts, thought it would do no significant harm. That includes bycatch (seals, sea-lions, dolphins, albatross), small pelagic stock.

TAC is set at 7% of conservative biomass, with indications that the actual biomass could be double. Worst case, I guess, is that after a year, we're at 93% of biomass (plus whatever recruitment has gone on). And even (even...) if the biomass calculations were 50% wrong on the high-side, we'd be at around 86% of biomass -hardly a crash.

David, re your last point - how could it be proved otherwise? Scientists know that negatives are logically impossible to prove.

The reason catches have never come close to the quota is because of low effort. Which in turn id because of low prices (or, equivalently, the lack of an efficient way to take advantage of low prices).

Thanks Andy.

The argument is now one of "trust us, we're the experts". Well, if you're the experts, you've cocked up severely in terms of transparency: at the very least,

DAFF's announcement of the jack mackerel quota increase (when the previous quota had never been tested) could have been supported by reference to relevant studies, but it wasn't. This strongly suggests that such studies have not been conducted with sufficient depth (no pun intended) for the results to be accorded any veracity.

"David, re your last point - how could it be proved otherwise? Scientists know that negatives are logically impossible to prove." It's easily demonstrated, Andy, by fishing to the old quota for enough years to quantify the effect of that level of harvest. This is done BEFORE the effect of quota increases is tested.

Why am I having to explain how to do the job?

David, I'm not one of the experts you're talking at - I'm not at all involved with any of the parties. My general attitude would be "trust the experts, but only after querying their findings" Which I think is the general intent and practice of the current system.

Not sure which DAFF announcement you refer to, but DAFF doesn't set the quota.

David, the problem with "fishing to the old quota for enough years..." is that the economics of the fishery (i.e., the lowish price that small pelagics fetch) don't allow that without a very efficient vessel - which now seems to be denied.

The somewhat desultory effort over the past decade or so doesn't seem to have impacted the biomass much if at all, given the TAC has been both above and below the current level. I'm not sure more conclusions other than that can be drawn.

Sorry Andy, I misunderstood your use of the phrase "we, being the fisheries experts, thought it would do no significant harm." I refer you to "One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish: science doesn’t support the super trawler" by UWA Oceans Institute Professor Jessica Meeuwig (https://theconversation.edu.au/one-fish-two-fish-red-fish-blue-fish-science-doesnt-support-the-super-trawler-9143).

Professor Leeuwig makes it quite clear that fish science and ecology already shows good indications that the increased fishing quota is highly likely to be unsustainable ie harvesting up to the new quota cannot be sustained by the fish population.

Given this, it is quite likely that the new quota will lead to a collapse in the fishery, with potential knock-on effects to other fisheries, and contrasts with the apparently demonstrated sustainability of the present "somewhat desultory" effort..

It is not prudent to adapt the economic argument you make, an eminently reasonable argument in the context of mining of non-renewable mineral resources, to the ongoing maintenance of such potentially sustainable resources as fisheries.

I don't know if Jessica Leeuwig has as much experience in the Australian small-pelagic fishery, at least compared to the Tas/SA/CSIRO scientists directly doing research in it. Her article was riddled with "red herrings" (sorry for the small-pelagics pun...), such as comparisons to reef fish, other species, other geographies. I particularly love her line that ABARES assessments of (fish) population status (under-fishing) are based on fishing effort. This is a pearler - if there is no fishing effort in a particular fishery then it cannot be overfished (because it is not being fished at all...).

I'd really emphasise looking at two things - Keith Sainsbury's lengthy comment at the bottom of Jessica's article, and the linked AFMA discussion paper at http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/SPF-discussion-paper-FINAL.pdf

Keith Sainsbury, for those who don't know him, is on the AFMA Commission (equivalent to a board member), and a highly-regarded fisheries scientist.

Regarding prudence, the fishery sustained catches of 40,000 tons in several years back a decade or two, so even though recent catches are in the low single-digit-thousands of tonnes, historically it is capable of high catches without being destroyed. This shouldn't be surprising, given that the GAB sardine fishery takes 35,000 tonnes annually or thereabouts of small pelagics from a very small area in SA, with little apparent effect.

Thanks Andy. I shall follow the references you give. Meanwhile, I'd appreciate your views on Wilson Tuckey's plea for the Precautionary Principle to be applied (http://afr.com/p/opinion/super_trawler_is_blight_on_the_seas_fPC03LwgMP7wIQRBZQv1bL). I might pre-warn you that it is written in the style of a Kalgoorlie pub owner.

Where you write "Regarding prudence, the fishery sustained catches of 40,000 tons in several years back a decade or two ...", I ask if aggregate catches over a couple of decades give evidence of sustainability?

The collapse of the cod fishery off Newfoundland in the 1970's suggests not, and suggests that Prof Leeuwig may have a point about assessments based purely on catch records of only a couple of decades.

Aw, do I really have to read something Wilson Tuckey has written? Wouldn't that fall under the category of "cruel and unusual punishment"? Or perhaps "crimes against humanity"?

OK, I've read it. Can't resist pointing out two gems: "no fish escape to go on and profligate". Those damn spendthrift fish! And the idea of blockading the entrance to Port Phillip Bay by anchoring in The Rip - I think it's over 3km wide.... Also I didn't realise it was him personally (almost single-handedly!) that hunted down a pirate fishing vessel off South Africa.

But actually, he does have *some* good points. Effort creep/innovation in effort-controlled fisheries is a real problem, and possibly the main reason fishing quotas were invented. Indeed, one fishery he mentioned (western rock lobster) is now a well-managed quota fishery (although his effort-reduction measure may have been temporarily effective at the time).

His history is a little off. The Nth Atlantic cod fishery is maybe 500 years old, and its collapse is a "classic". It was known (or at least strongly suspected) to be over-fished from at least the 1960s or earlier. Indeed, the "Icelandic cod wars" were motivated by Icelandic desires to limit cod fishing.

Some fishermen didn't believe the stock could collapse, until 1992 when it became apparent that it had indeed done so. Quota fisheries are designed in some ways as a direct consequence, so as to prevent exactly this sort of situation.

David, (modern) fisheries managers typically use fisheries-independent surveys to set quota Total Allowable Catches, and monitor Catch Per Unit Effort (the "unit" depends on the fishery - trawl shots, pot-lifts, vessel-days etc). If the CPUE is at least stable, or trending up, and the TAC is set with respect to good science (population dynamics of the species) then the fishery should be sustainable. In the case of North Atlantic cod, there were no catch limits and there was a dramatic leap in effort in the 60s/70s that caused the crash eventually.

Sometimes a fish-stock collapse is more because of a scientific error (Orange Roughy being a good example).

The historical record should be matched to the lifespan and fertility characteristics of the species - 80-year-lifespan Orange Roughy are very different from a few months prawns... so Prof Leeuwig should really be careful about comparing across species...

Interesting point. Are you aware of the common "catch-share" arrangements in Australian (and other) fisheries?

But as an Australian-flagged vessel, they'd be in the same boat (sorry...) as everyone else - Australian law applies.

So why the very obvious bias not just towards the trawler itself, but to denial of any shortcomings in the industry? That is the very consistent pattern of your very frequent contributions.

There is no money in opposing the Margiris' operations. Obviously there is money in supporting it, especially for spinmeisters and other consultants.

My point is of course that regulation should be sufficiently frequent and visible for there to be no need for real doubt. I invite your agreement on that point, Andy. I note that in contrast to your very frequent and very eager expressions of positive views on issues relating to this fishing project, rather than deal with the widespread issue of labour exploitation, you're anxious to wave it away. Surely if the industry is as you describe, it has nothing to hide?

No, just a bias towards facts. Basically anyone criticising the trawler is probably going up a blind alley - the catch is controlled by the quota not the trawler. Side-effects like bycatch are controlled by the nets in the water, and the crew's actions, and not the trawler, and in turn are controlled by Australian fishing and enviro regulations and law. The trawler is just a way to do all this.

There are shortcomings in the fishing industry (and Colin Hunt's article is pointing the way).

As I said, I'm not providing advice to, or receiving money from (or have received money from), any of the parties in the Margiris/Abel Tasman dispute. That includes AFMA, the Dutch ship-owners, Seafish (both companies), any of the individuals named. Again, you?

Labour exploitation? In general I support your sentiment. No allegations of that in this case. Maybe it exists on other boats, I don't know. Go for it if you have some evidence - maybe not is comments on an article about this one boat.

As for frequent and visible regulation, I do indeed agree. But 24-hour observer coverage, VMS satellite position-reporting, underwater video-cameras - what else are you requesting?

Bias?

I'll refer you to a companion article on The Conversation - "Super trawlers, the juggernauts of the oceans — environmental, economic and political devastation" on the same date as this article and written by the same author.

FV Margiris is a problem, whatever flag-of-convenience it flies.

And as I wrote before, there is money in Big Fishing, but none in opposing it. Only our futures. How little that counts with the decisionmakers!

That article is just a call for readers to sign a petition...

Margiris flies an Australian flag now - not a flag of convenience.

Sorry Susan, that's a bit disingenuous. A link to a political petition in an article for what is supposed to be an objective publication?

Now now - play nice.

Susan is a serious and informed scientist - she doesn't like that decision. Neither do I. Neither do a lot of folks. It had no science in it. It smelled fishy. And this schamozzle will have significant ramifications for the management of fisheries in Australia and hopefully make it better, more transparent and objective. Hopefully it will improve the industry's input and role.

Thanks for the outline of the approval process posted somewhere here - labyrinthine no? And all designed to take it out of the political system of accountability. And this is a public asset and resource we're talking about. Not acceptable.

The end responsibility for quota allocations and the like rightfully belongs in Joe Ludwig's in-tray. That's why we bother with parliament and that sort of business. Get it wrong and you wear it and you get hammered. One does not get quietly moved aside, handed a golden parachute and moved off into Tick Control or Fruit Fly eradication management.

This system was designed to dodge political accountability. That's not on.

Susan may well have an opinion, but if that opinion biases the article then it should be labelled "editorial", not purport to be objective. Some publications insist on balance i.e. putting the opposing view in equal prominence (not that I agree with this generally, it's the cowardly way out).

Peter, I don't think the processes were set up to be labyrinthine or dodge accountability. History is littered with examples of ministers being responsible for politically-biased decisions (don't forget, Ironbar Tuckey used to be Fisheries Minister - would you want him deciding quota levels?).

Having an independent commission advised by experts would seem to me a relatively good system. Having a politician make fisheries decisions would make me cringe - it is unlikely that many Fisheries ministers would have fisheries experience (apart from yarns across a bar in Kalgoorlie), so they'd be *very* susceptible to undue influence from the likes of large fishing outfits. Lunch, Minister? PR campaign to support your re-election Minister? Donation? Urgh.

Public asset? Interesting point - quota systems effectively create many characteristics of private property rights for the quota owners. Quota is effectively an asset, just like land or a mine licence, and arguably not a public asset. Yet to be tested what would happen if a government tried to expropriate quota, but I suspect many legal battles if they try.

It does not "bias" an article Andy - it's an opinion - it's all opinion here on the Conversation - educated informed opinion. Even the ratbag lunar right IPA contributors get a guernsey. They can link to IPA pages if they want. It's not a newspaper this. It makes no claims to be a journal of record - just reporting "facts" and events. If you want that sort of porridge read the Government Gazette or the Australian :). This is a site for folks who want to hear what scientists and the like think. Far more interesting than mere facts.

The whole idea of a parliamentary system Andy is that there is political accountability. Of course I don't expect a minister to be the full David Attenborough on fish - but I expect them to take advice and make sensible decisions. And if they don't they get nailed either to the floor of parliament house or in the next election. But to whom is Michael Egan accountable? Who is Mr Geen accountable to?

I'm not saying Joe Ludwig does the science - I am saying that the final responsibility for the decisions should rest with a minister. It can come from a recommendation from a MAC or a RAG or any other sort of acronym you'd prefer. But the final responsibility in a parliamentary system is his.

You're right of course, once a quota is allocated it is a property right - it is owned. That's why this is important. Unallocated quota is owned by you and me - all of us. The quota lets folks own it and catch it and make a quid out of it. The basis on which public assets are handed out for private profit needs strict scrutiny and transparency. This set-up didn't - or almost didn't until the Magiris/Abel Tasman issue exposed the deliberations on quota to public and political scrutiny.

And the result is that the ship has been told to bugger off. And all those profligate pelagics will be swimming free for at least two more years. And all is as it should be.

Peter, I respect your opinions (and I hope it is reciprocated). I'll agree to differ on politicisation of fisheries decisions (and I feel the weight of history is on my side:).

As for journal bias, it is interesting that the scientists with the most knowledge/experience in this field (Sainsbury, Lyle etc) have a different opinion to those further away (I'd include Susan in that bunch, she may be a fine scientist but I suspect has little experience with these small pelagics), but those further away are the ones making the most noise. Would be good to see journals like this try to find the "best" scientists (i.e. the ones most relevant) to do the writing.

Unallocated quota? There isn't any in this fishery (assuming no rec catch which arguably would be unallocated).

"The quota lets folks own it and catch it and make a quid out of it." Yes, except conspicuously in this case - they are being prevented from doing just that.

And give up on co-management? Which is the logical only alternative.

And what would replace it? Probably something more crony-ridden, I'd suspect.

Not necessarily Andy - some training for the industry reps in the legal niceties around conflict of interest might be advisable at the very least. The other option might be to plant a retired judge or the like in a chair on the panels. Or the simplest option, that RAG's would make recommendations rather than take decisions and the recommendations and the reasons for them would be then scrutinised and eventually determined by the Minister.

Lots of options actually - but all of them will be putting the industry involvement on a very short leash. Send any complaints to Mr Geen and Seafish.

I agree entirely with Peter. Industry has strong vested interests which such as scientists and recreational fishers do not. Industry capture of boards is common; they do indeed most definitely tend to be crony-ridden, as is shown by the directors and chairman's club.

While Andy is entitled to oppose any move away from industry domination of such Boards, the breach of conduct by AFMA in this matter demonstrates the need for it.

Incidentally, the Chair of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority Commission is Michael Egan (who was the longest serving Labor Treasurer in New South Wales), appointed in 2009. One would deem him exceptionally experienced in recognising conflicts of interest, and well aware of the absolute need for such a person to absent themselves while the matter was being discussed.

Michael Egan doesn't agree with you. RAGs don't make quota decisions, they just recommend to MACs. MACs don't make quota decisions, they just recommend to the AFMA Commission (of which Michael Egan is chair).

http://www.afma.gov.au/2012/09/afma-chair-hits-out-at-unlawful-quota-claims/

So Michael didn't sit in on that meeting, given its ramifications?

Ambrose, I suggest you read the meeting minutes and save us all a lot of time.

No, I don't think he sits on any of the many RAGs, nor MACs. I doubt the CEO of BHP sits on all the lower-level BHP meetings, nor Joe Ludwig on all the DAFF meetings.