The scientific and public debate around the super trawler FV Margiris, now reflagged as the Abel Tasman, has been significant, lively and at times, heated. The debate has been worth it: the outcome – an amendment to the EPBC Act, passed by the Senate yesterday – is good news for Australian marine life.
The discussion over the super trawler has explored whether we have sufficient scientific knowledge to make a decision, what the environmental and social impacts may be, whether greater efficiency (as represented by the FV Margiris) is socially, economically and ecologically desirable, and how and to what degree public concern should be addressed.
When I wrote my original article for The Conversation on the super trawler, I highlighted the significant uncertainty around the small pelagic fishery. I was troubled that the nature of the targeted animals was not well recognised: they have lower resilience to fishing than other “small pelagics”, such as sardines fished in South Australia.
I was concerned that we lacked estimates of the size of the populations (biomass) for a number of the species and that, where available, the estimates were imprecise. Indeed, the original analysis generating biomass estimates for jack mackerel has now been reviewed. The variation is more clearly acknowledged as is the recognition that the “best” estimates were uncertain.
Finally, the dearth of good information on population structure throughout much of the fishable area meant we were very uncertain about risks and recovery from localised depletions. My professional position was that the scientific uncertainty was sufficiently high that the case for a super trawler in Australia’s southern oceans was weak.
Australia has now moved beyond the specific question of the FV Margiris super trawler by amending the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999). The amendment allows the Minister for the Environment, with agreement from the Minister for Fisheries, to identify a “declared” commercial fishery activity. They can do this where there is “uncertainty about the environmental impacts”, in terms of any or all of the following:
- method of fishing
- type of vessel used
- method of processing/transshipping
- location.
The declaration is only applicable to fishing not conducted before September 2012. On an interim basis, it allows the Minister for the Environment to establish an expert panel to assess the proposed commercial fishing activity.
Previously, the Minister for the Environment was largely able to intervene with respect to listed protected species such as Australian sea lions, or as part of assessments of existing Commonwealth fishing activities and state-managed export fisheries. Both of these are reactive responses. For instance, listed species are often already at high risk as a result of their depleted numbers.
The amendment is a very positive outcome for Australia’s oceans. It allows a proactive approach to the exploitation of our marine biodiversity. And it reflects the inherent uncertainty associated with fisheries management.
It is important as it comes at a time when approximately 30% of the world’s fisheries remain overexploited (this includes small pelagics), over-capitalised and over-subsidised. It recognises that significant economic value is derived from the ecological role of fishes retained in marine ecosystems. It also comes at a time when the existing “best management” practices and third party certification have demonstrably failed to halt over-exploitation.
The changes to the EPBC Act further confirm Australia’s reputation as a global leader in ocean management, building on the establishment of a network of marine reserves throughout Commonwealth waters earlier this year. The amendment also recognises that fish are not simply food and sport, but are wildlife worthy of proactive conservation under the EPBC Act.
Fred Pribac
logged in via email @internode.on.net
The review of Neira's work was interesting.
I note that the authors comment on the rather poor fit of all of the models to the over-dispersed egg data (this was pretty obvious in Neiras paper too) and then confirm the large range in plausible stock size across almost an order of magnitude.
There is significant ambiguity in the egg data and very poor congruence between the models and the observations. It may well be that the analysis is not revealing anything at all beyond the workings of the…
Read moreGavin Moodie
logged in via LinkedIn
Excellent point. Most data were reported with confidence intervals.
Fred Pribac
logged in via email @internode.on.net
There has been a fair bit writ about reporting uncertainty in science for policy makers.
I can recommend "uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy" by Smith and Stern 2011. It talks very clearly about the problems of not reporting to policy makers an adequate understanding of several types of uncertainty including: Imprecision, ambiguity, intractability and indeterminacy.
If scientists do not communicate, or they underplay, the uncertainty in their analyses then they open themselves up to criticisms of protecting their own interests through overstating the value of their analysis.
We have moved away from the original topic here and should also thank Jessica for clearly putting her case for the benefits to conservation of the supertrawler decision and ammendments to the EPBC act..
Andy Saunders
Consultant
Fair point about uncertainty/excess precision.
But the review of Neira's work shows the biomass uncertainty is skewed to the up-side ("there is greater agreement between methods about the lowest
plausible biomass than there is about the best estimate").
Fred, your agreement with Jessica "clearly putting her case for the benefits" may have shaded your views. She says "we were very uncertain about risks and recovery from localised depletions", well, maybe "we" - meaning her and her colleagues in WA? - are wrong, as the scientists actually involved disagree. Have you read Keith Sainsbury's words on the topic?
Fred Pribac
logged in via email @internode.on.net
Hi Andy,
I have read Keith Sainsburys stuff - I blue ticked him and complemented him on some very clearly put and convincing arguments for the TAC setting procedures and evidence used. However that is not pertinant to the point here particularly since by my understanding the biomass estimates were not used to set the TAC but these were calculated from historical catch data according to well established precautionary fisheries management protocols.
I'm not expert in analysis of egg data but…
Read moreAndy Saunders
Consultant
No, if you read the RAG minutes, the DEPM was primarily used for biomass estimate. Historical effort/catches has been low.
Errors in the biomass estimates are skewed to the high side. Basically that means the biomass could be twice as big as the adopted estimate. This is consistent with the DEPM surveys which were not actually targeted at Jack Mackerel so didn't cover the prime spawning area/time. But there is much less error in the low-end biomass estimate.
"Fast-changing fishery"? Minimal effort... sleepy fishery if anything. At least until the politics erupted.
Agree entirely with you on precision, communication of uncertainty etc.
Fred Pribac
logged in via email @internode.on.net
Ouch!!! I stand corrected in regard to RAG minutes - I did scan them but some time ago and rapidly - thank you for the correction. I did forget this point here and that means I have to reasses some of my recent thinking.
I understand your point about the skewed errors (as reported in the papers) etc and point out that there is at least one dissenting statistician who believes the analysis is skewed in the other sense ... but regardless, my point is that the reported uncertainties only pertain…
Read moreAndy Saunders
Consultant
Agree in general with you, but in the particular SPF case the scientists involved had nary any dissent.
And the conservation member had some concerns unrelated to biomass, but when polled was behind the stock assessment.
So it was just the rec fishers who had concerns (and not really related to biomass), and then after the meeting went on a media campaign. Ugly.
And I agree with your idea about proceeding with caution with a year's catch and seeing what comes from it (surely the DEPM analysis can be sped up...)
Andy Saunders
Consultant
But Jessica, you seem strangely unwilling to report on contrary scientific views from scientists much closer to the fishery (in expertise/experience, I mean).
Why not report their findings, let alone their opinions? They are freely available.
Eriks Velins
Retired
I only have to go to our local fishmonger to see on sale a significant proportion of imported fish. It would seem to me that our 'scientific management' of the industry has resulted in its virtual extinction.
This has been but one failure of our publicly funded science.Other examples include the Murray Darling basin, genetically modified crops, nuclear energy and the attempts to change our climate.Much that I love science, I am disappointed in its failure to produce a result which can be accepted and implemented by our policy makers.
Andy Saunders
Consultant
"It would seem to me that our 'scientific management' of the industry has resulted in its virtual extinction"
Or maybe the fisheries are just inherently unproductive...
Joe Smythe
Fisherman
The last two paragraphs in this article are typical of the subtly biased and emotive arguments against the Abel Tasman. Why do opponents always refer to examples of overfishing from elsewhere in the world when Australian fisheries have lead the world in precautionary management principles. Given the history of fisheries and the relatively short time in which we have tried to manage them in a scientifically substantiated manner this has meant lagre cutbacks, buyouts and restrictions applied to existing licenses. These hard decissions have been carried out by Australian managers in the face of great resistance and should be acknowleged not airbrushed out of the debate by continually refering to the very real problems of elsewhere in the globe as if they are applicable here
Michael Hay
retired
I still cannot see why a physical trial period, where the Abel Tasman does a two week run, is so untenable. Why is it assumed that remote arguments and indistinct conclusions derived by a group of scientists working with suppositions, so much better than facts? Surely, running the boat for trial runs in various places around the Australian coastline would bring factual knowledge of what is caught and in what quantities. Only then can the 'experts' in the field (or sea) assess what is caught, what is left, how many by-catch are involved and whether or not a large trawler is better controlled than an indeterminate number of recreational fishermen who are most unlikely to agree to a hugely expensive system of having government officials recording their catch each time they throw a line or toss a net.
Nev Norton
Farmer
I think that it's easy to claim that we are a global leader
in ocean management, when that management consists
of systematically shutting down the commercial fishing
industry.
Abares states that in 2009/10 we took 241,000 tonnes.
In Comparison the PNG took 1 million Tonnes.
Considering that we imported 72% of our seafood, aren't
we putting a lot of pressure on the rest of the worlds
fisheries, and can we really claim to have good ocean
management when to satisfy our demand for seafood we
actively apply pressure to fisheries outside of our
territorial waters.
Joe Smythe
Fisherman
We do lead the world in many aspects of fisheries management and can justifiably claim such, the trouble is certain groups with a very shallow understanding of the issue's involved consider good management to mean shutting down as many fisheries as they can. If Australia won't do the hard work of determining sustainable means of exploiting fisheries resources in favour of a feel good philosophy of protecting (shutting down) fish stocks while doing nothing to rein in consumption then how will we be able to advise developing countries like PNG what a sustainable method of exploitation is?
Markus Forrest
Fisheries Manager
Quote from article"......it allows the Minister for the Environment to establish an expert panel to assess the proposed commercial fishing activity."
This is called a Resource Assessment Group (RAG)
They have been around for a while..... /sarcasm
Why bother having AFMA.....
Why bother having Resource Assessment Groups.....
Why bother with the science at all....
Just farm the decisions out to opinion polls and be done with it as this is obviously what has occurred in this instance…
Read more