standard report template with numbered headings · web viewconceptual framework the review of shark...

Review of Australia’s National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012—Shark-plan 2

Review of Australia’s National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (Shark-plan 2)

© Commonwealth of Australia 2018

Ownership of intellectual property rights

Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).

Creative Commons licence

All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence except content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms.

Inquiries about the licence and any use of this document should be emailed to [email protected].

Cataloguing data

This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 2018, Review of Australia’s National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (Shark-plan 2), Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra, November. CC BY 4.0.

ISBN 978-1-76003-195-4

This publication is available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/environment/sharks.

Department of Agriculture and Water ResourcesGPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601Telephone 1800 900 090Web agriculture.gov.au

The Australian Government acting through the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources has exercised due care and skill in preparing and compiling the information and data in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence and for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying on any of the information or data in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Department of Agriculture and Water Resources

ii

http://agriculture.gov.au/

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/environment/sharks

mailto:[email protected]

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode


ContentsExecutive summary........................................................................................................................................ v

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Overview..........................................................................................................................................................1

1.2 International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA–Sharks) 1

1.3 Australia’s National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012—Shark-plan 2.............................................................................................................................................................2

1.4 Shark Assessment Report 2018............................................................................................................3

1.5 Review of Shark-plan 2.............................................................................................................................3

2 Methods..................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Conceptual framework..............................................................................................................................4

3 Achievements of Shark-plan 2........................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Addressing Australia’s international commitments.....................................................................5

4 Performance of Shark-plan 2...........................................................................................................18

4.1 Enabling factors.........................................................................................................................................18

4.2 Constraining factors.................................................................................................................................18

5 Future directions................................................................................................................................. 20

6 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................. 23

Appendix A: Shark-plan 2—Operational strategy progress (December 2017)......................26

Appendix B: Shark-plan 2 Terms of reference...................................................................................40

Appendix C: Questionnaire....................................................................................................................... 41

Survey Part A: The effectiveness of Shark-plan 2 in meeting Australia’s international obligations and IPOA objectives.................................................................................................................................42

Survey Part B: General evaluation of Shark-Plan 2...................................................................................43

Acronyms and abbreviations................................................................................................................... 44

References...................................................................................................................................................... 45

TablesTable 1 Estimated annual catch numbers and release rate for sharks and rays taken by recreational fishers a........................................................................................................................................................15

Table 2 Benefits, challenges and risks associated with the four pathways for future shark plan initiatives............................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Figures


iii


Figure 1 Potential pathways for future shark plan initiatives.......................................................................21


iv


Executive summaryAustralia’s National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks—Shark-plan 2 (DAFF 2012) was released in July 2012. The development of a shark plan was part of Australia’s commitment to the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA–Sharks) (DAFF 2012). The IPOA–Sharks was adopted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in recognition of the rising number of shark catches in fisheries worldwide and the associated consequences for shark populations. As a member of the FAO, Australia committed to producing its own shark plan and meeting international obligations.

Shark-plan 2 was the second iteration of Australia’s national shark plan and provided an updated assessment of the conservation and management issues concerning sharks in Australian waters. The plan identified research and management actions across Australia’s state, territory and Commonwealth jurisdictions that were to be pursued over the life of the plan. Shark-plan 2 also provided guidance on how the conservation and management of shark populations can be integrated into management arrangements for target and non-target shark fisheries. The plan aimed to address shark conservation and management issues through four themes—ecological sustainability, improved data and reporting, engagement and empowerment and optimum use—and 38 associated actions.

This review assessed the effectiveness of Shark-plan 2 through use of a targeted questionnaire, annual jurisdiction reports and government publications. The terms of reference for the review are at Appendix B. The review examined the extent to which the objectives and actions identified in Shark-plan 2 addressed Australia’s commitment to implement the IPOA–Sharks. The review then evaluated the overall effectiveness of Shark-plan 2 and identified enabling and constraining factors relevant to the performance of Shark-plan 2. Lastly, the review provided recommendations for the development and implementation of future shark plan initiatives.

Overall findings from this review indicate that, although the actions outlined in Shark-plan 2 (if fully implemented) have addressed Australia’s commitment to implement the IPOA–Sharks, jurisdictional shark conservation measures for sharks are independent of Shark-plan 2 and are driven by legislation requirements and treaty obligations. Shark conservation and management actions undertaken by jurisdictions were mostly initiated by factors external to Shark-plan 2. For instance, existing Australian Government legislation such as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy, Australian obligations to international conventions including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), and state and Northern Territory fisheries legislation were found to be the primary drivers of shark management initiatives.

Shark-plan 2 had a number of indirect benefits. It consolidated information from across jurisdictions on shark conservations measures, which allowed managers to examine holistically approaches to shark management (rather than simply within the context of a particular fishery or issue). The networking aspects of Shark-plan 2 were also found to be beneficial. The plan enabled communication among the Australian Government, states and the Northern Territory, industry, scientists, science managers and environmental non-government organisations


v


(e-NGOs) about shark conservation and management matters. Shark-plan annual meetings also have provided a national platform to monitor the plan’s progress on actions and issues arising.

The review identified four potential pathways for the future of Shark-plan 2. Each of these options has various benefits, issues, challenges and risks associated with it, which need to be considered by the Shark-plan Representative Group (SRG) when deciding on a future course of action. Irrespective of the pathway taken, the future approach to the conservation and management of sharks requires active engagement from all jurisdictions. This will ensure that Australia continues to fulfil international obligations in meeting the objectives of the IPOA–Sharks and maintains its position as a world leader in shark conservation.


vi


1. Introduction1.1 OverviewSharks are caught in Australian waters by commercial, recreational and Indigenous fishers as target species and as incidental catch that is retained or discarded. The term ‘shark’ refers to all species of chondrichthyes or cartilaginous fishes, including sharks, dogfish, sawfish, sawsharks, rays, skates and chimaeras. Shark fishery means any fishery (commercial, recreational and Indigenous) where sharks are caught, retained, released or otherwise interacted with. A relatively small number of species are specifically targeted by commercial or non-commercial operations. The majority (by number) of shark species caught in Australian commercial fisheries are taken as byproduct (with some quantity retained although not as a target species) or bycatch (not retained). Fishing methods used to target sharks in Australia include line (demersal longline, setline, dropline, trotline, handline and rod and reel), net (demersal and pelagic gillnet), hand collection and drumline (set as part of bather protection programs) (Woodhams & Harte 2018).

Sharks are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of fishing activities because of their life-cycle characteristics—slow growth rates, late maturity and low fecundity (FAO 2000; Musick 1999). Due to these characteristics, a precautionary approach is required to manage the impacts of fishing on shark populations (FAO 2000). Because Australia is home to approximately one-quarter of all known chondrichthyan species (sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras)—more than 25 per cent of these are endemic to Australia—shark populations must be effectively managed (Department of the Environment and Energy n.d.).

To enhance shark management and conservation in Australia and to fulfil Australia’s international commitment on shark management, the Australian Government developed its first National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks—Shark-plan 1 in 2004 (DAFF 2012). The plan was developed to address Australia’s obligations as a signatory to the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA–Sharks) within the framework of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (DAFF 2012). Australia’s second National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (Shark-plan 2) was released in 2012. It built on the lessons learned from Shark-plan 1, identified areas for improving shark conservation and related measures, and provided an updated assessment of shark conservation and management issues in Australian waters. A 2014 assessment by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) on the world’s sharks and rays determined that Australia was a leader in the management and conservation of these species (Dulvy et al. 2014). The assessment noted that Australia has put in place science-based management recovery plans for threatened species (white sharks, grey nurse sharks, whale sharks, gulper sharks, school sharks, river sharks and sawfish).

1.2 International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA–Sharks)

The IPOA–Sharks is a voluntary international instrument that guides member nations in taking positive action on the conservation and management of sharks and ensuring their long-term sustainable use. The IPOA–Sharks applies to: (1) states that have exclusive economic zones in


1


which sharks are caught by their own or foreign fishing vessels, and (2) states that have their own vessels that catch sharks on the high seas (FAO 1999). The IPOA–Sharks applies to all shark species and to all types of catches (for example, directed, bycatch, commercial and recreational). The IPOA–Sharks emphasises the need for effective management of directed shark fisheries and the need to improve shark bycatch regulations in multispecies fisheries. The plan urges relevant member nations to adopt and implement National Plans of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Countries are also required to review their national plans of action regularly to assess cost-effective strategies for increasing their effectiveness. The IPOA–Sharks aims to:

ensure that shark catches from directed and non-directed fisheries are sustainable

assess threats to shark populations, determine and protect critical habitats and implement harvesting strategies consistent with the principles of biological sustainability and rational long-term economic use

identify and provide special attention to vulnerable or threatened shark stocks

improve and develop frameworks for establishing and coordinating effective consultation involving all stakeholders in research, management and educational initiatives within and between states

minimise unutilised incidental catches of sharks

contribute to the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem structure and function

minimise waste and discards from shark catches in accordance with article 7.2.2 (g) of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (for example, requiring the retention of sharks from which fins are removed)

encourage full use of dead sharks

facilitate improved species-specific catch and landing data and monitoring of shark catches

facilitate identification and reporting of species-specific biological and trade data.

1.3 Australia’s National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012—Shark-plan 2

The objective of Shark-plan 2 was to ensure that Australia continued to meet its international obligations under the IPOA–Sharks and remained a world leader in the sustainable management of fisheries resources. As part of Shark-plan 2, an operational strategy was developed and endorsed for release by the Shark Implementation and Review Committee (replaced by the Shark-plan Representative Group in 2013) and the Australian Fisheries Management Forum in 2011. The Shark-plan Representative Group (SRG) was established to oversee and report on the Shark-plan 2 operational strategy and the group included representatives from Australian Government, state and Northern Territory fisheries agencies, commercial and recreational fishing sectors, research agencies and e-NGOs.

The Shark-plan 2 operational strategy identified actions that the Australian Government, state and Northern Territory governments were to pursue over the life of Shark-plan 2. In total, 38 actions identified; these were classified as primary focus, secondary focus and day-to-day


2


management activities. The action items were also grouped by relevance and importance to each jurisdiction. Jurisdictions were advised to report annually on any updates on progress against the actions identified in the operational strategy.

1.4 Shark Assessment Report 2018The review of Shark-plan 2 was supported by the Shark Assessment Report 2018 prepared by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES). The IPOA–Sharks requires that each member nation that takes shark in their fisheries prepare a shark assessment report (SAR) to identify existing conservation and management issues around shark catch.

The Shark Assessment Report 2018 (Woodhams & Harte 2018) documented a number of notable developments about the conservation and management of sharks in Australia, including:

Australia’s shark catch has declined over the past decade.

Australia has a broad spectrum of legislative and regulatory protections for shark stocks.

Australia has assessed the status of key shark stocks.

All Australian jurisdictions use consultative forums in the development of fisheries management advice.

Shark-plan 2 does not appear to be the primary driver of shark management in Australia, but its associated reporting and the undertaking of a regular SAR remain important elements for centralised reporting on shark conservation and management in Australia.

A recommendation arising from the Shark Assessment Report 2018 is that future shark plans should focus on aspects of shark management that are not being progressed through other measures, such as monitoring and data collection; research prioritisation; mutually beneficial research; and better coordination of the management of shared stocks.

1.5 Review of Shark-plan 2The primary purpose of this review is to examine and critically evaluate the effectiveness of Shark-plan 2 to guide the development of any subsequent national shark plans. The review also ensures that Australia meets the IPOA requirement for a regular review of the national plan of action. As a signatory to the IPOA–Sharks, Australia is expected to review its national shark plan at least once every four years. This review of Shark-plan 2 examines Australia’s progress in meeting its international obligations and the desired objectives of the IPOA–Sharks. More specifically, the review aims to:

assess the extent to which the objectives and actions identified in Shark-plan 2 have addressed Australia’s commitment to implement the IPOA–Shark

evaluate the overall performance of Shark-plan 2

identify enabling and constraining factors relevant to the performance of Shark-plan 2

provide recommendations for the development and implementation of future shark plan initiatives.


3


2 Methods2.1 Conceptual frameworkThe review of Shark plan-2 used targeted questionnaires and a desktop study of annual jurisdiction reports, government publications and the Shark Assessment Report 2018 (Woodhams & Harte 2018) to assess the progress of Shark-plan 2. Questionnaires (see Appendix C) were handed out to members of the SRG and were designed to gain insight into various members’ experiences during the period of Shark-plan 2. In particular, the surveys were administered to obtain information about: (1) the effectiveness of Shark-plan 2 in meeting Australia’s international obligations and IPOA objectives and (2) SRG members’ perceptions about the effectiveness of Shark-plan 2 and factors affecting its performance. The questions assessing whether Shark plan-2 has addressed Australia’s international obligations in meeting the objectives of the IPOA–Sharks were based around key shark conservation and management themes (Table 2). The remainder of the survey contained general evaluation questions, which were designed to assess the performance of Shark-plan 2 and enable and constrain factors relevant to its performance (Table 2). Of the 18 surveys were distributed, 10 responses were received representing a response rate of 56 per cent.

Annual reports were provided by individual jurisdictions, which highlighted actions that jurisdictions undertook to progress the conservation and management of sharks within Australia. Annual reporting was a critical component of Shark-plan 2 because, at the operational level, the state, Northern Territory and Australian governments had prime responsibility for implementing most of the actions identified in Shark-plan 2. The annual reports provided jurisdictions with the opportunity to update their progress against the issues and themes identified in the Shark-plan 2 operational strategy. At the commencement of Shark-plan 2 in 2012, three actions were identified as either high priority, med-high or day-to-day management. Annual reports were tailored for individual jurisdictions to suit the issues that were relevant to them. The reports followed a set format for ease of use to ensure that all stakeholders were reporting against the correct issues and the ones that affected them. The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources was the lead agency responsible for the collation of these jurisdictional reports. A summary of the annual jurisdiction reports provided over the duration of Shark-plan 2 is provided as part of this review (see Appendix A). The reports are available on the Sharks page of the department website.


4

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/environment/sharks


3 Achievements of Shark-plan 23.1 Addressing Australia’s international commitmentsAustralia’s national shark plan should meet the aims of the IPOA–Sharks. This chapter outlines the extent to which Shark-plan 2 addressed each of the aims of the IPOA–Sharks, including some key highlights of shark conservation and management, achievements and new information relevant to each IPOA initiative. Areas for improvement are also explored under each IPOA initiative. This section of the review is based on annual jurisdiction reports and survey responses from the SRG.

3.1.1 IPOA initiative 1: Ensure that shark catches from directed and non-directed fisheries are sustainable

Key achievements:

Harvest strategies have been developed and applied in suitable Commonwealth-managed fisheries.

A number of jurisdictions have undertaken reviews of management measures for recreational and game fishing.

Areas for improvement:

A large number of shark species and stocks have not been assessed in Australia.

Ongoing shark population research and monitoring is needed.

A number of SRG survey respondents noted that the actions outlined in Shark-plan 2 (if fully implemented) would address Australia’s commitment to implement the IPOA–Sharks. However, the respondents highlighted that jurisdictional shark conservation measures are independent of the shark plan and are driven by legislation requirements and treaty obligations.

Existing Australian Government (including the EPBC Act and the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy) and state and Northern Territory fisheries legislation was reported to be more influential in ensuring that shark catches from directed and non-directed fisheries were sustainable. Nonetheless, benefits of Shark-plan 2 as noted by the SRG included that it:

provided a vehicle for communication among the Australian Government, states and the Northern Territory, industry, scientists, science managers and environmental non-government organisations about shark conservation and management matters

provided leverage to advocate sustainable shark fishing at meetings and forums

consolidated information from across jurisdictions on shark conservations measures, which allowed managers to examine holistically approaches to shark management (rather than simply within the context of a particular fishery or issue).

A number of initiatives are progressing independently of Shark-plan 2 at both an Australian Government and state level to ensure that shark catches from directed and non-directed fisheries are sustainable. Commonwealth-managed fisheries have developed harvest strategies in line with the overarching Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy. The aim of these harvest strategies is to maintain commercial fish stocks (including targeted sharks) at


5


environmentally sustainable levels while maximising economic returns to the Australian community. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) implements the Australian Government’s Commonwealth Fisheries Bycatch Policy, which ensures that direct and indirect impacts of fishing on marine systems (including sharks) are considered and managed accordingly. The Harvest Strategy and Bycatch policies are being updated to ensure they continue to reflect international best practice.

A number of jurisdictions have undertaken reviews of management measures for recreational and game fishing, such as the appropriateness of boat limits and trigger limits. More information on recreational fishing initiatives are discussed under IPOA initiative 9.

Woodhams & Harte (2018) highlighted that a large number of shark species and stocks have not been assessed in Australia and reported that this presents an opportunity for improvement relevant to IPOA initiatives 1 to 3.

Simpfendorfer et al. (in press) advised that, to maintain the effectiveness of shark management in Australia, ongoing research and monitoring are critical to ensure that shark population and stocks are sustainable.

3.1.2 IPOA initiative 2: Assess threats to shark populations, determine and protect critical habitats and implement harvesting strategies consistent with the principles of biological sustainability and rational long-term economic use

Key achievement:

Most jurisdictions have maintained or improved stock assessments and status determination processes for target, byproduct and bycatch shark species.

Some states have harvest strategies in place for major target species.

Area for improvement:

Limited progress in protecting critical shark habitats has occurred over the life of Shark-plan 2. In particular, a paucity of scientific data exists about critical shark habitats.

Some action items in the Shark-plan 2 operational strategy sought to progress the assessment of threats to shark populations. However, jurisdictional shark conservation measures are independent of the shark plan and are driven by legislation requirements and treaty obligations.

Some risk assessments have been conducted and harvest strategies have been implemented in some fisheries independent of Shark-plan 2. This section outlines activities relevant to IPOA initiative 2 that are being progressed at the Australian Government and state level.

Most jurisdictions including Australian Government and state and Northern Territory fisheries jurisdictions noted that they have maintained or improved stock assessments and status determination processes for target, byproduct and bycatch shark species. Commonwealth-managed fisheries are expected to develop harvest strategies in line with the overarching Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy.


6


Harvest strategies are in place for all shark species managed under quota in the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF). Species managed under quota include gummy shark (the primary target species in the Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector, which is currently assessed to be above target levels), school shark, saw shark (southern and common) and elephant fish. Additionally, a small number of deep-water shark species are managed under a combined quota.

AFMA implemented an ecological risk assessment (ERA) framework to identify species, communities and habitats at risk from fishing activities. Through the ERA process, species that are identified as being at high risk from the impacts of fishing are managed to minimise the level of risk. An ERA has recently been conducted for the SESSF and concluded that 16 chondrichthyan species (sharks, rays or skates) are at risk from fishing activity. This has led to measures including minimum lengths, no landing retention and no detached fins.

AFMA has also developed bycatch and discard plans that set out mitigation strategies for bycatch species including sharks, identified as being at high risk.

Jurisdictions use a range of different management arrangements from a whole-of-fishery level to individual species-specific harvest strategies to ensure that shark catches from directed and non-directed fisheries are sustainable.

Some states have harvest strategies in place for major target species but other states do not. In New South Wales most sharks are managed through a combination of input and output controls, with some species-specific harvest strategies (for example, for gummy, school, whaler and deep-water sharks). The Queensland Government released a green paper on fisheries management reform to engage with the broader community on best practice fisheries management. The green paper also deals with how harvest strategies could be used in managing Queensland’s fishing resources into the future. The Queensland Government, in consultation with relevant experts and stakeholders, also plans to develop a strategy for the harvest of key fish and shark species in the Queensland East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery. Outcomes of the green paper and plans about the future of the finfish fishery will affect how shark resources are managed in the state.

The NT Government, with advice from the offshore net and line advisory group, has developed a management framework to manage shark catch, incorporating formal harvest strategies. In South Australia, a harvest strategy has been developed as part of the Management Plan for the South Australian Commercial Marine Scalefish Fishery.

The WA Government published its overarching Harvest Strategy Policy in 2015 and has an agreed harvest strategy for northern shark species, namely black-tip and sandbar shark, with the Northern Territory and Queensland through the Northern Australian Fisheries Committee.

A number of states reported in their jurisdiction reports that they have conducted stock assessments for shark species. The Northern Territory recently undertook major stock assessments for shark species, including spot tail shark, Australian blacktip shark and common blacktip shark. Queensland conducted a scientific assessment of shark stocks—the report concluded that existing levels of shark harvest in Queensland were below maximum sustainable levels.

A number of survey respondents identified that limited progress has been made in protecting critical shark habitats over the life of Shark-plan 2. In particular, respondents noted that a


7

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp271.pdf

http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/12920/Final_Commercial_MSF_Management_Plan_2013.pdf

http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/12920/Final_Commercial_MSF_Management_Plan_2013.pdf


paucity of scientific data exists about critical shark habitats. To address this knowledge gap, the Department of the Environment and Energy’s National Environmental Science Program (NESP) has funded some research projects that investigate the importance of biodiversity, ecosystem structure and functions. A critical step moving forward is to identify and protect critical shark habitats and implement harvest strategies where practical in all jurisdictions.

3.1.3 IPOA initiative 3: Identify and provide special attention in particular to vulnerable or threatened shark stocks

Key achievements:

Eight sharks are now listed as threatened species under the EPBC Act. Most of the listed species have active recovery plans in place.

Formal management mechanisms are in place to protect four species of upper-slope dogfish and school shark in Commonwealth waters.

Areas for improvement:

Increased monitoring resources are needed to look at certain species (for example, gulper sharks).

State agencies need to respond better to research on the status of shark stocks.

In northern Australia and Commonwealth fisheries, the take of critically endangered sharks such as sawfish needs to be managed.

Some efforts have been made to identify and provide special attention to vulnerable and threatened species but most of this has been through species listings under the EPBC Act and changes in stock assessments rather than as a direct result of Shark-plan 2.

Eight sharks are listed as threatened species under the EPBC Act. These include the east and west populations of grey nurse shark, whale shark, white shark, green sawfish, largetooth sawfish, dwarf sawfish, northern river shark and speartooth shark. These species are completely protected under the EPBC Act in Commonwealth waters and are protected under various state and territory legislation. All of the listed species (except for the whale shark) have active recovery plans in place. Conservation advice has recently been updated for whale shark to guide conservation activities.

Three species are listed as conservation dependent under the EPBC Act, including the Harrison dogfish, southern dogfish and school shark. These species were assessed by the Australian Government’s Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) as eligible for listing as threatened species. However, a management plan was implemented by the time of listing that sufficiently demonstrated it would halt the decline and support recovery of these species.

Formal management mechanisms are in place to protect four species of upper-slope dogfish and school shark in Commonwealth waters. Other sharks that have been identified as vulnerable or threatened are protected through statutory fishing right conditions and bycatch or discard work plans that have been developed for Commonwealth-managed fisheries.

The states use various approaches to manage vulnerable or threatened shark stocks, including by applying catch, effort and trip limits for commercial fishers or no take or possession limits for protected shark species such as white shark. Additionally a temporal/spatial closure can be


8


applied for species protection. Bag limits and prohibiting the take of protected shark species are applied for recreational fishers. Fisheries management responses for species assessed as high risk have been implemented in a number of state fisheries. Western Australia has implemented management arrangements to provide for the recovery of relevant shark species and continues to conduct stock assessments for key shark species.

Overall, most shark species are well managed but a few species may require additional protections or more stringent management measures. SRG members perceived a lack of monitoring resources to look at certain species (for example, gulper sharks). SRG members also noted that the uptake of research on the status of shark stocks by state agencies was slow and that the management response lagged.

SRG members noted that problems occur particularly in managing the take of critically endangered sharks such as sawfish in northern Australia and Commonwealth fisheries including the Northern Prawn Fishery. Additionally, some SRG members noted that reservations taken out by the Australian Government to recent CMS shark listings to ensure the recreational fishing sector was not disadvantaged could arguably compromise conservation of protected shark species in Australia.

3.1.4 IPOA initiative 4: Improve and develop frameworks for establishing and coordinating effective consultation involving all stakeholders in research, management and educational initiatives within and between states

Key achievement:

Post-release mortality or survival of shark species research has become a priority for the recreational fishing sector.


Better engagement is needed with the shark recreational fishing sector.

Shark-plan 2 had an aim to facilitate:

a coordinated approach to shark research (Shark-plan 2 Action Items 9 and 10)

mechanisms for greater collaboration among jurisdictions around research, assessment and management of shared stocks.

Although some frameworks have been set up to establish and coordinate effective consultation, existing frameworks need to be improved in some areas.

For Commonwealth fisheries, management advisory committees and resource assessment groups provide crucial advice and input to AFMA on the management of Commonwealth fisheries. Members of these committees and groups include AFMA fishery managers, fishing operators, scientists and researchers, state and territory governments, conservation groups and recreational fishers. AFMA has also entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Department of the Environment and Energy to provide information on interactions between Commonwealth operators and protected species including sharks. This is done through quarterly reports on protected species and triggered reports on species of particular concern.


9


Engagement between states and the Northern Territory on shark management is an ongoing action as reported by jurisdictions in their annual reports. Queensland has participated in the national Status of Australian Fish Stocks program, assisting with collaboration between adjacent jurisdictions. Additionally, the Northern Territory and Western Australia continue to engage with other jurisdictions on the management of shark fisheries, including through the Northern Australian Fisheries Committee and by exploring future opportunities to collaborate on management and research of shared stocks such as sharks.

In some states, commercial fishers are required to report interactions with listed species—including any sharks—listed under state legislation and the EPBC Act. Some states have consultation bodies while others do not. For instance, few formal fisheries consultative bodies exist in Queensland. However, some other states have frameworks for coordinating consultation processes. In Western Australia, consultation is undertaken directly with licensees on operational issues and also through annual industry management meetings convened by the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council.

However, most agencies noted that these consultation initiatives were operating before Shark-plan 2 and concluded that Shark-plan 2 had limited direct benefit in meeting this initiative.

Post-release mortality and survival of shark species research has become a priority for the recreational fishing sector. One respondent advised that engagement with the recreational fishing sector in shark management could be improved.

Australia has run an active international campaign to deter illegal foreign fishing regionally. At an Australian Government level, AFMA has noted that the number of illegal apprehended foreign fishers in Australian waters that are targeting sharks continues to decline.

3.1.5 IPOA initiative 5: Minimise unutilised incidental catches of sharks

Key achievements:

At an international level, Australia has worked on promoting scientifically rigorous shark bycatch mitigation measures through engagement in regional fisheries management organisations and associated forums.

In Queensland, shark interactions with trawl fisheries have been minimised through the mandatory use of bycatch reduction devices (BRD), including in the East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery.

A number of jurisdictions have developed shark and ray handling and identification guides.

Area for improvements:

The FAO has acknowledged shark bycatch and interaction with protected shark species as one area for continual improvement globally, including in Australia.

Shark-plan 2 aimed to reduce or where necessary eliminate shark bycatch. Some of the initiatives under Shark-plan 2 were to ensure:

effective bycatch reduction methods were developed for fisheries in which shark are caught as bycatch, giving priority to species that are identified as high risk via the risk assessment process


10


current shark bycatch reduction measures were assessed for their effectiveness in reducing shark mortality

effective shark bycatch reduction measures were promoted to be adopted internationally.

Shark-plan 2 has contributed to minimising incidental shark catches and waste, although some respondents claimed that attributing shark management changes in Australia to Shark-plan 2 is difficult because these measures are independent of the plan.

For Commonwealth-managed fisheries, AFMA has developed bycatch and discard work plans based on the outcomes of ERA. The work plans set out mitigation strategies for bycatch species—including sharks—identified as being at high risk. Examples include prohibiting the use of wire traces in tropical tuna fisheries and banning the possession of sharks and skates in the Northern Prawn Fishery.

Some jurisdictions have made efforts to reduce shark bycatch through implementing bycatch reduction devices in trawl gear. Some fisheries have provisions to reduce incidental catches (for example, the 20 per cent rule for school sharks in the SESSF, which states that school sharks should only be 20 per cent of a fisher’s overall gummy shark catch). At an international level, Australia has worked on promoting scientifically rigorous shark bycatch mitigation measures through engagement in regional fisheries management organisations and associated forums. Australia has continued to push for a strengthened conservation and management measure for the conservation of sharks though the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, including a requirement that sharks must be landed with their fins attached to the carcass.

Some advances in bycatch management were also reported by jurisdictions. In Queensland, shark interactions with trawl fisheries have been minimised through the mandatory use of bycatch reduction devices (BRD) including in the East Coast Trawl Fishery. One respondent recommended that a specially designed BRD for sharks could be used to reduce shark interaction in certain fisheries.

AFMA, in collaboration with Monash University and the shark fishing industry, developed the Shark and Ray Handling Practices guide for commercial fishers in southern Australia (AFMA n.d.). The guide provides recommendations to help minimise the damage to species accidentally caught and assists fishers in making informed decisions on handling practices to maximise the chances of captured animals surviving.

A number of jurisdictions have also developed shark and ray handling and identification guides to help commercial fishers return live sharks to the ocean and increase the sharks’ survival. Queensland produced and distributed an illustrated shark identification guide to assist commercial fishers and fisheries compliance officers identify shark species during fishing operations.

The Northern Territory is reviewing the management arrangements of the Offshore Net and Line Fishery. Fisheries Victoria regularly reviews and updates the sharks, skates and rays section of its recreational fishing guide. In Western Australia, a waterproof identification guide to sharks and shark-like rays has been distributed to all shark fishers since 2002.

One respondent stated that shark population increases can affect incidental shark catch, which is often unavoidable. Further research on gear innovation to reduce shark bycatch including in


11


trawl fisheries could assist in mitigating shark bycatch. Data collection and utilisation to enable accurate estimates of population is important in managing shark species. Additionally, given the largely non-target nature of fishing for sharks in Australia (commercial and recreational), an understanding of the post-capture and post-release survival of sharks is important to understand effects on sharks that are caught but not landed (Woodhams & Harte 2018).

The FAO has acknowledged that reducing shark bycatch and interactions with protected shark species as areas for continual improvement globally, including in Australia. Further innovation is needed to reduce bycatch, discards and interactions with non-targeted species (including sharks) in commercial fisheries using non-selective gear (Woodhams & Harte 2018). This area for improvement also applies to IPOA initiative 7.

3.1.6 IPOA initiative 6: Contribute to the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem structure and function

Key achievement:

Through its ERA process, AFMA has been able to identify those sharks that are at a high risk from commercial fishing activities.

For Commonwealth-managed fisheries, AFMA regularly monitors the effects of fishing activities on marine species, habitats and communities through ERA. The results of these assessments are used to help prioritise the management of the fishery. Through the ERA process, AFMA has identified around 72 species that are considered to be at high risk from fishing. Sharks and rays account for 22 of those 72 species and 18 of them occur in the SESSF, including in the Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector (GHAT). Through the ERA process, a number of initiatives have been recently implemented. The level of monitoring of threatened, endangered and protected species interactions has increased. Electronic monitoring systems have been installed on most GHAT vessels and are expected to contribute to the protection of biodiversity structure and function.

AFMA also has a shark resource assessment group, which is a scientific advisory committee that contributes to the management of the GHAT. The group provides advice to AFMA and the South East Management Advisory Committee on the status of shark stocks, the impacts of fishing on the marine environment and the data required for stock assessments.

3.1.7 IPOA initiative 7: Minimise waste and discards from shark catches in accordance with article 7.2.2 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and IPOA initiative 8: Encourage full use of dead sharks

Key achievements:

Shark finning is prohibited in Commonwealth fisheries.

Area for improvements:

In most non-target commercial fisheries, species composition and discard rates of sharks are not monitored and direct management of bycatch appears to be very limited.

Shark-plan 2 aimed to improve anti-finning regulations and the use of trade-related mechanisms. In particular, it aimed to implement anti-finning measures for all Australian


12


fisheries and assess their effectiveness across jurisdictions. The plan also aimed to assess the potential for more comprehensive trade data collection and analysis to improve shark conservation and management measures.

Most SRG members noted that the improvement in underutilised shark catch in Australia is driven by legislation and treaty obligation, independent of Shark-plan 2. In Commonwealth-managed fisheries, AFMA has implemented an intelligence-driven risk-based domestic compliance program. Shark finning and other matters identified as posing risks to the integrity of AFMA’s fisheries management arrangements are monitored and treated by AFMA as part of its compliance program.

The states have different regulations on shark finning. Although shark finning is banned in all states, some states have regulations that ensure shark carcasses are landed (brought to shore) with their fins attached to their bodies. In other states, the fins can be cut as long as the fishers bring back a ratio of shark fins to shark meat. In Western Australia, shark trunk must be landed with the fins to prevent shark finning and total utilisation of all parts of sharks is encouraged via legislation. This approach is also implemented in Tasmania.

Australia also actively advocates, through regional fisheries management organisations and international bodies such as the FAO’s Committee on Fisheries, for the implementation of anti-finning measures including banning the use of wire traces and the requirement that sharks be landed with their fins naturally attached to the carcass.

In most non-target commercial fisheries, species composition and discard rates of sharks are not monitored and direct management of bycatch appears to be very limited. In Queensland, aside from limited data obtained when the independent fisheries observer program was in operation, no data on waste and discards of sharks are available. Additionally, Tasmania and Victoria do not monitor shark discards in their fisheries.

3.1.8 IPOA initiative 9: Facilitate improved species-specific catch and landings data and monitoring of shark catches

Key achievements:

AFMA has improved its data collection, monitoring and reporting processes in line with broader changes to AFMA’s approach to fisheries management.


The recreational catch of sharks is generally not well understood.

Improvements in catch data have occurred over the past few years. However, there remains scope for further improvement in the reporting of shark catch (Woodhams & Harte 2018). The majority of respondents stated that attributing improvement in shark catch and landing data to Shark-plan 2 is difficult.

In Commonwealth waters, improvements to data collection, monitoring and reporting processes have occurred within AFMA in line with broader changes in AFMA’s approach to fisheries management. For example, AFMA has introduced electronic monitoring in a number of fisheries that have significant targeting or bycatch of sharks. This has improved the level of reporting on sharks.


13


AFMA also provides quarterly information on all interactions with protected species (including sharks) reported by fishers in Commonwealth fisheries to the Department of the Environment and Energy. These reports are available on the AFMA website, with earlier data on the Department of the Environment and Energy website. AFMA encourages fishers to report to species level.

As part of data collection and reporting, ABARES publishes the Fishery status reports annually. These reports provide an independent assessment of the biological status of fish stocks and the economic status of fisheries managed, or jointly managed, by the Australian Government (Commonwealth fisheries). The reports assess all key commercial species from Commonwealth-managed fisheries and the broader impact of fisheries on the environment, including on non-target species such as sharks.

A number of shark-related research projects were funded under the NESP that ran from 2014 to 2016. The NESP was a $142.5 million Australian Government initiative and one of the key themes of the program was improving our understanding and management of marine biodiversity. Under this initiative, some of the funded research projects included determining the population status of white and hammerhead sharks, determining research priorities for Australia’s shark species, and initiatives to mitigate risk of human-shark interactions.

During the implementation period of Shark-plan 2, the FRDC funded the report Shark futures: A report card for Australia’s sharks and rays (Simpfendorfer et al. 2013). The report aimed to provide government and industry decision-makers with a single access point to the highest-quality and most up-to-date information on Australia’s shark and ray species. The report provided an assessment of 196 shark stocks representing 194 species, which included the species covered in the Status of Australian Fish Stocks report. Of the 194 Australian sharks species assessed as part of the shark report card, the majority were considered to be in relatively good condition—137 stocks (70 per cent) were assessed as ‘sustainable’ or ‘transitional recovering’. The idea of the Shark futures project was to design and populate a database to compile all the existing literature available, and make high-quality and locally relevant information available to stakeholders.

Jurisdictions have systems in place for collecting data on recreational and commercial fishing of shark species. Tasmania and Queensland apply logbooks that include details of the species caught as well as interactions with protected species. The Queensland Government continues to trial alternate data collection methods, such as the use of electronic logbooks (e-Logs) in some of its fisheries. Tasmania does not have a dedicated commercial shark fishery so commercially caught sharks must be recorded in commercial catch, effort and disposal books. These initiatives can provide an indication of species compositions and catch rates, which can ultimately be used to inform projects like the Status of Australian Fish Stocks.

All commercial fisheries that catch sharks use a logbook system to obtain catch information. However, the level of information required varies among jurisdictions (Woodhams & Harte 2018). A number of jurisdictions are working to introduce fine-scale catch information (New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Western Australia) and seeking to assess performance of shark fisheries against their respective management targets. For instance, the Northern Territory and Western Australia have introduced fine-scale statutory returns (daily trip catch and effort). These returns are often temporally and spatially precise and provide fine-scale information to improve stock assessments and assess the performance of the shark fisheries


14


against their respective management targets. The WA Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development has implemented and uses catch and effort data validation protocols for statutory returns.

The recreational catch of sharks is generally not well understood for a number of reasons. These include the inherent challenges associated with monitoring recreational fishers and recreation catch, the typically non-target nature of sharks within the broader recreational catch and the identification issues associated with sharks. Most jurisdictions conduct a survey of recreational anglers to capture a snapshot of activity (Table 1).

Table 1 Estimated annual catch numbers and release rate for sharks and rays taken by recreational fishers a

Jurisdiction Annual catch (no.) Release rate (%) Year of survey

New South Wales / Australian Capital Territory

108,938 95 2013–14

Northern Territory 27,738 95 2009–10

Queensland 193,000 96 2013–14

South Australia 37,694 57 2013–14

Tasmania 38,614 76 2012–13

Victoria 89,423 82 2000–01

Western Australia 30,671 91 2013–14

a Modified from Woodhams & Harte 2018.

Shark and Ray handling and identification guides have been developed by New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia to help commercial fishers return live sharks to the ocean and increase survival. Queensland, the Northern Territory and Victoria have also undertaken reviews of their existing shark identification guides in order to improve the accuracy and delivery of information. The Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (QDAF) produced illustrated shark identification guides to assist commercial fishers and fisheries compliance officers. QDAF is currently reviewing guidelines to ensure they contain adequate information and reflect recent legislative changes.

Some jurisdictions have engaged in research projects investigating the potential for additional shark identification tools, such as morphological diagnostic tools or deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) identification kits. For instance, the Northern Territory funded a project to find a morphological method that can be used in the field to differentiate between the two cryptic shark species (Australian blacktip shark and common blacktip shark) that are key target species in the Offshore Net and Line Fishery.

The majority of respondents also stated that data collection at the species level is difficult. This is because of the wide diversity of shark species, and the accuracy of identification by fishers or observers. Moreover, the loss of observer programs (for example, in Queensland) has become an additional problem to the national shark data collection.

SRG members raised the issue of a gap around rays data and information in the SAR, which could become a potential area for future research investment. Additionally, shark catch information and data on the Indigenous shark fishing sector are not well understood. Woodhams & Harte


15


(2018) reported that the estimates of Indigenous shark and ray catch have not been updated since the 2009 Shark Assessment Report.

3.1.9 IPOA initiative 10: Facilitate the identification and reporting of species-specific biological and trade data

Key achievements:

Internationally, the Australian Government has endorsed the harmonisation and adoption of species specific shark codes including through the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the FAO.


Introduction of a mechanism to consider the risk of overexploitation of imported shark species within exporting countries was suggested as a measure that could be considered.

Australia is a party to CITES, which helps to ensure that international trade does not threaten targeted species. As part of this, shark species listed under CITES that are caught in Australian waters need to be underpinned by an assessment of sustainability known as a non-detriment finding (Woodhams & Harte 2018). However, although these initiatives are occurring, the reporting of shark trade data often occurs in aggregate terms consisting of all shark species.

The surveys also noted that Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria are not collecting and reporting shark species-specific biological and trade data. One respondent stated that this issue is not considered to be a high priority in their jurisdiction, noting shark products are not exported but supplied to domestic markets.

Internationally, the Australian Government has endorsed the harmonisation and adoption of species specific shark codes, including through the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the FAO. In 2014 a proposal to harmonise and adopt species-specific shark codes was rejected at the WCO meeting, but Australia has committed to promote this issue at the next WCO meeting in 2019. Nationally, a change to the WCO Harmonized System (HS) would need to drive any changes to the domestic coding system. In accordance with CITES requirements, the Department of the Environment and Energy is continuing to collect and analyse national harvest, import and export data for the CITES Appendix II listed scalloped, smooth and great hammerhead sharks.

The traceability of shark imported to Australia, which are possibly caught unsustainably or from illegal sources overseas, was another issue raised by one respondent. The introduction of a mechanism to consider the risk of overexploitation of imported shark species within the exporting countries was suggested as a measure that could be considered. Proper traceability measures could also be applied, including by implementing the FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries: Responsible Fish Trade.

The resolution of species codes for trade purposes in jurisdictions is one area that needs to be improved. Currently, codes commonly used in jurisdictions include ‘other shark’ or ‘unspecified shark’ (Woodhams & Harte 2018).


16

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i0590e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i0590e.pdf


4 Performance of Shark-plan 2SRG members identified a number of enabling and constraining factors relevant to the performance of Shark-plan 2 that could inform the development of future shark plan initiatives. Some of the constraining factors identified are the same as those that were identified during the implementation of Shark-plan 1. Given that Shark-plan 2 aimed to use existing resources, a challenge moving forward is to identify a low cost and resource sensitive shark plan that meets the objectives of the IPOA–Sharks.

4.1 Enabling factorsEnabling factors identified by SRG members were:

objectives of Australian and state government legislation (for example, sustainability assessments under the EPBC Act Part 13A for export approval of Australian fisheries and nominations of a number of shark species as threatened species)

relevant harvest and bycatch strategies implemented by the Australian Government and some jurisdictions

Australia’s commitment to international environmental treaties (for example, the listing of some shark species under CMS and CITES has affected their treatment as bycatch rather than byproduct)

An ongoing focus on science-based fisheries management— New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Western Australia have adopted fine-scale shark catch information and assess the performance of shark fisheries against their respective management targets

political willingness to prioritise work on sharks (more an environmental issue than a fisheries one)

public opinion and social licence to operate (pressure on government agencies to address marine conservation and management issues).

4.2 Constraining factorsConstraining factors identified by SRG members were:

performance of Shark-plan 2 is limited as the document does not carry any statutory power

actions to manage and conserve sharks are typically driven by other factors (for example, the EPBC Act, harvest strategies and state legislation)

lack of funding and staffing for Australian and state government fisheries management and research agencies

the low level of priority jurisdictions place on implementing action items in the plan

lack of coordination and collaboration between the Australian Government and state agencies on shark conservation and management issues, which is particularly challenging because some shark species are migratory and require collaborative management efforts

some fisheries managers have a perception that the shark plan is ‘not used by other jurisdictions’ and therefore do not feel the need to rely on the plan themselves


17


inadequate resourcing of fisheries management agencies, which affects:

time and relevant expertise to adequately consider shark-related issues engagement with stakeholders training of fishers in shark identification

paucity of research data available to fisheries management agencies

difficulty of accurate shark species identification and inaccuracies in fisher or observer reports

Shark-plan 2 focuses on a subset of the ecosystem (sharks only) and highlights risks to shark stocks, not risks to the wider ecosystem or community—an ecosystem-based approach to shark management may be more appropriate than the traditional single-species approach.


18


5 Future directionsShark-plan 2 provided a useful summary of shark conservation and management activities undertaken around Australia and served as a reference document for fisheries managers. Several members of the SRG noted that the annual round-up of activities and progress reports as part of Shark-plan 2 had intrinsic value because it allowed fisheries managers to examine all shark-related issues at once rather than in the context of a particular fishery or issue. There were also clear networking benefits associated with Shark-plan 2 because it provided SRG members with an opportunity to monitor progress on shark conservation and management action items and discuss methods to improve shark management outcomes. Notably, the plan facilitated annual interaction and communication among the Australian Government, state and Northern Territory fisheries agencies, commercial and recreational fishing sectors, research agencies and e-NGOs about shark conservation and management matters.

SRG members also noted that Shark-plan 2 improved on Shark-plan 1 in two respects: (1) Shark-plan 2 presented specific actions in support of broader objectives, and (2) Shark-plan 2 focused on jurisdictional reporting rather than the regional approach proposed in Shark-plan 1. Some achievements in shark conservation and management initiatives also occurred during the implementation period of Shark-plan 2. However, causality cannot be attributed and Shark-plan 2 may not have been the primary instigator of these initiatives.

Findings from this review suggest that jurisdictional shark conservation measures are independent of Shark-plan 2 and are driven by legislation requirements and treaty obligations. The majority of SRG members felt that the requirements of Australian and state and Northern Territory government legislation were a more important driver of shark conservation and management initiatives in advancing the IPOA objectives. Shark-plan 2 was perceived to be a reporting tool rather than a primary document consulted by fisheries managers.

However, some key benefits arose from Shark-plan 2. Firstly, it consolidated information from across jurisdictions on shark conservations measures, which allowed managers to examine holistically approaches to shark management (rather than simply within the context of a particular fishery or issue). Secondly, Shark-plan 2 facilitated communication among the Australian Government, state and the Northern Territory fisheries agencies, commercial and recreational fishing sectors, research agencies and e-NGOs about shark conservation and management matters. Thirdly, Shark-plan 2 provided SRG members with some leverage to advocate sustainable shark fishing at other meetings and forums. Finally, the annual reporting requirements of Shark-plan 2 ensured that jurisdictions provided progress updates against their action items and enabled an assessment of whether Australia is meeting international obligations as a member of the FAO. Moving forward, this review identifies four potential pathways for future shark plan initiatives (Figure 1).


19


Figure 1 Potential pathways for future shark plan initiatives

These hypothetical pathways are:

1) Strengthening Shark-plan 2 by turning it into a foundational document for fisheries managers. This would require a renewed focus on using the shark plan as a mechanism for change and identifying priority areas where jurisdictions can improve on their shark conservation and management actions. This pathway would require greater collaboration between the Australian Government, state and Northern Territory fisheries agencies, commercial and recreational fishing sectors, research agencies and e-NGOs and the annual reporting aspect of Shark-plan 2 would remain.

2) Continuing Shark-plan 2 in its existing format. This pathway would require no change to the Shark-plan 2 action items but jurisdictions would need to keep reporting on their progress annually against each of the action items. The SRG meetings would continue and the four-yearly review requirements associated with Shark-plan 2 would continue.

3) Continuing Shark-plan 2 with reduced reporting burden on the states. This pathway would require no change to the Shark-plan 2 action items but the annual reporting requirements would be relaxed. Alternative options would also be explored for the SRG meetings and the four-yearly Shark-plan 2 review requirements. For instance, SRG meetings may be held via teleconference and no formal review may be required.

4) Not maintaining a national shark plan but still ensuring that jurisdictions maintain existing shark conservation and management activities independent of national-level coordination.


20

Future of Shark-plan 2

1. Increase strength of Shark-plan 2 and aim to turn it into a foundational document for fisheries

managers

2. Maintain the current plan including existing reporting

requirements

3. Maintain Shark-plan 2 with the intention of reducing the reporting burden on jurisdictions

4. Do not maintain a shark plan into the future


This option would require a focus on how Australia can maintain international obligations in the absence of a national shark plan.

Various benefits, issues, challenges and risks are associated with each of these options. These are examined further in Table 2.

At the Fifth SRG Meeting in December 2017 members agreed with option two, which retains the current plan and its reporting requirements. The SRG further agreed to streamline reporting, including by highlighting new information, to achieve a better understanding of outcomes against the plan.


21


6 ConclusionThis review found that the action items listed under Shark-plan 2, if fully implemented, would address Australia’s commitment to implement the IPOA–Sharks. Although jurisdictions have made progress against Shark-plan 2 action items, the plan itself was not a foundational document for fisheries managers. The majority of SRG members felt that legislative obligations (under relevant Australian, state and Northern Territory government legislation) were more influential for shark conservation and management activities than Shark-plan 2. For example, the EPBC Act and the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy were cited as drivers for shark conservation and management activities.

Although fisheries managers considered that improvement in shark management in Australia is independent of Shark-plan 2, the plan was considered to be a useful reference document. Shark-plan 2 was also found to have a number of networking benefits. Several members of the SRG noted that the annual round-up of activities and progress reports as part of Shark-plan 2 had intrinsic value because they allowed fisheries managers to comprehensively examine all shark-related issues rather than in the context of a particular fishery or issue.

Shark-plan 2 also had clear networking benefits because it provided SRG members with an opportunity to monitor progress on shark conservation and management action items and discuss methods to improve shark management outcomes. The plan facilitated annual interaction and communication among the Australian Government, state and Northern Territory fisheries agencies, commercial and recreational fishing sectors, research agencies and e-NGOs regarding shark conservation and management matters. This review identified four potential pathways for Shark-plan 2 moving forward and evaluates the benefits, challenges and risks associated with each of these pathways. At the Fifth SRG meeting in 2017, members agreed to adopt option two of the recommendations. The existing public reporting template would be retained but there would be streamlined reporting and a sharper focus on outcomes.


22


Table 2 Benefits, challenges and risks associated with the four pathways for future shark plan initiatives

Option 1. Increase strength of Shark-plan 2 and aim to turn it into a foundational document for fisheries managers

2. Maintain the current plan including existing reporting requirements

3. Maintain Shark-plan 2 with the intention of reducing the reporting burden on jurisdictions

4. Do not maintain a shark plan in the future

Overview This option would involve continuing with a shark plan with greater collaboration between the Australian Government and states. There would be a greater focus on how Australia can improve its management of sharks, which would involve identifying new action items and a new operational strategy.

This option would involve continuing with the shark plan in its current form. The action items in Shark-plan 2 would stay the same but there would be a focus on improving aspects that have not been progressed over the lifetime of Shark-plan 2. There would be no change to the level of reporting required from jurisdictions.

This option would involve continuing with Shark-plan in its current form. However, there will be less reporting required from the jurisdictions and SRG meetings would be held less frequently.

This would involve not maintaining a national shark plan in the future. There would be no requirement for reporting from the states.

Benefits Would ensure that Australia continues to meet international obligations as a member of the FAO and maintains its standard as a world leader in fisheries management.

Shark plan can be used as a mechanism for change and shark management initiatives will likely be improved into the future.

Strong networks that can be used to transfer information.

Continue to meet international obligations regarding the implementation of an NPOA-Sharks

Shark-plan 2 continues to be a reporting tool, ensuring that jurisdictions maintain existing processes and ensures that the networking benefits of Shark-plan 2 are retained.

Less resource intensive than some other options but ensures that the shark plan is maintained and could ensure that jurisdictions largely maintain existing processes.

No reporting burden on jurisdictions and resourcing required. Shark conservation and management initiatives may progress independent of national coordination.

Challenges More resources are required and more time will need to be invested into the plan. This is likely to be a challenge in a resource constrained operating environment.

The document doesn’t carry statutory power and therefore this approach will require strong commitment from all jurisdictions.

The same challenges associated with Shark-plan 2 are likely to remain—for example, lack of resources and that the document does not carry any statutory power

If there is less reporting from jurisdictions then it is more difficult to monitor progress against action items. The greatest challenge in adopting this approach would be ensuring that Australia meets the objectives of the IPOA–Sharks with reduced reporting requirements from the jurisdictions.

There is a challenge in ensuring that existing shark conservation and management activities continue to progress in the absence of the national plan.

Risks Not all jurisdictions may see the benefit associated with more detailed reporting. If the shark plan

If the shark plan is continued in its current format, jurisdictions may maintain existing shark

If the annual requirement is relaxed, jurisdictions may not maintain existing processes. If the

Some current shark conservation and management activities may be discontinued if there is no


23


is to be a foundational document in fisheries management, all jurisdictions will have to commit to this outcome or the plan is unlikely to meet its objectives.

conservation and management initiatives but there may not be any improvements to current practices.

review is not conducted within four years, Australia could risk meeting its obligations under the IPOA–Sharks.

The shark plan may not achieve as much in the absence of strong social networks.

obligation to report.

May not meet the obligations of the IPOA–Sharks as a member of the FAO.


24


Appendix A: Shark-plan 2—Operational strategy progress (December 2017)

Table A1 Shark-plan 2, operational strategy progress, issue 1 (high priority), by jurisdiction

Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)

NSW NT Qld SA Tas. Vic. WA

1. Review existing shark species identification guides (and any in development), implementing the best available identification guides in all relevant fisheries:

ensure guides are culturally appropriate, including the use of Indigenous species names where appropriate

ensure the best available guides have been provided to relevant user groups, including fishers, processors, compliance officers, observers and scientists.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Ongoing, Primary focus


Ongoing, Day to day management where applicable

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


Completed, Secondary focus

2. Monitor the effectiveness of identification guides.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus




Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Ongoing, Secondary focus


25


Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)


3. Investigate the potential for additional tools for shark identification, such as morphological diagnostic tools or DNA identification kits.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus



Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


ABARES: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. AFMA: Australian Fisheries Management Authority. Ag: Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. Cwlth: Commonwealth jurisdiction. GBRMPA: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.


Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)


4. Develop and implement national minimum data standards for all commercial, recreational, bather protection and Indigenous fishing operations that take sharks.

Secondary focus

In progress, Primary focus


Secondary focus



Secondary focus

Secondary focus


Secondary focus


5. Obtain better understanding of illegal, unregulated and unreported shark catch.



Secondary focus

Secondary focus


Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


6. Develop and implement data verification systems with clear objectives and performance measures.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus



Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus




26


Table A3 Shark-plan 2, operational strategy progress, issue 3 (medium-high priority), by jurisdiction

Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)


7. Implement anti-finning measures for all Australian fisheries and assess their effectiveness across jurisdictions. Measures should be promoted for adoption regionally and internationally.

Secondary focus

Completed, Primary focus


Secondary focus


Secondary focus



Secondary focus

Secondary focus


8. Assess the potential for more comprehensive trade data collection and analysis to improve shark conservation and management outcomes and implement a more comprehensive trade data collection system as appropriate.

Secondary focus



Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Yet to initiate, Secondary focus



27



Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)


9. Support the FRDC National Research, Development and Extension Framework 'Shark futures'.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


Secondary focus



10. Investigate opportunities for collaborative research initiatives to address the aims and objective of Shark-plan 2.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus






Secondary focus

Secondary focus




Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)


11. Maintain and/or improve stock assessments, risk assessments and status determination processes for target, bycatch and byproduct species.


Secondary focus

Secondary focus





Ongoing Primary focus


Secondary focus



28


12. Assess the need for implementation of formal harvest strategies to manage shark catch.


Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Ongoing and as required, Day to day management where applicable





Secondary focus


In progress, Day to day management where applicable


Table A6 Shark-plan 2, operational strategy progress, issue 6 (medium priority), by jurisdiction

Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)


Covered under Issue 5

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus



Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)



29


13. Iterative/ongoing jurisdictional assessment of the adequacy of shark management including the implementation of harvest strategies and compliance, enforcement and education strategies to support sustainability objectives for sharks.


Secondary focus




Secondary focus


Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


14. Explore mechanisms for greater collaboration between jurisdictions regarding research, assessment and management of shared stocks.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus



Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus




Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)



30


15. Review the effectiveness of management measures for recreational and game fishing in achieving sustainability objectives for shark species and develop recommendations for future management approaches, should this be found to be necessary.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus



Secondary focus




16. Assess the findings of the review under action 16 and relevant recreational and Indigenous fishing surveys to:

Secondary focus


Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


Secondary focus


- identify gaps in existing monitoring and data collection programs for recreational, charter and Indigenous fishing.

- determine the nature and role of state and territory recreational fishing surveys.

- determine the required frequency of future national surveys.

- determine adequacy of reporting on recreational and


31


Indigenous fishing issues at national level.

- where necessary, increase education and enforcement programs in recreational and game fishing sectors.


Table A9 Shark-plan 2, operational strategy progress, issue 9 (medium-low priority), by jurisdiction

Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)


17. Improve understanding of the cryptic mortality of high risk sharks in commercial, recreational and Indigenous fisheries.

Day to day management where applicable

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


Secondary focus


18. Implement strategies to reduce cryptic mortality, noting the link with Theme 2 of Shark Futures which has a focus on minimising the environmental impacts of fisheries on sharks.


Secondary focus

Secondary focus


Secondary focus


Yet to initiate, Primary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Ongoing Secondary focus


32


19. Ensure cryptic mortality is accounted for in the setting of catch quotas (where information is available).


Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

N/A, Day to day management where applicable

Secondary focus




Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)


20. Investigate shark handling practices to identify any areas of concern.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


Secondary focus


21. Implement solutions as required, with consideration given to increased training and enforcement requirements.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus




33



Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)


22. Assess the extent of Indigenous fishing for sharks and incorporate into overall management arrangements. Identify gaps in knowledge about Indigenous shark fishing and, where a need is identified, develop research proposals to address these gaps.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


23. Assess the impact of existing management measures for sharks on Indigenous subsistence fishing practices.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Yet to initiate, Day to day management where applicable

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Yet to initiate, Secondary focus



Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)



34


24. Implement management responses for species (or species groups) already assessed as high risk.


Secondary focus

Secondary focus




Secondary focus

Ongoing, as needed, Primary focus

Secondary focus



25. Undertake best practice risk assessments for shark species not already assessed.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus






Secondary focus

Secondary focus


26. Continue to refine risk assessment processes for target, bycatch and byproduct shark stocks, seeking to include all available data and to include consideration of cumulative impacts. Collection of data on species biology and human impacts will be foundational to the success of this action.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus



Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


27. Evaluate the methodologies for risk assessment and assess the need for national risk assessment guidelines.

Secondary focus

In progress, Primary focus

Secondary focus

Ongoing and as required, Day to day management where applicable


Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


28. Implement management measures for any subsequent high risk species.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus



Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus



35


29. Identify important habitat and broader environmental and habitat requirements for shark species and appropriate protection and management of these areas.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus




Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus




Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)


30. For species designated as requiring recovery, implement recovery strategies. Recovery strategies should be monitored and revised as appropriate to ensure effectiveness.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


Yet to initiate, Day to day management where applicable


Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Ongoing, as needed, Primary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus




Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)



36


31. Initiate action (as required) to ensure effective bycatch reduction methods for sharks have been developed for all fisheries in which shark are caught as bycatch, giving priority to species identified through risk assessment as ‘high risk’.


Secondary focus

Secondary focus



Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


32. Assess the effectiveness of current shark bycatch reduction measures in reducing shark mortality (including cryptic mortality) and develop performance measures for shark bycatch reduction.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus



Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


33. Promote adoption of effective shark bycatch reduction measures internationally.

Secondary focus


Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus




Action AFMA (Cwlth)

Ag / ABARES (Cwlth)

DoEE (Cwlth)

GBRMPA (Cwlth)



37


34. Undertake periodic assessment/support research of the impact of targeted shark fishing on non-target species (particularly threatened species) and identify priority issues for management.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


35. Undertake periodic assessment/support research of the impact of fishing operations on structure and function of shark species/stocks and identify priority issues for management.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Ongoing Day to day management where applicable

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


36. Periodic assessment of the ecological impacts of shark control programs for bather protection.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Completed Secondary focus

37. Investigate methods for modelling the population ecology of sharks and distinguishing between natural vs fishing induced variation, so as to better understand population status and rates of recovery.

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus



38


38. Consider ecosystem structure and function in the development and implementation of management measures, including trophic system interactions and how changes in systems may be measured

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus


Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus

Secondary focus




39


Appendix B: Shark-plan 2 Terms of reference

The second National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 (Shark-plan 2) was released in 2012. This followed an extensive consultation and review process with key stakeholders, including industry, environment non-government organisations and Australian Government, state and Northern Territory fisheries agencies. To complement Shark-plan 2, an operational strategy was developed in consultation with Australian Government, state and Northern Territory agencies, to identify the priority actions that each jurisdiction would pursue over the operational period of Shark-plan 2.

The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources will undertake a review of Shark-plan 2 and the associated Operational Strategy to examine if this approach has been appropriate, effective and efficient.

Specifically, the review will:

review the extent to which the objectives and actions identified in Shark-plan 2 have addressed Australia’s commitment to implement the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (1999)

evaluate the extent to which the actions in the Operational Strategy have been delivered, including achievements against performance measures, and examine any related impediments

evaluate the effectiveness of the Operational Strategy in addressing the issues and actions of Shark-plan 2

determine the extent to which there is effective national and international coordination on issues relating to Australia’s research, conservation and management of sharks

identify the need for further actions and make recommendations on the development and implementation of any revised Shark-plan and operational strategy

identify future research priorities where appropriate.

In undertaking the review, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources will consult with key stakeholders including commercial and recreational fishing sectors, environment non-government organisations and Australian Government, state and Northern Territory fisheries agencies.

The review will include the preparation of a report on the performance of Shark-plan 2 for the consideration of the SRG with related recommendations for future actions. A draft review report will be made public.


40


Appendix C: QuestionnaireSince the release of Shark-plan 2 in 2012:

To what extent have adequate data collection, monitoring and reporting processes been developed to support the sustainable use and conservation of sharks?

To what extent have vulnerable and threatened shark species been recognised through formal management mechanisms? For example, this may include the number of formal management measures put in place, reviewed or ongoing since the release of Shark-plan 2 and a comment on the number of species covered versus not covered by any formal mechanism.

How effectively are vulnerable or threatened sharks managed?

To what extent are biodiversity and ecosystem structure and function taken into account in the setting of shark management measures?

How are threats to shark populations assessed and determined and critical habitats protected? Has this changed over the life of Shark-plan 2?

How many shark species are now subject to harvesting strategies consistent with the principles of biological sustainability and rational long-term economic use?

To what extent are current shark catches (target and non-target) sustainable? What measures are used to assess the sustainability of shark catch?

To what extent are incidental catches of sharks minimised?

To what extent are waste and discards from shark catches minimised? Has levels of discarding of shark catches changed over the life of Shark-plan 2?

To what extent is the full use of dead sharks promoted in your jurisdiction?

To what extent is species-specific biological and trade data of sharks identified and reported in your jurisdiction?

To what extent have frameworks for establishing and coordinating effective consultation processes been developed and implemented for the management of sharks? Are stakeholders satisfied with and benefiting from engagement?

To what extent has Shark-plan 2 contributed to sustainable shark fishing?

To what extent has Shark-plan 2 contributed to the minimisation of incidental shark catches and waste?

What drivers do you consider are relevant to the performance of Shark-plan 2, and shark management effectiveness more broadly?

What barriers do you consider are relevant to the performance of Shark-plan 2, and shark management effectiveness more broadly?

What are the most significant changes in Australian shark management and conservation in the last 5 years?


41


What do you see as the optimal arrangements for supporting Australia’s management and conservation of sharks over the next 5 years?

Please provide any additional information to inform the review of Shark-plan 2.

Survey Part A: The effectiveness of Shark-plan 2 in meeting Australia’s international obligations and IPOA objectives

IPOA objective Related survey question Shark conservation and management theme

1. Ensure shark catches from directed and non-directed fisheries are sustainable

1. How many shark species are now subject to harvesting strategies consistent with the principles of biological sustainability and rational long-term economic use?

2. To what extent are current shark catches (target and non-target) sustainable? What measures are used to assess the sustainability of shark catch

3. To what extent has Shark-plan 2 contributed to sustainable shark fishing?

Ecological sustainability

2. Assess threats to shark populations, determine and protect critical habitats and implement harvesting strategies

4. How are threats to shark populations assessed and determined and critical habitats protected? Has this changed over the life of Shark-plan 2?


3. Identify and provide special attention in particular to vulnerable or threatened shark stocks

5. How effectively are vulnerable or threatened sharks managed?

6. To what extent have vulnerable and threatened shark species been recognised through formal management mechanisms?


4. Improve and develop frameworks for establishing and coordinating effective consultation involving all stakeholders in research, management and educational initiatives within and between states

7. To what extent have frameworks for establishing and coordinating effective consultation processes been developed and implemented for the management of sharks? Are stakeholders satisfied with and benefiting from engagement?

Engagement and empowerment

5. Minimise unutilised catches of sharks

8. To what extent are incidental catches of sharks minimised?

9. To what extent has SP2 contributed to the minimisation of incidental shark catches and waste


6. Contribute to the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem structure and function

10. To what extent are biodiversity and ecosystem structure and function taken into account in the setting of shark management measures?


7. Minimise waste and discards from shark catches in accordance with article 7.2.2 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries

11. To what extent are waste and discards from shark catches minimised? Has levels of discarding of shark catches changed over the life of Shark-plan 2?

Optimum use

8. Encourage full use of dead sharks

12. To what extent is the full use of dead sharks promoted in your jurisdiction?

Optimum use

9. Facilitate improved species-specific catch and landings data and monitoring of shark catches

13. To what extent have adequate data collection, monitoring and reporting processes been developed to support the sustainable use and conservation of sharks?

Improved data and reporting

10. Facilitate the identification and reporting of species-specific biological and trade data

14. To what extent is species-specific biological and trade data of sharks identified and reported in your jurisdiction?

Improved data and reporting


42


Survey Part B: General evaluation of Shark-Plan 2Survey question15. What drivers do you consider are relevant to the performance of SP2 and shark management effectiveness more broadly?

16. What barriers do you consider are relevant to the performance of SP2 and shark management effectiveness more broadly?

17. What are the most significant changes in Australian shark management and conservation in the last 5 years?

18. What do you see as the optimal arrangements for supporting Australia’s management and conservation of sharks over the next 5 years?

19. Please provide any additional info to inform the review of SP2.


43


Acronyms and abbreviationsABARES Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority

BRD Bycatch reduction devices

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

DNA deoxyribonucleic acid

e-Logs electronic logbooks

e-NGOs environmental non-government organisations

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

ERA Ecological risk assessment

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FRDC Fisheries Research and Development Corporation

GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

GHAT Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector

HS Harmonized System

IPOA–Sharks International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

NESP National Environmental Science Program

QDAF Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries

SAR Shark Assessment Report

SESSF Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery

Shark-plan 2 National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012

SRG Shark-plan Representative Group

TSSC Threatened Species Scientific Committee

WCO World Customs Organization


44


ReferencesAFMA n.d., Shark and Ray Handling Practices: A guide for commercial fishers in southern Australia, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.

DAFF 2012, National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012—Shark-plan 2, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

Department of the Environment and Energy n.d., Sharks in Australian waters, Canberra, accessed 23 November 2017.

Dulvy, NK, Fowler, SL, Musick, JA, Cavanagh, RD, Kyne, PM, Harrison, LR, Carlson, JK, Davidson, LN, Fordham, SV & Francis, MP 2014, ‘Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays’, eLife, vol. 3.

FAO 1999, The International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

FAO 2000, Fisheries management: 1. Conservation and management of sharks, FAO technical guidelines for responsible fisheries, No. 4, Suppl.1, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Musick, JA 1999, ‘Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals’, paper presented at American Fisheries Society Symposium 1999, p. 1–10.

Simpfendorfer, C, Chin, A, Rigby, C, Sherman, S & White, W in press, Shark futures: A report card for Australia’s sharks and rays, FRDC Project No 2013/009, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Woodhams, J & Harte, C 2018, Shark assessment report 2018, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.


45

http://www.fao.org/3/a-x8692e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/X3170E/X3170E00.HTM

http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/marine-species/sharks

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/environment/sharks/sharkplan-2

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/environment/sharks/sharkplan-2