16.2 Decision-Making Processes
16.2.1 Established Processes
There are established decision making processes in the SBPMF that are fully understood by stakeholders and underpinned by explicit and transparent consultation. The fishery specific decision making process for the SBPMF consists of three components:
• annual and in-season consultation and decision-making that may result in measures to meet short term (operational) objectives (driven by the control rules contained in the current SBPMF Harvest Strategy);
• in-season consultation and decision-making that is designed to meet the economic objective to provide the fishery with the opportunity to optimise economic returns (cooperative framework); and
• longer-term consultation and decision-making that results in new measures and strategies to achieve the long-term fishery-specific management objectives (i.e.
changes to the management framework).
Harvest Strategy Consultation and Decision-Making 16.2.1.1
An overview of the annual and in-season consultation and decision-making processes to achieve short term operational objectives under the current management framework are described below and are outlined in the SBPMF Harvest Strategy. In addition, the harvest strategy control rules guide the management response in the event that the operational objective (i.e. to maintain the performance indicator above the threshold reference level) is not met. In these cases, the decision-making processes may result in measures to achieve fishery-specific objectives.
Annual Processes 16.2.1.1.1
Post-season report / Pre-season briefing to the licensees
The Department’s Research staff undertake a post season evaluation and develop a written report for all licensees (see Appendix I). This report, together with a research summary presentation is provided at the annual management meeting (AMM) held in December when the season is closed. The report includes the results from the recruitment and spawning surveys which inform the stock assessment, seasonal catch and effort data and an assessment against the performance measures for the fishery (including bycatch and ETP species interactions). A management and compliance update is also provided at the AMM.
It is at this stage that any issues arising from the annual evaluation of the operational objectives in the Harvest Strategy are discussed. These discussions can include preliminary investigation of reasons why target reference levels were not met (if this was the case). Such reasons can be stock related or effort related and may include environmental influences, low effort due to changes in fishing behaviour, market forces, etc. If sustainability is considered to be at risk, changes to fishing arrangements are discussed with the licensee and implemented for the following fishing season (e.g. a delay to the commencement of fishing to reduce effort).
Consultation between the Department and licensees also occurs at this stage to decide on the statutory season opening date (usually after the full moon in March) and closing date, the in- season survey schedule and the extent of moon closures. The next season’s arrangements are finalised by formal signing off from the Industry Association representative.
Advice to management and the Director General regarding the opening / closing of the fishing season
Following consultation with licensees, a written briefing is provided to the Director General recommending the statutory opening and closing dates for the coming fishing season. The
Director General (as the Chief Executive Officer82) determines the opening and closing dates for the fishery by making a Determination pursuant to clause 10 of the Management Plan, a copy of which is provided to licensees in writing. The notice is then made publically available on the State Law Publisher’s website83. This notice statutorily caps the overall fishing effort (fishing days) for the season at an acceptable level (i.e. a maximum of 175 fishing days). Clause 10 of the Management Plan provides the power for the Director General to statutorily set the annual fishing season without the need for an amendment to the Management Plan. The Director General also approves the boundaries of the management areas in the Determination.
Pre-season skippers’ briefing
The Department’s Research staff develop an information package (see Appendix J) and provide a briefing to the fleet skippers for the coming season, usually in March. Skippers are also provided with a presentation of the outcomes of the previous fishing season and compliance requirements are discussed. The skippers’ briefing provides a feedback loop to the Department on the proposed seasonal arrangements for the coming season.
In season Processes 16.2.1.1.2
The key in-season decision-making process is undertaken pursuant to the control rules designed to achieve the in-season operational objectives in the Harvest Strategy (i.e. to achieve above the threshold reference levels).
Consultation is undertaken by the Department’s Research staff directly with licensees and the SBPTOA around the timing and extent of fishing in the management areas. In-season decision-making is informed by a combination of the recruitment and spawning stock survey regime (catch rates and prawn size composition), knowledge of prawn biology (spawning and movement patterns of brown tiger and western king prawns) and daily monitoring of commercial catch rates. The resulting decisions are communicated to skippers, as well as to the Department’s management and compliance (including VMS) staff.
The annual in-season fishing arrangements designed to achieve the in-season operational objectives in the Harvest Strategy are implemented on a non-statutory basis. However they are monitored by VMS and, if it is identified that an area of the fishery may need to be closed statutorily, this can be achieved quickly (within 24 hours) via a notice pursuant to clause 10 of the Management Plan. There has been no evidence arising from compliance monitoring that has required in-season closures to be legislated.
Cooperative Management Framework
Once requirements have been addressed in line with the Harvest Strategy, an in-season cooperative consultation and decision-making process is used to provide licensees with the
82 Note that annual notices made pursuant to clause 10 of the Management Plan are signed by the Director General as ‘Chief Executive Officer’ transitioned from the ‘Executive Director’ pursuant to section 242 of the Machinery of Government (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2006
opportunity to optimise economic returns from the target prawn species within a sustainable fishing framework.
Decisions around optimising economic returns are informed by prawn size composition information arising from both Department and industry surveys and real-time monitoring of daily commercial catch data. The consultation and decision-making process that is aimed at optimising economic returns is undertaken between the Department’s Research staff and the Shark Bay Prawn Trawler Operators’ Association (SBPTOA) and is communicated to fleet skippers (through VMS messaging) compliance and VMS staff.
The fishing arrangements (i.e. timing and extent of fishing) resulting from the cooperative framework are non-statutory because they are not in place for stock sustainability reasons, however; they are monitored by VMS staff.
As an example of the flexibility and complexity of the cooperative decision-making framework, ten separate closures and openings of all or parts of the management areas were implemented during the 2013 season. These decisions were made according to the harvest strategy decision rules and based on in-season spawning stock survey results (CPUE and prawn size composition) and real-time fleet CPUE and catches (which can be monitored daily). In-season closures or reduced fishing areas may occur when the threshold is reached, but may also be influenced by prawn biology (spawning and movement patterns) and prawn size (both sustainability and economic indicators).
Following the re-opening of management areas or parts of management areas later in the fishing season, the fleet CPUE is monitored daily to ensure fishing ceases before the limit reference point is reached (or the season finishes).
A description of the cooperative framework is provided in a report entitled Co-management in the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery with comparison to the Shark Bay Prawn Fishery84 which was published as part of FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 504 (2008) Case Studies in Fisheries Self-governance.85
Management System 16.2.1.2
There is an established fishery-specific management system decision-making process in place that results in measures and strategies to ensure the fishery-specific management objectives continue to be met in the longer term.
The fishery specific management system decision-making process is triggered primarily as a result of analysing longer term patterns or trends resulting from annual monitoring of the success of the existing management regime. Variations in the operating environment caused by other factors (e.g. environmental conditions, market conditions, fishing behaviour, conflicts with other marine users, determination of native title, marine planning etc.) can also trigger investigation and discussion that may lead to a change to the management system.
Changes to the management system as a result of implementing new measures and strategies tend to be more permanent (i.e. lasting for more than one season) and are often implemented in legislation. Depending on the issue and stakeholders affected consultation can occur through the following mechanisms-
• directly in writing;
• at licensee meetings and skipper’s briefings;
• establishment of a tasked working group;
• external/expert workshops (e.g. ecological risk assessments);
• internal workshops (e.g. harvest strategy development, ecological and compliance risk assessments).
These forums are used to work through options for addressing emerging issues, consider both key and other interested stakeholder advice and take into account the broader implications of those options. Following the consultation process, any new proposed management measures and strategies that require changes to legislation or publication must be provided to the statutory decision maker (usually the Director General or the Minister for Fisheries). The Department must set out evidence of consultation and the results of the decision-making process during this process.
Recent examples of the fishery specific management system decision-making process that resulted in new strategies include the development of the current Harvest Strategy and BAP for the SBPMF, both of which were developed following multiple internal workshops and face -to- face consultation with Industry.
Figure 16.1 shows the consultation and decision-making process as it relates to the SBPMF management system.
Figure 16.1. Fishery specific consultation and decision making framework for the SBPMF management system