Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Meeting the data requirements for integrated fisheries management:
progress towards minimising the cost of monitoring
Rick Fletcher, Dan Gaughan, Rod Lenanton, Brent Wise, Neil Sumner, Tara Baharthah,
Stuart Blight, Peter Stephenson, Monty Craine
Research DivisionDepartment of Fisheries
Government of Western Australia
Catch by sector
Fishery Catch
(tonnes)
% of total catch
Commercial 17,000 78%
Recreational 4-5000 20%
Indigenous <50 >1%
Charter 250 1.2%
Overview of finfish fisheries
• Target 70 species, >150 species recorded
• Sustainable catch of individual species small (10s to 100s tonnes).
• Series of multi-sector, multi-method fisheries.
• 23 managed commercial finfish fisheries.
• Only general ‘wetline’ fishery still unmanaged.
• Recreational and charter sectors.
Time for change
• Call for allocation of catch shares amongst sectors
• Recognition of significant regional differences in resource and community values.
• Shift from individual stock focus to broader sustainability of ecosystems and regional communities.
Proactively account for multiple user groups and changing circumstances over the next 10 to 20 years.
• South Coast
• West Coast
• Gascoyne
• Pilbara/Kimberley
• Southern Freshwater
• Northern Freshwater
Bio-Regional Management
Laying the foundation
• Clear understanding of management objectives and required outcomes in each Bioregion.
• Risk assessment of priorities across Bioregions, habitats, species.
• Manage on the basis of most vulnerable/conflict/target/rare species.
• Design surveys to allow cost-effective monitoring at the appropriate frequency.
Prioritization
Data requirements
The two main issues:
• Stock status – Sustainable harvest level for each resource
• Catch shares – Size of each sector’s harvested catch
The extent to which we succeed with the long-term realisation of the IFM vision depends on a
robust data-collection system. (+ others)
Cost effective monitoring of age composition
• Examination of age structure continues to provide the basis for assessing stock status
• Cannot undertake for all target species
• Remains expensive to undertake for indicator species
FRDC project – Cost effective methodology for ongoing age monitoring
Sectioned otolith (control age-structure)
Age
0
20
40
60
80
100
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Control assessment model
Age
Develop alternative AS
Age
Age
Test alternative AS
0
20
40
60
80
100
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0
20
40
60
80
100
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Accept or reject performance
n
Sectioned otolith (control AS)
Age
Age
Develop alternative AS Test alternative AS
Age
Age
Control assessment model
n, %
Age
n, %
Age
n, %
Age
Accept or reject performance
n
Accepted alternative AS
n, %
Age
n, %
Agen, %
Age
n, %
Age
n, %
Age
$$
$$
Compare costs. Develop sampling strategy for n species.
$$
$$
$$
Assess reduced sample size for sectioned otoliths and accepted alternatives.
$$n1 $$n2 $$n3
$$n1 $$n2 $$n3
$$n1 $$n2 $$n3
$$n1 $$n2 $$n3
$$n1 $$n2 $$n3
Preliminary cost-benefit analysis for 5 stocks
MARKET-BASED SAMPLING FIELD-BASED SAMPLING
Sectioned otolith Alternative Sectioned otolith Alternative
$11,640 None $67,800 None
$4,960 $1,480 $34,800 $20,000
$5,100 $1,100 $12,900 $4,920
$12,320 $1,110 $86,400 $15,000
$3,480 $640 $9,400 $3,600
Monitoring of commercial/charter catch & effort*
• Known client base (licensed)
• Long-term, mandatory reporting system
• Daily/trip* logbooks being developed
• Database systems being upgraded
• Charter logbook validation survey (shore-based vs sea-based?)
Cost effective monitoring of recreational catch and effort
• No system to record catch and effort
• Extremely large and variable client base
• Creel surveys - expensive
• Phone/diary surveys – less expensive
• Need to investigate alternatives
FRDC project – Cost effective techniques to monitor recreational catch and effort
Estimates of Recreational Catch
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CA
TCH
Catch data
Potential catch
Assumed catch
YEAR
Estimates of Recreational Catch
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CA
TCH
YEAR
Creel/phone surveys
($$$)
1. Participation rates – remote-based methods.2. Catch rates –improved use of current resources.
? ? ? ?
• Creel survey
• Phone/diary survey
Alternative data sources - participation
• Cameras (still, video)
• Trailer counts
• Tickets/fines
• Traffic counters
Control
Alternatives
Test alternatives.Assess costs.
Car park - still video shot
Car park - video camera
Insert video here
Marina channel – testing phase
Testing window for automatic
vessel counting
Estimates of recreational catch rates
Current (and ongoing) resources: review, develop and assess collection of catch and effort.
• Fisheries Marine Officers - routine checks of vessels at boat ramps (underway)
• Volunteers (Vol. Fisheries Liaison Officers) –routine visits to beach
Summary
Department of Fisheries has embarked on the transition from single fishery/individual sector management arrangements to an integrated approach across all user groups.
• The data challenges relate to:
− ongoing sustainable harvest estimation
− monitoring catch shares for each sector
Cost effective techniques are being developed to monitor recreational catch and effort
Summary Contd.
• Understand objectives and required outcomes
• Prioritize across Bioregions, habitats, species.
• Design surveys/methods to allow cost-effective monitoring at the appropriate frequency.
• Improve current systems (catch & effort)
Aim: Achieve maximum return (i.e. assess status of more stocks & determine catch
levels for more fisheries)