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)