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

National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 II Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 © Commonwealth of Australia 2012 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 With the exception of the photographic images, and where otherwise noted, all material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided that you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode. This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2. Licensed from the Commonwealth of Australia under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence. Images provided by: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; Australian Fisheries Management Authority; Richard Pillans, CSIRO; Rory McAuley, Department of Fisheries Western Australia; Clare Van Der Geest, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. Cataloguing data: National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra. ISBN 978-1-921575-41-9 (printed) ISBN 978-1-921575-42-6 (online) Internet National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 is available at: www.daff.gov.au/sharkplan2. Contact Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Postal address GPO Box 1563 Canberra ACT 2601 Switchboard +61 2 6272 2010 Web daff.gov.au Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document should be sent to: Email: copyright@daff.gov.au The Australian Government, acting through the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, has exercised due care and skill in the preparation and compilation of the information or data in this publication. Notwithstanding this, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence, for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying upon any of the information or data in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law. IIIDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 Research actions remain fundamental to an improved understanding of shark biology, ecology, and population status, and to assessing the impact of human activities on sharks. While our information base has improved, our ability to address many shark conservation and management issues is still constrained by the quality of data on shark catch and effort. Shark-plan 2 calls for species caught, coordination of research and sharing of information. A more consistent approach to identifying and quantifying risks relating to shark conservation and management would result in better communication among government agencies and with the public, and better-informed decision-making. Australia is a world leader in the ecologically sustainable management and use of natural resources. Shark-plan 2 provides a framework for the long-term conservation of Australia’s shark populations, and for guiding the industries and communities that affect them. Foreword Australian waters are home to a diverse and unique array of sharks, rays and related species, which are an important part of our aquatic biodiversity Australian governments are committed to the conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use. Australia’s second National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 (hereafter referred to as Shark-plan 2) will play a key role in achieving these goals. Shark-plan 2 builds on the lessons learned from Australia’s 2004 National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks recognising its achievements and also identifying areas where improvements are still needed. Shark-plan 2 provides an updated assessment of the conservation and management issues concerning sharks management actions across Australia’s state, territory and Commonwealth jurisdictions that will be pursued over the life of the plan (to be reviewed within four years of implementation). and impact. Australia’s approach to conserving and managing sharks should be guided by the principles of ecologically sustainable development, with an emphasis on applying a precautionary approach in the absence of comprehensive information. A better understanding of Australia’s trade in shark products will also help to guarantee the long-term sustainability of Australian shark populations. Improved shark-handling procedures on sharks. ve pe ti m nt us FFFFoooorrewwwwwwwoooorddd AuAuAuAAuststs rrraliiil anananana wwwwwwatattatateerererree sss arararaara eeeeeee hohohohohhohohohohoh memeemememmeemememeememmee tttttttttttooooooooo oo aaaa aa dididdd vve araaa raayy yyyyyy ooofof ssshah rks,s,s,,s,s rayayayayayyyyssss s anananananandddddddddd rereerererelallalaalllalalalall tetetet d d d spsppsppspsp arareee e anananaanaa iiiiiiiimpmpmpmpmpmpporororoorororttatatataataaantntn pppppararaaa t ofo oouur aaaaaaaquuuataaaaaa i AuAuAuAuAuAAuAAuAuuAuAAAA stststsststststststststtrraraarararrraralilliilililianananna ggoovoverernmnmmennnntstststststststs aarereeere cccccomo cocoonsnsnsererervvavatitittititiononnononoonno aaandndnn mmanagaggggemmmmmmmmenenenennnenee ttttt thhheeieeieieiirr r llolongngnggng-ttttererererrrmmm mmmm sssusuus stststssttaiiaiainananananablblblbblblblble ee e uu NaNaNaNaaNaNatititititititionononoonoonalla PPlaaalaan offfoffoffofff AAAAAAAActctttctcctctctioioioiooioioiioooonnnnn nnnnn fofofofoffofoffff r r tht MaMaMaMaManaagegegegegegemmmemememmmmm ntnn ooofffffff f f f f f SShSShShhSShShSShShararararrrra kskkkskskksks 2222200100 ShhhhShS arrrrrrrk-k-k-k-kk-k--k pllananananaannanann 222))) wwwwill pplalallay gogogogoalalals.s SSSShahhahahaharkrkrkrkrkkk-p-p-p-p-pppplalaalalalaaannn nnn 2222 ffrffrfrfrfromommomommm AAustrtrallllaliaiiaii CoCoConsnsssnsssn erereeee vvvvavv IV Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 Acknowledgements National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012, was developed in conjunction with: Department of Primary Industries Contents Foreword iii Acknowledgements iv Abbreviations vi Glossary vi Introduction 1 Development of Shark-plan 2 3 From recommendations to issues 9 From issues to actions 13 Priority of issues 17 Implementation, monitoring and evaluation 19 References 20 VDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 VI Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 Glossary Customs – Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. Jurisdiction – a collective term to describe the Commonwealth and state/territory governments and their agencies. Commonwealth – Australian Government. Precautionary Approach – Knowing that our knowledge is limited, we should apply the precautionary principle while employing adaptive management approaches using new science and practical experience. The precautionary principle is that lack of full reason for postponing a measure to prevent degradation of the environment where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council 2010). Abbreviations ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority AQIS Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CMS Convention on Migratory Species CSIRO Research Organisation DAFF The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry EPBC The Environment, Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act ERAEF Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation FRDC Fisheries Research and Development Corporation IPOA International Plan of Action MERI Natural Resource Management Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement Framework NGO Non-Government Organisation NPOA National Plan of Action NRM Natural Resource Management RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation SAFE Sustainability Assessment for Fishing Effects SAR Shark Assessment Report SIRC Shark-plan Implementation and Review Committee 1Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia’s National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 1Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia’s National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks Shark-plan 2 2012 Fisheries management in Australia is generally of a high standard (Pitcher et al. 2009). For the small complemented by monitoring and research. However, a large part of the Australian shark catch is incidental (non-target)—being either kept and sold (byproduct) or discarded (bycatch). For these components of the catch there is generally less known about the species’ biology or the full extent of the catch. Introduction Around one quarter (322 species) of all known species of shark are found in Australian waters1. Of these, more than half are found nowhere else in the world (Last and Stevens 2009). Given this diversity there is national and international interest in conserving and managing Australian sharks. Australian governments are committed to the conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use. Fishing is one of the main human activities that interact others catch them incidentally while targeting other species. There is global concern that high levels of shark catch are affecting shark species in several areas of the world’s oceans (FAO 1999; Clarke 2009). In general, and have few young (Last and Stevens 1994). Some shark species also have naturally small population sizes, which makes them especially vulnerable. These characteristics human impacts on sharks is necessary (FAO 2000). 1. The term ‘shark’ refers to all species of shark, skates, rays and chimaeras (Class Chondrichthyes) unless otherwise specified. 1Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 2 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 Australia has been supportive of the IPOA-Sharks and proactive in developing its own National Plan of Action (hereafter called the Shark-plan). As a member of the United Nations FAO, Australia published its National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (Shark-plan 1) in 2004 (DAFF 2004). This document represents Australia’s second iteration of this initiative, following Shark-plan 1. Shark-plan 1 was based on the management of sharks and rays in Australian waters. conservation managers and the public to improve conservation and management of sharks, and details actions to encourage the effective and sustainable management of Australia’s shark populations. Shark-plan relies on the FAO’s technical guidelines for the conservation and management of sharks (FAO 2000) and encourages those responsible for implementing actions under the plan to consider this framework. Efforts have been made to address the objectives of IPOA-Sharks throughout Shark-plan 2, while acknowledging national and emerging priorities in Australia. In 1999, member countries of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) developed the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA–Sharks) (FAO 1999) in recognition of the expanding global catch of sharks and the potential negative impacts on shark populations. The IPOA–Sharks is a voluntary international instrument developed for member nations to take positive action to ensure the conservation and management of sharks, and their long-term sustainable use. The IPOA–Sharks suggests that members develop a National Plan of Action if their vessels conduct targeted The following is an extract from the IPOA Sharks: The IPOA-Sharks (FAO 1999) has the objective, ‘to ensure the conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use’ and prescribes the following aims: Ensure that shark catches from directed and 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, in particular 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 Encourage full use of dead sharks. landings data and monitoring of shark catches. 3Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 Shark-plan 2 aims to coordinate action on shark conservation and management in Australia through processes. It acknowledges the achievement of Australia’s management jurisdictions over the life of Shark-plan 1 and sets the direction for shark conservation and management in the future. Development of Shark-plan 2 The IPOA-Sharks (FAO 1999) directs member states that implement a Shark-plan to assess its implementation at least every four years, in order to identify strategies for increasing the effectiveness of the plan. In 2008, the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) instigated a performance review of Shark-plan 1 in collaboration with the Shark-plan Implementation and Review Committee (SIRC). The Review of Australia’s 2004 National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks: Final report to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Bodsworth et al. 2010) (hereafter called the Review) provides a comprehensive insight into the strengths and weaknesses of Shark-plan 1 and its implementation, and makes recommendations for consideration in the development of a new plan. At the same time, Australia’s second Shark Assessment Report (Bensley et al. 2010) (hereafter SAR2) was published to support the review process. SAR2 and the Review are the primary documents that have been used in the formulation of Shark-plan 2. This new plan, based on the objective and aims of IPOA-Sharks, builds on the conservation and prioritising these issues and identifying actions to address them. 4 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 resources and expertise dedicated to the development of Shark-plan 1 (including SAR1), these issues form the basis for the development of Shark-plan 2. The Review and SAR2 were used to determine whether to inform the prioritisation of issues and identify actions to be pursued. by all resource users. Secure, accessible and validated data sets that record all catch data and are consistent over time with compatible resolution between jurisdictions over the full range of each species from all resource users. Full utilisation of dead sharks and an improved understanding of the markets for and trade in shark products. Coordination of shark research. Continued effort to maintain and improve the standard of stock assessments for target shark species Reliable assessments for bycatch and byproduct shark species. Assessment of the adequacy of management for all shark species and more innovative approaches management issues. Improved understanding of the impacts of and, where required, implementation of better management for, recreational and shark species. Assessment of shark handling practices for the conservation and management of sharks. Better understanding and, where necessary, recognition in management Indigenous people. Risk assessments for all shark species from all impacts on those species. Where necessary, develop strategies for the recovery of shark species and populations. Reduce or, where necessary, eliminate shark bycatch. Better understanding of the effects bather protection and management practices on ecosystem structure and function. Reduce the impact of environmental degradation on sharks. More information on the impact on sharks of sound waves in the marine environment. More information on the impact on example, high voltage electric cables and shark protection devices. Recommendations from the The Review evaluated the effectiveness of Shark-plan 1 against its stated objectives. The intention was that Shark-plan 2. The Review used a systematic natural resource management (NRM) program evaluation methodology, referred to as the monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) approach. A review framework comprising targeted evaluation questions was used to assess the extent to which Shark-plan 1 had been addressed. Information was collected by reviewing the relevant literature, such as SAR2, conducting a series of regional stakeholder workshops and interviewing additional selected stakeholders. Overall, the Review found that Shark-plan 1 had contributed to improved conservation and management outcomes for shark species occurring in Australian waters. However, it suggested that Shark-plan 1 had not been a major driver of these improvements. A sustainability assessments under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) had been a major driver for 5Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 The Review found that considerable enhancements to management and supporting data systems were needed fully comply with the EPBC Act Guidelines for Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries. Risk assessment methodologies were found to vary The Review notes: the nature and timing of management responses to risk assessment outcomes is also variable across jurisdictions, with reluctance in some cases to act on potential risks, or take a methodical approach to the mitigation of substantial risks for elasmobranch bycatch species. In many cases, except for higher value target species, there is little evidence that the effectiveness of shark focussed management responses has been assessed. The Review found good examples of the precautionary approach being applied to address risks associated with sustainability. However, it also found examples where the precautionary approach was demonstrably not applied. Further, it found that ecosystem research had taken a back seat to understanding the impacts of exploitation rates on target species and/or higher-risk shark species. Looking forward, the Review stated that engagement by all jurisdictions and greater clarity and accountability against Shark-plan outcomes. Resourcing for the implementation of actions, monitoring and evaluation will also be critical to the effectiveness of Shark-plan 2. The Review states that, with existing management strategies and build on proven initiatives that are already underway in the various jurisdictions. Determining an appropriate and low-cost NPOA performance management framework is important and warrants consideration. The Review barriers to, and drivers for, the effectiveness of Shark-plan 1. It also made a number of recommendations for the development of Shark-plan 2 (listed below). Consult the Review (Bodsworth et al. 2010) for a full description of recommendations. Group A: ecological sustainability There is a need for greater use of the precautionary principle in the management of sharks, including non-target and high risk species. The CSIRO/AFMA Ecological Risk Assessment approach (ERAEF, or SAFE), or the FRDC sponsored National ESD are both well recognised risk assessment circumstances. Alternative methods that and/or ESD objectives to an equivalent standard are also available. The recent FRDC project Development of national guidelines to improve the application of risk-based methods in the scope, implementation and interpretation of stock assessments for data poor species (Scandol et al. 2009), also makes an important contribution. sharing must evolve to the point where cumulative risks to vulnerable or high risk species are recognised and then addressed. assessments that can operate to species level where necessary, are a critically shark management at a range of spatial scales. Group B: improved data and reporting improve the value and relevance of trade related data (Customs, ABS, AQIS) to support improved shark management need to be clear. Although there have been improvements in data collection and sharing there remain persistent barriers. These barriers should be addressed systematically. 6 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 The Shark-plan could play a stronger role in helping to guide and prioritise national, multi-jurisdictional, and regional approaches to shark management, as well as on high-risk shark species. Greater consideration should be given to the adequacy of funding for shark research, the advantages and disadvantages of having a national funding framework for shark research, and the potential for better understanding and alignment between the priorities of shark researchers and those of shark managers. Regional capacity building Australia should continue to engage strongly with relevant international and regional treaty arrangements (CITES, CMS), and push for the adoption of best practice shark management in RFMOs . throughout the region. Well considered and engagement strategies will be fundamentally important in this regard. The current heavy reliance on high level and relatively bureaucratic bilateral and multilateral meetings will have the region. regulations in the jurisdictions may enable more effective regional negotiations on these issues. More of a bloc management and conservation initiatives in the Indian Ocean region may deliver improved shark conservation and management outcomes regionally. A stronger more national focus for the Shark-plan is appropriate, particularly for more migratory and straddling shark stocks. There is a need to understand how the timeliness and extension of shark related data/information to managers, researchers, and other key shark stakeholders like the public and environment NGOs, might be improved. Noting some of the risks associated dependent data, there should be greater adoption of carefully designed and targeted observer programs (or alternative independent monitoring strategies) to enable higher quality information on shark operations and impacts on sharks. Strong examples of collaborative/ joint management, research initiatives, and/or policy instruments should be highlighted and supported, and used as models to drive improvements in these areas. The ongoing constraints to obtaining better data and information on recreational, and to a lesser degree Indigenous shark catch (and the importance of sharks to Indigenous communities) require closer examination and more effective measures to address these gaps. High quality risk assessments should be completed and implemented across all jurisdictions where they have not already been done. Group C: engagement and empowerment Coordination and priority setting The Shark-plan could play a stronger role to coordinate shark research, particularly at a regional or national scale. 7Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 Governance Provide the Shark-plan with more authority, credibility, and enable improved management and research coordination through a range of mechanisms. The resourcing implications for implementation of actions and strategies, and performance monitoring for the Shark-plan need to be clearer. Engagement, consultation and communications The Shark-plan should include a well considered engagement strategy that can operate at a national, regional and jurisdictional level. Group D: optimum use A more complete understanding of the cumulative protection offered by the range of initiatives like marine parks, spatial closures, and large scale effort reductions would be valuable in determining the need for further protection of vulnerable and/or protected shark species. The potential for the Shark-plan to contribute to broader community recognition of Australia’s performance with regard to shark sustainability should be further considered. The potential of trade related measures should be investigated further, and barriers preventing a credible evaluation An evaluation of the need for further data and processes associated with the collection, analysis, and use of these data should be considered. Assessment Report (SAR2) The second Shark Assessment Report (SAR2) builds upon the information provided in SAR1 and aims to identify substantial changes that have occurred in ongoing concerns. SAR2 includes the presentation, and where possible, analysis of: catch and effort data, and stock assessments conservation and management arrangements regulatory frameworks. In summary, SAR2 found that, although it was evident that considerable work on shark conservation and management had been undertaken since SAR1, a range of issues were yet to be addressed. relied on the fundamental need for improvement in the quality of data on shark catch and effort. shark data collection and validation remain in all jurisdictions. SAR2 suggests that addressing these progress in resolving shark conservation and management issues in the long term. As a priority in the short-term, there is a need for: methods (observer programs, targeted research and analysis, etc) in target and Effective implementation of robust management measures and recovery actions to mitigate threats to high-risk and threatened, endangered and protected species, and to rebuild over-exploited stocks. Precautionary measures to prevent any further declines in shark species. 8 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 SAR2 recommended that the development of actions to address these needs should be a priority for consideration during the development of Shark-plan 2. Addressing these issues would facilitate more rapid progress towards assessing a wider range of threats to Australian sharks and the ecosystem services that depend on them. SAR2 noted that, in the longer-term, there was a need to: indices and conduct stock assessments species. Ensure further and more consistent application of risk-based approaches to shark conservation and management. species. Review the need for and, where necessary, the methods to obtain accurate market and trade data. Examine the need for improved management measures to reduce or restrict the targeting of sharks for to export markets. Support the development of more effective shark bycatch mitigation methods. Conduct assessments of the risk to sharks. Continue to encourage the effective monitoring and management of the harvest and bycatch of pelagic shark species on the high seas. Assess the sustainability of imported shark products. 9Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 From recommendations to issues The recommendations from the Review and the remain relevant for consideration in Shark-plan 2. The Review and SAR2 were also considered for the Shark-plan 1. In general, the conservation and management issues for sharks in Australia remain similar to those detailed in Shark-plan 1. Where problems with implementation or effectiveness were raised by the Review or SAR2, these have been addressed in Shark-plan 2 through associated actions and/or through the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation section. Shark-plan 2 has fewer actions than Shark-plan 1, and a greater emphasis is placed on the application of the precautionary approach within actions. Shark-plan 1 provides a detailed description of how the individual issues relate to the overarching objective of the IPOA, so this has not been repeated here. and the corresponding recommendations from the made of the relevance of the issue to Shark-plan 2. 10 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 10 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 Table 1: Issues identified in Shark-plan 1, recommendations from the Review, findings from SAR2 and the relevance of issues to the development of Shark-plan 2. Issues for shark conservation and management identified in Shark-plan 1 Recommendations from the Review and findings from SAR2 Relevant to Shark plan 2 (Yes/No) Issue 1. Improved identification of shark species by all resource users The Review found that well considered and appropriate fisher education is fundamental to species identification, domestically and regionally (REV-C5). While not included in the list of key findings of SAR2, issues of species identification and the grouping of species under the one category in catch data are discussed in SAR2. Yes Issue 2. Secure, accessible and validated data sets that record all catch data and are consistent over time with compatible resolution between jurisdictions over the full range of each species from all resource users Improvements to data collection, validation, storage and sharing are addressed a number of times in the recommendations of the Review (REV-B1–REV-B6). The need to improve data collection is discussed as a key issue for effective conservation and management of sharks in Australia. Species identification, grouping of species in catch data and differences in catch reporting systems between jurisdictions are highlighted in SAR2 as key issues. The relatively poor quality of byproduct and bycatch reporting is also discussed. Improved data verification methods were identified as a key issue in SAR2-1. Importantly, SAR2 also notes that a lack of focus on data collection for sharks in the past now limits the scope for quantitative assessment for the majority of shark species. Yes Issue 3. Full utilisation of dead sharks and an improved understanding of the markets for and trade in shark products Improved anti-finning regulations and the use of trade-related mechanisms were identified by the Review (REV-C3, REV-D3 & REV-D4) as areas for consideration in the development of Shark-plan 2. Further clarity concerning the costs and benefits of improved trade-related data was also recommended (REV-B1). Review of the need for more accurate market and trade data was identified as a key finding in SAR2-7. Further investigation into the need for improved management measures to reduce or restrict targeting of sharks for fin markets was identified in SAR2-8. Yes Issue 4. Coordination of shark research Recommendations REV-B5, REV-C1, REV-C3 and REV-C9 from the Review covered several aspects of shark research. Examples include the need for strong collaborative research initiatives at a national level and the adequacy of resourcing. Shark futures2 was also discussed in the Review. SAR2 discusses the need for targeted research and analysis in fisheries that interact with sharks, particularly to improve data verification. Also discussed is the need for research to improve survival rates of released sharks and to improve the benefits of tag-and-release studies. Yes Issue 5. Continued effort to maintain and improve the standard of stock assessments for target shark species in dedicated shark fisheries Although discussed in the Review, maintenance or improvements to stock assessments are not explicitly mentioned in the recommendations. The need for abundance indices and stock assessments are identified as an area for further development (in the longer term) for target and byproduct species (SAR2-4). Yes Issue 6. Reliable assessments for bycatch and byproduct shark species As per issue 5. Yes Issue 7. Assessment of the adequacy of management for all shark species and more innovative approaches to dealing with identified shark management issues Not explicitly covered in either the Review or SAR2. An assessment of the adequacy of management of shark species is undertaken to some extent through the completion of Shark Assessment Reports, as per the guidelines in the IPOA. Yes 2. Shark futures: Sustainable shark fisheries—A national research, development and extension framework. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) project 2009–088. 11Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 3. Definition of cryptic fishing mortality: unobserved fishing mortality, where individuals die due to being caught but this is not observed in normal fishing operations. Cryptic fishing mortality includes pre-catch losses (individuals that dropout of nets or off hooks) and post-release mortality (where an individual is released but dies due to injuries). Issues for shark conservation and management identified in Shark-plan 1 Recommendations from the Review and findings from SAR2 Relevant to Shark plan 2 (Yes/No) Issue 8. Improved understanding of the impacts of and, where required, implementation of better management for, recreational and game fishing While this issue is discussed in the Review, it is not explicitly mentioned in the recommendations. Assessment of the impacts of non-commercial fishing on sharks is discussed in SAR2-10. Data collection and verification are also addressed in SAR2. Understanding the impact of non-commercial fishing activities on sharks remains an important conservation and management issue for Shark-plan 2. Yes Issue 9. Reduce cryptic fishing mortality3 of shark species This issue is discussed in the Review, but not explicitly mentioned in the list of recommendations. While cryptic mortality is not explicitly covered in SAR2’s key findings, SAR2 does discuss the high degree of uncertainty about post-release survival. The development of more effective shark bycatch mitigation methods is discussed in SAR2-9. Yes Issue 10. An assessment of shark handling practices for the conservation and management of sharks While this issue is discussed in the Review and SAR2, it is not explicitly mentioned in the key findings or recommendations of either publication. However, development of more effective shark bycatch mitigation methods is discussed under SAR2-9. Effective handling practices are highlighted as one of the primary tools at the disposal of managers in the Chondrichthyan guide for fisheries managers (Patterson and Tudman, 2009). While refinement of shark-handling practices is prescribed in this reference, there remains a need for improved understanding of the issues in each fishery and a targeted approach to address the issues identified. Yes Issue 11. Better understanding and, where necessary, recognition in management arrangements, of shark fishing by Indigenous people Closer examination of constraints to obtaining better data on recreational and Indigenous shark catch is addressed in the Review (REV-B6). The need for better understanding of Indigenous shark fishing is not explicitly covered in the key findings of SAR2 but the need for improved data collection is discussed. SAR2 highlights the need for improved national data collection of commercial, recreational and Indigenous fishing activities involving taking sharks and the need for risk assessments looking at the impact of non-commercial fishing operations on sharks (SAR2-10). Yes Issue 12. Risk assessments for all shark species from all impacts on those species Credible and efficient risk assessments (to species level where necessary) are addressed in the Review (REV-A4). Implementation of high-quality risk assessments are also discussed (REV-B7). Further and more consistent application of risk-based approaches is addressed in SAR2-5. Yes Issue 13. Where necessary, develop strategies for the recovery of shark species and populations The Review discusses recovery strategies and listing processes but it makes no specific recommendations on associated issues. Implementation of effective management measures for high-risk, threatened, endangered and protected species and rebuilding of over-exploited stocks are addressed in SAR2-2. Yes Issue 14. Reduce or, where necessary, eliminate shark bycatch Greater use of the precautionary principle and the management of sharks, including non-target, high-risk and bycatch sharks, are discussed in the Review (REV-A1). While reducing or eliminating bycatch is not explicitly covered in any of the key findings, SAR2-9 advocates more effective bycatch mitigation methods in its acknowledgement that the impact of fisheries on non-target stocks should be as little as possible. Yes 12 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 Issues for shark conservation and management identified in Shark-plan 1 Recommendations from the Review and findings from SAR2 Relevant to Shark plan 2 (Yes/No) Issue 15. Better understanding of the effects of shark fishing, control programs for bather protection and management practices on ecosystem structure and function While ecosystem structure and function are discussed in the Review and SAR2, they are not reflected in the key findings/recommendations. Shark-plan 2 has a role in advocating research to better understand this issue, making appropriate links with Shark futures. The Review notes that ecosystem-focused research in relation to sharks has been a lower priority than species-specific research aimed at better understanding the impacts of fishing on target or high-risk species. This also reflects the complexity and expense of broad-scale ecosystem research. Yes Issue 16. Reduce the impact of environmental degradation on sharks Not highlighted as a priority area in the Review or SAR2. Therefore, while the issue remains a research interest, it is not a key issue requiring specific action within this Shark-plan. No Issue 17. More information on the impact on sharks of sound waves in the marine environment Not highlighted as a priority area in the Review or SAR2. Therefore, while the issue remains a research interest, it is not a key issue requiring specific action under this Shark-plan. No Issue 18. More information on the impact on sharks of electromagnetic fields, for example, high voltage electric cables and shark protection devices Not highlighted as a priority area in the Review or SAR2. Therefore, while the issue remains a research interest, it is not a key issue requiring specific action under this Shark-plan. No Action table Table 2 details the issues relevant to Shark-plan 2, priority for implementation and corresponding actions. Performance management of Shark-plan 2 will be carried out by the responsible jurisdictions and through relevant shark groups or committees as discussed in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation section. 13Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 From issues to actions (Table 1), actions are prescribed. The (SAR1 and SAR2), the recommendations of the Review were considered in the development of actions. The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Shark futures: Sustainable shark and extension framework (Bodsworth and Scandol 2010) was also considered in the development of actions. 14 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 14 Table 2: Shark-plan 2 — Issues, actions and priorities Issues for shark conservation and management identified in Shark-plan 1 Actions Priority of issue Issue 1. Improved identification of shark species by all resource users 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. 2. Monitor the effectiveness of identification guides. 3. Investigate the potential for additional tools for shark identification, such as morphological diagnostic tools or DNA identification kits. High Issue 2. Secure, accessible and validated data sets that record all catch data and are consistent over time with compatible resolution between jurisdictions over the full range of each species from all resource users 4. Develop and implement national minimum data standards for all commercial, recreational, bather protection and Indigenous fishing operations that take sharks. 5. Obtain better understanding of illegal, unregulated and unreported shark catch. 6. Develop and implement data verification systems with clear objectives and performance measures. High Issue 3. Full utilisation of dead sharks and an improved understanding of the markets for and trade in shark products 7. Implement anti-finning measures for all Australian fisheries and assess their effectiveness across jurisdictions. Measures should be promoted for adoption regionally and internationally. 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. Medium– high Issue 4. Coordination of shark research 9. Support the FRDC National Research, Development and Extension Framework, Shark futures. 10. Investigate opportunities for collaborative research initiatives to address the aims and objective of Shark-plan 2. High Issue 5. Maintain and improve the standard of stock assessments for target shark species in dedicated shark fisheries 11. Maintain and/or improve stock assessments, risk assessments and status determination processes for target, bycatch and byproduct species. 12. Assess the need for implementation of formal harvest strategies to manage shark catch. High Issue 6. Reliable assessments for shark bycatch/byproduct Covered under Issue 5. Medium Issue 7. Assessment of adequacy of management for all shark species and more innovative approaches to dealing with identified shark management issues 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. 14. Explore mechanisms for greater collaboration among jurisdictions regarding research, assessment and management of shared stocks. High 15Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 Issues for shark conservation and management identified in Shark-plan 1 Actions Priority of issue Issue 8. Improved understanding of the impacts of and, where required, implementation of better management for, recreational and game fishing 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. 16. Assess the findings of the Review under action 16 and relevant recreational and Indigenous fishing surveys to: 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 the adequacy of reporting on recreational and Indigenous fishing issues at national level where necessary, update existing survey methodologies or introduce effective supplementary or alternative data collection mechanisms review and where necessary revise recreational and game fishing management arrangements to ensure that impacts on sharks are sustainable where necessary, increase education and enforcement programs in recreational and game-fishing sectors. Medium Issue 9. Reduce cryptic fishing mortality of shark species 17. Improve understanding of the cryptic mortality of high-risk sharks in commercial, recreational and Indigenous fisheries. 18. Implement strategies to reduce cryptic mortality, noting the link with Theme 2 of Shark futures, which focuses on minimising the environmental impacts of fisheries on sharks. 19. Ensure cryptic mortality is accounted for in the setting of catch quotas (where information is available). Medium– low Issue 10. Assessment of shark handling practices for the conservation and management of sharks 20. Investigate shark-handling practices to identify any areas of concern. 21. Implement solutions as required, giving consideration to increased training and enforcement requirements. Medium– low Issue 11. Better understanding and, where necessary, recognition in management arrangements, of shark fishing by Indigenous people 22. Assess the extent of Indigenous fishing for sharks and incorporate into the overall management arrangements. Identify gaps in knowledge about Indigenous shark fishing and, where a need is identified, develop research proposals to address these gaps. 23. Assess the impact of existing management measures for sharks on Indigenous subsistence fishing practices. Medium 16 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 Issues for shark conservation and management identified in Shark-plan 1 Actions Priority of issue Issue 12. Risk assessments for all shark species from all impacts on those species 24. Implement management responses for species (or species groups) already assessed as high-risk. 25. Undertake best practice risk assessments for shark species not already assessed. 26. Continue to refine risk assessment processes for target, bycatch and byproduct shark stocks, seeking to include all available data and consideration of cumulative impacts. Collection of data on species biology and human impacts will be foundational to the success of this action. 27. Evaluate the methodologies for risk assessment and assess the need for national risk assessment guidelines. 28. Implement management measures for any subsequent high-risk species. 29. Identify important habitat and broader environmental and habitat requirements for shark species and appropriate protection and management of these areas. Medium– high Issue 13. Develop strategies for the recovery of shark species and populations 30. For species designated as requiring recovery, implement recovery strategies. Recovery strategies should be monitored and revised as appropriate to ensure effectiveness. Medium– high Issue 14. Reduce or, where necessary, eliminate shark bycatch 31. Initiate action (as required) to ensure effective bycatch reduction methods have been developed for all fisheries in which shark are caught as bycatch, giving priority to species identified through risk assessment as ‘high-risk’. 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. 33. Promote adoption of effective shark bycatch reduction measures internationally. Medium– high Issue 15. Better understanding of effects of shark fishing, control programs for bather protection and management practices on ecosystem structure and function 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. 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. 36. Periodic assessment of the ecological impacts of shark control programs for bather protection. 37. Investigate methods for modelling the population ecology of sharks and distinguishing between natural and fishing-induced variation, so as to better understand population status and rates of recovery. 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. Medium– low 17Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 Priority of issues Issues are prioritised in light of a number of considerations. Higher priority is given to issues and associated actions that are fundamental to achieving the overarching aims and objectives of the plan. Priority is given to issues where there is an immediate information need or sustainability risk. Similarly, issues considered to be a lower immediate risk or that rely on the delivery of preceding actions are given a lower priority. While this is a national plan of action, there will inevitably be some variation among jurisdictions in the timing and implementation of actions. Not all actions will be relevant to all jurisdictions and this will need to be captured effectively in the Operational Strategy for Australia’s National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-Plan 2. It is anticipated that jurisdictions will identify, from the actions in Shark-plan 2, priority actions to be addressed over the life of the plan. Table 3 provides a guide to when actions should be initiated. capacity and competing demands for resources, jurisdictions should follow the guidance given in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation section. 18 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 Table 3: Priority and implementation schedule for Shark-plan 2 issues and associated actions Priority Action initiated High Within 12 months of implementation of this plan Medium Within two years of implementation of this plan Low Within four years of implementation of the plan 19Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 On conclusion of the operational period of Shark-plan 2, jurisdictions will evaluate its overall performance against its aims and objectives. Shark-plan 2 does not have a dedicated budget for its implementation. The delivery of resources available within the existing budgets of Supplementary funds for shark-related research may be obtained from other sources. Applications to FRDC should follow the guidance provided in the national research, development and extension framework, Shark futures. At the operational level, the state, Northern Territory and Australian governments have prime responsibility Shark-plan 2. The status and effectiveness of these actions to conserve and manage sharks in Australia will be subject to reassessment and review. The implementation and monitoring of actions in Shark-plan 2 will be underpinned by an operational strategy administered by DAFF, with input and reporting from each jurisdiction. It is unrealistic to be fully addressed by all jurisdictions over the life of the plan. Instead, the Operational Strategy for Australia’s National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-Plan 2 will detail and report on over the life of Shark-plan 2. The success of Shark-plan 2 will require strong cooperation among jurisdictions, and commercial Implementation, monitoring and evaluation The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) (Fisheries Branch) is the lead agency responsible for the development of Shark-plan 2 and will remain responsible for coordinating its implementation. Collectively, the SIRC or other representative shark group will be responsible for assessing the overall implementation of Shark-plan 2 during the operational period of the plan. The plan’s structure, actions, prioritisation of issues and delivery timeline should enable relevant shark groups and their members to monitor progress. The group will ultimately report to DAFF, which reports to the Australian Government Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 20 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 References Bensley, N., Woodhams, J., Patterson H. M., Rodgers, M., McLoughlin, K., Stobutzk,i I. and Begg G. A. 2010. 2009 Shark Assessment Report for the Australian National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Final Report to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. Bodsworth, A., and Scandol, J. 2010. Shark futures: development and extension framework. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) project 2009–088. Bodsworth, A., Mazur, N., Lack, M., and Knuckey, I. 2010. Review of Australia’s 2004 National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Final report to the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Cobalt Marine Resource Management. Clarke, S. 2009. ‘An alternative estimate of catches Paper EB-WP-02. 5th Regular Session of the WCPFC DAFF (Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 2001. Australian shark assessment report for the National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. DAFF (Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 2004. National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (Shark-plan). DAFF, Canberra. DAFF (Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 2007, policy and guidelines. DAFF, Canberra. FAO 1995, Code of conduct for responsible , United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome. FAO 1999. The international Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome. FAO 2000. Fisheries management. 1. Conservation and management of sharks. FAO technical guidelines for . No. 4, Suppl.1. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome. Last, P. R. and Stevens, J.D. 1994. Sharks and rays of Australia. CSIRO, Melbourne. Last, P. R. and Stevens, J.D. 2009. Sharks and rays of Australia, 2nd edition. CSIRO, Melbourne. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council 2010. Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010–2030. Australian Government, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Patterson, H. and Tudman, M. 2009. Chondrichthyan mitigating chondrichthyan bycatch. Bureau of Rural Sciences and Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. Pitcher, T, Kalikoski, D, Pramod Ganapathiraju and Short, K. 2009. ‘Not honouring the code’. Nature, vol. 457/5, pp. 658–9. Scandol J.P., Ives M.C. and Lockett M.M. 2009. Development of national guidelines to improve the application of risk-based methods in the scope, implementation and interpretation of stock assessments for data-poor species. Final report to the Fisheries Research & Development Corporation for Project No. 2007/016. Industry & Investment NSW Final Report Series No. 115. Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence, NSW, Australia. 184pp. 21Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2 daff.gov.au/sharkplan2 Contact Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Postal address GPO Box 1563 Canberra ACT 2601 Switchboard +61 2 6272 2010 Web daff.gov.au The biosphere is relevant to the work we do and aligns with our mission – we work to sustain the way of life and prosperity of all Australians. The biosphere imagery used in and ray species relevant to the National Plan of Action for the