On 27 May 2013, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) released the final report on the review of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines.
Overall the review found that harvest strategy policy is widely regarded as having been very successful in improving the management of Commonwealth fisheries and remained a strong foundation for Commonwealth fisheries management. The review also found the policy and guidelines meet or exceed the standards of relevant international obligations and continue to represent best practice.
As fisheries management and science continues to develop, some aspects of the policy and guidelines could be further refined and updated to reflect these developments.
A technical review of the science that underpin harvest strategies and international best practice harvest strategy settings was also undertaken to support the review, as was a review of harvest strategy implementation.
Download
| Document | Pages | File size |
|---|---|---|
|
Final report on the review of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines PDF |
135 | 2 MB |
| 5 | 2 MB | |
| 46 | 2 MB | |
| 16 | 561 KB | |
|
Final report on the review of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines DOC |
135 | 100 KB |
| 5 | 100 KB | |
| 46 | 100 KB | |
| 16 | 100 KB | |
|
Terms of Reference for the review of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy DOCX |
2 | 24 KB |
If you have difficulty accessing these files, visit web accessibility for assistance.
Stakeholder consultation
The department led the review in consultation with a stakeholder advisory committee that included representation from the commercial and recreational fishing sectors, environmental non–government organisations, CSIRO, government and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.
Technical and implementation reviews
A technical review of the science and economics that underpin the harvest strategy policy and harvest strategy settings was completed with funding from the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and the department.
ABARES summarised the various technical reviews that are listed below, along with other relevant research, such as management strategy evaluation and risk-based approaches to data-poor species. The technical overview highlights key conclusions that are relevant to the policy review.
CSIRO and ABARES reviewed technical issues associated with the science and economics that underpin the policy and guidelines.
The review of the science underpinning the harvest strategy policy and guidelines by CSIRO considered matters such as:
- reference points appropriate to life–history characteristics
- buffered targets and meta–rules
- data poor fisheries and tiered harvest strategies
- total allowable catch (TAC) setting and multi–year TACs
- rebuilding strategies and TACs for bycatch–only species
- spatial management and meta–rules.
The technical review of economic issues considered how the harvest strategy policy’s maximum economic returns objective can be operationalised across Commonwealth fisheries. It outlines key economic definitions and concepts, and the general experiences and challenges in operationalising maximum economic yield in Commonwealth fisheries. It then draws on the literature to list the potential options that are available to improve the way in which Commonwealth fishery management meets the intent of the policy.
These scientific papers were independently peer reviewed.
- Technical Reviews for the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy PDF - CSIRO
[512 KB, 74 pages]* - Technical Reviews for the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy: Economic Issues
ABARES conducted a review of risk-based approaches, reference points and decisions rules for managing fisheries bycatch and byproduct species to support both this review, and the review of the Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch.
ABARES also reviewed the implementation of the policy across Commonwealth fisheries, international fisheries and fisheries jointly managed by the Commonwealth and another jurisdiction. This included case studies of harvest strategies in seven Commonwealth fisheries and an international fishery. The report describes changes in economic performance and biological status to which the implementation of harvest strategies is likely to have contributed. It also proposes criteria that might be used to measure the policy’s performance in the future.
The department also engaged the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources & Security to conduct a desktop literature study and review of international best practice in fisheries harvest strategy policy approaches.
- International best practice harvest strategy settings PDF [1.5 MB, 85 pages]*
More information
The review was overseen by a steering committee comprising senior officials from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s Sustainable Resource Management Division.
Other Relevant Documents
Haddon, M. (ed.) (2012) Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status: Harvest Strategy Testing, Evaluation, and Development PDF [857 KB, 44 pages]. General Discussion and Summary. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research.
Sainsbury, K. 2008. Best Practice Reference Points for Australian Fisheries PDF [1.2 MB, 173 pages] Report R2001/0999 to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
Skirtun, M & Vieira, S 2012, Understanding the drivers of profitability in Commonwealth fisheries, ABARES technical report 12.4 Canberra, November.
Stephan, M and Vieira, S 2013, Productivity analysis of key Commonwealth fisheries, Technical report 13.09, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra, December.
Fishery Status Reports, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.
*These publications were not prepared by the department and may not meet Australian Government accessibility guidelines. If you require an accessible version of the publication, please contact its author.