10 Current management practices
Management practices and measures, other than those contained in this plan, have been developed and are being implemented through a number of agencies and programs.
These include Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) procedures and protocols, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) policies and programs, and state government programs. Measures include the compulsory use of logbooks by commercial fishers to record incidental capture of white sharks in Commonwealth fisheries; mechanisms to encourage recreational fishers to report interactions and observer programs designed to provide fisheries independent measures of threatened species, such as white shark, mortality in state and Commonwealth waters.
In July 2012, Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry released Australia’s second National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 (Shark-plan 2). Shark-plan 2 outlines how Australia will manage and conserve sharks, and ensure that Australia meets international conservation and management obligations. The plan identifies research and management actions across Australia for the
long-term sustainability of sharks, including actions to help minimise the impacts of fishing
on sharks. Shark-plan 2 can be downloaded from the DAFF website at: www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/environment/sharks/sharkplan2
Shark-plan 2 was developed in conjunction with state, Northern Territory and Australian government agencies, and has been endorsed by the Shark-plan Implementation and
Review Committee and the Australian Fisheries Management Forum.
The white shark is protected under the EPBC Act. As such, it is an offence to kill, injure, take, trade, keep, or move any individual without a permit in Commonwealth waters. However, the EPBC Act does contain certain provisions that allow an action that is reasonably necessary to prevent a risk to human health or to deal with an emergency involving a serious threat to human life. In addition, all listed threatened species are considered matters of national environmental significance, and any action that may have an impact on a matter of national environmental significance must be referred to the minister responsible for the environment
for assessment and approval.
The environmental performance of Commonwealth, state and the Northern Territory-managed wild harvest fisheries is assessed under the EPBC Act. The EPBC Act requires that:
- all Commonwealth-managed and state wild capture marine fisheries with an export component be assessed to ensure they are being managed in an ecologically
sustainable way - all Commonwealth-managed fisheries are also assessed to determine the impact of actions taken under a fishery management plan on matters of national environmental significance
- all Commonwealth-managed fisheries and any state-managed fisheries that operate in Commonwealth waters must also be assessed to determine the impacts of fishing operations on cetaceans, listed threatened species and ecological communities, migratory species,
and listed marine species under the EPBC Act.
The assessments consider the impacts of the relevant fishery on target and non-target species caught, and the impacts of fishing activities on the broader marine environment. As a listed threatened species, white sharks cannot be taken in fisheries in Commonwealth or state
waters. Interactions are required to be recorded in threatened species interaction logbooks
in Commonwealth fisheries and in Western Australian, South Australian, Victorian and New South Wales state fisheries. Interactions with white sharks as well as the life status of the animal when it is captured (e.g. whether it is released alive) are considered in the assessment of fisheries operating in Commonwealth waters.
Other relevant management practices include management planning processes for areas that contain breeding and/or aggregation sites for white sharks, and the incorporation of important sites into marine reserves, both at the Commonwealth (e.g. through the marine bioregional planning process) and state level. The white shark is also protected across its range in state waters. Details of the legislation under which white sharks are protected in Australian
waters are provided in the 2013 Issues Paper for the White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) (DSEWPaC, 2013).
Shark control activities are undertaken by the Queensland and New South Wales governments to protect bathers from shark attack. These states have mechanisms in place to monitor the impacts of these activities on protected species and, where possible and without compromising bather safety, reduce those impacts. Evidence from both the Queensland and New South Wales shark control programs indicates a long-term decline in the capture of white sharks,
at least during the period since the identification of shark species was recorded. In the New South Wales Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program (SMP), there is an indication of an
increase in catch numbers from 2000−2008 from the previous decade (1990−2000) but it is uncertain whether this reflects an actual increase in white shark numbers or is a result of
natural variability. Recorded catches (1980s, 1990s, and 2000s) in the shark meshing program are only a third of those from the 1950s and 1970s (Table 2). In addition, catch-per-unit-effort fell from about 3.5 to < 1 shark(s) per 1000 nets (>70 per cent decrease) in the same period (Malcolm et al., 2001).
Table 2: Reported catches of white sharks in the NSW SMP, 1950/51–2010/11
(NSW DPI, 2009, 2011, 2012).
Year | 1950/ | 1960/ | 1970/ | 1980/ | 1990/ | 2000/ | 2010/2011 |
Number of white sharks | 151 | 106 | 161 | 59 | 44 | 69 | 6 |
The Queensland Shark Control Program has been in existence since 1962 and had caught
631 sharks in nets and on drumlines by 1998 (Malcolm et al., 2001). Catch-per-unit-effort is highly variable but has substantially decreased over time by about 60-75 per cent. Data on white sharks caught per year are available from 1985. There were 63 white sharks caught from 1985−1990, 101 caught from 1990−2000, and 62 caught from 2000−2010. In 2011, six white sharks were caught (QOESR, 2012).
The actions set out in this recovery plan in regard to shark control activities focus on maximising the useful data the programs can provide on white shark biology and ecology and minimising the mortalities on non-target species, without reducing the effectiveness of the programs in maintaining bather safety. Shark control activities for bather protection largely occur in state waters and are therefore subject to state legislation. In Commonwealth waters it is an offence under the EPBC Act to kill a white shark, although the Act does allow for some actions that are reasonably necessary to prevent a risk to human health or to deal with an emergency involving a serious threat to human life.
10.1 Marine bioregional plans
Marine bioregional plans have been prepared under section 176 of the EPBC Act for the
South-west, North-west, North and Temperate East marine regions in Commonwealth waters around Australia. Each marine bioregional plan describes the conservation values of the region, identifies and characterises the pressures affecting these conservation values, and identifies regional priorities and outlines strategies to address them. As part of the marine bioregional
planning process, the white shark has been identified as a regional priority in the South-west Marine Region and the Temperate East Marine Region. The pressures affecting the white shark have been identified and characterised for these regions. In addition, Schedule 2 of both the South-west and Temperate East marine bioregional plans include guidance for people planning to undertake actions that have the potential to impact on white sharks within these regions. Further information on marine bioregional planning is available on the department’s website at: www.environment.gov.au/coasts/marineplans/index.html
DSEWPaC, as the Australian Government department responsible for administering the
EPBC Act, maintains a suite of interactive tools that allow users to search, find and generate reports on information and data describing matters of national environmental significance including the white shark. The conservation values atlas shows the location and spatial
extent of conservation values (where sufficient information exists) and is available at: www.environment.gov.au/coasts/marineplans/cva/index.html Further information about
the white shark is available on the Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT) at: www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl This database includes links to conservation value report cards, which were developed to support the information
provided in each marine bioregional plan.
As part of the marine bioregional planning process biologically important areas have been identified for a number of species, including the white shark. Biologically important areas are areas that are particularly important for the conservation of protected species and where aggregations of individuals display biologically important behaviour such as breeding, foraging, resting or migration. The presence of the observed behaviour is assumed to indicate that the habitat required for the behaviour is also present. Biologically important areas have been identified using expert scientific knowledge about species’ distribution, abundance and behaviour in the region, and biologically important area maps and descriptions for the white shark are available in the conservation values atlas at: www.environment.gov.au/coasts/
marineplans/cva/index.html
10.2 Commonwealth marine reserves
Marine reserves (also known as marine protected areas or marine parks) are parts of the
ocean that are managed primarily for the conservation of their ecosystems, habitats and the marine life they support. Forty new Commonwealth marine reserves were declared around Australia in November 2012. The new Commonwealth marine reserves network includes examples of all of Australia’s different marine ecosystems and habitats. Commonwealth
marine reserves are managed according to management plans made under the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). A single management plan is being developed for each regional marine reserves network and for
the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve. Draft management plans are available at: www.environment.gov.au/marinereserves/index.html. Transitional management
arrangements are in place until management plans come into effect in July 2014.
The Commonwealth marine reserves network protects habitats important for threatened species, including the white shark. For example, many of the Commonwealth marine
reserves intersect with biologically important areas for the white shark identified in the
marine bioregional plans. In particular, the important juvenile aggregation site at Port
Stephens intersects with the Hunter Commonwealth Marine Reserve in the Temperate
East Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network. In addition, nine of the 14 Commonwealth Marine Reserves in the South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network overlap with biologically important areas for foraging for the white shark. More information is available at: www.environment.gov.au/coasts/marineplans/cva/index.html.. Three of the 14 Commonwealth Marine Reserves in the South East Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network overlap with biologically important areas for foraging for the white shark (Figure 1) and an additional seven
of these Commonwealth marine reserves potentially provide further important foraging habitat because they intersect fur seal haul out sites.
11 Effects on other native species or ecological communities
Reducing anthropogenic impacts from activities such as fisheries activities or encounters
with shark protection devices may benefit other threatened marine species, such as other shark species, marine turtles, seabirds and marine mammals. The consequences for other native species, should white shark numbers increase substantially as a result of this plan, is unknown and difficult to predict. Possible negative impacts include increased mortalities of the Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea), a listed threatened species, and impacts on other marine mammals and other large marine vertebrates.
12 Biodiversity benefits
The white shark is an ecologically important apex predator that is recorded in low numbers
in comparison with other large sharks, even in its known centres of abundance.
The South-west and Temperate East marine bioregional plans have identified the white
shark as a regional priority on the basis of their unique association within the regions
and their habitats.
Although the white shark is a wide-ranging species that is found in all seas, the South-west Marine Region appears to be an important area for the species. Available records of incidental catches of white sharks in Australian waters are higher in the South-west Marine Region than in any other region, and are not well correlated with fishing effort. Fishing activities along the west coast of Western Australia (Shark Bay to Bunbury) and in the Great Australian Bight appear to have significantly higher interactions with white sharks than in other areas, which indicates that these areas may be particularly important for the species.
Given this recovery plan focuses on removing threats from white shark habitats, it is also likely to have positive implications for a diversity of non-target native species that occur within the same habitats as this species.
13 Social and economic considerations
13.1 Commercial and recreational fishing
White sharks have been fished throughout their range in the past and, although there is no legal directed catch of white sharks, incidental and illegal catch remains a major threat to the species. The actions outlined in this recovery plan in relation to commercial fishing focus on improving reporting mechanisms for incidental take and other interactions with white sharks, including potentially an increase in observation coverage. Implementation of these actions is expected to have a minimal degree of economic impact on commercial fisheries.
Recreational fishers have generally been supportive of measures designed to ensure their sport is sustainable. However, recreational line fishing is still considered to be a threat to the white shark. The actions outlined in this recovery plan focus on ensuring compliance with reporting requirements and ensuring adequate reporting mechanisms are in place to assess the impact of recreational fishing on this species. Implementation of these actions will have minimal economic impact on recreational fishers.
13.2 Shark control programs
Shark control (bather protection) activities take place at popular beaches in Queensland
and New South Wales and at the time of printing are being considered in Western Australia. Shark-control programs are expensive in that the equipment deployed requires regular
boat-based maintenance, and they also incur associated environmental costs. Catches are not confined to dangerous shark species, but include species that pose little threat to human safety (Cliff & Dudley, 2011). The trialling of non-lethal methods to deter sharks is included as an objective of this recovery plan and may provide a sustainable solution to the dual issues of white shark conservation and human safety.
13.3 Ecotourism
In South Australia, cage diving with white sharks is an iconic ecotourism experience.
White shark tourism has been conducted in South Australian waters since the 1970s and
has been confined to the Neptune Islands Conservation Park since 2002. The white shark is listed as a protected species under the Fisheries Management (General) Regulations 2007 providing full protection for this species in South Australian waters (DENR, 2012).
White sharks are of economic value for ecotourism (boat watching, aerial observations and cage diving), which has the potential to increase coastal community income. However, berleying to attract white sharks may affect their behaviour and therefore Bruce & Bradford (2011) have recommended that the amount of berleying allowed be reduced or capped to minimise further white shark behavioural impacts.
13.4 International trade in shark products
Despite listing on CITES under Appendix II and on Appendices of the CMS, illegal trade still poses a threat to the global and Australian populations of white sharks. Traded products
derived from white sharks include fins, jaws, teeth and meat (fresh, frozen or salted for human consumption), cartilage (used as a health food product), oil and hide (for leather products). White shark body parts are of considerable value (Malcolm et al., 2001; CITES, 2004d) and can be bought and sold via the internet. Despite stricter regulations on a national and international scale, the high prices obtained for white shark products provide some incentive
for illegal trade.
Illegal fishers generally target larger sharks for their teeth and jaws and this could have
a significant, long-term impact on population numbers. As female white sharks reach
sexual maturity at approximately 4.5 to 5 metres long — compared to males that reach
sexual maturity at smaller sizes — it is the reproductively active females and larger males
that are being targeted.
The impact of shark finning on global shark numbers has driven international concern over recent times. While finning bans are in place in Australian waters, it is likely that white sharks are caught in international waters as part of the fin trade.
13.5 Habitat modification/degradation
Habitat degradation (development, pollution and overfishing) also threatens this species and may largely exclude it from areas, perhaps traditionally utilised for feeding or as nurseries, where it was historically much more abundant. As near-coast areas are often a preferred habitat (Fergusson et al., 2009), white shark populations could be adversely affected by coastal habitat degradation and anthropogenic activities in these regions (CITES, 2004d). As habitats critical to the survival of the species are identified, there is potential for developments to be restricted under the EPBC Act development assessment and approval process.
14 Duration and cost of the recovery process
It is anticipated that the recovery process will not be achieved prior to the scheduled
five year review of the recovery plan. The 2013 Recovery Plan for the White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) in Australia will therefore remain in place until such time as
the Australian population of the white shark has improved to the point at which the
population no longer meets threatened species status under the EPBC Act.
The cost of implementation of this plan should be incorporated into the core business expenditure of the affected organisations and through additional funds obtained for the explicit purpose of implementing this recovery plan. It is expected that state and Commonwealth agencies will use this plan to prioritise actions to protect the species and enhance its recovery, and that projects will be undertaken according to agency priorities and available resources. Actions which cross jurisdictional boundaries (i.e. states and Commonwealth) may be funded jointly on agreement by relevant parties.
15 Affected interests
Organisations likely to be affected by the actions proposed in this plan include Australian,
state and Northern Territory government agencies, particularly those involved with environmental and fisheries concerns, commercial and recreational fishers, local Indigenous communities, researchers, tourism operators, conservation groups, wildlife interest groups,
and proponents of coastal development in the vicinity of important habitat areas. This list should not be considered exhaustive. There may be other interest groups that would like to be included
in the future or need to be considered when specialised tasks are required.
16 Efficient and effective use of resources
In order to maximise the conservation outcomes and cost effectiveness of this plan,
the actions proposed in this recovery plan complement those of other threatened species recovery plans (e.g. the Recovery Plan for the Grey Nurse Shark (Carcharias taurus)).
17 Consultation
The 2013 Recovery Plan for the White Shark (Carcharias taurus) in Australia has been developed through extensive consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. The review
of the 2002 White Shark (Carcharias taurus) Recovery Plan (EA, 2002) was completed in November 2008, with the assistance of the then National Shark Recovery Group (NSRG).
The review was completed by the department and tabled at the 37th meeting of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee — established under the EPBC Act — in November 2008 prior to being endorsed by the then Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts.
The NSRG comprised representatives from relevant Australian Government agencies, all
states and the Northern Territory, and key stakeholder groups, including the Humane Society International, TRAFFIC, representatives from the commercial and recreational fishing sectors, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (refer to Appendix 3 for a full list of NSRG representatives).
The review found that although progress had been made on many of the actions listed in the recovery plan there was no evidence to suggest a recovery of the white shark population in Australian waters. The review recommended that the 2002 White Shark (Carcharias taurus) Recovery Plan be varied to remove completed actions and include new conservation priorities.
Following endorsement by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee to prepare a revised white shark recovery plan, a stakeholder workshop was held in March 2009 with members from the NSRG and selected shark experts to develop a new recovery plan for the white shark.
The revised recovery plan was sent to the Federal environment minister in March 2010 for agreement to enter into the public consultation period. The draft revised recovery plan and issues paper were open to public consultation in April 2010 for a period of three months.
18 Organisations/
persons involved
in evaluating the performance of
the plan
This plan should be reviewed no later than five years from when it was endorsed and made publically available. The review will determine the performance of the plan and assess:
- whether the plan continues unchanged, is varied to remove completed actions,
or varied to include new conservation priorities - whether a recovery plan is no longer necessary for the species as either conservation
advice will suffice, or the species is removed from the threatened species list.
As part of this review, the listing status of the species will be assessed against
the EPBC Act species listing criteria.
The review will be coordinated by DSEWPaC in association with relevant Australian
and state government agencies and key stakeholder groups such as commercial and recreational fishing sectors, non-governmental organisations, tourism operators and
scientific research organisations.
Key stakeholders who may be involved in the review of the performance of the 2013
recovery plan for the white shark, including organisations likely to be affected by the
actions proposed in this plan, include:
Australian Government
Australian Fisheries Management Authority
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Department of Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Indigenous Land Corporation
Industry and non-government organisations
Commercial fishers and associations
Conservation groups
Indigenous land councils and communities
Local communities
Nature-based tourism industry
Marine/ocean energy industry
Universities and other research organisations
Recreational fishers and associations
Recreational boating
State/territory governments
Department of Environment and Conservation, WA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, SA
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, TAS
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, QLD
Department of Sustainability and Environment, VIC
Fisheries agencies
Museums
NSW National Parks
Parks and Wildlife Commission, NT
Parks Victoria
Natural resource management bodies/Catchment management authorities in coastal regions
Shipping, oil and gas exploration and development agencies
Local government in coastal regions
19 References
Blower, D. C., Pandolfi, J. M., Bruce, B. D., Gomez-Cabrera, M. C., & Ovenden, J. R. (2012). Population genetics of Australian white sharks reveals fine-scale spatial structure, transoceanic dispersal events and low effective population sizes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 455,
229–244.
Bruce, B. D. (2008). The biology and ecology of the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias).
In M. Camhi, & E. K. Pikitch, Sharks of the Open Ocean (pp 69–81). Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
Bruce, B. D., & Bradford, R. W. (2008). Spatial dynamics and habitat preferences of juvenile white sharks: identifying critical habitat and options for monitoring recruitment. Final Report to the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts–Marine Species Recovery Program. CSIRO Hobart.
Bruce, B. D., & Bradford, R. W. (2011). The effects of berleying on the distribution and behaviour of white sharks, Carcharodon carcharias, at the Neptune Islands, South Australia. Final report to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. South Australia. Available on the internet at:
ftp.marine.csiro.au/pub/Bradford/Hayden/Bruce_Bradford_Effects_of_Berleying_2011.pdf
Bruce, B. D., & Bradford, R. W. (2012). Habitat use and spatial dynamics of juvenile white sharks, Carcharodon carcharias, in Eastern Australia. In M. L. Domeier, Global perspectives
on the biology and life history of the white shark. CRC Press.
Bruce, B. D., Stevens, J. D., & Bradford, R. W. (2005). Site fidelity, residence Times and home range patterns of white sharks around pinniped colonies. Final Report to the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage by CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research: Hobart, 40 pp. Available on the internet at:
www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/white-shark-pinniped/index.html
Bruce, B. D., Stevens, J. D., & Malcolm, H. (2006). Movements and swimming behaviour of white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) in Australian waters. Marine Biology 150, 161–172.
CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). (2004a). A Single Day Snapshot of the Trade in Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias). 13th Conference of the Parties, Information document 51, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
CITES (Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). (2004b). Appendix II Listing of the White Shark (revision 1). Available on the internet at:
www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/gwshark-appendix-2.html
CITES (Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). (2004c). Appendix III Listing of the white shark including identification manual.
www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/pubs/identify-whiteshark.pdf
CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). (2004d). 20th Meeting of the Animals Committee, Information document 23, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
Cliff, G., & Dudley, S. (2011). Reducing the environmental impact of shark-control programs:
a case study from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Marine and Freshwater Research 62, 700–709.
Cliff, G., Van der Elst, R. P., Govender, A., Witthun, T. K. & Bullen, E. M. (1996) First estimates of mortality and population size of white sharks on the South African coast. In A.P. Klimley & D. Ainley (eds) Great White Sharks: the biology of Carcharodon carcharias. Pp 393-400. Academc Press, San Diego.
DENR SA (Department of Environment and Natural Resources South Australia). (2012).
Shark dive licenses offered. Viewed 16 July 2012. Available on the internet at:
www.environment.sa.gov.au/Home/Full_newsevents_listing/News_Events_Listing/120629-sharklicences
DEWHA (Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) (2008). Review of the White Shark Recovery Plan 2002. Available on the internet at:
www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/white-shark.html
DSEWPaC (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (2013). Issues Paper for the White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias). Available on the internet at:
www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/sharks/greatwhite/index.html
EA (Environment Australia) (2002). White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Recovery Plan. Commonwealth of Australia. Available on the internet at:
www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/gwshark-plan/index.html
Fergusson, I., Compagno, L. J. V., & Marks, M. (2009). Carcharodon carcharias. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. Viewed: 11 July 2012. Available on the internet at: www.iucnredlist.org
Last, P. R, & Stevens, J. D. (2009). Sharks and Rays of Australia (Second Edition). CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria.
Malcolm, H., Bruce, B. D., & Stevens, J. D. (2001). A Review of the Biology and Status of White Sharks in Australian Waters. Report to Environment Australia, Marine Species Protection Program, CSIRO Marine Research. Hobart, pp 113.
NSW Fisheries. (1997). Great white shark protection in NSW, Fishnote, Rober Bell (ed), DF68:1-2.
Pardini, A. T., Jones, C. S., Noble, L. R., Kreiser, B., Malcolm, H., Bruce, B. D., Stevens, J. D., Cliff, G., Scholl, M. C., Francis, M., Duffy, C., & Martin, A. P. (2001). Sex biased dispersal of Great White Sharks. Nature 412, 139–140.
Pepperell, J. G. (1992). Trends in the distribution, species composition and size of sharks caught by gamefish anglers off south-eastern Australia, 1961−90. Australian Journal Marine and Freshwater Research 43, 213-225.
Presser, J. & Allen, R. (1995). Management of the white shark in South Australia. SA Fisheries Management Series, Paper 6, May 1995. Primary Industries, South Australian Department of Fisheries, Adelaide.
QOESR (Queensland Office of Economic and Statistical Research). (2012).
Shark control program. Available on the Internet at:
www.oesr.qld.gov.au/products/tables/shark-control-program-caught-type/index.php
Reid, D. D., & Krogh, M. (1992). Assessment of catches from protective shark meshing off New South Wales beaches between 1950 and 1990. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 43, 283–296.
Reid, D. D., Robbins, W. D., & Peddemors, V. M. (2011). Decadal trends in shark catches and effort from the New South Wales, Australia, shark meshing program 1950–2010. Marine and Freshwater Research 62, 676–693.
Woodhams, J., Viera, S. & Stobutzki, I. (eds). 2012. Fishery status reports 2011.
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.
Available on the internet at: www.daff.gov.au/abares/publications
20 Appendices
20.1 Appendix 1. Biologically important areas
Figure 1: Distribution, foraging and aggregation sites for the white shark identified through the Marine Bioregional Planning process.
20.2 Appendix 2. Progress on 2002 White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Recovery Plan
Table 3: Summary of the status of the actions identified in the 2002 White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Recovery Plan (EA, 2002).
A. Monitor and reduce the impact of commercial fishing
Prescribed Action | Criteria for Success | 2008 Review of Actions |
A1. Monitor level of | Relevant fisheries report | Partially completed. Most jurisdictions introduced reporting requirements for threatened species, including the white shark. |
A2. Relevant fisheries to modify logbooks to record bycatch of white shark. | Logbooks used within all relevant fisheries are modified by the end of 2002. | Completed. All jurisdictions have introduced logbooks for threatened species to facilitate reporting of white shark interactions. |
A.3. Observer programs | Observer programs | Partially completed. Most jurisdictions now have fishery observers in a number of fisheries that record information on target catch, bycatch and protected species interactions. |
A.4. Strengthen legislation, awareness and compliance to improve reporting of white shark mortality and bycatch, including recreational charters and finfish cage aquaculture operations. | Captures reported in | Partially completed. Education programs have been undertaken by states and the Australian Government. Reporting of interactions is also being streamlined through a number of memorandums of understanding (MoU) developed between the states and DSEWPaC. |
Prescribed Action | Criteria for Success | 2008 Review of Actions |
A.5. and A.6. Ensure that fisheries management plan review includes incorporation of actions that will assist the recovery of white shark; and Action A6: Where fisheries management plans are reviewed, consider actions to reduce white shark mortality. | All fisheries management plans that are accredited under EPBC Act contain actions that are consistent with the recovery of the | Completed and ongoing. When Australian Government fisheries management plans are made or reviewed they must consider provisions to avoid mortality of, or injuries to, protected marine species. The states also have provisions in place to consider the management of protected species in the state managed fisheries. |
B. Investigate and reduce the impact of recreational fishing.
Prescribed Action | Criteria for Success | 2008 Review of Actions |
B.1. Develop a standardised reporting format to record white shark bycatch and sightings and encourage fishers, including gamefishers and aquaculture operators, | Regular report detailing current catch levels is prepared for the recovery team annually. | Minimal action. Since the introduction of the White Shark Recovery Plan there have been no reports of incidental white shark take in Commonwealth or state waters from the recreational fishing sector. |
C. Monitor and reduce the impact of shark control activities
Prescribed Action | Criteria for Success | 2008 Review of Actions |
C.1. Numbers of white sharks taken in shark control activities monitored annually. | Take of white sharks in | Completed and ongoing. Comprehensive monitoring programs of shark control activities operate in Queensland and NSW. |
C.2. Develop and trial | Alternatives are | Minimal action. Alternate shark control methods have been trialled and changes have been made to the beach protection programs to reduce bycatch of non-target species. However, the programs still rely on lethal shark control methods and bottom set nets remain in place in NSW. |
C.3. Continue recording, tagging and biological sampling of shark | Records be made public. | Partially completed. The level of biological information gathered from animals captured in shark control programs (SCPs) in both Queensland and NSW has been poor to date. |
C.4. Undertake a review of the effectiveness of shark control programs on | Review undertaken within | Partially completed. |
Prescribed Action | Criteria for Success | 2008 Review of Actions |
C.5. Develop effective predator nets for finfish | Alternatives developed | Completed and ongoing. |
D. Identify and manage the impact of tourism
Prescribed Action | Criteria for Success | 2008 Review of Actions |
D.1. Examine the significance of deliberate attracting actions on the behaviour and movement of white sharks. | Research conducted to report to the Recovery Team within five years of this plan | Completed. The research concluded that the impacts of berleying appeared to have a localised effect increasing the detection rate of sharks for a relatively short period at sites close to the berleying operation but no significant long-term effects. |
D.2. Ensure minimised disturbance to white sharks by marine based tourism activities, including through development and implementation of code of conduct, and review of those codes and review effectiveness of existing codes of conduct, | Minimised disturbance | Completed. |
Prescribed Action | Criteria for Success | 2008 Review of Actions |
D.3. Support and continue a tag/resighting program with shark cage dive operators | Sightings recorded and reported to the permitting authority (DEHSA), PIRSA and CSIRO. | Ongoing. A tagging of white sharks and the logbook program has been maintained by CSIRO in conjunction with tour operators in South Australia since 1999. |
D.4. Ensure all people participating in tagging programs are trained to ensure minimal disturbance to white sharks. | All operators trained and permits for tagging programs. Include as one of the conditions that people undertaking tagging operations are trained. | Completed. Training programs are in place. |
E. Monitor and reduce the trade in white shark products.
Prescribed Action | Criteria for Success | 2008 Review of Actions |
E.1. Seek to establish a global prohibition of trade between countries in | The white shark is included on Appendix II of CITES | Completed. The white shark is now listed on Appendix II |
E.2. Prepare national plan of action for sharks to give effect to the FAO’s International Plan of Action for Sharks. | Australia submits the plan to FAO at COFI 2002. | Completed. |
E.3. Examine the extent of finning in Australia of white sharks and where necessary strengthen compliance with relevant legislation prohibiting the take of white sharks. | No white shark fins | Partially completed. |
Prescribed Action | Criteria for Success | 2008 Review of Actions |
E.4. Consider nominating the white shark on relevant international agreements, particularly Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. | The white shark is included on Appendix II of CMS. | Completed. |
F. Indentify habitat critical to the survival of white sharks and establish suitable protection of this habitat from threatening activities
Prescribed Action | Criteria for Success | 2008 Review of Actions |
F.1. Identify habitat critical to the survival of the species for the white shark. | Habitat critical for the survival of the white shark is identified, reported and listed on the register for critical habitat under the EPBC Act and relevant state legislation. | Ongoing. A number of projects were completed that increased understanding of critical white shark habitat. However, relatively little is still known about this species and further work on identifying critical habitat is important. |
F.2. Consider white shark habitat in identifying and managing marine protected areas throughout the white sharks range. | White shark habitat is a criteria used in developing the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA). | Completed and ongoing. |
G. Promote community education and awareness in relation to white sharks.
Prescribed Action | Criteria for Success | 2008 Review of Actions |
G.1. Develop a community education strategy for white sharks aimed at the general public, divers and commercial/game/recreational fishers including:
| A community education strategy is developed and being implemented by | Completed and ongoing. |
G.2. Develop awareness of reporting requirements of incidental catch and bycatch. | Increase in reports lodged and accuracy of information. | Partially completed. Information on reporting requirements regarding incidental interactions with white sharks is available on state and Commonwealth government websites. |
G.3. Encourage recreational and game fishing organisations to promote awareness of white shark biology, juvenile identification, conservation status and reasons for listing. | Evidence of targeted promotional/education activities provided annually | Minimal action. Recreational fishing groups have passed on information about the protected status of white sharks but this information has been limited in its scope. |
G.4. Explore avenues in tourism to promote greater understanding and acceptance of the need to protect white sharks. | Evidence of activities promoting an understanding of the need to protect the white shark provided annually to the Recovery Team. | Partially completed. Cage dive operators promote the white shark to their clients. Other avenues of promotion are used where appropriate. |
H. Develop research programs toward the conservation of white sharks.
Prescribed Action | Criteria for Success | 2008 Review of Actions |
H.1. Continue to undertake necropsies on all dead white sharks landed by fishers under permit. | Continuation of cooperation between CSIRO and states. | Ongoing. Necropsies are undertaken but not all white shark carcases are used. |
H.2. Develop a population dynamics model for the white shark to assist in understanding population status, rates of recovery | Model is developed within three years. | Not initiated. However, the importance of developing a population model remains, and this action should be |
H.3. Continue to collect and analyse genetic material to determine the genetic status of Australian white shark populations on a national |
| Partially completed. |
H.4. Continue research directed at determining characteristics of the white shark that will contribute to identifying the habitat | Research results are made publicly available. | Ongoing. Research into the white shark is ongoing. |
H.5. Evaluation of sublethal effects, cryptic mortality and scientific benefits of targeted/permitted tag and release activities be conducted. | Evaluation prepared and results agreed by scientific community and Environment Australia. | Not initiated. The importance of this action should be |
H.6. Request Coastwatch patrols to report sightings | Coastwatch provides reports on white shark sightings to Environment Australia. | Completed. |
I. Develop a quantitative framework to measure the recovery of the white shark.
Prescribed Action | Criteria for Success | 2008 Review of Actions |
I.1. Develop a quantitative framework to assess the recovery of the species. | Quantitative framework established to measure recovery of the species | Not initiated. Completion of this action requires a reliable baseline estimate of the white shark population in Australian waters and robust technique for measuring changes in |
I.2. Identify a central point/agency to take responsibility for the collection, storage and maintenance of data. | Central agency identified. | Minimal action. The CSIRO maintains most of the genetic sample material, but a centralised agency was |
20.3 Appendix 3. National Shark Recovery Group (NSRG)
Table 4: Organisations represented on the previous
National Shark Recovery Group (NSRG)
Organisation | Acronym |
Humane Society International | HSI |
Queensland Environment Protection Agency | QLD EPA |
Commonwealth Fisheries Association | ComFish |
Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry | DAFF |
Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment | DPIPWE |
Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce | TRAFFIC |
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation | CSIRO |
Primary Industries and Regions, South Australia | PIRSA — Fisheries |
Australasian Regional Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria | ARAZPA |
RecFish Australia | RecFish |
New South Wales Department of Primary Industries | NSW DPI |
Australian Institute of Marine Science | AIMS |
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority | GBRMPA |
Victorian Department of Primary Industries | Vic DPI |
Australian Fisheries Management Authority | AFMA |
Department of Fisheries Western Australia | WA Fisheries |
Northern Territory Department of Resources (Fisheries) | NT DOR |
Queensland Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry | QLD DAFF |
Indigenous Advisory Committee | IAC |