NSWIn ForceRegulation
Fisheries Management (General) Regulation 2019
240Criteria—reduction in abundance, geographic distribution or genetic diversity
Start here
Get a plain-English read of 240
Turn the raw legal text into a practical explanation grounded in Fisheries Management (General) Regulation 2019.
#### 240 Criteria—reduction in abundance, geographic distribution or genetic diversity
240 Criteria—reduction in abundance, geographic distribution or genetic diversity
> > (1) It is observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected that the population has undergone, or is likely to undergo, within a time frame appropriate to the life cycle and habitat characteristics of the taxon, a very large reduction in 1 or more of the following—
> >
> > > (a) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon,
> >
> > > (b) geographic distribution,
> >
> > > (c) genetic diversity.
>
> > (2) The Fisheries Scientific Committee must have regard to the following in determining the extent of the reduction referred to in subclause (1)—
> >
> > > (a) the rate of and trends in the reduction,
> >
> > > (b) the resilience of the population in relation to current or potential threatening processes,
> >
> > > (c) the ability of the population to recover rapidly from low numbers,
> >
> > > (d) the reproductive potential of the population in relation to the following—
> > >
> > > > (i) reproductive ecology and behaviour and the relationship of these to any threatening process or processes, and the probability of recruitment failure,
> > >
> > > > (ii) historical, anecdotal or scientific data suggesting a reduction in the production of eggs or progeny compared to the unexploited state, to an extent that the ability of the species to maintain viable populations has been compromised,
> > >
> > > > (iii) evidence of a reduction in the generation time and life span of the species relative to the unexploited state,
> > >
> > > > (iv) population density, and the significance of population density in the species’ reproductive strategies,
> > >
> > > > (v) effective population size,
> >
> > > (e) evidence of recovery from low numbers following the introduction of protection measures or changes to management strategies,
> >
> > > (f) the current management strategies in relation to life history and reproductive ecology,
> >
> > > (g) assessment of the probability of extinction,
> >
> > > (h) evidence of declining abundance across the population’s range for wide ranging or naturally rare or uncommon species,
> >
> > > (i) other aspects of the life history and ecology of the population, including any of the following—
> > >
> > > > (i) age and growth patterns,
> > >
> > > > (ii) habitat types and usages,
> > >
> > > > (iii) susceptibility to disease,
> > >
> > > > (iv) obligate migration requirements,
> >
> > > (j) restricted or disjunct populations of naturally rare and uncommon species,
> >
> > > (k) the precautionary principle, namely, that if there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the population, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent that damage,
> >
> > > (l) other supporting information, including the following—
> > >
> > > > (i) expert advice,
> > >
> > > > (ii) anecdotal information where there is independent verification,
> > >
> > > > (iii) written evidence, especially of a historical nature,
> > >
> > > > (iv) any other corroborating evidence.