CHAPTER 5

Joint Standing Committee on Treaties

TWO INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ON TUNA 3rd Report
CONTENTS

CHAPTER 5

Environmental Issues

5.1       Overall, the Department of Environment, Sport and Territories believes that the subsidiary agreement has been beneficial in relation to environmental issues although they would like to see a strengthening of some environmental controls. There has also been general support for the subsidiary agreement from conservation groups such as the Humane Society International, Australian Marine Conservation Society and TRAFFIC Oceania. It was suggested that these arrangements provide an avenue to pursue better conservation arrangements with Japan and other nations. TRAFFIC Oceania points out that these agreements go beyond Australian policy in fisheries management.

Environmental impact studies

5.2       The 1989 Policy Statement requires that when there is a lack of information about the status of the stock, a conservative approach is required. Government policy in relation to ecologically sustainable development also requires the precautionary principle be applied.

5.3       The DEST stressed that the level of its ability:

to advise governments and other departments is constrained by the fact that we do no have the information that we would like to have ... The biggest factor limiting our ability to provide a proper policy context for any decisions in the marine environment is that we do not have sufficient information about what is out there, and the cost of getting the information through scientific processes or the incidental information that comes through monitoring programs ... is very high and at some point there is a limit to how much information you get because of that limiting factor.

5.4       The Committee was also told that:

the whole challenge ... in relation to fisheries is the difficulty of trying to do things on an ecosystem basis when it is just so costly to try to get hold of information necessary to try to make judgements ... What we [AFMA] have endeavoured to do in terms of our organisation is to try to establish some reference points which we can use in the management of the more commercially and recreationally important species rather than try to allocate very limited research dollars to try to assess the whole environmental system ... whether that constitutes an ESD approach is questionable and people will have varying views about that.

5.5       Under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1975 there is an obligation for the Minister responsible for fisheries to refer matters which have the potential to be environmentally significant to the Minister for the Environment. The Australian National Audit Office expressed its concern that since the new fisheries legislation there had been no referrals under the Act to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It was pointed out that AFMA's second legislative objective relates to ecologically sustainable development.

5.6       AFMA defended this by stating:

When developing the 1991 legislation, discussions were held with the then Department responsible for the Environment, and an understanding was reached that the consultation provisions set out in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 adequately covered that Department's requirements in relation to providing public input into the development of Fisheries Management Plans in particular. In addition it was agreed that formal referral to the EPA was not necessary. In reaching this understanding, it was acknowledged that EPA would take the opportunity to comment as it saw fit.

5.7       The Committee also notes that specific written clearance was provided by the EPA in relation to the Southern Bluefin Management Plan and such clearances are currently required by the Minister.

Recommendation 14

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government formalises a process in which management plans relating to international fishing agreements require a specific written clearance from the Environment Protection Agency if they have significant potential environmental impacts.

5.8       DPIE, AFMA and the Environment portfolio regularly consult on potential environmental impacts, however, the DEST commented that it does:

not have all the information that comes to the Fisheries Management Authority for them to make their decisions.

5.9       The Committee notes that the summarised catch and effort data is made available to a range of groups such as CSIRO, BRS, ABARE, but the list provided in AFMA's submission did not include the Environment Portfolio. Further, the DEST considers that:

the limiting factor from our portfolio's point of view is that the amount of information available that we are not privy to.

Recommendation 15

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Minister responsible for fisheries requests the Department of Primary Industries and Energy to provide all relevant information to the appropriate Commonwealth environmental agencies for consideration of issues pertaining to the marine ecosystem

5.10       The Committee has been told that the costs of conducting a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are prohibitive but it was also pointed out that the loss of an industry or the loss of a species also have significant costs. Since 1989/90 around $25 million has been spent improving the scientific understanding of the global SBT by the CCSBT, governments and industry and this has resulted in a range of views that make the setting of the quotas a difficult and protracted process.

5.11       The CSIRO believes the costs and time involved would indicate that:

it would be more effective to mount a properly planned research investigation, looking at specific causes of concern, rather than a blanket impact statement.

5.12       Mr Evans told the Committee that there would be little gain in formally assessing the fishery as we are already aware of the impacts of albatross bycatch and the sustainability of the fish stocks. The development of a threat abatement planning process has opportunities for public input.

5.13       Further, the Committee was concerned that experimental fishing conducted by AFMA, in which large volumes of fish are taken are not always subjected to an EIS if CSIRO has approved projects. Whether a full EIS is achievable, practically or financially, the Committee believes there are a number of steps that can be taken to allow greater public scrutiny of these decisions.

Endangered or vulnerable species

5.14       The objective of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1973 (CITES) is to protect endangered species from over exploitation by means of a system of import/export permits. The treaty sets down limits in trade of species which are listed in Appendices I, II and III except where they accord with provisions of the Convention:

5.15       The Convention provides the opportunity to control trade through licensing and monitoring but in species threatened with extinction the convention can be used to regulate trade.

5.16       In 1982 Sweden and in 1994 Kenya, nominated the SBT for listing under CITES. The CITES Convention would require the licensing of nations trading in tuna to monitor the global progress in the species and this would provide the opportunity to include information from countries such as Korea and Indonesia. The basis of these nominations was that SBT stocks had declined significantly and that it was potentially threatened. The nominations were unsuccessful therefore CITES is unlikely to affect the application or the operation of the subsidiary agreement, or the operations of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission in relation to SBT in the short term.

5.17       Whether CITES is the best mechanism for securing more effective management of SBT needs to be resolved. DPIE agreed that there would be an improved level of information about catch levels and product movement in the international trading system, however:

There are issues there in terms of the sheer volume and practicalities of regulating trade through the CITES mechanisms in a large scale commercially traded product of that sort.

5.18       Another area of concern raised with the Committee was:

The criteria used to determine 'endangered' or 'vulnerable' are quite clearly based on historical data in relation to mammals and birds, not to fish, and it is very hard to determine with accuracy whether a species is in fact declining, increasing or stable.

5.19       The Humane Society International also told the Committee that:

The fact of life is that right now any nominations for the southern bluefin tuna, either for the federal act or in Victoria or Tasmania, will not succeed. They are not geared to deal with nominations for marine beasties other than whales, or marine mammals, in fact. Fish will be rejected.

5.20       This situation is relevant to those species which may be fished by Japanese fishing vessels under the subsidiary agreements such as SBT and some bycatch species, but is also relevant to the management of fisheries in the Australia Fishing Zone and the Committee's recommendation is therefore more general.

Recommendation 16

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government reviews, as a matter of urgency, Commonwealth legislation to ensure that the nomination for the listing of fish as endangered or threatened is based on merit and not impeded by anomalies in the wording of the legislation or administrative procedures.

Recommendation 17

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government requests that State and Territory governments review, as a matter of urgency, their legislation to ensure that the nominations for the listing of fish as endangered or threatened is based on merit and not impeded by anomalies in the wording of their relevant legislation or administrative procedures.

5.21       In London in 1995, the World Wildlife Fund and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) specialists groups on threatened species reviewed marine fish globally and concluded that SBT was a greatly endangered species. The Humane Society International therefore suggests that the listing of SBT under CITES will enhance the management of this species.

5.22       There is an opposing view that fish species cannot be made extinct by commercial fishing because once catch levels are no longer commercially viable, they will no longer be targeted. It is noted, however, that even though these species may be no longer targeted specifically, significant numbers may be taken as bycatch by long-line vessels and purse seining operations which would continue to have the capacity to adversely affect residual stocks.

5.23       Although the nomination of SBT stocks for listing under the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 was not successful, the endangered species scientific subcommittee recommended a watching brief and AFMA has prepared annual stock assessments. Should the nomination be agreed to by the Minister then the Australian Nature Conservation Agency would be required to implement a recovery plan or a threat abatement plan.

5.24       Fishing activities may also be subjected to obligations under the Biological Diversity Convention in 1992 and National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975.

Environmental research funding

5.25       The access fee funds a substantial amount of research on tuna stocks in Australian waters. In 1995-96, $680 000 was provided for research into SBT stocks and related species.

5.26       The Japanese Overseas Fisheries Co-operation Foundation also provides funding for the experimental farming of SBT in South Australia and a number of co-operative research programs with Japan.

Bycatch

5.27       The bycatch of marlin, swordfish and sailfish has been largely covered in Chapter 3 and is only dealt with briefly in this section.

5.28       The work conducted by CSIRO largely targets SBT but little is known about the bycatch and the impact of long-line fishing on the bycatch populations. The research program based on observers on fishing vessels has confirmed and quantified the bycatch problem.

5.29       The life-status of billfish caught by Japanese long-line vessels on the east coast from 1982 and 1995 found that 70 per cent of black marlin, 61 per cent of blue marlin, 46 per cent of striped marlin, 49 per cent of broadbill swordfish, 80 per cent of sailfish and 76 per cent of spearfish were dead when brought on board.

5.30       It was suggested, however, that catches of non-target species are higher when observers are on board Japanese vessels. The Western Australia Government believes that the raw data suggests that this is the case in relation to the take of billfish. It was point out that further statistics will need to be collected to determine if this variation is statistically significant.

5.31       Some Japanese licenses permit the landing of Ray's Bream and Blue Whaler Sharks. Purdon and Featherstone land and process the blue whaler shark and Ray's Bream which are bycatch by Japanese long-line vessels. DEST is also concerned about the incidental capture of other marine life such as cetaceans, turtles and marine mammals.

Shark

5.32       The compliance with the Shark Code of Conduct is monitored through the observer program and is taken into account and the reporting of catches has been incorporated into the VMS monitoring system. The Committee was told that the finning and other practices have now been eradicated from operations.

5.33       TRAFFIC Oceania fully support the implementation of the shark by-catch code. The Humane Society International believes that sharks are a major conservation issue. The Committee was told that there is evidence of stock declines in all shark species off Tasmania except Tiger sharks.

5.34       The Humane Society International expressed its concern in relation to the paragraph in the Subsidiary Agreement 1996 that states that:

The Japanese delegation stated that the Japanese tuna long-line fishing industry is to continue to make its best efforts to identify possible markets for shark in cooperation with the Australian tuna fishing industry.

5.35       The status of some shark species has been brought to the attention of the CITES convention. The Conservation Council of Western Australia also expressed concern that the Southern Shark fishery is not adequately protected as sharks are slow to mature, bear live young and have low reproductive potential which makes them vulnerable to over-exploitation.

Seabirds

5.36       DEST considers the most significant environmental concern is the bycatch of particular species of seabirds. The 'incidental catch' of seabirds by long-line vessels was declared a key threatening process on 24 July 1995 under the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (ESP Act) and 14 species of seabirds are considered potentially at risk. It is the only activity added to the ESP Act since it was enacted in 1992 and it is the first key threatening process to be listed that relates to marine areas.

5.37       Globally there are 44 000 albatross killed annually through long-line fishing. Another three albatross species have been nominated for listing under the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992.

5.38       Wandering albatross can live to be 60 years old. Most of the wandering albatross killed by long-line vessels are young birds. The estimated bykill of wanderers is about the same as the number of chicks reaching fledgling stage so there is no recruitment. Wanderers do not breed until they are 11 years old and need to live to 30 years on average to replace themselves in their breeding population.

5.39       Currently the albatross is considered the most seriously under threat although it is not known to what extent the other species can sustain the current level of bykill.

5.40       For wandering albatross populations the female birds forage in regions with high levels of long-line fishing which has resulted in populations in which the males outnumber females by 2 to 1. ATBOA has agreed to the listing of the albatross under the Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1979 (Bonn Convention). Proposals have been made to nominate several other albatross species under the Bonn Convention.

5.41       The Australian Nature Conservation Agency is consulting with industry, regulatory bodies and other interested parties in relation to mechanisms to reduce the risk to birds.

5.42       The Committee was told that:

As a consequence of the ESPAct listings, the Southern Bluefin Tuna Management Plan prepared under ss.17-20 of the Fisheries Management Act, and statutory fishing rights to fish for tuna in the AFZ (ss. 21-22), must now be revised.

5.43       The Southern Oceans Seabird Study Association (SOSSA) believes that:

changes in long-line procedures, quotas or methods should always be evaluated for effect on effort. More hooks set translate to more by-kill. Quota increases should be granted conditional to a demonstrated decrease in effort.

5.44       The Committee was told that:

It is not possible to overstate the significance of the global approach to management of the fishery and in particular Australia's role in fostering adoption of measures to mitigate bycatch of seabirds. The bycatch problem is in fact greatest on the high seas ... There is, however, considerable progress yet to be made before the future survival of many species is secured.

5.45       Long-line fishing intensified in the early 1960s but the albatross effects were not detected until the mid 1980s. The point was made that 11 years later there has been very little progress. SOSSA believes that the only way to achieve an adequate reduction in seabird death is to set a zero target for bykill.

5.46       Evidence to the Committee indicates that none of the existing technologies can prevent the seabird bykill and that a number of techniques may need to be applied simultaneously to reduce the level of bycatch. Albatross are very aggressive and fearless so it is difficult to stop them attacking the bait. However, there appears to be a culture of minimisation rather than elimination of the albatross kills although the Committee appreciates this is a complex and difficult problem to deal with.

5.47       Australia is actively seeking action on seabird bycatch through the Commission on the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna but this relies on Japan's agreement. Fishermen are also given publications such as Japanese cartoons on Catch Fish Not Birds and the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife have been working to change the overall culture towards seabird catches.

5.48       The point was made that if the Japanese do not continue to utilise the EEZ then they will increase the activity on the high seas thus there will be a greater chance of catching birds.

5.49       The CCSBT has established an ecologically related species working group to enable consultation on technical details of bird mitigation measures in the high seas environment. The group comprises scientists and conservationists from three sides in the hope of finding some agreement on behaviour on the high seas.

5.50       Such consultation provides the opportunity to change behaviour on the high seas by consensus as it is appreciated that the EEZ is only a small part of the territory which is inhabited by the albatrosses. The Japanese and the Taiwanese now use seabird mitigation measures on the high seas because it makes good economic sense. Negotiations for the subsidiary agreements have facilitated this process.

5.51       Any bycatch of seabirds has an economic impact on the industry because every hook taken by birds is not available to catch fish, by reducing the efficiency of the catch and potential economic benefits. The financial costs of bird bycatch can be significant if viewed in terms of failing to catch a $5 000 tuna on that hook. The Committee was also told that birds can pull the fishing gear so that it is not set correctly.

     (i) Role of observers

5.52       One of the main problems is getting adequate statistics on bird bycatch. Information is obtained from the Japanese vessels fishing in the EEZ in relation to the ways in which seabirds are being caught. The monitoring of the seabird catch on Japanese vessels provided the first comprehensive data the Japanese fishing industry has allowed some monitoring on the high seas.

5.53       The observer program cost $800 000 in 1995 and it was suggested that observers undertake additional research while on board such as the use and effectiveness of mitigation measures. ATBOA suggests the use of specialist seabird observers to accelerate technological and education solutions.

5.54       DEST also believes that bycatch requirements could be strengthened by broadening observer coverage on long-line vessels and the use of additional observers to report exclusively on bycatch issues would provide information for future environmental management. It was brought to the Committee attention that long-line fishing observers had been trained in some aspects of bykill data collection but that this needed upgrading to improve date quality.

5.55       The Committee was told that observers are trained to identify seabirds and that all seabirds caught on Japanese long-line vessels while the observers are on board are retained and taken back to the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service for identification.

5.56       Participants in the workshop on the Incidental Mortality of Albatrosses Associated with Long-line Fishing proposed the establishment of national and international observer programs to quantify the extent of seabird interaction with long-line vessels.

Recommendation 18

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that a specialist observer training program be introduced with additional emphasis on seabird research, the collection of data on seabird bycatch and the effectiveness of seabird bycatch mitigation methods.

Recommendation 19

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government produces an "easy to use" guide to the identification of seabirds which is to be issued to Japanese vessels including Joint Venture vessels at the time of the pre-fishing inspection.

5.57       A co-operative approach to the elimination of seabird bycatch may be the best approach. It was brought to the Committee's attention that taking an albatross 'knowingly' and 'recklessly' is illegal but it is difficult to obtain evidence to take someone to court. Therefore enforcement is the issue. There is also some doubt as to the effectiveness of mitigation devices currently available. The best options appear to be tori poles, bait throwers, night setting and bait thawing.

5.58       The Committee has been told that the Japanese have not been reluctant to put in place bird mitigation measures but were not previously aware of mechanisms that could prevent bird catches. Australian boats catch fewer birds because they are smaller and the lines are released a lot closer to the water and they set fewer hooks.

     (ii) Tori poles

5.59       Tori poles are simply poles with a long line travelling into the water with streamers on it and are now mandatory on Japanese long line vessels. These are designed to act as a scarecrow to deter birds from taking the bait until it has sunk.

Figure 8. Diagram of a tori pole

Figure 8. Diagram of a tori pole

5.60       Early results suggest a 30 - 75 per cent reduction in seabird bykill and are considered to be effective, reliable and practical. The results from New Zealand tests indicate that the effectiveness of tori poles depends on the number of streamers, length of tori lines, the height above the water and the position relative to where the baits enter the water.

5.61       The use of tori poles is monitored by the observer program, surveillance flights and port inspections. It was pointed out, however, that there is also an education and awareness process as well as the compliance program. It is important then that Australia leads by example. SOSSA does not believe that Australian fishermen will implement bykill threat abatement procedures as readily as the Japanese.

     (iii) Night setting

5.62       Night setting is considered the most effective, reliable and practical mitigation method. Setting the lines at night avoids catching albatrosses but will catch other seabird species such as shearwaters and the white-chinned petrel. Night setting is not always appropriate as some albatrosses and petrels are active on moonlit nights and lighting on the boat may adversely effect the success of this technique. Initial results of night setting indicate a 70 to 96 per cent reduction in seabird bykill.

5.63       Australian vessels tend to set at night so that bycatch of seabirds is minimal while Japanese vessels set 24 hours a day. It was pointed out, however, that it is not always possible to set at night as this depended on the target species, the area of water, the water temperature and other species present in the water.

     (iv) Bait throwing equipment

5.64       Bait throwers designed in Australia are proving effective. The bait is thrown to the side of the vessels to avoid it being brought to the surface 100 metres aft by the propeller wash. Over 100 Japanese boats have installed bait throwers and it is being used increasingly on Taiwanese vessels. Depending on the design, a 60-80 per cent reduction in bykill may be achieved.

5.65       Some countries are conducting research into mechanisms which will set lines underwater. Work is being undertaken in New Zealand and Norway on methods of deploying the baits below the surface including a hydraulic ram which sends the bait down 20 to 30 feet. A mechanism that shoots the line from the hull so that the hooks do not appear on the surface is working in some long-liners in the Northern Hemisphere.

     (v) Thawed baits

5.66       Early indications are that 50 to 70 per cent reduction in seabird bykill can be achieved by thawing baits. DEST suggests the use of baits without swimbladders although these tend to collapse during thawing.

     (vi) Monofilament mainlines

5.67       The Committee was told that:

at the same time as the bait throwers, the tori poles and everything came in, the Japanese changed to monofilament tracers on their long-lines. Monofilament is a lot lighter, so the baits floated for a longer period on the surface and this virtually offset the effect of the bait throwers and tori poles. So the bycatch rate did not actually drop.

5.68       The introduction of monofilament mainlines by Japanese vessels in the 1990s has increased the numbers of seabirds killed. The use of this type of line is decreasing and should disappear in a few years.

5.69       DEST also suggested the use of weighted branch lines. A number of issues need to be resolved including crew safety before the effectiveness of using weighted branch lines can be determined. Investigations are being conducted into their use.

     (vii) Other mitigation methods

5.70       Other mitigation methods include not discharging offal during line setting, changes in boat design and education of fishing vessel operators and area or seasonal closures of fishing zones. Mitigation measures being developed include colouring the bait, hook design such as smart hooks, artificial bait and identification of best setting techniques.

     (viii) Threat Abatement Plan

5.71       In 1996 Senator Faulkner announced $1.13 million over 4 years towards a recovery and threat abatement plan. The threat abatement plan is looking at a suite of measures to reduce albatross bykill. The plan will address the plight of 13 other albatross and shearwater species in addition to the wanderer which are directly killed by long-line vessels. It was estimated that in 1994 there were 6 500 albatross killed in southern waters of the EEZ.

5.72       The effectiveness of the threat abatement plan may depend on a number of legal issues. The threat abatement plan must have regard for social and economic impacts (ESP Act section 34(2)(c)) which may limit the effectiveness in protecting albatross species.

5.73       Further, it was pointed out that Section 71 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 excuse fishing activities from 'any onerous legal responsibility' to prevent the incidental take of marine species (r. 55(7)(b)) and few marine species are listed under CITES.

5.74       It was suggested to the Committee that the subsidiary agreement should contain mandatory measures. However, it was argued that conservation organisations including those that have designed the tori poles and the bait throwers have resisted making these compulsory as they believe that making them voluntary will promote their use on the high seas.

5.75       ATBOA expressed its concern at the lack of progress on the Threat Abatement Plan as the first meeting was not scheduled until October 1996. The Committee was told that not a lot of research is being done into mitigation measures to prevent seabird bycatch pending the development of the threat abatement plan which still has two years to go.

5.76       The Committee is concerned that this may slow the progress of this research and urges the Government to ensure that this does not occur. Mitigation measures developed as soon as possible would enable their use to be incorporated in the threat abatement plan. It was suggested to the Committee that the general impression from research facilities and fishery agencies is that the albatross bycatch could be greatly reduced 'without a lot of pain and investment in the technology to reform the fishing methods'.

Recommendation 20

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government expedites research into eliminating bird bycatch as a matter of priority.

5.77       The workshops and meetings for developing the threat abatement plan have now commenced. The Committee supports the consultation process being conducted with a range of interested parties. The Committee would like to see this broadened, however, to include representatives from New Zealand and Japan.

5.78       The Japanese long-line fishing vessels operating in the Australian EEZ will be required to implement the requirements imposed as a result of the findings of the threat abatement plan. Research is currently being conducted in New Zealand into mitigation measures to avoid seabird bykill. The Committee therefore believes that the participation of representatives from these two countries could be beneficial to the process and would further the extent of international co-operation.

Recommendation 21

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government formally invites representatives from Japan and New Zealand to participate in the development of the Threat Abatement Plan.

5.79       Australia is a signatory to CITES and cannot continue to permit the bykill of an endangered species.

5.80       There are a number of other conventions and agreements that may have impact on the terms and conditions of the subsidiary agreements.

     (ix) Other Agreements

Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1979 (Bonn Convention)

5.81       The Convention provides a framework for enhancing the conservation status of rare and threatened migratory species, including marine species. Under this Convention Australia is obliged to enter into regional, bilateral and multilateral agreements to ensure effective conservation of migratory species.

5.82       In May 1993, at the Scientific Council of the Bonn Convention, Australia supported the development of an International Agreement for the Conservation of the Albatross in the Southern Hemisphere.

5.83       Japan is not a party to the Bonn Convention but may become a party to regional agreements for the management of migratory species. While the Bonn Convention may impose prohibitions on the direct take of listed species, sovereign states may take out reservations on listings, exempting them from the Conventions provisions.

5.84       The Australian Nature Conservation Agency told the Committee that the Bonn Convention would not provide an alternative for addressing the albatross bykill from long-line tuna vessels should the subsidiary agreements not be renewed. The Bonn Convention may assist in that it offers a co-operative mechanism where a number of countries may participate in determining what is happening to the albatross population globally. Further, it could provide a international mechanism to seek co-operation of the those fishing under other conventions to cooperate in addressing this issue.

Agreement for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and their Environment between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan 1974

5.85       This bilateral agreement reinforces the Ramsar Convention as well as extending Australia's commitment to protect migratory birds other than waterfowl, birds in danger of extinction and their environment. This treaty recognises the international concerns for the protection of migratory birds under the threat of extinction. Article III of the treaty states that:

each Government shall take special protective measures, as appropriate, for the preservation of species or subspecies of birds which are in danger of extinction.

5.86       The treaty also discusses the exchange of data and publications regarding research on migratory birds in danger of extinction and encourages joint research and conservation ventures.

5.87       Among the birds listed in the annex to the agreement is the Wandering Albatross (Diomedea exulans) which is directly affected as a result of Japanese long-line fishing.

Concluding comments

5.88       The Committee is aware of the considerable progress that has been made in recent years in relation to obtaining information collected on bycatch species and other environmental issues. There is obviously still a substantial amount of work to be done and the Committee appreciates that environmental research is expensive and takes considerable time.

5.89       There are a number of areas, however, where the Committee would like to see improvements made in the short term. The Committee would like to see a greater involvement of DEST in the negotiation process.

5.90       The Committee is also concerned that the development of the threat abatement plan may provide an excuse for not proceeding with research into measures to eliminate seabird bycatch.

5.91       The Committee is aware that there is considerable research being conducted into the bycatch of marlin and other species. The Committee would like to see a prohibition on the retention of marlin species until research has determined the impact of long-line fishing on the local stocks within the EEZ.

5.92       There were also a number of legal anomalies raised with the Committee that are believed to hinder conservation efforts. The Committee urges the Government to review the relevant legislation to ensure that environmental measures can be implemented when deemed appropriate.

[1] Morvell, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 64

[2] Kennedy, Transcript, 9 September 1996, p. 182-183, Sant Transcript, 9 September 1996, p. 201; 3 Australian Marine Conservation Society, Submission No. 20, p. S 97

[3] Sant, Transcript, 9 September 1996, p. 183

[4] Morvell, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 64

[5] Stevens, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 40

[6] Macartney, Transcript, 16 September 1996, p. 211

[7] Ibid, p. 211

[8] Australian National Audit Office, Commonwealth Fisheries Management , Australian Fisheries Management Authority Audit Report No. 32 1995-96 Performance Audit, Volume 2, p. 48

[9] Ibid, p. 48

[10] Morvell, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 60

[11] Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Submission No. 25, p. S 118

[12] Morvell, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 60

[13] Kennedy, Transcript, 9 September 1996, p. 198

[14] Tuna Boat Owners Association of Australia Inc, Submission No. 44, p. S 323

[15] Young, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 90

[16] Evans, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p. 266

[17] Ibid, p. 266

[18] Kennedy, Transcript, 9 September 1996, p. 197

[19] Ibid, p. 184

[20] Kennedy, Transcript, 9 September 1996, p. 184

[21] Ibid, p. 184

[22] Harwood, Transcript, 10 October 1996, p. 409

[23] Ibid, p. 409

[24] Ibid, p. 184

[25] Ibid, p. 185

[26] Ibid, p. 184

[27] Ibid, p. 185

[28] McNee, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 58

[29] Ibid, p. 59

[30] Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Submission No. 36, p. S 213

[31] Harwood, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 13-14

[32] Stevens, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 26

[33] Ibid, p. 26

[34] Young, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 91

[35] Premier of Tasmania, Submission No. 39, p. S 232-233

[36] Billfish Assessment Group (1996) Synopsis on the Billfish Stocks and Fisheries within the Eastern AFZ, September 1996, p. 32

[37] Stone, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 366

[38] Millington, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p. 247

[39] Ibid, p. 247

[40] Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Submission No. 25, p. S 116

[41] Purdon & Featherstone, Submission No. 17, p. S 90

[42] Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Submission No. 36, p. S 212

[43] Exel, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 37-38

[44] Ibid, p. 38

[45] Sant, Transcript, 9 September 1996, p. 183

[46] Kennedy, Transcript, 9 September 1996, p. 200

[47] Goadby, Submission No. 7, p. S 23

[48] Kennedy, Transcript, 9 September 1996, p. 199

[49] Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Submission No. 33, p. S 177

[50] Conservation Council of Western Australia, Submission No. 29, p. S 153

[51] McNee, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 57

[52] Evans, Supplementary Submission No. 38.1, p. S 435

[53] Kennedy, Transcript, 9 September 1996, p. 193

[54] Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Submission No. 36, Attachment 1, p. S 217

[55] Battam H and Smith L (1994) Report on Review and Analysis of: Albatross Banding Data held by the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Schemes Other Relevant Data, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service Research and Surveys Consultancy Agreement No. 138, Volume 1.1, 31 January 1994, p. 16

[56] Battam, Transcript, 15 October 1996, p. 432

[57] Ibid, p. 433

[58] Southern Oceans Seabird Study Association, Submission No. 45, p. S 346

[59] Tuna Boat Owners Association of Australia Inc, Submission No. 44, p. S 335

[60] Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Submission No. 33, p. S 177

[61] McNee, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 61

[62] Evans, Supplementary Submission No. 38.1, p. S 436

[63] Southern Ocean Seabird Study Association, Submission No. 45, p. S 347

[64] Premier of Tasmania, Submission No. 39, p. S 233

[65] Battam, Transcript, 15 October 1996, p. 434

[66] Ibid, p. 434

[67] Southern Ocean Seabird Study Association, Submission No. 45, p. S 346

[68] Romaro, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p. 320

[69] Harwood, Transcript, 10 October 1996, p. 407

[70] Exel, Transcript, 10 October 1996, p. 407-408

[71] Smith, Transcript, 15 October 1996, p. 435

[72] Hermes, Transcript, 15 October 1996, p. 436

[73] Ibid, p. 436

[74] Jeffriess, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 348

[75] McNee, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 62

[76] Romaro, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p. 321

[77] Pike, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 362; Puglisi, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 362

[78] Battam, Transcript, 15 October 1996, p. 427

[79] Harwood, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 22

[80] CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Submission No. 10, p. S 33

[81] Jeffriess, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 357

[82] Tuna Boat Owners Association of Australia Inc, Submission No. 44, p. S 335

[83] Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Submission No. 36, p. S 215

[84] Battam H and Smith L (1994) Report on Review and Analysis of: Albatross banding Data held by the Australian Bird and Bat banding Schemes Other Relevant Data, 31 January 1994, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service Research and Surveys Consultancy Agreement No. 138, p. 14

[85] Ward, Transcript, 15 October 1996, p. 430

[86] Ribertson G, Gales R and Brothers N (1996) Report on the Workshop on the Incidental Mortality of Albatrosses Associated with Long-line Fishing, Preliminary Draft, October 1996, p. 8

[87] Kennedy, Transcript, 9 September 1996, p. 194

[88] Pike, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 363; Jeffries, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 363

[89] Battam, Transcript, 15 October 1996, p. 430-431

[90] Exel, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 33

[91] Report of the first meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna Ecologically Related Species Working Group, Wellington, New Zealand, 18-20 December 1995, p. 26

[92] Ibid, p. 26

[93] Exel, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 32

[94] Stevens, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 32

[95] Southern Ocean Seabird Study Association, Submission No. 45, p. S 347

[96] Report of the first meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna Ecologically Related Species Working Group, Wellington, New Zealand, 18-20 December 1995, p. 26

[97] Romaro, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p. 320; Exel, Transcript, 10 October 1996, p. 408; Battam, Transcript, 15 October 1996, p. 427

[98] Battam, Transcript, 15 October 1996, p. 427; Report of the first meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna Ecologically Related Species Working Group, Wellington, New Zealand, 18-20 December 1995, p. 27

[99] Report of the first meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna Ecologically Related Species Working Group, Wellington, New Zealand, 18-20 December 1995, p. 26; Jeffriess, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 359

[100] Lister, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 171

[101] Rowley, Transcript, 16 September 1996, p. 234

[102] Jeffriess, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 359-360, 362

[103] Kruimink, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 174

[104] Tuna Boat Owners Association of Australia Inc, Submission No. 44, p. S 329

[105] Report of the first meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna Ecologically Related Species Working Group, Wellington, New Zealand, 18-20 December 1995, p. 26

[106] McNee, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 61

[107] Smith, Transcript, 15 October 1996, p. 428; Rowley, Transcript, 16 September 1996, p. 233

[108] Harwood, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 21

[109] Report of the first meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna Ecologically Related Species Working Group, Wellington, New Zealand, 18-20 December 1995, p. 27

[110] Battam, Transcript, 15 October 1996, p. 428: Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Submission No. 36, p. S 216

[111] Battam, Transcript, 15 October 1996, p. 428

[112] Report of the first meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna Ecologically Related Species Working Group, Wellington, New Zealand, 18-20 December 1995, p. 27

[113] Ibid, p. 27

[114] Department of Environment Sport and Territories, Submission No. 36, p. S 216

[115] Report of the first meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna Ecologically Related Species Working Group, Wellington, New Zealand, 18-20 December 1995, p. 27

[116] Harwood, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 22

[117] Report of the first meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna Ecologically Related Species Working Group, Wellington, New Zealand, 18-20 December 1995, p. 27; Ribertson G, Gales R and Brothers N (1996) Report on the Workshop on the Incidental Mortality of Albatrosses Associated with Long-line Fishing, Preliminary Draft, October 1996, p. 13

[118] Ribertson G, Gales R and Brothers N (1996) Report on the Workshop on the Incidental Mortality of Albatrosses Associated with Long-line Fishing, Preliminary Draft, October 1996, p. 14

[119] Faulkner J (1195) Media Release Labor Government to take International Lead in Albatross Conservation, 22 February 1996

[120] McNee, Transcript, 10 October 1996, p. 407

[121] Humane Society International, Submission No. 22, p. S 102

[122] Ibid, p. S 102

[123] Evans, Supplementary Submission No. 38.1, p. S 439

[124] Ibid, p. S 440

[125] Evans, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p. 272

[126] Exel, Transcript, 10 October 1996, p. 408

[127] Tuna Boat Owners Association of Australia Inc, Submission No. 44, p. S 335

[128] Evans, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p. 269

[129] Ibid, p. 271

[130] Southern Ocean Seabird Study Association, Submission No. 45, p. S 347

[131] McNee, Transcript, 10 October 1996.p. 406.

[132] Ibid, p. 406

[133] Ibid, p. 406

[134] Ibid, p. 406