Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
CHAPTER 6
Conclusions
6.1 Everyone supported the concept of
the subsidiary agreement, however, a number of submissions and witnesses
requested amendments or a gradual phasing out of Japanese access to facilitate
Australianisation. There was also unanimous support for Australia to join
the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission.
6.2 The Committee has concluded that the
continuation of the subsidiary agreements is beneficial from Australia's
point of view. Japan is an important market for tuna and countries such
as Korea, Indonesia that are not party to the CCSBT can supply tuna to
this market. A significant number of industries in Australia are dependent
on Japanese companies and Japanese marketing.
6.3 The Committee is not convinced, however,
that the subsidiary agreements need to be renewed on an annual basis.
There are a number of benefits outlined in this report that would support
a biennial or even a five year agreement. The Committee recommends that
the agreements run for at least two years.
6.4 The Committee was told that it will
be some time before the Australian long-line fleet enters the market for
frozen tuna as high value fresh chilled fish is much more lucrative. Therefore
some capacity remains for Japanese fishing vessels to continue to utilise
this resource in the AFZ.
6.5 A number of witnesses requested additional
exclusion zones to enable the local industry to develop. The Committee
supports this principle and believes that these changes should be implemented
where Australian fishermen can demonstrate they have the capacity to utilise
the resources in that area.
6.6 The Committee is concerned that if
the Japanese vessels operating under the bilateral arrangements are excluded
from an area, in some cases this can be accessed by Joint Venture vessels.
A matter of concern is the ease with which bilateral and Joint Venture
vessels can transfer from one arrangement to the other. As a matter of
urgency these arrangements need to be reviewed to ensure that this mechanism
for circumventing restrictions is addressed before the joint ventures
recommence in 1997.
6.7 The Committee is also concerned that
a number of prime pelagic species are not included in subsidiary agreements.
In some case there was inadequate knowledge on the sustainability of tuna,
billfish and swordfish species. Even if the global stocks are not in jeopardy,
in some cases there may be local stock depletions. The Committee commends
the research already in progress and supports a cautious approach in managing
these stocks.
6.8 The Committee believes that the current
linkage between port access and an annual agreement is not satisfactory
from a business perspective. Although the Committee appreciates that an
open port access policy is also unacceptable, the Commonwealth Government
should investigate other mechanisms for linking port access with Australia's
fisheries resource management objectives. The Committee has suggested
linking this with Japan's participation in the Convention for the Conservation
of Southern Bluefin Tuna.
6.9 The Committee believes that there
are substantial benefits to having port access dependent on the continuation
of Japan's participation in the CCSBT. It is imperative that Australia
not assist the capacity of other nations to fish in a manner which is
detrimental to the long term sustainability of some species. Japan has
already co-operated in implementing a number of environmental measures
requested by the Australian Government and it would not be in the Australian
fishing industry's long term interest to assist countries that have not
given the same undertakings.
6.10 In relation to environmental measures,
the Committee appreciates that making mitigation measures compulsory may
not be the most effective approach. For example, Japanese long-line tuna
fishermen have voluntarily installed bait throwers on a number of vessels.
Compulsory measures can only be applied in the EEZ and a persuasive approach
may be more appropriate to ensure they will also be used on the high seas.
6.11 The Committee was provided with a
number of conflicting views on the benefits and disadvantages of the bilateral
arrangements. The Committee believes that a full cost benefit analysis
could be undertaken to determine the true benefit of these agreements
to both countries. A number of issues may be resolved if this information
was available. A gradual approach may be necessary until a cost benefit
analysis is done on the impact of the subsidiary agreement on the local
commercial fishing and recreation fishing industries.
WL Taylor MP
Chairman
Back to top