Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice,25 June 2012:

(1) Given that the shark product data collected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) is of a 'greater resolution' than that held by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), why is ABS data publically available yet AQIS will not publically release shark product export data for the period 2008 to 2011.

(2) Can a list be provided detailing the total quantity of shark fin exported under the trade codes FU0316 (shark fin) and FU0180 (dried shark fin), listed separately, for the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, including:

(a) the total quantity, by weight, for each export code;

(b) each Australian port from which the shark fin was exported; and

(c) the destination of the export.

(3) Can a list be provided detailing the total quantity of shark product exported under the trade codes FC0560, FF0520, FF0957, FF1226, FF1350, FF1702, FU0291, FU0299, FU0313, FU0388, FU0389, FU0414, FF0316 and FU0180, listed separately, for the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, including:

(a) the total quantity, by weight, for each export code;

(b) each Australian port from which the shark fin was exported; and

(c) the destination of the export.

(4) For the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, does the total quantity, by weight, of shark products exported under each of the above trade codes correspond with reported catches from Commonwealth, state and territory fisheries and reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

(5) Following the TRAFFIC review of South African shark imports and a subsequent letter from TRAFFIC to the former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Peter McGauran, in 2007, what measures has the Government taken to improve the quality of shark import and export data.

(6) What action has the Government taken to ensure imports of seafood into Australia are 'responsible', through being consistent with all elements of the FAO Technical Guidelines for the Responsible Fish Trade.

(7) Will the Government consider adopting a risk assessment method consistent with that being developed by TRAFFIC for the United Kingdom Joint Nature Conservation Committee as a way of identifying species that are not consistent with responsible fish trade.

(8) Will the Government consider adopting a similar regulation to that adopted by the European Union to limit the access of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) derived fisheries products into the Australian marketplace, by requiring the validation of all exports to Australia by Flag States that the products have been caught legally.

(9) Given that under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and, in particular, clause 9ZO (Prohibited ways of processing fish) of the Regulations made under section 14 of the Act, the caudal lobe and the dorsal, pectoral or caudal fins of sharks of the class Chondrichthyes may be removed from the carcass before the fish is landed and received by a fish receiver permit holder, a ban that enables species identification on landing and in turn monitoring that catches are within prescribed limits, protected species monitoring and compliance with legal size limits, for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012:

(a) to what extent has the Australian Fisheries Management Authority investigated compliance with this measure;

(b) how many shark landings (in-port), at sea and fish receiver inspections have been observed;

(c) how many compliance breaches were recorded and have any offenders been successfully prosecuted;

(d) if no compliance monitoring has taken place, why not; and

(e) if illegal shark finning activity has been recorded, what quantity of shark and shark fin, by weight, was apprehended.

(10) For the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012:

(a) how many foreign fishing vessels have been observed and apprehended fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone;

(b) how many of these vessels were in possession of shark or shark fin;

(c) what was the total quantity, by weight, of shark and shark fin taken illegally by foreign fishing vessels; and

(d) what was the composition (species) of the illegal take of sharks.

(11) Given that the 2007 Australian Institute of Criminology report, A national study of crime in the Australian fishing industry, identified evidence of illegal activity in obtaining shark fins and noted the high value of fins as a driver of illegal activity, stating: 'in the Northern Territory, stakeholders considered that large scale and well-organised shark finning had developed in northern Australia, with family groups and companies involved':

(a) what measures has the Government taken to address the issue since the publication of the report;

(b) what evidence is there that the measures have been successful; and

(c) if no action has been taken, why not.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

(1) The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) does not collect data for the purpose of public reporting. The information held by DAFF in relation to shark produce export data is commercial in nature and is not made publically available.

(2) A list of data for shark fin (and shark product) that includes the product descriptor codes, weight and destination can be provided for the previous 12 months. After 12 months, data is archived without the product descriptor code detail. Port information has not been included to protect the identity of individual businesses.

The following table contains shark fin and shark product data for the last 12 months (1 July 2011-30 June 2012) for the product descriptor codes (FC0560, FF0520, FF0957, FF1226, FF1350, FF1702, FU0291, FU0299, FU0313, FU0388, FU0389, FU0414, FU0316 and FU0180) by weight and destination.

The following table contains information retrieved from archives for 2008- 30 June 2011 for high level product type, weight and destination.

(3) Please refer to the response to Question 2.

(4) It is not possible to make a valid comparison between the total quantity of shark products exported with the reported catches from Commonwealth, state and territory fisheries, as reported to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. This is because:

(5) The World Customs Organization (WCO) sponsors and maintains the International Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. Australia is a signatory to the harmonized system. Since 1988, the harmonized system has formed the basis of Australia's commodity classifications for traded goods, including imports and exports, and the dissemination of international trade statistics. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service is the lead agency for its implementation in Australia, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics hold data on shark product exports which is derived using the harmonised system of tariff codes.

The WCO reviews the harmonized system every five years to reflect changes in industry practice, technological developments and changes in international trade patterns. The fourth and most recent review of the Harmonized System was completed in June 2010, and came into effect on 1 January 2012. These changes were implemented in Australia as part of the Customs Tariff Amendment (2012 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2011, which clarified several tariff lines relating to shark products, and created a new tariff line for shark fins (smoked, salted or dried).

Assessing the potential for a more comprehensive shark trade data collection system to improve shark conservation and management is also an action item in Australia's second National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (Shark Plan 2). Under the plan's operational strategy, DAFF will 'Assess the potential for more comprehensive trade data collection and analysis to improve shark conservation and management outcomes and implement a more comprehensive trade data collection system as appropriate'.

(6) Australia's systems are largely consistent with the voluntary FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fish Trade that were adopted in 2008. For example, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) provides a legal framework for the imports and exports of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) listed species.

The EPBC Act:

Australia does not require documentation with every import of seafood that attests to its conformance with the FAO's voluntary guidelines, and forcing compliance with these guidelines would not be consistent with free trade policy.

(7) The government is not currently considering a risk assessment method as a way of identifying species that are not consistent with responsible fish trade.

Australia assesses imports of fish products based on sanitary and phytosanitary standards, consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization, and whether imports comply with relevant measures adopted under those regional fisheries management organisations of which Australia is a member.

(8) Schemes to track fisheries products from catch to market place can be effective tools in combating illegal fishing. Catch documentation schemes should be appropriately adapted for the particular needs and objectives of the organisation or fishery to which it relates. In Australia's view, the European Union's (EU) scheme is not likely to be the most effective system for all fisheries or organisations.

Three of the organisations of which Australia is a member use catch documentation schemes to trace or monitor catch of specific fishery resources. This includes the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (southern Bluefin tuna), the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (toothfish) and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (bigeye tuna). A fourth, the Western Central Pacific Fishery Commission, is currently considering the most appropriate objectives and design for catch documentation schemes to monitor certain species.

Furthermore, Australia's market and trade characteristics are distinct from the EU, which is one of the world's largest import markets for fish products. As a result, the EU's regulation may not be the most appropriate approach for addressing Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing from an Australian perspective. Australia will continue to work with regional partners through the Regional Plan of Action (RPOA) to Promote Responsible Fishing Practices Including Combating Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing in the South East Asia Region and continue efforts under the Pacific Island Forum Fisheries Agency to address IUU in the region.

(9) Clause 9ZO of the Fisheries Management Regulations 1992 stipulates the way fish can be processed before being received by a fish receiver. In respect to sharks the clause states that no caudal lobe, dorsal, pectoral or caudal fin can be removed before being received by a fish receiver.

(a) AFMA has in place a comprehensive intelligence driven, risk based targeted domestic compliance program. Shark finning, along with other matters identified as posing risks to the integrity of AFMA's fisheries management arrangements, are monitored and treated by AFMA as part of its compliance program which includes targeted field inspections. These inspections of vessels and fish receiver premises are conducted based on risk analysis and relevant intelligence information holdings. These inspections monitor compliance levels against all Commonwealth fisheries management arrangements, including the landing and receipt of sharks. Since 2008 AFMA has investigated five specific matters concerning allegations of illegal shark finning.

(b) Field inspections conducted by AFMA are multi functional and not species specific. Consequently each inspection has the potential to detect illegal shark finning activities. The following table provides the breakdown on the total number of domestic field inspections covering all Commonwealth fisheries by financial year up to 30 June 2012.

(c) For the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2012 there was one breach recorded in relation to shark finning with the master of one fishing vessel being prosecuted and convicted. In this case the master was fined $4,000 plus court costs.

(d) Not applicable.

(e) Since 1 July 2008 AFMA has seized 24.1 kilograms of shark fin from one domestic operator.

(10)(a) The following table details the number of sightings of foreign fishing vessels and the number of illegal fishing vessels apprehended in the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2012. The sightings data does not reflect the actual number of illegal boats because it includes multiple sightings of the same vessels made on consecutive surveillance flights, sightings of fishing vessels legitimately transiting the AFZ and sightings of Indonesian sail powered vessels transiting to and from an area of waters inside the AFZ where they are permitted to fish.

Vessel Sightings and Apprehensions (to 30 June 2012)

Note: The Provisional Fisheries Surveillance and Enforcement Line (PFSEL) is a median line negotiated in 1981 between Australia and Indonesia to delimitate overlapping claims to Exclusive Economic Zones by both countries in waters north of Australia. Australia has undertaken not to exercise jurisdiction for fisheries surveillance and enforcement purposes in respect to swimming fish species north of the PFSEL against Indonesian licensed vessels.

(b) The following table details the number of vessels apprehended and the number of those vessels which were found to have shark product found on board for the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2012.

(c) No reliable data is available to determine the total quantity of shark fin taken illegally by foreign fishing vessels. The table below, however, provides details on the quantity of shark product found onboard those foreign vessels apprehended inside the AFZ.

Quantity of Shark Products Found on Board1 (to 30 June 2012)

1 The catch data is collated during the initial boarding at sea at the time of the apprehension

2 Weights and quantities provided are estimates provided by the boarding officer and have not been verified

3 Catch numbers and amounts are exclusive; catch is reported either by number or by weight

4 No information is available to split this data between fish and shark products

(d) The species composition of sharks taken by foreign fishing vessels inside the Australian Fishing Zone will vary depending on the location of the fishing activity and the type of fishing gear being used, however the main species taken by foreign fishing vessels in order of volume are Silky Shark, Blue Shark and Black Tip Shark.

(11) (a) Shark fisheries in waters off northern Australia are managed through joint authority arrangements between the Commonwealth, Queensland, Northern Territory (NT) and Western Australian governments. Through the joint authority arrangements, the States/NT have assumed responsibility for day to day management and this includes the enforcement of the relevant State/NT laws under which the fisheries are managed. In the Northern Territory the Police are the responsible agency for the enforcement of NT fisheries laws.

In other parts of Australia where the Commonwealth has jurisdiction over shark fishing AFMA has imposed a range of measures to address the risk of shark finning. These include the introduction of possession limits on the number of shark carcases which can be carried on board vessels and restrictions on the extent to which processing can be conducted at sea and the form in which fish processors are permitted to receive shark.

AFMA, through its general deterrence program, conducts targeted inspections of both Commonwealth endorsed fishing vessels and fish receiver premises to monitor compliance levels with a range of Commonwealth fisheries management arrangements (including the landing and receipt of shark carcasses).

(b) Between 2008-09 and 2011-12 AFMA's risk assessment rating associated with shark finning has declined. This is based on data analysis on catch landings and exports, the lack of credible evidence gleaned from investigations conducted into allegations of shark finning, a reduction in intelligence reports and allegations relating to shark finning and the low incidence of matters detected during targeted field operations.

(c) not applicable.