{"id":"F2007B00291","name":"Sub-antarctic Fur Seal and Southern Elephant Seal Recovery Plan 2004-2009","slug":"sub-antarctic-fur-seal-and-southern-elephant-seal-recovery-plan-2004-2009","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":62013,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2007B00291-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"Background","sectionType":"part","heading":"Background","content":"# Background\n\nThe Sub-antarctic Fur seal Arctocephalus tropicalis and Southern Elephant seal Mirounga leonine are carnivorous marine mammals of the cold southern ocean. In Australian waters, both species breed and haul out mainly on Macquarie and Heard Islands, but individuals range widely and occasionally reach the beaches of Tasmania and the Australian mainland. Both species are listed as Vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), triggering the preparation of this recovery plan, which is set out in accordance with Part 13, Division 5 of the EPBC Act. Background information on the biology, population status and threats to the Sub-antarctic Fur seal and the Southern Elephant seal can be found at [http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity](http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity)\n\nObjective (270(2)(a))\n\nTo maintain existing levels of protection for the Sub-antarctic Fur and Southern Elephant seals to enable population growth so that these species may be removed from the threatened species list under the EPBC Act, and to ensure that any future anthropogenic impacts are not limiting.\n\nThreats (270(2)(ca))\n\nHistorically, the main threat to the Sub-antarctic Fur seal and the Southern Elephant seal has been hunting and over-harvest. Neither activity currently occurs.\n\nAmong the many potential threats to both seal populations are competition and interaction with legal and illegal fisheries, marine pollution of various kinds including oil and non-biodegradable debris, climatic and oceanographic change, increased predation, disease outbreaks, and direct disturbance from tourism, research or ignorant interference. At present, none of these, with the possible exception of climatic and oceanographic change, appear to present a significant threat to populations of either Sub-antarctic or Southern Elephant seals, but they may pose real risks to some individuals.\n\nThis plan only addresses anthropogenic threats that can be effectively and realistically managed.\n\nPopulations under Particular Pressure of Survival and Protective Measures (270(2)(e))\n\nPopulation trends can only be detected in the long-term, but there is some evidence that Southern Elephant seal populations are no longer decreasing.\n\nThe Sub-antarctic Fur seal presents unique problems because of ‘natural’ population processes, which include hybridization and introgression, and the suspicion that immigration may be maintaining the population. Hooker’s sea lions (Phocarctos hookeri) prey on Sub-antarctic Fur seal pups on Macquarie Island. It is not the intention of this plan to address any of these processes that are natural rather than anthropogenic through active intervention.\n\nActions to Achieve the Objective/s (270(2)(c))\n\nGiven the absence of significant current anthropogenic threats, the only action to be identified in this plan is to monitor the Australian populations of the Sub-antarctic Fur seal and the Southern Elephant seal to:\n\n-   determine the rate of population change and population size by undertaking scientifically robust, regular and repeatable population surveys; and\n\n-   identify any emerging actual impacts that will have an immediate affect on the species and thus on its recovery, and to facilitate the development of appropriate responses.","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"Management Practices (EPBC Reg. 7.11(2)(","sectionType":"part","heading":"Management Practices (EPBC Reg. 7.11(2)(b))","content":"## Management Practices (EPBC Reg. 7.11(2)(b))\n\nManagement practices and measures other than those contained in this plan have been developed and are being implemented through, inter alia, various Heard Island and Macquarie Island Management Plans, Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) procedures and protocols, the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) Code of Conduct.\n\nIn addition, the EPBC Act provides protection for the Sub-antarctic Fur seal, and the Southern Elephant seal through making it an offence to kill, injure, take, trade, keep, or move any member of a listed threatened and/or marine species in a Commonwealth area without a permit.\n\nCriteria to Measure Performance of the Plan against the Objective/s (270(2)(b))\n\nThe objective of this plan will be attained in respect to the:\n\n-   Sub-antarctic Fur seal when the breeding population of the Sub-antarctic Fur seal exhibits a sustained increase in size, and if future major threats to the population emerge, that measures to minimise or mitigate them are identified and implemented as a priority; and","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":" Southern Elephant seal when the popula","sectionType":"part","heading":" Southern Elephant seal when the population is stable or has demonstrably increased for three generations (24 years), and if future major threats to the population emerge, that measures to minimise or mitigate them are identified and implemented as a priority.","content":"#  Southern Elephant seal when the population is stable or has demonstrably increased for three generations (24 years), and if future major threats to the population emerge, that measures to minimise or mitigate them are identified and implemented as a priority.\n\nHabitats Critical to the Survival of the Species and its Protection (270(2)(d))\n\nImportant habitat for the Sub-antarctic Fur seal and the Southern Elephant seal within the Australian jurisdiction includes:\n\n-   terrestrial breeding colonies and resting and moulting grounds on Sub-antarctic islands;\n\n-   waters adjacent to breeding colonies; and\n\n-   important feeding waters.\n\nIn the Australian region, important breeding sites are Macquarie Island for the Sub-antarctic Fur seal and Macquarie, Heard and possibly Maatsuyker Islands for the Southern Elephant seal.\n\nMacquarie and Heard Islands, and their surrounding waters, are afforded high levels of protection through, inter alia, their listing as World Heritage sites, their status as Marine Protected Areas under the EPBC Act, and in the case of Macquarie Island, additional protection afforded by Tasmanian legislation. While such protection arrangements remain in place, this habitat is protected for use by both seal species. Protection for Maatsuyker Island is the jurisdictional responsibility of the Tasmanian government.\n\nMajor Benefits to Other Native Species or Ecological Communities (270(2)(h))\n\nMinimising threats to the Sub-antarctic Fur seal or Southern Elephant seal may benefit other marine species that share the same breeding and/or foraging habitat.\n\nTwo other Arctocephalus breed on Macquarie Island. Several albatross and giant petrel and penguin species also breed on Macquarie. In the surrounding water several species of whale have been recorded including southern right whale Eubelaena australis, sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus and killer whale Orcinus orca.\n\nHeard Island is an important breeding ground for several penguin species and the globally endangered black-browed albatross Thalassarche melanophrys, light-mantled albatross Phoebetria palpebrata, southern giant-petrel Macronectes giganteus, the Heard Island cormorant Phalacrocorax atriceps nivalis and the lesser sheathbill Chionis minor nasicornis. The island is also an important breeding location for the Antarctic fur seal, and wintering area for the leopard seal Hydrurga leptonyx.\n\nImplementation of this plan is unlikely to have any negative impacts on any other native species or ecological communities. Research activities associated with monitoring will need to undertaken in a manner that will ensure that disturbance to threatened species on the islands is minimised.\n\nDuration and Cost of the Recovery Process (270(2)(f))\n\nThis plan should be reviewed in 5 years time and remain in place until such time that the populations of both species have improved to the point that they can be removed from the EPBC Act threatened species list.\n\nThe cost of this plan should be covered under the core business expenditure of the affected organisations, though should emerging threats be identified, additional costs are likely to occur.\n\nAffected Interests (270(2)(g)(i))\n\nOrganisations likely to be affected by the actions proposed in this plan include the following: AFMA; Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Department of the Environment and Heritage, including the AAD; the Tasmanian Government Departments of Tourism, Parks, Heritage and the Arts and Primary Industries, Water and Environment; researchers; commercial fishers; conservation groups; wildlife interest groups; and tourism operators.\n\nOrganisations/Persons Involved in Evaluating the Performance of the Plan (270(g)(ii))\n\nThe National Seal Recovery Group should evaluate the performance of this plan and report the results of their review to the Minister of the Environment and Heritage, through the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC).","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"Where to Get the Plan","sectionType":"part","heading":"Where to Get the Plan","content":"## Where to Get the Plan\n\nThis recovery plan is obtainable from:\n\n[www.deh.gov.au/coasts/species/seals/plan](http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/species/seals/plan)\n\nMigratory and Marine Species Section  \nWildlife Conservation Branch  \nDepartment of the Environment and Heritage  \nGPO Box 787  \nCanberra ACT 2601","sortOrder":3}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The recovery plan stays within the statutory purpose required by the EPBC Act (Part 13, Division 5): identify actions to support recovery of listed threatened species. It does not introduce new regulatory powers, expanded geographic coverage, or novel obligations beyond continued protection, monitoring, and coordination through existing instruments. The plan narrows operational focus to anthropogenic threats that can be realistically managed and explicitly excludes active intervention against natural processes; that is consistent with the plan’s original recovery purpose rather than a scope expansion. The only potential extension of activity is ongoing monitoring until delisting, but this is a direct and foreseeable implementation of the Act’s recovery planning requirement rather than a departure from the original intent."},"complexity_factors":["Short, policy‑style recovery plan (limited length and scope)","Few defined legal terms inside the document (most legal references point to EPBC Act provisions rather than introducing new definitions)","Limited conditional logic — principal action is monitoring with simple performance criteria (e.g. 3 generations = 24 years for elephant seal)","Cross‑references to external instruments and agencies (EPBC Act, EPBC regulations, AFMA procedures, AAD Code of Conduct, Tasmanian legislation) which create implementation complexity but not internal legal complexity","Multiple implementing agencies and stakeholders listed (increases coordination complexity in practice): AFMA; Dept of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Dept of the Environment and Heritage (AAD); Tasmanian departments; researchers; fishers; tourism operators","Repetition and minor formatting inconsistencies in the text (duplication of criteria lines) that slightly reduce readability","Few exceptions or nested sub‑clauses — no elaborate enforcement regime in the plan itself"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this plan does (mechanically)**\n\n- Sets out a recovery plan under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) for two listed marine mammals: the Sub‑antarctic Fur seal (Arctocephalus tropicalis) and the Southern Elephant seal (Mirounga leonina). (See Objective (270(2)(a)).)\n- Explicitly confines its on‑the‑ground action to monitoring Australian populations and identifying any emerging human (anthropogenic) threats that can realistically be managed. The two specified monitoring goals are: (1) measure population size and rate of change through scientifically robust, regular and repeatable surveys, and (2) detect emerging threats so prompt responses can be developed. (See Actions to Achieve the Objective/s (270(2)(c)).)\n- Leaves existing legal protections in place (EPBC offence provisions that make it unlawful to kill, injure, take, trade, keep or move listed threatened and/or marine species in a Commonwealth area without a permit) and relies on other management instruments (Heard and Macquarie Island management plans, AFMA procedures, Australian Antarctic Division Code of Conduct) to control activities that might affect the seals. (See Management Practices (EPBC Reg. 7.11(2)(b)).)\n\n**Who it affects**\n\n- Commonwealth agencies and programs with operational or regulatory roles around the islands and adjacent waters: Department of the Environment and Heritage (including the Australian Antarctic Division), Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. (See Affected Interests (270(2)(g)(i)).)\n- State (Tasmanian) authorities that manage jurisdictional areas such as Maatsuyker and Macquarie Islands.\n- Researchers conducting fieldwork, tourism operators visiting island sites, commercial fishers operating in adjacent waters, conservation and wildlife groups, and any person or organisation seeking permits to interact with the species.\n\n**Why it matters (practical effect)**\n\n- The plan's immediate legal effect is not to create new prohibitions but to require ongoing monitoring and retention of current protections so populations can be tracked and, if they improve, permit delisting from the threatened list. Performance criteria are specified: for the Sub‑antarctic Fur seal, a sustained increase in the breeding population; for the Southern Elephant seal, population stability or demonstrable increase across three generations (24 years). (See Criteria to Measure Performance (270(2)(b)).)\n- The plan delegates most regulatory detail and day‑to‑day management to existing instruments and agencies, and assigns evaluation responsibility to the National Seal Recovery Group reporting to the Minister through the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC). (See Organisations/Persons Involved in Evaluating the Performance (270(g)(ii)).)\n\n**Key implementation mechanics and costs**\n\n- Review cycle and duration: the plan should be reviewed in five years and remain in force until delisting conditions are met. (See Duration and Cost (270(2)(f)).)\n- Funding expectation: costs are expected to be met from the core business budgets of affected organisations; the plan notes that additional funding may be required if new threats are identified. (See Duration and Cost (270(2)(f)).)\n- Who decides operationally: agencies named in the plan carry out surveys, apply existing management rules, and the National Seal Recovery Group assesses performance and advises the Minister. (See Affected Interests and Evaluation sections.)\n\n**Limitations, trade‑offs and implementation risks (mechanically described)**\n\n- The plan deliberately excludes active intervention against natural processes (for example, hybridisation, immigration dynamics, or predation by Hooker’s sea lions) and focuses only on anthropogenic threats that can realistically be managed. This narrows the plan’s scope of action to human‑driven causes. (See Population trends / natural processes (270(2)(e)).)\n- Because the principal action is monitoring rather than direct management, the plan creates a continuing information‑gathering obligation rather than immediate corrective measures; detection of an emerging threat triggers the need to develop responses later. This sequencing risks delayed mitigation where rapid response would be needed. (See Actions to Achieve the Objective/s (270(2)(c)).)\n- Jurisdictional complexity: protection, survey work and any regulatory responses require coordination across Commonwealth agencies and Tasmanian authorities; that increases coordination and compliance costs in practice. (See Affected Interests (270(2)(g)(i)) and Habitats Critical (270(2)(d)).)\n- Compliance burden for third parties: existing EPBC permit rules continue to restrict direct interactions (killing, injuring, taking, moving, trading or keeping). Research and monitoring must be conducted to minimise disturbance. (See Management Practices (EPBC Reg. 7.11(2)(b)).)\n\n**Where the plan is anchored in law and policy**\n\n- The plan is prepared under Part 13, Division 5 of the EPBC Act and references EPBC regulatory provisions. It relies on other statutory instruments and management plans (island management plans, AFMA procedures, AAD Code of Conduct) to implement non‑monitoring controls. (See Background and Management Practices sections.)\n\n**Net incentives and who pays**\n\n- Cost bearer: affected Commonwealth and Tasmanian agencies are expected to cover monitoring and implementation from core budgets unless new threats arise requiring extra funds. (See Duration and Cost (270(2)(f)).)\n- Incentives: the plan creates an information incentive — agencies and researchers must collect evidence to demonstrate population trends (for potential delisting). It does not create new market rules or trade restrictions beyond existing EPBC permit controls.\n\n**Summary statement**\n\nMechanically, the plan keeps current legal protections in place, requires regular, standardized monitoring of the two seal species in Australian waters, delegates regulatory action to existing instruments and agencies, and sets measurable criteria for recovery (including a 24‑year benchmark for elephant seals). It focuses on human‑caused threats that can realistically be managed and leaves natural ecological processes outside the scope of active intervention. (See Objective (270(2)(a)); Actions (270(2)(c)); Criteria (270(2)(b)).)"},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The document maintains its original scope as a focused recovery plan for two specific seal species. It does not appear to have expanded beyond its intended purpose of monitoring and protection under the EPBC Act framework."},"complexity_factors":["Short, narrative document (approximately 1,500 words) with minimal structural complexity","No defined terms section or interpretation provisions","No cross-references to other legislative provisions beyond general references to the EPBC Act and regulations","Simple conditional logic: single objective with two measurable criteria (population increase for fur seals; stability/increase over 24 years for elephant seals)","No nested exceptions or complex procedural requirements","Primarily descriptive rather than prescriptive content","Document appears to be a corrupted or poorly formatted extract (repeated headings, truncated text, formatting artifacts like '## Background Background' and '## Where to Get the Plan Where to Get the Plan')"],"plain_english_summary":"This recovery plan is a legally required conservation strategy for Sub‑antarctic Fur Seals and Southern Elephant Seals (Vulnerable under the EPBC Act). Its goal is to restore populations so they can be delisted, mainly via regular scientific monitoring and coordinated management to minimize human impacts. It guides federal and Tasmanian agencies, researchers, tourism operators and fishers around Macquarie and Heard Islands, prioritizing controllable human threats while explicitly not intervening in natural processes."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/sub-antarctic-fur-seal-and-southern-elephant-seal-recovery-plan-2004-2009","history":"/api/acts/sub-antarctic-fur-seal-and-southern-elephant-seal-recovery-plan-2004-2009/history","analysis":"/api/acts/sub-antarctic-fur-seal-and-southern-elephant-seal-recovery-plan-2004-2009/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/sub-antarctic-fur-seal-and-southern-elephant-seal-recovery-plan-2004-2009/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/sub-antarctic-fur-seal-and-southern-elephant-seal-recovery-plan-2004-2009/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/sub-antarctic-fur-seal-and-southern-elephant-seal-recovery-plan-2004-2009/documents"}}