Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan 2009

The principal concept is the sub-area: a large geographical division of the AFZ used for fisheries management. Schedule 1 creates three sub-areas: eastern, western, and Australian sardine. The eastern and western sub-areas appear to cover most of the AFZ south of 24° 29′ S and 31° 00′ S respectively, with the dividing line generally along 146° 30′ E and around Tasmania. The Australian sardine sub-area is a smaller region on the east coast, defined by a geodesic that continues the landward New South Wales-Victoria boundary. This special sub-area is likely used to manage the Australian sardine fishery separately from other pelagic species because sardines may have a more localised range or different stock structure. The concept of zone (Schedule 2) is a finer spatial division: four zones A, B, C, and D. Zones are smaller than sub-areas and likely correspond to different management arrangements such as separate total allowable catches, effort limits, or gear restrictions. Zone A is off southern Tasmania, Zone B off South Australia, Zone C in Bass Strait and off Victoria, and Zone D off New South Wales and northern Victoria. The overlap between sub-areas and zones is not explained in the schedules, but the geometry suggests that zones nest within sub-areas or cross sub-area boundaries. For example, Zones A, C, and D fall within the eastern and western sub-areas. The term IMF sub-area (Schedule 3) denotes a further subdivision, specifically for two areas off the east coast. IMF 1 is near the Queensland-New South Wales border and IMF 2 is off New South Wales down to the Victorian boundary. The acronym IMF likely refers to an integrated management framework that combines quota management with other controls such as gear restrictions or spatial closures.

The concept of quota species (Schedule 4) is critical: these are the fish species that are subject to a catch quota. Only four species are listed: blue mackerel, jack mackerel (two species), Australian sardine, and redbait. These are all small pelagic species caught by mid-water trawl or purse seine. The scientific names are provided to avoid taxonomic confusion. The inclusion of Trachurus declivis or Trachurus murphyi under one item means that both species are treated as a single quota species or that either species counts as jack mackerel for quota purposes. The schedules do not allocate quota amounts, define fishing methods, or specify reporting obligations; they only set the boundaries and the species list. The AFZ (Australian Fishing Zone) is the maritime area under Australian jurisdiction for fishing purposes, extending from the territorial sea baseline to the outer limit of Australia's exclusive economic zone (200 nautical miles). All sub-areas, zones, and IMF sub-areas are explicitly parts of the AFZ, so their outer boundaries coincide with the AFZ outer limit where stated. Notional lines use parallels, meridians, geodesics, and coastline sections. The precision of coordinates (to seconds of arc) indicates a legal standard that can be plotted on nautical charts. The boundaries are static unless amended by regulation; they do not change with coastline shifts or moved baselines.

The primary affected parties are commercial fishers who target small pelagic species in the AFZ. Specifically, operators who catch blue mackerel, jack mackerel, Australian sardine, or redbait must know which sub-area, zone, or IMF sub-area they are fishing in, because quota allocations, catch limits, and possibly gear rules will vary by area. The definitions affect each fisher's choice of fishing grounds and their compliance obligations. A fisher who catches Australian sardine must be aware of the Australian sardine sub-area (Schedule 1, item 3), which differs from the eastern sub-area in its southern boundary: the Australian sardine sub-area uses a geodesic that continues the New South Wales-Victoria land boundary, whereas the eastern sub-area uses the Victorian coastline. Therefore, in the waters off eastern Victoria, a vessel may be in the eastern sub-area but not in the Australian sardine sub-area, or vice versa depending on the geodesic. This spatial nuance could affect whether a catch of sardine counts against one quota pool or another.

Fishery managers and regulators (e.g., Australian Fisheries Management Authority, AFMA) are affected because these definitions are the foundation for allocating quota units, issuing fishing permits, and enforcing rules. They must maintain accurate maps and coordinate systems so that compliance can be assessed. The precision of the boundaries reduces discretion in enforcement but increases the burden of proving a vessel's location at a given time.

Fishing industry associations and supply chain participants (processors, buyers, exporters) are indirectly affected because quota holdings and catch histories are tied to sub-areas and zones. A processor buying fish must verify that the catch was taken in the correct area to avoid purchasing illegal product.

State fisheries agencies along the coastline (Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland) are affected because the sub-area and zone boundaries intersect or follow the coastline. The boundary lines at 146° 30′ E, 138° 08′ 05″ E, and other meridians demarcate the seaward limits of Commonwealth jurisdiction relative to state waters. While these definitions apply only within the AFZ (which typically starts at 3 nautical miles from the baseline), the coastline crossing points are used as reference points for the notional lines. State agencies need to be aware of where Commonwealth zones abut state-managed inshore waters.

Seafarers and vessel owners who hold statutory fishing rights or concessions must ensure their operations are within the correct spatial designations. The definitions affect the market value of quota units: quota for a particular species in a productive sub-area may be more valuable than quota in a less productive one. New entrants must invest in navigation equipment and data to avoid inadvertently fishing outside their permitted area.

Enforcement agencies (such as the Australian Border Force or AFMA compliance officers) use these definitions to determine jurisdiction. If a vessel is detected fishing near one of the geodesic lines in IMF sub-areas, the exact coordinates must be compared to the legal description to decide whether an offence occurred. The complexity of the geodesics in Schedule 3 may increase litigation risk if the position is disputed.

The schedules themselves impose no duties and confer no rights; they merely define the geographical and taxonomic categories that other provisions of the Act (not provided) will use. However, by reading the schedules in the context of a fisheries management regime, we can infer the duties and rights that would attach to these definitions. Fishers have a right to harvest quota species only if they hold a fishing concession (e.g., a statutory fishing right, a permit, or an endorsement) that authorises fishing in a particular sub-area or zone. That right is spatially limited: a fisher with an endorsement for the eastern sub-area cannot fish for quota species in the western sub-area unless that endorsement explicitly covers it. Likewise, a quota unit for Australian sardine may only be used for catches taken within the Australian sardine sub-area.

The principal duty is to fish only in the area for which one is authorised. This duty arises from the spatial definitions: by entering a sub-area or zone without the correct authorisation, a fisher incurs potential liability. There is also a duty to accurately report the location of catch. If a fisher catches blue mackerel in Zone D, they must record that catch as being from Zone D, not from the eastern sub-area, because quota allocation may be zone-specific. The schedules create a duty of care regarding navigation: a master must know, at all times, which sub-area, zone, or IMF sub-area the vessel occupies, especially near boundary lines. The use of geodesics (e.g., Schedule 3, IMF 1, items 2 and 3) means that simple lat/long grid navigation is insufficient; a geodesic line is the shortest path on a spherical earth and does not follow a constant bearing. This imposes a duty to use appropriate geodesic calculators or electronic charts that correctly plot these lines.

The schedules also affect the rights of quota holders to trade or transfer quota. Quota for a species is likely defined by sub-area or zone. A transfer of Australian sardine quota from a holder in the eastern sub-area to a holder might be limited if the receiving fisher cannot fish in the Australian sardine sub-area. The definitions create separate property rights pools.

Furthermore, there is a right to access the AFZ these definitions do not prevent anyone from transiting through a sub-area, but the right to take fish is restricted. The schedules do not mention but implicitly recognise the right of non-fishing vessels to navigate.

The schedules do not contain any penalty provisions; those would be located in the Act itself or in associated regulations. However, the spatial and species definitions are essential for enforcement. If a fisher takes Australian sardine without a quota, it is a violation regardless of the species name. But the enforcement action will depend on the species identification (scientific name) and the area where the catch was taken. For example, a fisher caught in the eastern sub-area with redbait on board may argue that redbait is not a quota species in that sub-area if, hypothetically, redbait only becomes a quota species in the western sub-area. The schedules fix which species are quota species everywhere in the AFZ, so that argument would fail: once a species is listed as a quota species in the Act, it is quota species in all sub-areas and zones. The schedules do not differentiate by area, so enforcement against fishing for any of the four listed species anywhere in the AFZ can proceed if the fisher lacks the appropriate quota.

Penalties for fishing without quota, or in an unauthorised sub-area, are likely substantial (e.g., fines, forfeiture of catch and vessel, possible criminal penalties). The precision of the boundaries reduces the opportunity for fishers to claim ambiguity about location. For enforcement agencies, the main challenge is proving that a vessel was on a particular side of a notional line at the time of fishing. This is especially difficult for geodesic lines (Schedule 3) because a vessel's GPS track must be reconstructed and compared to the geodesic. Fisheries officers may use electronic monitoring systems, logbook data, and patrol vessel observations. If a vessel is found within, say, IMF 1 sub-area, the enforcement officer must determine whether the catch was taken inside that sub-area or in the adjacent eastern sub-area, which might have different quota allocations. The definitions also affect the calculation of penalties: if the catch value is higher in one sub-area, penalties might be adjusted.

The schedules themselves do not create offences, but they define the elements of offences defined elsewhere. For example, an offence of "taking a quota species in a closed sub-area" would require proof that the sub-area was, for instance, the Australian sardine sub-area as defined in Schedule 1. Any challenge to the accuracy of the notional line description could become a point of scientific or legal evidence. Litigation might involve surveyors, geodetic experts, and the precise meaning of "the outer limit of the AFZ" or "a continuation of the landward boundary". The schedules are likely made under a power to make legislative instruments, and they are subject to disallowance and review.

The schedules are not standalone; they are part of a broader regulatory framework, presumably the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Cth) and associated regulations such as the Fisheries Management Regulations 2019 or the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Plan. The schedules define terms (e.g., "eastern sub-area") that are used in quota allocation instruments, fishing permits, and direction notices. They interact with the Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) arrangements between the Commonwealth and states, as the boundaries often follow state coastlines. For example, the eastern sub-area uses the eastern shore of Australia at 28° 10′ S, which is north of the New South Wales-Queensland border; this may reflect an agreement on which jurisdiction manages small pelagic fisheries in that region. The geodesic in the Australian sardine sub-area that continues the landward boundary between New South Wales and Victoria suggests a line of management responsibility that respects state water boundaries extended seaward.

The schedules also interact with international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The AFZ is Australia's exclusive economic zone, and the outer limit descriptions ("outer limit of the AFZ") incorporate by reference the baselines and delimitation lines with neighbouring countries (e.g., Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, France). If the outer limit changes due to a new maritime boundary agreement, the definitions in these schedules would remain static unless amended. This could create a mismatch where the scheduled boundary no longer matches the actual AFZ limit. Similarly, the coastline references ("the coastline of Tasmania", "the coastline of Victoria") rely on the baseline as defined by the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973. If the baseline changes due to coastal erosion or accretion, the notional lines anchored to that coastline may shift, potentially creating legal uncertainty. The schedules do not provide a rule for fixing the coastline at a certain date, which is a potential gap.

The schedules interact with the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 which empowers AFMA to grant fishing rights. The definitions here are incorporated into fishing concessions by reference. They also interact with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) because fishing on quota species may require an assessment under that Act. The schedules do not list any environmental protections, but the spatial segregation of sub-areas may be part of a broader ecosystem management approach.

The definitions may also interact with state fisheries laws. For example, the western sub-area boundary at 31° 00′ S follows a parallel that intersects the Western Australian coastline; that point is likely the seaward extension of a state boundary. If state law allows different fishing rules for the same species, a fisher might be subject to dual regulation. The IMF sub-areas (Schedule 3) are particularly interesting: they use geodesics that are continuations of landward boundaries, indicating a close link with coastal management arrangements. The interaction with OCS agreements could mean that in some areas, the Commonwealth has delegated management to the state, and the sub-area definition merely reflects the area where Commonwealth law applies if the delegation is revoked.

The source text provides no amendment history, no commencement date, no table of amendments, and no explanatory memorandum. It is impossible to determine from these extracts alone when the schedules were first made, whether they have been amended, or what changes have occurred. Typically, such schedules are updated periodically to adjust boundaries in response to stock assessments or changes in fishing patterns. For example, the Australian sardine sub-area might have been added later when sardine fishing expanded. The coordinates may have been tweaked to align with new geodetic datums (e.g., from Australian Geodetic Datum 1966 to Geocentric Datum of Australia 2020). The IMF sub-areas likely were introduced under an integrated management plan.

The schedules do not contain any date or version information. Users must refer to the Federal Register of Legislation to find the full instrument and any compilations that show amending instruments. The lack of amendment information in the source means that readers cannot judge whether these boundaries are current or whether newer definitions exist for the same species. This is a significant limitation: reliance on these schedules without checking for amendments could lead to non-compliance if boundaries have shifted.

The inclusion of two possible species for jack mackerel (Trachurus declivis or Trachurus murphyi) suggests that the schedule was designed to cover either species that might be caught in Australian waters; it does not need amendment if one species declines and the other becomes more common. This is a forward-looking drafting choice.

The schedules themselves do not cite any court cases. However, the spatial definitions in fisheries regulations are occasionally litigated, particularly when a fisher contests an enforcement action by arguing that they were not in the defined sub-area when the alleged offence occurred. This is especially relevant for geodesic boundaries (Schedule 3) where the line is less intuitive than a parallel or meridian. In Director of Public Prosecutions v De Vries (1993) - hypothetical - a court might need to interpret "geodesic which is a continuation of the landward boundary between New South Wales and Victoria". The landward boundary itself is a complex line based on the Murray River and surveys; its extension seaward is not trivial. Litigation could involve expert evidence from surveyors and hydrographers.

Similarly, the phrase "the outer limit of the AFZ" is a reference to the international maritime boundaries. If Australia's delimitation with France (New Caledonia) or New Zealand changes, a fisher might argue that the old outer limit no longer applies, or that the definition in the schedule is ambiguous. Without a dynamic reference to the current outer limit, the schedule is static, and a court would likely hold that the definition refers to the outer limit as it exists at the time of the alleged offence, not at the time the schedule was made. This interpretative issue is a potential source of litigation.

Cases might also involve the identification of quota species. For example, a fisher caught with fish that they claim are not redbait but a similar species such as rubyfish. The scientific names in Schedule 4 provide the legal standard. A dispute could require expert testimony to classify the fish.

No cases are named in the source; therefore, we cannot rely on any. The schedules are definitional and unlikely to face direct constitutional challenge, but they could be challenged on procedural grounds, such as failure to comply with the Legislation Act 2003 regarding tabling and disallowance.

Several traps arise from the structure of these schedules. First, the geodesic lines in IMF 1 sub-area (Schedule 3, items 2 and 3) are not straight lines on a standard Mercator chart; they are great-circle segments. Fishers using a simple GPS waypoint at the endpoint may think they are navigating a rhumb line, but the actual geodesic will deviate significantly. The three geodesic points in IMF 1 (from 154° 40′ 04″ E, 27° 47′ 25.29″ S to 27° 48′ S, 154° 22′ E to 27° 58′ S, 154° 22′ E) create a multi-segment line that cuts across the continental slope. A vessel following a straight line between these endpoints on a chart may inadvertently exit the IMF 1 sub-area and enter the eastern sub-area, possibly violating an IMF-specific condition. Fishers must verify that their electronic chart system includes these exact geodesics.

Second, the Australian sardine sub-area is defined differently from the eastern sub-area, even though both start at the same northern point (24° 29′ 54″ S, 154° 40′ 04″ E). The southern boundary of the Australian sardine sub-area uses a geodesic that is "a continuation of the landward boundary between New South Wales and Victoria". That geodesic runs in a north-south direction? The landward boundary predominantly follows the Murray River and then a straight line to Cape Howe; its continuation seaward is a complex line. If a fisher catches Australian sardine between this geodesic and the Victorian coastline as defined in the eastern sub-area, they may be in the Australian sardine sub-area and subject to sardine-specific quotas. But a fisher using the eastern sub-area definition might think they are in the eastern sub-area and not the sardine sub-area. Unless the fisher checks both definitions, they could miscount their catch against the wrong quota.

Third, Zone C (Schedule 2) is bounded by 138° 08′ 05″ E, which is the same meridian used as a boundary for Zone B. However, Zone C uses this meridian as its western boundary, while Zone B uses it as its eastern boundary. The two zones meet at this line. If a fisher in the Great Australian Bight is exactly on 138° 08′ 05″ E, it is ambiguous which zone they are in; typically, boundary lines are allocated to one zone or the other, but the schedules do not specify which zone includes the line itself. This could lead to disputes.

Fourth, the quota species list in Schedule 4 includes redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus). Redbait is a small pelagic often caught as bycatch in other fisheries. A fisher targeting, say, blue mackerel must account for redbait caught incidentally; if they have no redbait quota, they may be in breach. The list does not include many other species that are commercially fished, such as arrow squid or gummy shark, so those are not quota species under this definition. The definition applies only to these four species for the entire Act this schedule belongs to.

Fifth, the coastline references are ambiguous. The eastern sub-area uses "the eastern shore of Australia with the parallel of latitude 28° 10′ S". The eastern shore is the mainland coast. But after item 6, they go via the coastline to that point. The coastline includes islands? The schedules do not specify whether the coastline is the mainland or includes islands such as Tasmania. The wording "the Australian coastline" in several items suggests the mainland including Tasmania? Because they refer to "the coastline of Tasmania" separately, then "the Australian coastline" likely means the mainland plus Tasmania as a continuous line. That is an interpretation risk.

Compliance begins with understanding the precise spatial extent of the sub-area, zone, or IMF sub-area that applies to one’s fishing permit or quota holding. A fisher must obtain the most recent version of these schedules from the Federal Register of Legislation, not rely on older copies. The coordinates in the schedules are likely given in a specific geodetic datum (probably GDA94 or GDA2020). The fisher should ensure that their GPS and chartplotter are set to the same datum. A mismatch of a few metres could place a vessel on the wrong side of a boundary.

For practical navigation, the notional lines should be plotted as waypoints or boundaries in an electronic chart system. For parallels and meridians, such as the line at 146° 30′ E (used in many definitions), a straight line on a Mercator chart is sufficient. For geodesics (Schedule 3), the system must be capable of plotting a great-circle route between the given coordinates. The IMF 1 sub-area has three geodesic segments; each segment should be installed as a separate boundary line. Many commercial fisheries management software packages include pre-loaded AFZ boundaries, but the IMD sub-areas may not be standard; manual verification is necessary.

Fishers operating near the Australian sardine sub-area boundary should be aware that the geodesic continuation of the New South Wales-Victoria land boundary is not a simple lat/long line. Geoscience Australia publishes coordinates for that boundary extension. The line likely runs from the coast at the mouth of the Murray River or a point near Cape Howe south-eastwards to the AFZ outer limit. The schedule does not provide the full geodesic coordinates only the starting point. The boundary is described as "a continuation of the landward boundary". That continuation is defined in other instruments or in common law. The fisher must consult those sources to determine the exact line. This is a major compliance burden.

When recording catches, fishers must note the sub-area and zone in their logbook. For the quota species listed in Schedule 4, they must report the species by common name or scientific name. For jack mackerel, the catch should be reported as either Trachurus declivis or Trachurus murphyi if possible, but the schedule treats them as a composite quota species. Fishers should check the applicable fishing plan for any separate reporting categories.

It is advisable to maintain a GPS log (trackline) of the vessel’s position during fishing operations. In the event of an audit or investigation, this data can prove that the vessel remained within the authorised sub-area. Given the geodesic complexity, a simple lat/long log may not suffice; the GPS data should be plotted on a system that can compute geodesic distances from the boundary.

Finally, fishers should monitor amendments to these schedules. The boundaries may be adjusted if stock assessments show that the Australian sardine population has shifted, or if a new IMF sub-area is added for another species. Subscribing to AFMA’s updates on legislative instruments is a practical step. Any reliance on these schedules for financial decisions (e.g., purchasing quota for a specific zone) must be backed by legal advice verifying that the zone definitions have not been altered.