National Compliance and Enforcement Program
2013-14
‘Effectively deter illegal fishing in Commonwealth fisheries and the Australian Fishing Zone’
35
Executive Summary
In order to achieve the objectives of the AFMA National Compliance Operations and Enforcement Policy (the Policy) AFMA is continuing a risk based compliance and enforcement program in 2013–14.
In April and May 2013 the 2013-15 biennial risk assessment was undertaken. Following its completion the Operational Management Committee (OMC) re-prioritised the risks to be addressed in 2013-14.
The domestic compliance risk assessment identified 15 risks across Commonwealth fisheries that were assessed as moderate/high and high. These risks were further discussed by the OMC and two (endemic) risks were chosen for priority treatment. The OMC agreed that both risks will be disclosed.
The prioritised (endemic) risks that are the focus of the 2013-14 program are:
· failure to have a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) operating at all times (risk rating: Moderate/High)
· quota evasion (risk rating: Moderate/high)
In order to ensure the general deterrence/presence role is maintained the 2013–14 program will consist of a series of inspections and patrols designed to target identified high risk ports, boats and fish receivers.
35
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3
Table of Contents 4
Introduction 6
Why is Compliance Important to the industry? 6
AFMA’s Approach 6
Risk Assessments 7
Monitoring Fisheries Operations 7
Maintenance Programs 8
‘Endemic’ Risk Program 9
EN 1: VMS Compliance program 10
Introduction 10
AFMA’s Aim 11
AFMA’s Objectives 11
Methodology 11
Daily Monitoring 11
Routine Response to VMS Failures 12
Zero Tolerance Programs 13
Performance Assessment 13
Case Study – VMS ‘Zero Tolerance’ 15
EN 2: Quota Evasion 17
Introduction 17
AFMA’s Aim 18
AFMA’s Objectives 18
Communication & Education Strategy 18
The Quota Evasion Communication Strategy 18
The Quota Evasion Education Strategy 19
Performance Assessment 20
EN 2.1: National Investigation Taskforce 21
Aim 21
Objectives 21
Methodology 21
Performance Assessment 22
EN 2.2: Fish Receiver Fraud CRMT 23
Aim 23
Objectives 23
Methodology 23
Performance Assessment 24
Case Study – Quota Evasion Investigation 26
EN 2.3: Misreporting CRMT 28
Aim 28
Objectives 28
Methodology 29
Performance Assessment 31
EN 2.4: Substitution/Concealment CRMT 32
Aim 33
Objectives 33
Performance Assessment 34
Performance Measures 35
General Deterrence Program 37
Aim 37
Objectives 37
Methodology 38
Performance Assessment 38
Port Attendance (Objective 1) 39
Boat Inspections (Objective 2) 40
Voluntary compliance (Objective 3) 41
Reporting 42
Monitoring and Review 43
Introduction
Why is Compliance Important to the industry?
Commonwealth domestic fisheries rules and regulations are ultimately designed to protect:
· the resource (e.g. fish stocks)
· property rights
· the broader environment
Non-compliance with rules and regulations can have significant consequences. These can range from immediate consequences (e.g. fines, suspensions and prosecutions) to the long term, more significant impacts (e.g. the depletion of fish stocks) and other significant environmental impacts which lead to the closure of areas and/or fisheries. Non-compliance with rules and regulations also undermines the value of fishing concessions which ultimately affects the viability of the industry itself.
AFMA’s Approach
In accordance with the objectives in the AFMA National Compliance and Enforcement Policy (the Policy) AFMA has adopted a risk based compliance and enforcement program for 2013-14. The 2013–14 program will focus on Endemic Risks only.
‘Endemic risks’ are enduring and cannot be totally resolved, but we aim to maintain or contain them through the application of compliance strategies. AFMA has implemented ongoing programs and operations to address risks categorised as ‘endemic’.
AFMA takes a systematic and stringent approach to receiving and assessing allegations of non-compliance. Responses and recommendations for compliance and enforcement action are based on identified risk and public interest criteria. The Operational Management Committee (OMC) is responsible for deciding what level of investigation will be conducted.
AFMA will maintain a general presence/deterrence at fishing ports and at sea to discourage members of the fishing community who do not wish to comply with the rules and regulations of each fishery.
There were no ‘Sporadic’ or ‘Bedding Down’ risks identified for the 2013-14 program[1].
Risk Assessments
A National Compliance Risk Assessment has historically been conducted each year to identify compliance risks across Commonwealth fisheries. This ensures that appropriate and effective resources are directed towards mitigating the identified priority risks. In late 2011 the OMC recommended that the risk assessment process should be conducted on a biennial basis. The 2013-15 risk assessment was conducted in April – May 2013
The 2013–15 risk assessment process identified 15 risks across Commonwealth fisheries that were assessed as moderate/high and high. From this process the OMC identified two endemic risks that require priority treatment.
Monitoring Fisheries Operations
AFMA monitors the compliance of concession holders across the Commonwealth fisheries. Non-compliance, through contravention of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (the Act) and related legislation, is detected through analysing information. Information sources include, but are not limited to:
· the general public
· the fishing industry
· non-government organisations
· other State and Commonwealth government agencies
· dedicated information lines (e.g. CRIMFISH – 1800 274 634)
· regular, random and/or targeted patrols
· inspections, monitoring and surveillance
· audits
· targeted analysis and/or investigations
· observations by fisheries officers, from AFMA and other government agencies
· analysis of information reported (e.g. a change in the conditions of fishing concessions, approvals and other authorities issued).
AFMA will continue to develop strategic partnerships with other agencies to maximise cooperation where monitoring responsibilities overlap. AFMA will also work closely with agencies with specific expertise in law enforcement or other relevant areas.
Maintenance Programs
Maintenance programs to keep other risks under control, such as quota reconciliation, reporting of interactions with threatened, endangered and protected species and fishing/navigating in closed areas[2], will continue and these activities will be managed as business as usual as opposed to being the focus of specific Compliance Risk Management Teams (CRMT).
‘Endemic’ Risk Program
‘Endemic’ risks are enduring and cannot be totally resolved, but we aim to treat them through the application of compliance strategies. AFMA has identified a number of endemic risks which require a continual monitoring and enforcement program focus. Non-compliance with these legislative requirements could:
· undermine the operation of the Act
· prevent AFMA from undertaking crucial monitoring of fishing activity and/or fisheries, which can ultimately affect the sustainability and economic returns of some or all of the Commonwealth fisheries
· affect the property rights of the industry.
The identified ‘endemic’ risks for 2013–14 are:
· failure to fit an operational Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) (EN 1: VMS Compliance)
· unreported take of quota species and/or misreporting in CDRs to avoid quota decrementation (EN 2: Quota Evasion).
EN 1: VMS Compliance program
Introduction
In 2007 AFMA introduced the compulsory requirement for all Commonwealth endorsed fishing boats to be fitted with a VMS.
AFMA considers VMS to be a principal means of monitoring fishing activity (see Figure 1) across the Commonwealth fleet. VMS data is vital to a wide range of analysis that is crucial to the management of Commonwealth fisheries. VMS is used continuously for compliance and resource management purposes. AFMA requires Commonwealth operators to fit a working VMS unit to their endorsed fishing boat. Failure to fit a working VMS undermines AFMA’s ability to monitor the fleet. Non-compliance presents a significant and ongoing risk.
Figure 1: Example plot of a boats activites from AFMA’s VMS system[3]
In the 2013-15 domestic compliance risk assessment the risk rating for VMS non-compliance was moderate/High across all fisheries. As a result, at its June 2013 meeting, the OMC retained VMS compliance as one of the two ‘endemic’ risks to continue to be addressed via the ongoing monitoring and enforcement program.
This section outlines the monitoring and analysis program(s) used by AFMA to ensure that VMS continues to be an effective management and enforcement tool.
AFMA’s Aim
To decrease the incidence of, and therefore the risk associated with, VMS non-compliance through a targeted monitoring and response program.
AFMA’s Objectives
1. To decrease the incidence of boats without an operational VMS to zero (i.e. 100% compliance).
2. To continue to apply pre-defined procedures for identification of non-compliance.
3. To continue to implement the approved VMS compliance enforcement procedures.
Methodology
Daily Monitoring
AFMA conducts routine daily assessments and real time monitoring of the Commonwealth fleet. AFMA’s data entry section assesses monitors and records:
· the number of ‘active’ boats (i.e. boats with nominated Commonwealth concessions) in the fleet,
· the number of ‘active’ boats with exemptions from VMS requirements (e.g. Temporary Switch Off (TSO) approvals[4]),
· the number of boats from which positions have been received by, and recorded in, AFMA’s VMS database, and
· details of any (non-exempt) ‘active’ boats for which positions have not be been received by, and recorded in, AFMA’s VMS database.
These figures provide daily VMS compliance rates and identify boats which are not reporting and require action.
Routine Response to VMS Failures
Regardless of the analyses outlined above AFMA has ‘hardwired’ its immediate response processes to VMS failures identified during daily and/or real time monitoring. The process is outlined below:
· New boat/boat is in port. Where a newly nominated boat, or an existing boat in port, is found to be non-compliant the concession holder/skipper will be contacted and the boat will, generally[5], not be permitted to leave port until the unit is fitted and/or repaired. Where a boat departs port without a working VMS the matter will be referred for further assessment and/or action by National Compliance Operations[6].
· At-sea failure. Where a VMS unit fails at sea AFMA will undertake the following steps:
o Step 1: contact will be made with the concession holder/skipper to advise that the VMS is not operating. AFMA will work with the skipper to attempt to fix the problem at-sea.
o Step 2: Where the VMS is unable to be fixed whilst at-sea, in consideration of the level of risk, the prior history of the operator and other monitoring obligations (e.g. Regional Fishery Management Organisations requirements) AFMA may:
§ require the concession holder/skipper to manually report positions, and/or
§ direct the concession holder/skipper to return the boat to port[7].
Where a boat fails to comply with the above instructions and/or directions the matter will be referred for further assessment and/or action to National Compliance Operations6.
Zero Tolerance Programs
Unfortunately much of the VMS non-compliance observed by AFMA appears to arise as a result of complacency or deliberate non-compliance on the part of operators in:
§ Failing to seek and/or enter into a TSO when units are switched off for legitimate reasons (e.g. boats are in for repair, it’s the ‘off season’ etc),
§ Failing to comply with TSO phone on/phone off requirements,
§ Complacency in ensuring units aren’t switched off, or are switched back on as soon as possible after short term work is completed (e.g. electrical works on boats),
§ Switching off units to avoid detection,
§ General complacency with respect to maintaining VMS units on their vessels.
In addition to routine monitoring, AFMA will periodically conduct short term ‘zero tolerance’ programs on VMS compliance, using both dedicated media/education campaigns and ‘ramped up’ compliance action(s) on an ‘as needs’ basis. It is hoped these campaigns will result in both an immediate increase in compliance rates with longer term effects on compliance rates into the future.
Performance Assessment
The daily monitoring program provides an ongoing daily indicator of the rate of VMS compliance, or non-compliance, in the fleet. AFMA has set a target of 100% compliance while allowing for legitimate equipment failures in the fleet. Figure 2, below, illustrates the rate of VMS compliance since mid 2008.
Figure 2: VMS compliance rates 01 July 2008 - 30 June 2013.
35
Case Study – VMS ‘Zero Tolerance’
Despite the relative success of the routine monitoring programs, in identifying and addressing non-compliant operators, rates of Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) non-compliance have periodically been at a level of concern.
As a result the VMS Compliance Risk Management Team (CRMT) proposed the use of a ‘zero tolerance’ program whereby the minimum level of enforcement action was ‘escalated’ for a discrete period of time. To date three programs have been run with one in October-November 2011, one in June-July 2012 and one in May – June 2013.
All three programs have shown an immediate significant improvement in compliance rates of between 1 and 5 %;
Program 1
The first “Zero Tolerance” program conducted in October-November 2011 showed a significant immediate improvement in the rate of compliance from 92.6% in September 2011 to 98.0% in October 2011 (Figure 3). It was noted that compliance rates remained relatively high for an extended period post the program.
Program 2
Whilst not as stark as the level of improvement seen in the first Zero Tolerance program there was, nevertheless, a significant improvement in the rate of VMS compliance. Compliance rates rose from an average of 96.9% in May 2012 to an average of 97.9% in July 2012 (Figure 4). It was again noted that compliance rates remained relatively high for an extended period post the program.
Program 3
The May-June 2013 program also saw a significant immediate improvement in the rate of compliance rates increase from 94.7% in May 2013 to 97.6% in June 2013 (Figure 5).
Figure 3: 1st round ‘Zero Tolerance’ results October-November 2011.
Figure 4: 2nd round ‘Zero Tolerance’ results June-July 2012.
Figure 5: 3rd round ‘Zero Tolerance’ results May - June 2013.