AMSA undertook public consultation from 28 November 2022 to 29 January 2023 to inform the development of Australia's position on the new global measures being introduced by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on the marking of fishing gear and reporting of lost or discharged fishing gear. A summary of this consultation process and the consultation outcomes are provided below.

The IMO is the United Nations agency responsible for preventing vessel-sourced marine pollution. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) is the main IMO convention for addressing vessel sourced pollution. 

Annex V of MARPOL concerns the prevention of pollution by garbage. It applies to all vessels and covers all garbage generated during normal operations, such as plastics, food waste, and cargo residues. Annex V currently prohibits the discharge of plastics from ships into the sea and includes mandatory reporting requirements for lost and discharged fishing gear that pose a significant threat to the marine environment or navigation.

Australia is a party to MARPOL and implements it through the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983, the Navigation Act 2012 and Marine Order 95. In addition, most state-territory jurisdictions have given effect to MARPOL Annex V in their legislation.

As part of efforts to reduce the amount of plastic litter from vessels ending up in our oceans, the IMO adopted an Action Plan to Address Marine Plastic Litter from Ships (the IMO Action Plan). The IMO Action Plan aims to enhance existing regulations and introduce new measures to further reduce vessel sourced marine plastic litter by 2025. This includes the introduction of new global requirements for the marking of fishing gear and expanding existing reporting requirements for lost or discharged fishing gear. The marking and reporting requirements aim to reduce the volume of lost fishing gear, protecting our marine environment and improving safety for all marine uses, including fishing, tourism, and navigation.

Work at the IMO is underway to develop these new global requirements, including the scope of gear and vessels included and the entry into force dates for the new reporting and marking requirements. The gear marking and reporting requirements will be next considered at the IMO in April 2023. 

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) is participating in ongoing IMO discussions and negotiations to define the specifics of the new requirements.

AMSA is working closely with Australian Government, State and Territory agencies to inform Australia's position at the IMO. AMSA undertook public consultation from 28 November 2022 to 29 January 2023. As part of the consultation process, a discussion paper was placed on the AMSA website to inform and guide public comments. The discussion paper invited general comments and included the following guiding questions for consideration.

Issue 1: Mandatory marking of fishing gear 

• What types of fishing gear, vessels and operations do you believe should be included in mandatory marking requirements? Why?
• What types of fishing gear, vessels and operations do you believe should be excluded from mandatory marking requirements? Why?
• What technical or feasibility limitations should be considered when determining the types of marking systems used (e.g. physical, chemical, electronic marking)? Is there a way for these limitations to be addressed?
• What information should be recorded under the mandatory marking requirements (e.g. vessel identification number, ship name, company name)? 
• Do you currently participate in any existing marking requirements or voluntary marking schemes? If yes, please provide details (e.g. what is marked, who requires the marking, how is gear marked).
• What do you believe are the main factors currently limiting or preventing participation in gear marking schemes?

Issue 2: Reporting of Lost and Discharged Fishing Gear

• Do you participate in any existing reporting requirements or voluntary reporting schemes? If yes, please provide details (e.g. what is reported, who reports are made to, how reports are made).
• What types of fishing gear, vessels (including recreational vessels) and operations do you believe should be included in expanded reporting requirements? Why?
• What types of fishing gear, vessels (including recreational vessels) and operations do you believe should be excluded from expanded reporting requirements? Why?
• In considering the new mandatory reporting lost/discharged gear, is there any information you believe should not be reported to either the: (a) Vessel's flag state authority (for Australian vessels, this is AMSA); (b) Coastal state authority of where the discharge has occurred; or (c) the International Maritime Organization.
• If there is information you do not support being reported to the IMO, would you support it being reported if it was aggregated and anonymous? For example, total volumes and general locations reported rather than specific vessels/locations.
• Is there any specific information related to lost/discharged fishing gear which you believe should be reported? If yes, to which of the parties named above should this information be reported?
• When considering the information to be reported to the IMO, is there any specific information which you believe should not be made publicly available?
• For Australian-flagged vessels, do you have a preference on how you would report gear losses to the Australian Government?
• What do you believe are the main factors currently limiting or preventing the reporting of lost or discharged fishing gear? Do you have any suggestions for how these factors could be addressed?

Stakeholders were notified about the consultation process through AMSA’s website and social media feeds and via email to approximately 80 stakeholders, including vessel owners and operators, industry peak bodies, recreational fishing organisations and relevant government agencies. 

Feedback received through the consultation process will be used to develop Australia's position on the new international requirements on fishing gear marking and reporting. This position will be taken to the next meeting of the IMO scheduled for April 2023.

AMSA received a total of 10 submissions during the consultation period. 
•    Four submissions were made by seafarers or vessel owners/operators
•    Five submissions were made by industry peak bodies on behalf of their members
•    One submission was made by a government agency.

Key themes

Mandatory marking of fishing gear

KEY ISSUE 1: Types of gear and operations to be included in mandatory marking requirements

Most submissions supported the mandatory marking of commercial fishing gear. Some suggested excluding certain types of commercial gear, including: gear that is not left unattended and which could be retrieved if lost, continuously attached gear that is less likely to be lost, and gear that is not vessel unique.

Some submissions outlined that new requirements should not be cost-prohibitive, including consideration of any lost fishing time to place markings and any impact on gear ordering and delivery times.

Submissions were split on whether recreational gear and operations should be included in the new marking requirements. Some submissions noted the difficulty of implementing and regulating marking requirements for recreational vessels.  

Some submissions suggested marking aquaculture gear, as losses were reported to be more common and such operations are moving further offshore.

It was also suggested that retrieved gear be returned to the fisher or recycled.

KEY ISSUE 2: Information to be included in marks

The majority of submissions supported marks that identify: 

• The vessel, such as the vessel name, international radio call sign or Maritime Mobile Service Number.
• The vessel owner/operator, such as the fishery license number or the personal gear identification number.

One submission suggested that the mark contain information about the gear, such as gear type and size. 

One submission acknowledged that the size of marks would limit the information they could contain. It was suggested that a QR code or similar system could be used. 

KEY ISSUE 3: Participation in existing marking schemes

The majority of submissions reported participation in existing marking schemes. Types of gear covered by these schemes included crab and lobster pots and traps, trawls, nets, long lines and any gear anchored to the seabed.

Some submissions suggested that current marking requirements will likely be sufficient to meet new requirements.

Submissions noted numerous barriers to participation in marking schemes, including: cost, complex and frequently changing requirements, over-regulation of the industry, and industry attitudes.

Submissions also raised broad issues about the effectiveness and practicality of marking requirements, including: marks could be easily removed before intentional discharges, illegal fishers would not use marks, and gear is not always unique to a single vessel and can be cut, divided and spliced.

One submission raised that markings can have positive navigation safety outcomes if GPS and light-up beacons are used for marking.

Expanded reporting requirements for fishing gear

KEY ISSUE 4: Types of gear and operations to be included in expanded reporting requirements

Most submissions supported the inclusion of commercial gear in the expanded reporting requirements. Some submissions suggested excluding certain types of commercial gear and operations, including: gear that is not left unattended as it can be retrieved if lost and gear used in State/Territory waters as operations in these waters would not be of interest to the IMO.

Submissions were split on whether recreational gear and operations should be included in the expanded reporting requirements. One submission supported that reporting requirements should only apply to recreational gear which is left unattended. 

One submission supported the inclusion of aquaculture gear in the expanded reporting requirements.

Some submissions called for more focus on not losing gear and collecting lost gear.

KEY ISSUE 5: Information to be reported and method of reporting

When considering what information was to be reported to the IMO, most submissions supported only reporting aggregated and anonymised commercial-in-confidence data, including the exact locations and the details of specific events.

Some submissions raised reluctance to report any information to the Australian Government and/or IMO. Some submissions supported reporting to the Australian Government through existing schemes and mechanisms. 

There was support for reporting to include information on the cause of any loss/discharge to inform the development of future measures.

KEY ISSUE 6: Participation in existing marking schemes

Some submissions reported participation in existing reporting schemes and supported reporting to the Australian Government for new requirements through these schemes and mechanisms to avoid duplication. 

Several submissions raised barriers to participation, including: fear of repercussions, complex and frequently changing rules, the belief that the industry is capable of self-regulation, and reporting might indicate higher loss rates than believed.

The IMO’s Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR) sub-committee will further consider the proposed marking and reporting requirements at an April 2023 meeting. 

The discussion and outcomes of the April 2023 meeting will determine the next steps taken by the IMO to adopt the new marking and expanded reporting requirements. If sufficient progress is made, a recommendation may be provided to the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) for consideration at their next meeting in July 2023. Alternatively, PPR may decide that further consideration is required and establish a correspondence group to further develop the requirements out of session and for consideration at PPR in 2024.

As a party to MARPOL, Australia will be expected to introduce the new requirements in domestic legislation once agreed by the IMO.

AMSA will work to ensure that Australia’s industry, community and environmental interests are represented in the measures adopted by the IMO, though our position may not be the one that is internationally supported and ultimately adopted by the IMO.

We will continue to provide updates