2. Officials reviewed the operation of the MOU. Both sides stressed their desire to address the issues in a spirit of cooperation and good neighbourliness. They noted that there had been a number of developments since 1974 which had affected the MOU. In 1974 Australia and Indonesia exercised jurisdiction over fisheries on 12 nautical miles from their respective territorial sea baselines. In 1979 and 1980, Australia and Indonesia respectively extended their fisheries jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles from their respective territorial sea baselines, and in 1981 a provisional fishing line was agreed. Since the areas referred to in the MOU are south of this line, new arrangements are necessary for the access by Indonesian traditional fishermen to these areas under the MOU.

3. The Australian side informed the Indonesian side that there were also changes in the status of Ashmore Reef and Cartier Islet as a separate territory of the Commonwealth of Australia and the establishment of the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve. The Australian side further informed that there had been a considerable increase in the number of Indonesian fishermen visiting the Australian Fishing Zone and a depletion of fishery stocks around the Ashmore Reef, that wells on Middle Islet and East Islet where Indonesian traditional fishermen were permitted under the MOU to land for taking fresh water had been contaminated; that Australia had also incurred international obligations to protect wildlife, including that in the territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. The Indonesian side took note of this information.

4. Since the conclusion of the MOU, both Indonesia and Australia had become parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

5. The Indonesian and Australian Officials discussed the implications of the developments mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. They affirmed the continued operation of the MOU for Indonesian traditional fishermen operating by traditional methods and using traditional fishing vessels. An Australian proposal that Indonesian traditional fishermen could conduct fishing not only in the areas adjacent to Ashmore Reef, Cartier Islet, Scott Reef, Seringapatam Reef and Browse Islet as designated in the MOU, but in a wider ‘box’ area in the Australian Fishing Zone and Continental Shelf was welcomed by the Indonesian side. A sketch map and coordinates of this ‘box’ area appears in Annex 1 of this Agreed Minutes.

6. In view of the developments that had occurred since 1974 as highlighted above, Officials considered that to improve the implementation of the MOU, practical guidelines for implementing the MOU as appears in the Annex of these Agreed Minutes were considered necessary.

7. The Indonesian side informed the Australian side on measures that had been and were being taken by the Indonesian authorities to prevent breaches of the MOU. The Indonesian side indicated its willingness to assist in preventing breaches of the MOU and to take necessary steps to inform Indonesian fishermen of the practical guidelines annexed to this Agreed Minutes.

8. The Indonesian and Australian Officials agreed to make arrangements for cooperation in developing alternative income projects in Eastern Indonesia for traditional fishermen traditionally engaged in fishing under the MOU. The Indonesian side indicated they might include mariculture and nucleus fishing enterprise scheme (Perikanan Inti Rakyat or PIR). Both sides mutually decided to discuss the possibility of channelling Australian aid funds to such projects with appropriate authorities in their respective countries.

9. The Indonesian and Australian Officials discussed matters related to the activities of Indonesian fishing vessels in the Australian Fishing Zone off the coast of North West Australia. They noted that those activities were outside the scope of the MOU and that Australia would take appropriate enforcement action. The Australian side indicated the legal and economic implications of such activities.

10. The Indonesian and Australian Officials felt the need for a long-term solution to the problem. To this end, they agreed to make arrangements for cooperation in projects to provide income alternatives in Eastern Indonesia for Indonesian fishermen engaged in fishing off the coast of North West Australia. The Indonesian side indicated that they might include mariculture and nucleus fishing enterprise scheme (Perikanan Inti Rakyat or PIR). Both sides decided mutually to discuss the possibility of channelling Australian aid funds to such projects with appropriate authorities in their respective countries.

11. Indonesian and Australian Officials discussed the activities of Indonesian non-traditional fishing vessels in the Arafura Sea on the Australian side of the provisional fishing line of 1981. Officials agreed that both Governments should take effective measures, including enforcement measures, to prevent Indonesian non-traditional fishing vessels from fishing on the Australian side of the provisional fishing line without the authorisation of the Australian authorities.

12. Officials agreed to make arrangements for cooperation in exchange of information on shared stocks in the Arafura Sea for the purpose of effective management and conservation of the stocks.

13. The Officials of Indonesia and Australia noted that fisheries delimitation in waters between Christmas Island and Java and in the west of the provisional fishing line remained to be negotiated and agreed. Pending such an agreement, the Officials noted that both Governments would endeavour to avoid incidents in the area of overlapping jurisdictional claims.

14. The Indonesian and Australian Officials considered the mutual advantages of the exchange of information on wildlife species populations believed to be common to both countries. It was agreed that each country’s nature conservation authorities would exchange information on such wildlife populations and management programs and cooperation in the management of wildlife protected areas. In the first instance Indonesian authorities would be consulted on the management plan for the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve.

15. The Indonesian and Australian Officials agreed to hold consultations as and when necessary to ensure the effective implementation of the MOU and agreed minutes.

1. Access to the MOU area would continue to be limited to Indonesian traditional fishermen using traditional methods and traditional vessels consistent with the tradition over decades of time, which does not include fishing methods or vessels utilising motors or engines.

2. The Indonesian traditional fishermen would continue to conduct traditional activities under the MOU in the area of the Australian Fishing Zone and the continental shelf adjacent to Ashmore Reef, Cartier Islet, Scott Reef, Seringapatam Reef and Browse Islet. In addition, Indonesian traditional fishermen would be able to conduct traditional fishing activities in an expanded area as described in the sketch map and coordinates attached to Annex 1 of the Agreed Minutes.

3. To cope with the depletion of certain stocks of fish and sedentary species in the Ashmore Reef area, the Australian Government had prohibited all fishing activities in the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve, but was expected soon to adopt a management plan for the Reserve which might allow some subsistence fishing by the Indonesian traditional fishermen. The Australian side indicated that Indonesia would be consulted on the draft plan. Because of the low level of stock, the taking of sedentary species particularly Trochus nilotocus in the Reserve would be prohibited at this stage to allow stocks to recover. The possibility of renewed Indonesian traditional fishing of the species would be considered in future reviews of the management plan.

4. As both Australia and Indonesia are parties to CITES, Officials agreed that any taking of protected wildlife including turtles and clams would continue to be prohibited in accordance with CITES.

5. Indonesian traditional fishermen would be permitted to land on West Islet for the purpose of obtaining supplies of fresh water. The Indonesian side indicated its willingness to discourage Indonesian traditional fishermen from landings on East and Middle Islets because of the lack of fresh water on the two islets.