MOU Box
fisheries management area in the Timor Sea
The MOU Box, or sometimes the MOU 74 Box, refers to a tract of marine waters in the Timor Sea, lying within Australia's exclusive economic zone, that is subject to a 1974 memorandum of understanding (MoU), and subsequent agreements, between Australia and Indonesia relating to traditional fishing rights. The MOU Box covers an area of about 50,000 km2 (19,000 sq mi), including the Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Browse Island, and Scott and Seringapatam Reefs. Australia declared a marine protected area around Ashmore Island in 1983, and around Cartier Island in 2000.
Agreement
The bilateral agreement establishing the MOU Box is officially known as the Australia–Indonesia Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Operations of Indonesian Traditional Fishermen in Areas of the Australian Fishing Zone and Continental Shelf – 1974. From 2001 cooperation under the Agreement has taken place through the Working Group on Marine Affairs and Fisheries, which brings together representatives of fisheries, research, and environment agencies from both countries. The agreement recognises access rights of traditional Indonesian fishers in shared waters to the north of Australia with regard to the long history of traditional Indonesian fishing there, especially for trepang, trochus, abalone and sponges.
The public source identifies “MOU Box” as fisheries management area in the Timor Sea. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around fisheries, management and area.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “MOU Box”, the useful work is to connect “fisheries management area in the Timor Sea” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The strongest evidence will usually combine a dated visual record with documents produced by the authority responsible for the place. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 21, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q17014454. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1974, 1983, 2000 and 2001.
Modern boundaries and familiar names can conceal earlier jurisdictions or structures that do not align with the present site. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Treat names, boundaries and functions as historically changeable. Maps, plans, inventories and administrative records can clarify what the place meant at different dates.
- Historic place names
- Jurisdictional context
- Routes into maps and plans
Contemporary maps, plans, listed-building records, estate papers and the responsible local or national archive.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “MOU Box”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow MOU Box primary sources, MOU Box archive and fisheries research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “MOU Box”?
- Which authority defined the place, boundary or structure at the relevant date?
- Which earlier names or jurisdictions may reveal additional records?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “MOU Box” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.