Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Invasive species wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Parliament of Australia Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee Invasive Species Inquiry Submission by the Department of the Environment and Heritage _____________________________________________________________________ Introduction The Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (the Department) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Invasive Species Inquiry. The Department develops and implements policies and programs for the protection and conservation of the environment, especially those aspects that are matters of national environmental significance. In addressing those issues, the following departmental functions are relevant to this inquiry: administering the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act), which includes provisions relating to threatened species and threatening processes developing border control policy in conjunction with the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) and the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) managing Australian Government terrestrial and marine reserves, such as Christmas Island National Park and Kakadu National Park (managed jointly by the Director of National Parks and traditional owners). Five reserves managed by the Australian Government are on the World Heritage list managing the Natural Heritage Trust participating in the ongoing development of a National System for the Prevention and Management of Introduced Marine Pests, and in interim policy co-ordination arrangements for marine pests. The Department works in close co-operation with a range of stakeholders to achieve these goals, including industry, non-government organisations, community groups and state government agencies. In particular, the Department works closely with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on invasives policy and operational matters, from risk assessment and border control through to management of established invasives. Comments in this submission specifically address the terms of reference for the inquiry. 1. The threat that invasive species pose to the Australian environment and economy Invasive species are a significant, increasing threat to Australia’s environment. The 1996 ‘Australia State of the Environment Report’ identified the impacts of introduced species as a key threat to biodiversity, with every type of ecosystem in Australia and many native species affected by these impacts. The 2001 ‘Australia State of the Environment Report’ reported that introduced marine pests were continuing to threaten habitats and native species and that the risk of new introductions was constant and significant1. Both reports noted that the pressure on terrestrial biodiversity from invasive species was constant or increasing. 1 Australia, State of the Environment Report 2001 (pg 42). The Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC) report ‘Sustaining Our Natural Systems and Biodiversity’2 and background paper ‘Setting Biodiversity Priorities’3 reports that Australia ‘may not yet have seen the worst of this biosecurity risk - there are still many potential invaders waiting in the wings’. The report recommends actions to deal with biosecurity and early detection and eradication of potential invasive species. The background paper notes that the risks that invasive species pose to Australia’s biodiversity include: There are some 2,700 naturalised non-native plants species in Australia that can act as sources of new weed outbreaks (pg 12) 4 to 10 native plant species are threatened by each serious weed species (pg 14) 16 native bird species are threatened or vulnerable due to weeds (pg 14) 49 native bird species are threatened or vulnerable due to invasive herbivores (pg 15) 28 native bird species are threatened or vulnerable due to invasive predators (principally foxes and cats) (pg 15). Under the EPBC Act nine species have been listed as key threatening processes that threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of native species or ecological communities. Invasive species listed under the Act include the European red fox, feral rabbit, feral goat, feral cat and feral pig. Several disease-causing organisms are also listed, such as Psittacine Circoviral (beak and feather) disease and chytrid fungus infection in amphibians. The Australian, State and Territory governments in 1999 agreed a list of Weeds of National Significance. The list identifies 20 weeds from some 2,700 non-native naturalised plants4. Weeds of National Significance were identified through a weed risk assessment process by analysing each weed’s invasiveness and impact characteristics, the potential and current area of spread, and primary industry, environmental and socio-economic impacts. During 2000, the Department worked with consultants and technical experts to identify species to include on a National Environmental Alert List. The alert list identifies weed species that are in the early stages of establishment and have the potential to become a significant problem if they are not managed. This list contains 28 non-native species that are, or are likely to be, significant threats to biodiversity. The case studies below provide some on-ground examples of the threats that invasive species pose to Australia’s biodiversity. Case Studies Case Study 1: Foxes in Tasmania The European Red Fox was recently introduced to Tasmania. Tasmania is home to many species that are extinct on the mainland, and up to 77 native species are threatened by foxes. Of these species, 49 are restricted in range or declining in distribution. Ten are listed or nominated for national listing as threatened species. Foxes also pose an economic threat to the Tasmanian wool industry through lamb predation and to Tasmania’s nature based tourism industry. Case Study 2: Red imported fire ant in Queensland The red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta, was discovered at two separate sites in Brisbane in February 2001. Modelling indicates they have the potential to spread across much of Australia. Nationally threatened species such as the loggerhead turtle and many species of reptiles and ground-nesting birds could be negatively affected if fire ants were to become established. Native animals stung by fire ants can be blinded or infected, reducing their chances of survival or killing them outright. Fire ants could become a serious pest in agriculture, as has happened in the United States. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics has indicated that the potential cost of Fire Ants to the agricultural sector is about $8.9 billion over a 30-year period. 2 Sustaining Our Natural Systems and Biodiversity PMSEIC 2002 (pp 17-18). 3 Setting Biodiversity Priorities, for PMSEIC, by Possingham et al (2002) 4 The determination of weeds of national significance. Thorpe & Lynch (2000) (pg 1) 2 Case Study 3: Cane toads The cane toad was originally introduced to Queensland to kill pests in cane fields in the 1930s. Since then, the cane toad has spread south as far as Port Macquarie in NSW, reached Kakadu National Park in 2001 and continues to expand its range southwards and north-west. Current estimates show cane toads are spreading in the tropics at about 27 kilometres a year. Recent research undertaken in Kakadu National Park indicates that cane toads cause substantial declines in northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) populations. There is a significant risk that quoll species across northern Australia may become locally extinct in areas invaded by cane toads. As a precautionary measure, a representative sample of northern quolls have been moved to cane toad-free islands off Arnhem Land to safeguard the species. Case Study 4: New Zealand Screwshell (Maroculpus roseus) The New Zealand Screwshell is a sedentary organism that feeds by filtering particulate matter from the water column, and grows up to 90 mm in length and 25 mm in width. It was probably introduced to Australia through semi-dry ballast in timber vessels from New Zealand, or accidentally transported with live oysters during the 1920s. In Australian waters the species has spread out to the 80-metre depth contour off the eastern Victorian and New South Wales coasts, as far north as Botany Bay 5. The Screwshell may occur in massive aggregations of several hundred organisms per square metre, and is so abundant in some areas that the benthic habitat has been altered from one of fine sand or mud to one with a dense cover of live and dead shells. Although New Zealand Screwshell is widely distributed in southeast Australian waters, little is known about its impacts. The Screwshell is thought to reduce numbers of native screwshells and scallops through direct competition for food and space. It is reported that native screwshells as well as commercial scallop species have declined in abundance since the appearance of New Zealand Screwshell 6. New Zealand Screwshell has wide tolerances for salinity, temperature and depth, so has the potential to spread around the southern Australian coastline in waters up to a depth of 80 metres, and possibly 200 metres. Case Study 5: Northern Pacific Seastar (Asterias amurensis) The Northern Pacific Seastar, Asterias amurensis, is a five-armed predatory seastar that can reach 40-50 centimetres in diameter. It is mainly found in coastal areas that are protected from wave action. In its native Japan it has been recorded at a depth of 200 metres, although in Australia it is not found at such depths, but on shallower (less than 25m deep) soft sediment habitats and reefs. In Australia the Seastar feeds on a wide range of native animals and can have a major effect on the recruitment of native shellfish populations that form important components of the marine food chain. Recent reports indicate that the Seastar is now affecting oyster production on some marine farms in southeast Tasmania 6. The Northern Pacific Seastar is thought to have been first released in Australia in the Derwent River, where it is now established, from ballast water in the 1980s. It was translocated to Port Phillip Bay in the 1990s, where its population is estimated to have increased from 340,000 in 1998 to 150 million in early 2000 before declining to 90 million in early 20017. This species has the potential to occupy and dominate suitable habitats around Australia’s coast from Sydney to Perth and its depth tolerances would allow it extend to the mid and outer continental shelf8. Biodiversity is threatened in local areas that the Seastar invades, through direct predation on native species as well as by out-competing native species for food. The Seastar has been implicated in the decline of spotted handfish populations in the Derwent Estuary as well as two rare echinoderms and threatens the unique shallowwater community of Port Davey, Tasmania8. The Northern Pacific Seastar has impacted on shipping, aquaculture (including a $1 million cost to Tasmanian scallop farmers in 2000) and commercial and recreational fisheries. Although there has been no major fishery collapse in Australia due to the Seastar, the costs are potentially large and multi-million dollar damage has been reported in Japan, particularly in shellfish industries. 5 Bax, N.J., MCEnnulty, FR and Gowlett-Holmes, K. Distribution of the introduced Gastropod Maoriculpus roseus (Quoy and Gamard 1834) (Caenogastropha: turritellidae) in Australia, Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests Technical Report number 25, CSIRO Marine Research. 6 NIMPIS (2002). Maoricolpus roseus impact details. National Introduced Marine Pest Information System (Eds: Hewitt C.L., Martin R.B., Sliwa C., McEnnulty, F.R., Murphy, N.E., Jones T. & Cooper, S.). Web publication <http://crimp.marine.csiro.au/nimpis>, Date of access: 1/09/2003 7 Parry G , Cohen B (2001) Asterias amurensis biomass, distribution and abundance in Port Phillip Bay following a survey during March-April 2001 , unpublished paper, Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute, 30 May 2001. 8 Joint Standing Committee on Conservation / Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture National Taskforce on the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions (1999) National Control Plan for the introduced marine pest Northern Pacific Seastar (Asterias amurensis), Final Draft 1999 in Report of the Taskforce, 23 December 1999. 3 2. The estimated cost of different responses to the environmental issues associated with invasive species, including early eradication, containment, damage mitigation and inaction, with particular focus on: (i) the following pests: (A) European fox (Vulpes vulpes) (B) yellow crazy ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes) (C) fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) (D) cane toad (Bufo marinus), (E) feral cat (Felis catus) and pig (Sus scrofa) (ii) the following weeds: (A) mimosa (Mimosa pigra) (B) serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) (C) willow (Salix spp.) (D) lantana (Lantana camara) (E) blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg.) (F) parkinsonia (Parkinsonia aculeata) The environmental cost of inaction is high. However, at present there is no agreed model to measure the ecological cost of invasive species in economic terms. Where invasive species impact on agriculture, the cost to production can be more readily demonstrated in economic terms. A report from the Bureau of Rural Sciences 9 noted the direct shortterm economic losses caused by 30 non-indigenous vertebrate pest species that have established wild populations to be at least $420 million per year, mainly due to lost agricultural production. Estimates of the cost of weeds, to agricultural industries alone, range from $1.1 to $3.3 billion per annum10. Together with State and Territory land management agencies, the Australian Government is funding projects to help address the impacts caused by all the species listed above. The Department works closely with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to support such management activities, particularly through Natural Heritage Trust funding. The Department undertakes on-ground eradication and control projects for several of these species in reserves that it manages. In particular actions are undertaken to control feral pigs, feral cats, mimosa and parkinsonian (survey only) in Kakadu National Park, yellow crazy ants on Christmas Island, feral cats in Norfolk Island National Park and the European red fox in Booderee National Park. The current cost of managing invasive species – for example through planning, research, on-ground works and education – can be quantified. Tables 1 and 2 identify the Departments expenditure through the Natural Heritage Trust national feral animal control program and the national weeds program for the species listed in these terms of reference. These Trust programs also fund the management of other invasive species not listed above. The Department provides funding to manage invasive species which pose a threat mainly to environmental values. DAFF provides funding to manage invasive species which pose a threat mainly to production values, which include some of the species listed in the term of reference. The figures in Tables 1 and 2 do not include funding provided for integrated multi-species pest management projects. For the national feral animal projects, such integrated projects represent an additional $2.9 million in funding over and above the figures provided in Table 1. For the national weeds projects these projects represent an additional $1.3 million in funding to the figures provided in Table 2. Tables 3 and Table 4 outline the approximate on-ground management costs for the Department. 9 Non-indigenous vertebrates in Australia. In Biological Invasions, ed D Pimental (2002), pgs 25-44. The impact of alien plants in Australia. In Biological Invasions, ed D Pimental (2002), pg 13. 10 4 Table 1. Natural Heritage Trust funding provided by the Department (1996/97 – 2002/03) through the national feral animal control program for the control of the animal species listed in term of reference 1(b). This funding complements activity funded through State and Territory land management agencies. On-ground Works Species Research European fox (Vulpes vulpes) $2,421,978 $1,175,372 $0 $1,750 $3,599,100 Yellow crazy ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes) NA NA NA NA $0 Fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) NA NA NA NA $0 $1,528,807 $24,000 $0 $0 $1,552,807 $572,981 $228,179 $69,978 $2,624 $873,762 $0 $22,400 $54,550 $24,070 $101,020 $4,523,766 $1,449,951 $124,528 $28444 $6,126,689 Cane toad (Bufo marinus) Feral cat (Felis catus) Feral pig (Sus scrofa) Total Coordination Education Total Table 2. Natural Heritage Trust funding provided by the Department (1996/97 – 2002/03) through the national weed control program for the control of the plant species listed in term of reference 1(b). This funding complements activity funded through State and Territory land management agencies. Species Reduce impact of Weeds of National Significance² Prevent new weed problems¹ Framework & capacity building³ Total Mimosa (Mimosa pigra) $0 $4,855,305 $0 $4,855,305 Serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) NA NA NA $0 Willow (Salix spp.) $0 $675,180 $196,920 $872,100 Lantana (Lantana camara) NA NA NA $0 Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg.) NA NA NA $0 Parkinsonia (Parkinsonia aculeata) $0 $82,900 $0 $82,900 Total $0 $5,613,385 $196,920 $5,810,305 ¹ Goal 1 of the National Weeds Strategy is ‘to prevent the development of new weed problems’. This is usually species on the National Environmental Alert List, not Weeds of National Significance. ² Goal 2 of the National Weeds Strategy is ‘to reduce the impact of existing weed problems of national significance ³ Goal 3 of the National Weeds Strategy is ‘to provide the framework and capacity for ongoing management of weed problems of national significance. Table 3. Approximate on-ground management costs (1996/97 – 2002/03) incurred in reserves managed by the Department for the control of the animal species listed in terms of reference 1(b) Species Research Onground Works Coordination Education Total European fox (Vulpes vulpes) $3,230 $50,022 $21,997 $350 $75,599 Yellow crazy ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes) $227,405 $612,998 $275,413 $3,855 $1,119,671 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cane toad (Bufo marinus) $55,000 $0 $0 $0 $55,000 Feral cat (Felis catus) $55,000 $162,943 $46,094 $10,850 $274,887 Feral pig (Sus scrofa) $20,000 $1,680,000 $0 $0 $1,700,000 $360,635 $2,505,963 $343,504 $15,055 $3,225,157 Fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) Total 5 Table 4. Approximate on-ground management costs (1996/97 – 2002/03) incurred in reserves managed by the Department for the control of the plant species listed in terms of reference 1(b) Species Mimosa (Mimosa pigra) Prevent new weed problems¹ Reduce impact of WONs² Framework & capacity building³ Total $5,040,000 $0 $560,000 $5,600,000 Serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) $0 $0 $0 $0 Willow (Salix spp.) $0 $0 $0 $0 Lantana (Lantana camara) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,045,000 $0 $560,00 $5,605,000 Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg.) Parkinsonia (Parkinsonia aculeata) Total 6 3. The adequacy and effectiveness of the current Commonwealth, state and territory statutory and administrative arrangements for the regulation and control of invasive species Under the Australian Constitution, State and Territory Governments have specific and clear primary responsibility for the legislative and administrative framework within which natural resources are managed. The Australian Government’s involvement in environmental matters focuses on matters of national environmental significance, including: nationally threatened species and communities which are listed under the EPBC Act (note that these species may not be the same as those listed under state legislation); World Heritage properties; wetlands which are listed as Ramsar wetlands of international importance; migratory species that are listed under the EPBC Act (these are migratory species protected under international agreements); Nuclear actions, including uranium mining; and the Commonwealth marine environment (which is generally Australian waters beyond the 3 nautical mile limit of State waters). National heritage properties. The Australian Government has responsibility in relation to the regulation of the import and export of animal and plant material. The Australian Government has an interest in the development and implementation of national measures and agreed programs to control feral animals and weeds. Reflecting these roles, the Department undertakes a broad range of activities to regulate and control invasive species, as follows. Risk assessment, quarantine and import controls Prevention of the introduction and establishment of invasive species is the most cost-effective means of pest management. The Australian Government has established processes to assess the risk associated with proposed imports to reduce the potential for the introduction of pests and diseases. The Quarantine Act 1908 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 regulate the entry of live plants and animals into Australia. The EPBC Act controls the import of live specimens into Australia so that the likelihood of importing a non-native species with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment is minimised. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry administers the Quarantine Act. Both the Quarantine Act and the EPBC Act require that live specimens be assessed for their potential impacts. The Departments of the Environment and Heritage and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry have worked closely to develop an integrated process for the assessment of specimens. This reduces duplication and streamlines the assessment processes, both for the Australian Government and for the applicant (or potential importer). The agreement of both Departments is required before a live specimen can be imported. The EPBC Act established a list of specimens suitable for live import (the live import list) and prohibits the import of any species not on this list. The legislation provides for the possibility of a live import being permitted under exceptional circumstances where the Minister is satisfied there is no risk to the environment. The live import list is divided into two parts – Part 1 is a list of specimens that may be 7 imported without a permit and Part 2 is a list of specimens that may only be imported with a permit, often with conditions attached. It is an offence to import a specimen that does not appear on the list, or a specimen on Part 2 without a permit. An applicant wishing to add a species to this live import list must prepare an assessment report examining the potential impacts on the environment of the proposed import. The draft terms of reference for the report and the draft report are published on the Department’s website for public comment, an email to registered stakeholders is sent out inviting comment on both documents, and a letter is sent to the appropriate State, Territory and Australian government Ministers requesting comment on the draft report. A species will be added to the live import list only when the Minister is satisfied that it will not impact on the Australian environment. The trade amendments to the EPBC Act have been in place since January 2002. To date, the Department has received 112 applications to amend the live import list since commencement. Based on an impact assessment report, the application process has been completed for 11 applications. As a result there has been 9 species added to the live import list since commencement. In addition the import conditions for 2 species have been altered to allow for release of the organisms as biocontrol agents, although the species were listed on the live import list at its commencement. Currently there are 62 applications which are being progressed by the applicant (eg development of the assessment report, collating further information relating to their application etc), 36 applications are being progressed by the Department, 11 have been completed, 2 withdrawn and 1 internal amendment to the list relating to the listing of plants has also been completed. During 2002-2003 Biosecurity Australia (part of DAFF), using the weed risk assessment process, refused entry for 320 plant species. The weed risk assessment process showed that these species had a high potential to become a weed of agriculture and/or the environment if they were to be imported into Australia. On-ground action in reserves managed by the Department The EPBC Act identifies the statutory arrangements for the control of invasive species in Commonwealth reserves. The EPBC Act requires each reserve to have a management plan in place as soon as practicable after the reserve has been declared. The Department has prepared management plans for terrestrial Commonwealth reserves that outline feral species and weed control actions. These arrangements are very effective. For example, Kakadu National Park contains the most significant mimosa-free wetlands in the Northern Territory. Matters of national environmental significance The EPBC Act is the Australian Government’s legislative framework for managing environmental invasive species. The Act provides for the listing of key threatening process and the creation of national threat abatement plans. The development of threat abatement plans involves wide consultation, with an initial workshop being held, where representatives covering the range of all stakeholder interests are invited to attend. The workshop provides an opportunity for participants to discuss and consider the goals, objectives and actions that the threat abatement plan should contain. Draft plans are circulated for public consultation for a 3-month period. The current EPBC Act arrangements concerning the development of national threat abatement plans are adequate and effective in developing the initial framework for identifying the range of research, 8 education and on-ground control activities required to manage a national key threatening process. The EPBC Act requires that each national threat abatement plan must be reviewed within five years. National coordination Coordinated action across Australia is often critical to prevention, rapid response and control of invasive species. Cooperative arrangements have been developed between the Australian, State and Territory governments to ensure that this action is effective. The Australian Weeds Committee provides an inter-governmental mechanism for identification and resolution of weed issues at a national level for Australia. The Committee manages the implementation of the National Weeds Strategy. This strategy provides a national approach to the management of the Weeds of National Significance and those species listed on the National Environmental Alert List. The achievements as at February 2002, against the goals and actions of the National Weeds Strategy are identified in Box 1. The Vertebrate Pests Committee identifies nationally significant vertebrate pest issues, recommends appropriate management actions, and develops principles, national policies, strategies and programs relating to vertebrate pests to ensure the conservation, sustainable use and management of Australia’s land, water and biological resources. Unlike the National Weeds Strategy, there is currently no national strategy for invasive animal species. As part of a review of the functions of the Vertebrate Pest Committee, the Committee is currently considering the development of a national strategy that would address the impact and management of all invasive animal species, similar to the approach developed for weeds. Box 1. Achievements as at February 2002 against the goals and actions of the National Weeds Strategy Goal 1: More effective border control The development of a Weed Risk Assessment system for screening the importation of new plants and the ongoing review of the list of plant species that are permitted entry to Australia Reviewing the weed risk assessment of plant species held in Australian genetic resource centres Developing a national reporting system for all newly naturalised plants, including risk assessment and incursion management processes Alert/sleeper environmental weed list –Ministerial endorsement of the Alert List Developing improved weed identification tools such as the ‘Weedeck’ for use by community groups and individuals Goal 2: To reduce the impact of existing weed problems of national significance Establishment of a process for prioritising and determining the Weeds of National Significance (WONS) list. Gained Ministerial Council endorsement of the list of Weeds of National Significance First round of projects funded for WONS and alert/sleeper weeds focused on on-ground outcomes and on protecting matters of national environmental significance, eg. Ramsar wetlands and protected species Goal 3: To prevent the development of new weed problems To provide the framework and capacity for ongoing management of weed problems of national significance Developed administrative processes for managing WONS and national strategies developed for their management Contributed to the establishment of a reconstituted Australian Weeds Committee Established a network of people working with weeds across Australia Internet site providing information about weed management Developed national training competencies for weed management Developed guidelines and procedures to enable a reporting and early warning system on new weed outbreaks Promoted complementary laws in relation to weeds at Commonwealth, State, Territory and local government levels 9 In 2000 a national Coordinating Committee for Introduced Marine Pest Emergencies (CCIMPE) and a National Introduced Marine Pests Coordination Group (NIMPCG) were established as interim mechanisms pending the development of a comprehensive National System for the Prevention and Management of Introduced Marine Pest Incursions. The Coordinating Committee for Introduced Marine Pest Emergencies (CCIMPE) oversees a national emergency response network for marine pests, and considers State or Northern Territory requests for access to a national contingency cost-sharing arrangement. Under this arrangement, up to $5 million may be made available to combat an introduced marine pest outbreak of major concern that is amenable to eradication. CCIMPE consists of relevant agencies of the Australian Government, including CSIRO, and the States and Northern Territory. There have been four cases where the CCIMPE has been required to consider the reported outbreak of a potentially serious marine pest, and several cases where an initial report was not substantiated or did not require action. There has been one case where the emergency cost sharing arrangement has been accessed. In this case, during cleaning of a seized foreign vessel in Trinity Inlet, Cairns, an infestation of the Asian Green Mussel (Perna viridis) was discovered. CCIMPE determined that the first, investigatory, stage of an emergency response was appropriate. This was implemented by the Queensland Government, with the support of $50,000 from the contingency cost sharing arrangement, and involved the inspection of high-risk vessels, and the removal of any Asian Green Mussels found, as well as ongoing monitoring. A total of 16 mussels were found during March - June 2002, and a further 21 mussels have been discovered subsequently. The National Introduced Marine Pests Coordination Group (NIMPCG) was established to recommend detailed reforms to implement a National System for the Prevention and Management of Introduced Marine Pest Incursions, including: Prevention systems operating at the pre-border, border and post-border levels Coordinated emergency response to new incursions (implemented through CCIMPE under interim arrangements) Ongoing control of introduced marine pests already in Australia Supporting components for research and development, community preparedness, education and training Explicit agreement on the statutory framework of the National System, and secure funding arrangements Preliminary work on the national system has included identifying the requirements for a system to regulate the ballast water of both international and coastal shipping, and on a framework for management of biofouling pests. Further development is contingent on finalising the agreement between governments on the legislative and financial framework. These matters are being considered by the Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council in October 2003, as well as by the Australian Transport Council. Reforms introduced over 2000-2003 include the introduction of mandatory ballast water management requirements for international vessels introduced by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service in July 2001; the establishment and operation the national emergency response network overseen by CCIMPE; and an increased focus on scientific research aimed at control of introduced marine pests already in Australia, notably the Northern Pacific Seastar. 10 4. The effectiveness of Australian Government funded measures to control invasive species An indication of the level of expenditure by the Department on measures to control invasive species was given earlier in section 2. Funding is directed to the objectives and actions of the threat abatement plans for key threatening processes listed under the EPBC Act. A number of the projects, such as the development of biological controls for invasive animal and plant species, are long term in nature. Natural Heritage Trust funding is being provided to CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems to support research into the development of a biological control for cane toads in Australia. A recent review of the project concluded that excellent progress has been made with respect to identifying genes capable of blocking cane toad metamorphosis. A similar research project is being undertaken to develop an immunocontraceptive vaccine for the control of fox populations in Australia. This ongoing project aims to develop a bait-delivered immunocontraceptive vaccine to compromise the fertility of wild foxes. The vaccine is intended to provide a humane measure for the biological control of foxes to be integrated with existing on-ground control programs. The outcome of this component of the project will be a bait-deliverable immunocontraceptive candidate vaccine with significant antifertility in foxes, that is ready for evaluation in larger scale trials. The Department also had a significant role in efforts to control the Yellow Crazy Ant on Christmas Island. The invasion of crazy ants on Christmas Island had the potential to wipe out the worldrenowned red crab population. The control program started with a research program followed by field trials and ground baiting. In 2002, research and control efforts culminated in a major aerial control campaign that devastated the crazy ant super colonies. The Department and the Invasion Biology Group from Monash University were awarded a 2003 Banksia Foundation award for the Protection of Australia's Environment in recognition of their efforts. Knowledge gained from the Christmas Island program is being used for invasive ant control programs on the Australian mainland and has already helped to successfully eradicate yellow crazy ants from Cairns. Other biological control projects are being funded through the Natural Heritage Trust in an attempt to develop long term, cost effective methods of controlling a number of Weeds of National Significance. CSIRO Division of Entomology has been involved with a national project, ‘Biological control of Mimosa pigra and integration with other control options’. The results from this project have been encouraging and have shown that the suite of biological control agents and other management practices can have a significant impact on Mimosa pigra. This work will assist with the on-ground management of Mimosa pigra in the Northern Territory (including Kakadu National Park) and at sites where new outbreaks have occurred such as at Peter Faust Dam in Queensland. Infestations of Mimosa pigra broke out over 80,000 hectares of the Top End in the 1970s, threatening both agriculture and the wetlands of Kakadu National Park, managed by the Department. A vigilant and systematic approach to mapping and eradicating the weed at a cost of $500,000 a year has controlled this pest and work continues to prevent new outbreaks. As a result, Kakadu remains the most significant mimosa free wetland region in the Northern Territory. The Department is funding the CSIRO Division of Entomology to conduct research into the release and redistribution of three bridal creeper biological control agents. One of these agents, the bridal creeper rust fungus, was approved for release as a biocontrol agent for bridal creeper in June 2000. Recent informal reports from field researchers working in Esperance and Bremer Bay in Western Australia note the excellent on-ground results that the rust is achieving in controlling this weed of national significance and the high level of community support in helping achieve these results. 11 5. Whether the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Invasive Species) Bill 2002 could assist in improving the current statutory and administrative arrangements for the regulation, control and management of invasive species This Bill aims to prevent the introduction of further species in Australia and to eradicate or control those already here. Comments are provided on issues raised in the Subdivisions of the Bill. Subdivision A – Issues to do with listing processes As previously noted, the EPBC Act establishes a list of specimens suitable for live import (the live import list) and prohibits the import of any specimens not on this list. The legislation provides for an import being permitted under exceptional circumstances if the Minister is satisfied that there is no risk to the environment. Before a species can be added to the live import list an assessment of its potential impact on the environment, including extensive consultation, must be undertaken, to the satisfaction of the Minister. If approved, the amendment to the live import list is made by instrument published in the Australian Government Gazette. The amendment must be tabled in both Houses of Parliament and may be disallowed. The list of species permitted for import required by this Bill (s266AA(a)) exists under the EPBC Act. A species not appearing on this list is not permitted for import. Therefore the list of species prohibited for import required by this Bill (266AA(b)) also exists under the EPBC Act. Under section 266AC (2) the Bill categorises the following as prohibited imports: pasture grasses; ornamental plants and aquarium fish. As a number of these species are currently in trade (though controlled by the wildlife trade provisions to the EPBC Act) banning them outright could have negative economic impacts. The listing process in the Bill is modelled, for the most part, on the listing process that is used for listing threatened species, key threatening processes and ecological communities under the current EPBC Act (see Part 13, subdivision A). The timeframes used in the process of listing invasive species will be the same as that currently used for listing threatened species. These additional listing processes would have significant resources implications. While it is difficult to estimate the number of nominations that may occur, in the case of weed species this could include up to 2700 species that have been highlighted in other papers referred to in this submission (see footnote 3), requiring assessment (both by the Department and the proposed Invasive Species Advisory Committee), preparation of listing advice and possible listing as an invasive species. The Bill includes genetically modified species under the definition of 'invasive species' (s266AB(1)(b)). There is already a detailed and comprehensive nationally agreed and consistent scheme for the regulation of 'dealings' with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The Gene Technology Act 2000 (GT Act) (which came into force on 21 June 2001) and corresponding State and Territory laws constitute this nationally consistent scheme. The object of the GT Act includes the protection of the environment. The Bill does not appear to repeal or recognise current gene technology statutes. For each application for the intentional release of a GMO into the environment, including imported GMOs, the GT Act assessment process is rigorous and detailed. It involves wide consultation by the Gene Technology Regulator (GTR) with a wide range of sources, including the expert Gene Technology Advisory Committee and the federal Environment Minister, as well as the public. Specifically, under the GT Act, the Environment Minister is consulted by the GTR on two occasions 12 before finalisation of a scientific risk assessment and risk management plan for each intentional release. The GT Act provides for independent decision-making by the independent GTR. There is no scientific basis for assuming that all GMOs are 'invasive'. The GT Act evaluates the environmental safety of genetically modified species case-by-case, and only in respect of potential risks "posed by, or as a result of, gene technology". The approach to include GMOs in the scope of the Bill, by defining GMOs as 'invasive species' (s266AB(1)(b)), may duplicate the environmental risk assessment under the GT Act. The Bill's provision in respect of GMOs, may be inconsistent with the intergovernmental Gene Technology Agreement (GT Agreement) on the current regulatory scheme for GMOs. This agreement commits to the gene technology regulatory scheme being based on a scientific assessment of risks undertaken by an independent Regulator. Under the GT Agreement, there is a commitment that changes to the current scheme should be agreed by a Gene Technology Ministerial Council (GTMC) that is recognised in the GT Act. If the GMO is a species newly introduced to Australia, other Australian Government statutes such as the Quarantine Act 1908, and in some instances the EPBC Act, currently apply and would include evaluation of environmental risks. Subdivision B – Issues to do with Permit System processes This section of the Bill duplicates the current regulatory framework. It is currently an offence to import a live specimen into Australia unless it appears on the live import list. It is an offence to possess an illegal import, either for personal or commercial purposes. Further, if a species appears on Part 2 of the live import list, a person currently wishing to import that specimen must apply, and pay, for a permit. The information required by the Bill - in section 266BD (3) (a) - is already a mandatory requirement in the assessment that is undertaken before a new species is added to the live import list. All applications for additions to be made to the live import list undergo an assessment, including extensive public consultation. Subdivision C – Issues to do with Invasive Species Threat Abatement Plans processes The relationship is not clear between the invasive species threat abatement plans as proposed by the Bill and threat abatement plans established for key threatening processes under the EPBC Act. The proposed process removes the decision-making ability of the Minister to agree to make or revoke an invasive species threat abatement plan. A number of the processes outlined in Subdivision C of the Bill do not vary significantly from the matching provisions of the EPBC Act. The number of listed invasive species that may require threat abatement plans to be established under the provisions of the Bill could be very high. The preparation, implementation and review of high numbers of invasive species threat abatement plans will require significant human and financial resources to be applied to these tasks if they are to be completed in the timeframes set out in the Bill. Threat abatement plans for invasive species or key threatening processes or both? The Bill proposes to broaden the role of threat abatement planing so that two types of threat abatement plans will exist: (a) key threatening process threat abatement plans and (b) invasive species threat abatement plans. Under such a regime it is possible that a species is listed as both an invasive species and a key threatening process. This could require two threat abatement plans for the same species. These plans 13 would go through separate development processes with the content of the invasive species threat abatement plan (s266CE in the Bill) being different to the key threatening process threat abatement plan (s271 of the EPBC Act). This duplication would not achieve a better conservation outcome. The Minister’s decision to have or revoke a threat abatement plan Under the EPBC Act (see s270A) once a key threatening process has been listed the Minister must decide whether or not to have a threat abatement plan for the process. This decision is based on the Minister’s agreement that ‘having and implementing a threat abatement plan is a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the process.’ Under the Bill (see s266CD(2)) the Minister must make a written invasive species threat abatement plan for any species listed as eradicable or substantially containable. Under the Bill it is assumed that an invasive species threat abatement plan is a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the process. Under the EPBC Act (see s283A) the Minister may revoke a threat abatement plan, for example if the plan no longer identifies a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the process. There is no such provision to revoke an invasive species threat abatement plan in the Bill. No threat abatement plan for invasive species listed as ‘beyond eradication’? As noted above the Bill will require invasive species threat abatement plans to be established for species listed as ‘eradicable’ or ‘substantially containable’ (see s266CD(2)). It is not clear why a threat abatement plan (or alternative process) is not required for an invasive species that is listed as ‘beyond eradication’. As recognised by the criteria for the ‘beyond eradication’ category of listing (see s266AC(4)(c)), these invasive species would continue to be a significant threat to Australia’s biodiversity and production values. The Department considers that it would still be important to have a threat abatement plan to manage these ‘beyond eradication’ species. Based on current management tools available, a number of species currently being managed under the EPBC Act would fall into this category (eg. foxes, rabbits, mimosa). As a starting point the threat abatement plans for these species must clearly show: (a) why these species are considered as ‘beyond eradication’; (b) what would be required to have the listing of this species re-categorised to ‘substantially containable’ or ‘eradicable’. This may be possible with the development of biological control technologies; (c) the required actions and objectives to: protect key areas of high biodiversity (such as habitat for threatened species) and production values from these species, and provide a strategic national framework that would guide the ongoing land management, research and monitoring and evaluation activities required for this species. Differing timeframes for making and enforcing threat abatement plans Under the EPBC Act (see s273(4)) a key threatening process threat abatement plan, where the Minister decides to develop one, must be made and in force within three years of the decision to have the plan. Under the Bill (see s266CD(3)) threat abatement plans must be prepared within two years of listing for eradicable species and within five years of listing for substantially containable species. Note that this is only concerns the preparation of the plans, it does not define when the plans come into force. This timeframe ensures that the plans required for eradicable species are given a higher priority than species listed as substantially containable. 14 Under the Bill (see s266CF) it is not clear when a plan would come into force. It could be (a) the day on which it is made (not defined) (b) the day on which it is adopted (not defined) (c) a later day specified by the Minister in writing and published in the Gazette. No time frame is set in which the Minister must specify this date. Under the Bill it could be possible for a threat abatement plan for an eradicable species to be prepared within 2 years, but then delayed coming into force. The EPBC Act (see s273(4)) provides clear timeframes for when all threat abatement plans must be made and come into force. Preparation of threat abatement plans for native species outside their natural range Under the Bill (see s266CD(5)) the Minister may prepare an invasive species threat abatement plan for any other species currently present in Australia. This allows the Minister to pre-empt the listing process and proceed directly to the creation of a threat abatement plan. In such a situation it is not clear if or how such a species would be included in one of the categories of listing (see s266AA). Such a process could result in a confusing and ad hoc approach to threat abatement planning for invasive species, with inconsistent standards for the identification of invasive species. If this section is designed to provide a mechanism for the management of native species that occur outside their natural range and are invasive species in these areas, then the existing process under the EPBC Act provides a mechanism for native species (or groups thereof) that have become invasive in areas outside of their natural range to be considered as a key threatening process. This was demonstrated in the proposal to list the 'Introduction of Live Fish into Waters Outside their Natural Range after 1770' as a key threatening process under the EPBC Act. Contents of threat abatement plans The EPBC Act also ensures that the key threatening process threat abatement plan must give regard to issues such as minimising any significant adverse social and economic impacts, Australia’s obligations under international agreements and the role and interests of indigenous people in the conservation of Australia’s biodiversity (see s271(3)). These issues are not considered in the contents of invasive species threat abatement plans established under the Bill. The threat abatement plans established under the EPBC Act have evolved since the first four plans were published in 1999. All of the plans focus on the objectives and related actions required to abate the key threatening process. The more recent plans include performance indicators for each objective. As the older plans are reviewed they will be updated to include performance indicators. The threat abatement plans have, where required, considered issues such as animal welfare as part of the plan. Issues, such as animal welfare issues may be considered under existing provisions of the EPBC Act. Review of threat abatement plans Under the EPBC Act (see s279(2)) each key threatening process threat abatement plan must be reviewed every five years. This gives enough time for policy makers, researchers and land managers to set in place and achieve a range of activities to address the objectives and action set out in the plans before their review. Under the Bill (see s266CL(2)) each invasive species threat abatement plan must be reviewed every two years. This short timeframe will not allow significant progress to be achieved since the plans introduction. The review period for all threat abatement plans should be the same. 15 Subdivision D – Issues to do with Miscellaneous issues – particularly the ‘Register of Traders in Non-indigenous Species’ and the ‘Warning Requirement system’ The register of traders in non-indigenous species is similar in concept and design to the National Exotic Bird Registration Scheme (NEBRS), which was established in 1996 to manage the possession and trade in exotic birds. In the absence of other means, the principal benefit of NEBRS was the compilation of most, if not all, exotic birds known to be in Australia and better knowledge of their numbers and location. It enabled the States and Territories to regulate the holding and movement of exotic birds within their jurisdictions using a much-improved base line set of data. Federal authorities used the scheme in relation to import controls and risk assessment requirements. The 2001 amendments to the EPBC Act require the defendant to provide evidence in relation to whether an exotic bird is held in accordance with the EPBC Act. Thus it was found that NEBRS was no longer necessary to manage the possession and trade in exotic birds. The scheme was discontinued in January 2002 when the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Wildlife Protection) Amendment Act 2001 came into effect. Registration of non-indigenous species traders is not necessary to control the possession and use of non-indigenous species for commercial purposes. The size of the register could be very large, the cost of its administration high and enforcement unlikely to be cost-effective. Most breaches are likely to be minor and undiscovered, and the cost of any prosecutions high relative to the offence. Effective regulation of non-indigenous species is arguably better achieved through a defendant having the evidential burden (already in place), greater and more effective co-operation between jurisdictions (in place and under constant review) and increased state and territory efforts. The pest warning requirement will be difficult to enforce and compliance is likely to be low. Division 1 Part 19 – Issues to do with the establishment and functions of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee The operation of the current Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) established under the EPBC Act will be used to provide some comparison of the workload and costs that are likely to be involved in establishing a similar Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) to advise on the listing of invasive species. The Department has received over 200 threatened species nominations for listing under the EPBC Act from 1 July 2000 – June 2003. In addition to these species nominations, nominations for threatened ecological communities and a number of key threatening processes have also been received. The TSSC meets three times a year. The number of species nominations likely to be received by the ISAC could be substantially greater (in the case of weed species this could include up to 2700 species that have been highlighted in other papers referred to in this submission (see footnote 3), particularly in the first three years should the Bill be adopted. Consideration must be given to how the ISAC will manage such a workload in the time frames set out in the Bill. Related to this issue will be the requirement to prepare invasive species threat abatement plans for some of the species listed. Finding the resources within the Commonwealth, State or private sector to enable the development of such a large number of plans in short time frame could prove difficult. Threat abatement plans for key threatening processes cost an average of $30,000 each to prepare. The Remuneration Tribunal sets out the fees appropriate to a Ministerial appointed Committee such as the TSSC. These costs are currently $458 per day for members and $687 per day for the Chair including both preparation time and sitting days. In addition travelling allowances are also provided for interstate members. The average cost of a TSSC meeting with all members (10) attending is $38,000. 16 As the ISAC would probably need to meet bimonthly to manage the initial workload, it is estimated that the ISAC will cost $228,000 per year to operate (6 meetings at an average cost of $38,000 each). It is unclear what role the ISAC would have with the existing coordinating committees and mechanisms identified in section 3. Section 301A of the EPBC Act The EPBC Act provides for further regulations to be made to control non-native species. Section 301A of the EPBC Act provides that regulations may: provide for the establishment of a list of non-native species which may or would be likely to threaten biodiversity in Australia regulate or prohibit the import of species on the list, and the trade of species on the list between Australia and other countries and between State and Territory jurisdictions within Australia regulate or prohibit actions involving species on the list provide for making plans to eliminate, reduce or prevent impacts of the listed species on Australia’s biodiversity. The EPBC Act provides for strict controls on the import and possession of non-native species and the scope of s301A grants additional powers that may be established and implemented as appropriate. Section 301A of the EPBC Act would appear to address much of what is proposed in the Bill. Legal advice indicates that regulations could be made under Section 301A to control species listed under Section 301A(a) by legislating for offences relating to the transport or possession of a listed species that would be enforceable under the EPBC Act. The development of such regulations under Section 301A of the EPBC Act would be a significant challenge. It would require significant resources to be applied by the Department, other Australian Government agencies, State, Territory and Local Government agencies and relevant industry and nongovernment groups and organisations. These regulations could result in significant changes to a number of national industries particularly those associated with the nursery and pet fish trades. The Department’s current approach to managing invasive species combines a range of statutory and non-statutory methods. The Department believes that this approach, which includes working with State and Territory jurisdictions and a range of other stakeholders, provides land managers with an adaptive and effective approach to the management of invasive species in Australia. 17