Adapting to climate change: Policy and regulatory responses
5.1
The following two chapters examine measures that can be taken in
response to the effects of climate change on marine fisheries and biodiversity.
Submissions and witnesses called for greater attention to be given to the
impacts of climate change as well as urgent action to address the influence of
human activities on the climate.[1]
Given the targeted focus of this inquiry, however, this report instead
concentrates on proposals that specifically address how to respond to the
effects of climate change on the marine environment.
5.2
This chapter focuses on the evidence received about the adequacy of
regulatory regimes involving the marine environment in the face of climate
change. These include fisheries management arrangements, marine protected areas
and whether relevant legislation and approaches to decision-making are adequate
for dealing with the known and projected effects of climate change.
5.3
In considering these proposals, it is instructive to take into account
the Australian Government's overall approach to managing climate risks. This is
outlined in the National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy,
which was released in December 2015.[2]
The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) explained that this
strategy informs '[m]uch of Australia's climate science investment'. The FRDC
noted that the strategy 'specifically affirmed a set of principles to guide
effective adaptation practice and resilience building'. The principles are as
follows: shared responsibility; factoring climate risks into decision making;
an evidence-based, risk management approach; helping the vulnerable;
collaborative, value-based choices; and revisiting decisions and outcomes over
time.[3]
5.4
In addition, evidence was received about the Australian Government's responsibilities
under Commonwealth legislation regarding the risks of climate change for marine
biodiversity and fisheries, as well as research, information and reporting
relating to climate change that the government supports. Policies and programs
are discussed in this chapter where relevant; however, the submissions from
government departments and agencies provide further detail about these matters.[4]
5.5
This chapter commences with the evidence received arguing there is merit
in updating environment and resource management legislation and decision-making
processes to account expressly for the implications of climate change. How
regulatory arrangements could be changed to aid climate change adaptation in
various sectors is also discussed. Specifically, this chapter examines fisheries
management arrangements, marine biodiversity protections, and biosecurity
measures and monitoring systems.
Accounting for climate change in legislation, decision-making practices and
administrative arrangements
5.6
The objects of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) include the protection of the environment,
especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national
environmental significance, the promotion of 'ecologically sustainable
development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of
natural resources' and promoting the conservation of biodiversity.[5]
Among other things, principles of ecologically sustainable development include:
-
that decision-making processes should effectively integrate both
long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable
considerations;
-
the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure
that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or
enhanced for the benefit of future generations; and
-
the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity
should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making.[6]
5.7
The Environmental Defenders Offices of Australia (EDOA) called for
'Commonwealth legislation, particularly conservation and natural resource
management legislation...to be fundamentally re-oriented to focus on, and be
ready for, a future affected by climate change'. EDOA noted the existing
objects of the EPBC Act, but argued that 'to assist species to adapt under
future climate change scenarios, the EPBC Act should incorporate a new object
specifically referring to strengthening ecosystem resilience and adaptive
capacity of ecosystems, and facilitating adaptation'. Similarly, the EDOA
submitted that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 'does not
specifically refer to the need to promote climate change adaptation'. In
particular, the EDOA argued that the Act 'does not specifically facilitate the
inclusion of climate change concerns within zoning plans and plans of
management'.[7]
5.8
EDOA envisaged that refocusing and realigning Commonwealth laws in
response to climate change would involve the development of 'clear objectives'.
Ms Susan Higginson, Chief Executive Officer, Environmental
Defenders Office New South Wales (EDO NSW), explained:
Like all good laws, the objectives and goals need to be
clearly articulated, so that we are all on the same page. Those goals need to
promote ecosystem resilience and adaptive capacity; recognise that ecosystems
need to be the foundation of decision-making, planning and management; and
adopt risk and management frameworks that can actually respond to climate
change. Climate-ready laws provide a decision-making framework containing
robust and rigorous climate change mitigation and adaptation principles that
are appropriate and adaptable to implement actions to local conditions.
A whole-of-law approach is what we need, and it needs to be
adopted, including necessary amendments to current legislation. That has to
include legislation that is relevant, but not necessarily specifically focused
on conservation. It is essential that climate change considerations for
adaptation are included in policy formulation, planning, program management,
project design and project implementation.[8]
5.9
Examples of state government laws and management reports which do not
directly reference climate change were also noted.[9]
However, the committee was also informed of state legislation and policies that
refer to climate change. Dr Alan Jordan, Principal Research Scientist, New
South Wales Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI), provided the following
explanation of how climate change is approached in New South Wales marine
legislation:
There are four major categories. At the highest level—there
is a hierarchical approach to tease out the level of detail required—one of
those key ones is climate change. It stands out there, and land based impacts
and resource use are the other two key ones. The difference with the climate
change one—we recognise that a lot of the data out there in terms of
projections are 2100 projections. We recognised early on that the time frame
for the other risk assessments around land based risks et cetera were more a
20-year horizon, recognising that that is still a long horizon for government
to work towards. We recognised that a 20-year horizon in the climate change
space was probably inadequate, so we also added in a 50-year horizon in the
risk assessment, and you will see within the documentation that it is the only
area where we took a 20-year and a 50-year projection, with a clear
understanding that risks are generally trending up.[10]
5.10
In its submission, EDOA commented in detail on how it considers the
EPBC Act should be amended to improve the regulatory framework for how the
effects of climate change on marine fisheries and biodiversity are managed.
Overall, EDOA argued that:
...climate change impacts should be mandatory considerations in
the various decision-making processes under the EPBC Act, and incorporated
throughout assessments and management plans. This should include marine
bioregional planning, critical habitat listings, and threat abatement planning.[11]
5.11
In particular, EDOA considered that a 'key gap in the climate readiness
of the EPBC Act' is the lack of a 'greenhouse trigger'; that is, a requirement
for proposals to be referred to the Commonwealth if they are likely to be a
significant contributor to climate change.[12]
Essentially, a greenhouse trigger would require that a project which generated
levels of greenhouse gas emissions over a certain threshold would be referred
to the Minister for the Environment and Energy for determination as to whether
it is a 'controlled action', in which case environmental assessment and
approval of the project under the EPBC Act would be required.
5.12
The introduction of a greenhouse trigger has been considered previously,
most notably by the 2009 independent review of the EPBC Act conducted by
Dr Allan Hawke. The greenhouse trigger proposed by the Hawke Review would
have 'a threshold of at most 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent
emissions'. However, Dr Hawke's recommendation was made with reference to the
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), a cap and trade emissions trading
scheme proposed by the Rudd Government. Dr Hawke recommended that an interim
greenhouse trigger be introduced until the CPRS commenced (after which the
trigger would sunset).[13]
5.13
Legislation to establish the CPRS did not pass the Senate and the
introduction of an interim greenhouse trigger was not pursued as part of the
carbon price subsequently developed by the Gillard Government. In discussing
the recommendation for an interim greenhouse trigger, the Gillard Government's
2011 response to the Hawke Review explained that an interim greenhouse trigger
was not required because it expected investors would account for the carbon
price in their investment decisions.[14]
Accordingly, the government response did not agree to the introduction of an
interim greenhouse trigger. However, the carbon price developed by the Gillard
Government was abolished in 2014 by the Abbott Government.
5.14
EDOA also expressed concern that the Reef 2050 Long-term Sustainability
Plan[15]
is, in its view, unenforceable. Ms Higginson argued that attention should
be given to enforcing strategies such as the Reef 2050 Plan. Ms Higginson
explained:
I know there are many different philosophical approaches to
regulation, but, at the end of the day, the jury is well and truly in—and has
been in for a long time—on the idea that when something is unenforceable the
likelihood of achieving it is much lesser than if something is enforceable. The
reef plan, while it has some good aspirations, is unlikely to receive the type
of funding and attention that is required when it is simply not enforceable.
It is clear how we make things enforceable; we pass laws and we work hard to
get those laws right, and then it is enforceable. It makes sense: treasuries
and departments are willing to put more resources into mechanisms that are
required to be achieved by governments and agencies.[16]
5.15
Finally, a proposal for a fundamental change in how ocean-related
responsibilities are distributed between government departments and agencies
was put forward. Dr Trevor Ward and Professor David Booth argued that over
decades policymakers have attempted, but failed, to 'resolve the conundrum of
management of the "Ocean Commons"'. Dr Ward and Professor Booth
argued that there is a need to establish an 'effective integrated system for
management of our oceans', and that the establishment of a National Oceans
Commission could be assist in this endeavour.[17]
Professor Booth explained that such a Commission would support 'better
governance for the oceans' through by coordinating existing Commonwealth and
state agencies without taking on direct regulatory functions.[18]
5.16
Their vision for the roles and responsibilities of a National Oceans
Commission was articulated in detail in Dr Ward and Professor Booth's joint
submission. The submission stated:
...the National Oceans Commission would be statutory but
non-regulatory, in the sense that the Commission would not legally control the
activities of other agencies, governments, companies or citizens. There are
(probably) largely sufficient mechanisms in place to implement any required
changes to onground actions. The Commission envisaged here would act with
'carrot' rather than 'stick' to coordinate emerging activities, issue public
information about key aspects of ocean health, performance assessments about
existing and proposed resource activities, and set directions for future
innovations and activities that support enhanced resilience of the oceans
ecosystems and environments. To be an effective force in the public arena, the
Commission will need to be fully independent, authoritative, internally
consistent, and public in all its activities, with a funding base and support
that is commensurate with the high level of importance of the issues/activities.[19]
5.17
The submission argued that the Commission would help enhance the quality
of ocean ecosystems through various primary objectives. These objectives would 'be framed
to provide support to agencies, the private sector, and community groups for
the purpose of maintaining and enhancing (where necessary) integrated
ecosystem-based management of Australia's Oceans'. It was suggested that these
primary objectives would involve setting outcome-based ocean quality standards,
coordination and advocacy, producing publicly available reports on ocean
quality, and supporting collaborative research activities.[20]
5.18
Although few stakeholders commented on the concept of a National Oceans
Commission, those that did expressed support.[21]
5.19
Examples of coordinating mechanisms formed to improve governance of the
oceans and to overcome gaps in existing bureaucratic arrangements have been
pursued in other countries, such as the United States of America. Under
President Barack Obama, an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force was established
that led to the creation of a National Ocean Council. The National Ocean
Council comprised cabinet secretaries, agency heads and other key officials and
was charged with implementing the Obama Administration's National Ocean Policy.[22]
Fisheries management
5.20
Based on international experience, there is potential for a changing
environment to challenge existing fisheries management arrangements and access
rights. For example, the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS)
noted:
...as waters warmed, mackerel has expanded rapidly into Iceland
since 1996 and now supports a commercial fishery (1700 t in 2006 to 120,000 t
in 2009). This climate-driven change in distribution underpinned the
'mackerel wars' between EU and Iceland...[23]
5.21
Austral Fisheries noted that the 'specific adaptations to climate change
which our fisheries will be subject to are hard, if not impossible, to evaluate
with certainty'. Austral suggested that responses to issues presented by
climate change should be considered on a 'fishery-by-fishery basis, if not on a
species-by-species basis'.[24]
Austral added that any changes 'should only be made after careful scientific
assessment of the impacts which, in turn, necessitates an effective,
comprehensive, long-term scientific program to monitor and evaluate indicators
of climate change'.[25]
5.22
Evidence from entities involved in fisheries management suggested there
is a strong basis for current management arrangements to cope with challenges
that climate change may present. CSIRO submitted:
Australia has a strong record in fisheries management
supported by robust science that positions us well to cope with the impacts of
climate change. By global standards our fisheries are well managed. For
example, it has been estimated that less than 15% of assessed fisheries are
overfished, with an improving trend, compared to 30% globally. Australia's
fisheries jurisdictions have generally adopted ecosystem-based fishery
management as a policy goal. This is consistent with the growing international
demand for environmentally friendly products. Spatial management and
participatory or co-management are also key features of the fishery management
system.[26]
5.23
Similarly, the FRDC stated that 'Australia's policy and management
frameworks are well placed to respond because they are already adaptive and
flexible'.[27]
In addition, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) advised that
it is 'planning to assess the ability of our management system to cope under
various future scenarios'.[28]
AFMA's Chief Executive Officer provided the following summary of how the
fisheries management regime and AFMA's management approach can take climate
change related effects into account:
Sound fisheries management by definition seeks to be robust
to changes in the distribution and abundance of living marine resources. There
are many drivers that change the distribution and abundance of those resources
in addition to fishing. Those drivers are both living and non-living. They can
be complex and difficult to predict, and climate change is one of those. AFMA
is actively working to understand the threats and opportunities as a result of
impacts of climate change. We seek to ensure that our management is robust to
climate change impacts. We're helping to assist industry to adapt to the impacts
of climate change on their fishing practises and seeking to remove management
barriers to adaptation, and also seeking to understand and mitigate the impacts
of climate change on illegal foreign fishing threats in Australian waters in
our region.[29]
5.24
Changes to fisheries management arrangements have been implemented at a
state level; for example, in New South Wales 'a more holistic approach to
coordinated management of the coastal zoning in marine estate' has been pursued
through the creation of the New South Wales Marine Estate Management Authority.
Dr Alan Jordan from the NSW DPI provided the following evidence about the new
arrangements:
We have been conducting a comprehensive statewide
environmental social and economic risk assessment over the last two years or so
to identify the environmental assets and the social and economic benefits that
the New South Wales community derives from marine estate, and what the
threats are to those benefits. A key component of that threat assessment is
clearly climate change, as one of the overarching components of pressures or
stressors that are impacting on the marine environment.[30]
5.25
As noted previously, climate change is also one of many factors
affecting commercial fishing. The Government of South Australia submitted that
the 'many and varied factors which challenge the management of fisheries
resources...are a key driver for fisheries management to be responsive and
flexible to changing needs and requirements'.[31]
5.26
Nevertheless, the FRDC argued that 'fisheries management needs to be
more agile in order to take advantage of opportunities that arise through
climate change'. Although the FRDC considered 'it is generally too early to
specifically constrain/increase quota and access provisions due solely to
climate change', it argued that harvest management arrangements should be
continually improved, in accordance with key 'smart principles'.[32]
5.27
In addition, IMAS indicated that some specific challenges for fisheries
management arising from climate change will be encountered. It submitted:
As with other impacts of
climate change, impacts of climate change on marine species will create
'winners' (i.e., a new commercial species in an area) and 'losers' (i.e., loss
of an important species, or introduction of a new pest), re-shaping the pattern
of human well-being between regions and different sectors and potentially
leading to substantial conflict (i.e., Who accesses a new resource? Who pays to
remove a new damaging pest?). Successful management changes will therefore
involve trade-offs and complex decisions around who pays for adaptation and how
could/should resource allocation change—communication on climate change thus
becomes very important.[33]
5.28
EDOA argued that the legislation administered by AFMA should be amended
to include specific references to climate change. EDOA argued that the Fisheries Management Act 1991 is generally focused
on 'managing species rather than ecosystems'. In the face of climate change,
EDOA argued that '[h]ealthy ecosystems, supporting sustainable fishing opportunities,
must become the new focus'. To ensure this, the EDOA argued that AFMA should be
given robust obligations to consider climate change' when performing functions
under the Fisheries Management Act. According to EDOA,
these obligations could include:
...requirements to develop strategies and scenarios through
modelling of future impacts and changes in location of fish habitats, and for
accommodating adaptive management strategies into plans of management.
Consideration should also be given to explicit powers to make emergency
declarations or management decisions based on climate change impacts, for
example to prevent fishing in a particular area if oceanic conditions change
and it becomes a critical breeding area. AFMA requires the tools to allow it to
react quickly and efficiently as climate change impacts are realised.[34]
5.29
Another challenge arises from the limited 'socio-economic data for the
marine sector and associated communities'. IMAS considered that this lack of
data would present difficulties for evaluating the 'effects of potential
management changes and/or adaptation options'.[35]
Quota setting and access rights
5.30
AFMA highlighted the measures it uses to manage fisheries, including
harvest strategies, total allowable catches (TACs) and individual transferrable quotas (ITQs).[36]
AFMA considers that the output controls it uses are 'robust and flexible and,
along with other management strategies, are able to adapt to the variability
inherent in fisheries including climate change'. AFMA added that it:
...is aware that climate change will lead to greater
variability in the distribution and abundance of fish and other marine species,
both spatially and temporally, and that management strategies will need to
adapt accordingly.[37]
5.31
AFMA is updating its fisheries management strategies with respect to
climate change. As part of this process, existing fishery management strategies
and their ability to cope with climate change under various scenarios will be
tested.[38]
AFMA also advised that it is working with CSIRO on a 'decadal projections
project' which aims to determine 'which fish stocks in which areas may increase
or decrease and whether there are any spatial range movements in those species
as well'. This project, which is due to be completed early in 2018, is
intended to inform consideration of fisheries management arrangements.[39]
5.32
CSIRO commented on output controls used to manage fisheries. CSIRO
suggested that the targets and reference points set 'will need to be
conservative to consider species resilience in the face of change'. In
addition, current and projected climate change impacts should be incorporated
in management strategy evaluation models to improve the reliability of future
stock status projections.[40]
A similar recommendation was made by IMAS.[41]
5.33
On the Great Barrier Reef specifically, the GBRMPA submitted that,
to support commercial fishing, recreational fishing and the future
biodiversity of the Reef, management arrangements need to 'protect the
resilience of target and non‑target fisheries species and their habitats'.
The GBRMPA suggested that maintaining high stock levels would provide a useful
buffer to protect fish populations from extreme weather impacts and 'cumulative
pressures from human activities'.[42]
5.34
CSIRO reasoned that any changes to the availability or sustainability of
a stock due to climate change should 'impact on quota setting rather than on
access rights'; as such, CSIRO concluded that the proportional distribution of
access rights 'should be relatively unaffected by climate change'. Nevertheless,
CSIRO observed:
Inflexible access rights where any change requires involved
and costly legal processes could hamper adaptive management. The access
provisions and their implementation will need to take account of potentially
rapidly changing conditions and therefore should not hamper the need for
equally rapid management responses.[43]
5.35
IMAS, however, is of the view that '[g]reater innovation in the
development of rights-based systems should be considered. IMAS noted that that
the ITQ regime has generally 'resulted in a move away from owner-operators that
personally harvest the resource, to investors who own the access rights and
lease it to harvesters'. IMAS argued that investors 'often have limited
connection to the operating area and tend to be less accepting of negative
impacts that reduce quota'.[44]
IMAS acknowledged that 'access rights are unlikely to be changed'; however, it
suggested that governments 'should look at ways that they can be used for
improved socio-economic benefits that can enhance benefits to society and be
more flexible to adapt and respond to climate change'. IMAS referred to the
Community Development Quota Program in Alaska as an example of a 'more
innovative use of rights based systems'.[45]
5.36
Austral Fisheries reasoned that shifts in species ranges of toothfish
stocks observed in the sub-Antarctic fisheries may, if they become more regular
or occur with greater intensity, necessitate changes to 'our operations, and
possibly management regimes, to take those shifts into account'. Austral explained:
For example, like in situations where fisheries are
temporarily closed due to hazardous algal blooms, it may be necessary to change
seasonal access to sub Antarctic fisheries, at times of the year when toothfish
availability may be more stable.[46]
5.37
The Productivity Commission (PC) recently
considered quota arrangements and fishery access arrangements in its 2016
inquiry into marine fisheries and aquaculture. In its final report, released in
May 2017, the PC recommended that the Australian, Victorian, Queensland and
Tasmanian Governments should develop policies 'to guide the allocation of
access to fisheries stocks between different sectors'. The PC recommended that,
at a minimum, these policies should outline triggers for review of existing
allocations between sectors; the review process; and the key considerations
that will guide decisions. The PC further recommended that the Commonwealth,
state and Northern Territory governments should 'consider a move to trading of
access rights between the commercial and recreation sectors in the longer term
for suitable, higher value fisheries'.[47]
5.38
In its response to the PC's report, the Australian Government expressed
support for these recommendations and noted that a Commonwealth resource
sharing policy is under development.[48]
Fishery boundaries and
jurisdictional arrangements
5.39
Responsibility for fisheries management in Australia depends on
geographical boundaries. Under current arrangements, determined by the Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) agreement between
the Commonwealth, states and the Northern Territory:
-
the states and the Northern Territory have jurisdiction over
waters up to three nautical miles seaward of the low water mark; and
-
the Commonwealth has jurisdiction over waters from three nautical
miles to the edge of Australia's exclusive economic zone (200 nautical miles
seaward of the low water mark.[49]
5.40
Under the OCS, the Commonwealth, states and the Northern Territory may
agree to alter management responsibility arrangements for particular fisheries.
That is, the parties could agree to pass management responsibility exclusively
to the Commonwealth or to an adjacent state/Northern Territory. Fisheries can
also be managed as part of a joint authority between the Commonwealth and the
States/Northern Territory. At present, there are 59 OCS agreements that
determine how cross-jurisdictional stocks are to be managed and four joint
fisheries authorities.[50]
Recreational fishing is regulated by the states/Northern Territory.[51]
5.41
The PC has published the following background information regarding the
origin and purpose of OCS fisheries arrangements:
In their early conception, OCS
fisheries arrangements were to improve the management of cross-jurisdictional
fisheries by having such fisheries operate under a single law, a single set of
management rules and a single licensing regime. From the first OCS fisheries
arrangement, however, the 'single jurisdiction' model has not always been
followed. The first arrangement was for the Bass Strait Scallop Fishery in
1986, where jurisdiction was shared between the Commonwealth—which was given
responsibility for the central portion of Bass Strait—and Tasmania and
Victoria, which were given responsibility for areas within 20 nautical miles of
their respective coasts. This arrangement remains in effect today.
The 1991 OCS fisheries arrangements between the Australian
and New South Wales Governments, and 2006 amendments to the Fisheries
Management Act 1991 (Cth) marked further moves away from the single jurisdiction
model. New South Wales' 18 OCS fisheries arrangements all involve shared
jurisdiction with the Commonwealth over a number of stocks. The 2006 amendments
provided for a fishery to be managed according to the laws of different
jurisdictions in different areas provided those areas do not overlap—that is,
the amendments explicitly provided for the shared management of a single
fishery.[52]
5.42
Due to the expected changes in the distribution of fish stocks,
submitters considered that existing fishery boundaries and jurisdictional
arrangements might need to be reviewed in future. IMAS submitted:
Management within State jurisdiction boundaries is likely to
become ineffective for species that straddle these borders and are likely to
change their distribution under climate change impacts. Consideration of a
whole of stock management approach as climate change alters the dynamics and
distribution of fish stocks may be required. Increased cooperation between
fisheries management agencies across State boundaries and across
State–Commonwealth waters is essential.[53]
5.43
AFMA also noted that:
-
current fishery boundaries 'may have to change or be removed as a
result of climate change or else may impact fisher ability to capture fish when
fish abundance shifts geographically'; and
-
'there may be a need to amend current [OCS] arrangements between
Australian jurisdictions as species move and/or change in abundance'.[54]
5.44
Dr James Findlay, Chief Executive Officer, AFMA, commented:
The current fisheries are all
defined by a combination of the species area and method. Over time, we have
seen that those are becoming less efficient. If they were initially a good
idea, they are becoming less of a good idea as we are seeing changes occur in
the distribution of the abundance of fish. We have lines on water...that fish
don't take too much notice of, and so we're seeing this blurring of fish
between management jurisdictions and it's starting to undermine the initial
intent of those agreements.[55]
5.45
Ms Jo-anne McCrea, Australian Fisheries and Seafood Manager, World Wildlife
Fund, noted that the multi-jurisdictional arrangements are linked to issues
with access rights. Ms McCrea stated:
A traditional fisheries management arrangement would give a
particular entity access rights usually to a species, or series of species, in
a particular area. As species move and change, those access rights may become
less relevant. If you have access rights to snapper on the east coast of
Australia, which are in Queensland but are all now in New South Wales, those
systems do not work for that. This also brings in the issue of the multiple
jurisdictional nature of our Australian fisheries, particularly for those
coastal fisheries...I can certainly see benefits from a climate change adaptation
perspective around better cross-border arrangements with those.[56]
5.46
In response to these challenges, Ms McCrea considers that access rights
should be in a form that 'is flexible enough to respond to changing species
distributions and also respond to changing levels of productivity'.[57]
5.47
Ms McCrea called for an 'ecosystem-based approach to management'.
Ms McCrea explained:
Climate change, marine species and habitats...do not recognise
jurisdictional limits and boundaries. Nothing short of a fully-integrated
regulatory system is what is required now if we are to get this right.
Sectorial legislation is currently oriented around
activities, projects and non-ecosystem-based delineations. For example,
fisheries management is centred on a species or on catch techniques rather than
on ecosystems. This clearly limits the ability to respond to marine
ecosystem changes. Currently across Australia, there are inconsistencies in
approaches to marine fisheries and biodiversity which are resulting in
inconsistent protection measures for individual species across jurisdictions.
Only some states currently mention and recognise climate change in relevant
marine legislation, and even in these jurisdictions there is no proper
integration of climate change and climate change adaptation into
decision-making frameworks.[58]
5.48
AFMA advised that it is considering regional management strategies 'as
an alternative to fixed fishery boundaries where multiple fisheries areas are
combined and harvest is managed for the entire area'.[59]
5.49
The PC considered jurisdictional arrangements in its 2016 inquiry into
marine fisheries and aquaculture. In its final report, released in May 2017,
the PC stated that:
The rigidly defined geographic boundaries specified in many
OCS fisheries arrangements are not suited to providing dynamic regulatory
responses to changing fish populations and distributions arising from climate
change.[60]
5.50
The PC also noted that the management of fisheries according to
jurisdictional borders can create other adverse consequences.[61]
The PC stated:
Multiple regulatory systems add to the cost of managing a
cross-jurisdictional fishery. Further, where the rules of those systems are
inconsistent or do not sufficiently take each other into account, there are
higher risks of over- and under- fishing, unequal treatment of fishers, higher compliance
costs and administrative inefficiency. Problems with a number of
cross-jurisdictional fisheries have been recognised for many years, but reform
in this area has generally been limited.[62]
5.51
The PC noted that effects related to climate change are likely to increase
these adverse consequences.[63]
5.52
In response to the issues presented by the multi-jurisdictional approach
to fisheries management, the PC did not recommend pursuing a
single-jurisdictional model. In doing so, the PC noted that it considers changes
to the OCS are unlikely as the current arrangements were set following
agreement and legislation passed by all affected jurisdictions. The PC added
that, in its view, 'it is unlikely that the OCS will change unless all
jurisdictions agree that there are sufficient problems (or foregone
opportunities) to warrant such a reform'.[64]
Moreover, the PC identified other issues with a single jurisdiction model. The
PC explained its reasoning as follows:
In principle, the single jurisdiction model, which would bring
all fisheries under a consistent management approach, has the most merit. In
practice, the costs of shifting all fisheries to management under a single
jurisdiction (which, for practical reasons, would have to be the Commonwealth)
are likely to be prohibitive and create new efficiency costs associated with
federal management of inshore fisheries...The case for reform is also somewhat
diminished by the relatively small number of stocks affected by shared
management and the existence of well-working intergovernmental arrangements for
a number of those stocks. In short, the model would have merit if governments
were starting from scratch, but they are not, and it is very uncertain that the
benefits from reform would outweigh the costs.[65]
5.53
Instead, the PC concluded that:
The costs and risks of shared fishery management will be
reduced if all governments adopt known best practice approaches to core tasks
(such as stock assessments and harvest controls), routinely seek to implement
reciprocal or consistent arrangements in relation to catch controls and data
collection, and regularly review the terms of intergovernmental agreements
underpinning shared management.[66]
5.54
AFMA and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR) agreed
that it would be desirable to streamline the OCS arrangements.
Dr James Findlay, CEO, AFMA, advised that work is underway to change memorandum
of understanding and underlying OCS agreements regarding the management
arrangements between AFMA and the states/Northern Territory. Dr Findlay
stated:
The minister signed off on changes in Western Australia last
year, with regard to the jurisdictional boundaries between fisheries, and we're
working actively at the moment with South Australia, Victoria and New South
Wales on making further changes to those agreements.[67]
Recreational fishing
5.55
Options proposed in response to the likely impact of climate change on
recreational fishing included:
-
ocean forecasting tools 'to monitor and help recreational
fisheries adapt to a changing ocean';[68]
-
licensing for recreational fishing, with the revenue collected to
be used for improving resilience (habitat and fisheries productivity) and to
'enhance recreational amenity';[69]
and
-
acquiring 'regular, comprehensive data collection across
Australia' about recreational fishing to inform fishery stock assessments and
ecosystem risk assessments, and to ensure protected species interactions are
monitored.[70]
5.56
On the need to enhance data collection arrangements for recreational
fishing, AFMA submitted:
Given recreational fishers now take more catch than
commercial fishers for some key fish stocks and a major proportion of many
others, a greater investment in this area would be beneficial. This equally
applies to protected species interactions with recreational fishing for which
there is little monitoring or data at all.[71]
5.57
Dr James Findlay, AFMA's Chief Executive Officer, explained AFMA's
position on recreational fishing further at a public hearing. Dr Findlay
stated:
Recreational use of our resources is a major and growing
component.
It's important socially and economically, and it's also important biologically.
Any natural resource manager seeking to manage fisheries in Australia needs to
take account of the impact of recreational fishing but also its economic and
social importance in terms of ensuring its performance is maintained and
improved in the future. We are strong believers that you can't manage what you
don't measure. At the moment we're concerned there are significant gaps in the
data collection around recreational fishing, and the anecdotal report suggests
that that catch is increasing. But we're also seeing recreational fishers
playing a significant role in policy-making and playing a more significant role
in management, and we think that's critical, but, again, we need to understand
what their impact is and what they want to achieve.[72]
5.58
The FRDC noted that in regions which are more populous 'recreational
fishing effort is substantial'. The FRDC submitted that 'it is timely to start
tracking recreational effort and catch as a major input to fisheries management
arrangements'.[73]
5.59
Several other submitters expressed support for improved monitoring of
recreational fishing. Mrs Patricia Beatty, Executive Officer, New South Wales
Professional Fishermen's Association, argued that commercial fishing is
'absolutely monitored' with licence requirements necessitating catch records.
Whereas it is considered that 'a magnifying glass' is on commercial fishing
under the current management arrangements, Mrs Beatty argued that 'very little'
is understood about recreational and Indigenous fishing efforts.[74]
5.60
Professor Iain Suthers from the Sydney Institute of Marine Science
(SIMS) agreed with AFMA's concerns about the need to enhance data collection
arrangements for recreational fishing. Professor Suthers provided the following
comments to explain his concerns:
It is true that for a number of species such as the famous
red snapper Pagrus auratus the recreational catch is likely to be
bigger, and in some areas twice as big, as the commercial catch. If you are
trying to manage a system and understand the effects of climate, you need to
understand recreational catch. We only have these sorts of output controls—by
that I mean a bag limit, a size limit, a season or even a spatial
closure—but we do not have any input controls and we cannot regulate it if you
want to go fishing with your kid.[75]
5.61
Dr Alistair Hobday from CSIRO argued that recreational fishers 'offer a
great opportunity for collecting additional information' given the number of
recreational fishing vessels widely dispersed around the coast. Dr Hobday
stated:
If recreational fishers used logbooks, as commercial
fishermen do, we would have much more information on catch and effort. It is
the effort part of fishing that is the most important part in understanding
whether abundance is increasing or decreasing. So there could be more voluntary
programs that encourage fishers to record their catches and provide them. We do
that in dedicated research projects, but there is no comprehensive program that
I am aware of.[76]
5.62
In demonstrating how non-scientists, including recreational fishers, can
contribute to improved understanding of the marine environment, the success of
the Redmap (Range Extension
Database and Mapping project) program developed by IMAS was noted. The
Redmap website enables fishers and divers to submit photographic records of
'species they observe outside their expected distributions'; that is, 'species
that may be shifting where they live as a function of warming waters'.[77]
5.63
CSIRO added that 'many jurisdictions in Australia, including the
Commonwealth, do take into account recreational catches as far as they can when
they are doing assessments on the status of fish stocks'.[78]
Dr Alan Jordan, Principal Research Scientist, NSW DPI, also noted that the New
South Wales Government has 'a very active program in monitoring assessment of
recreational catch and effort and distribution'. Dr Jordan explained:
I think it was only early last year that we published a very
comprehensive report—which is a publicly available document—that was part of a
standardised national survey approach to quantifying the catch of recreational
fishers. That was based on a nationally agreed methodology where we would ring
a randomised number of people and interview them about their catch, and then we
would have a subset of them that would actually keep a diary and they would log
every time they went out there and fished: what species they caught, where they
went, what their effort was et cetera. So there is a very detailed report. I
think the science that underpins that understanding now is orders of magnitude
better than it was even five years ago. We are now starting to explore
opportunities to use newer technologies to do that in terms of using both
helicopter surveys and drones for monitoring the distribution of fishers up and
down the coast.[79]
5.64
Nevertheless, there is a view that the greater use of technology could
support improvements in how recreational fishing activity is accounted for in
fisheries management. Professor Suthers explained:
We can now monitor boat movements. With increasing
technology, efficiency of motors, GPS technology and weather forecasts, these
recreational boats are moving far beyond the traditional three-nautical-mile
limit and going well out towards the continental shelf sometimes. It is
staggering. There are fairly simple commercial radar systems—they are worth
about 40 grand, which is a lot, with the software and so on—that monitor boat
activity. If you have boat activity, then you have effort, and from effort you
can apply certain parameters based upon the boat-ramp surveys to say how many
fish have been caught in two hours of fishing.[80]
5.65
Licensing arrangements were suggested as a means by which information
about recreational fishing could be obtained. As part of its inquiry into marine
fisheries and aquaculture, the PC compared the licensing regimes in place
across Australia. In New South Wales, the PC noted that a licence is required
for all recreational fishing activities and in 2014–15 nearly 500,000 licences
were in force. However, the New South Wales licensing system includes several
categories of exemptions.[81]
Similar exemptions apply in the Victorian licensing scheme. The Western
Australian and Tasmanian licensing systems are limited in scope; instead of
applying to all recreational fishing they are 'oriented to valuable species and
to certain methods of fishing'. In South Australia, the only regulatory
requirement applies to rock lobster pots (which must be used to catch southern
rock lobster for personal use) and in Queensland and the Northern Territory, no
licence is required for marine fishing (although in the Northern Territory a temporary
licence is required for fishing on and over Indigenous land and adjoining
waters).[82]
5.66
The PC further noted that, with the exceptions of Victoria and Tasmania,
jurisdictions have licensing arrangements for charter boat operators.[83]
Although the keeping of logbooks that capture information about fishing catch
and effort is required as part of licensing regimes,[84]
stakeholders consider there are limitations with this reporting framework. Mrs
Patricia Beatty, Executive Officer, New South Wales Professional Fishermen's
Association noted that, in addition to the various licensing exemptions in New
South Wales, voluntary logbooks mean that complete coverage of fishers is not
achieved. Mrs Beatty observed:
There is no doubt that there is a large range of recreational
fishers. It might be us, who go out once a year or a couple of times of year,
but there are also those who go out every weekend with mates and hit it hard.
There is such a range of users in the recreational fishing sector that we have not
been able to track their impact on the resource. We do know for a fact that
there are a number of species across the Australian east coast where the
recreational take is higher than the commercial take, yet, from the creel
surveys that were undertaken, there is no additional monitoring on those
species.[85]
5.67
The PC considered the regulatory treatment of recreational fishing in
its report on marine fisheries and aquaculture. The PC concluded that:
The management of recreational
fishing should be based more on evidence about the extent, nature, impact and
value of recreational fishing activities. This would contribute to improved
management of catch-constrained stocks and resource allocation decisions, and
more generally support sound decision making on the management of fishing
activity, and on additional services and facilities for fishers.[86]
5.68
The PC recommended that 'well-designed licensing systems provide the
means for collecting this information without imposing undue regulatory burden
on fishers or government'. The PC continued:
Licensing systems already exist in some States. They deliver
current, although partial, information on participation. In comparison to
States without licensing, which rely on periodic surveys for participation
data, licensing systems provide governments ready and reliable sampling frames
for the collection of other information that may be needed to inform
management, such on fishing methods, catch, locations and the value derived
from fishing.[87]
5.69
Consequently, the PC recommended that licence frameworks should be
introduced in jurisdictions without licensing for independent recreational
marine fishing (Queensland, South Australia and Northern Territory). The PC
further recommended that existing regimes be expanded; that is, the exemptions used
in New South Wales and Victoria should be reduced, and the scope of
licencing regimes in Western Australia and Tasmania broadened to include all
recreational fishing activity. Furthermore, the PC recommended that the
Victorian and Tasmanian Governments introduce licensing for marine charter boat
operators. In addition, the PC recommended that the Australian Government
'should consider licensing if it takes on greater responsibility for the
management of recreational catch'.[88]
5.70
Finally, OceanWatch Australia, which is recognised by the Australian
Government as the natural resource management (NRM)
organisation for Australia's marine environment, argued that greater funding
for marine NRM activities would, in addition to commercial fishing outreach, enhance
its ability to reach recreational and Indigenous fishers. Ms Lowri Pryce,
Executive Officer, OceanWatch Australia commented that greater investment in
marine NRM operations would 'given our track record, would be a low-risk and
high-return investment'.[89]
More timely management responses
5.71
Stakeholders commented on the timeliness of management responses.
One issue is the need to collect information more frequently so that
up-to-date information is used. Mrs Patricia Beatty from the New South Wales
Professional Fishermen's Association commented on this with reference to how
information from logbooks is used:
Currently, log books are the major commercial monitoring
tool. Log books are required to be provided to DPI Fisheries once every month,
and then that is entered into the system. I think the last New South Wales
status report was in 2014, so it is not compiled and looked at an analysed on
the spot or within six months—that is my impression from the discussions we
have had with DPI Fisheries. And the log book is the way the majority of our
fisheries are monitored. We do have two fisheries in New South Wales—lobster
and abalone—that are currently under quota, and therefore the data on their
catch statistics is captured electronically, so it is a lot faster for them,
but we do not have that across New South Wales fisheries for the majority of
our fisheries. It is a very antiquated, paper-based system that is filled out
by the fishers, sent in after a month or so and then sent in to be hand entered
by DPI Fisheries. You can imagine that that does take time.
5.72
Mrs Beatty argued that research and monitoring needs to occur in
real-time to support adaptive management responses. Mrs Beatty explained:
When we talk about real time, we are looking at the moment at
a very antiquated system where you are not seeing data and then data analysis;
you are probably looking at a year before you are getting an absolute
understanding of what is going on. Then we have the added issue that most catch
log books are based on CPUE—catch per unit effort.
CPUE is well known to be not the best indicator of how a stock abundance is
going on. If you have an aggregating species per se—such as a lot of the
offshore species, which might be considered aggregating species—CPUE is not a
good indicator of the abundance of the aggregating species, because it is not
until the species is pretty much gone that you start seeing a drop in the
levels. So there is a number of species that CPUE should not be used for, but
that is what your systems are based on.[90]
5.73
It was suggested that management responses needed to more rapidly
respond to the information collected. CSIRO's submission commented on how it
can be up to two years before data collection informs management action. Dr
Hobday from CSIRO noted that this timeframe is often the case for stock
assessments 'where information has to be gathered, cleaned and processed, and
there is a model to produce some answers, and then the management group decides
on what it is going to implement'. Dr Hobday observed, however, that other
management processes 'can be much more rapid'. Dr Hobday explained:
One example is with in-season closures. That would be when
the quota is reached earlier in the season. A fishery can be closed at that
particular time. Other examples are with dynamic spatial management. We provide
information to [AFMA] on the likely distribution of tuna on the east coast of
Australia. They were updating that six hours after we provided them with
information, and then fishers would have two days to respond to those new
zoning arrangements on the east coast of Australia.[91]
5.74
Dr Hobday concluded that, in some instances, reducing the duration of
the management process would be 'very difficult'. To address this issue, Dr
Hobday suggested that a precautionary approach can be taken to assessments to
account for how 'a two-year time gap might mean that things have changed over
that period of time'.[92]
Marine biodiversity protections
5.75
Submitters commented on the effectiveness of efforts to protect
biodiversity through the use of marine protected areas, as well as the
arrangements for threatened, endangered and protected species.
Marine protected areas
5.76
Marine protected areas (MPAs), which include marine parks/reserves,
are intended to help protect and maintain biodiversity. Australia has the
largest network of marine reserves in the world.[93]
This network was established in 2012 by the Gillard Labor Government, however,
the reserves were put on hold by the Abbott–Turnbull Government.
Figure 5.1:
Australia's network of marine parks
Source:
DoEE, 'Australian marine parks', www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/marine-reserves
(accessed 27 October 2017).
5.77
The current Government's draft management plans propose deep cuts to the
protective zoning declared by the Governor-General in 2012 in marine parks
around Australia's coastline, including iconic areas such as the Coral Sea, the
Great Australian Bight, Geographe Bay, the Kimberley and the Gulf of
Carpentaria.
5.78
Downgrades to protective zoning are also proposed to a number of
longstanding marine parks declared over the last 30 years, including at
Middleton Reef in the Lord Howe Island Marine Park and Mermaid Reef at the
Rowley Shoals.
5.79
The draft plans propose to revoke 40 million hectares of high-level
green zone/marine national park (sanctuary zones which keep marine ecosystems
functioning in their natural state without the pressure of mining or fishing).
This is an area twice the size of the state of Victoria and representing almost
half of the marine national parks in the network of 44 marine parks. What is
proposed by the Turnbull Government is equivalent to revoking half of
Australia's national parks on land, and is unprecedented globally.
5.80
Australia used to have a bipartisan legacy of marine protection,
stretching back over 40 years to the Whitlam and Fraser Governments. In 1998,
having secured an agreement from the Australian and New Zealand Environment
Conservation Council (ANZECC) to declare the world's first network of
science-based marine parks, in 2004 the Howard Government set what has been
described as the 'gold standard' for marine park management by declaring green
zones in 34 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.[94]
Between them, the Howard and Gillard Governments declared 60 federal marine
parks and completed the network.
5.81
The current government's proposed cuts are not science-based—CSIRO
recommends that each marine park should have at least one green zone/marine
national park. Yet 16 of the marine parks would have no high-level protection
under the Government's 2017 proposals.
5.82
The Government's own Expert Science Panel recommended that all primary
conservation features have at least some representation within green
zones/marine national parks. Yet the draft plans leave 259 of Australia's
primary conservation features and 20 entire biological regions unrepresented in
high protection.
5.83
Reefs protected in green zones/marine national parks have significantly
higher numbers of fish, and are recovering much faster from cyclone and coral
bleaching damage than adjacent unprotected reefs. One study in the Great
Barrier Reef found that: 'The difference in the amount of Coral Trout between the
protected areas and what's next door is 80%, an 80% difference in the biomass
between the protected areas and what's immediately adjacent to it'.[95]
5.84
Between July and 20 September 2017, the Director of National Parks
consulted on draft management plans for the marine parks. The final plans will
require approval by the Minister for the Environment and Energy and will be in
place for ten years from the date specified by the Minister after they
have been tabled in both Houses of Parliament.[96]
At the time of writing, the final management plans had not been made.
5.85
Various submitters highlighted the benefits of MPAs for building
resilient marine ecosystems in the face of climate change. For example, IMAS
noted that effective MPAs 'comprise one key tool for reducing future
climate-related changes in biodiversity'.[97]
The FRDC submitted that no-take marine reserves provide 'important benchmarks
or reference points to understand and track change and to gauge the
effectiveness of our marine management'.[98]
5.86
Professor Iain Suthers, SIMS, stated:
In New South Wales there is a complication for MPAs because
of urbanisation and run-off from the land, which has a synergistic effect.
Nevertheless, where you have these MPAs you do find increased biodiversity.
Even the harshest critics of MPAs—of which there are a lot in this state—agree
that biodiversity is definitely protected within these MPAs. Partly that is
because you have space that is taken up by the native species. If you have,
say, harvesting of timber, you allow in weeds that can move into that space. So
I think my colleagues are absolutely correct, and there is evidence that these
marine protected areas do support greater biodiversity, including a persistence
of kelp. Also, the abundance of fish that derive benefit from the habitat is
quite remarkable, and that then has tourism benefits as well.[99]
5.87
However, IMAS is of the view that the current MPAs are inadequate
for safeguarding marine biodiversity and the current MPA network 'is
poorly-designed for resisting impacts of climate change'. It argued that there
are 'numerous large gaps' in the current MPA network and that most no-take
zones are of a small size.[100]
IMAS outlined features it considers should be included in an MPA network to
best maintain biodiversity in a changing climate.[101]
5.88
Professor David Booth argued that building resilience in marine
ecosystems is a necessary response to climate change. Professor Booth stated
that increased resilience can occur if other stressors, such as pollution and
fishing, are controlled. Professor Booth argued that marine park networks can
assist in this regard; however, he is concerned by the current approach to
these parks. Professor Booth explained:
One solution that will help in part will be marine park
networks where fish can thrive, at least in sanctuary zones, and where we can
see the full size spectrum of fish species, which an ecosystem needs to
function properly. At the moment I am concerned the Commonwealth marine
reserve network is floundering—pardon the fishy pun. It has been eroded and it
has also been delayed. So I would like to see the management plan for that
brought to fruition. [102]
5.89
EDOA argued that the 'establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and
representative system of no-take marine protected areas...is vital'. EDOA stated:
In a climate change context, appropriately placed MPAs should
be provide climate refugia, maximise functional connectivity between protected
areas to enhance the potential for range shifts, protect areas in which key
ecological processes occur e.g. feeding aggregations and breeding or spawning
grounds, and be situated to allow for a range of species dispersal distances,
which for some species, are predicted to change with increasing sea
temperatures.[103]
5.90
Witnesses from SIMS acknowledged that the split in jurisdictional
responsibilities between Commonwealth and state waters has complicated marine
management for decades. Nevertheless, it was suggested that 'connectivity'
between Commonwealth and state reserves could be improved. Dr Adriana Verges
explained:
In terms of the Commonwealth marine reserves, one of the
problems that we have identified with them is that there is no connectivity
between them and the state reserves. I think that is important. This could be
easily fixed, because connectivity is probably one of the things that can be
helpful in terms of protecting ecosystems from climate change. By protecting an
entire corridor that is connected between the coast and inshore, you would be
helping with that.[104]
5.91
AFMA, however, argued that from a fisheries management perspective, no‑take
MPAs 'are relatively clumsy' compared to other regulatory tools AFMA can use. In
particular, AFMA highlighted the various management approaches available to it
which can be adjusted rapidly if needed.[105]
AFMA explained that a key distinction between its management tools and no-take
MPAs is that MPAs 'are developed over a long period of time using particular
criteria and when the underlying environment changes they tend not to be moved
in response'.[106]
Overall, Dr Findlay summed up AFMA's views on MPAs as follows:
[O]ur position is not no MPAs. At the end of the day, the
public has the right to decide on its use of the marine environment. If MPAs
are going to be used to manage some particular elements of biodiversity, which
they're good at, then we support that. Our concern is that if there's a view
that they could be well used to manage fisheries resources or manage the
impacts from fishing then we think we have better tools available to us to do
that.[107]
Threatened, endangered and
protected species
5.92
One of the challenges IMAS identified regarding the effects of climate
change on commercial fishing relates to changes in the behaviour of
conservation species. For example, changes in the spatial or temporal
overlap between conservation and commercial species could occur or conservation
species could move out of protected areas. As a result, conservation species
could become more vulnerable to 'overexploitation or accidental by-catch'.[108]
5.93
The Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE) noted that many
conservation advices and recovery plans for listed threatened marine species
and ecological communities 'recognise changes in ocean temperature, salinity,
water clarity, ocean acidification, sea level and/or the frequency or severity
of cyclones and storms as potential threats'. The DoEE added:
Managing the impacts of climate change on listed species and
ecological communities remains a significant challenge, as there is limited
information on the full extent of the impacts and limited options to directly
alter marine ecosystems. Recovery efforts therefore focus on increasing the
resilience of species and ecological communities by reducing the human impact
on the marine environments, such as by minimising disturbance to coastal and
beach environments and managing any significant impacts of commercial and
recreational fishing.[109]
5.94
Ms Susan Higginson, Chief Executive Officer, EDO NSW, argued that the
threatened ecological communities and critical habitat lists 'are in desperate
need of attention' to ensure adequate protection under the EPBC Act is
provided. Ms Higginson argued:
An assessment of ecological communities and species at risk
from climate change is urgently required. We have not done that work and there
is no proposal yet to do that work. This could be included, for example, in a
comprehensive national ecosystems assessment for Australia. Greater flexibility
and the development of recovery and threat-abatement plans could enhance their
use for marine regions and ecosystems in the key principles of marine
biodiversity adaptation—being the need to reduce human threats and stresses to
build resilience and well-functioning ecosystems—to focus on ecosystem or
landscape-scale management. Marine bioregional planning could also be an
effective tool in the management of the marine environment on an ecosystem
basis, but the EPBC Act provisions need to be expanded to include climate
change impacts as a mandatory consideration in the planning process.[110]
Biosecurity measures and monitoring systems
5.95
In its submission, the DAWR recognised that increased water temperatures
will cause biosecurity challenges. Under the current biosecurity arrangements,
the Commonwealth coordinates 'the response and preparedness and promotes
consistency in national policies, underpinned by the Biosecurity
Act 2015'. The states and the Northern Territory jurisdictions are
responsible for the detection, response and management of current, new and
emerging diseases and pest issues.[111]
5.96
The Queensland Government submitted that 'part of the prevention and
preparedness strategy is to predict the pest species most likely to arrive and
establish in the changed environmental conditions'.[112]
5.97
On the transportation of marine pests to new environments from ballast
water, which is regulated by the Australian Government, the DAWR highlighted the
International Convention for Control and Management of Ship's Ballast Water and
Sediment (Ballast Water Convention), which
commenced on 8 September 2017.
The Ballast Water Convention establishes standards and procedures for the
management and control of ships' ballast water and sediments.[113]
Amendments made to the Biosecurity Act were made in 2017 to ensure
Australia is compliant with the Ballast Water Convention.[114]
5.98
The DAWR has been developing a regulatory approach to manage the risks
of marine pests being introduced through biofouling. The DAWR submitted that
the regulatory system would be based on guidelines developed by the
International Maritime Organization and 'will require active and regular
management of biofouling on vessels to reduce the risk of translocation of
exotic species'.[115]
The 2017 amendments to the Biosecurity Act enable the DAWR to 'look at hull
fouling as a biosecurity risk'.[116]
5.99
Mr Ian Thompson, a first assistant secretary at the DAWR, explained that
the DAWR is implementing a national biosecurity surveillance program to enable
better identification of biosecurity threats before they arrive. Mr Thompson
added that, in response to threats that have arrived, the DAWR is working on
developing a mechanism 'for responding to marine emergencies with industries
and for acting quickly when they happen'. This mechanism, which is intended to
'provide the same sort of partnership response in the marine environment that
we have for incursions on land at the present time', is expected to be
finalised in 2018.[117]
5.100
However, the committee received evidence expressing concern about the
attention given to biosecurity matters at present. IMAS argued that there are
'limited' research and development capabilities and investment in fish health
in Australia, which it considers is surprising given the value of marine
industries, the size of Australia's ocean territory, and the concentration of
Australia's population in coastal areas. IMAS argued that these limited
capabilities and investment are 'inadequate to support ever increasing
aquaculture growth, which at the same time faces largely unpredictable
threats from climate change'.[118]
IMAS suggested that long-term funding is required for 'comprehensive,
coordinated biodiversity monitoring systems' to assist in improved
understanding of the implications of climate change for natural systems.[119]
5.101
It was also argued that biosecurity efforts focus on individual
industries and suffer from a lack on overall coordination. Mr Martin Exel from
Austral Fisheries observed:
As to biosecurity, you have got a huge problem with white
spot virus at the moment in prawns in Queensland; you have got the problems
with the algal blooms...you have got the issues with moving of lobster or abalone
or toothfish or whatever. But it is not coming into a cohesive place; each area
has their own expertise and they are all dealing with it separately.[120]
5.102
Mr Exel agreed that a government taskforce on improving coordination in
biosecurity matters 'would be a damned good start'.[121]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page