Chapter 2Challenges and responses across jurisdictions
2.1This chapter discusses the challenges posed by Centrostephanus rodgersii (Centro) in New South Wales (NSW), Victoria and Tasmania—environmentally, economically, and for communities that depend on marine resources. It also outlines the current management arrangements across these jurisdictions, considering relevant legal, policy and program frameworks.
2.2In noting these challenges, this chapter also touches briefly on evidence received by the committee regarding South Australia, where there is currently no Centro population, as well as New Zealand, where the NSW strain of Centro has migrated across the Tasman Sea to establish urchin colonies.
2.3This chapter concludes with an outline of relevant issues for the Commonwealth, including the environmental governance and legislative frameworks, as well as its role underpinning research into and monitoring of Australia's environmental and marine resources.
2.4Later chapters discuss potential ways for the Commonwealth to play a leadership role in working with states and other stakeholders to address the challenge of Centro, as well as areas it could assist and support opportunities in the development of the urchin as a premium food product.
Differing challenges and management frameworks across jurisdictions
2.5As noted in the previous chapter, the challenges of managing Centro differ between states significantly, in particular due to Centro being a native species in NSW where it is considered an integral part of the marine ecology, whereas it is a highly destructive invasive species in southern states.
2.6State and territory governments are primarily responsible for regulating environmental matters in their jurisdictions, including state and territory waters. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) noted that:
All state and territory governments have legislation to conserve biodiversity and to retain and manage habitats, including through a conservation reserve system involving national parks, nature reserves, conservation parks and marine parks. State and territory governments operate native vegetation conservation programs, while also providing for sustainable development of lands and waters within their jurisdictions.
2.7The work of the National Centrostephanus Management Task Force (Centro Task Force or Task Force) in bringing together stakeholders across Commonwealth, states and other sectors was outlined in the previous chapter. It is discussed in more detail in chapter 4, which considers potential ways forward in Centro management.
New South Wales
2.8Centro is endemic to NSW, so the management strategies adopted in that state are significantly different from those of Victoria and Tasmania. However, there is some debate over whether the current level of urchin barrens is a natural feature of NSW's ecology, or an indication of human-induced changes to the environment.
2.9For example, Blue Carbon Services submitted that, while Centro is native to NSW:
… there is conjecture about whether the extensive barrens they form in that region are part of the natural system or are a human-caused phenomena. This is especially since many barrens likely formed prior to systematic monitoring, which muddies our understanding of the natural baseline of the system. What is known however is that 1) extensive urchins barrens, such as those seen in New South Wales, are not a natural feature of any other reef system anywhere else in Australia or the world, and 2) urchin predators, such as large eastern rock lobsters, blue groper, and pink snapper, have all demonstrated historical declines across New South Wales.
2.10Given this debate, some have called for urchin culling and programs to rehabilitate barrens. However, others consider barrens an integral part of NSW's ecological biodiversity. For example, Professor Michael Kingsford noted:
The extent to which the abundance of these urchins on New South Wales rocky reefs is a natural phenomenon or reflect change due to human impacts on reef ecology has been a focus of media and policy, but extensive research points to the former. In NSW this species is critical for the diversity of reef based habitats to the south of Port Stephens. Rocky reefs are one of the most common and spectacular environments along the coast of New South Wales. Critically, habitat diversity plays a key role in the functioning of these reefs. The seascape is characterized by a mosaic of habitats, including shallow cunjevoi… and tufting algae, while in deeper waters kelp forest and urchin grazed barrens abound.
2.11Mr David Rowland of the Nature Coast Marine Group noted that urchin barrens were a 'global problem’, and suggested the debate in NSW could be characterised as 'whether these urchin barrens are natural or whether they're caused by overfishing of urchin predators—by colonial settlement and afterwards—just by heavy fishing'. Noting a very large barren of around seven kilometres long in NSW, he suggested further research was needed:
What you're left with is that bedrock, which is basically whitish rock. There hasn't been much mapping into deeper water. A lot of the mapping is just what you can see from aerial photos. So that's a big gap. They're finding them very deep in Tassie, down to 40 or 50 metres. The work just hasn't been done here to see if that's happening … Truly over time there have been smaller barrens, but to have such huge, extensive barrens is possibly unlikely in a natural scenario. So the question is: have we removed our predators? What predators have been removed?
2.12At a hearing, Mr Dane Wilmott, the President of the Nature Coast Marine Group, told the committee that:
… a barren perhaps has its own unique ecosystem and biodiversity in its own right. Once again, it's spatial reference: how much of that unique biodiversity is needed and how does that unique biodiversity—that is, a barren—benefit the majority of the stakeholders? It may benefit and may well be in a natural state in its own right, but if you're looking at it from an ecotourism perspective it doesn't benefit people who don't want to look at bare rock and a few small fish. It doesn't benefit the sea urchin fishery. It doesn't benefit the abalone fishery. It doesn't represent or benefit cultural fishing practices or recreational fishing practices.
2.13Some submitters noted that the presence of Centro in NSW has decreased the productivity of abalone fisheries in the state. Sea urchins are also commercially harvested in NSW.
2.14On potential strategies to reduce Centro populations, some evidence argued that work to reduce urchin populations in NSW would not necessarily correspond to a reduction of populations further down the coastline, due to larval dispersion and already established colonies in other states.
NSW's approach to management
2.15The NSW Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) (NSW DPI) explained that NSW's priorities were to maintain competitiveness and productivity for NSW fisheries, while working with other states to research, develop and manage Centro's spread. Dr Thor Saunders, Director of Fisheries Research for the NSW DPI stated:
The long-spined sea urchin, colloquially known as centro, is a naturally occurring invertebrate species in New South Wales rocky reef ecosystems. It's the species with the highest catch. It was 83 per cent in 2020 in the NewSouth Wales sea urchin and [inaudible] restricted fishery. That has been operating sustainably in New South Wales for over 50 years. [NSWDPI] strongly supports efforts to sustainably harvest centro and assist with the development of domestic and export markets for this species.
2.16Dr Saunders commented that, even if urchin barrens were understood as a natural and established part of NSW's ecology, the state was committed to working collaboratively across jurisdictions to address the wider challenge of Centro:
Unlike in Victoria and Tasmania, there is currently no scientific evidence that there are broad-scale patterns of urchin barrens increasing in NewSouth Wales. However, we understand that centro abundance in south‑eastern Australia has the potential to significantly negatively impact rocky reef ecosystems in this region. Currently we are participating in a centro tri-state task force that was formed in February 2023 that aims to evolve jurisdiction-specific and cross-jurisdictional regional management and research and supply chain priorities for this species.
2.17Dr Saunders also listed emerging priorities for managing Centro, including:
… development of best-practice management for the fishery in the form of a harvest strategy. This will initially cover New South Wales, but we will also be in discussions with Tasmania and Victoria to develop a regional tri‑state harvest strategy to guide management and harvest in these fisheries.
2.18It was recognised that questions remain about Centro's role in NSW's marine ecology, and that Traditional Owners could provide deep knowledge about urchin populations. Dr Saunders stated:
Development of a survey methodology in cooperation with stakeholders—not just stakeholders; as we heard from Wally [Stewart], Traditional Owners—is being used to underpin the sustainable management of centro as well as identifying ecological benefits from the removal of this species. We work collaboratively with commercial and Aboriginal fishers to ensure that the objectives of these groups are being achieved.
2.19Professor Adriana Vergés and colleagues from the University of New South Wales submitted that Traditional Owners had unique perspectives that could inform Centro management approaches:
Perspectives from First Nations communities who have millennial links to NSW Sea Country provide highly valuable insights into such long-term changes. In a document entitled 'Sea Country Health & Connection on the NSW South Coast' the NSW Aboriginal Fishing Rights Group collected 70survey responses from First Nation owners with over 50% of surveyed participants being part of the NSW South Coast Native Title Claim. 71% of respondents indicated that "sea urchins are a key cause of sea country degradation", including the long term loss of kelp forests.
2.20Mr Wally Stewart, NSW South Coast Traditional Owner and an Advocate for NSW Aboriginal Fishing Rights Group, confirmed there had been positive engagement between First Nations and the DPI, and that the state government had supported both research into the long-term history of the state's marine ecology, as well as Traditional Owners being trained to undertake sustainable management of marine ecosystems.
Victoria
2.21The southwards migration of Centro has created significant challenges in Victoria. While the urchin has had some presence historically, the last two decades have seen a significant increase in populations and barrens, which has impacted on fishing industries and communities. MrDale Winward of the Mallacoota Sea Urchin Divers Association outlined the recent upsurge:
They're a native species in Victoria … I've dived for abalone for 30 years, as well as sea urchins … When I first started diving [at a township called Marlo], in the first 15 years of my diving career you never used to see the centros down there at all because the water was too cold for them. Then you started seeing little pockets here and there and all of a sudden those pockets just expanded. So they've always been there, but as the eastern seaboard currents are getting warmer the sea urchins are proliferating with the warmer currents.
2.22Professor Stephen Swearer, Professor of Marine Biology at the University of Melbourne and Director of the National Centre for Coasts and Climate, suggested that warming waters and other factors have led to unsustainable levels of Centro in Victorian waters:
[T]here have been high densities of native urchins, including long-spined urchins, for quite some time. But it's only been in recent decades, likely due to a range of other factors, including changes in nutrient availability and climate change, that declines in seaweed productivity have not been able to keep up with urchin grazing pressure. This has led to an increase in the loss of macroalgal beds, in the case of the fishery zone and in terms of abalone productivity, through the formation of urchin barrens.
2.23Parks Victoria confirmed that Centro had become overabundant and created a serious environmental management issue:
In eastern Victoria Black-spined Urchins (Centrostephanus rodgersii) have created extensive barrens on reefs within parks within as well as on many other reefs outside parks in the region (Beware Reef Marine Sanctuary and Cape Howe Marine National Park). Purple Urchins (Heliocidaris erythrogramma) have caused extensive loss of kelp communities within the three Port Phillip Bay Marine Sanctuaries (Ricketts Point, Jawbone, and Point Cooke Marine Sanctuaries) and seagrass beds (Posidonia australis) in south Gippsland's Nooramunga Marine and Coastal Park.
2.24Parks Victoria added that the 'loss of suitable kelp or seagrass habitat within Victoria's marine protected areas due to overgrazing of urchins is recognised as a major threat to maintaining marine biodiversity within these parks'.
Figure 2.1Urchin culling at Beware Reef Marine Sanctuary, Victoria
Source: Mike Irvine (via Parks Victoria, Submission 6, p. 2).
2.25Regarding effects on business and industry, the most significant economic impact of Centro's expansion into Victorian waters has been on the abalone industry. The Eastern Zone Abalone Industry Association and Victorian Sea Urchin Divers' Association submitted that the range expansion of Centro has resulted in 'denudation of algal communities [that] has severely impacted the health of many reef habitats, not only reducing biodiversity but also the productivity of the commercial abalone fishery'.
2.26Hayes Seafood likewise reported that the current proliferation of urchins in the state had resulted in 'over 10 years of consecutive quota cuts and a loss of quota by over a quarter' for abalone divers, despite some Centro culling activities.
2.27Conversely, the spread of Centro has created some economic opportunities, which are discussed in Chapter 3. In Victoria, some former abalone fishers have moved into the commercial processing of Centro roe for export, which has partially reduced the urchin population. Sea Urchin Harvest submitted:
Targeted sea urchin fishery arrangements can address the excessive population of long spined urchin and the resultant impact on ecosystem integrity and function. Jobs growth and export potential would be assured in addition to a return to health of high value fisheries such as abalone, lobster and to other fisheries and potentially reduce long spined larvae entering the East Australian Current and continue into Tasmanian waters.
2.28Sea Urchin Harvest further noted that no-take regions in NSW and Victorian marine parks and sanctuary zones were allowing Centro to flourish, and subsequently recommended a change to licensing arrangements in these zones.
2.29The Victorian Government drew the committee's attention to a five-hectare regeneration program at Beware Reef, which had delivered a return of at least seven to one:
Mr Irving:For the five hectares that we've treated at Beware Reef it's cost us about $100,000 over the last four years. The cost-benefit analysis that was done shows about a one to seven return. So, a positive, and that doesn't include any fisheries values, because it's a marine protected area; there's no take. So, purely biodiversity values and nitrogen and carbon values would be higher.
Mr Sams:I would also add that it's a very conservative estimate, too, because it only looks at two species of kelp and a limited number of things that we know we can put a dollar value on. So, not other things that were a little bit less tangible to put a dollar value on as well.
Victoria's approach to management
2.30Representatives of the Victorian Government noted the significant environmental challenge for the state as well as the threat to marine industries. Dr Kate Watermeyer, a Project Officer in the Marine Knowledge Team, Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, Victoria (DEECA), noted that the Victorian Government regarded Centro as a long-term challenge, given projections for climate change and rising urchin populations:
Modelling that we've commissioned shows that, under climate change scenarios, urchins will increase significantly by 2090 and also there'll be a loss of kelp across 60 to 94 per cent of its range. It emphasises that it's really important we address this issue as a priority in Victoria.
The Victorian government has invested more than $2 million since 2018 into research and activities focusing on urchin management in Victoria … DEECA supports the need for coordinated strategic investments and research to develop management approaches and tools for successful ongoing management across the affected regions.
2.31Mr Travis Dowling, the Chief Executive Officer of the Victorian Fisheries Authority (VFA), stated:
… in Victoria, from a fisheries point of view, we currently have, again, an abundant centro fishery. We have no processors operating in Victoria as such. We have people that want to get into the fishery. We estimate we've got a 45,000-tonne biomass that we're harvesting less than 100 tonne a year on. Whilst that biomass may only have 5,000 tonne of valuable urchin as part of that full biomass, our harvest is at 100 tonnes a year and we need to lift that harvest rate...We are providing incentives for the fishers to take more of the catch. We're looking at some further options like providing more permits to get more fishers into the fishery, to remove any regulatory impediment there may be to a greater fish-down of the current biomass, and really incentivise the existing fishers.
2.32Parks Victoria outlined the significant activities it has been undertakingto address Centro's range spread into the marine parks and sanctuaries it manages:
Loss of suitable kelp or seagrass habitat within Victoria's marine protected areas due to overgrazing of urchins is recognised as a major threat to maintaining marine biodiversity within these parks. Parks Victoria has worked with research partners and community organisations to manage impacts where possible and actively restore habitat through culling of urchins within parks.
2.33Parks Victoria highlighted a recent program that successfully reduced urchin density by 90 per cent in the program area. Parks Victoria noted that such intervention activities could also prevent knock-on ecological impacts in nearby areas, stating:
Our management of urchins at Beware Reef Marine Sanctuary and within Port Phillips Marine Sanctuaries is primarily aimed at restoring kelp from locations where it has been lost due to overgrazing whilst also seeking to limit spread [of Centro] and further loss of kelp. In Nooramunga Marine and Coastal Park urchin culling has been undertaken primarily to prevent expansion of barrens within the Posidonia seagrass meadows whilst also allowing for restoration of seagrass.
2.34In addition to direct culling programs, Parks Victoria has undertaken partnerships with Traditional Owners, community organisations and commercial fishers, as well as supporting citizen science programs and other volunteer activities to help manage Centro. Its submission outlined a number of successful programs, and highlighted a potential barrier for First Nations Centro management:
As a component of urchin management in Nooramunga Marine and Coastal Park opportunities to engage Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation in urchin management and monitoring were identified and an invitation to contribute extended.
Gunaikurnai people have occupied, used, and managed coastal land and sea environments for many thousands of years [including] those areas that were dry land before the current sea level stabilised about 5,000 years ago.
A barrier to participation in urchin programs was inwater skills of Gunaikurnai Rangers so Parks Victoria's marine staff delivered a training program in snorkelling and underwater monitoring. This program was an important first step towards active involvement in future programs across Gunaikurnai sea country.
2.35Representatives of the Victorian Government supported participation of First Nations communities in the Centro Task Force to address the complexity of Centro range expansion.
Tasmania
2.36Centro has been present in Tasmanian waters for over four decades, but recent years have seen rapid expansion, with numbers growing from an estimated 11 million in 2002, to an estimated 20million in 2017.
2.37In its submission, the Tasmanian Government reported that the spread of Centro into Tasmanian watershas already 'had a very significant impact on the ecological integrity and functioning of Tasmania's East Coast rocky reef ecosystems and on the social and economic values and productivity of cultural, recreational and commercial fisheries'. The Tasmanian Government noted that, thus far, Tasmania has lost more than 15 per cent of its rocky reef habitats and more than 95 per cent of its kelp forests.
2.38The University of Tasmania's Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), a leading research body for Centro, further stated that ‘modelled projections of observed rates of population increase and overgrazing indicate that unless there is meaningful response to this threat, half of all reefs in eastern Tasmania are likely to become urchin barren grounds by mid-2030s'.
2.39The Great Southern Reef Foundation emphasised the ecological and social importance of the Great Southern Reef, which is a temperate reef that spans over 8000 kilometres from mid-Western Australia to northern NSW and around Tasmania. The Foundation stated:
The Great Southern Reef is a global biodiversity hotspot of which around ~75% of species are not found anywhere else … The eastern Great Southern Reef, spanning NSW, Victoria and eastern Tasmania epitomises the national character of the Great Southern Reef. The concentration of large cities to small regional towns along this ~2000km section of shoreline, important reef-based industries (e.g. rock lobster and abalone fisheries) and immense biodiversity and natural value make the Great Southern Reef an iconic and critically important natural asset.
2.40Kelp forests are critical to the health of the Great Southern Reef, as well as the Tasmanian marine environment more generally. The Australian Marine Conservation Society stated that 'the loss of kelp forest across the Great Southern Reef, particularly the [giant kelp] communities found in southeastern Australia, has already resulted in a devastating loss of biodiversity, social and cultural values, and millions of dollars and at least several hundred tons of annual local seafood production'.
2.41In noting the endangered listing of the Giant Kelp Forests of South East Australia under federal environment laws, the Invasive Species Council outlined the particular challenge for Tasmania:
Over the past 60 years, wind systems strengthened by ozone depletion and climate change have pushed the East Australian Current about 350 km further south, increasing seasurface temperatures and salinity along the eastern Tasmania coast. The temperature increase is trending at 2.3°C a century, the highest in the Southern Hemisphere and three times the average rate of warming in theworld's oceans.
The East Australian Current brings warm, nutrient-poor water from the Coral Sea and kelp-munching black sea urchins (Centrostephanus rodgersii) from NSW, where they are native. The warming is detrimental for giant sea kelp and helpssea urchins establish, by increasing temperatures above the 12°C threshold they need for reproduction.
2.42Regarding the economic impact of Centro's range extension, the spread of the urchin has already had a profound impact on Tasmania's fishing industries.
2.43A joint submission by the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council, the Tasmanian Commercial Divers Association, the Tasmanian Abalone Council Limited and the Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fishermen's Association described the damage caused by Centro as 'threatening the viability of a number of fisheries'. The submission noted 'an urgent need to better control abundances of the range extending Long-Spined Sea Urchin'.
2.44At a hearing, Mr Darvin Hansen, Managing Director, Tasmanian Seafoods Group, suggested that addressing Centro and restoring a healthy reef ecosystem could translate to around $25 million a year in increased yield for abalone harvest alone.
2.45The overgrazing of kelp forests by Centro is extremely damaging for the abalone industry in particular. As an example, the Tasmanian Government highlighted the 98per cent reduction in the commercial abalone harvest:
As one measure of impact, the commercial abalone fishery on the East Coast of Tasmania supported an annual harvest of around 1,000 tonnes prior to the establishment of Centro in Tasmanian waters. The same fishery is now limited to around 20 tonnes in this area. That reduction is directly correlated with the loss of abalone habitat caused by urchin grazing.
2.46The Tasmanian Seafoods Group highlighted the importance of combatting Centro's spread, describing its impact as 'catastrophic for industry':
It is important that the problem of [Centro] barrens and fish stock depletion is addressed via Centro removal and habitat restoration, as this has the potential to impact CITES listing of Australian seafood species, which increases risk of export revocation that can be financially catastrophic to export-based fisheries such as abalone, rock lobster, and many other species, even in non-impacted jurisdictions.
2.47Commenting on the net impact across various fisheries, IMAS outlined the overall risk that Centroovergrazing poses to Tasmanian fishing industries:
The flow-on impacts of kelp bed overgrazing by this urchin are dramatic, with local loss of over 150 species that live amongst Tasmanian kelp beds (Ling 2008), which threatens parts of the lucrative fisheries for Blacklip Abalone (Haliotis rubra; total annual gross value of production ~$80million) and Southern Rock Lobster (Jasus edwardsii; total annual gross value of production ~$100 million) ...
Tasmania's approach to management
2.48The Tasmanian Government has developed the Long Spined Sea Urchin Strategy, which seeks to combat Centroin Tasmanian waters. The strategy aims to engage commercial dive fisheries, the recreational dive community and other organisations to assist the Tasmanian Government to:
Stop new urchin barrens forming;
Reduce growth of existing urchin barrens; and
Reverse and rehabilitate existing urchin barrens.
2.49Alongside this strategy, the Tasmanian Government has co-funded the $5.1million Abalone Industry Reinvestment Fund (AIRF), which was due to conclude on 30 June 2023. However, the fund was extended for a further twoyears and provided with an additional $2 million in funding. The AIRF—a partnership between the Tasmanian Government, Tasmanian Abalone Council, Tasmanian Commercial Divers Association, seafood processors, IMAS, CSIRO, and Natural Resource Management (NRM) South—has 'led to an extensive and ongoing program of urchin control, and subsequent removal of more than 2,400tonnes of urchins since 2018'. The AIRF also conducts research and monitoring activities, as well as seeking to improve industry and public education.
2.50Dr Ian Dutton, the General Manager of Marine Resources, in the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania, outlined the successes of the AIRF:
The fund itself was $5.1 million, and it's divided into two parts. One has to do with abalone enhancement, which has been a sort of related but separate program. The other part has to do with centro control. So effectively the centro control part works out to just over half a million dollars a year. But it has been pivotal … in scaling up our production. The graph that we had in our submission [p. 5] showed that we had done some harvesting of bits and pieces back to about 2009 at the level of about 7,000 kilograms [of Centro] peryear. Since that program has come in, we've been harvesting about 500tonnes per year. So it's been a very significant impact on the total biomass, particularly in certain areas.
Going back to your question, there are many beneficiaries from that effort. There's a lot of interest not only from fisheries—whether they're rock lobster or even other scale fisheries who have fisheries that are reef dependent, which would include recreational fishers—but also from dive tourism operators, tourists themselves and Aboriginal cultural fishers, who all benefit from that better habitat. Hence our submission has really focused on the stewardship benefits of a more integrated control program for all sectors.
2.51Submitters recognised the need for First Nations communities and Traditional Owners to be involved in research and management of marine resources. DrFiona Valesini, Director of the Oceans Program of the Nature Conservancy Australia, set out the importance of indigenous involvement, noting programs such as truwana Rangers in Tasmania:
I think there's a fair amount of feeling a bit excluded and perhaps not trusted to lead the space [from First Nations communities]. So I think that, in the co-design model that we were talking about before, really harnessing knowledge and opportunities and skill sets across community—of course, including Indigenous community—is very important here. We heard a lot at the [February 2023 Centro] workshop … about bringing these two basic knowledge sets together—scientific knowledge, which has been built up primarily over the last 20 or maybe 30 years, but then also Indigenous history, which has watched this habitat evolve and change and alter resources that are available, and just the loss of sea country. We saw some great initiatives from local Indigenous groups—truwana is one example—training up local sea rangers to get scientific diving qualifications to do monitoring and look after their own sea country'.
South Australia
2.52No evidence considered by the committee noted the presence of Centroin South Australia.
2.53However, the Centro Task Force provided the following information to the committee:
At the moment, the ocean currents mean that larval dispersal of Centro to SA is highly unlikely… but there are predictions of changing ocean currents, and this is why people are starting to talk about possible SA colonisation.
Centro has been a topic of discussion within the [Australian Society for Fish Biology] Fisheries Management Committee, which comprises fishery manager reps from every state and NZ—the only knowledge and concern in that forum has come from Tas, Vic, and NSW. There aren't any public logs of it in SA on Redmap either.
2.54The submission of the Department of Primary Industries and Regions in South Australia observed that there is a 'growing interest in traditional aquaculture species such as Sea Urchins which are culturally important to First Nations communities'. It was noted that certain urchin species will only be considered for cultivation in 'grow-out in closed land-based systems in South Australia', in order to 'manage the risk of barren formation resulting from marine pest invasion'.
New Zealand
2.55Centro is considered as an emerging risk by the New Zealand (NZ) Government and research sector. A submission by Dr Nick Shears, Celia Balemi and Kelsey Miller from the Institute of Marine Science at the University of Auckland, set out these concerns:
As in Tasmania, populations of [Centro] in northern New Zealand are increasing and connected to eastern Australian populations by larval dispersal. Ocean warming has been less severe in northern NZ than in Tasmania and we are just starting to observe increases in [Centro]and understand their impacts on the natural biodiversity of our reef ecosystems. The New Zealand Government is only just becoming aware of this emerging issue and moves are in place to explore management options. Our concern is that management efforts to control [Centro] in New Zealand will be futile without management action to greatly reduce the size of upstream populations in Australia. We therefore strongly support management efforts to control [Centro] to aid in preventing further expansion of populations in New Zealand.
Commonwealth's role in environmental protection, management and research
2.56Within Australia, biodiversity protection and conservation arrangements are governed by the Commonwealth, as well as state and territory governments.
2.57The Commonwealth's primary role is to regulate 'matters of national environmental significance' such as nationally and internationally important flora, fauna and ecological communities. The Commonwealth also provides 'national coordination through overarching strategies and species-specific or site-specific plans'. State and territory governments, on the other hand, are responsible for regulating environmental matters in their respective jurisdictions.
Environment protection
2.58DCCEEW is responsible for administering the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), which 'provides a legal framework to identify, protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places'. The department described its role as delivering:
… on the Australian Government's obligations for the protection of environmental matters related to threatened species and ecological communities through the operation of the EPBC Act and also delivers non‑statutory measures such as programs that invest in recovery, restoration, monitoring, and science for the protection and conservation of biodiversity.
Protecting ecological communities and habitat
2.59DCCEEW's submission notes that the Great Southern Reef is not defined or protected under the EPBC Act and so 'management strategies are targeted towards specific ecological, social and economic issues and threats'.
2.60However, the Giant Kelp Forests of South East Australia were listed as an endangered ecological community under Commonwealth environment laws in 2012, the first time that a marine ecology was listed under these laws.
2.61Despite the Threatened Species Scientific Committee recommending in 2012 that a recovery plan be prepared for the giant kelp ecological community, the former Environment Minister, the Hon Sussan Ley MP, decided in March2022 not to proceed with a recovery plan.
2.62Instead, the DCCEEW submitted that an Approved Conservation Advice for the giant kelp ecological community is in effect and 'provides information about priority research areas and actions to mitigate key threats':
The most significant threatening process to the Great Southern Reef and the giant kelp ecological community is climate change. For the giant kelp ecological community, the Conservation Advice provides guidance on actions that respond to secondary threats such as … removal of urchin predators.
2.63In its submission the Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) raised concerns with this more limited form of protection:
A decade later [after the 2012 listing], no recovery plan [as distinct from a conservation advice] is in place to guide managers and industry in addressing their impacts and obligations under the [EPBC] Act to support recovery [of the listed giant kelp ecological community]. It is important to acknowledge that the Act is failing to protect the community despite this listing. There are serious concerns that the EPBC Act 1999 is not fit for purpose, and is not working to protect or recover species or communities listed. Reform of the Act is critical, as is significant investment in protection and restoration of species and communities that are listed under it.
2.64This sentiment was echoed by Ms Jane Gallichan of theTasmanian Association for Recreational Fishing who told the committee that in 2022:
… there was no strategy to address either centro or kelp reforestation at that time. Giant kelp was listed as an endangered community in 2012 under the EPBC Act. Today there is still no recovery strategy. Tasmanians have warned, and we would agree, that centro barrens are extending along the east coast.
2.65More recently, the giant kelp ecological community in Tasmanian waters has been identified as a 'priority place' in the Australian Government's October 2022 Threatened Species Action Plan 2022–32 (TSAP). It is the 'only truly marine priority place that was identified' in the TSAP.
2.66Such priority places are identified as areas where the Australia Government intends to undertake 'research, support and recovery action'. A key TSAP target for 2027 is for all priority places to be 'on track to have improved condition'. The TSAP outlines future activities:
During early 2023, a profile for each priority place will be developed that describes key natural values for its threatened species and threatened ecological communities. Place profiles will identify important areas for support and recovery that the Action Plan will focus on, including goals to meet to improve the place's condition and the actions needed to achieve these. Actions will be specific for each place and may include elimination of particular invasive pests or weeds, implementation of First Nations ecological management practices, habitat restoration and/or augmentation and research to inform actions.
Support for these actions will be prioritised through relevant Australian Government policies and programs. State and territory governments, First Nations peoples, natural resource managers, land and sea managers and community groups will be encouraged to partner with us in working towards these goals. Our combined achievements will be measured in 2027 to determine if the Action Plan's objectives are being met.
2.67In June 2023, Dr Fiona Fraser,Threatened Species Commissioner, DCCEEW, elaborated on this 'priority place' designation of the giant kelp ecological community:
What we're doing for all of our priority places … is establishing a baseline condition, working on information that we've got for each of those places and the key threats where we think we could make a material difference in the next five years. We are intending to direct funding from our Natural Heritage Trust, and decisions around that funding are in play at the moment, and the Saving Native Species program. We're very familiar with the work that's taken place to date on threats to giant kelp and the need for ex situ conservation measures and advances there with hatcheries and further understanding on thermal tolerance of different strains of those species and restoration, and then the removal or the management of threats in situ, such as Centrostephanus. We're also familiar with the key partners who we would need to engage with in that work, given it's such a unique and discrete priority place to focus on ... So I would expect that over coming months we will be working with those partners once we've got our baseline for our priority places, and we'll look to be undertaking some comprehensive recovery work for that particular priority place.
2.68Dr Fraser also confirmed that no new funding has yet been allotted for recovery of giant kelp as part of the 'priority place' designation.
2.69In the following chapter of this report, the committee discusses the management of another invasive pest species, the crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS), which affects the Great Barrier Reef. Dr Fraser confirmed that programs to address COTS are funded by the Commonwealth, given the EPBC Act considers the Great Barrier Reef as a Commonwealth responsibility both as a 'matter of national environmental significance' and as a 'World Heritage property'.
Biosecurity and key threatening processes
2.70The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) is responsible for 'managing border biosecurity arrangements for exotic marine pests and for coordinating national arrangements for managing introduced (non-native) marine pests'.
2.71However, Centro cannot be managed under this framework as the Marine Pest Plan 2018-23 specifically excludes 'the undesirable economic, environmental and social effects' caused by 'species native to Australia, including those undergoing range expansions'.
2.72Other than being noted as a secondary threat under Conservation Advice for the listed giant kelp ecological community, there is no requirement for Centro to be specifically managed under Commonwealth environmental protection laws, as it is not listed as one of the twenty-one key threatening processes under the EPBC Act.
Research
2.73The Commonwealth agencies—the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)—undertake research relating to the marine environment, including the impact on ecosystems occurring due to climate change. The role of these agencies includes 'contribut[ing] to policy development and deliver[ing] critical monitoring and research on the marine environment, and potential applications of new technology'. CSIRO's Oceans and Atmosphere Business Unit also partners with DCCEEW's Australian Antarctic Division to assist the work of the University of Tasmania's IMAS.
2.74The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) also undertakes various research work, with the statutory authority being jointly funded by the Australian Government and the fishing industry. The FRDC has funded a number of projects on invasive sea urchins. The FRDC recently committed to the project 'Analysis of historical sea urchin research for improved management of nearshore fisheries in NSW', which seeks to 'analyse historical unpublished data on the ecology of Centro and its interactions with nearshore biota and augment the findings with oral histories of fishers to inform desirable outcomes for nearshore reef management'.
2.75The Commonwealth also funds research into certain environmental matters through the National Environmental Science Program (NESP) and the Cooperative Research Centre Program (CRC Program), which attract co‑funding from other sources including industry.
2.76The department outlined a number of NESP-funded research projects relevant to this inquiry, including into the Great Southern Reef, restoration of giant kelp, and monitoring biodiversity in Marine Parks.
2.77Similarly, the IMAS-led Blue Economy CRC was established to undertake research focussed on industry and training, including developing aquaculture. It is currently considering Giant Kelp farming technologies, including the 'use of farm modules to inoculate natural reefs to be trialled at scale'.
2.78The following chapters of this report discuss: the opportunities offered by Centro, particularly as a premium foodstuff (chapter 3); before setting out calls for a national approach, the Task Force's Five Year Business Plan, and the committee's views and recommendations (chapter 4).