Submissions for the Proposed Australian Biofouling
Management Requirements Consultation Regulation Impact
Statement
A submission received from the NSW Department of Primary Industries
Submission
Q1. Do the proposed operating time restrictions on vessels achieve an appropriate balance
between minimising biological risk (which increases with time) and minimising the impact
on vessel operators (who may need more time)? If not, why and what would be a better
balance?
NSW DPI considers that insufficient information has been provided in the RIS to assess the
effectiveness of the proposed operating restrictions on minimisation of biological risks. For
example, there is no justification given in the RIS for allowing high risk vessels to enter
Australian ports up to three times before they are subjected to an inspection. Similarly there is no
justification given in the RIS for allowing extreme risk vessels to enter up to four ports, for up to
two days per port. If a vessel is likely to harbour a Species of Concern and is in an Australian
port at a time of year that species is likely to spawn, then allowing that vessel to enter multiple
ports for a couple of days per port presents significant biological risks.
No justification is given in the RIS for treating high risk yachts differently from other high risk
vessels. Figure 2 notes that at Year 0 (i.e. now) 72% of yachts arriving in Australian waters are
high-extreme risk (compared with 31% for all other vessels in Figure 1). Where yachts are
deemed to be high or extreme risk, they present the same risk as any other high (or extreme) risk
vessel, and so they should be treated the same. NSW DPI does not consider the proposed
treatment for yachts to be sufficient amelioration of biological risks.
Q2. How might vessel operators’ behaviour change in response to the proposed
regulations?
No comment from NSW DPI for Question 2.
Q3. What specific types of flow-on costs and benefits to the Australian economy of the
proposed regulations might be significant?
Benefits: Introduction of the Australian Government regulatory approach will provide for
consistent national management of risks from biofouling and will be a significant improvement
to aquatic biosecurity risk minimisation for Australia. If the proposed regulations are
implemented effectively, the approach could result in long-term benefits for jurisdictions of
Australia by reducing the risks of marine pests entering and establishing in ports (thereby
minimising the impact upon each jurisdiction for responding to and management of potential
incursions of new marine pests). The Commonwealth regulatory approach will benefit
commercial shipping, commercial fishers, and the general community that relies upon access to
Australian ports for shipping, trade and recreation.
Costs: Each jurisdiction is likely to bear some costs as a flow-on effect from the proposed
regulatory approach. If the Commonwealth introduces legislation to manage biofouling, the
NSW Government will consider amendments to NSW legislation to ensure consistent provisions
and protections are provided in NSW waters. This may result in costs to the NSW Government
for development, consultation and implementation as well as a State-based education program
for NSW stakeholders.
Q4. The estimates of costs are based on average vessel numbers from 2002-2009. Is there
any activity or trends that suggest any significant change in vessel movement or increased
numbers of arrivals?
Yes, a significant increase in vessel numbers is expected as a result of the expansion of various
ports throughout Australia. Over the last two years (during 2010 and 2011) there have been
announcements of significant port expansions in Australia, including ports in NSW, Queensland,
Northern Territory, and Western Australia. These expansions will come with an increase in the
number of international vessels entering to import/export cargo (including coal). For example,
the Abbot Point Coal Terminal in North Queensland was reported (2/12/2011 in “The
Australian” newspaper) to expand its capacity eight-fold, thereby increasing number of ships
from 200 to 1300 per year by 2017.
Q5. Are the cost assumptions consistent with industry experience? (see appendix D for all
cost assumptions). Are there better estimates of costs available?
NSW DPI has no comment for Question 5.
Q6. Are the other assumptions used to estimate costs and benefits reasonable based on
industry experience? If not, how could they be improved?
The Impact Analysis currently fails to identify the commercial shipping industry as a major
beneficiary. This should be addressed.
Q7. The methodology for estimating the economic value at risk relies on a series of
assumptions about the value of commercial fishing and the Great Barrier Reef. Are there
more plausible assumptions or approaches that could be used?
The value of commercial shipping (value of days lost if movement controls/restrictions enforced
as a result of a detection of a SOC/NIMS etc) should also be considered as part of the economic
value at risk.
Q8. What other evidence is there of the potential impacts of non-indigenous marine species
becoming established in Australia?
NSW DPI considers there is ample evidence presented in the RIS that non-indigenous marine
species can potentially cause considerable impacts, and so considers there is no need to cite more
evidence.
Q9. What is industry’s view of the likely effectiveness of a voluntary approach to reducing
the risks associated with biofouling compared to a regulatory approach?
NSW DPI has no comment for Question 9.
Q10. Do you have any other comments on the Regulation Impact Statement?
General comments
NSW DPI has reviewed the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) and is supportive of the
Australian Government working to develop regulatory arrangements as proposed in Option 1.
NSW DPI considers that the regulatory approach (Option 1) needs to be supported by a
comprehensive education component that will ensure a higher level of voluntary compliance
with the new regulations. NSW DPI is concerned that a comprehensive communications strategy
does not appear to have been budgeted for regarding Option 1. The estimated budget for Option
1 is therefore likely to be a significant underestimate.
The Impact Analysis in the RIS begins to capture stakeholders/groups that receive a benefit, or
are impacted by costs associated with a regulatory approach versus no regulatory approach.
NSW DPI strongly recommends that the Commercial Shipping industry should be identified as a
key stakeholder group that will gain significant benefits from a regulatory approach to
management of biofouling in Australia. Improved biofouling management will result in a
decreased risk of species of concern being introduced into Australian ports, and therefore a
decreased incidence of management restrictions, including the potential for quarantine areas and
movement controls, for marine pest outbreaks. In addition, an increased awareness of the impacts
of biofouling on shipping should result in improved overall management of vessel hulls and
biofouling by the industry, in turn, resulting in improved vessel efficiency and over time,
lowered maintenance costs for this industry.
p. 4, 2.1.1 Biofouling accumulation and establishment
Although they are mechanisms by which marine pests might establish, aquaculture and aquarium
products are not transported as biofouling on marine vessels and do not belong in the list of
“Mechanisms for Non-Indigenous Marine Species transport by marine vessels”.
- intentional transfer of aquaculture and mariculture organisms
- transfer of live, frozen or dried food products and live aquarium products
Suggest addition of dot point in second list on p. 4
- Time since last suitable antifouling treatment was applied.
p. 16, 5.2.1 Identification of risk
NSW DPI requests to be provided with the results of the trial of the MGRA tool (top p. 16). We
are told how many vessels were categorised into the three risk categories, but there is no
assessment of how well they were categorised, i.e. what percentage of vessels in each category
actually had Species of Concern on their hulls?
p. 39, 7 Findings and Recommendations
NSW DPI strongly supports Option 1, however implementation of a new regulation by the
Australian Government will also require an extensive community/stakeholder education
program. For example, the current National Guidelines should be updated to reflect the final
National biofouling regulation and requirements being developed by the Commonwealth.
p. 47, Appendix B Species of Concern
NSW DPI does not support the listing of disease-causing agents as Species of Concern e.g.,
Bonamia ostrea. Australia’s Reportable Diseases of Aquatic Animals List is managed by Animal
Health Committee (AHC) and that List already includes “Infection with Bonamia ostrea”. NSW
DPI strongly recommends that DAFF communicates any recommendations to list aquatic
disease-causing agents to AHC for consideration of their inclusion on Australia’s Reportable
Disease of Aquatic Animals List.
NSW DPI considers Perna canaliculus should be included on the list of Species of Concern.
NSW DPI notes the reasoning given for the exclusion of P. canaliculus (not known to have
successfully invaded and established elsewhere in the world). However NSW DPI considers
Australia to be most at-risk due to climatic and ecological similarities between New Zealand and
cool temperate coastlines in Australia, and because individuals have been found on hulls of
vessels entering Australian waters. NSW DPI recommends inclusion of Perna canaliculus as a
Species of Concern.
No justification is given for inferring the impact of one species, but not a congener (species in
the same genus). One example of an apparent error in this regard is for Balanus eburneus vs.
Balanus improvius. The former was inferred to have economic impacts on seawater intakes and
aquaculture and given a consequence rank of LOW, yet B. improvius was inferred to have the
same economic impacts and given a consequence ranking of HIGH. Although this does not alter
the final conclusions (both species were given an overall extreme ranking), it suggests that these
rankings need to be checked, and that the logic of giving different rankings for congeners needs
to be considered carefully and justified. More generally, it is likely that the majority of fouling
species could have some form of economic impact on aquaculture, yet this does not seem to have
been applied consistently across species.
It is not clear how the regulatory process regarding the listed Species of Concern would work.
NSW DPI considers that some important details have not been included in the RIS. The list of
species of concern does not seem to play a role in assessing the risk of vessels (section 5.2.1).
NSW DPI considers it would be sensible to assess risk based on where the vessel has been and
whether there are any SOCs in those ports. NSW DPI notes that to do this properly, risks would
need to be estimated based on where in Australia the vessel was destined to go and at what time
of year.
p. 50, Appendix C
NSW DPI requests an amendment to the NSW section, under ‘Legislative Powers’ to read ‘and
are expected to be enacted during 2012.” (i.e., change 2011 to 2012)