Submissions for the Proposed Australian Biofouling Management Requirements Consultation

Submissions for the Proposed Australian Biofouling Management Requirements Consultation Regulation Impact Statement

A submission received from Western Australia Department of Fisheries, WA

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?

The Department of Fisheries WA (the Department) possesses various reports about the percentage of inspected vessels that harbour pests including two such estimates from biofouling inspectors that up to 25% of inspected vessels harbour pests, along with a report from a resource company that about 25% of vessels inspected last year had pests found. This differs from the figures stated in 3.1.1 from the Hewitt 2011 paper, in which 20% of the 4.05 NIMS expected to arrive annually (less than 1) are expected to be species of concern.

The Department’s own data for January to June 2011 indicates that of 12 resource industry vessels subject to some kind of check including biofouling inspections, eight had pests identified. However, these vessels were targeted in some way for inspection and so this sample is biased.

Without more accurate information about the percentage of vessels in each category that could harbour a species of concern, it is very difficult to determine if the proposed regime will reduce risks or not. Hopefully this information will be gained after the regulatory scheme has operated for a period of time.

The Department suggests sourcing information from resource companies who have had many vessels, of various risk ratings, inspected. This may assist with a more informed guesstimate of the percentages of vessels harbouring pests in each risk category for the resource industry.

The Department understands the need for operating time restrictions to balance the biological risk and business requirements. However, we hold concerns regarding the biological validity of this in light of pest spawning not being restricted to within time frames, but sometimes occurring rapidly (less than 48 hours) on entrance to a port or change of environmental conditions.

Q2. How might vessel operators’ behaviour change in response to the proposed regulations?

Vessel operators have demonstrated an increasing shift to have vessels cleaned and slipped in overseas ports, due to lower costs than in Australia. This can be reasonably expected to continue with the implementation of national regulations.

Q3. What specific types of flow-on costs and benefits to the Australian economy of the proposed regulations might be significant?

A flow-on benefit would be the expansion of the biofouling management industry, through the requirement for inspectors and experienced or qualified para-professionals.

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?

The Department understands that Customs is finalising a report with more accurate vessel movement estimates which indicates a significant increase in international vessel movements in WA in 2012 and smaller increases in the following years.

The Department also understands there is increasing pressure on the practice of in-water cleaning in Singapore which may result in the need for more vessels to be dry-docked –at greater expense or for more vessels to go to other ports in the region where cleaning and AFC supply and application standards may be lower or problematic. It is The Department’s experience that in locations other than Singapore, the standards of AFC application and in-water cleaning are inconsistent.

There are 12 planned projects in WA which are expected to significantly increase the number of international vessel arrivals. These include:

Albany Port Expansion (Grange Resources)

Anketell Port and Strategic Industrial Area (API, FMG etc) -

Bunbury – potential for new coal berth (LANCO) and upgrading of existing berth

Cape Lambert Port Expansion -

dredging_activities_at_cape_lambert.asp

Cape Preston Sino Iron project -

Esperance Port Expansion – investigation of bulk iron ore exports

Irvine Island Project -

temid=108

James Price Point Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) Precinct (decision by June 2013) -

Oakajee Mid West Development Project -

Port Hedland Inner Harbour Developments (e.g. FMG, Roy Hill, Norwest

Infrastructure, BHP)

Port Hedland Outer Harbour Development (BHP + other users) -

aspx

Wheatstone/Ashburton North LNG Project (Chevron, Exxon) (potential for enlargement) -

ved.aspx

Q5. Are the cost assumptions consistent with industry experience? (see appendix D for all cost assumptions). Are there better estimates of costs available?

The Department believes that there are other costs that need to be considered for the implementation of the proposed biofouling regulations. These include:

Costs of education to support the regulatory approach.

The Department manages fisheries and their environments using an integrated education and enforcement model. This carrot and stick approach allows for maximising voluntary compliance with rules, but also acknowledges that enforcement and prosecution are necessary deterrents and that penalties must be significant. This proven approach is used across the country and is preferred for the regulation of invasive marine pests spread by biofouling.

Cost of ensuring that the MGRA has been completed so that an accurate risk rating has been calculated, prior to deciding on compliance activities. Experience in WA trialling the MGRA indicates that this could take in excess of half an hour for difficult assessments. When assessing the MGRA, there may be a need to seek further information for some of the questions e.g. if not AFC certificate or IMS inspection report is attached, a phone call and follow up is needed to prompt its submission.

In addition, several of the questions are difficult to answer quickly or do not allow certain mitigation practices to be easily accommodated. These include:

whether or not the hull and niche areas have been coated with AFC;
service life of AFC (can take a lot of time and in some cases does not seem to be available online, a database would be very helpful);
when the next AFC will be applied to the vessel;
the regularity of seawater pipe treatment (which doesn’t easily accommodate on-off chemical treatments like Rydlyme);
how long the vessel plans to spend in Australian waters.

These impact on the level of risk determined by the MGRA and so, on its effectiveness.

Cost of compliance interviews

Although the DAFF website indicates that biosecurity interviews require a DAFF Biosecurity Officer to board a vessel, inspect and verify documents and consider other factors (such as on-board biofouling management processes), verbal advice from DAFF indicates that such interviews will be conducted by telephone. The Department believes that further advice should be sought from biofouling inspectors about the validity of conducting interviews by phone. If at least a percentage of interviews will need to be conducted on-board vessels, this cost should be included in the analysis.

Further, the RIS identifies an absence of verification of information provided for these assessments which negatively impacts on confidence in the MGRA and associated systems. Vessel operators may also chose not to disclose certain information during telephone interviews, re-inforcing the need for random audits.

The Department believes that even if a vessel operator does integrate IMS inspections into the maintenance schedule for their vessel, it is still very likely that further IMS inspections and cleaning will be required in order for the MGRA to rate their vessel as Moderate. This could be the case if, after maintenance, the vessel spent long periods of time in overseas ports. It would be, therefore, important to indicate this to vessel operators as an addition cost that they would have to incorporate as will be the setting and enforcement of departure time periods post-clean in overseas ports.

The Department understands it is much cheaper to have vessels cleaned overseas, and that many operators will chose to send their vessels off-shore rather than have DAFF Biosecurity-directed cleaning carried out in Australia where there are limited facilities. Operators are also likely to be much more co-operative if they are warned of this cost disparity well in advance as motivation to pre-assessing their vessels prior to seeking entry to Australian waters.

The Department believes that the costs of biofouling inspections will be higher if conducted overseas. This will be in part because of travel and accommodation requirements for the Australian-based biofouling inspectors.

In order to ensure that all vessel contractors are compliant with these regulations, companies may need to employ co-ordinators to ensure this. The Department understands that this imposes significant costs to at least one resource company operating in WA.

The Department understands that the costs associated with cleaning, inspecting and preventing large drillships from beginning their voyages on time, for instance, can run into multiple millions of dollars. In some situations such vessels cannot easily be dry-docked for thorough cleaning and so less efficient cleaning and difficult and multiple IMS inspections may be necessary. Daily penalty costs for such vessels not operating can apparently be as high as $250 000. The Department suggests that DAFF ask biofouling inspectors for further information.

The cost of auditing the operational strategy should also be considered – see Q10.

Q6. Are the other assumptions used to estimate costs and benefits reasonable based on industry experience? If not, how could they be improved?

[insert your response here]

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?

[insert your response here]

Q8. What other evidence is there of the potential impacts of non indigenous marine species becoming established in Australia?

The Department believes that climate change may allow invasive marine species that are mainly found in tropical areas to be able to establish wild populations further in more southerly areas of Australia.

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?

The Department agrees with DAFF’s analysis of the small likely benefits of a voluntary approach. The Department does not support Option 2, the voluntary approach by education, as the sole management option. Voluntary compliance needs to be a component of overall management, which includes regulation, via an integrated education and enforcement model. This allows for the maximising of voluntary compliance with rules, as well as enforcement and prosecution with significant penalties as deterrents.

The Department’s experience is that vessel operators are unlikely to modify behaviour unless required to under regulations. This has been demonstrated in WA by the use of ministerial conditions for resource sector projects made under the Environmental Protection Act 1986. In the absence of such regulatory requirements, behaviours are minimally modified

The voluntary disclosing of information regarding vessel maintenance is also unlikely unless required by regulations. Vessel operators may also chose not to disclose certain information during telephone interviews, re-inforcing the need for random audits.

Q10. Do you have any other comments on the Regulation Impact Statement?

Regulation in Western Australia

As indicated above, the Department manages fisheries using an integrated education and enforcement model. The Department’s objective is to ensure consistency across the layers of government for ease of industry compliance. Hence, the Department supports DAFF in implementing option 1 (regulatory approach to biofouling management) but also using elements of option 2 (education program to encourage voluntary biofouling management) to improve the level of compliance.

The Department will monitor the effectiveness of DAFF’s approach and may well move to implement a risk assessment-based regulatory system for high priority vessel types moving between domestic ports in WA that is consistent with DAFF’s.

Western Australia and the Northern Territory

The Department supports a nationally consistent approach to biofouling management. The separate identification of WA and NT as implementing different requirements than the national system is misleading to the RIS assessment as well as incorrect. The States and Territories are not able to impose restrictions above those imposed by the Commonwealth, and as such, inclusion of this in the RIS has created unnecessary angst amongst industry regarding different levels of requirements.

Data sharing

If the Department decides to implement a system for domestic vessel movements consistent with that of DAFF, data sharing will be essential to ensuring that vessel operators are not inconvenienced by requests for very similar information by several government agencies.

In addition to DAFF’s 56 species of concern, the Department would seek to prevent the introduction of certain other species (see below) and there will be a need for data sharing on international vessel entries so that the State can take preventative action before vessels posing significant risks arrive.

The other species of concern are those:

already present elsewhere in Australia but not in WA (with some subject to National Control Plans);
present in the southern parts of WA with potential to spread further (and subject to education activities and/or National Control Plans).

These species could include but not be limited to:

Alexandrium catenella
Asterias amurensis
Balanus
(Amphibalanus) pulchellus
Carcinus maenas
Caulerpa taxifolia
Codium fragile
Crassostrea gigas
Didemnum perlucidum
Grateloupia turuturu
Maoricolpus roseus
Musculista senhousia
Sabella spallanzanii
Styela clava
Undaria pinnatifida
Varicorbula gibba

DAFF’s proposal does not seem to include a method for the addition or removal of species from its list, and it appears unclear what will happen to species not yet present in Australia but likely to be included on the revised CCIMPE list and on the existing NIMPCG monitoring list.

The Department has been advised by DAFF that there will be multiple lists used (the biofouling list, the CCIMPE Trigger List and the monitoring target species list). A single list for all these purposes is necessary, to ensure all species of concern are addressed as well as to avoid the current issues faced with multiple species of concern lists.

Future Legislation in Western Australia

Though the RIS suggests otherwise, at this time it is the intention of the Department to use the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA) as the primary piece of legislation to manage biofouling in Western Australia. In addition to the legislation already in place, head powers have been added to the FRMA which enable the writing of regulations for compliance staff to manage biofouling. Approval has been given for the drafting of a new piece of legislation, the Fish and Aquatic Resources Management Bill, which will enable even better management of biosecurity threats. The Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007 is currently viewed as a back-up to the main fisheries legislation.

Other Mitigation Options

The Department believes that there are other mitigation options apart from operating time restrictions and entry prohibitions that should be considered. In addition to vessel inspections, other options include:

vessel stand-offs outside ports; and
suggesting the use of an alternative vessel, structure or equipment.

Other situations may also need to be considered including:

emergency situations where the vessel is in distress; and
the vessel has a lowered risk potential due to application or use of a new technology, or a history not considered fully or at all in the MGRA.

Comments on the Operational Strategy

Pre-entry use of the MGRA

The pre-entry use of the MGRA is not included in the strategy diagram but it is a critical part of reducing the number of vessels that require compliance activities in Australia. The Department presumes that the MGRA would be capable of indicating to the vessel owner what aspects of hull maintenance need to be improved before entry to Australia is attempted. In order for this strategy to work effectively and to give industry the certainty it needs given the lack of cleaning facilities in Australia, the eQPAR (including the MGRA) should be able to be completed before the vessel leaves its last port of call.

Official use of the MGRA in advance of the voyage

As indicated by industry during the consultation session in Perth, it would be much better if the official MGRA for the voyage to Australia could be completed in advance of the beginning of the voyage. This is the practice here in WA as it allows for:

cheaper cleaning works to be carried out overseas;
less likelihood of vessels being refused entry because they have had time to reduce their risk rating before travelling (and so avoidance of unfortunate compliance situations and pressure being potentially applied for in-water cleaning to be allowed in Australian waters); and
industry certainty that their vessels will not be held up in Australian waters because of biofouling issues.

Notes section for MGRA

It may well assist DAFF Biosecurity if there is a notes section next to each answer to increase the level of confidence in each answer. Experience in using both the VRASS and MGRA in WA indicates that information (often from a written report on the vessel), in addition to the very brief answers required by the VRASS and MGRA, enables more confidence in the submitted answers and ultimately a better understanding of the actual threat posed by the vessel.

Warning letters

The strategy indicates that warning letters will be issued to High Risk vessels. The Department suggests that such a letter include personalised information on what the vessel operator can do to decrease their vessel’s risk rating, along with information about the significant penalties that apply for breaches of the regulations.

The strategy diagram should also indicate that warning letters will be sent to Extreme Risk vessels. The Department again suggests that such a letter include personalised information on what the vessel operator can do to decrease their vessel’s risk rating, along with information about the significant penalties that apply for breaches of the regulations