Search
Close this search box.
Search
Close this search box.
Search
Close this search box.

EPBC Reform: Tackling invasive species threats through stronger national environmental laws

Putting Nature Positive into Action.

Introduction

Since the advent of the EPBC Act over 20 years ago, at least 7 unique animal species and probably 2 plant species have become extinct. More than 100 species have recently been assessed as facing a high or >50% risk of extinction in the next 10–20 years – more than the total number of confirmed extinctions since European colonisation. Hundreds of species have been added to the threatened species list and many unlisted species are also in serious decline, including some of those facing imminent extinction.

These statistics confirm that the EPBC Act is, in reviewer Professor Graeme Samuel’s words, ‘ineffective and not fit for current or future environmental challenges’.

Invasive species have been the major driver of extinctions in Australia, particularly of animals. They were the primary cause of all except one of the seven animal extinctions since 20001 and are currently the highest impact threat to threatened species.2 This is not only due to long-established invaders such as cats and foxes, but because of recent biosecurity failures. Sixteen native plants are at high risk of imminent extinction (within just one plant generation) due to myrtle rust, which was first detected only in 2010 and subject to a belated and failed eradication attempt.

The commitment to no new extinctions cannot be achieved unless the new environmental law has a stronger focus on protecting Australian species and places from invasive species – by stopping new invaders from arriving and establishing, preventing emerging invasive threats from becoming entrenched and abating entrenched threats.

On the following pages are our main recommendations for achieving this with their rationale and a few case studies to illustrate the need for or value of the proposed reforms.

Recommendations

1. Strengthen Australia’s approach to threat abatement

1.1 Require the comprehensive listing of threats to matters of national environmental significance (MNES) – including threatened species and ecological communities, World Heritage properties, National Heritage places and wetlands of international significance – on the advice of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee or an equivalent independent scientific body or process. Maintain the public nomination process to supplement threat listings.

1.2 Classify listed threats hierarchically as:

  1. Key threatening processes – overarching processes such as habitat loss and invasive species.
  2. Threats of national environmental significance – more-specific threats within each key threatening process such as land clearing for specific purposes and particular invasive species.

1.3 Institute an ‘emerging threatening process’ (ETP) category of threat to facilitate urgent or precautionary interventions to prevent emerging threats from becoming entrenched threats. Require regular horizon scanning by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (or equivalent to identify such threats.

1.4 On listing a threat of any category, require the Threatened Species Scientific Committee to prepare a statement about the actions (management, research) and instruments (plans, policies, regulations) needed to abate the threat (to the extent that it can be delisted). Streamline the process for preparing threat abatement plans and recovery plans, and reduce the timeframes in which they must be finalised. Better integrate threat abatement and recovery actions, including through new proposed recovery strategies.

1.5 Enable the development of multiple threat abatement plans for a listed Key Threatening Process.

1.6 List key threatening processes as a matter of national environmental significance and apply the referral and assessment framework to regulate actions likely to significantly exacerbate threats.

1.7 List invasive species and develop regulations under provisions equivalent to those of s301A of the EPBC Act where this will facilitate nationally coordinated abatement of key threatening processes and threats of national environmental significance.

2. Improve assurance oversight of threat abatement and conservation planning

2.1 Accord the new Commonwealth Environmental Protection Agency a direct oversight and assurance role in reporting on the implementation of conservation planning instruments, including threat abatement plans, recovery plans or proposed recovery strategies.

2.2 Ensure that national standards drive best practice reporting that enables regular independent rigorous appraisal of Australia’s progress in abating listed threats, recovering threatened species and ecological communities and protecting other MNESs.

3. Better safeguard some of Australia’s most important places

3.1 Specify clear processes and triggers for the Australian Government to rapidly intervene when areas of national and international environmental significance are not being protected or managed effectively. This should include expanding the definitions of ‘action’ under national environmental law to include a policy, plan or program of a government where these relate to the management of a National Heritage place, World Heritage property or wetland of international significance.

3.2 Develop national environmental standards that:

  1. place a proactive obligation on managers of spatially defined MNES (National Heritage places, World Heritage properties and Ramsar wetlands) for the effective protection of listed values and management of key threats
  2. require managers of spatially defined MNES to take action to prevent the exacerbation of key threatening processes, threats of national environmental significance (reform 1.2)r emerging threatening processes (reform 1.3) and to implement relevant national threat abatements plans

3.3 Reform National Heritage management principles to require more effective identification, management and abatement of key threats to the listed values of any national heritage place.

3.4 List Australia’s national parks and reserves as an MNES and establish triggers for actions that would adversely impact their values

4. Strengthen regulation of high-risk in-country invasive species

4.1 List high-risk potential or emerging invasive species present in Australia and, in cooperation with states and territories, develop national regulations, where that is a feasible way to reduce the risks of establishment and spread.

4.2 Require the development and maintenance of a public database of species naturalised in Australia (native and non-native species) and make it a duty for government agencies to report naturalised species for listing

5. Strengthen regulation of live imports

5.1 Specify an objective for the live import functions along the lines of the following:

Prevent the importation of live organisms to Australia that could:

  1. adversely impact native biodiversity; or
  2. facilitate or exacerbate the adverse impacts of other introduced organisms on native biodiversity.

Define in legislation the level of protection that should be applied to the consideration of a ‘specimen suitable for live import’ – for example:

A specimen suitable for live import has:

  1. a negligible risk of establishing in the environment and adversely impacting on native biodiversity or facilitating the risk of another invasive species adversely impacting the environment, or
  2. a very low risk of adversely impacting native biodiversity and will have a net environmental benefit.

5.2 Define a ‘regulated live specimen’ to be comprehensive of all live organisms except for pathogens – therefore inclusive of live animals, plants and non-pathogenic fungi, algae and protists. Also specify that a live specimen permitted for import can exclude any new taxa, hybrids or genetic variants of that specimen.

5.3 Retain the precautionary principle and require consideration of climate change in decision-making about specimens suitable for live import.

5.4 Complement the lists of live specimens assessed as suitable for live import with a prohibited list – taxa, species, subspecies or variants assessed as unsuitable for live import.

5.5 Ensure the permitted lists for live imports under the EPBC Act and the Biosecurity Act remain current by legislating a review function that includes:
A. a requirement to review the inclusion of a specimen on the list suitable for live import if the Environment Department becomes aware of new information indicating the import of the specimen does not meet the proposed objective or acceptable outcome for live imports.
B. the capacity to review live specimens that have been accepted as permitted imports for 5 years or more to assess whether they remain suitable for live import.

Ensure that the assessment of live plants under the Biosecurity Act achieves outcomes consistent with the objective and acceptable outcomes of the national environmental law by a regular certification process (review of the methodology and representative decisions). If the outcomes are not consistent, plant import assessments should be undertaken by the Environment Department until consistency is achieved.

5.6 Introduce a requirement to assess the risks of importing new taxa or genetic variants of existing established species where this is likely to boost the invasive potential of the species.

5.7 Strengthen transparency and accountability by:

  1. requiring the publication of all risk assessment guidelines and manuals used to inform decision-making under the Act
  2. requiring a statement of reasons by the decision maker for each live import decision and the publication of all supporting material
  3. expanding merits review to include decisions made in relation to live imports by either the Minister or their delegate.

6. Reform the Threatened Species Scientific Committee

6.1 Require the establishment of an independent scientific committee with appropriate scientific expertise, including an Indigenous member or members with relevant expertise. The specified types of expertise should not include socio-economic expertise (noting that socio-economic, legal and policy advice may be sought by the committee).

Specify that the scientific committee may create expert sub-committees to support the committee in fulfilling its expanded role.

Require that the Environment Minister ensures the scientific committee is sufficiently well resourced to fulfil its role and maintain up-to-date information on matters within its remit.

6.2 The tasks of the scientific committee should include efficiently and systematically assessing and listing key threatening processes, threats of national environmental significance and emerging threats, as well as nominated threatened species, important populations, ecological communities, proposed ecosystems of national importance, and areas of global or national importance.

Require the scientific committee to act consistently with the precautionary principle when deciding whether to list a key threatening process, threat of national environmental significance or emerging threatening process and whether to list a species, ecological community or other entity as threatened.

Subscribe

Get our blog the Feral Herald delivered to your inbox.

Save the Snowies

The NSW government is one step away from allowing aerial control of feral horses in Kosciuszko National Park. This is huge news and a crucial step for our threatened native wildlife and the fragile alpine ecosystems they call home.

Dear Project Team,

[YOUR PERSONALISED MESSAGE WILL APPEAR HERE.] 

I support the amendment to the Kosciuszko National Park Wild Horse Heritage Management Plan to allow our incredible National Parks staff to use aerial shooting as one method to rapidly reduce feral horse numbers. I want to see feral horse numbers urgently reduced in order to save the national park and our native wildlife that live there.

The current approach is not solving the problem. Feral horse numbers have rapidly increased in Kosciuszko National Park to around 18,000, a 30% jump in just the past 2 years. With the population so high, thousands of feral horses need to be removed annually to reduce numbers and stop our National Park becoming a horse paddock. Aerial shooting, undertaken humanely and safely by professionals using standard protocols, is the only way this can happen.

The government’s own management plan for feral horses states that ‘if undertaken in accordance with best practice, aerial shooting can have the lowest negative animal welfare impacts of all lethal control methods’.

This humane and effective practice is already used across Australia to manage hundreds of thousands of feral animals like horses, deer, pigs, and goats.

Trapping and rehoming of feral horses has been used in Kosciuszko National Park for well over a decade but has consistently failed to reduce the population, has delayed meaningful action and is expensive. There are too many feral horses in the Alps and not enough demand for rehoming for it to be relied upon for the reduction of the population.

Fertility control as a management tool is only effective for a small, geographically isolated, and accessible population of feral horses where the management outcome sought is to maintain the population at its current size. It is not a viable option to reduce the large and growing feral horse population in the vast and rugged terrain of Kosciuszko National Park.

Feral horses are trashing and trampling our sensitive alpine ecosystems and streams, causing the decline and extinction of native animals. The federal government’s Threatened Species Scientific Committee has stated that feral horses ‘may be the crucial factor that causes final extinction’ for 12 alpine species.

I recognise the sad reality that urgent and humane measures are necessary to urgently remove the horses or they will destroy the Snowies and the native wildlife that call the mountains home. I support a healthy national park where native species like the Corroboree Frog and Mountain Pygmy Possum can thrive.

Kind regards,
[Your name]
[Your email address]
[Your postcode]


Dear Project Team,

[YOUR PERSONALISED MESSAGE WILL APPEAR HERE.] 

I support the amendment to the Kosciuszko National Park Wild Horse Heritage Management Plan to allow our incredible National Parks staff to use aerial shooting as one method to rapidly reduce feral horse numbers. I want to see feral horse numbers urgently reduced in order to save the national park and our native wildlife that live there.

The current approach is not solving the problem. Feral horse numbers have rapidly increased in Kosciuszko National Park to around 18,000, a 30% jump in just the past 2 years. With the population so high, thousands of feral horses need to be removed annually to reduce numbers and stop our National Park becoming a horse paddock. Aerial shooting, undertaken humanely and safely by professionals using standard protocols, is the only way this can happen.

The government’s own management plan for feral horses states that ‘if undertaken in accordance with best practice, aerial shooting can have the lowest negative animal welfare impacts of all lethal control methods’.

This humane and effective practice is already used across Australia to manage hundreds of thousands of feral animals like horses, deer, pigs, and goats.

Trapping and rehoming of feral horses has been used in Kosciuszko National Park for well over a decade but has consistently failed to reduce the population, has delayed meaningful action and is expensive. There are too many feral horses in the Alps and not enough demand for rehoming for it to be relied upon for the reduction of the population.

Fertility control as a management tool is only effective for a small, geographically isolated, and accessible population of feral horses where the management outcome sought is to maintain the population at its current size. It is not a viable option to reduce the large and growing feral horse population in the vast and rugged terrain of Kosciuszko National Park.

Feral horses are trashing and trampling our sensitive alpine ecosystems and streams, causing the decline and extinction of native animals. The federal government’s Threatened Species Scientific Committee has stated that feral horses ‘may be the crucial factor that causes final extinction’ for 12 alpine species.

I recognise the sad reality that urgent and humane measures are necessary to urgently remove the horses or they will destroy the Snowies and the native wildlife that call the mountains home. I support a healthy national park where native species like the Corroboree Frog and Mountain Pygmy Possum can thrive.

Kind regards,
[Your name]
[Your email address]
[Your postcode]