Inquiry into Shark Mitigation and Deterrent Measures
GREENPEACE AUSTRALIA PACIFIC SUBMISSION TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS REFERENCES COMMITTEE
2 March 2017
Index
1 Introduction 3
2 Summary 3
3 Recommendations 4
4 Term of reference #1: Research into shark numbers, behaviour and habitat 4
5 Term of reference #2: The regulation of mitigation and deterrent measures 6 under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, including exemptions from a controlled action under section 158
6 Term of reference #5: Bycatch from mitigation and deterrent measures 13
7 Term of reference #3, 4 and 6: The range of mitigation and deterrent 15 measures currently in use, emerging measures and alternatives to measures
8 Term of reference #7: The impact of shark attacks on tourism and related 18 industries
9 Conclusion 19
2 1 Introduction
Greenpeace Australia Pacific (Greenpeace) welcomes the opportunity to contribute this submission to the Environment and Communications References Committee’s Inquiry into Shark Mitigation and Deterrent Measures (the Inquiry).
2 Summary
Australia's beaches and healthy oceans are fundamental to our identity. They hold enormous value for Australians, and are a major drawcard for international visitors the world over. Greenpeace supports the ability of every person to safely enjoy Australia’s incredible beaches, and believes that marine life and beachgoers can coexist without unnecessary harm to either.
Australia's ocean ecosystems are sources of immense biodiversity and are home to countless endemic and migratory species. As apex species in ocean ecosystems, sharks have a unique, irreplaceable and vital status in ocean ecosystems. Adopting shark mitigation and deterrence measures that could significantly and negatively impact shark populations, in particular threatened shark species, could have dramatic flow on effects for entire ocean ecosystems and cause severe damage to fragile systems.
The NSW government has cited recent shark encounters as a reason for reconsidering their approach to shark mitigation and deterrence. However, the finite risk of humans being harmed by sharks must be considered in perspective. Surf Lifesaving Australia reports that people are 200 times more likely to die from drowning, than from a shark attack.
Shark deterrent and mitigation measures that have adverse impacts on threatened marine species and ecosystems are regulated by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). Under the EPBC Act, these ‘actions’ are unlawful unless the Environment Minister (the Minister) grants an exemption. The Minister is required to consider a number of factors when deciding whether to grant an exemption. These factors include long-term environmental considerations, whether there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage, the precautionary principle, the principle of intergenerational equity and the conservation of biological diversity. In making a decision, the Minister is not permitted to act inconsistently with Australia's obligations under the Bonn Convention or the Biodiversity Convention, which support the protection of migratory and threatened species. These matters considered, a number of shark deterrent and mitigation measures must not be implemented.
Greenpeace considers the most effective approaches to shark deterrence and mitigation are those focused on reducing the likelihood of shark attack, restoring public confidence
3 in beach safety, while also having minimal impact on shark species and ocean ecosystems. Greenpeace calls for a long-term commitment to solutions that have been trialled and are evidence based, have minimal environmental impact, and are cost effective and practical to implement.
The use of a combination of effective and low-environmental impact solutions would reduce the risk of shark attack without violating Australia's international obligations (see Recommendations).
No shark mitigation and deterrent method can completely eliminate the risk of human encounters with sharks and this is an inherent risk associated with entering Australian oceans. The risk can be reduced significantly, but it cannot be eliminated completely. The scale of any policy response must be proportionate to the risks and the fact that the risks cannot be negated completely.
3 Recommendations
In formulating its recommendations, Greenpeace has considered the practicalities of deploying equipment in the exposed coastline of Australia, the durability and longevity of methods, impacts upon human health and safety, stakeholder opinions, expense, the efficacy of technology at deterring or detecting sharks, and environmental impact.
Greenpeace makes the following recommendations:
● Implement the Shark Spotters Program; ● Remove sunk shark nets currently in the ocean; ● Ban drum lines and culling methods; ● Implement trials of non-lethal barriers at popular swimming locations; ● Continue strong government and surf life saver shark safety education campaigns; ● Consider using drones to supplement shark spotting efforts; ● Consider investing in shark tagging programs to supplement shark spotting and research; ● Improving the response times of emergency services, Council Lifeguards and Surf Life-Saving clubs; and ● Reviewing beach patrolling strategies along the NSW coastline.
4 Term of reference #1: Research into shark numbers, behaviour and habitat
Shark behaviour and its relevance to human harm from shark encounters will be briefly considered. This information is based on data on shark encounters and changing patterns of human water usage, and illustrates why the frequency of shark-related
4 incidents in Australia has increased. The data considered shows that an increase in shark interactions is not indicative of a crisis.
As reported by John G West, coordinated by the Australian Shark Attack File, the number of shark attacks between 1990 and 1999 increased by 16% (at 6.5 incidents per year), compared to the prior decade, and increased by 25% during 2000 to 2009 (at 15 incidents per year).
Importantly, while the frequency of shark attacks has increased over time, the number of shark encounters per million people in Australia has almost halved over the last 70 years, decreasing from 60 encounters per million people in 1930/1939 to approximately 30 encounters per million between 2000/2009.
A range of factors are thought to have contributed to the increased frequency of shark attacks in Australia including:
● The number of people entering Australian oceans due to an increase in the Australian population; ● The number of tourists visiting Australian beaches; ● The amount of time people are spending in the ocean; ● The popularity of water-based fitness and recreation activities, causing people to enter the water more frequently and for longer periods of time; ● The number of people accessing previously isolated coastal areas; and ● Shark attack awareness and reporting.
Greenpeace notes that Australian shark attack trends are consistent with global trends. The increase in the number of shark attacks globally is the natural result of the above factors. The increases in Australian shark attacks of 16% and 25% over each of the past two decades correlate to the increase in the Australian population and tourist numbers. This indicates that the shark attack increase could be affected by growth in the number of beach visitors.
Since 1990, 12 species of shark have been identified as responsible for unprovoked shark attacks. 48% of shark attacks are attributed to the white, tiger and bull shark species, 20% to unidentified species in the Carcharhinidae family and another 20% to the wobbegong shark. Over the last two decades, only the white, bull and tiger shark species are responsible for fatal shark attacks. Therefore, Greenpeace makes recommendations that have been successfully tested on these three shark species. Greenpeace notes that while the white shark represent only 29% of attacks over the past 20 years, it is responsible for 68% of fatalities.
5 Between 1990 and 2009, the activities of victims were recorded for 186 incidents. At the time of these incidents, 49% of victims were wearing wetsuits. The following percentages of victims were doing the listed activities at the time of the incidents:
● 42% surfing on a surf or body board; ● 21% swimming; ● 14% SCUBA or hookah diving; ● 7% snorkelling; and ● 6% standing in shallow water.
Over the last two decades, the time of day at which a shark attack occurred was recorded for 138 incidents. This data indicates that shark attacks occur in Australian waters at all times of the day, during all months of the year.
5 Term of reference #2: The regulation of mitigation and deterrent measures under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, including exemptions from a controlled action under section 158
The objects of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act), as stated in section 3, include the protection of the environment, particularly for matters of national environmental significance, conservation of biodiversity and heritage, and promotion of ecologically sustainable development. The EPBC Act regulates the environmental influence of the commonwealth government and its respective agencies.
The EPBC Act applies when an ‘action’ is undertaken by a person which has ‘national environmental significance’, affects commonwealth land or is undertaken by a commonwealth agency. An action is defined inclusively in section 523 to include a project, development, undertaking, activity or a series of activities. As acknowledged by Griffiths J, in Australian Conservation Foundation Incorporated v Minister for the Environment [2016] FCA 1042, the EPBC Act renders unlawful an action that has, will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on particular aspects of the environment, including matters of national environmental significance.
Under section 67, an action that requires approval to be lawful is called a ‘controlled action’. A person wishing to take a controlled action can only do so lawfully if they obtain a decision from the Minister that allows for an exception.
For the purposes of the EPBC Act, the table on page 12 indicates the listed categories of species affected by shark mitigation and deterrent measures (measures).
Considerations the Minister must take into account when deciding whether to exempt an action from the operation of provisions under the EPBC Act:
6
5.1 Whether the Minister is satisfied that it is in the national interest that the person be allowed to take the action (Section 158)
Under section 158, the Minister may exempt a person from the application of a provision of Part 3 in relation to a specified action if the Minister is satisfied that it is in the national interest.
Section 158(5) provides that in determining the national interest, the Minister may consider, among other things, a national emergency, defence and security. The EPBC Act does not provide any further guidance on how the term ‘national interest’ should be interpreted.
Considering the evidence, the risk of shark attack on Australian beaches does not fit the definition of a matter of national emergency, nor is it relevant to defence or security.
In addition, it is reasonable to assume that the Minister would not find the implementation of a measure that adversely impacts a threatened species or ocean ecosystem to be in the national interest due to the small risk of shark attack relative to the likelihood of irreversible ecological damage. Further, the availability of effective non-harmful measures should influence the Minister's decision to avoid harmful measures that are not in the national interest.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt granted an exemption to the Western Australian Government on 10 January 2014 under s 158, to permit the government to trial a baited drum line program. In a letter to Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett, the Minister expressed that the exemption was in the national interest on the grounds of public safety, and in order to protect Western Australia's ocean-based tourism industry. Greenpeace considers that the reasoning adopted by the Minister is not adequately supported by factual evidence. The impact of shark encounters on public safety is minimal. The risk of shark attacks materialises into a reality for very few people, affecting an extremely small percentage of the public, but not the public at large. It is not in the national interest to adopt lethal measures with terrible environmental impacts in order to protect humans against rare shark encounters.
Further, even if the risk of shark attack was a significant risk to the safety of the public at large, drum lines are not an effective shark mitigation or deterrent measure (see point 7). Therefore, Greenpeace considers that the reasoning adopted by the Minister in granting the section 158 exemption in relation to drum lines was based on flawed reasoning in relation to the risks of shark attacks for public safety, and factual reasoning that is not supported by evidence in relation to the effectiveness of drum lines.
7 Greenpeace acknowledges that the Minister may have granted the exemption purely on the basis that the drum lines were to be trialled, where an unsuccessful outcome would result in the Minister refusing to grant exemptions for lethal measures in the future.
Greenpeace considers that a request for an exemption under section 158 would be unlikely to be granted, and should not be granted, in the future because lethal measures are not in the national interest.
Further:
● Human harm from shark encounters do not threaten the safety of the public at large; ● Drum lines are not an effective solution to reduce the risk of shark attack; ● There is no compelling evidence that indicates tourism is supported by the use of drum lines; and ● Drum lines have devastating environmental impacts that breach section 268 of the EPBC Act (see point 5.9), contravene international obligations and are not sustainable.
5.2 Economic and social matters, including principles of ecological sustainability (s 136)
The principles of ecological sustainability are detailed in section 3A to include that:
(a) Decision making processes should effectively integrate both long term and short term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations
The Minister should refuse to grant an exemption for an action that is not effective in terms of long-term environmental considerations. This would include a measure that has significant adverse impacts on the environment, or a threatened, critically endangered, vulnerable or migratory species.
(b) If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation
Greenpeace submits that this section should be read expansively, so that the Minister should consider refusing to grant an exemption for an action if that action may cause serious and irreversible environmental harm. This would include a measure that adversely impacts the environment, or a threatened, critically endangered, vulnerable or migratory species. For example, measures that kill or injure populations of threatened species may seriously and irreversibly harm the sustainability of species' populations.
8
(c) The present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations (the principle of intergenerational equity)
The Minister should refuse to grant an exemption for an action if that measure could adversely impact the health, diversity or productivity of ocean ecosystems, as can occur through a decrease in species' population. This would include a measure that injures or kills a threatened, critically endangered, vulnerable or migratory species.
(d) The conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision making
The Minister should refuse to grant an exemption for an action that causes environmental damage, because an action of this nature would not promote the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity. This would include a measure that adversely impacts the environment, or a threatened, critically endangered, vulnerable or migratory species.
5.3 The precautionary principle must be taken into account (section 391(1))
Under section 391(2), the precautionary principle states that a ‘lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing a measure to prevent degradation of the environment where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage.’ An expansive approach to the precautionary principle should be adopted by the Minister and the Minister should refuse to grant an exemption for an action that could cause serious or irreversible environmental damage. Applying the precautionary principle, an exemption for measures such as netting and drum lines that kill and harm threatened species, and threaten the sustainability of species populations, must be refused.
5.4 Obligations under section 268
Greenpeace considers that the granting of an exemption for a controlled action that adversely impacts the Great White Shark or Grey Nurse Shark species is in direct conflict with section 268. Section 268 provides that a commonwealth agency ‘must not take any action that contravenes a recovery plan’. Greenpeace notes that where the Great White Shark and Grey Nurse Shark species have had Recovery Plans since 2002, permitting the taking of actions that threaten these species may contravene section 268.
9 Greenpeace considers that the adoption of measures by a commonwealth agency that injure or kill the Great White Shark or Grey Nurse Shark species would contravene section 268.
5.5 For decisions in relation to the granting of approval for actions relating to a listed threatened species or a listed threatened ecological community, the Minister must not act inconsistently with Australia's obligations under the Biodiversity Convention or the Apia Convention (Section 146K)
Under Article 8(d) of the Biodiversity Convention, parties must promote the protection of ecosystems and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings. Greenpeace notes that if a measure could directly or indirectly kill a listed threatened species, the granting of an exemption for a controlled action may breach section 146K of the EPBC Act and Australia's international obligation to promote the protection of ecosystems.
Under Article 8(f) of the Biodiversity Convention, parties must promote the recovery of threatened species. Greenpeace notes that if a controlled action could adversely impact a threatened species, granting an exemption for that controlled action may breach section 146K of the EPBC Act and Australia's international obligation to promote the recovery of threatened species.
5.6 For decisions in relation to granting approval for actions relating to a listed migratory species, the Minister must not act inconsistently with the Bonn Convention (Section 146L)
Under Article II of the Bonn Convention, parties to the Convention must ‘acknowledge the importance of migratory species being conserved’. When possible and appropriate, Range States must pay special attention to the unfavourable conservation status of migratory species and take necessary steps to conserve migratory species and their habitats. Australia is a Range State where it exercises jurisdiction over any part of the areas of land or water that migratory species inhabit, temporarily stay in, cross or fly over, at any time on its normal migration route.
Under Article II(2), parties acknowledge ‘the need to take action to avoid any migratory species becoming endangered’. Under Article II(3)(b), parties ‘shall endeavour to provide immediate protection for migratory species’.
For the purposes of this convention, there may be a breach of section 146L of the EPBC Act and Australia's international obligations if an exemption is granted to permit the taking of a controlled action. That is, if that action could adversely impact migratory species or the habitat of migratory species.
10 Greenpeace notes that state and territory legislation operate concurrently with the EPBC Act. Therefore, both state or territory, and federal governments may be required to give consent, under the relevant legislation, for an action to be taken.
Relevant provisions of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
5.7 Threatened Species
It is an offence under sections 18 and 18A of the EPBC Act to take an action that has had, will have or is likely to have, a significant impact on a listed threatened species, including species in the critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable categories.
Under section 139(1), in deciding whether to grant approval for an action for the purposes of sections 18 or 18A, the Minister must not act inconsistently with Australia's obligations under the Biodiversity Convention, the UN Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) or a recovery plan. See point 5.4 for relevant provisions of the Biodiversity Convention.
CITES recognises that Great White Sharks are a protected and threatened species. Recovery Plans for the Great White Shark and the Grey Nurse Shark were created in 2002.
In Krajniw v Brisbane City Council (No 2) [2011] FCA 563, Dowsett J noted that ‘significant’ should be interpreted to mean ‘a risk of significant adverse impact’ upon a ‘species as a whole’. It was held that the ‘significant’ does not extend to include ‘any possibly adverse effect upon a species, however minor and however unlikely’.
Greenpeace considers that measures that injure or kill members of threatened marine species constitute controlled actions that have significant adverse impacts, under sections 18 and 18A.
5.8 Migratory Species
It is a strict liability offence under sections 20 and 20A for a person to take an action that has had, will have, or is likely have, a significant impact on a migratory species. When the Minister decides under section 140 whether to approve the taking of an action for the purposes of sections 20 or 20A, the Minister must not act inconsistently with Australia's obligations under the Bonn Convention (see point 5.5).
Greenpeace considers that measures that injure or kill some members of migratory species, or injure or kill any number of threatened migratory species, constitute controlled actions that have significant adverse impacts under ss 20 and 20A.
11
5.9 Marine Environment
Under section 23, approval is required for certain activities that involve the marine environment, including actions that will have, or are likely to have, a significant impact on the environment. It is a strict liability offence under section 24A for a person to take an action in a commonwealth marine area that will result in a significant impact on the environment. It is also a strict liability offence under section 24A to take actions outside a commonwealth marine area, but in the Australian jurisdiction, that result in, or will result in, a significant environmental impact.
Greenpeace notes that actions taken as shark mitigation and deterrent measures could have a significant impact on listed threatened and migratory species, and broader environmental impacts that extend beyond Australia's territorial limits. In some circumstances, these actions may be controlled actions for the purposes of sections 23 and 24A.
Listed species classifications
Species Classification
Grey Nurse Shark (east coast population) Critically Endangered (Carcharias taurus) Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) Endangered Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys Endangered olivacea) Grey Nurse Shark (west coast population) Vulnerable (Carcharias taurus) Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Vulnerable Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys Vulnerable coriacea) Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Vulnerable Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus) Vulnerable Humpback Whale (Megaptera Vulnerable novaengliae) Great White Shark (Carcharodon Vulnerable & Migratory carcharias) Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) Vulnerable & Migratory
12 Porbeagle (Mackerel) Shark (Lamna Migratory nasus) Shortfin Mako and Mako Shark (Isurus Migratory oxyrinchus) Basking Shark (Cetorhinus maximus) Migratory Silky Shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) Migratory
6 Term of reference #5: Bycatch from mitigation and deterrent measures
Shark net bycatch results in the death and injury of many non-targeted species and has broad adverse impacts on ocean ecosystems. The issues Greenpeace discusses are predominantly based on data from New South Wales (NSW). These issues are likely to be similar to those experienced across the whole of Australia.
Nets trap, kill and injure around three times as many non-targeted organisms as they do targeted organisms. The majority of animals caught in nets die. Animals trapped include marine turtles, dolphins, whales, rays, dugongs, seabirds, harmless sharks, Australian fur-seals, little penguins and the critically endangered Grey Nurse Shark. The survival rate for different species and types of animals is tabulated on page 12.
The Department of Primary Industries reviewed the Shark Meshing Program (SMP) in 2014-15 and prepared a report (the Report) that looked at the operational aspects of the SMP. The Report reviewed the ‘sunk nets’ in place on 51 beaches from Wollongong to Newcastle. These nets float below the surface in about 10 to 12 metres of water, within 500 metres of the shore.
The Report indicated that the government's objective to minimise the impact of the SMP on non-targeted species and threatened species was not met:
● In 2014-15, when four Green Turtles and three Common Dolphins were entangled in the net; and ● In 2013-14, when ten Green Turtles, two Leatherback Turtles and four Common Dolphins were entangled.
The objective not to entangle threatened species was not met:
● In 2012-13, when two Humpback Whales were entangled; and ● In 2013-14, when one Humpback Whale was entangled.
Shark nets kill many faunal species, including vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered species. The Australian East Coast population of the critically endangered
13 Grey Nurse Shark could be as low as 1100. Between 2009-10 and 2013-14, 14 Grey Nurse Sharks were killed in New South Wales shark nets alone. At this rate, the continued existence of the East Coast Grey Nurse Shark population is threatened by the use of nets.
Greenpeace notes the Grey Nurse Shark catch rates have decreased in Queensland over the past two decades. Greenpeace submits that this decrease is not the result of an improving bycatch situation, but the result of a decrease in the Grey Nurse Shark population size. Due to the smaller number of Grey Nurse Sharks in East Coast waters, less sharks will become entangled.
Greenpeace notes that mesh nets also pose a significant threat to Australian Dugong populations. Between 2011 and 2016, four Dugongs were killed as bycatch. In Queensland, an average of 1.2 Dugongs die as shark net bycatch annually. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Authority estimates the current Dugong population to be only 3% of the Dugong population that existed in the 1960s. The Department of the Environment and Energy states that ‘incidental net entanglement and deaths are a major cause of regional population decline, evident in the severe decline along the urban coast of Queensland’.
For threatened species of small populations, bycatch mortality rates threaten the sustainability of populations. This is especially the case for species that suffer compounding anthropogenic impacts, such as habitat degradation through coastal development and port expansion, pollution, entanglement and incidental bycatch in fisheries gear, vessel strike, and climate change. Existing bycatch mortality rates threaten the long-term sustainability of Dugong populations for these reasons. Grey Nurse Sharks, amongst most other threatened species, experience similar issues due to compounding adverse anthropogenic impacts, making them particularly susceptible to mortality through entanglement.
A decrease in species populations has adverse flow on effects for entire ecosystems. Many ocean ecosystems feature unique food chains in which the health of all species depends on the maintenance of stable species populations. If an apex species, such as a particular shark, significantly reduces in number, then species consumed by the shark can become overly populous. This can lead to a decrease in the population of species preyed upon by that intermediate species. In this way, species population imbalances can be created that have the potential to cause species extinction at different levels of the food chain, and the gradual extinction of entire ecosystems.
Despite numerous efforts by the government to reduce bycatch rates, there is no viable way in which the current shark net system can operate without causing widespread damage through bycatch. Greenpeace submits that the only solution to shark net problems is to remove existing nets and replace them with more effective measures.
14
Bycatch data
Species Percentage of animals Number caught between that die before being 2009-10 and 2013-14 released
Hammerhead Shark 99.1% 114 Grey Nurse Shark 64% 22 (Critically Endangered) Marine mammals 89% 18 Target Sharks (excluding 88% 167 White Sharks) Great White Shark 81% 30 (vulnerable) Thresher Shark 80% 10 Australian Angler Shark 78% 54 Turtles 76% 25 Stingrays 27% 272 Port Jackson Shark 12% 16
7 Term of reference #3, 4 and 6: The range of mitigation and deterrent measures currently in use, emerging measures and alternatives to measures
Traditionally, Australia has relied heavily on shark nets to deter sharks. The Fisheries Scientific Committee’s Final Recommendation on the shark meshing program in NSW1 shows that this method is outdated and highly ineffective, as demonstrated by the fact that 40% of sharks trapped in NSW nets are found on the beach side of nets. The NSW Shark Meshing Program (SMP) has been listed as a key threatening process under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 since 2003, due to the damaging impacts the program has on marine species. The NSW Fisheries Scientific Committee has noted the adverse effects of the NSW SMP, especially for the White Shark and Grey Nurse Shark species.
The existing shark net system is not an effective shark mitigation or deterrent method, even when complemented with aerial surveillance.
1 Available at
Emerging shark mitigation and deterrent measures
There is a wide range of effective emerging shark mitigation and deterrent measures. The measures addressed by Greenpeace have been successfully trialled, are cost effective, practical to implement and have minimal environmental impact.
The Shark Spotters Program (the Program) involves positioning a shark observer in a high location to search for sharks. The spotter signals the presence or absence of sharks in real time through a flag system. Shark information can be communicated on websites, social media and via SMS. The Program has no adverse environmental or human health impacts. It requires few, inexpensive resources and can utilise existing surf life saver resources. This enables the Program to be deployed at different locations on a flexible basis. The Program has been successfully trialled in numerous locations. Greenpeace notes that some flat beaches without a high vantage point may require the building of an artificial platform for observers to utilise. These high vantage points could serve the dual purpose of enabling surf life savers to better spot people drowning. Cardno was commissioned by the NSW Department of Primary Industries to undertake an independent review of emerging technologies for bather protection. Greenpeace notes that Cardno considered the Shark Spotter Program to be the best shark detection method available in 2015.
Physical barriers, such as the Bionic Barrier and Aquarius Net, could effectively exclude sharks from beach areas. Cardno outlines that these barriers are highly effective because they are made from polymer nylon 6 with 295mm holes. This strong material has a 450kg breaking strain and is able to withstand higher wind energy than most other nets, effectively keeping sharks separate from humans on the other side of the barrier. During extreme weather events, the floats in the net can easily be removed, so that the net can rest on the seabed without getting damaged. If the net does become damaged, it is able to be repaired quickly in situ. These barriers have minimal adverse environmental impacts and no adverse impacts on human health. They are more cost effective than other physical barriers on the market, and can protect surfers if they are placed far out from the shore.
Personal responsibility: Greenpeace reinforces the importance of beach users taking responsibility for their personal safety. Effective shark mitigation and deterrence requires beach users to implement their own safety measures. Greenpeace recommends that shark mitigation and deterrent measures include beach users:
● Keeping up to date with shark safety campaigns; and ● Making smart decisions about whether beach conditions are safe enough to enter the water.
16 Greenpeace commends the multifaceted shark safety campaigns already conducted by the Australian Lifesaver Association, and state and territory governments. These campaigns provide guidance to the public about shark safety, and provide real time updates about shark sightings through websites, social media and SMS.
Greenpeace recommends that funding be used for trialling of surveillance drones, shark tagging programs and research. These is potential for drones to be used to supplement shark spotting efforts by identifying sharks from above the water. If drones are found to work effectively, they could be a great additional resource for shark spotters and surf lifesavers. If the drones have a high success rate, they could eventually replace the Shark Spotters Program.
Investing in shark tagging programs could supplement shark spotting efforts and enable the collection of more information about shark populations and behaviour. Shark tagging programs, such as the Cleverbuoy, use an acoustic shark detection method with multi-beam sonar and software to identify sharks. This information can be communicated in real time through websites, social media and SMS. Over time, the collection of shark data could be used to formulate more effective shark mitigation and deterrent measures based on a better understanding of shark behaviour and populations. We note that Cardno found the Cleverbuoy shark detection method effective in its independent review of bather protection technologies. Cardno noted that rigorous scientific evaluation is required to evaluate the effectiveness of this technology and potential adverse impacts on wildlife.
Greenpeace submits that drum lines and culling methods should be banned because they are not viable shark mitigation and deterrent measures. These methods detrimentally impact marine species and ocean ecosystems, and breach Australia’s international obligations under the Bonn Convention and the Biodiversity Convention. We note that there is no evidence to demonstrate that drum lines effectively decrease the chance of shark attack. A Letter of Expert Concern to the WA Environmental Protection Authority2 details that drum lines operating in Hawaii have been found not to have improved beach safety. These drum lines have been in operation for 16 years, catching nearly 300 Tiger Sharks annually. This again reinforces our concern that the financial and ecological expenses associated with these measures are not justified in the light of the evidence that drum lines do not decrease shark attacks.
During the trial of drum lines in WA (January to April of 2014):
● 78% of animals caught were non-targeted animals (animals were undersized or the wrong species);
2 Available at
Greenpeace is concerned that drum lines and culling programs that target mature and nearly mature animals threaten the reproductive output and recovery of shark species populations. This is because large volumes of adults near, or of, reproductive age are killed. Reproductive output is further threatened by the fact that four female Tiger Sharks are caught for every single male Tiger Shark. The long-term sustainability of shark populations will be detrimentally affected by the adoption of shark culling or drum line measures. In excess of 300 sharks are likely to be caught annually. A significant decrease in shark populations will create problems for entire ocean ecosystems by creating an imbalance in population sizes of species consumed by sharks.
Greenpeace submits that drum lines and culling measures should be banned by Australian state, territory and federal governments.
In the light of the ineffective measures implemented so far, and the benefits that new technologies and measures have to offer, Greenpeace makes the following recommendations: ● Implement the Shark Spotters Program; ● Remove sunk shark nets currently in the ocean; ● Ban drum lines and culling methods; ● Implement physical barriers, such as the Bionic Barrier and Aquarius Net, at popular swimming locations; ● Continue strong government and surf life saver shark safety education campaigns; ● Consider using drones to supplement shark spotting efforts; and ● Consider investing in shark tagging programs to supplement shark spotting and research.
8 Term of reference #7: The impact of shark attacks on tourism and related industries
Greenpeace considers the best way to support Australian tourism is to implement effective shark mitigation and deterrent measures that reduce the risk of shark attack and restore public confidence, while having minimal adverse environmental impact. It is clear that the current measures in place do not effectively achieve this outcome.
18 9 Conclusion
Greenpeace submits that more effective shark deterrent and mitigation measures should be implemented. Recommendations made have the dual purpose of promoting ocean safety while preserving our precious ocean ecosystems.
Greenpeace reiterates that the risk of shark encounters cannot be completely eliminated. Shark interactions are an inherent risk associated with the ocean. This risk is minor when compared with drowning, which remains 200 times more likely than the risk of shark attack. Through the adoption of more effective shark mitigation and deterrent measures, the risk of shark attack should decrease, public confidence in beach safety will increase and populations of threatened marine species will be sustained.
19