Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

24th February 2017

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Submission to the Senate Inquiry into mitigation and deterrent measures

The LIFE Trust ANZ is a non-profit Registered Environmental Organisation working with the Trust UK, globally, regionally and locally, to drive positive behaviour change to conserve aquatic habitats and protect the amazing wild life that lives within them.

Through innovative conservation campaigns, scientific research and inspiring education we champion plastic-free oceans, sustainable fishing, effective Marine Protected Areas and an end to over-exploitation of marine life.

Our vision is of a world where our oceans are healthy, properly protected and full of diverse life.

We welcome this opportunity to make yet another submission on shark mitigation strategies currently used in and hope to add value to the discussion of the importance of implementing strategies that do no fatally impact upon marine species, particularly those listed as threatened, endangered and critically endangered that have a range of cumulative pressures already upon them.

Sincerely,

Claudette Rechtorik

Head of SEA LIFE Trust Australia/New Zealand

SEA LIFE Trust Aust/NZ C/o SEA LIFE | 1 – 5 Wheat Rd | | 2000 E: W: www.sealifetrust.org.au Overview of SEA LIFE Trust and input in shark conservation

Since inception in 2005 SEA LIFE Trust (formerly Sydney Aquarium Conservation Fund) has been involved in shark conservation. We have contributed funding to Great White shark tagging research conducted by the CSIRO to improve understanding of the patterns of movement and ecology of GWS to better inform management.

In 2008/09 SEA LIFE Trust was awarded an Envirofund grant to better understand perceptions of shark nets within the local Sydney ocean using community. Anecdotal evidence had previously told us that those who use the coast the most are aware of what shark nets are, do not support the culling of marine life via the Shark Meshing Program, and that entering the ocean was at one’s own risk. This was supported by our community survey where 84.9% of respondents had knowingly swum at an un-netted beach (outside of Newcastle and Wollongong). The vast majority of beachgoers (72.2%) did not choose beaches based on the presence of shark nets (not all of Sydney’s beaches are netted all of the time leaving some beaches un-netted) 1.

In 2014 we commissioned Dr Chris Neff of to survey SEA LIFE Sydney Aquarium visitors on their perceptions of and particularly their response to what should be done after an attack (no conservation bias as in-house surveys show people come to the aquarium predominantly for “entertainment” or “for a good afternoon out”). Overwhelmingly SEA LIFE visitors (87%) did not want the shark killed after an attack, and over 65% said that more education was needed around sharks and potential risks 2.

In 2014 and 2016 SEA LIFE Trust and SEA LIFE Sydney Aquarium were involved in the research and development work of Clever Buoy and University of Technology Sydney, to gather algorithms of shark movements for its emerging technology. Concurrent field studies in Port Stephens were carried out to capture movement data of sharks in the wild.

In 2015/16 SEA LIFE Trust contributed funding to No NSW Shark Cull to support knowledge exchange with South African Shark Spotter Program staff and N NSW stakeholder groups.

SEA LIFE Trust sympathises deeply with those affected by shark incidents as we do with all tragedy at the hands of nature, but we also value the importance of a healthy and vibrant marine environment to all members of the community, now and into the future. We support sensible measures to address all reasonable and practicable aspects of human safety when participating in marine based activities including swimming, surfing, diving and boating, but recognise that it is not possible to mitigate all risk and government must not set the expectation that zero risk is realistic or achievable.

Personal responsibility and education play a critical role in greater decision making and ensuring optimal safety when entering the marine domain.

SEA LIFE Trust Aust/NZ C/o SEA LIFE Sydney Aquarium | 1 – 5 Wheat Rd | Darling Harbour | 2000 E: W: www.sealifetrust.org.au SEA LIFE Trust will provide a response to the Terms of Reference in bold below:

1. research into shark numbers, behaviour and habitat; 2. the regulation of mitigation and deterrent measures under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, including exemptions from a controlled action under section 158; 3. the range of mitigation and deterrent measures currently in use; 4. emerging mitigation and deterrent measures; 5. bycatch from mitigation and deterrent measures; 6. alternatives to currently employed mitigation and deterrent measures, including education; 7. the impact of shark attacks on tourism and related industries; and 8. any other relevant matters.

TOR #1 SHARK NUMBERS, BEHAVIOUR AND HABITATS There are 9 target species under the Shark Meshing Program in NSW which include: Tiger shark, Great White shark, Bull shark, Dusky Whaler shark, Shortfin Mako shark, Spinner shark, Common Blacktip shark, Broadnose Seven Gill shark, Bronze Whaler shark, Silky shark. It is important to note that the majority of fatal attacks in Australia are attributed to the Great White, Tiger and Bull sharks. Whaler spp. have been implicated for several fatalities prior to 1990 3.

For this submission we will focus on just 3 species impacted by the SMP (either targeted or bycatch) due to their conservation status: Great White shark, Tiger shark, and the Grey Nurse shark. SEA LIFE Trust understands that a wide range of shark scientists will provide more detailed research findings on population, habitat and SMP impacts upon a range of at risk shark species via this inquiry process.

Of key note is that the Shark Meshing Program is listed as a Key Threatening Process, largely due to the lethal impacts upon the Great White and Grey Nurse shark.

Great White shark The Great White shark is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act 1999. It is also listed at the State level as follows: NSW – Vulnerable (Fisheries Management Act 1994). TAS: Vulnerable (Threatened Species Protection Act 1995). VIC: Threatened (Flora and Fauna Guaranteed Act 1988). WA: Vulnerable (Wildlife Conservation Act 1950). It is globally listed under the IUCN as Vulnerable.

Great White Sharks were considered to have a largely coastal distribution but recent research suggests that individuals may also spend significant time in the open ocean 4.

At the time of its nomination for listing as a protected species in 1996, it was proposed that the Australian population numbered less than 10 000 mature individuals 5. The population status in Australia, and globally, is, however, poorly known owing to a lack of robust abundance indicators. Quantitative stock assessments are not possible. The Great White Shark is, however, uncommon compared to other sharks and evidence (from game fishing, bycatch, shark netting or from observational data) indicates a declining global population.

SEA LIFE Trust Aust/NZ C/o SEA LIFE Sydney Aquarium | 1 – 5 Wheat Rd | Darling Harbour | 2000 E: W: www.sealifetrust.org.au Evidence suggests that the population may have declined by at least 20% over the last three generations and, in some areas, the species is considered to have declined even more substantially over the same period 6.

Tiger shark The Tiger shark is listed under the IUCN as Near Threatened. They are caught in numerous fisheries worldwide, both as target species and bycatch. Products utilised from Tiger sharks include flesh, fins, skin, liver oil and cartilage. The fins, skin and liver oil from Tiger sharks are all considered to be of high quality and can fetch good prices. The high value of products has increased commercial fishing pressure on this and similar species worldwide, especially since demand for high quality shark fins has increased 7. Given fishing pressure is predicted to increase, recovery of the species is unlikely and further declines in populations are predicted.

Grey Nurse shark The Grey Nurse shark has two listings under the EPBC Act 1999; the east coast population is listed as critically endangered, the west coast population as vulnerable. An inshore species, GNS are particularly susceptible to entanglement in recreational and commercial fishing gear and shark nets.

Aggregation sites (5 or more sharks in an area at the same time) have been identified in NSW and Queensland; some of these sites have been afforded some level protection, varying from Sanctuary Zones in Marine Protected Areas to specially designated Critical Habitat Zones. However the adequacy of protection allocated is questionable (mostly varying between 200m and 1000m) given the identified ranging of the species when in an aggregation site >1200m).

Most recent estimates for the east coast GNS population are around 1,500 animals 8 which, based on current entanglement, bycatch and hooking trends, and long life history, render its future uncertain

TOR #2 REGULATIONS OF MITIGATION AND DETERRENT MEASURES UNDER THE EPBC ACT 1999

Under section 158(4) of the EPBC Act, the Minister may only grant an exemption if he or she is satisfied that it is in the national interest.

Section 158(5) - In determining the national interest, the Minister may consider Australia's defence or security or a national emergency. This does not limit the matters the Minister may consider.

National Maritime Emergencies typically constitute large scale oil or gas spills and large pollution events where the environmental and economic costs are significant. Although tragic when it occurs, the rarity and discrete localisation of a shark incident does not constitute a national emergency and in turn the exemption of the EPBC Act for the purpose of shark mitigation, particularly with respect to fatal impacts upon threatened marine species, is arguably, not in the national interest.

The Minister determined that the perceived economic fallout from the multiple shark incidents in N NSW along with an impending summer season, justified the call for an exemption under national interest with very little supporting evidence. Beach attendance figures and tourism data do not reflect this downturn in communities where a shark incident has occurred (see Sea SEA LIFE Trust Aust/NZ C/o SEA LIFE Sydney Aquarium | 1 – 5 Wheat Rd | Darling Harbour | 2000 E: W: www.sealifetrust.org.au Shepherd’s submission for detailed analysis of visitation and beach attendance post shark attack). Given the significant cost of the current shark mitigation programs (shark nets NSW, shark nets and drum lines Qld) to both the marine environment and the taxpayer, SEA LIFE Trust is of the view that there are a suite of non-fatal measures including personal deterrents, dedicated netted beaches in low intensity areas and detection/communication technologies that must be implemented in the medium to long term in lieu of exempting the EPBC Act for fatal mitigation methods that significantly harm an array of threatened and protected species, whilst not providing full protection for the ocean user.

A community survey on WA’s drum line methods found that the majority of respondents oppose hazard-reduction strategies that involve killing sharks 9. From a list of strategies compiled from the WA government, marine scientists, ocean-user groups and the media, the most strongly opposed strategies were (in order):

 baited drum lines  culling species identified as posing a threat to humans  wider use of shark nets

In contrast, the most strongly supported strategies were:

 improving public education about sharks  encouraging ocean users to accepts the risks  increasing warning systems

The WA government’s cull was thus in direct opposition to the preferences of the majority of ocean users. Importantly, the most strongly supported strategies relate to improving understanding and awareness of sharks, and people altering their own behaviour and practices in the ocean.

The N NSW community tells a similar story where protests, town hall meetings and support by the Byron Mayor to oppose the installation of fatal mitigation including shark nets and drum lines were repeated post the WA situation.

In 2015 SEA LIFE Trust commissioned Dr. Chris Neff of the University of Sydney, to carry out a visitor survey to more comprehensively understand the views of the general public with respect to sharks and specifically what they feel should be done, if anything, after a shark incident. Over 85% of SEA LIFE Sydney Aquarium visitors (of domestic and international origin) did not want sharks killed after an attack. Sixty nine per cent supported public education as the best method for preventing shark bites; only 4 per cent of those surveyed supported the hunting of sharks, while nine per cent supported more shark nets as a preventative measure. This is consistent with other surveys and community responses mentioned above.

In light of such community responses the call for an exemption of the EPBC for fatal shark mitigation methods under national interest is questionable and must be reviewed.

SEA LIFE Trust Aust/NZ C/o SEA LIFE Sydney Aquarium | 1 – 5 Wheat Rd | Darling Harbour | 2000

W: www.sealifetrust.org.au TOR #3 THE RANGE OF MITIGATION AND DETERRENT MEASURES CURRENTLY IN USE

In September 2015, shark experts from across the world met at the NSW Shark Summit and considered an independent review of shark deterrent technology, which could potentially be trialled in . The Cardno report, “Shark deterrents and detectors” which was prepared in conjunction with Bond University’s Daryl McPhee, found that only one solution, a shark spotting program similar to that currently used in Cape Town, South Africa, and was suitable to be trialled immediately 10.

The subsequent $16 million Shark Strategy however, failed this advice and instead incorporated an expansion of the shark meshing program into N NSW as part of a suite of methods to address community concern around increased shark activity in that region. Shark Spotters was not included in the range of measures implemented despite it being the top ranked initiative at the NSW Shark Summit.

There are several mitigation and deterrent measures currently in use or could be put to use at short notice given support:

Aerial Patrols Please see detailed submission from Australian Aerial Patrol.

Shark Spotters Program In 2015/16, shark spotters from the successful South African program were brought to Byron Bay for a trial, of which SEA LIFE Trust contributed funding. The program improves beach-goers’ safety by positioning “spotters” at strategic points along the beach and coastline. When a shark is spotted, a loud warning is issued and emergency assistance is called in the case of an incident. The spotters also work closely with local Surf Life Saving Clubs. The shark spotting trial in Byron Bay was highly effective and implemented at minimal cost; they spotted five shark sightings compared to only one recorded by authorities. The shark spotters’ method has worked effectively in South Africa for over ten years. At the recent Shark Mitigation Workshop held at Taronga, hosted by the NSW State Government, the overall conclusion and in a follow up report found the Shark Spotters option to be the most effective mitigation measure.

Electric Shark Deterrent There are a number of electric shark repellents currently available, all with differing levels of effectiveness. The electric field generated by the wearable antenna is designed to over-stimulate the shark's electro-sensory system. Limited research to date has found 100% deterrence rate in White sharks when using a Shark Shield 11.

Eco-barriers Eco-barriers are made from nylon, with a clip-together interlocking mechanism hung between a nylon float line on the water surface and an anchored line along the seabed. Rather than being designed to catch and kill sharks, the barrier encloses bathers and creates a protected area that

SEA LIFE Trust Aust/NZ C/o SEA LIFE Sydney Aquarium | 1 – 5 Wheat Rd | Darling Harbour | 2000 E: W: www.sealifetrust.org.au keeps sharks out.

These barriers have been successfully installed at both Coogee Beach and Sorrento Beach in Western Australia. While these barriers are difficult to use on high intensity, open beaches they have a role to play in lower intensity coastal areas to give swimmers an option for added safety if they choose.

TOR #4 EMERGING MITIGATION AND DETERRENT MEASURES Clever Buoy Clever Buoy is a rapid prototype, proof of concept R&D project that aims to develop shark detection technology. They are ocean buoys that detect large swimming objects, like sharks, and send real- time valuable information to lifeguards on the beach.

SEA LIFE Sydney Aquarium collaborated on two of the many data collecting missions by Clever Buoy and the University of Technology, Sydney, to gather algorithms of various species of sharks’ movement to determine not only a shark from a non-shark, but a potentially dangerous shark from a non-target shark.

This technology has enormous potential to improve detection and communication in real time, particularly at peak periods when large numbers of visitors hit the coast.

Aerial Surveillance Drone technology is growing at a rapid pace, and a recent trial in 2016 of the Westpac funded “Mini Ripper" drone was found to be very effective. The drone is fitted with a video camera, loudspeaker and emergency pod containing lifesaving equipment and capable of delivery into remote ocean locations. Further research is currently being conducted at the University of Technology, Sydney to fit the drone’s video camera with specific software that would give it the ability to recognise a shark in the water.

It is SEA LIFE Trust’s view that the government should be investing in existing and emerging, non- fatal shark mitigation and deterrent measures such as those outlined above, rather than continuing with out-dated and fatally destructive methods such as shark meshing and drum lines.

TOR #5 BYCATCH FROM MITIGATION AND DETERRENT MEASURES In 2007 there was community outrage when a Grey Nurse shark was pulled overboard a DPI vessel, having been fatally caught in shark nets off Bondi, again in 2009 when a was visibly, fatally captured in nets off Coogee Beach, and again in 2013 when a baby Humpback whale was captured in a shark nets off Mona Vale and later died in front of its distressed mother and the general public, as respondents were too slow to arrive and release the mammal. These are just a few of the deeply distressing impacts of the SMP upon thousands of marine animals across NSW and QLD despite the fact that in 25 years, since September 1992, there have been 24 shark encounters at netted beaches in NSW, and thus putting into question the actual effectiveness of the SMP and the false sense of security of the nets continually being promoted to the public.

SEA LIFE Trust Aust/NZ C/o SEA LIFE Sydney Aquarium | 1 – 5 Wheat Rd | Darling Harbour | 2000 E: W: www.sealifetrust.org.au NSW: The SMP is deployed from September to April each year (8 months). Taken from the most recent NSW SMP report there were a total of 748 marine life interactions during the 6 month 2015 - 16 meshing season, comprised of 133 interactions with target sharks, and 615 interactions with non-target marine life.

As stated above under TOR #1 several species of sharks are included as target sharks despite never having been implicated in an attack on a human. If we include just those sharks that have been implicated in the majority of human/shark interactions (Bull, Great White, Tiger) there were 36 interactions with target sharks (4% of total animals caught), and 712 interactions with non-target animals (95% of all animals caught).

Fifty one per cent (51) of animals were released alive “albeit with fait unknown” (SMP 2015/16 report). Given there is no data on post-release survival rates there is minimal confidence that this is a true indicator of release success.

There were 145 interactions with other non-target sharks (not including those we’ve determined as non-target but are included as target) comprised of 112 Smooth Hammerheads; 19 Grey Nurse shark; 9 Australian Angel sharks; 2 Thresher sharks; 2 sharks; and 1 Great Hammerhead shark.

There were 425 interactions with rays, 14 interactions with dolphins (9 Bottlenose dolphins, 4 Common dolphins, and 1 unidentified, decomposed dolphin), 24 interactions with turtles (13 Green turtles, 5 Hawksbill turtles, 4 Loggerhead turtles, and 2 Leatherback turtles).

There was one interaction with a sea bird, an unidentified species of shearwater.

Ninety (90) of the interactions were with threatened species (31 White sharks; 19 Grey Nurse sharks; 13 Green turtles; 5 Hawksbill turtles; 4 Loggerhead turtles; 2 Leatherback turtles; and 1 Great Hammerhead shark) or protected species (9 Bottlenose dolphins; 4 Common dolphins; and 1 unidentified, decomposed dolphin).

The nets are fitted with whale alarms and dolphin pingers to deter marine mammals however based on the dolphin bycatch figures for the NSW SMP, the newly installed N NSW SMP and the QLD SMP these are clearly not effective in deterring dolphins.

QLD: Unlike the NSW SMP, the QLD SMP operates all year round and across a greater proportion of the coast. As such the overall toll of the QLD SMP is much higher than that of NSW. Below is a graph of the fatalities for target and non-target species from 2001 – 2016. Given the program’s long term data sets the significant decline of non-target species over the last few years is of major concern if it is indicative of species’ general declines given the wider threats to them including commercial and recreational fishing pressure, land based pollution, coastal development, and poor water quality, plastic ingestion (particularly turtles and marine mammals) and the as yet to be fully understood impacts of climate change.

SEA LIFE Trust Aust/NZ C/o SEA LIFE Sydney Aquarium | 1 – 5 Wheat Rd | Darling Harbour | 2000

W: www.sealifetrust.org.au

600 Queensland Shark Meshing Program Non-target species Target Species 500

400 killed

300

200 Number of animals of Number

100

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

It is reasonably apparent given the evidence above that the impact of shark nets and drum lines on the marine environment, and particularly on threatened species, which the EPBC Act exists to protect, is unacceptable.

TOR #6 ALTERNATIVES TO CURRENTLY EMPLOYED MITIGATION AND DETERRENT MEASURES, INCLUDING EDUCATION Aside from the potential non-fatal alternative measures outlined in TORS #3 and #4 above, personal responsibility and education are integral to beach safety.

Personal responsibility It is important for the public to take responsibility for their own actions when it comes to beach safety. This includes bathers understanding when there are particular times to avoid the water and what to watch out for. The most recent Reunion Island fatality is a case in point. The local government office on Reunion said in a statement: ''This accident happened even though swimming and other water sports are forbidden in this area.'' http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe- 39038833. Despite being banned AND warned against swimming in the area by fishers who had seen numerous sharks, the body boarder proceeded at his own risk. This incident has in turn led to renewed calls for additional shark culls in a typical knee jerk response to a recurring issue. There are well known hot spots for shark activity and these areas could, and should be avoided.

Despite the strong media focus on shark attacks, the general community agrees a balance needs to be found between the safety of ocean users and conservation of marine life.

SEA LIFE Trust Aust/NZ C/o SEA LIFE Sydney Aquarium | 1 – 5 Wheat Rd | Darling Harbour | 2000 E: W: www.sealifetrust.org.au Education As per the aforementioned Gibbs and Neff surveys, the ocean going community, either transient or resident desire more education and information about the risks of shark attacks and what they can do to maintain safety without harming marine life.

IN CONCLUSION Given the rare nature of human/shark interaction, the increased survival rates due to improved response times, the false sense of safety via a 150m wide net or baited hooks randomly located along an open beach, the number of incidents that have occurred on netted beaches, and the ability of personal risk to be mitigated, SEA LIFE Trust believes the impacts of shark nets and drum lines on the marine environment, and in particular to the significant list of threatened species, is too high and therefore must be phased out immediately, and replaced by the suite of detection and communication tools currently in use or on the cusp thereof.

REFERENCES: 1. Understanding community awareness of NSW Shark Meshing Program. Report by Jessica Tout, University of Technology Sydney. 2. Neff, C., Ground breaking research highlights little support for shark culling. http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=13321 3. West, John G., Changing patterns of shark attacks in Australian waters. Marine and Freshwater Research, 2011. 4. Bruce, B.D., The Biology and Ecology of the White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias. In: Camhi, M.D, E.K. Pikitch & E.A Babcock, eds. Sharks of the Open Ocean. Page(s) 69-76. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. 5. Bruce, B.D., The Biology and Ecology of the White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias. In: Camhi, M.D, E.K. Pikitch & E.A Babcock, eds. Sharks of the Open Ocean. Page(s) 69-76. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. 6. Bruce, B.D., The Biology and Ecology of the White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias. In: Camhi, M.D, E.K. Pikitch & E.A Babcock, eds. Sharks of the Open Ocean. Page(s) 69-76. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. 7. CITES (2004). Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora - Appendix II Listing of the White Shark (revision 1). Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/pubs/great-white-cites-appendix2- english.pdf 8. Cardno (2010). Development and Implementation of a Population Estimation Protocol to Provide an estimate of East Coast Population Numbers for Grey Nurse Sharks (Carcharias Taurus). 9. Gibbs, L., Transforming shark hazard policy: Learning from ocean-users and shark encounter in Western Australia. Marine Policy, Vol 58, 2015. 10. Cardno, Shark Deterrents and Detectors – Review of Bather Protection Technologies. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0020/621407/cardno-review-of-bather- protectiontechnologies.pdf (Accessed 21 February 2017) 11. Kempster, R. et al., How Close is too Close? The Effect of a Non-Lethal Electric Shark Deterrent on White Shark Behaviour. PLOS ONE, 2016 12. M. Green, C. Ganassin and D. D. Reid “Report into the NSW Shark Meshing (Bather

SEA LIFE Trust Aust/NZ C/o SEA LIFE Sydney Aquarium | 1 – 5 Wheat Rd | Darling Harbour | 2000

W: www.sealifetrust.org.au Protection) Program March 2009. Pp 26-27.

SEA LIFE Trust Aust/NZ C/o SEA LIFE Sydney Aquarium | 1 – 5 Wheat Rd | Darling Harbour | 2000 E: W: www.sealifetrust.org.au