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