Transcript Key Threatening Processes

Article 8 (h) CBD
Invasive Alien species:
species that threaten
ecosystems, habitats or
other species.
1. INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES AND FRESHWATER
ECOSYSTEMS
2. THE REGULATORY REGIME
3. GAPS AND INCONSISTENCIES
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Franklin River Region
Why do humans introduce freshwater species?
Deliberately: biocontrol, re-stocking for recreational
fisheries,
Gambusia (Mosquito Fish)
Rainbow Trout
“Accidentally”: escape of garden or aquarium species;
vegetation caught on propellers, anchors,
watercraft and trailers.
Salvinia Infestation
Before
After
1.
INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES AND FRESHWATER
ECOSYSTEMS
 Almost one-third of the species listed by the IUCN as
the worst invaders are garden or aquarium escapees
 92% of fish introductions occur in freshwater systems
 In Australia alien fish species are ‘implicated in the
decline of 42% of Australian native fish and several
frog species’
2. THE REGULATORY REGIME
 International Guidance – the CBD
 Articles 7 (c) and 8(l) identify processes and activities that
have, or are likely to have a significant adverse impact on
biological diversity (ie threatening processes)
 Article 8 (f) rehabilitate, restore and recovery threatened
species and ecosystems
 Article 8 (h) specifically targets one particular threatening
process, the deleterious impacts of IAS.
IDENTIFY
POTENTIAL
IAS
IDENTIFY
ACTUAL
IAS
 Australia’s Regime
 Legislation – formal listing procedures for Key
Threatening Processes (KTPs)
 Legislation – development of lists of prohibited species
 Policy Instruments such as strategies, frameworks and
plans
JURISDICTION
KEY THREATENING PROCESS
Commonwealth
KTPs Accepted for Listing under Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
• Loss and degradation of native plant and animal habitat by invasion of escaped garden
plants, including aquatic plants. (8-Jan-2010)
•Infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis (23-July 2002)
New South Wales
KTPs Accepted for Listing under Threatened Species Conservation Act
1995
• Infection of frogs by amphibian chytrid causing the disease chytridiomycosis ( 22
August 2003)
•Invasion and establishment of the cane toad (Bufo marinus) (21 April 2006)
•Predation by Gambusia holbrooki Girard, 1859 (plague minnow or mosquito fish) (29
January 1999)
KTPs Accepted for Listing under Fisheries Management Act 1994
• The introduction of fish to fresh waters within a river catchment outside their natural
range. (Ref. No. FR20 File No. FSC 01/08)
•The degradation of native riparian vegetation along New Wales water courses (Ref. No.
FR19 File No. FSC 01/07)
Victoria
Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
• Degradation of native riparian vegetation along Victorian rivers and streams.
•Introduction of live fish into waters outside their natural range within a Victorian river
catchment after 1770.
Australian Capital
Territory
No threatening processes yet declared
Lists of prohibited species
All jurisdictions enacted legislation to declare specific
species of plants or fish as ‘noxious,’ weed, pest or feral,
in essence the creation of lists of prohibited species (or
prohibited lists).
Examples include schedule 6C of the Fisheries
Management Act 1994 (NSW) that at the time of writing
contains one declared plant and 137 declared fish
Caulerpa taxifolia (Caulerpa) spread
by anchor chains
Ornamental Koi –
noxious fish
Strategies, frameworks and plans
Examples include:
 Biosecurity and Biodiversity Strategies
 Translocation Guidelines (National Code of Practice
for Recreational and Sport Fishing (RecFish Australia
2001)
 Management Plans (Mary River Cod Research and
Recovery Plan)
3. GAPS AND INCONSISTENCIES
KTPs
 More than half of Australia’s state and territory
governments, do not provide a legislative framework
for listing the impacts of invasive alien species as KTPs
 Australian legislation that uses KPTs is often
permissive rather than obligatory
 Expensive to prepare and implement abatement and
recovery plans (NSW backlog)
 In reality target species already shown to be invasive
Prohibited Lists
 The declaration of species as noxious underpins policy




aimed at regulating and preventing the introduction
of species already identified as causing damage
Do not deal with the potential of species to become
invasive
Focus of lists is on primary product sector
The lists of prohibited species differ amongst the states
and territories.
Problems with border controls – the Prohibited Lists
do not match Commonwealth ‘Permitted List’ for
entry of species.
Strategies and Plans
 Some plans specifically developed to recover species will





address abatement and recovery issues eg Mary River Cod
Research and Recovery Plan
Uptake varies.
Eg Not all jurisdictions have adopted biodiversity strategies,
with the Northern Territory and Western Australia still to
settle theirs.
Each strategy sets different targets for IAS
Biosecurity Strategies do not deal with IAS already present
in a jurisdiction
Management and re-stocking plans for fisheries do not
address recovery of threatened species.
IDENTIFY
POTENTIAL
IAS
IDENTIFY
ACTUAL
IAS
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
 That States and Territories develop permitted lists of
species; and
 That regulators investigate ways of making better use
of existing resources.
Permitted Lists
 Alien species can only be imported once their safety
has been evaluated.
 Permitted Lists operate in a preventative manner by
stopping potentially harmful species from gaining
entry.
 Lists can be harmonized nationally, leading to
uniformity of regulation,
 Limitations – in similarity with prohibited lists they do
not deal with IAS already present in a jurisdiction.
Better Use of Existing Resources
 Overlap between recovery and threat abatement can
be exploited better:
 Identify KTPs by extrapolating information from
recovery plans for threatened or endangered species.
 Adopt existing threat abatement plans, modified for
local conditions