Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation
Management arrangements for
translocation of live aquatic organism
(transport between bioregions) for
aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015
Version 2
June 2011
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011.
Except as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this work may in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or any other means be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or be
broadcast or transmitted without the prior written permission of the Department of Employment, Economic
Development and Innovation. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. The
copyright owner shall not be liable for technical or other errors or omissions contained herein. The reader/user
accepts all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or
indirectly from using this information.
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
2
Contents
TITLE
4
OBJECTIVES
4
BACKGROUND / INTRODUCTION
4
Rationale
Types of Translocation
Types of Aquaculture Activities in Queensland
Disease risks
Translocation of disease
Translocation of non-indigenous species
6
6
6
6
7
7
EFFECTIVE DATE
7
APPLICATION OF THE POLICY
7
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
8
CONSULTATION
8
POLICY PROVISIONS
8
Management arrangements for the translocation of live aquatic animals for aquaculture
8
Management arrangements
Risk Rating
Policy Statement
Communication
Compliance
8
9
9
9
9
Departure from policy
9
GLOSSARY
11
REFERENCES
12
APPENDICES
13
Appendix 1 - Main purpose of the Fisheries Act
Appendix 2 - Compliance under the Fisheries Act
13
13
Attachment 1 – Qualitative Risk Assessment for Translocation
15
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
3
TITLE
The document should be cited as:
“Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between
bioregions) for Aquaculture”.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this policy is to assist in achieving the main purpose of the Fisheries Act 1994
(refer to Appendix 1) by:
•
•
•
minimising the risks associated with translocation of aquaculture fisheries resources into
natural waterways, particularly where:
•
they are non-indigenous to the area; or
•
they have the potential to impact on the genetic diversity of wild populations.
minimising the risk of introducing disease agents into wild populations; and
minimising the socio-economic impacts that may result from the above risks.
The Policy will achieve its objective by providing guidelines for evaluating, on a case by case basis,
the risks involved in translocation-related activities and providing specific translocation protocols to
minimise the risks.
The policy has been developed within the framework of Ecologically Sustainable Development
(ESD). Requirements imposed under this policy are intended to provide a balance between
development of the aquaculture industry (economic and social development) and minimising
potential adverse ecological impacts through the transmission of disease and establishment of
non-indigenous pest populations.
The desired outcome is to reduce the risks associated with transfer of organisms from other State
or Territory waters into Queensland aquaculture facilities, and between distinct biogeographical
regions within Queensland through a process of risk management involving health testing for
freedom from disease and individual assessment to assess an appropriate level of protection
against introducing disease agents or non-indigenous taxa to wild populations.
BACKGROUND / INTRODUCTION
The Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI) has a statutory
responsibility to manage the issues of disease and translocation in aquaculture operations.
Fisheries and aquaculture in Queensland are managed under the legislative framework of the
Fisheries Act 1994 and the subordinate legislation of the Fisheries Regulation 2008. Queensland
government is committed to an ESD approach to the use of natural resources.
International movements of aquatic organisms and their products are controlled under
Commonwealth legislation governing national quarantine arrangements. Biosecurity Australia (BA)
undertakes Import Risk Analyses (IRAs) to determine policy on imports, while the Australian
Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) implements policy on a case-by-case basis. Biosecurity
Australia has completed IRAs for Non-viable Salmonids and Non-Salmonid Marine Finfish (1999)
and Live Ornamental Finfish (1999), although the latter is currently under review. Biosecurity
Australia is also undertaking IRAs on freshwater crayfish, bivalve molluscs, freshwater finfish and
prawns.
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
4
The major benefits and costs from aquatic quarantine measures are below.
Benefits and costs of aquatic quarantine/translocation measuresi
There are benefits and costs from quarantine and translocation measures to restrict movements of
aquatic organisms.
Benefits include:
•
reduced costs of managing or eradicating aquatic pests and diseases;
•
reduced risk of losses in aquaculture and fisheries production caused by disease and pest
incursions, and impacts from escaped aquatic organisms;
•
human health benefits from reduced exposure to aquatic pests and diseases, and to
chemicals (used to treat aquatic pests and diseases) affecting seafood; and
•
conservation of aquatic biodiversity (genes, species and aquatic habitats); and improved
access to export markets from disease-free status.
Costs include:
•
reduced access to new species for aquaculture production, which may hinder industry
diversification;
•
reduced access to healthier or faster-growing broodstock or culture stock, or to stock from
different genetic populations, which may increase production costs, lower production quality,
and diminish the genetic diversity of cultured populations;
•
reduced availability of imported feed, reduced feed quality and/or higher feed costs;
•
higher consumer prices and/or reduced consumer choice;
•
industry compliance and government administration costs; and
•
potential for trade disputes.
There may be other implications of quarantine measures, such as less competition from seafood
imports into the domestic market. This may result in potential improvements in domestic
aquaculture producers’ profitability, but at the cost of higher consumer prices.
Translocations of aquatic organisms within Australia are dealt with under State and Territory
legislation. This policy follows the intent of the National Policy for the Translocation of Live Aquatic
Organisms: Issues, Principles and Guidelines for Implementation (1999).
Under the Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS), fisheries development approvals
including all aquaculture development will be issued under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009
(SPA). DEEDI officers will still assess applications against DEEDI policies and set conditions for
aquaculture approvals issued under SPA.
Under Section 61 of the Fisheries Act it is appropriate to set reasonable and relevant conditions for
approvals within the context of ESD.
Conditions of development approvals (DA) and resource allocation approvals (RAA) are
enforceable under fisheries and SPA legislation (refer to Appendix 2).
i
Sources: ARRTF (1999a); Binder (2002); Tanner (2003).
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
5
Rationale
Translocation of live aquatic organismsii is a necessity for the development of aquaculture. Not only
is it important for access to stock that is unavailable locally but also, with the development of
improved and selectively bred animals, industry needs to have ready access to those animals.
Movements both from interstate/territory into Queensland and between different bioregions within
the state always carry a degree of risk. The major risk is of disease translocation, although genetic
pollution and translocating species outside of their natural range can also have a significant impact.
These risk factors have the potential to seriously impact on indigenous fisheries resources as well
as production loss in the aquaculture industry.
Ideally Australia would be segregated into zones based on catchments and biogeographical
regions. In reality Australia has been segregated by political boundaries for over 100 years.
Therefore, there needs to be agreement between jurisdictions to underpin an effective
translocation policy on disease testing and health certification or reporting (freedom from disease).
Types of Translocation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Broodstock sourced from the wild into hatcheries
Broodstock movement between hatcheries
Fingerlings, PLs or spat for growout from hatcheries of the wild
Larvae between hatcheries
Larvae for pond growout from hatcheries
Molluscs for relaying or reseeding from different bioregions
Molluscs and echinoderms for sea ranching (usually hatchery source)
Types of Aquaculture Activities in Queensland
The more secure the aquaculture system receiving the organism, the less risk associated with the
translocation. Systems can be defined as:
•
Open – no control of the movement of the water and the aquatic animal e.g. sea cucumber,
scallop, some oyster;
•
Semi-open – no control of the water and some control of the animal e.g. oysters in baskets or
on sticks, cage culture;
•
Semi-closed – some control of the water and control of the aquatic animal e.g. pond culture of
prawns, finfish, redclaw; and
•
Closed – good control of both water and aquatic animal e.g. aquaria, recirculation systems.
Disease risks
There are many serious aquatic animal diseases that are exotic to Australia and these are listed,
along with diseases that are also endemic, on the National List of Reportable Diseases and on the
Office International des Epizooties OIEiii Code. Some of the diseases listed nationally are endemic
to Queensland and there are some diseases listed that are endemic in Australia but have never
been identified in Queensland. Therefore there is a potential for diseases endemic to Australia but
exotic to Queensland to be introduced by translocation. This is because aquatic disease agents
may be present either in the stock or in the culture water and not be evident, particularly when
animals are being sourced from the wild. Similar disease risks are seen when translocations occur
ii
iii
Live aquatic organisms include all stages of the organism’s life cycle and any derived viable genetic material
The OIE is the world organisation for animal health.
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
6
between catchments. Also, in aquaculture, where animals are held at high densities, the disease
risk is higher than in the wild due to conditions that favour the multiplication of disease agents if
present.
The potential for the introduction of disease to the aquatic environment (which is likely to result in
mortality or morbidity of native biota) by the translocation of live aquatic organisms is considered a
significant and unacceptable risk.
Translocation of disease
The risk of disease transmission may be increased when diseased aquatic animals are introduced
into an area beyond their natural range or between catchments. These animals may bring with
them new disease organisms against which local species may have little or no natural or acquired
resistance.
Translocation of non-indigenous species
There is a risk of introducing live aquatic organisms into waters where there is no existing
population (i.e. introduction of non-indigenous fisheries resources). The introduced animal may
compete with the native population(s) for food and habitat, predate on those native species or
impact on natural environments and habitats through foraging behaviour. This may have a
biological effect and consequential effects on industry (e.g. the affected fishery), social amenity
and the environment.
Consideration should also be given to the potential for hybridisation or interbreeding between wild
and farmed stocks, which may result in significant changes to the genetic pool of the natural
aquatic biota. Dilution or alteration of the gene pool may leave wild stocks less competitive and
potentially less fir to be successful in that local environment.
When aquaculture fisheries resources escape they may pose a significant environmental riskiv.
From a risk management perspective the unplanned escapement of any fisheries resources from
an aquaculture facility into the wild is unacceptable. Containment of escaped stock in most
circumstances is impossible and the potential environmental influences these animals may have
are difficult to measure.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The policy is effective from the date it is approved and will be revised in 3 years from the date of
approval or as necessary.
APPLICATION OF THE POLICY
This policy applies to translocations of live aquatic organisms into and within Queensland and it
applies to all persons involved in the aquaculture of fisheries resources in Queensland. This policy
is to be read and applied in conjunction with the Fisheries Act 1994, the Sustainable Planning Act
2009, associated Regulations, all other relevant policies of the DEEDI, and the National
Competition Policy. The policy also applies to all aquaculture operations deemed as ‘Self
Assessable’ unless there are unique and specific factors that justify its variation under the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009. This policy should also be used in the assessment of applications
iv
Refer to Appendix 2 of this document regarding unlawful release of fisheries resources.
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
7
to translocate live aquatic organisms and is to be used as a basis for setting the conditions
attached to approved developments.
This policy is restricted to translocation of organisms for the purpose of aquaculture. The stocking
of farm dams, impoundments and river systems with freshwater finfish is outside the scope of this
policy.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Queensland Fisheries Act 1994 and Regulation 2008.
Queensland Sustainable Planning Act 1997
Australian Government Quarantine Act 1908
Australian Government Quarantine Proclamation 1998
Refer also to relevant aquaculture management policies and translocation protocols.
The provisions referred to in this Policy are a current statement of the law as at the date of its
approval and may change over time.
CONSULTATION
This policy will be ratified by the Queensland Aquaculture Reference Group (ARG) (or equivalent
organisation at the time) after consultation. ARG currently comprises representatives of the
aquaculture industry including the Queensland Aquaculture Industry Federation (QAIF) and state
departments represented on the Aquaculture Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC).
In general the above agencies have shown support for aquaculture polices. Issues raised have
been discussed in stakeholder meetings. DEEDI have considered responses received during this
consultation during the development of the policy.
POLICY PROVISIONS
Management arrangements for the translocation of live aquatic animals
for aquaculture
Management arrangements
Attachment 1 describes the qualitative risk assessment framework of disease for translocation of
live aquatic organisms. Once the risk has been assessed or rated then measures can be taken to
ensure that the risk is reduced to a level consistent with Queensland’s acceptable level of
protection (ALOP). Once the level of protection has been established, disease mitigation
measures, movement into an area of non-indigenous species and the potential of genetic pollution
risks can be strategically managed by the implementation of species-specific restrictions and
conditions. In the absence of an established ALOP the precautionary principle will apply.
The Chief Executive will ordinarily impose conditions for Queensland aquaculture producers that all
translocation of live aquatic organisms must meet the requirements of this policy and follow the
conditions for live fish movement in the genetics protocol and the health protocol for that species.
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
8
Risk Rating
There are risks associated with the translocation of all live aquatic organisms for aquaculture.
These risks have been qualitatively assessed and the assessments are documented in Attachment
1. To minimise the risks, species specific health translocation protocols and a genetic protocol
have or are being developed. Link to completed protocols and other useful information on
translocation: http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb/17803.html
Policy Statement
No live aquatic organisms may be moved into Queensland without adhering strictly to the approval
conditions and to the specific health and genetics protocol for that species (refer to list of protocols
below).
No live aquatic organisms may be moved between distinct biogeographical regions within
Queensland without adhering strictly to the specific health protocol for that species. Species
specific health protocols are listed below.
Protocols
Prawn broodstock FAMPR001
Barramundi FAMPR002
Bivalve molluscs FAMPR003
Crabs and Lobsters FAMPR004
Eels FAMPR005
Freshwater crayfish and prawns FAMPR006
Freshwater native finfish other than barramundi and eels FAMPR007
Communication
This policy will be reinforced by DEEDI’s commitment to raising industry awareness of
translocation requirements through communication strategies. This will be achieved by methods
such as the DEEDI website and the aquaculture extension service to growers.
Compliance
This policy is instigated for the benefit and future growth of the aquaculture industry. It is a
condition of an authority to undertake the activity in accordance with the protocols and this Policy,
enforceable under fisheries legislation. Compliance is an important issue and Queensland needs to
liaise closely with other States/Territories to be sure that growers are aware of the risks associated
with translocation and the conditions that must be adhered to when moving live aquatic animals.
Departure from policy
DEEDI decision-makers are required to give appropriate weight to the policy in accordance with its
objectives and the objectives of the Fisheries Act 1994. The policy provisions are to be
administered by relevant DEEDI decision-makers with discretion, having regard to the
circumstances of each individual situation.
The risk assessment framework should be applied to determine whether the risk associated with a
novel type of proposed aquaculture practice is acceptable or unacceptable.
Where a proposal involves exceptional circumstances and / or where a proposal can demonstrate
an acceptably low level of risk, a departure from normal policy position may be considered. Where
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
9
factors sufficient to justify departure from policy exist, those factors need to be documented by the
assessing officer.
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
10
GLOSSARY
Most terms used in this Policy are defined in the Fisheries Act 1994. Refer to the Queensland
legislation website for the most current version (www.legislation.qld.gov.au).
In this policy statement the terms listed below have the following meaning:
‘Acceptable level of protection’
This is the level of protection that is deemed to be acceptable at the time and given the
circumstances and may change as the knowledge base of risks increases.
‘Biosecurity’
Protection from the risks posed by pests and diseases to the economy, environment and people's
health through exclusion, surveillance, early detection, containment, eradication, and management.
‘Ecologically sustainable development’
Using, conserving and enhancing the community’s fisheries resources and fish habitats so that
1. the ecological processes on which life depends are maintained; and
2. the total quality of life, both now and in the future, can be improved.
‘Precautionary principle’
Means the principle that, if there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of
scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone measures to prevent environment
degradation, or possible environmental degradation, because of the threat.
‘Translocation’
The movement of live aquatic organisms (including all stages of the organism’s life cycle and any
derived viable genetic material):
- beyond its accepted distribution;
- to areas which contain genetically distinct populations; or
- to areas with superior parasite or disease status.
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
11
REFERENCES
ARRTF (Aquaculture Regulatory Reform Task Force) 1999a, Review of Regulatory Arrangements
in the Victorian Aquaculture Industry — Final Report, Office of Regulatory Reform, Department of
State Development, Melbourne.
Asia Regional Technical Guidelines on Health Management for the Responsible Movement of Live
Aquatic Animals and the Beijing Consensus and Implementation Strategy. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper. No 402. Rome, FAO. 2000. 53p
Binder, M. 2002, The Role of Risk and Cost-Benefit Analysis in Determining Quarantine Measures,
Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper, AusInfo, Canberra.
Humphrey, J.D. (1995) Australian Quarantine Policies and Practices for Aquatic Animals and their
products: a review for the Scientific Working party on Aquatic Animal Quarantine. Bureau of
Resource Sciences, Canberra
International Aquatic Animal Health Code: Office International des Epizooties (2006)
Leighton F.A. (2002) Health risk assessment of the translocation of wild animals Office
International des Epizooties Scientific and Technical Review 21:187-195
Manual of Diagnostic tests for Aquatic Animal Diseases: Office International des Epizooties (2003)
National Policy for the Translocation of Live Aquatic Organisms: Issues, Principles and Guidelines
for Implementation (1999) Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Kingston,
ACT 31pp
Productivity Commission 2004, Assessing Environmental Regulatory Arrangements for
Aquaculture, Canberra. 231pp
Tanner, C. 2001, Biosecurity in Australia: an economic perspective, Paper presented at the
Quarantine and Market Access Conference 2001, Hyatt Hotel, Canberra, 17–28 October.
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
12
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - Main purpose of the Fisheries Act
The main purpose of the Fisheries Act 1994 (section 3) is to provide for the use, conservation and
enhancement of the community’s fisheries resources and fish habitats in a way that seeks to:
1. apply and balance the principles of ecological sustainable development; and
2. promote ecologically sustainable development.
In balancing the principles, each principle is to be given the relative emphasis appropriate in the
circumstances - Fisheries Act 1994 (section 3(2)).
1. enhancing individual and community wellbeing through economic development that
safeguards the wellbeing of future generations;
2. providing fairness within and between generations;
3. protecting biological diversity, ecological processes and life-support systems;
4. in making decisions, effectively integrating fairness and short and long-term economic,
environmental and social considerations;
5. considering the global dimension of environmental impacts of actions and policies;
6. considering the need to maintain and enhance competition, in an environmentally sound way;
7. considering the need to develop a strong, growing and diversified economy that can enhance
the capacity for environmental protection;
8. that decisions and actions should provide for broad community involvement on issues
affecting them;
9. the precautionary principle.
The main purpose of the Fisheries Act 1994 is to be primarily achieved by
1. giving the chief executive appropriate powers to perform the chief executive’s functions under
this Act; and
2. providing for the following:
I. the management and protection of fish habitats;
II. the management of commercial, recreational and indigenous fishing;
III. the prevention, control and eradication of disease in fish;
IV. the management of aquaculture.
Appendix 2 - Compliance under the Fisheries Act
Refer to the Queensland legislation website for the most current version
(www.legislation.qld.gov.au).
Condition of approval
Fisheries Act 1994
Schedule 1, Part 8, Section 85 ‘Contravening a condition of an authority’
A person acting under an authority must not contravene a condition of the authority.
Maximum penalty - 100 penalty units.
Sustainable Planning Act 1997
Section 580 ‘Compliance with development approval’
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
13
1. A person must not contravene a development approval, including any condition in the
approval. Maximum penalty - 1665 penalty units.
2. Also, subsection (1) does not apply to a contravention of a condition of a development
approval imposed, or required to be imposed, by the administering authority under the
Environmental Protection Act as the assessment manager or a concurrence agency for the
application for the approval.
Biosecurity - general
Penalties may also apply in the event of escape of any aquaculture fisheries resources into
Queensland waters.
Fisheries Act 1994
Part 5, Section 91 ‘Aquaculture fisheries resources not to be released’
A person must not unlawfully release aquaculture fisheries resources, or cause aquaculture
fisheries resources to be released, into Queensland waters.
Maximum penalty - 2000 penalty units.
Fisheries Regulation 2008
Section 634 ‘Releasing aquaculture fisheries resources’
1. A person may release aquaculture fisheries resources into Queensland waters only if the
person holds a general fisheries permit authorising the person to release the resources into
the waters.
2. However, subsection (1) does not apply if
(a) the person releases the fisheries resources under a management plan; or
(b) the person releases the fisheries resources for carrying out fisheries development relating
to aquaculture and the development is carried out in a way that is authorised under the
Planning Act;
Fisheries Regulation 2008
Section 638 ‘Nonindigenous fisheries resources’
1. A person may do any of the following acts involving nonindigenous fisheries resources (each
of which is a prescribed act) only if the person holds an authority authorising the act
(c) release them, or cause them to be released, into Queensland waters.
Fisheries Act 1994
Part 5, Section 82 ‘Offence to do prescribed act’
A person must not unlawfully do an act prescribed under a regulation or management plan as an
act that must only be done by the holder of an authority.
Maximum penalty -1000 penalty units.
Disease
Fisheries Act 1994
Part 5, Section 104 ‘Offence to communicate disease to live fisheries resources or fish habitat’
A person must not unlawfully and intentionally or recklessly communicate a disease to live fisheries
resources or fish habitat.
Maximum penalty - 2000 penalty units.
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
14
Attachment 1 – Qualitative Risk Assessment for
Translocation
Disease is the major risk in translocation of live organisms, therefore the model qualitative risk
assessment will focus on this aspect of risk. The model example of how the risk of disease could
be assessed is given below.
Defining the probability of establishment of disease (release and exposure assessments)
The probability of a disease agent entering and becoming established in an area depends on the
factors below.
1. The disease agent being present in or on the live aquatic animal.
2. The prevalence of the disease agent in the population.
3. The infectivity of the agent in the live aquatic animal.
4. The frequency and volume of live aquatic animal entering the aquatic environment in an area.
5. The disease agent establishing infection in susceptible hosts.
6. Environmental factors.
Table 1.1 defines the terms used to describe the probability of such an event occurring.
Table 1.1 Terms used to describe the probability of an event occurring
High
Event would be expected to occur
Moderate
There is less than an even chance of the event occurring
Low
Event would be unlikely to occur
Very low
Event would occur rarely
Extremely low
Event would occur very rarely
Negligible
Chance of event occurring is so small that it can be ignored
in practical terms
Defining the consequences of establishment of disease (consequence assessment)
The establishment of a new disease agent may have a biological effect and consequential effects
on industry (e.g. the affected fishery), social amenity and the environment. These consequences
can be measured in quantitative terms (in relation to their economic impact) and in qualitative
terms (in relation to their impact on society and the environment). It is generally the case that the
effects of a disease can be ameliorated to various degrees by the adoption of methods for control
or eradicationv - although these measures are associated with costs that must be included in
estimates of economic, social and environmental impact.
v
Refer to AQUAVETPLAN manuals at http://www.dpie.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=FF0D74E4-584A-4FA5A1A93B6F9029AD2C
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
15
The impact or significance of the establishment of disease is classified into one of five categories,
described as catastrophic, high, moderate, low or negligible. The key factors in classifying the
significance of a disease are below.
1. The biological effects on aquatic species.
2. The availability, cost and effectiveness of methods for control/eradication.
3. The economic effects at an enterprise/industry/national level, including effect on marketing of
the product.
4. The duration of effects (long term and short term).
5. The effects on native species and the environment generally, including any loss of social
amenity.
Any other effects on social amenity (e.g. degradation of recreational fisheries). The categories
defined in Table 1.2 lie within a continuous range of consequences. The descriptions are indicative
of the expected outcomes.
Table 1.2 Terms used to describe the severity of the impact (level of significance)
Associated with the establishment of diseases that would be
Catastrophic
expected to significantly harm economic performance at a national
level. Alternatively, or in addition, they may cause serious,
irreversible harm to the environment.
Associated with the establishment of diseases that would have
High
serious biological consequences (e.g. high mortality or high
morbidity and causing significant pathological changes in affected
animals). Such effects would normally be felt for a prolonged period
(greater than or equal to a normal production cycle) and would not
be amenable to control or eradication. These diseases would be
expected to significantly harm economic performance at an industry
level. Alternatively, or in addition, they may cause serious harm to
the environment.
Associated with the establishment of diseases that have less
Moderate
pronounced biological consequences. These diseases may harm
economic performance significantly at an enterprise/regional level,
but they would not have a significant economic effect at the ‘whole
industry’ level These diseases may be amenable to control or
eradication at a significant cost, or their effects may be temporary.
They may affect the environment, but such harm would not be
serious or may be reversible.
Associated with the establishment of diseases that have mild
Low
biological consequences and would normally be amenable to control
or eradication. Such diseases would be expected to harm economic
performance at the enterprise or regional level but to have negligible
significance at the industry level. Effects on the environment would
be minor or, if more pronounced, would be temporary.
Associated with the establishment of diseases that have no
Negligible
significant biological consequences, may be transient and/or are
readily amenable to control or eradication. The economic effects
would be expected to be low to moderate at an individual enterprise
level and insignificant at a regional level. Effects on the environment
would be negligible.
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
16
Probability of establishment
Risk evaluation matrix
H
Yes
No
No
No
No
M
Yes
No
No
No
No
L
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
VL
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
EL
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
N
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N
L
M
H
C
Significance of consequences
‘Yes’ = the risk is acceptable and the activity can be permitted
‘No’ = the risk is unacceptable and the activity cannot be permitted without further risk
management
Level of probability: H=high, M=moderate, L=low, VL=very low, EL=extremely low, N=negligible
Level of significance: C=catastrophic, H=high, M=moderate, L=low, N=negligible
Source: Adapted from Kahn et al. (1999)
Table 1.3 is a summary of the assessed risk of disease for the translocation of live aquatic
organisms (assessed qualitatively) using the risk evaluation matrix. In all cases the risk is
unacceptable and the health protocolsvi for translocation of the specific species must be applied.
Table 1.3 Summary of the risk of disease
Aquatic Organism
Probability
Prawn broodstock
Moderate
Barramundi
Moderate
Bivalve molluscs
Moderate
Crabs and Lobsters
Moderate
Eels
Moderate
Freshwater crayfish and prawns
Moderate
Freshwater native finfish other than
Moderate
barramundi and eels
vi
Consequence
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Risk
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
See Table 1.1 on page 8 of the policy
Signed……………………………….
Date………………
Management arrangements for translocation of live aquatic organisms (transport between bioregions) for aquaculture
Aquaculture Policy FAMOP015 Version 2 June 2011
17