Action Priority/timeframe Output Outcome Responsibility Site-specific logistical support is put in place involving remote communities in state-based container deposit schemes (where such schemes are in place). For example, improved trucking/barge backload of recyclables for remote communities The use of available technology to reuse plastic is increased State, Northern Territory and local government, with community support Updated standards, improved information and labelling related to the development, use and appropriate disposal of degradable and compostable plastics. Consistent definitions apply for plastic types, across industry and jurisdictions Assurance on the environmental suitability of degradable and compostable plastics available in Australia Australian Government Industry (e.g. Chemistry Australia) Research to understand the full life cycle of any newly developed plastic 1.04 Encourage innovation in recovery and waste treatment technologies High priority — within 3 years of the plan entering into effect An assessment of the environmental impact and cost effectiveness of the use of systems in remote coastal communities and at ports, informed by technologies and innovation programs being undertaken internationally and noting that IMO standards for gasification systems are being prepared for shipboard systems in the maritime sector Informed decisions on the practicalities of waste-to-energy technologies (especially at a scale and cost practical for remote Australian conditions) to enable waste material such as recovered ghost nets to be used to generate energy Australian, state and local governments High priority — ongoing for the life of the plan Innovation grants relating to improved recovery and waste treatment technologies Better understanding of microplastic outflows and the potential for capture of this material before it enters the environment State and territory governments, Australian Government, with industry and community involvement
Action Priority/timeframe Output Outcome Responsibility 1.05 Improve management of abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear High priority — review prepared within 2 years of the TAP being in place A review of Australia’s engagement on abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear in the Asia Pacific region, with a determination on the appropriateness of current actions Considerations: the cost effectiveness and environmental impacts of current and potential disposal techniques for discarded, lost and abandoned fishing gear (for example, burning in situ on beaches, transfer to land fill, recycling or potential energy treatment) assessment of the potential for cost- effective alternative materials for nets (ensuring that catches of target species are not reduced) an agreed management process for net incursions into the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone – for example, a permit process (at cost) for entry to retrieve damaged nets implementation of use of ghost net toolkits developed by the former GhostNets Australia to assess the relative contributions of international and Australian commercial and recreational fishery to the total amount of abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear present in the Gulf of Carpentaria, with a view to implementing source reduction planning where possible Improved management of abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear Australia plays a role in building international solutions on abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy Industry, CSIRO, Universities TAP team
Appendix A identifies EPBC Act-listed species for which there are scientifically documented adverse impacts resulting from marine debris. For example, 90 per cent of flesh-footed shearwater fledglings on Lord Howe Island were affected by ingestion of plastic debris in 2011 (Lavers et al., 2014). Ingestion of plastic significantly reduced flesh-footed shearwater fledgling body mass and wing length, lowering juvenile survival by at least 11 per cent (Lavers, 2014). Ingestion of plastic has also been implicated in the decline of the Lord Howe Island population of this species (Hutton et al., 2008; Lavers and Bond, 2016; Lavers et al., 2014; Priddel et al., 2006). As understanding on species impact grows (through understanding of microplastic impact for example), the number of species on the list at Appendix A is likely to increase. For example, in two whale shark (Rhincodon typus) stranding cases in the Philippines, necropsies revealed plastic materials in the animal’s stomachs (Marine Wildlife Watch of the Philippines, 2014). Whale sharks are listed as vulnerable and migratory under the EPBC Act; confirmation of lethal or sublethal impact resulting from plastic ingestion will lead to addition of whale sharks to the Appendix A impacted species list. Researchers found over forty pieces of rubbish including the remains of balloons, plastic bags, hard plastic, fishing line, thong and plastic bottle top in this young green turtle. Image: Dr Kathy Townsend, Moreton Bay Research Station, University of Queensland. Appendix B identifies the two EPBC Act-listed ecological communities (Posidonia australis seagrass meadows of the Manning–Hawkesbury ecoregion, and subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh) for which marine debris (litter) is identified as a threat. As understanding of marine debris impact develops, further ecological communities may also be identified as impacted. For example, climate change is identified as the major threat to the endangered giant kelp marine forests of south-east Australia, but land-based pollution is a recognised secondary threat that may become increasingly relevant. As discussed under Objective 1, abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear is predominantly comprised of synthetic material and threatens wildlife through interactions that lead to entanglement. Investigation of spatial and temporal links to species entanglement in derelict fishing gear and other forms of plastic debris is a research priority (Vegter et al., 2014). 21
Actions for Objective 2: Understand the scale of marine plastic and microplastic impact on key species, ecological communities and locations Action Priority/timeframe Output Outcome Responsibility 2.01 Update the list of marine debris impacted EPBC Act-listed vertebrate species as scientific evidence is published Medium priority—ongoing for the life of the plan An annual review of relevant published literature, as well as data from state- or Northern Territory- based stranding, ingestion and entanglement datasets, to maintain an list of EPBC Act-listed threatened species for which the impact of marine debris is clearly demonstrated Better understanding of the EPBC Act-listed threatened species most in need of action and protection in relation to marine debris TAP team, Department of the Environment and Energy 2.02 Monitor relevant ecological research to determine if further EPBC Act-listed ecological communities are threatened by marine debris High priority—ongoing for the life of the plan An annual literature review to maintain an up-to-date list of EPBC Act-listed threatened ecological communities for which the impact of marine debris is clearly demonstrated Better understanding of the EPBC Act threatened ecological communities most in need of action and protection in relation to marine debris TAP team, Department of the Environment and Energy
Action Priority/timeframe Output Outcome Responsibility 3.03 Remove derelict fishing gear from Australia’s oceans and coasts High priority Ongoing for the life of the TAP National coordination and an identified single point of contact in relation to survey, intercept and recovery of ghost nets, following advice from Action 1.05 (review of Australia’s engagement) Identified ghost net aggregation sites are targeted for net removal operations (see 2.03) A review of options for fishing gear marking and tracking Identify ports as cost-effective hubs for ghost net disposal and management, particularly in the Gulf of Carpentaria Removal of nets circulating and accumulating in the Gulf of Carpentaria near to a strategic port e.g. Weipa Mechanisms for public reporting of ghost nets are improved Existing data and models contribute to safe, cost efficient removal of ghost nets in the Gulf of Carpentaria Continued collaboration between Australian Border Force, the AFMA, AMSA and Parks Australia in net identification, tagging and removal from Commonwealth waters across Northern Australia Appropriate ghost net disposal options are available Through the TAP team 3.04 Develop understanding of the potential for biological breakdown of plastic to prevent it entering the marine environment, or aid its removal Low priority, long term Strategic use of organisms able to biologically breakdown plastic (for example in sewage treatment) A determination on whether organisms present in the marine environment could be manipulated to address accumulations of plastic NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub
Action Priority/timeframe Output Outcome Responsibility 4.04 Assess the effectiveness of Australia’s product stewardship and waste management in reducing the levels of plastics entering the marine environment High priority—within 2 years of the TAP entering into eff An investigation of the effectiveness of different government investments in reducing the impacts of plastic packaging and reducing litter moving into the marine environment Identified littering hotspots. Identified pathways (e.g. stormwater) for litter and other refuse to reach the marine environment Identified issues and trends in littering, with associated opportunities for reducing litter at source points Improved ability for making cost-effective decisions based on high-quality data Pinpoint key approaches and sites to enhance recycling of packaging away from sources and households Flow-on effects include reduced litter and other solid waste impacts on terrestrial and marine ecosystems CSIRO, NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub State and territory governments 4.05 Continue to monitor persistent organic pollutant contamination using plastic resin pellets from Australian beaches High priority—ongoing for the life of the TAP Comprehensive Australian data included in International Pellet Watch dataset (www.pelletwatch.org) Publicly available, long-term data indicates trends in persistent organic pollutant levels in plastic resin pellets from Australian beaches Community, Australian, state and territory governments Plastics industry 4.06 Regularly assess mean surface plastic loads and associated hazardous chemical contaminants across Australian jurisdictions and territories Ongoing for the life of the TAP Regular assessment of mean surface plastic loads and associated hazardous chemical contaminants in Australian waters Understanding of the amounts, sources and potential impacts of the most abundant forms of plastic, microplastic and associated hazardous chemical contaminants in Australian waters CSIRO, Australian, state and NT governments, other research providers 4.07 Enhance collection of data related to ghost net retrievals from Commonwealth waters across northern Australia Ongoing for the life of the plan Long-term datasets on ghost net retrievals from Australian Commonwealth waters, including data on the presence of entangled threatened species Improved ability to conduct source reduction planning in relation to ghost nets Assistance with identification of accumulation zones for ghost nets Department of Environment and Energy working with Australian Government and charter vessel operators
4.08 Improve understanding of the impact and origins of ghost nets Medium priority—within 6 months of TAP being in place Promotion of the use of ghost net identification kits in coastal northern Australia through TAP team members to all Australian, state, NT and local governments, ranger and community groups that are involved in ghost net management Improved ghost net data collection using identification kits (with a view to aiding source reduction planning) TAP team
Table 1: Estimated costs of implementation for selected actions (note that these are not funded actions) Action Costs anticipated at the time of TAP development Estimated total cost over the life of the TAP (generally 10 years) 1.01 Agenda- and action-based meetings of representatives of relevant agencies and organisations (establish a TAP team to coordinate TAP actions for the life of the plan) $50,000 (staff time for coordination / attendance at meetings) $500,000 (coordination of effort and several teleconferences or meetings per year) 1.04 Encourage innovation in recovery and waste treatment technologies $200,000 (consultancy to assess the environmental impact and cost effectiveness of the use of waste-to- energy systems in remote coastal communities and at ports) $200,000 1.05 Improve management of abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear $150,000 (consultancy / staff time to review Australia’s engagement on abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear in the Asia Pacific region and to determine the appropriateness of current actions) $150,000 3.01. Build understanding related to microplastic pollution (research projects) $1,000,000 (identification of an appropriate suite of indicator species (invertebrate and vertebrate) for long-term monitoring to measure the impact of marine microplastic plastic debris) $10,000,000 (long-term monitoring of impact on indicator species) 4.01 Support clean-up efforts $500,000 per year $5,000,000 4.03 Maintain a national database for long-term marine debris beach survey data (the ALA) and promote standard methods for collecting and ongoing monitoring of beach clean-up debris $100,000 (staff time/ resources for 6 months) $200,000 (annual data maintenance approx. $10,000 per year) Note that substantial volunteer effort on marine debris removal, monitoring and communication has resulted in valuable outcomes for minimal investment. Tangaroa Blue Foundation estimated the real average cost per kilometre of its volunteer-based beach clean-up activities in New South Wales and Queensland (Table 2; note variability in costs due to relative volumes of debris and accessibility of sites). These figures assume an hourly rate of $30 per hour per person rather than volunteer labour. They indicate the high cost of even the most fundamental action to address marine debris and the obvious value in preventing debris entering the ocean.
Appendix A EPBC Act-listed vertebrate species adversely impacted by marine debris Type Common name Scientific name EPBC Act status Reference Turtles Flatback turtle Natator depressus Vulnerable Marine Migratory Identified in key threatening process (KTP) listing Green turtle Chelonia mydas Vulnerable Marine Migratory Identified in KTP listing Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Vulnerable Marine Migratory Identified in KTP listing Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Marine Migratory Identified in KTP listing Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta Endangered Marine Migratory Identified in KTP listing Olive ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea Endangered Marine Migratory Schuyler et al. 2016 Jensen et al. 2013 Seasnake Elegant seasnake Hydrophis elegans Marine Udyawer, et al. 2013 Baleen whales Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered Cetacean Migratory Identified in KTP listing Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni Cetacean Migratory Department of Environment and Energy 2018 Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Vulnerable Cetacean Migratory Bannister et al. 1996 Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Vulnerable Cetacean Migratory Identified in KTP listing Besseling et al. 2015 Pygmy right whale Caperea marginata Cetacean Migratory Kemper et al. 2013 Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Vulnerable Cetacean Migratory Bannister et al. 1996 Southern right whale Eubalaena australis Endangered Cetacean Migratory Identified in KTP listing
Type Common name Scientific name EPBC Act status Reference Toothed whales minke whale Balaenoptera bonaerensis Cetacean Migratory García-Godos et al. 2013 Blainville’s beaked whale Cetacean Secchi and Zarzur 1999 Cuvier’s beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris Cetacean MacLeod et al. 2003 Killer whale Orcinus orca Cetacean Migratory Morrice 2004 Longman’s beaked whale Indopacetus pacificus Cetacean Kaladharan et.al. 2014 Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphin Tursiops aduncus Cetacean Steiner and Bossley 2008 Rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis Cetacean de Meirelles and do Rego Barros 2007 Pinnipeds Australian sea lion Neophoca cinerea Vulnerable Marine Page et al. 2004 Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2010 Sub-Antarctic fur seal Arctocephalus tropicalis Endangered Marine Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2016a Southern elephant seal Mirounga leonina Vulnerable Marine Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2016b Long-nosed fur seal Arctocephalus forsteri Marine Page et al. 2004 Antarctic fur seal Arctocephalus gazella Marine Rebolledo and van Franeker 2015 Australian fur seal Arctocephalus pusillus Marine Lawson et al. 2015 Dugong Dugong Dugong dugon Marine Migratory Ceccarelli 2009 Sharks Grey nurse shark (west coast population) Carcharias taurus Vulnerable Identified in KTP listing Grey nurse shark (east coast population) Carcharias taurus Critically endangered Identified in KTP listing Silky shark falciformis Migratory Filmalter et al. 2013 42
Type Common name Scientific name EPBC Act status Reference Petrel Blue petrel Halobaena caerulea Vulnerable Marine Identified in KTP listing Gould’s petrel Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera Endangered Marine Identified in KTP listing Roman et al. 2016 Northern giant petrel Macronectes halli Vulnerable Marine Migratory Identified in KTP listing Southern giant petrel Endangered Marine Migratory Roman et al. 2016 Tourinho et al. 2010 Westland petrel Procellaria westlandica Marine Migratory Roman et al. 2016 petrel Wilson’s storm petrel Oceanites oceanicus Marine Migratory van Franeker and Bell 1988 Prion Fairy prion (southern) Vulnerable Marine Gregory 2009 Roman et al. 2016 Salvin’s prion Pachyptila salvini Marine Roman et al. 2016 Slender-billed prion Pachyptila belcheri Marine Roman et al. 2016 Shearwater Little shearwater Puffinus assimilis Marine Roman et al. 2016 shearwater Puffinus carneipes / Ardenna carneipes Marine Migratory Lavers et al. 2014 Fluttering shearwater Puffinus gavia Marine Roman et al. 2016 Ardenna tenuirostris Marine Migratory Carey 2011 Roman et al. 2016 shearwater Ardenna pacifica Marine Migratory Roman et al. 2016 Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus Marine Roman et al. 2016 Gull Kelp gull Larus dominicanus Marine Yorio et al. 2014 Silver gull Marine Roman et al. 2016 44
Appendix B EPBC Act-listed threatened ecological communities adversely impacted by marine debris Community name Current status EPBC Act listing advice Recovery plan decision Posidonia australis seagrass meadows of the ecoregion (effective 07 May 2015) Listed as endangered Catchment disturbance and pollution. The ecological community is impacted by increased inputs from a range of pollutants associated with catchment disturbance including sediment, nutrients, metals, hydrocarbons, industrial compounds and litter to the associated estuary (Department of the Environment 2015). Recovery plan not required. While there is no state recovery plan across the full distribution of the ecological community there are existing catchment and estuary management plans and other planning documents relating to the recovery of ecological community. Taking into account the protection from EPBC Act listing, recovery and threat abatement priorities and actions specified in the conservation advice and the existing management and other plans, a recovery plan for the ecological community is not recommended at this time (Department of the Environment 2015) Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh (Effective 10 August 2013) Listed as vulnerable Pollution and litter from stormwater or dumping of waste can smother coastal saltmarsh plants and introduce contaminants such as heavy metals or organic chemicals (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013). There is not a recovery plan for this ecological community 45 / Threat Abatement Plan