Submissions and Letters

Draft Commonwealth Flying-fox camp management Policy 

Submissions Close Friday 30 January 2015 
According to the Australian Dept of the Environment (DoE) "The intention of this draft policy statement is to ensure that there are no significant impacts on these EPBC Act listed flying-foxes due to actions to manage their camps."  You can download a copy of the consultation draft policy HERE. We believe the draft policy in its current form would have the opposite effect of that intended, and would increase the number of dispersals and decrease the ability of DoE to assist in the recovery of these threatened species (which they have a legislated responsibility to do).
 
We encourage all interested parties to email their submissions before  30 January 2015 to [email protected].  If you have questions or would like to provide feedback on this page or the template submissions you can visit us on Facebook or contact us by email here.
Click here to download a template letter and send your own submission

What is wrong with the Draft Policy?

The Department of the Environment (DoE) has the responsibility to protect Australian native species - particularly threatened species, and this policy is intended to have the objective of ensuring there are no significant impacts on those species.    Below (Item A) you will find a link to a template submission you can download so you can send your own submission. Items B through J provide a breakdown of some of the issues with this draft policy. Please contact us if you find any errors or omissions.
A. Overview
It is our view that as currently worded, the draft policy can not possibly achieve the stated goals and that if promulgated in its current form the policy will achieve the following outcomes:
  1. A reduced workload for the Australian Department of the Environment (DoE)
  2. A faster process for approving flying fox camp management proposals
  3. An increase in the number of camp dispersals
  4. A decline in the population of Grey-headed and Spectacled Flying-foxes
  5. An inability to coordinate the management, conservation or recovery of these species
We feel this policy would be an abrogation of the DoE's legislated responsibility to protect and assist the recovery of threatened species. That is why we want YOU to help us convince the government to rewrite or abandon this policy
B. Best practice implications
The draft policy says that if actions are undertaken with best practice mitigation standards, approval from DoE may not be required - even when the camp in question is on the list of "nationally important flying fox camps.
- Click to show/hide the issues
  1. Even if best practice methods are used, the dispersal of a nationally important camp has the potential to damage the integrity and effectiveness of the national network of camps, and may have a significant impact
  2. By allowing this 'loophole' proponents could undertake dispersal of several nationally important flying-fox camps without needing approval. It is difficult to imagine that this would not have a significant impact, and the failure of this could accelerate the extinction of these species.
  3. By allowing uncontrolled dispersal of important flying-fox camps the DoE may have little or no visibility of the actions or the impacts of those actions until after the event, when it is too late.
C. State & Territory regulations
The draft policy suggests that approval is unlikely to be needed if the action is taken at non-listed camps and carried out in accordance with State or Territory regulatory requirements.
- Click to show/hide the issues
  1. State or Territory regulations should only apply if their regulations provide at least the same, if not greater protection that that provided at a federal level.
  2. Different state governments have taken very different approaches to the management of flying-fox roosts: Measures are at times driven by political imperatives rather than a desire to conserve threatened flying-fox species. This is evidenced by media statements by some state ministers and local government councillors, which demonstrate their lack of understanding of the issues and their short-term approach to flying-fox camp management.
  3. The policy states a nationally coordinated approach is needed, but this will not occur if the central role played by DoE is devolved to state or local government.
D. The Decision Tree Flowchart
The draft policy provides a decision tree flowchart outlining the process, but this chart has several issues.
- Click to show/hide the issues
  1. The question "Does the action involve impacts on the Grey-headed flying-fox or the Spectacled flying-fox?" could be misinterpreted. It would be less open to interpretation as: "Are there known to be any Grey-headed Flying-foxes or Spectacled Flying-foxes in the camp for which the action is proposed"?
  2. The question “Are the best practice mitigation standards being applied appropriately for the size of the camp?” This question assumes that the proponent will make an informed, honest and objective self-assessment, despite having a vested interest in the outcome.
  3. We propose a further question to consider the cumulative impacts on these species: "Has there been any significant mortality event affecting the (target) species recorded in the past 12 months (i.e. an event or number of events that has/have resulted in a cumulative loss of 4% or more of estimated total population of the species likely to be impacted in the action)?”
  4. We propose another test: “Have non-destructive management methods been tried over a period of two years or more to resolve the situation?” Actions which have high impact potential (such as dispersals) should not be employed unless a genuine and sustained effort has been made to manage the situation using actions which have lesser impacts on the species.
  5. The final box in the chart says “Referral recommended”. Considering the objective of this policy, this is not strong enough and should be "Referral will be required". It is otherwise difficult to reconcile the statement "Referral recommended" with paragraph 4 on page 4, which says "If you propose to take an action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the GHFF or SFF, you MUST seek approval for the action".
E. Additional items the policy should consider
There are important areas which the current draft policy does not adequately address.  In summary these items include:
- Click to show/hide the issues
  1. This policy does not provide recommendations for positive actions available to State or local government that contribute to long-term conservation goals, reduce the impact and frequency of human/flying-fox impacts, and simplify the process of managing camps in the long term. Such as restricting development and creating buffers around flying-fox camps, preserving and planting habitat trees in to provide appropriate roost and feeding habitat.
  2. The policy doesn't take into account the cumulative impact of actions. For example multiple dispersals across different areas, or the species in question having been subject to major population loss in recent times.
  3. This policy doesn't require any form of reporting either before or after the proposed action. As a result, the DoE will have no knowledge of actions being taken against these threatened species. This means the DoE will not be able to coordinate management efforts, or have knowledge of the cumulative impact of actions and events, or intervene to prevent harmful actions - because they will not even know about them
F. National list of important flying-fox camps
The draft policy says there is a need to maintain a network of flying-fox camps and foraging habitat across both species national range, and that a network of nationally important camps has been identified for the two mainland species of flying-fox listed under the EPBC Act (reproduced in Attachment 1).
- Click to show/hide the issues
  1. Nationally important flying-fox camps are not the only ones needing protection. Ephemeral camps develop at times with significant numbers of flying-foxes. Disturbance of such camps could have had a significant impact for threatened species. (There is a provision for such in the NSW draft FF camp management policy).
  2. These ephemeral camps may exist as a response to bushfires, extreme weather, or food shortages. In those instances, these camps will be as important to the conservation of flying-foxes as the listed nationally important camps. Actions in relation to these camps may have a significant impact on the species and therefore approval should be sought in those situations.
G. Promoting alternatives to camp dispersal
The draft policy states “The Department does not, promote the clearing of camp habitat or camp dispersal as a preferred management tool.” 
- Click to show/hide the issues
  1. The draft policy does nothing to encourage proponents to seek to implement the preferred alternatives.
  2. By fast-tracking the approval process and allowing more actions to be taken without referral, the door will be opened to individuals and agencies who have vocally called for culls as the preferred approach to abuse the system and take actions on the basis of “it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission” - a policy which places emphasis on self-assessment can facilitate bad behaviour.
H. Minor and routine actions
In relation to actions that are considered minor or routine the policy exempts “Noisy events of limited duration such as fireworks displays or outdoor performances”.
- Click to show/hide the issues
  1. It should be clear that this does mean that fireworks can be used as a method of disturbing or dispersing bats. Flying-fox experts agree that many of the items described in the policy as being minor or routine have in the past caused fatalities in the camps.
I. Planning requirements
The requirements for planning dispersal actions outlined in Part 3  (page 6) should be included in the best practice mitigation standards .
- Click to show/hide the issues
  1. Given the objectives of this policy, why would DoE accept anything less than these requirements and the use of best practice in every action impacting on listed threatened species?.
J.   Best practice standards need to be enhanced
The draft policy provides details of the proposed “Best practice mitigation standards” in Attachment 2, but in our view these are not comprehensive enough to be called best practice standards. We suggest at least the following amendments (Note some of the items related to the plan were copied from the items in part 3 of the draft policy - also see comment "H.Planning requirements, above).
- Click to show/hide the issues
  1. In the proposed standards item (v) should be amended as follows “Trees are not felled, lopped or have large branches removed when flying-foxes are in or near a tree and likely to be harmed”
  2. Best practice should consider cumulative impacts. For example if within the last 12 months the flying fox species subject to the proposed action has suffered losses of more than 4% of the total estimated population (whether through natural or man-made causes) the action must be referred to DoE to consider the cumulative impact on that species. (See also D3 & E2)
  3. Best practice must consider the issue of the impact that dispersals might have on the integrity of the network of camps. DoE needs to address the risk that multiple dispersals in a short period could potentially impact on the integrity of the network of camps, especially if these were done (under this policy) without the need to refer the planned actions to the DoE.
  4. Entities proposing a dispersal action should need to demonstrate that they have made genuine attempts to resolve the issue with less damaging methods before considering dispersal. (See also D4)
  5. Landowners considering dispersals must demonstrate a willingness to contribute to the long-term survival of the species by undertaking positive actions such as: Setting aside suitable habitat for flying-fox roosts; zoning known flying-fox roosts as ecologically sensitive zones, where development may not occur; creating buffer zones between flying-fox roosts and proposed/existing development so as to avoid future confrontations, and/or; planting and maintain appropriate trees in areas suitable for alternate flying-fox roosts. (see also E1)
  6. A plan must be developed with objectives of avoiding a long-term decline in the national population of the species or disruption to its breeding cycle
  7. Within that plan, the proponents must document a detailed strategy to achieve the objectives
  8. The plan must include an assessment of potential relocation sites, other nationally important flying-fox camps, and flying-fox activity in the region, to be undertaken by a suitably qualified person or organisation
  9. The plan must detail the dispersal methods to be used, including measures to minimise stress on flying foxes in the camp and nearby camps, stop work triggers, and the responsibilities of participants. Those stop-work triggers must include a requirement to cease for the day if flying foxes demonstrate excessive stress, injury or death.
  10. The proponents must deliver a thorough contingency plan in the event that animals relocate to an unacceptable location
  11. The Proponents must document and put in place a post-dispersal monitoring program
  12. The proponents must liaise with an appropriate local wildlife group to ensure that a trained, experienced, vaccinated person is on hand to deal with injured or abandoned flying-foxes and to provide advice regarding Trigger events. (Or some other suitably qualified, experienced and vaccinated person in the event that a wildlife group is not available).
  13. The plan must include a comprehensive communication and consultation plan where all stakeholders have the opportunity to have input. This may include local government, local residents, local wildlife rescue groups, local advocates and others who have something genuine to add to the plan.
  14. The best practice standards (after amendment) should apply to all actions, not just those in regard to significant camps. How could it be acceptable when dealing with threatened species to engage methods that are damaging and or cruel, or to employ any methods other than best practice?.

Resources

For additional reports and information sources that you can refer to when drafting your letters or submissions, see our Resources page