Review of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity

Office: 90 Gap Road Alice Springs NT
Mail: PO Box 2796 Alice Springs 0870 NT
Web: www.alec.org.au
Phone: 08 89522497
Email: policy@alec.org.au

24 September, 2024

Dr Michele Allan AO
Independent Reviewer of the IGAB

Via email: igabreview2024@aff.gov.au

Dear Dr Allan

Comments - Review Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity (IGAB)

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this review. We fully support periodic review of the IGAB. However, we are concerned by the limitations of this review.
In order to resolve the foundational shortcomings of the current IGAB, which we argue are leading to detrimental environmental and cultural impacts and the sidelining and misprioritising of non-agricultural biosecurity threats, a fundamental review must be conducted by a public body such as the Productivity Commission.

The Arid Lands Environment Centre (ALEC) is central Australia’s peak community environmental organisation. ALEC had been advocating for the protection of nature and sustainable communities in the arid and semi-arid lands since 1980.

Framing considerations

1. The IGAB leads to undue industry influence.
This includes inordinate:

a. Industry representation on governance bodies e.g:
i. The National Biosecurity Committee membership
and meeting agendas are skewed towards
agricultural biosecurity threats - Its last
communique - Meeting no 37 the entire meeting is
devoted to threats to the agricultural sector
ii. National Invasives Committee membership

b. Outsourcing / contracting of governance (development of
strategies, plans, RD&E etc) to corporate ‘charities’, ‘trusts’
and their affiliates1.

1
E.g. the National Environment and Community Biosecurity Research, Development
& Extension (NECBRDES) Strategy has been outsourced to the company Wild
Matters which has affiliations with service providers like Centre for Invasive Species
Solutions.
2. Biosecurity is often framed in the context of protecting
agriculture.
a. Biosecurity threats to the environment, culture, and other
industries are sidelined by all parties to the IGAB e.g. the
NT Agribusiness Strategy2 treats biosecurity only as a
threat to agriculture and ignores threats from agriculture.

3. (Non-colonial) cultural values are sidelined in biosecurity.

4. Australia’s arid ecosystems are widely reported as collapsing.
a. Australia’s arid land ecosystems in the area in which we
work i.e. the Central and Western Deserts, Georgina
Gidgee and Savannah are described as collapsing. The
spread of invasive plants and introduced vertebrate
species have been identified as a major cause of this
collapse. If agricultural industries were in such a parlous
state it would be a National emergency.
b. We acknowledge the risk of new and dangerous incursions
for environmental biosecurity such as new strains of Avian
influenza, however the chronic impacts of established
invasives are a threat of existential import which are being
allowed to increase.

Case Studies

Buffel grass, dingoes and risks related to agricultural spread across the arid lands of Australia are powerful examples of how biosecurity prioritisation is skewed away from environmental, cultural and health risks with excessive focus on agricultural interests and why the IGAB needs a fundamental review.

1. Buffel grass is the greatest biosecurity threat to central Australia3

a. Buffel grass threatens at least 31 NT species listed as threatened
under the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999;

b. Other industries beside agriculture which are acknowledged in the
IGAB as having a stake in biosecurity, e.g. tourism, arts, are
deeply impacted by buffel, yet these also are sidelined;

2 https://industry.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1232771/agribusiness-strategy-2030.pd f
3
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7713970/ (refer abstract “Our analyses suggest threats from buffel grass in arid and semi‐arid areas of Australia are at least equivalent in magnitude to those posed by invasive animals and possibly higher, because unlike these more recognized threats, buffel has yet to occupy its potential distribution.”)
c. Health - Buffel grass has major implications across mental, social
and physical health. These impacts are currently inadequately
assessed in weed risk assessments. Significant negative impacts
include, but are far from limited to, air quality, food security and
culture, a foundation of health. These impacts are significant and
extremely costly.

d. Culture - Buffel grass invasion impacts culture through a range of
complex processes including damaging sacred sites and limiting
access to Country and ability to engage in cultural activities. Buffel
is also destroying diverse, local food sources and traditional
medicines, preventing Intergenerational knowledge sharing and
cultural burning.

e. The severity of buffel grass’s impacts, which are being felt now
have taken decades of inappropriate action. This is in large part
due to its continued anachronistic framing as a conflict weed
which is economically and culturally important to the region. This
is not backed by evidence, buffel grass’s only beneficiary in
central Australia is the cattle industry, yet the entire agricultural
sector contributes just 2.3% to the Central Australian economy4
and represents a small demographic within our community.

f. The IGAB’s failure to deliver action to abate the threat of buffel
grass invasion shows there are deep problems with the IGAB’s
formulation. The Agreement is hardwired to prioritise agricultural
interests. We face devastating loss to plants and animals and
ecosystem collapse yet buffel grass is not on the pipeline for
biological control.

(For a full summary of the concerns around buffel grass read ALEC’s Buffel position paper.)

2. Dingoes are a key source of ecosystem resilience yet they are being
targeted for lethal control against evidence

a. Peer reviewed papers pertaining to central Australia5 have found
lethal control of dingoes does not reduce calf mortality that
long-term 1080 baiting is not having an observable effect on dingo
numbers6 and dingoes are misnamed as wild dogs despite
evidence in the NT that they are dingoes.

4
https://economy.id.com.au/rda-northern-territory/value-add-by-industry?WebID=310
5 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352290891_Lethal_control_reduces_the_relative_a bundance_of_dingoes_but_not_cattle_production_impacts
6
https://territorystories.nt.gov.au/10070/892083/0/35
b. Dingoes hold critical cultural importance ref The National First
Nations’ Dingo Declaration states:
“We do not support the use of the term ‘wild dog’. This
term diminishes the Dingo. It is a deliberate
misrepresentation to justify killing. It disrespects and
disregards culture. Colonisation has and still impacts our
relationship with the Dingo. Since European colonisation
and introducing livestock, assumptions around Dingoes
have led to them being cruelly targeted by trapping,
shooting, poisoning, exclusion fencing, desexing, and
bounty programs across Australia. These practices seek to
eradicate the Dingo from Country, and are inhumane,
ineffective, unnecessary, and have devastating
consequences. 7

c. The positive ecosystem impacts of stable dingo packs on
ecosystems is well supported by evidence.

d. Ecosystem resilience is the greatest defence to biosecurity
threats. Healthy ecosystems require apex predators like dingoes
and are biodiverse yet the biosecurity system is degrading
resilience.

e. We are concerned that efforts to address environmental issues
are being channeled towards marketable commercial “solutions”
like “Eradicat” a commercial product of dubious efficacy containing
inhumane 1080 poison intended to kill cats but for which culturally
important dingoes are a non-target species. This highlights the
sidelining Aboriginal values and inevitably raises questions about
stakeholders with a vested interest in specific commercial
approaches having a seat at the table

3. Industrial agricultural development
a. Land clearing and introduction of cropping in savannah areas is
extremely risky for biosecurity. It destroys ecosystems and
biodiversity (the best protection against pests and disease) and
requires high risk chemical use and introduction of invasives
threats near sensitive environmental receptors.
b. However, clearing decisions are made by the NT Pastoral Lands
Board, which has never refused an application on environmental
grounds.

Responses to questions

1. Is the IGAB functioning as intended?

7
https://hsi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/dingo-declaration-FINAL-A3.pdf
Biosecurity is understood as the management of risks to the economy, the environment and the community, of pests and diseases entering, emerging, establishing or spreading.

Based on the prior framing observations the current IGAB arrangements do not meet its foundational purpose in the arid lands in respect to Part 11 of the IGAB.

In particular clause 9 “Biosecurity is the management of risks to the economy, the environment and the community, of pests and diseases entering, emerging, establishing or spreading.” Nothing has been done to stop the spread of buffel grass which is causing ecosystem and cultural collapse. Similarly dingoes, which are critical for ecosystem resilience and culture, protection has been subverted.

In respect to clause 11 buffel grass is an immense threat to 3c tourism; 3d our unique, diverse and flourishing native flora and fauna ; 3 e. health and social amenity
- buffel grass has been explicitly described as “killing culture” a foundational determinant of health outcomes. All these sectors have strong interests in biosecurity which are not given adequate consideration.

2. Is biosecurity occurring according to its key principles?

Inaction on buffel grass clearly demonstrates the IGAB clause 14 is failing badly.
Biosecurity investment has not prioritised the allocation of resources to the areas of greatest return, in terms of risk mitigation and return on investment. This represents a gross inefficiency, in terms of risk mitigation and return on investment. There has not even been sufficient recognition of the issue to map buffel’s spread. ALEC estimates the cost of buffel grass spread in central Australia, based on rehabilitating the annually invaded area, is in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars annually
($343m/yr)8. The costs of ignoring the spread are even higher given the impact on existing and emerging industries and health impacts alone.

This highlights problems with economic evaluation - the opportunities, benefits and costs of many biosecurity threats as they relate to the agricultural industry are measured and monetised. Others are ignored. This empowers large and influential industries and lobby groups (e.g pastoral interests, the transport industry, and biosecurity service providers (eg chemical / pesticide suppliers). This imbalance is determining which biosecurity challenges are met or ignored and the types of solutions chosen.

The problem is far worse because the laws for environmental biosecurity are weak or non-existent. Buffel grass was only declared a weed in the Northern Territory in
2023. Without strong laws for environmental invasives there is not a level playing field for engagement with powerful industry interests.

8 https://assets.nationbuilder.com/aridlands/pages/57/attachments/original/1699948865/ALEC
_Buffel_TWG_letter_-_Meeting_5.docx_%281%29.pdf?1699948865 (page 2)
Given the imbalance in power relations, weak environmental laws, the fact the
National Biosecurity Committee reports to the Federal Minister for Agriculture and industry groups / corporate contractors are present as observers at its meeting, it is unsurprising that little is being done in relation to existential threats such as buffel grass. Furthermore there is active resistance to action on buffel grass, without any heed given to stop extinctions, dangerous fires, cultural and health impacts9.

Clause 15 requires that biosecurity activities are undertaken according to a cost-effective, science-based and risk management approach. This has not occurred.

Buffel is not in the research pipeline for a biological control, the recommended investments in research in existing threat abatement advice have not been implemented10 and it is yet to be declared a weed of National Significance. This is additionally concerning as known biological threats (e.g. buffel dieback) which are already established could also be a risk to local plants.

In respect to protection of dingoes, it can be argued with strong confidence that dingoes offer an opportunity for biosecurity resilience, yet they are misframed as a
“wild dog” threat against independent science (in the NT wild dogs are in fact almost entirely dingoes.) Peer reviewed science has “(f)ound a significant correlation between studies that reported on ‘wild dog’ control within livestock production–focussed papers and the use of the term ‘dingo’ and discussion of mesopredator release in conservation-related papers. There was a bias associated with author employment, with studies funded by a livestock production organisation more likely to employ ‘wild dog’ terminology.”11

The fact that the National Wild Dog Action Plan exists and uses the “wild dog’ framing with support of partners like Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fishing
(DAFF) and backing by organisations which purport to be cross-sectoral like the
Centre for Invasive Species Solutions demonstrates a bias towards livestock production.

We also note that there are strong disparities between priorities in environmental biosecurity e.g. Key threatening processes under the EPBC Act - DCCEEW and those environmental biosecurity threats which are being prioritised for investment under the IGAB. This suggests outside influences and avoidance of conflict.

Clause 16 states Governments contribute to the cost of risk management measures in proportion to the public good accruing from them and other system participants contribute in proportion to the risks created and/or benefits gained.

9
https://www.agforceqld.org.au/knowledgebase/article/AGF-02076/
10 https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/threatened/threat-abatement-advices/b uffel-grass-threat-abatement-actions
11
https://www.publish.csiro.au/pc/PC18018
We have outlined that the costs of buffel grass invasion are severe but not measured or monetised. They are therefore largely unacknowledged but being borne by parties not at the table (e.g. environment, general public, tourism, health and arts industries).
Furthermore those few beneficiaries of buffel grass are at the table. This is driving inaction and failure of the beneficiaries of buffel grass to take responsibility for its consequences.

Clause 17 states system participants are involved in planning and decision making according to their roles, responsibilities and contributions. The examples we have outlined above show environmental biosecurity threats are not being addressed, opportunities are not being taken, participants are not all present and the
Governance architecture funnels decisions through the Minister for Agriculture hardwiring this outcome.

The manifest shortcomings require a fundamental re-examination of biosecurity governance. We recommend that the Productivity Commission should be charged to report on how biosecurity can serve the public interest and ensure ministers for
Environment, Health and Indigenous Affairs have the same standing in biosecurity as the Minister for Agriculture and how those who are deeply impacted but lack market power or influence are equally included.

Guiding question 2. What changes should be made to cost sharing and funding arrangements?

As noted the shifted costs of biosecurity from runaway invasive pasture grasses have been borne by the environment, other industries and the community especially,
Aboriginal peoples living in remote areas. These costs are tragic and not compensable. These are shifted costs resulting from spread of buffel grass by the pastoral sector and governments. While the impacts are environmentally and socially unacceptable it is clear the beneficiaries are not compensating those who are impacted.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) promotes competition and fair trade in markets to benefit consumers, businesses, and the community. The ACCC should advise on appropriateness of stakeholders with vested interests being at the table.

Guiding Question 3. How did COVID-19 affect the functioning of the IGAB?

We support consideration of lessons learnt from COVID-19. We note that the rapid coordinated response and mobilisation was directed by the government and underpinned by legislation to ensure action was in the public interest.

We believe this is why the environment in arid lands is being let down. The public interest is not being served because there have historically been few laws, their application has been inadequate. (Buffel is recognised under the EPBC Act 1999 within the Key Threatening Process “Novel Biota” however the associated Threat
Abatement Advice has largely been ignored.)
Conclusions

1. A broader review of the IGAB and biosecurity governance is needed

We have argued biosecurity systematically prioritises agricultural and associated industry interests over environmental biosecurity.

The failure to stop spread of buffel grass and inversion of arguments to kill wild dogs rather than protect dingoes against the evidence and the public interest (e.g. buffel grass being allowed to spread) are compelling examples.

For the environment to be protected and loss of EPBC Act listed threatened species to be taken seriously, accountability for environmental biosecurity outcomes need to sit with the Minister for the Environment.

The Productivity Commission is the Australian Government’s independent research and advisory body on economic, social and environmental issues affecting the welfare of Australians. We recommend that a broader review of governance by this organisation is urgently needed to report on how biosecurity can serve the public interest; ensure Ministers for Environment, Ministers for health and Ministers for
Indigenous Affairs have equal standing in Biosecurity as the Minister for Agriculture; and ensure all those with a stake in biosecurity outcomes but not market power or influence are equally included.

The Productivity Commission should also peer review this review to ensure that it is in the best interests of all Australians.

2. Public interest decisions on biosecurity and the types of solutions
needs to be outside the influence vested financial interests

We have outlined concerns that vested financial interests are at the table which is especially problematic as:
● there insufficient laws regulating issues such as environmental weeds,
● environmental health and and cultural costs are not monetised and recovered
hence they lack the same power,
● and that commercial “solutions” (e.g. Eradicat) are being put forward by
parties at the table.

The ACCC promotes competition and fair trade in markets to benefit consumers, businesses, and the community. The ACCC should advise on appropriateness of stakeholders with vested interests being at the table when decisions are made and some stakeholders with commercial interests being afforded observer status.

3. Closer links to biosecurity for public health

Biosecurity risks shifted onto the environment should be treated as just as important as costs borne by other stakeholders. We also note environmental biosecurity risks
have significant health implications. We recommend inclusion of public health decision makers in biosecurity decisions regarding environmental biosecurity.

4. Buffel and dingo should be treated as case studies.

As highlighted previously the arid lands’ experience of the failure to act on buffel and see dingoes as an opportunity for dingoes to be a source of biosecurity resilience rather than a target for control are clear cut case studies which we recommend be used to evaluate problems with the current IGAB arrangements.

ALEC would also welcome the opportunity to present on this submission or participate in focused discussions on this important topic.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Adrian Tomlinson
Chief Executive Officer

Copies to:

Minister for the Environment, the Hon Tanya Plibersek

Member for Lingiari, Ms Marion Scrymgour