- The ongoing problems with Tasmanian slipway management and Tasmanian environment and pollution law compliance,A demonstrated threat to, and negative impact upon coastal water quality/marine environment from unregulated slipway activities such as antifoulant/pollutant containment issues, Slipway/marine farm activity conflicts, The difficulties already being faced by the Tasmanian commercial fishing industry due to the significant backlog of commercial fishing boats waiting to be slipped at the time of writing, and The need to minimise any increases in slipway charges to vessel operators.
- The perception growing within the commercial fishing sector is that the Tasmanian slipway industry is currently in crisis due to a number of factors that include:
- Spiraling public liability premiums for slipway operators, Substantial delays already being manifested for boats needing to be slipped for survey requirements and maintenance, Poor slipway economic efficiency caused by any number of reasons, An obvious lack of environmental control measures and enforcement of these standards within the vessel maintenance industry. This is despite there being clear and unambiguous state laws about the control of pollutants being released into the environment. The generally poor environmental performance of Tasmanian slipways being (in part) due to cross-jurisdictional issues such as Crown land leases, local council enforcement of pollution laws (largely based on actual complaints rather than regular site inspections) and unenforced State regulatory controls.
This has been compounded by there being no prescriptive Tasmanian slipways standard or benchmark to work toward, no representative body for slipway owner/operators, no registration of slipways and no third party auditing to ensure that Tasmanian pollution laws are being obeyed.
The Issues and Options Paper:
The Issues and Options Paper appears to be well researched and presented. Despite the complexity of the situation, the issues can be basically reduced to two things:
- Despite the lack of environmental law enforcement in the slipway/vessel maintenance industry, there are already substantial and adequate State pollution control/environment protection laws enshrined in Tasmanian State Law (and have been for nearly a decade). The crisis facing the industry in Tasmania at present is due (in part) to a relaxed attitude on the part of authorities in the enforcement of these laws.
- To ensure the protection of the marine environment and the elimination of negative impacts from pollutants on other marine environment users…
… In what way can we gain slipway industry legal compliance in a timely, effective and economically efficient way that does not create further or unnecessary problems, delays or significantly increased costs for the vessels that use these facilities?
Existing Tasmanian Laws:
These Laws include (but are not restricted to) the following:
- Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994
- Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995
- Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995
- State Coastal Policy 1996
- State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997
Antifoulants:
Waste product from boat slipways is internationally recognised as being significantly toxic and hazardous material (antifoulant paints containing significant heavy metals and biocides), yet historically the disposal of this waste at Tasmanian slipways has been effected by washing it directly into the water adjacent to the slipway. With many vessel owners preferring to do their own maintenance, the responsibility has technically been upon both them and the slipway operator to comply with state laws.
Despite these environmental and pollution laws being enacted, little effort has been made to enforce them within the slipway industry in Tasmania, with vessel maintenance work continuing as it has done so for many preceding decades. Decades of precedents and historic non-compliance do not make the activity either legally 'right' or acceptable, neither does it make the activities environmentally sustainable.
Neither does it absolve the State and Local Governments from their responsibility to police and enforce the enacted law.
Because of their apathy, these bodies must share the responsibility for the state/crisis that this slipway industry has been allowed to become.
.
Some slipways will find compliance impossible:
The main difficulty apparent to the observer is that many slipway facilities in Tasmania will not be able to comply with proposed pollutant containment measures even if a slipway standard is established.
Many slipways are inundated at high tides or during Spring/King tide events, while many are economically marginal. The requirement for them to invest significant capital into upgrading facilities would not be viable, resulting in them having to exit the industry. Others are situated on muddy substrate that cannot support concrete structures or in-ground collection tanks.
The added impost of immediate environmental compliance on top of skyrocketing public liability premiums will be too much for many operators. This will have obvious concomitant undesirable effects upon the Tasmanian commercial fishing industry and other commercial vessel operators.
Effective and Efficient Compliance:
With the situation now being addressed with the issues and options explored, the primary task is simply to find an effective and efficient way to ensure that the Tasmanian slipways comply with existing Tasmanian environment/pollution laws, and to put in place an effective method of policing these laws.
That being said, due to the poor performance of the historic policing of these laws within the slipway industry in Tasmania, the situation will have to be handled carefully and sensitively to ensure that there are no mass closures of slipways. This would cause a further backlog of fishing (and other) vessels that cannot put to sea while waiting for survey or maintenance/repairs.
If mass closure occurs, there will be many extra issues that may manifest themselves, such as Illegal anti-fouling activities on secluded beaches or vessels operating out of survey and/or without insurance cover.
The potential will exist for substantial litigation by both boat owners and those slipway operators who recently bought government owned slipways.
State Funding Assistance:
It is abundantly clear that for the Tasmanian Slipways Management Framework to work effectively there will need to be adequate funding resources available. Some funding will be needed for areas as indicated below.
Education:
Part of the reason the slipway industry is in crisis is because there has never been a program in place to educate slipway owners and operators of the environmental law requirements in Tasmania. An education package should be compiled and delivered to all Category 2 and 3 slipway operators, indicating clearly what the objectives of the framework are and how they are to achieve and maintain agreed standards compliance.
Former state-owned slipways:
State owned slipways have recently been sold to private enterprise, few of which could possibly comply with existing environmental laws at the time of being sold as an established business.
Considering the fact that the government sold these slipways with the knowledge that they are unlikely to comply with current environmental and pollution laws (let alone any new proposed standard) it is likely that funding may be required to ensure that these slipways are upgraded to a suitably acceptable standard.
Other existing slipways upgrades:
There also (and most importantly) needs to be an adequate source of State funding available to the industry to assist in all slipways adapting to and complying with an established standard. To expect the commercial vessel maintenance industry to suddenly spend tens of thousands of dollars is unrealistic when the responsibility for the current situation must be shared with regulators and industry alike. This is a vital service industry, supplying a service to a significant commercial and recreational maritime industry in Tasmania.
Local Councils:
Local councils have been expected to ensure compliance of environmental laws, but often have funding shortages and have only inspected slipways when a complaint has been received.
To ensure fair enforcement of existing laws, funding needs to be made available to local councils for scientific environmental testing of water, site water released to the environment, site soil and sediment as well as ongoing enforcement costs.
As a result of this situation, regulators must share the responsibility for the current state of the vessel maintenance industry and contribute to the costs of change.
Toxic/hazardous waste disposal:
Funding will also be needed to ensure that toxic waste such as Tributyl tin (TBT) paint removed from vessel hulls is disposed of in a suitably acceptable way. This problem may be minimised once TBT is removed from all boats, however other heavy metals from antifoulant paints (e.g., copper) still require containment and specific disposal protocols to be in place due to the hazardous nature of the waste.
Commercial vessel owners:
The commercial fishing industry in Tasmania is vital to the economy in so many ways, and because of its recognised importance, TFIC believes that there should be significant State Government assistance for resources and funding to aid in a progressive transition into the Slipways Management Framework.
It is not only the slipway industry that will need assistance. Because this is a service that is essential to the state's commercial vessel operators, there must be as small an impost to the vessel operators as is possible.
Many members of the Tasmanian fishing industry are already finding that constant increases in operating costs are eroding away their viability. While savage increases in cost to industry are unacceptable, to suddenly pass on huge cost increases to marginal operators may force some of our members from the commercial fishing industry.
Funding must be made available to assist commercial boat operators absorb any significant increases in slipping costs. This could apply as a (reducing) tiered subsidy over an agreed period to all commercial vessel operators.
Significant cost increases could also cause some deterioration in maintenance standards on recreational vessels.
TFIC Recommendations:
Industry Specific Outcome-based Standards:
Industry specific environmental regulations for the slipway industry are a bit like reinventing the wheel.
Environment, and pollution laws, workplace health and safety regulations, storage/application of controlled substances standards are already in place. They simply need to be applied to industry. All industry. This slipway problem faces Tasmanian because the enacted laws have remained unenforced by regulatory authorities.
A 'one size fits all' prescriptive standard is inappropriate for the slipway/vessel maintenance industry in Tasmania. There are many different environmental and economic factors that must be considered for each Category 2 and 3 slipway.
TFIC suggests that an outcome-based standard be applied, where the prescribed outcome is established as a benchmark to attain, while how and when that benchmark is attained is established on a case by case basis.
Australia is a signatory to the ANZECC 'Code of Practice for Anti-fouling and In-water Hull Cleaning and Maintenance'. TFIC recommends that this Code be absorbed into a Tasmania specific regulatory code for use as an interpretive document (guide) for slipway operators who need further information about attaining the standards set for their industry.
.
Timeframe:
There will have to be an acceptable time frame put in place for slipway compliance to an agreed and achievable Tasmanian standard. Any realistic timeframe must take into account existing circumstances, present effects on other industries, and individual operators requirements based on both environmental (tide, substrate, flushing time, proximity to marine farms etc) and economic factors.
.
Regulatory Options:
.
Self-Regulation:
Slipway self-regulation may be a cost-effective way to enforce the appropriate environment, pollution, waste disposal and workplace health and safety laws that apply to slipways.
For this option to be effective there would have to be an intensive education and awareness program put into place for slipway operators to be able to clearly understand the specific and achievable requirements that they must comply with over a realistic period of time.
A representative slipway industry body, officially recognised for the vessel maintenance/slipways industry should be established to ensure that this industry so vital to commercial fishing has an effective voice. Registration of all Category 2 and 3 slipways should be mandatory, both for the benefit of the slipway industry and for regulators.
If this is considered to be appropriate, then there should be an accredited third party audit carried out regularly on all Category 2 and Category 3 slipways under the watchful eye of a State Government regulatory 'watch-dog', specifically to encourage compliance with the requirements.
Breaches detected should be dealt with on a warning system for unintentional breaches with appropriate fines/penalties creating a deterrent for obvious breaches of the appropriate laws.
This option appeals to TFIC when considering it from a cost/benefit and management perspective.
Local Council Regulation:
This would appear to be the easiest method of regulation, as most councils and local bodies would have an appointed environment/health officer. To date this system of regulation should already have been effective if enforced. However, it must be said that thus far the track record of enforcement is generally poor.
This would also appear to be a more expensive option to consider. Training and substantial funds would have to be made available to local councils to ensure that funding shortfalls do not compromise the integrity of any regulatory program.
.
State Government Regulation 'Watchdog':
Regardless of the regulatory option chosen, a State Government 'watch-dog' body could be set up to oversee the regulatory process. Once in place, appeals, problems and breaches should be dealt with speedily, appropriately and fairly given the individual circumstances.
A combination of both the above options may be workable under a State Government watchdog. This state body may be able to coordinate the dissemination of information to industry as and when needed in the process of establishing the regulatory framework.
It could demonstrate a 'minder' role that ensures both compliance and management of expenditure/cost recovery in an open and transparent manner, regardless of the framework chosen.
Cost Recovery:
It is understandable to expect that there will be a 'user pays' philosophy applied to the slipway debate. However, it is undesirable and unacceptable to expect there to be a sudden and vicious increase in slipway costs passed on to boat operators, as this current state of affairs is not entirely the fault of industry.
With additional regulatory expenses such as a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) and cost recovery required by slipway operators for additional capital works to their establishments, disposal of hazardous waste products and hikes in slipway public liability insurance, the potential for a significant cost increase is obvious.
It is also obvious that there may those marginal vessel operators who can't absorb the increases comfortably, increasing the risk of some operators feeling that they are forced to operate in vessels that are out of survey. This would obviously be counter-productive, especially if clandestine work is carried out on vessels on secluded beaches instead of on appropriate slipways.
The Tasmanian slipways industry is in the present situation partly due to a generally poor enforcement regime for existing laws that already apply to the industry, and have done for some years. The responsibility for this rests in part with regulators. Because of this it is appropriate that the State Government contributes to rectifying the problem in a meaningful and cooperative way, lessening the impost to industry by an agreed phasing in of increased costs via funding subsidies.
The abalone industry alone contributes millions of dollars annually in royalties to the Tasmanian treasury. The other seafood producers in Tasmania are of obvious substantial economic benefit to Tasmania. It is time for some of this benefit to be invested back into the industry.
Conclusion:
There will be no 'easy fix' for the Tasmanian slipways management issue.
The reason it is in the current state is for a number of reasons. The most obvious one is the relaxed attitude of regulators who have allowed slipways to operate in obvious contravention of established and enacted State laws for some years, despite enforcing the same laws on many land-based industries.
To expect the issues to all be resolved within a short space of time would be unrealistic. To expect all of the industries involved to 'pick up the tab' without funding assistance is also unrealistic.
To this end, realistic priorities must be established. The first and most important priority being the protection of the marine environment that the commercial fishing industry relies upon for its very existence.
It is recognised that the world-wide problem of hull-fouling is paralleled by a world-wide problem with antifoulants being extremely toxic and hazardous material, with adverse effects upon this same marine environment. A 'best practice' protocol should be put in place within a realistic time frame at a reasonable cost.
Tasmanian commercial fishing vessel operators place an enormous reliance upon this vital slipway industry, appreciating that with an industry such as this, control measures and regulatory compliance are appropriate. These measures must be applied in a way that is both effective and efficient, taking into account all of the factors as addressed in the above submission.