aerial_spraying_sub.html  

25 May 2005

Ms Maria Hawksley,

Biosecurity and Product Integrity Division,
Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment,
Kings Meadows,
Tas 7249

The Review seeks comments and submissions on a number of related issues. In the order of the issues raised in the Summary of Issues for Comment, TFIC and TAC submit that:

• It would appear that the present administration of the Code of Practice is not working – there are after all justifiable claims of people and property being sprayed and evidence of downstream impacts.
• The present Code does not adequately protect all beneficial uses and assets. For example, there is evidence of deleterious effects on in-stream and down-stream ecosystems and assets.
• A catchment management approach to the practice would balance all beneficial uses and assets within the catchment including estuaries, near shore coastal environments and structural nursery habitats for commercial and recreational fish species.
• At no point does the Code take adequate account of the value of, and risk to, down-stream assets which are themselves subject to strict certification and other quality assurance procedures. We therefore believe that stricter enforcement of the Code is required and justified, rather than the present system of mediation and negotiation.
• One issue that is not raised by this review is of course whether there should be any aerial spraying at all. The practice is banned in the UK and the USA for some of the kinds of applications and situations listed here. The manufacturers own product guidelines for example forbid the spraying of atrazine on steep and sandy soils.

This review of aerial spraying should be informed by a broader and more inclusive whole-of-catchment cost-benefit analysis of the practice. The regulatory framework should be tightened to at least “maintain or enhance water quality” in keeping with the objectives of the State Policy on Water Quality Management and to restrict the permitted uses of the practice to those where there is no other alternative technique.

The function of the Code does not successfully merge regulatory and educational functions – breaches of the Code are evident – and indeed the present administration of the Code would seem to be too lax and biased in favour of the operators and forestry/agricultural interests. The regulatory functions of the Code should be tightened by the inclusion of specific audit and sampling regimes to adequately protect valuable down-stream assets. Given the value of downstream assets and enterprises this should include quality assurance procedures such as the use of test strips and other sampling techniques to detect and deter breaches of the Code during spraying.

The present Code does not adequately protect the certified reputation and quality assurance procedures of down-stream enterprises. If aerial spraying is to continue, the Code therefore requires regulatory teeth and more appropriate guidelines to protect downstream beneficial uses (and we include in that certified, profitable and sustainable enterprises as well as biodiversity – see below). Clear offence provisions are required together with more and better guidance. Safe practices should be more broadly defined in terms of offsite and downstream impacts of agricultural and veterinary chemicals at the whole of catchment scale. Infringement notices should be issued for breaches of guidelines.

Exclusion zones should be set in terms of spray drift into, and impact on, other valuable assets, not in terms of prohibiting discharge at certain points. The present performance based approach seems to be biased in favour of the operators rather than those likely to be impacted. TFIC and TAC strongly suggest that the onus of proof of lack of impact should be placed on the users and operators, rather than the present practice.

The present use of the Forest Practices Code is inadequate to protect ecological and productive assets in water courses, lakes and estuaries – buffer strips down to 10 meters are totally inadequate to prevent spray drift and movement of agricultural chemicals into water courses, particularly after rain.

<>We find it remarkable that the present Code speaks of human impacts and is almost silent on the cumulative, additive and synergetic impacts on in-stream ecological and productive assets such as aquaculture and fish larvae and nurseries. Mere acceptance of the present APVMA registration scheme does not provide protection for in-stream and down-stream assets. Furthermore the impact of cocktails of a variety of herbicides, pesticides, surfactants, “boosters” and wetting agents etc is not adequately covered by the present Code or the reliance on APVMA registration.

Wetting agents, surfactants and “boosters” may have significant down-stream aquatic impacts as large as the primary chemicals. Independent mandatory testing regimes must be put in place and paid for by the applicators of all chemicals. This testing must be done to the levels of toxicity to all likely affected downstream/estuarine organisms and must take into account any metabolites of the parent chemicals.

In addition the Code is silent on the practice of aerial application of fertilizers (both nitrogen and phosphorus) both of which can be transported to waterways and have important and deleterious down-stream impacts. There is, for example, no mention of protection of in-stream flora and fauna, threatened species and ecosystems by means of the use of the ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines – which specifically address aquaculture and ecosystem protection. Downstream ecosystem protection will also protect aquaculture operations and fish nurseries.

Revision and updating of the ANZECC Guidelines should be considered so as to provide adequate risk management and protection for these important activities. It would appear that, on occasion, spray residues are transported by water to areas outside those covered by the Regional Forest Agreements. The Code needs to be tightened specifically to provide adequate downstream risk management and protection for such areas.

The incorporation of the exclusion zones prescribed in the Forest Practices Code does not provide sufficient protection for downstream assets and beneficial uses.

Much increased transparency is required. Prior notification for each and every aerial spraying event should be mandatory (as well as post-spraying reports, perhaps by exception) and the details such as the location of the actual property, size of spraying area and the amount and type of chemicals being applied made available to the public on request. The arguments in the discussion paper about the costs and benefits of such a system only include the costs and benefits to agricultural and forestry interests and do not take into account costs and risks to down-stream assets and enterprises.

Event based auditing is essential. Independent, third party auditing would provide transparency and comfort to down-stream users. Given the value of aquaculture, fish nurseries and other downstream assets (which a whole of catchment cost-benefit analysis would include) the benefits of an audited pre-notification system far outweigh the costs.

Also transparency is required in terms of an ability to audit and assess impacts of these practices. Furthermore an adaptive management regime should be implemented so that constant audit and review of policies and practices leads to “best management practices” and quality outcomes for all. One review of the Code in about 20 years is totally insufficient.

An adaptive management regime would require that records be made available as a matter of course and these would be kept under review. The discussion in the Code is presently silent on in stream and downstream impacts and guidelines. This is unacceptable. The ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines for the protection of freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and aquaculture must be invoked and should continue to be updated as is present practice.

TFIC and TAC submit these points for consideration under the review and would be happy to provide further clarification or discussion if this is requested.

This submission was prepared by Prof Graham Harris, FTSE, in consultation with TFIC and TAC members.

R. K. LISTER
Chief Executive

Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council
Tasmanian Aquaculture Council