Transcript Slide 1

SAOGA Codes of Practice – draft risk assessment plan
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
1
SAOGA Codes of Practice
Background
 Last Updated January 2000
 Written in consultation with PIRSA & EPA
 Have requested their involvement again
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
2
SAOGA Codes of Practice
Previous Contents.
 Environmental Management - EPA
 SASQAP - PIRSA
 State Laws & Regulations - PIRSA
 Best Practice Farm Management - SAOGA
 Public Relations - SAOGA
 Site Rehabilitation Scheme - SAOGA
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
3
SAOGA Codes of Practice
Additional Content
 Marketing
 Biosecurity
 Any other suggestions?
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
4
SAOGA Codes of Practice
Biosecurity
 Concerns raised in relation to a number of practices that
may compromise the SA industry in relation to POMS
 Workshop organised to review each practice
 Industry, Biosecurity Experts & Scientists participated
 Objective Assessment Recorded
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
5
SAOGA Codes of Practice
Matrix
Consequence
Negligible Low
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
Likelihood
Remote 1
Unlikely 2
Possible 3
4
Occasional
Likely
5 0
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
5
Moderate
2
2
4
6
8
High
3
3
6
9
12
Extreme
4
4
8
12
16
10
15
20
6
SAOGA Codes of Practice
Interstate hazards (introduction of POMS)











Second hand or contaminated equipment from infected jurisdiction.
Returned live oysters from infected jurisdiction
Live infected oyster spat translocated from infected jurisdiction into SA farm
Live infected oyster broodstock translocated from infected jurisdiction into SA farm
Live infected oyster from interstate introduced into waters by general public
Translocation of virus through biofouling (e.g. recreational vessels)
Processing of imported infected oysters – handling of state and interstate stock
together.
Infected oysters brought into SA for research
Importation of frozen NZ oysters for human consumption
Importation of “other” species of bivalve molluscs
Live infected oyster spat from NSW to SA farm
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
7
SAOGA Codes of Practice
Intrastate hazards (introduction of POMS)
 POMS already present in South Australian (feral and/or cultured






stock)
Live infected oysters sold at farm gate within the State
Within State movement of infected oyster stock between bays.
Wild / feral oysters contributing to introduction and spread of POMS
into aquaculture stock within the State
Failure to detect POMS early
Processing of local oysters (spreading between areas from local
processors, including returns to growers – return of oyster to the
wrong grower)
Government not responding appropriately to POMS outbreak
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
8
Risk Assessment
Specific Risk
Likelihood
Consequence
Risk Ranking
Second hand or
contaminated
equipment from
infected jurisdiction
Unlikely (2)
High (3)
Moderate (6)
Return of SA oysters
contaminated with
ostreid herpesvirus
(OsHV-1)
Possible (3)
High (3)
Moderate (9)
Live infected oyster
spat translocated from
infected jurisdiction
into SA farm
Remote (1)
Extreme (4)
Low (4)
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
Comments
Further
mitigation
required?
Requires a permit in NSW although no compliance in NSW. Likely
event: equipment not operating for days/weeks, dried, decon,
transport (days), SA farmer decon.
Awareness campaign in SA (letters to licence hollers).
NSW has requirements for lease holders moving equipment from NO
infected areas including a logbook outlining the 5 step process for
decon (restriction of movement applies to NSW estuaries only).
Although the decon rules would still apply if selling interstate.
Occurs mainly over Christmas and Easter. Chance that some
oysters returned are not the growers oysters - both interstate and
within state.
YES
Livestock Act 1997 restricts movement from infected POMS State to
non-infected State (suspicion of notifiable disease).
Livestock Notice 2008: SA licence holders cannot translocate (i.e.
receive) spat from interstate without Ministerial approval (except
from 3 TAS hatcheries). TAS is actively testing for POMS. Extreme NO
consequence because 80% of spat sourced from interstate.
9
Risk Assessment
Live infected oyster
broodstock from
infected jurisdiction to
SA farm
Live infected oyster
from interstate
introduced into waters
by general public
Translocation of virus
through biofouling
(e.g. recreational
vessels)
Processing of
imported infected
oysters
Remote (1)
High (3)
Low (3)
Unlikely (2)
High (3)
Moderate (6)
Unlikely (2)
High (3)
Moderate (6)
Remote (1)
High (3)
Low (3)
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
Livestock Notice 2008: SA licence holders cannot translocate (i.e.
NO
receive) livestock from interstate without Ministerial approval.
Purchased from across the border by tourists whom travel to SA.
Fisheries Management Act 2007, Section 78: cannot deposit NO
aquaculture stock into State waters.
Commercial vessels not currently regulated although guidelines are
being developed to minimise Australia’s risk (provisions do exist
under some state legislation). Risk – large recreational vessels (ie. NO
Sydney to Hobart vessels used in SA boat races), although
likelihood low that they would moor in regional oyster growing areas.
Unlikely that interstate oysters would be processed in regional areas
NO
(if at all, likely to occur in capital cities).
10
Risk Assessment
Infected oysters
brought into SA for
research
Unlikely (2)
High (3)
Moderate (6)
Importation of frozen
NZ oysters for human
consumption
Remote (1)
High (3)
Low (3)
Importation of “other”
species of bivalve
molluscs
Unlikely (2)
High (3)
Moderate (6)
POMS already present
in SA (i.e. feral or
Possible (3)
farmed)
High (3)
Moderate (9)
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
Control – Livestock Notice 2008. Requires Ministerial approval.
Conditions of approval would require research to be conducted in
PC facility and destruction of material afterwards. PC facilities must NO
be away from the oyster growing sector and coastline (e.g.
Roseworthy).
AQIS requirement that it must be frozen and not be diverted for use
as bait, aquaculture feed, or animal feed. Limited compliance. Risk
is its used as bait/berley.
Controls - Fisheries Management Act 2007, Section 78: cannot
deposit aquaculture stock into State waters. Similar Prawn NO
importation risk assessment outlined the risk as a minor vector for
disease importation (low likelihood). Oyster risk is expected to be
less as the species is generally not used as bait or berley compared
to prawn use.
AQIS requirement that it must be frozen and not be diverted for use
as bait, aquaculture feed, or animal feed. No compliance. Risk is its
used as bait/berley. POMS is host specific. “Other” mollusc species NO
are lower risk.
Active surveillance in SA undertaken in 2011. Passive surveillance
ongoing since then, although minimal. Feb / March 2013 unusually
high SST were a good test to elicit the virus if it were present, YES
however no outbreaks occurred.
11
Risk Assessment
Live infected oysters
sold at farm gate
within the State
Within State
movement of infected
oyster stock between
bays
Wild / feral oysters
contributing to
introduction and
spread of POMS into
aquaculture stock
within the State
Failure to detect
POMS early
Occasional (4)
High (3)
High (12)
Occurs around the state.
Fisheries Management Act 2007, Section 78: cannot deposit YES
aquaculture stock into State waters.
Likely (5)
High (3)
High (15)
Frequent movements occurring in all oyster growing bays in South
YES
Australia. Standard industry husbandry, not currently controlled.
Occasional (4)
High (3)
High (12)
Current clearing operations are occurring. Licence condition to clear
YES
wild oyster from aquaculture infrastructure.
Occasional (4)
High (3)
High (12)
Mortality registers / movement of stock registers/ ongoing
communication between PIRSA / Industry. Current control YES
Aquaculture Regulations 2009
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
12
Risk Assessment
Processing of local
oysters (spreading
between areas from
local processors,
Possible (3)
including returns to
growers – return of
oyster to the wrong
grower)
Government not
responding
appropriately to POMS Remote (1)
outbreak
High (3)
Moderate (9)
Reports by industry of oyster growers receiving other growers stock
from processing facilities. Risk of mixing healthy bays with infected YES
bays if POMS is detected in South Australia.
High (3)
Low (3)
Response Plan, Seafox exercise preparation, Risk Assessment.
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
NO
13
Mitigation Recommendation
Risk
Live infected
oysters sold at
farm gate within
the State
Within State
movement of
infected oyster
stock between
bays
Management format
Further
management
Mitigation adequate
12
If POMS not suspected or
confirmed, then no controls
preventing sale. But
controls exist preventing
oysters being placed back
in water by public.
Fisheries Management Act 2007,
Section 78: cannot deposit
aquaculture stock into State
waters.
PIRSA POMS
response plan controls
this activity if disease
suspected or
confirmed.
Letter to Industry from
PIRSA raising
awareness of risk and
controls. SOAGA
Newsletter article.
Proactive media
article.
Yes
15
No restrictions (approval
not needed) for within
State stock movement
when disease not present.
However, If oyster farmer
suspects (or knows) stock
has disease (i.e. unusually
high & unexplained
mortality, adjacent farm
suspects disease), then
the farmer cannot move
stock.
Section 12 Aquaculture
Regulations 2005: if disease
suspected or confirmed, farmer
cannot move stock.
Part 4, Division 4 of the Livestock
Act 1997: verbal or gazetted
order can be given (e.g. stop
stock movement) to farmer if
disease suspected or known.
Section 13 Aquaculture
Regulations 2005: requirement to
keep records of where oysters
are moved to (tracing ability).
PIRSA POMS
response plan controls
this activity if disease
suspected or
confirmed.
PIRSA to encourage
industry to develop an
industry database of
stock movement. Also
awareness of
legislation.
Yes
Score
Current management
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
14
Mitigation Recommendation
Wild / feral oysters
contributing to
introduction and
spread of POMS
12
into aquaculture
stock within the
State
Failure to detect
POMS early
Return of SA
oysters
contaminated
with ostreid
herpesvirus
(OsHV-1).
Clearing spat by industry
from aquaculture leases
and escaped oyster
knockdowns. Biosecurity
SA knockdown operations.
Aquaculture Act 2001
(Requirement to remove spat
from lease infrastructure).
Section 130 Fisheries
Management Act 1997:
Regulations relating to control of
exotic aquatic organisms and
disease.
12
Passive surveillance
through reporting of
abnormally high mortality
on leases.
Aquaculture Act 2001
(Requirement to report to PIRSA
of unusual number of mortalities
– as outlined in the Act)
9
Legislative controls on
suspicion of notifiable
diseases.
Livestock Notice 2008: SA
licence holders cannot
translocate (i.e. receive) livestock
from interstate without Ministerial
approval.
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
PIRSA POMS
response plan controls
this activity if disease
suspected or
confirmed.
Ensure escaped spat
and oyster clearance
is ongoing. Caring for
Country project
proposal to encourage
the use of Triploid
oysters as well as the
move to culturing SA
native species (e.g.
angasi.).
Active Surveillance
program being scoped
by industry. Improve
passive surveillance
systems. Industry
awareness of
legislation.
Letters to licence
holders outlining that
this is not permitted
without Ministerial
approval. Awareness
campaign to industry.
Yes
Yes
Yes
15
Mitigation Recommendation
POMS already
present in South
Australia (feral
and/or cultured
stock)
Processing of
local oysters
(spreading
between areas
from local
processors,
including returns
to growers –
return of oyster
to the wrong
grower)
9
9
Industry and PIRSA on
high alert. POMS
exercises conducted and
information distributed to
industry.
Aquaculture Act 2001
(Requirement to report
unusually high mortality).
Livestock Act 1997: Part 4
division 4 control or eradication
of disease.
Section 130 Fisheries
Management Act 1997:
Regulations relating to control
of exotic aquatic organisms
and disease
None
PIRSA POMS
response plan
controls this activity if
None. Premises approved as
disease suspected or
Quarantine Approved Premises
confirmed.
(QAP) under section 46A of the
Processor
Quarantine Act 1908 have strict
awareness - PIRSA
waste management
to contact processor
requirements.
industry regarding
risks and mitigation
(where possible).
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
Active Surveillance
program being
Yes
scoped by industry.
Improve passive
surveillance systems.
Yes
16
SAOGA Codes of Practice
 Industry Agreement
 Additional Risks??
 Codes of Practice completed by the end of the year
South Australian Oyster Growers Association
17