SAOGA Codes of Practice – draft risk assessment plan 1South Australian Oyster Growers Association

SAOGA Codes of Practice Background Last Updated January 2000 Written in consultation with PIRSA & EPA Have requested their involvement again South Australian Oyster Growers Association2

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 Association3

SAOGA Codes of Practice Additional Content Marketing Biosecurity Any other suggestions? South Australian Oyster Growers Association4

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 Association5

SAOGA Codes of Practice Matrix South Australian Oyster Growers Association6 Consequence Likelihood NegligibleLowModerateHighExtreme Remote Unlikely Possible Occasional Likely

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 Association7

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 Association8

Risk Assessment Specific RiskLikelihoodConsequenceRisk RankingComments Further mitigation required? Second hand or contaminated equipment from infected jurisdiction Unlikely (2)High (3) Moderate (6) 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 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. NO Return of SA oysters contaminated with ostreid herpesvirus (OsHV-1) Possible (3)High (3) Moderate (9) Occurs mainly over Christmas and Easter. Chance that some oysters returned are not the growers oysters - both interstate and within state. Livestock Act 1997 restricts movement from infected POMS State to non-infected State (suspicion of notifiable disease). YES Live infected oyster spat translocated from infected jurisdiction into SA farm Remote (1)Extreme (4) Low (4) 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 consequence because 80% of spat sourced from interstate. NO South Australian Oyster Growers Association9

Risk Assessment Live infected oyster broodstock from infected jurisdiction to SA farm Remote (1)High (3) Low (3) Livestock Notice 2008 : SA licence holders cannot translocate (i.e. receive) livestock from interstate without Ministerial approval. NO Live infected oyster from interstate introduced into waters by general public Unlikely (2)High (3) Moderate (6) Purchased from across the border by tourists whom travel to SA. Fisheries Management Act 2007, Section 78: cannot deposit aquaculture stock into State waters. NO Translocation of virus through biofouling (e.g. recreational vessels) Unlikely (2)High (3) Moderate (6) 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. Sydney to Hobart vessels used in SA boat races), although likelihood low that they would moor in regional oyster growing areas. NO Processing of imported infected oysters Remote (1)High (3) Low (3) Unlikely that interstate oysters would be processed in regional areas (if at all, likely to occur in capital cities). NO South Australian Oyster Growers Association10

Risk Assessment Infected oysters brought into SA for research Unlikely (2)High (3) Moderate (6) Control – Livestock Notice Requires Ministerial approval. Conditions of approval would require research to be conducted in PC facility and destruction of material afterwards. PC facilities must be away from the oyster growing sector and coastline (e.g. Roseworthy). NO Importation of frozen NZ oysters for human consumption Remote (1)High (3) Low (3) 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 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. NO Importation of “other” species of bivalve molluscs Unlikely (2)High (3) Moderate (6) 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 are lower risk. NO POMS already present in SA (i.e. feral or farmed) Possible (3)High (3) Moderate (9) Active surveillance in SA undertaken in 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, however no outbreaks occurred. YES South Australian Oyster Growers Association11

Risk Assessment Live infected oysters sold at farm gate within the State Occasional (4)High (3) High (12) Occurs around the state. Fisheries Management Act 2007, Section 78: cannot deposit aquaculture stock into State waters. YES Within State movement of infected oyster stock between bays Likely (5)High (3) High (15) Frequent movements occurring in all oyster growing bays in South Australia. Standard industry husbandry, not currently controlled. YES Wild / feral oysters contributing to introduction and spread of POMS into aquaculture stock within the State Occasional (4)High (3) High (12) Current clearing operations are occurring. Licence condition to clear wild oyster from aquaculture infrastructure. YES Failure to detect POMS early Occasional (4)High (3) High (12) Mortality registers / movement of stock registers/ ongoing communication between PIRSA / Industry. Current control Aquaculture Regulations 2009 YES South Australian Oyster Growers Association12

Risk Assessment Processing of local oysters (spreading between areas from local processors, including returns to growers – return of oyster to the wrong grower) Possible (3)High (3) Moderate (9) Reports by industry of oyster growers receiving other growers stock from processing facilities. Risk of mixing healthy bays with infected bays if POMS is detected in South Australia. YES Government not responding appropriately to POMS outbreak Remote (1)High (3) Low (3) Response Plan, Seafox exercise preparation, Risk Assessment. NO South Australian Oyster Growers Association13

Mitigation Recommendation RiskScoreCurrent managementManagement format Further management Mitigation adequate Live infected oysters sold at farm gate within the State 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 Within State movement of infected oyster stock between bays 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 South Australian Oyster Growers Association14

Mitigation Recommendation Wild / feral oysters contributing to introduction and spread of POMS into aquaculture stock within the State 12 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. 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.). Yes Failure to detect POMS early 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) Active Surveillance program being scoped by industry. Improve passive surveillance systems. Industry awareness of legislation. Yes Return of SA oysters contaminated with ostreid herpesvirus (OsHV-1). 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. Letters to licence holders outlining that this is not permitted without Ministerial approval. Awareness campaign to industry. Yes South Australian Oyster Growers Association15

Mitigation Recommendation POMS already present in South Australia (feral and/or cultured stock) 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 Active Surveillance program being scoped by industry. Improve passive surveillance systems. Yes Processing of local oysters (spreading between areas from local processors, including returns to growers – return of oyster to the wrong grower) 9 None None. Premises approved as Quarantine Approved Premises (QAP) under section 46A of the Quarantine Act 1908 have strict waste management requirements. PIRSA POMS response plan controls this activity if disease suspected or confirmed. Processor awareness - PIRSA to contact processor industry regarding risks and mitigation (where possible). Yes South Australian Oyster Growers Association16

SAOGA Codes of Practice Industry Agreement Additional Risks?? Codes of Practice completed by the end of the year South Australian Oyster Growers Association17