Outcome:	1	Question No:	50	
Output:	1.3	
Division/Agency:	Marine Biodiversity Division	
Topic:	Farming/GBR	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice 	

Senator Siewert asked:
(a)	What history is there of adoption of new farming practice in the target communities?
(b)	What farmer and producer organisations or networks have you formed partnerships with to facilitate extension and adoption?
(c)	Presumably there are 'hotspots' of nutrient and pesticide impacts into the Reef. Will the water quality grants funding be going to these areas?
(d)	How will planning and targeting process be managed and investment decisions made?
(e)	What research and development activities are proposed to support this program within the $10 M reef water quality R&D program?
(f)	Are these funds sufficient for the R&D outcomes required?
(g)	Do you have sufficient data on the spatial relationship between land management practices and impacts on high value areas of the reef?
(h)	Do you have land management practices and farming systems for the key industries (sugar cane, horticulture, dairy, cotton and grains) of the target areas that produce the desired outcomes in terms of productivity and nutrient and chemical runoff?
(i)	Do you have sufficient information on the pathways to adoption of the proposed land management practices?
(j)	What monitoring and evaluation processes and priorities are you putting in place to assess the outcomes of the water quality grants scheme through the $22 million water quality monitoring and reporting program?
(k)	What existing evaluation tools and benchmarks will you be using?

Answer:

(a)	Land management practices, and therefore the adoption of new farming practices, vary between regions and industries in the Great Barrier Reef catchment.  Changes from burnt cane harvesting to green cane harvesting and trash retention, and minimum till farming practices, in the Fitzroy catchments are examples of new practice adoption in the target communities.  Information about the uptake of sustainable land management practices can be found in Water Quality Improvement Plans prepared (or being prepared) by Regional Natural Resource Management Bodies and from the different industry sectors.

Further information about adoption rates will be available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Agricultural Resource Managers’ Survey to be published in June 2009.

(b)	Through the Reef Partnerships component of Reef Rescue ($12 million over 5 years), the Australian Government plans to provide assistance for extension services, on-site risk assessments such as farm management systems and property plans, and industry and community wide environmental management and awareness programs.  The Government has had meetings with key industry groups including CANEGROWERS, Queensland Farmers’ Federation, Growcom, Queensland Dairy Farmers’ Organisation and AgForce to discuss arrangements for the implementation of this component.

(c)	Investment under the Water Quality Grants ($146 million over 5 years) component will be weighted towards high risk/priority areas, based on the best available information and scientific understanding including Water Quality Improvement Plans, Nutrient Management Zones and the Reef Exposure Model for the Reef Lagoon.

(d)	Reef Rescue investment will be strategic, risk-based and targeted towards high risk/priority areas in Great Barrier Reef catchments.  Investments will be prioritised based on the best available information and scientific understanding (noting that this information may be limited or imperfect).

Consistent with an adaptive management approach, a multiple criteria analysis process, conducted in conjunction with stakeholders, will be used to plan and refine targeting of investments over the term of Reef Rescue. 

(e)	Consistent with the election commitment, the Research and Development component of Reef Rescue ($10 million over 5 years) will invest in activities to improve the understanding of the link between land management practices and environmental impacts.  

(f)	There is a need to coordinate and make better use of existing funds allocated to Reef science.  It is proposed that a proportion of funds under the Research and Development component of Reef Rescue be used to coordinate and integrate existing science required to support implementation of Reef Rescue, and to leverage co-investment in projects that address existing gaps in the science and priority areas.   The Australian Government already funds $40 million (for five years from July 2005) through the Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility.

(g)	In January 2008, the Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research released the Reef Exposure model for the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon draft report.  The report examined the risk posed to each reef by nitrogen, phosphorus, sediments and herbicides present in the flood plumes of individual rivers.

(h)	For the main threats to the Reef for example sugar and grazing we know what practices will improve water quality.  However there is very limited information for most horticulture crops, grain and diary.  

For example, the sugar cane industry’s “6 Easy Steps” program involves matching the amount of fertilizer to the crop’s needs, using soil analysis and knowledge of crop nitrogen and phosphorus uptake.  This avoids excess nutrients leaving the farm in run-off and thereby improves the quality of water entering the Reef lagoon.

(i)	Adoption rates of land management practices are largely influenced by financial incentives and social networks.  Financial incentives can include payments to implement a new land management practice or an increase in profits resulting from the practice. Social networks, such as community, grower or Landcare groups, are also important.  Previous pilot and extension programs have shown that landowners and managers are more likely to implement a new land management practice after witnessing benefits that their neighbour has received.  Financial incentives and social change are both key elements of Reef Rescue. 

(j)	Consistent with the election commitment, the Australian Government is working with key stakeholders to develop a fully integrated monitoring and reporting framework.  The framework will include measuring the adoption of improved management practices and measuring change in water quality and ecosystem health.

(k)	Regional Natural Resource Management Bodies have completed (or are completing) Water Quality Improvement Plans that identify some benchmarks of practice adoption and pollutant levels.

As a component of Caring for our Country, Reef Rescue monitoring, evaluation and reporting will be incorporated in the broader program monitoring for Caring for our Country.

Outcome:	1	Question No:	51	
Output:	1.3	
Division/Agency:	Marine Biodiversity Division	
Topic:	Great Barrier Reef Program	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice	

Senator Siewert asked:
(a)	Are you targeting or assuming a reduction in dissolved nutrient load and chemical export from agricultural industries by around 50%?
(b)	Do you believe that this is achievable and realistic?
(c)	What is you evidence base for these assumptions?
(d)	Have you any research that shows that similar reductions in nutrient load and chemical export have been achieved by comparable land management programs elsewhere?
(e)	Is $200 million sufficient to get significant environmental improvements for the Great Barrier Reef?
(f)	Which of the major agricultural industries contribute most to the nutrient and pesticide problems on the Reef? 
(g)	Which areas in which catchments contribute most to the nutrient and chemical load? 
(h)	Do you need to target or assume greater than 80% adoption of improved soil, nutrient and chemical management practices by the agricultural sectors (including sugar cane, horticulture, dairy, cotton and grains) to achieve these nutrient and chemical load targets?
(i)	Do you believe that this is achievable and realistic?
(j)	What is you evidence base for these assumptions?
(k)	Few industries, especially broadacre ones, achieve such ambitious adoption rates (80%) from implementing conservation measures. How confident is the government that the adoption targets stated by agricultural industries can be achieved?
(l)	Have you any research that shows that similar land management programs have been able to achieve such high levels of adoption elsewhere?
(m)	What commercial incentives are being proposed to encourage adoption of these new land management practices?
(n)	Do you have comparative economic studies of production systems for these industries that have been able to adopt these practices and maintain the profitability of their enterprises? 
Answers:

(a)	No.  We are targeting a reduction of around 25% in the loads of dissolved nutrients and chemicals exported from agricultural land in targeted Reef catchments over the 5 years of Reef Rescue.

(b)	No. We believe that with the available resources, a 50% reduction is not realistic or achievable. 

(c)	The evidence base for a proposed reduction of 25% includes:
•	Agricultural industries’ own estimates contained in proposals to deliver Reef water quality outcomes, including an analysis of return on investment.
•	The detailed water quality improvement planning process being conducted by Reef Regional Natural Resource Management Bodies, including modelling by scientists to guide target setting.
•	The published Mackay Whitsunday Water Quality Improvement Plan has a target of 27% reduction in dissolved inorganic nitrogen entering the Reef lagoon by 2014.

(d)	Sediment and nutrient loads entering the Reef lagoon have increased several-fold since European settlement, due mainly to agricultural development of the Reef catchment.  It is proposed that by restoring the condition of the catchment coupled with improved land management practices to prevent the run-off of sediments, chemicals and nutrients from agricultural lands will result in significant reductions in diffuse pollutant loads entering the Reef.

Cotton Australia, for example, estimate that Best Management Practices, Integrated Pest Management and innovative biotechnology have combined to help the cotton industry reduce overall insecticide use by 85-90%, with a concomitant decrease in the risk of run-off of these chemicals. (http://www.cottonaustralia.com.au/facts/factsandfigures.aspx?id=10).

We are not aware of similar reductions in nutrient load and chemical export achieved by comparable land management practices elsewhere.

(e)	Yes. 80% of the land adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef is farmland that supports agricultural production, intensive cropping of sugar cane, and major beef cattle grazing. Reef Rescue is a significant investment aimed at addressing the source of diffuse nutrient and sediment loads from agricultural land, leading to a reduction in nutrient levels in the lagoon.

(f)	The major agricultural industries in the Reef catchment are cattle grazing (approximately 77% of catchment) and cropping (approximately 3% of catchment, comprising predominantly sugarcane, grains, cotton and horticulture production).  Per hectare, the greatest loads of nutrients and chemicals come from cropping.  Significant nutrient loads also arise from grazing lands, although the loads per hectare are much lower and vary greatly according to ground cover, terrain and rainfall.

(g)	Contributions of specific areas to nutrient and chemical loads entering the Reef lagoon depend on several factors, including the extent of the area, level of rainfall, proximity to river mouth and land use.

Areas of high fertiliser and chemical use (intensive agriculture) in high rainfall zones close to the coast pose the greatest risk of nutrient and chemical run-off.  The three highest risk areas identified by scientists based on these criteria are the Wet Tropics and Mackay-Whitsunday coastal regions followed by the Burdekin coastal region.

(h)	We are targeting 30% adoption of improved management practices across the agricultural sector in the Reef catchment to achieve a significant reduction in nutrients entering the Reef lagoon.  Measures to achieve management practice change will be targeted to areas of highest risk that contribute most to pollutant loads.  Certain areas and land uses contribute disproportionately higher pollutant loads than others.

(i)	Yes, we believe a 30% uptake of more sustainable practices is a realistic and achievable target based on current information.  The Australian Bureau of Statistics is currently conducting further research on the issue of improved management practice uptake, due for completion mid 2009.

(j)	The target is supported by best available information.  For example, a recent report by the CSIRO provided estimates of current adoption rates for 12 improved management practices (e.g. green cane trash blanketing) in sugarcane.  These ranged between 10% and greater than 90%, indicating that it is possible to get high levels of adoption of improved management practices.

(k)	Under this program the target is 30% adoption and there are many examples where improved management practices have been adopted at rates estimated to be at or above 30% in sugarcane, horticulture, grazing and forestry.

The 2007 CSIRO Report: Review of current and future best management practices for sugarcane, horticulture, grazing and forestry industries in the Tully-Murray catchment provides information about adoption rates.

(l)	A recent survey funded under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality found the adoption of reduced tillage and reduced long fallow amongst land managers in the Northern Murray Mallee region of South Australia has been almost universal (95% of survey respondents) and there has been significant adoption of more intensive cropping rotations (over 80% of respondents) and identification of subsoil constraints (over 70% of respondents).  This region has been one of the focal points for the Mallee Sustainable Farming project.

More information can be found in the report Adoption of New Land Management Practices through Conservation Insurance, EconSearch, January 2006 http://www.napswq.gov.au/publications/books/mbi/pubs/round1-project8.pdf.

(m)	Under Reef Rescue, $146 million will be invested in Water Quality Grants over 5 years.  An additional $12 million will be invested in activities to support the adoption of improved management practices through education and extension activities.  The nature of the financial incentives offered to land holders to encourage the adoption of improved land management practices may include:
•	incentives to switch to farming practices that utilise fertilisers and chemicals more efficiently
•	incentives to prevent loss of sediments, nutrients and chemicals from agricultural land
•	incentives for on-ground works to rehabilitate or protect riparian buffers or wetlands.

(n)	Uptake of improved management practices or on-ground rehabilitation measures by land managers will be voluntary and in response to the level of incentives offered.

The adoption of improved management practices will have benefits for farm sustainability (e.g. through reduced loss or degradation of topsoil) and profitability (through more efficient or reduced use of fertiliser and chemicals).  Where there is uptake of incentives for on-ground works, the level of incentive required will reflect the lack of financial benefit to the land manager. 

Work done in benchmarking practices in the Tully region showed that uptake of specific practices had reduced sediment losses by 45% and fertilizer losses by 30% in the last 7 years, prior to the development of the Water Quality Improvement Plan.

Outcome:	1	Question No:	93	
Output:	1.3	
Division/Agency:	Marine Biodiversity Division	
Topic:	Appointment of a Whaling Envoy	
Hansard Page ECITA:	24 (29 May) 	

Senator Johnston asked:
Can you take that notice and let us know, firstly, when your department was consulted about the appointment of an envoy, given the announcement was December, and then when you responded to that to the government.

Answers:

The Department has provided a series of responses to requests for advice on the appointment of a special envoy for whale conservation, the first of which coincided with the policy announcement of 19 December 2007.  Subsequent advice to the Government about possible envoys was provided by the Department in a brief to the Minister on 9 January 2008.

Outcome:	1	Question No:	94	
Output:	1.3	
Division/Agency:	Marine & Biodiversity Division	
Topic:	Whaling envoy	
Hansard Page ECITA:	27 (29 May)	

Senator Macdonald asked:
Nobody asked what happened in cabinet; we just want to know if it has been to cabinet. We are not asking you what happened. Has it been to cabinet?

Answer:

Yes, the issue of a special envoy on whale conservation has been considered by Cabinet.

Outcome:	1	Question No:	95	
Output:	1.3	
Division/Agency:	Marine Biodiversity Division	
Topic:	International Whaling Commission	
Hansard Page ECITA:	40 (29 May) 	

Senator Siewert asked:
Could you provide the committee with a list of projects that are currently being undertaken under the IUCN science project?
Ms Petrachenko—You want all of the IWC related science projects?
…
Senator SIEWERT—Sorry—IWC. IUCN I get into my head—IWC.
Ms Petrachenko—Australia’s involvement in IWC related projects?
Senator SIEWERT—Yes.
…
Senator SIEWERT—But take ‘involvement’ in its wide meaning, either as in research or as in provision of cash.

Answer:
Australia is involved in conducting research for two IWC-endorsed research projects.  The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) is also conducting a number of research programs that are not explicitly IWC-endorsed, but the findings of which are to be presented at IWC Scientific Committee meetings.  In addition, the Australian Marine Mammal Centre (formerly ACAMMS) funds a number of cetacean science projects that are not specifically IWC related, but are relevant to the scientific work undertaken by the IWC.  

The two IWC Scientific Committee-endorsed projects in which Australia is involved are:
•	Southern Ocean Whale & Ecosystem Research (SOWER):  Australian scientists have been involved in the planning phase, the steering committee and the reviews of the results of this annual whale sightings cruise for a number of years.  In addition, Australia has provided sonobuoys and support for acoustic research from these annual cruises for the last 3 seasons.
•	Minke Whale Aerial Survey off Antarctica (under the AMMC): Using the Australian Antarctic Division's CASA aircraft, aerial surveys for minke whales will be carried out off Casey Station.  In particular, comparisons of densities of whales within and outside of the pack ice will be carried out in order to help assess discrepancies between abundance estimates from previous circumpolar SOWER cruises.
The results of some of AAD’s research programs relating to cetaceans are intended for presentation to the IWC Scientific Committee.  Projects that were presented at IWC60 (June 2008) in Australia’s country report on cetacean research include:
•	Whale satellite tagging:  This project involves deploying satellite telemetry transmitters on blue, humpback, and Antarctic minke whales.  The study focuses on the potential for overlap between east and west coast Australian humpback whales while in the Antarctic, and on elucidating the winter breeding regions of minke whales that summer in the Antarctic.
•	Humpback whale population structure: Through the isolation and characterisation of SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), and the application of microsatellite loci, population substructure within certain breeding stocks and also the distribution of these breeding stocks in Antarctic waters is being investigated.
•	Acoustic surveys of whales in Tasmanian & Southern Ocean waters: This project focuses on using underwater sound to monitor cetaceans throughout the Southern Ocean. Using passive acoustics, the project aims to shed light on marine mammal behaviour, distribution and habitat use and on whether eventually the techniques could be refined to be used in developing abundance estimates. 
The AMMC funds research projects that are not conducted under the auspices of the IWC, but which are relevant to the scientific work of the IWC. Current projects include:
•	Investigative development of minimally invasive means to gather demographic information in cetacea: A comprehensive comparative approach
•	Monitoring medium and large-scale movements of baleen whales using satellite telemetry
•	Abundance estimates of the east Australian humpback whale population
•	Genetic stock identification of southern right whales off the south coast of Australia: phase 2
•	New computerised fluke matching system for humpback whales 
•	Population status of Western Australian humpback whales, 2008 
•	Using unmanned aerial vehicles for surveys of marine mammals in Australia: test of concept
•	Humpback whales and the impact of noise: controlled exposure experiments
•	Population size and distribution of Western Australian pygmy blue whales
•	Population structure and sub-structure of Australian humpback whales

Outcome:	1	Question No:	96	
Output:	1.3	
Division/Agency:	Marine Biodiversity Division	
Topic:	Whale Envoy	
Hansard Page ECITA:	42 (29 May)	

Senator Birmingham asked:
Is there anything aside from Minister Garrett’s press release of 19 December that says what the envoy will do – anything written down anywhere?
Mr Borthwick—There has not been any announcement about the envoy or the details of how that envoy will operate.
Senator Birmingham—I was not asking whether there had been an announcement. I was asking whether there was anything written down anywhere saying what this person will do.
Senator Wong—The only information that I have is what I have provided you with. If there is anything further, we will provide that.

Answer:
The details of the role of an envoy have been a matter of discussion among Ministers.  DEWHA documents outlining the potential role of an envoy are in line with public statements by Ministers, which indicate:

A Special Envoy on Whale Conservation will convey our views to Japan by broadening and strengthening our dialogue, including at senior levels, between the two countries.  The Envoy will continue to advance Australia’s view that it is more beneficial to watch whales than to kill them in the name of ‘science’.  Along with this message, the Envoy will also promote Australia’s proposal for reform of the International Whaling Commission that was brought forward in June in Chile.

Outcome:	1	Question No:	97	
Output:	1.3	
Division/Agency:	Marine Biodiversity Division	
Topic:	Whale Envoy	
Hansard Page ECITA:	46 (29 May)	

Senator Abetz asked:
And I have been asking a question about whether people have been approached. The answer to that is ‘yes’. Am I allowed to follow up by asking how many people have been approached?
Mr Borthwick—I am unaware of how many people.
(a)	Senator ABETZ—Could you please take that on notice for me, so that we can get an answer to that? 
(b)	Can you also take on notice whether when they were approached they were given any semblance of a job description? If so, is the government willing to share that job description with this committee? You will take that on notice?

Answer:
The initial approaches to potential candidates were not performed by DEWHA.  The Department has consulted Minister Garrett’s Office which confirmed that the Government has held discussions with potential candidates regarding the appointment of a special envoy on whale conservation.  These discussions have reflected the Government's public commitment, emphasising the role of the envoy in conveying our views to Japan and increasing and strengthening dialogue at senior levels.

Outcome:	1	Question No:	98	
Output:	1.3	
Division/Agency:	Marine Biodiversity Division	
Topic:	Scientific Reference Panel – Identification of Representative Areas	
Hansard Page ECITA:	49 (29 May) 	

Senator Siewert asked:
Ms Petrachenko—They were reviewed by—I could have the terminology wrong—the scientific reference panel that was for the south-east. We got feedback from them and then revised them.
Senator SIEWERT—Who was on that group?

Answer:
On 7 July 2008 Ms Petrachenko wrote to Senator McEwen clarifying that the name of the group was the Scientific Peer Review Panel for the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (not the scientific reference panel).  The Panel was made up of the following members (with their affiliations at the time of invitation to the Peer Review Panel):

Dr Ian Poiner (chair)	CEO, Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS)
	
Mr Peter Farrell	Principal, Macro-Environmental Environment and Resource Consultants	
Professor Bruce Mapstone 	Professor, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology, University of Tasmania	
Dr Keith Sainsbury	Senior Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO Marine Research	
Dr James Stoddart	Adjunct Associate Professor Marine Science, School of Plant Biology, University of Western Australia	
Dr Trevor Ward	Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia	

Outcome:	1	Question No:	99	
Output:	1.3	
Division/Agency:	Marine Biodiversity Division	
Topic:	Resolution to fisheries appeal - negotiations	
Hansard Page ECITA:	52 (29 May)	

Senator Abetz asked:
I have two quick questions. The minister, Mr Garrett, issued a media release on 27 February 2008, ‘Resolution to fisheries appeal welcomed’. He refers in the second paragraph to the ‘negotiated outcome’. I was wondering whether on notice I could be provided with the details of the negotiated outcome, please.

On 27 February 2008 the minister issued a press release, ‘Resolution to fisheries appeal welcomed’. This was about the action by the Humane Society International on the SESSF, the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery.

Answer:
On 20 February 2008, the Tribunal made a consent decision to vary the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) Wildlife Trade Operation (WTO) by adding a number of conditions, which had been agreed to by all parties through mediation.

In addition to the six conditions already attached to the WTO, the following five conditions now apply to the SESSF’s export approval.

7.  AFMA to:
(1)	investigate and report back to DEWHA by 30 June 2008 on methods of reducing the capture and subsequent discard of the juvenile eastern gemfish within the Commonwealth Trawl Sector, including particular consideration of gear modifications and spatial closures, and review the utility of bycatch quotas; and
(2)	implement by 1 May 2009 effective measures identified in paragraph (1) to ensure the take of juvenile eastern gemfish is not impeding the rebuilding of the stock.

8.  AFMA, after considering advice from relevant experts, to develop and implement management measures, including fishery closures, that take account of site-specific issues and which seek to minimise the risks of interaction between fisheries regulated by AFMA and sea lions by 21 December 2009.

9.  AFMA to:
(1)	investigate and report back to DEWHA by 31 December 2008 on the extent and nature of seabird interactions in the trawl sectors of the SESSF and effective mitigation measures, including offal management;
(2)	in accordance with the findings of the report required by paragraph (1), develop and implement effective seabird mitigation measures to minimise interactions in the trawl sectors of the SESSF by 30 June 2009; and
(3)	operate the SESSF in accordance with the 2006 Threat Abatement Plan for the incidental catch (or bycatch) of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations.

10.  By 31 December 2008, AFMA to ensure statistically robust levels of ongoing observer effort (or other reliable method) to validate the nature and level of interactions by area, season and fishery for all bycatch species that are identified as high risk through ecological risk assessment processes.

11.  AFMA to:
(1)	investigate and report back to DEWHA by 31 December 2008 on the extent and nature of Harrisson’s dogfish interactions in all sectors of the SESSF; and
(2)	in accordance with the findings of the report required in paragraph (1) develop and implement effective mitigation measures including consideration of additional closures, to minimise interactions with each sector of the SESSF by 30 June 2009.

Outcome:	1	Question No:	100	
Output:	1.3	
Division/Agency:	NRMPD/AGNRM	
Topic:	Community Coastcare	
Hansard Page ECITA:	53 (29 May) 	

Senator Abetz asked:
This next question comes under Caring for our Country but it relates to Community Coastcare and the priority coastal hot spots. We are provided with a list of 12 hot spots. There are two in Tasmania—the Derwent Estuary and its catchment and the Pitt Water- Orielton Lagoon Ramsar site. I am not critical of their appearance in this list, but I am wondering why the Tamar Estuary was not considered worthy for inclusion on this list. I simply ask that question on notice as well. Can I be provided with some detailed assessment and hopefully not a reference to a Labor Party website? I would like to be given some detail as to why those two areas in Tasmania were selected and the Tamar Estuary was not selected.

Answer:
Caring for our Country Community Coastcare provides two levels of investment; small grants up to $50,000 and larger-scale grants up to $250,000 for community groups Australia-wide to undertake coastal restoration and preventative work.

Larger-scale activities must demonstrate a substantial contribution to national priorities in areas of high conservation value, such as nationally significant coastal wetlands and also demonstrate a substantial contribution to the protection of matters of national environmental significance in identified national coastal hotspot priority areas, threatened species and ecological communities. 

Twelve coastal hotspot locations were identified as priority areas for Community Coastcare larger-scale grants investment in the Caring for our Country transition year, 2008/09.

A coastal hotspot is defined as an area that:
1.	encompasses one or more matters of national environmental significance as defined under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act);
2.	is under pressure as a result of population growth and development, disturbance of acid sulphate soils, and water quality decline; and/or
3.	is suffering ecosystem disturbance leading to habitat loss and biodiversity decline.

For the 2008/09 transition year, the 12 priority coastal hotspot sites were identified on the basis of the above definition. In each of these 12 sites, coastal protection is already underway and stakeholders are well placed to build on existing work to deliver successful project outcomes. Targeting of investments will allow substantial and measurable change at key sites to be achieved and reported. 

In the transition year, an explicit decision was made to focus investment on sites whose significance had already been agreed with jurisdictions and where work was already underway. 

While the Tamar Estuary is under pressure and there are challenges associated with its management, priority was given to a site that had work underway (the Derwent) and a site that was a Ramsar wetland (Pitt Water-Orielton Lagoon).  A decision as to whether or not to add the Tamar to the list of hotspots will be made when the list is revisited at the end of the transition year.

Applicants are not precluded from putting in bids for large grants outside the coastal hotspots and these will be assessed on their merits.

Outcome:	1 	Question No:	101	
Output:	1.3 	
Division/Agency:	Marine and Biodiversity Division	
Topic:	Shark populations	
Hansard Page ECITA:	53 (29 May)	

Senator Siewert asked:
How much shark has been taken out of that fishery, do we know?
Answer:
The following data were extracted from the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries’ Annual Status Report 2007 – East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery. 

Commercial Harvest (tonnes)	
Species Group	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	
Shark	1280	1504	1284	959	916	
Ray	4	13	16	8	7	

The Annual Status Report also includes estimates of recreational catch of sharks and rays in the fishery, taken from the Recreational Fishing Information System (RFISH) diary surveys conducted in 2002 and 2005.

Recreational Harvest (tonnes)	
Species Group	2002	2005	
Shark and ray	212	104	

Outcome:	1	Question No:	102	
Output:	1.3	
Division/Agency:	Marine Biodiversity Division	
Topic:	Shark Fisheries	
Hansard Page ECITA:	54 (29 May) 	

Senator Siewert asked:
Senator SIEWERT—Do we export fins?
Ms Petrachenko—Yes, we do…
Senator SIEWERT—How much?

Answer:
The following data was provided by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service.  In the 13 months between 1 June 2007 and 30 June 2008 the following shark fin products were exported from Australia: 

•	Dry shark fin		  69,970 kg
•	Frozen shark fin		154,171 kg
•	Canned shark fin	  30,049 kg

Outcome:	1	Question No:	103	
Output:	1.3	
Division/Agency:	Marine Biodiversity Division	
Topic:	Shark Fisheries - correspondence	
Hansard Page ECITA:	54 (29 May)	

Senator Siewert asked:
I realise that you probably cannot tell me off the top of your head, but can you provide on notice the level of concern or the number of letters that you have been getting in about it, please?

Answer:
The Minister received the following quantities of letters between 1 March 2008 and 
30 June 2008. 

March		1
April		0
May		3
June		48