ISE03/19-20

• Incoming foreign animals or plants could threaten local habitats of a place if they are too resilient or invasive.^{1Legend symbol denoting Alien species become invasive because they (a) outcompete native species for food and habitat; (b) hunt or smother native flora and fauna resulting in extinction; (c) cause environmental degradation and loss of agricultural outputs; and (d) threaten human health. See Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (2008), European Environment Agency (2013) and The Biodiversity Consultancy (2019).} Globally, invasive alien species ("IAS") are estimated to have contributed to about three-fifths of global species extinctions since 1500.^{2Legend symbol denoting In view of the prolonged impacts to eco-system and human health from IAS, an international treaty - the "Convention on Biological Diversity" was signed in 1992. See the United Nations (1992).} Locally, while most of the alien species introduced into Hong Kong are harmless and have been well-integrated into the local environment, some are exerting significant adverse impacts on local ecology. This is manifested in the invasion of Red Imported Fire Ants ("RIFA") in the North District in 2005 and the spread of Mikania micrantha killing local plants on countryside in recent years.
• In December 2016, the Government announced the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan ("BSAP"), incorporating new measures to control IAS. However, there are concerns that these measures were too modest to mitigate the IAS risks and to preserve biodiversity.^{3Legend symbol denoting South China Morning Post (2018).} Also, Members have raised concerns over IAS at the Legislative Council on at least three occasions over the past three years.^{4Legend symbol denoting Over the past three years, two Council Questions on IAS were raised at the Council meetings of 22 February 2017 and 22 November 2017 respectively, while Members discussed IAS in a Council meeting on 29 May 2019. See GovHK (2017a and 2017b) and Legislative Council Secretariat (2019).}
• More governments across the globe have set up dedicated regulatory regimes to address the threats of IAS. These specifically include Australia which is endowed with unique and bountiful biodiversity, but has fallen victim to IAS over the past two centuries.^{5Legend symbol denoting Australia's geographically isolated eco-system is fragile and vulnerable to IAS. Over the past 200 years, incursion of IAS in Australia results in the highest rate of vertebrate mammal extinction in the world, and remains the biggest threat to native species and the agricultural sector. See Department of Agriculture (2019b) and Sheppard and Broadhurst (2019).} The Australian government responds with a multi-pronged counter-IAS strategy which is alleged to be one of the "most advanced" in the world.^{6Legend symbol denoting Genovesi et al. (2015) and Sheppard and Broadhurst (2019).} This issue of Essentials reviews the regulatory policies on IAS in Australia, after a brief discussion of those in Hong Kong.

Recent developments of counter-IAS policy in Hong Kong

• Biodiversity in Hong Kong: Though as one of the most urbanised city in the world with a small area of just 1 100 sq km, Hong Kong is home to as many as 5 700 species and some of which are endemic in the globe.^{7Legend symbol denoting For example, the number of hard coral species in Hong Kong surpasses that in the Caribbean Sea, while the variety of bird species outnumbers those in New York and London. Some endemic or globally threatened species in Hong Kong include Indo-pacific Finless Porpoise. See Environment Bureau (2016) and South China Morning Post (2017).} By virtue of its status as a global trading and transportation centre, many alien species from other places have also taken root in Hong Kong. Taking the existing stock of some 3 300 plant species as an illustration, one-third of them are foreign species. Most of these incoming species are naturalized into the local environment, without harmful effects.
• Recent local examples of IAS: However, a few alien species are highly resilient and aggressive, threatening survival of local plants and animals. One of such examples is RIFA (i.e. a dangerous kind of ants originated from South America which is identified as one of the 100 worst IAS in the world threatening human health), first spotted in Tin Shui Wai in January 2005, and soon spread to many parts of the territory in the next few months. The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") had to mobilize more than 1 000 staff to contain their developments.^{8Legend symbol denoting Red Imported Fire Ants bite human aggressively and repeatedly causing an itching and burning sensation, with chance to develop coma or even death. See立法會秘書處(2005年).} Another example is Red-eared Slider Turtles ("RST", i.e. an exotic pet originated from the southern United States which are often abandoned or mercy released in local water) have out-competed local turtles in food and nesting sites, resulting in massive decline of the latter in recent years.^{9Legend symbol denoting Red-eared Slider Turtles are one of the 100 worst IAS in the world. See GovHK (2015), Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (2019).} In recent decades, Mikania micrantha (i.e. an exotic climber plant originated from South America with high dispersal ability) has proliferated widely across local rural areas and country parks, blocking sunlight and covering up other plants. It halts the photosynthesis of local plants and is notoriously known as "plant killer".^{10Legend symbol denoting Mikania micrantha is also one of the 100 worst IAS in the world. See GovHK (2013 and 2015) and Legislative Council Secretariat (2016).}
• Existing counter-IAS policy: To combat IAS, AFCD mostly relies on regular inspection of country parks and sites of special scientific interest, followed by eradication if IAS is spotted.^{11Legend symbol denoting GovHK (2015 and 2017a).} While an import permit system on incoming species has been in place since 1936, it is primarily for pest control and quarantine, not for barring entry of IAS.^{12Legend symbol denoting Pursuant to the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Ordinance (Cap. 139), the Rabies Ordinance (Cap. 421) and the Plant (Importation and Pest Control) Ordinance (Cap. 207), a special permit/licence must be obtained for all imported animals and plants (except fruit and vegetables, plants produced in and imported from the Mainland, etc.) for entry to Hong Kong. Offender may be fined with a maximum of HK$10,000 and imprisoned for 6 months.} In November 2015, the Government declared categorically that it would not review these import regulations for IAS purpose, mainly due to concerns over "the potential impact" on "the society and economy".^{13Legend symbol denoting GovHK (2015).}
• New measures in the pipeline: In 2011, Hong Kong acceded to the "Convention on Biological Diversity", a global treaty aiming at conservation of biodiversity with a total of 196 signatories by now. In December 2016, the Government released the aforementioned BSAP, incorporating some new IAS measures. They include (a) establishing a local inventory of IAS by 2020; (b) identifying high-risk IAS by 2021; (c) encouraging research on IAS; (d) reviewing removal programmes on targeted IAS; and (e) stepping up public education on the adverse impacts caused by release of exotic species on local ecology.^{14Legend symbol denoting Environment Bureau (2016) and Advisory Council of the Environment (2018).}
• Issues of concerns: Despite these counter-IAS measures, there are doubts over their effectiveness, especially in view of occasional IAS incursion into local ecology.^{15Legend symbol denoting South China Morning Post (2018).} First, the Government does not have enforcement power over those IAS spotted in privately-owned land.^{16Legend symbol denoting Whitfort et al. (2013).} Secondly, while local inventory of IAS is scheduled to be available by 2020, there is no mechanism to pre-assess risks of IAS prevalent in other places yet established in Hong Kong and prevent their local encroachment. Thirdly, as the existing import permit system is not intended to tackle high-risk IAS, some of the worst IAS in the world (e.g. American Bullfrog and RST) are still licenced for entry into Hong Kong as food or pet. Also, they are not subject to regulation after entry into Hong Kong. Fourthly, public education is seemingly not effective to stop the public from releasing alien animals to the countryside.^{17Legend symbol denoting GovHK (2017b) and South China Morning Post (2018).} Against this backdrop, some concern groups call for tighter regulation over IAS.

Recent developments of counter-IAS policy in Australia

• Biodiversity in Australia: Australia is endowed with a highly diverse eco-system, containing as many as 600 000 species by now and 25% of which cannot be found elsewhere. However, the country has been a victim of IAS ever since the arrival of the European immigrants in the 18^th century. Over the past 300 years, some 3 200 exotic plants have been brought to and naturalized in Australia and about 84% of which is not harmful to the environment.^{18Legend symbol denoting When compared with other countries, Australia has very high levels of endemism (i.e. species found only in Australia), including: 46% of birds, 69% of mammals, 94% of amphibians, 93% of flowering plants and 93% of reptiles. See Invasive Plants and Animals Committee (2017b).}
• Detrimental effects of IAS: Nevertheless, hundreds of other alien species brought to Australia have dampened local ecology, resulting in extinction of some 100 native species in Australia over the last 200 years, one of the worst in the world. Taking feral cats as an example, their proliferation has caused extinction of some 20 species in Australia (given that it is the only country in the world which did not have native cats).^{19Legend symbol denoting Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2019).} By now, 264 alien species are classified as IAS in Australia, threatening altogether 1 257 native species. Taking account of both the loss in agricultural output and resources devoted to contain their spread, the annual economic cost of IAS is estimated to be A$13.6 billion (HK$72.5 billion), representing about 0.7% of GDP in 2019.^{20Legend symbol denoting Over 4 600 staff implemented federal biosecurity measures in 2018-2019. See Department of Agriculture (2019b) and Centre for Invasive Species Solutions (2018).}
• Regulatory framework in Australia: In 1999, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act ("EPBC Act") was enacted in Australia, followed by the Biosecurity Act in 2015. These two Acts provide a statutory basis for the government to (a) identify IAS in a timely manner; (b) formulate an early abatement plan; and (c) empower the enforcement agencies for IAS management. Furthermore, national strategies are formulated and reviewed to combat IAS on a decennial basis since 1997.^{21Legend symbol denoting Invasive Plants and Animals Committee (2017a and 2017b) and Inspector-General of Biosecurity (2019).}
• Institutionally, many departments at both the federal and state levels are responsible for counter-IAS actions. Taking the federal government as an illustration, Department of Agriculture is the lead enforcement agency on foreign species. It is supported by Department of Environment and Energy tasked with risk assessments of IAS for all imported live species. In 2009, an independent Inspector-General of Biosecurity was established, tasking with impartial evaluation of effectiveness of counter-IAS measures.^{22Legend symbol denoting Inspector-General of Biosecurity (2019).} Most recently in October 2018, a high-ranking position of Chief Environmental Biosecurity Officer was newly created, tasking with enhanced coordination amongst various federal departments in the fight against IAS. In 2017, the Australian government spent a total of A$1 billion (HK$5.3 billion) on counter-IAS strategy.
• Two statutory lists of alien species subject to entry regulation: Under the Biosecurity Act and a policy review in 2017, alien species are regulated by two major lists. First, there is a "white list" (or Live Import List), covering those alien species which have already passed the risk assessment and their imports are allowed. For those alien species not on the list, keeping, selling and releasing are legally prohibited in Australia and are subject to state penalties.^{23Legend symbol denoting Penalties vary across states. More stringent penalties are seen in New South Wales (a maximum fine of A$1.1 million (HK$5.9 million) and imprisonment for 3 years), and in Tasmania (a maximum fine of A$84,000 (HK$447,720) and imprisonment for 5 years).} Secondly, there is a "priority list of exotic environmental pests and diseases", targeting those alien species with higher IAS risks but have not yet established the footprints in Australia. This list helps strengthen early preparedness and emergency response capabilities of the Australian government. While the interim list now contains at least 42 organisms (e.g. RIFA and RST), the final list will be released by early 2020 which is also subject to periodic review.
• Preventive measures at the border: At the border, the Australian government pays special attention to IAS in its routine inspection of goods and conveyances on their arrival. A special surveillance programme sampling and identifying IAS has been implemented since 2016, with successful detection of 42 kinds of IAS during 2017-2018 in airports, ports and industry-run facilities. While a proposal to impose a new tax "Biosecurity Imports Levy" (A$10 (HK$53)) on each imported shipping container to recover implementation cost of biosecurity measures against IAS as from September 2019, it has been put on hold due to criticism from the logistics industry.^{24Legend symbol denoting The Biosecurity Imports Levy is estimated to raise A$305 million (HK$1.6 billion) during 2019-2022 for contributing to onshore surveillance, diagnostic, data analytics, research and adoption of new technology on IAS. See Department of Agriculture (2019a).} The Australian government is now "redesigning" the levy proposal.
• Remedial measures after entry of IAS: For those IAS manage to get into the territory, the Australian government has taken the following measures to get rid of them or contain their damage:
  
  

  (a)	Statutory abatement plans against IAS: Under the EPBC Act, the Australian government can declare key threatening process ("KTP") on endangered native species, as two-thirds of these KTPs are related to IAS. It is statutory for the government to formulate a follow-up threat abatement plan ("TAP") with necessary actions (e.g. research and management) to mitigate the threat;25Legend symbol denoting IAS being tackled by Threat Abatement Plans include rabbits, feral cats, feral pigs, European red foxes and unmanaged goats. See Department of the Environment and Energy (2019) and Inspector-General of Biosecurity (2019).
  (b)	Combating IAS in private properties: Under the Biosecurity Act, the government may declare Biosecurity Control Order to private goods or premises with unacceptable IAS risks. Biosecurity officers with authorized warrants can conduct inspection and eradication without consent, while land owners are also legally responsible for the control of IAS with public funding for building their management capacity;
  (c)	Innovative technology and research: The Australian government established a dedicated national research centre, staffed by over 100 research specialists focusing on IAS priorities like innovative management methods and community engagement. As such, Australia possesses globally state-of-the-art technologies such as biological control agents and gene-drive technology to control IAS;26Legend symbol denoting Centre for Invasive Species Solutions originally founded in 2004 is a publicly-funded national research institute for developing technologies and tools against IAS in Australia. Of these, biological control agents are insects or pathogens for the control of specific IAS, and shall be pre-assessed and approved by the Australian government to prevent the environment from negative impact. and
  (d)	Community engagement: For enhanced public education, biosecurity roundtable series were launched across Australia since 2016 for local communities to discuss IAS-related matters on a regular basis. A government website was also created in 2018 to educate the public on personal biosecurity measures in daily activities.

• Policy effectiveness: With this multi-pronged approach, the Australian government seems to be able to significantly mitigate the risks of newly arrived IAS on the one hand, and contain the spread of existing IAS on the other. For instance, RIFA once proliferating across Australia since 2001 are almost eradicated by now, after implementation of national programme utilising successful surveillance and techniques (e.g. traps, nest injection and detector dogs) which cost some A$800 million (HK$4.3 billion) during 2001-2018.^{27Legend symbol denoting Inspector-General of Biosecurity (2019).} While rabbit populations were reduced by 70% over the past 50 years, the success rate in controlling over 25 invasive plants via biological control hits 65%. As a majority of enforcement action reported with good or moderate progress (representing 73% of TAPs), there were only 16 prosecutions after the enactment of the Biosecurity Act in 2015.^{28Legend symbol denoting As revealed by the Senate of Australia, the damage already done by IAS is mostly due to those established in Australia long ago, partly reflecting the effectiveness of recent surveillance and risk-assessment against IAS at pre-border stage. See Parliament of Australia (2015).} With this success, Australia is rated as the leading country of biosecurity system in the globe.^{29Legend symbol denoting According to World Organisation for Animal Health in 2015, Australia scored full marks in 83% of the indicators assessing biosecurity system, specifically strong at governance, surveillance, enforcement, emergency response, technology and community engagement, leading amongst 130 countries evaluated. See World Organisation for Animal Health (2015).}

Prepared by LEUNG Chi-kit
Research Office
Information Services Division
Legislative Council Secretariat
25 November 2019