Pulu Keeling National Park, Cocos (Keeling) Islands

Biosecurity Plan

© Director of National Parks 2014

Director of National Parks GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601

Director of National Parks Australian business number: 13051 694 963

This report should be cited as: Director of National Parks (2014) Pulu Keeling National Park, Cocos (Keeling) Islands: Biosecurity Plan. Director of National Parks, Canberra.

A copy of the report is available online http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/national-parks/pulu-keeling-national-park.

Acknowledgements

The Director of National Parks wishes to acknowledge the stakeholders and individuals who contributed to the preparation of this plan.

Version History

VERSION DATE AUTHOR REASON FOR CHANGE First Draft September 2013 Colette Boraso Original document Final Plan December 2013 Colette Boraso Inclusion of minor updates and

corrections

1

CONTENTS

1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 5

2 LIST OF PROPOSED ACTIONS ........................................................................................... 7

3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 9

Rationale ................................................................................................................................... 9

Aim and scope .......................................................................................................................... 9

Performance measures ........................................................................................................... 10

4 Background information ....................................................................................................... 12

The Cocos (Keeling) Islands ................................................................................................... 12

Horsburgh Island .................................................................................................................... 12

North Keeling Island (Pulu Keeling National Park) .................................................................. 14

5 Biological invasions AND biosecurity ................................................................................... 16

Current research ..................................................................................................................... 16

Biological invasions ................................................................................................................ 16

Island biosecurity ................................................................................................................... 17

Regional context ..................................................................................................................... 18

North Keeling Island (Pulu Keeling National Park) .................................................................. 19

Horsburgh Island ..................................................................................................................... 21

Stakeholders .......................................................................................................................... 21

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development ....................................................... 21

Department of Agriculture ...................................................................................................... 22

Australian Customs and Border Protection Service ................................................................ 22

Australian Defence Force (Royal Australian Air Force) .......................................................... 22

Australian Federal Police ....................................................................................................... 23

Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire ................................................................................................ 23

2

Cocos (Keeling) Island Tourism Association & Cocos (Keeling) Island Resource Centre ....... 23

Port authority .......................................................................................................................... 23

Local community .................................................................................................................... 24

Pondok owners (Horsburgh Island) ........................................................................................ 24

6 Existing biosecurity arrangements ....................................................................................... 25

Biosecurity requirements for Australia’s Indian Ocean Territories ............................................ 25

Biosecurity management arrangements on Cocos (Keeling) Islands ....................................... 25

Current biosecurity management activity levels on Cocos (Keeling) Islands ........................... 27

Pulu Keeling National Park ..................................................................................................... 28

7 Risk assessment ................................................................................................................. 29

Pathways ................................................................................................................................ 29

Species risk analysis ............................................................................................................... 32

8 Threat prevention – black list species .................................................................................. 34

Prevention strategy ................................................................................................................. 34

9 Surveillance – high risk species ........................................................................................... 36

Surveillance measures ............................................................................................................ 36

10 Incursion response – target species .................................................................................... 38

Response decision making ..................................................................................................... 38

Response preparation ............................................................................................................. 38

Incursion response .................................................................................................................. 39

11 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 40

12 References .......................................................................................................................... 41

13 Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix A Key stakeholder contact details ............................................................................ 45

Appendix B Cocos (Keeling) Islands marine asset and threat matrix ....................................... 46

3

Appendix C Biosecurity risk assessments for PKNP and Horsburgh Island ............................. 47

Appendix C1 Biosecurity risk assessment – Siam weed ........................................................ 47

Appendix C2 Biosecurity risk assessment – Rodent species .................................................. 47

Appendix C3 Biosecurity risk assessment – Cottony urbicola scale & yellow crazy ant .......... 47

Appendix D Biosecurity procedures ........................................................................................ 47

Appendix D1 Procedures for rodent management .................................................................. 47

Appendix D2 Procedures for weed management ................................................................... 47

Appendix D3 Procedures for yellow crazy ant management ................................................... 47

Appendix D4 Threat prevention – field trip biosecurity checks ................................................ 47

Appendix E Biosecurity guide for tour operators and visitors to PKNP and Horsburgh Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands .......................................................................................................... 47

List of Figures

Figure 1 The Cocos (Keeling) Islands in relation to the Australian mainland and Indonesia ........ 13

Figure 2 North Keeling Island (Pulu Keeling National Park) ........................................................ 14

Figure 3 North Keeling Island camp and landing area ................................................................. 31

List of Tables

Table 1 The approximate number of exotic species on the southern atoll of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island ....................................................................................... 19

Table 2 Pest status of invasive species established in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and of potential concern to management of PKNP ................................................................................ 20

Table 3 Biosecurity import/export requirements for Indian Ocean Territories .............................. 26

Table 4 Australian Government biosecurity arrangements for Cocos (Keeling) Islands .............. 27

Table 5 Potential entry pathways to West Island ......................................................................... 29

Table 6 Potential entry pathways to North Keeling Island (PKNP) .............................................. 30

Table 7 PKNP Invasive species black list and watch list ............................................................. 33

Table 8 Surveillance methods for black list species .................................................................... 37

4

List of Abbreviations ACBPS Australian Customs and Border Protection Service CAMBA China–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement CBBR Cocos buff-banded rail CBBR RAP Cocos Buff-banded Rail Recovery Advisory Panel CKI Cocos (Keeling) Islands DAaF Department of Agriculture and Food (WA) DNP Director of National Parks DPaW Department of Parks and Wildlife (WA) ECD Ecological Character Description EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth) IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IWS Island Wide Survey JAMBA Japan–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement PKNP Pulu Keeling National Park (North Keeling Island) ROKAMBA Republic of Korea–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement RAAF Royal Australian Air Force SIEV Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel

5

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Emergent oceanic islands are generally ecologically unique as they are occupied by a suite of species that colonised from distant land masses serendipitously by natural dispersal. Their isolation, often over large spans of geologic time and a lack of natural predators, leads to a high degree of species endemism. Oceanic island ecosystems are fragile, vulnerable and highly susceptible to disturbance by invasive species because they are smaller in geographical area than continents and species occupy distinct niches. Therefore, the prevention of biological invasions is critical for oceanic islands that are managed for conservation, to preserve biodiversity and prevent the decline and extinction of endemic species.

Invasive species present complex policy, conservation management and operational challenges for national park management. Human induced biological invasions have occurred on many oceanic islands due to a lack of effective quarantine and have led to extinctions of endemic species, including on Christmas Island. North Keeling Island (Pulu Keeling National Park) located in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands chain, while low in terms of species endemism, has high conservation significance. This is primarily because it provides critical habitat for several seabird species, including an estimated 30,000 breeding pairs of the red-footed booby (Sula sula) as well as the endemic ground–dwelling Cocos buff-banded rail (Gallirallus philippensis andrewsi). North Keeling Island has not suffered the same degree of disturbance as the southern atoll of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, many other oceanic islands or parts of mainland Australia. This means it can be a yardstick against which changes to similar islands in the Indian Ocean can be measured.

Pulu Keeling National Park is a Commonwealth reserve under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and is managed by the Director of National Parks in accordance with the Act, the regulations made under it, and its management plan. The draft Pulu Keeling National Park Management Plan (in preparation) will highlight the need to develop and implement strict biosecurity strategies to assess and minimise the risk of biological invasion and the establishment of new invasive species and pathogens. These procedures have been developed to support these strategies.

The threat of biological invasion by exotic species exists and has the potential to negatively impact the biota of the park. There is an extensive range of threats on the southern atoll and further afield that could negatively impact upon the neighbouring park and the site of the translocation of the Cocos buff-banded rail, Horsburgh Island. Writing and implementing a biosecurity plan is a key step that will bolster the protection of the park’s natural values.

This biosecurity plan aims to provide an informed basis for future decision-making concerning possible improvements to biosecurity management of the park. Existing biosecurity arrangements have been examined to investigate the capacity to improve and increase the level of biosecurity. High risk species were evaluated and strategies for threat prevention and surveillance are recommended. Standard incursion response procedures have been written for Siam weed (Chromolaena odorata), cottony urbicola scale (Pulvinaria urbicola) and rodents. The standard operating procedures are designed to support park managers in preventing and preparing for biological invasions, including response decision making.

6

This biosecurity plan addresses the need to enhance biosecurity planning and response at multiple levels within park management in collaboration with a number of stakeholders. It sets out a comprehensive set of actions to address the threat of biological invasion and upgrade biosecurity management for Pulu Keeling National Park.

7

2 LIST OF PROPOSED ACTIONS

This biosecurity plan proposes the following actions to improve biosecurity management of Pulu Keeling National Park (PKNP) and, where applicable, Horsburgh Island.

Risk

ACTION 1 Undertake risk assessments to determine the likelihood of introduction and establishment of marine pests to PKNP.

Threat prevention strategies

ACTION 2 Signage—prepare additional signage in Cocos Malay (to complement the existing signs in English) to educate the community and visitors to PKNP and Horsburgh Island about the importance of quarantine. Signs to be erected at:

Rumah Baru on West Island

the Jetty on Home Island

all small vessel boat ramps on West and Home Islands

the launch beach near buoys on Horsburgh Island

the jetty on Direction Island.

ACTION 3 Education—undertake the following programs:

• 3.1 Changes to online content:

3.1.1 change the Parks Australia website and seek amendment of the Cocos Keeling Tourism Association website to include messages about the importance of quarantine/biosecurity

3.1.2 change the Parks Australia website, and seek amendment of the Cocos Keeling Islands Tourism Association website, to include visitor/tour operator guidelines (Appendix E to this biosecurity plan).

• 3.2 Amend Parks Australia permits for PKNP tour operators to include strong biosecurity conditions and requirements:

3.2.1 tour operations will remain low frequency and impact or may be restricted in frequency in future years to mitigate impacts to the values of the park. However, promoting the voluntary guides and practices at the contractor, operator and community level will ensure correct information is provided to potential visitors

3.2.2 Parks Australia staff to arrange the distribution of the visitor/tour operator guidelines before the 100th anniversary of the grounding of SMS Emden occurs in November 2014. Any special arrangements provided by Parks Australia during the anniversary period to cater for visitation should to be carefully managed to ensure proposed activities do not impact upon the values of PKNP.

8

• 3.3 Include an article in the Atoll to bring attention to the new biosecurity effort for PKNP and Horsburgh Island, including photographs and wildlife updates to enhance community interest.

• 3.4 Include periodic messages in the Atoll as required to maintain interest in biosecurity and PKNP conservation in the community.

• 3.5 Use the Cocos Keeling Resource Centre distribution list to send out important emails to the community.

• 3.6 Convene a community meeting to encourage vessel owners to adopt relevant threat prevention measures.

• 3.7 Fit out all Parks Australia vessels with biosecurity prevention tools (e.g. rodent baits, zip lock bags) and inspect before use.

Surveillance measures

ACTION 4 Undertake regular surveillance activities according to the methods and timelines outlined in biosecurity procedures (Appendix D to this biosecurity plan).

ACTION 5 Given the logistical constraints of accessing PKNP, explore and implement if feasible alternative/remote methods of surveillance.

ACTION 6 Carry out the following activities to facilitate the surveillance program on PKNP:

• 6.1 Translate the biosecurity procedures into Cocos Malay.

• 6.2 Undertake a stocktake of current available surveillance equipment and determine the levels of equipment needed to maintain ongoing surveillance programs, including increased monitoring following SIEV arrivals.

• 6.3 Transport surveillance equipment to PKNP for storage and maintain adequate stock levels on West Island.

• 6.4 Develop new biosecurity datasheets (based on biosecurity procedures) to record ongoing and opportunistic surveys.

• 6.5 Prepare laminated photo identification cards depicting:

high risk species (weeds, rodents, scale insect)

native flora of PKNP.

Incursion procedures

ACTION 7 Include in communications among Parks Australia staff details of a possible incursion, the outcome of the confirmation of the species, the agreed timeline for the response plan and any outcomes of control programs.

ACTION 8 Purchase adequate stocks of equipment to prepare for possible incursions.

ACTION 9 Assess, quantify and manage any unidentified or unacceptable impacts on non-target species arising from use of chemicals in incursion responses.

9

3 INTRODUCTION

Rationale

Preventing biological invasions and invasive species management in national parks is a policy, conservation management and operational challenge for protected area managers. The term biosecurity is used to describe the prevention measures put in place to prevent exotic species from establishing and controlling or extirpating native species (Broome 2007). When exotic invasive species arrive, relevant government agencies endeavour to work rapidly to prevent the species from establishing. A key goal is to protect remote high value nature reserve islands by implementing comprehensive quarantine, surveillance and contingency response systems (Broome 2007). Early and rapid responses to biosecurity threats is not only an effective conservation measure but is also the most cost-effective way of managing invasive species (IUCN 2000, Browne et al. 2009, McGeoch et al. 2010).

The purpose of island biosecurity (Pacific Invasives Initiative 2011) is to:

• keep the island free of target species that have been eradicated

• keep the island free of new invasive species

• prevent the export of invasive species from the island to other islands.

Pulu Keeling National Park (PKNP) is a Commonwealth reserve under the EPBC Act and is managed by the Director of National Parks (DNP) in accordance with the Act, the regulations made under it and the reserve management plan. Parks Australia, a division of the Department of the Environment, supports the DNP in managing Commonwealth reserves including PKNP. Priorities for the improvement of biosecurity for PKNP will be identified in the Pulu Keeling National Park Management Plan which is in preparation at the time this biosecurity plan was prepared. The draft management plan will also incorporate a range of performance indicators to assess whether its objectives have been achieved.

Horsburgh Island is not a Commonwealth reserve and is managed by the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire. Parks Australia works collaboratively with the Shire to meet shared management objectives for the island. In 2013 a number of threatened Cocos buff-banded rail (Gallirallus philippensis andrewsi) were translocated from PKNP, the site of the only remaining population, to Horsburgh Island to establish a second viable population.

Aim and scope

The aim and scope of this biosecurity plan have been informed by the actions stipulated in the draft management plan and follow accepted island biosecurity principles (IUCN 2000, Nias and Ball 2010, CII 2011).

The aim of this biosecurity plan is to:

develop and identify strict biosecurity strategies and procedures to assess and minimise the risk of the introduction and establishment of new invasive species and pathogens to Pulu Keeling National Park and where possible Horsburgh Island.

10

To address the management aim, this biosecurity plan has the following objectives:

• assess the likelihood of particular high risk species entering and the potential impacts should they enter, as well as likely entry pathways

• prepare standard operating procedures for staff and visitors to help reduce the likelihood of introducing species and pathogens when entering the park

• develop strategies to monitor for the early detection of species and pathogens that may enter the park

• develop strategies to rapidly control high risk species and where feasible eradicate likely or potential new invasive species detected in the park

• develop a community education program that highlights the importance of biosecurity at the park.

This biosecurity plan has been informed by a literature search on biosecurity and invasive species. The following strategies address the objectives identified above:

• assess existing biosecurity arrangements for the Indian Ocean external territories, specifically the Cocos (Keeling) Islands (CKI)

• conduct a risk assessment to determine which high risk species are likely to invade PKNP and Horsburgh Island and to identify their potential impacts

• describe ways to reduce the risk of invasions by highly threatening invasive species

• identify surveillance methods to be implemented at PKNP and Horsburgh Island to monitor and detect possible incursions

• set out a response plan of action if surveillance indicates a possible incursion.

The geographic scope of this biosecurity plan comprises the Pulu Keeling National Park and, in relevant sections, Horsburgh Island1

It is intended that this biosecurity plan be updated as new findings are made and/or revised approaches are recommended; the plan will also be reviewed and updated as necessary after any confirmed incursions.

which form part of the CKI, an Australian external territory. The plan covers high risk biological invasions in terrestrial and marine environments. However, it is not exhaustive and does not cover all taxonomic groups at present.

Performance measures

The draft Pulu Keeling National Park Management Plan establishes performance indicators for the management of PKNP. A Performance Monitoring Plan for the park describes measures and targets for performance assessment and reporting against the management plan indicators. The Director of National Parks Annual Report provides performance results for

1 Horsburgh Island is managed by the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire (not DNP). If adopted by the Shire and community, the management recommendations for PKNP could be applied to Horsburgh Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands more widely.

11

Commonwealth reserves against a number of the performance indicators described in management plans and the Department of the Environment Portfolio Budget Statement.

The following performance measures for invasive species, under the key result area Natural Heritage Management, are outlined in the draft management plan:

Value - The park contains internationally significant habitats and biodiversity.

1. The park’s natural values are protected and conserved

Objectives

2. There is a greater understanding of marine and terrestrial ecosystem diversity, processes, values and threats to inform conservation management decisions.

1. The terrestrial and marine ecosystems and ecologically significant species of the park are protected and conserved

Outcomes

2. Threats to the ecological integrity of vegetation communities and native species are controlled and mitigated.

1. Key threats including yellow crazy ant supercolonies and coral berry are reduced

Performance indicators

2. No new invasive species establish.

This biosecurity plan will help park managers to meet the targets set out in the draft management plan.

12

4 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Cocos (Keeling) Islands

The CKI (Figure 1) have been an external territory of Australia since 1955. The Islands are located in the Indian Ocean 2,950 km north-west of Perth, Western Australia, 3,700 km West of Darwin, and 900 km south west of Christmas Island (96º 50´East 12º 10´ South). There are 27 separate coral islands in the group with a total land area of approximately 14 km².

The CKI climate is tropical with high humidity. Temperatures range from 23°C to 30°C. The average rainfall is 2,000 mm per annum, falling mainly from January to August. The southeast trade winds blow most of the year.

The CKI rise 10 m above sea level and evolved through the combined forces of volcanism, subsidence and coral growth in isolation from the continental land masses (Misso and MacRae in press). The island group comprises two separate atolls connected by a submerged ridge at a depth of 700–800 metres: the southern atoll of 26 islands and North Keeling Island, which is located 24 km to the north of the southern group (Misso and MacRae in press). Together they comprise a single feature rising from the surrounding ocean floor (Director of National Parks 2004).

The settlement of the CKI commenced in the mid to late 1820s and two islands in the southern atoll are inhabited (Director of National Parks 2004). Home Island hosts the Cocos Malay community and West Island has some Cocos Malay residents, but its population is largely comprised of government employees and contractors and other residents together with their families. Most of the islands in the southern atoll are not inhabited permanently but are used for camping, walking and other recreational activities and are easily accessed by local vessels.

Horsburgh Island

Horsburgh Island, located north-west of Home, Prison and Direction Islands is a 1.04 km2

Figure 1

uninhabited island in the southern atoll ( ). Island visitation has reduced since the red-footed booby (Sula sula) was listed as a migratory species under the EPBC Act and the annual harvest concluded (R. Zaniel 2013, pers. comm., 10 Oct). Currently, Horsburgh is visited irregularly but frequently by local Cocos Malay residents who maintain their pondoks (holiday dwellings).

Apart from sporadic visits by a glass-bottom boat tour operator, there is no current tourism on the island (K. Keogh 2013, pers. comm., 10 Oct). There is potential for future nature based tourism activities such as bird watching on Horsburgh Island, especially if the small translocated population of the endemic Cocos buff-banded rail (CBBR) persists.

13

Figure 1 The Cocos (Keeling) Islands in relation to the Australian mainland and Indonesia

The CBBR is endemic to PKNP and listed as endangered under the EPBC Act. The national recovery plan for the CBBR (Commonwealth of Australia 2005) includes the need for a second viable population as a key recovery action (and in its performance criteria). Following a review of the recovery plan in February 2012, the CBBR Recovery Advisory Panel (CBBR RAP) was established to provide advice to Parks Australia about the translocation (Woinarski and Detto 2013). Between 5 and 17 April 2013, 39 CBBRs were released onto Horsburgh. The island appears to have never supported rats (Rattus spp.), which are one of the main threats to the species. It also contains suitable habitat for the CBBR including expansive grasslands and two closed lagoons (Woinarski and Detto 2013). The ongoing aim of the conservation effort is to build a second self-sustaining population on Horsburgh and where possible prevent the introduction of species known to predate on the CBBR.

14

North Keeling Island (Pulu Keeling National Park)

The northern atoll of the CKI, North Keeling Island (Figure 2), is uninhabited and one of the few remaining relatively pristine tropical islands in the Indian Ocean region. The island is managed by the DNP as PKNP which was proclaimed in December 1995 as Australia’s sixth Commonwealth national park (Director of National Parks 2004). The relative remoteness of the island and the difficult of safe access is the principal reason North Keeling has escaped the range of environmental changes experienced by the islands of the southern atoll.

Figure 2 North Keeling Island (Pulu Keeling National Park)

15

The island is a low lying oceanic coral atoll with an area of 1.2 km2

Director of National Parks 2004

. As well as North Keeling Island, PKNP includes Commonwealth marine waters extending out 1.5 km from the island’s high water mark ( , Misso and MacRae in press). PKNP contains rare original ecosystems (forest, wetland/lagoon, coastal) that provide critical habitat for threatened and migratory birds and other fauna. The island has an important role in preserving examples of the natural features of the CKI as they would have occurred prior to human disturbance. The park’s management contributes to the protection and conservation of its unique natural and cultural values as outlined in the draft management plan.

PKNP has many unique natural and cultural values. The entire park is listed as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention and the EPBC Act (Director of National Parks 2013). It contains internationally significant habitats and biodiversity and contains relics and remains from human activities undertaken early in the last century, and the internationally significant SMS Emden shipwreck (Director of National Parks 2004). In order to support the purpose for which PKNP was declared, the conservation of its values and its ecological character, PKNP must be managed consistently with the assigned IUCN categories, Australian Ramsar management principles and other obligations under the EPBC Act. The island’s natural values include:

• the last significant remnant of the original CKI plant communities

• importance as a significant seabird rookery in the Indian Ocean that contributes to its Ramsar listing (Hale 2010). It contains 24 species of resident and migratory waterbirds including 15 species that are listed under international migratory bird agreements CAMBA (13), JAMBA (13) and ROKAMBA (7) all of which are listed under the EPBC Act (Misso and MacRae in press)

• provision of critical habitat for the endemic CBBR and the last viable population (NB: translocated population on Horsburgh is not yet considered self-sustaining)

• nesting habitat for green turtles (Chelonia mydas)

• a marine area containing diverse fish fauna including hybrid fish (Parks Australia 2013).

The terrestrial area of PKNP, including the central lagoon, is assigned to Australian International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reserve management category Ia (strict nature reserve) and the marine area of PKNP is assigned to the category II (national park) (Director of National Parks 2013).

PKNP meets six of the listing criteria under the Ramsar Convention (Hale 2010): is in a near natural condition; has never been permanently inhabited by humans; supports threatened species; supports species populations important for maintaining the biological diversity of a biogeographic region; supports native species at a critical stage in their life cycles, particularly breeding seabirds; and regularly supports one percent or more of the global population of one species or subspecies of waterbird (Misso and MacRae in press).

16

5 BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS AND BIOSECURITY

Current research

Biological invasions

Most of the world's ecosystems have been impacted by the introduction, establishment and spread of species outside of their home range (Williamson 1998, Parker, Simberloff et al. 1999, Perrings 2005). Humans have been the main vectors of biological invasion, via transport, trade, travel and other activities (Floerl and Inglis 2005, Rout et al. 2011). Not all species that are transported and introduced are able to establish in their new environment (Floerl and Inglis 2005). Nevertheless, biological invasions represent a global pervasive environmental threat (Floerl and Inglis 2005).

The IUCN recognises that biological invasions are a serious threat to biodiversity, species and ecosystems across the world (IUCN 2011). The effects of alien invasive species on biodiversity have been described are “immense, insidious and usually irreversible” (IUCN 2000). In recent decades, biological invasions have become one of the major drivers of biodiversity loss in the world and account for more extinctions worldwide than any other agent (EEA 2010). One-third of bird species listed in the IUCN Red List, six per cent of mammals, and 11 per cent of amphibians are now considered threatened by invasive species (EEA 2010). The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity states that parties to the convention should “prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate, those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species” (Veitch and Clout 2002). The ongoing priority is to minimise the risk of further extinctions; prevent new invasions; and eradicate existing invasive species where possible (Veitch and Clout 2002).

Additional to the ecological threat and degradation of natural assets, biological invasions also have direct impacts upon many other sectors, including economic development, health, agriculture, tourism and trade (Nias and Ball 2010). The European Environment Agency has recognised this and is aiming towards a pan-European early warning and rapid response system to tackle biological invasions (EEA 2010). The IUCN is combating the issue by setting up a number of groups and initiatives under the umbrella of the Global Invasive Species Programme which aim to build capacity, facilitate cooperation and enhance capacity to prevent and manage invasive species on islands (CII 2011). In Australia, stakeholders have identified the need to develop a National Island Biosecurity Initiative to develop a consistent approach and standards for Australia’s island biosecurity (Nias and Ball 2010).

Islands contain unique ecosystems that are inherently prone to extinction from external influences and are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of biological invasion (Nias and Ball 2010). Human transport is the most probable pathway for invasive species that are unlikely to be introduced without human assistance (CIEWG 2010). Biological invasions have been identified as the main cause of extinctions in island ecosystems (Veitch and Clout 2002, CIEWG 2010). Generally, islands with unique values that are situated in close proximity to inhabited islands are categorised as high biosecurity risks (Nias and Ball 2010).

17

Island invasions allow the effects of invasive species to be studied in detail (Neville et al. 2008). This means that the biological drivers of change and ecosystem function can be determined in a controlled environment (Neville et al. 2008). The isolation of islands also allows scientists to examine the interactions between flora and fauna and the patterns of colonisation of invasive species (Neville et al. 2008).

Island biosecurity

Biosecurity strategies are vital because they enable managers to plan to protect wildlife, ecosystems and the environment from biological threats before they occur (Meyerson and Reaser 2002). Experiences in other regions of the world underline the need to prioritise the establishment of appropriate biosecurity structures. In the past, biosecurity plans and protocols have explored the feasibility, costs and benefits of managing invasions and ways to improve detection and elimination techniques (Broome 2007). All frameworks that have led to positive outcomes in terms of prevention and response to biological invasions have created a coordination system (EEA 2010). Due to their isolation, eradication followed by ongoing biosecurity procedures and quarantine can work well on islands in comparison to mainland sites which require alternative management strategies (Broome 2007). Additionally, eradication can provide many benefits for biodiversity conservation. Some benefits include new opportunities for ecological restoration and reintroducing a threatened species (Veitch and Clout 2002).

Prevention and eradication

It is widely accepted that the cornerstones of biosecurity are quarantine/prevention, detection/surveillance and control or eradication/response (Simberloff et al. 2005, Hulme 2006, Nias and Ball 2010, Rout et al. 2011). Extinction of island species is irreversible but rigorous planning, techniques and sustained effort can lead to the prevention and/or reversal of biological invasions if they are caught in the early stages, especially if the population is confined to the island (Veitch and Clout 2002).

There are a set of conditions which should be followed when aiming to eradicate an invasive species (Simberloff 2002, Veitch and Clout 2002):

• undertake proper biosecurity planning

• know the biology and reproductive success of the target organism

• predicting any unwanted secondary impacts to non-target species

• put the entire target species population at risk

• eradicate faster than the species can reproduce

• know the target organism’s reinvasion potential and prevent reinvasion .

Successful management of invasive species requires in-depth preparation and planning. In order for an eradication project to be successful, managers must gain the support of stakeholders by demonstrating the benefits of the eradication programme (Veitch and Clout 2002). It is also important to have access to sufficient economic resources, clear lines of authority and commitment to the project (Simberloff 2002). In America a lack of policy,

18

research, management funding and gaps in scientific knowledge has resulted in the failure of efforts to prevent and eradicate invasive species (Simberloff et al. 2005). With fundamental research into biology, ecology, control techniques and other areas these challenges can be met (Simberloff et al. 2005) to the benefit of ecosystems worldwide (Hulme 2006).

Generally, invasive mammal species are much easier to eradicate than plants and insects (Veitch and Clout 2002). Moreover, plants often require longer-term campaigns and can be just as damaging as the rapid impact of many mammal species (Veitch and Clout 2002). Regardless of taxonomic group, the likelihood of success is greater when the invasion is detected early (Simberloff 2002) which highlights the importance of having effective preventative measures, a surveillance system and a plan for how to respond to incursions.

Regional context

Australia has enjoyed a high degree of protection from biosecurity risks because of natural advantages including relative geographical isolation, the absence of shared land borders and a border-focused system of biosecurity (DAFF Biosecurity 2012). However, invasive species, such as, foxes, cats, rats and rabbits, have caused local extinction of native terrestrial mammals on approximately 40 of Australia’s continental islands (Nias and Ball 2010). Government departments, environmental managers and conservationists in Australia are facing escalating pressure to address the problems of biological invasion (Hulme 2006).

On Christmas Island, a neighbouring Indian Ocean Territory, there has been an ecological cascade, driven mainly by a mutualistic association between introduced scale insects and the introduced yellow crazy ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes) (Nias and Ball 2010). Reports (CIEWG 2010, Nias and Ball 2010) outlined how the impact of yellow crazy ants, along with other invasive species, have contributed to the likely extinction of the Christmas Island pipistrelle (Pipistrellus murrayi) and could be threatening the island’s terrestrial reptiles and bird species. In areas of the island where yellow crazy ants form supercolonies they attack the island’s keystone species, the Christmas Island red crab (Gecarcoidea natalis) and have caused their decline (CIEWG 2010). The local extirpation of the red crab from discrete parts of the island has been shown to have catastrophic effects, resulting in a change in vegetation structure (CIEWG 2010).

On Macquarie Island seabirds were threatened by rats, rabbits and mice and there is a costly eradication project has been undertaken (Nias and Ball 2010). Five species of birds and at least 13 species of invertebrates are extinct on Lord Howe Island due to introduced rats and mice and the estimated cost of eradicating them is approximately $8 million (Nias and Ball 2010). In the subantarctic, Heard Island has three introduced animal species and a weed (Nias and Ball 2010).

On more than 50 Australian islands, eradication has been successfully undertaken for six invasive species, the black rat, house mouse, rabbit, fox, feral cat and goat (Nias and Ball 2010). Weed control has had varied results and prevention is preferable, as eradication may only be an option in the absence of ‘non-target’ species that may be affected by the methods (Nias and Ball 2010). It has been shown that quarantine measures are the best option and eradications are not cost-effective if there is a high likelihood of reinvasion due to lack of quarantine (Nias and Ball 2010).

19

North Keeling Island (Pulu Keeling National Park)

Research (Nias and Ball 2010) states that islands with unique values which are also located in close proximity to inhabited islands are a high priority for biosecurity planning. The relatively close geographical proximity of North Keeling Island and Horsburgh Island to the southern atoll presents a biosecurity challenge because of the increased possibility of incursions. The following table shows the approximate number of exotic plants and animals present on neighbouring islands (Table 1).

Table 1 The approximate number of exotic species on the southern atoll of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island

Location Exotic plants Exotic animalsCocos (Keeling) Islands southern atoll

1 69 15

Christmas Island 175 100 Total 1

Numbers are indicative only and are subject to change since data were collected

The protection of PKNP against biological invasion is paramount. The current exotic pest status in the CKI is below in Table 2. Some survey work and control programs have been conducted on West, Direction and Home Islands with varying levels of success:

• ongoing feral cat control on West and Home Islands by the Cocos (Keeling) Shire

• Siam weed control on West and Home Islands by WA Department of Agriculture and Food (DAaF)

• rat control on Direction Island by WA Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW)

However, the pest status of many invasive species is unclear due to the lack of data.

The 2004-2011 Pulu Keeling National Park Management Plan Technical Audit highlighted concerns about the increased distribution and abundance of existing exotic species at North Keeling (Director of National Parks 2010). Indian copperleaf (Acalypha indica)

, limeberry (Triphasia trifolia), wild gooseberry (Physalis minima), pig weed (Portulaca oleracea), pawpaw (Carica papaya) and coral berry (Rivina humilis) are all documented weed species. Coral berry and yellow crazy ants are prime examples that show the potential for exotic species to become invasive on PKNP. The park’s vulnerability to the incursion of selected new exotic species is explored in this biosecurity plan through adoption of a risk assessment approach.

20

Table 2 Pest status of invasive species established in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and of potential concern to management of PKNP

Invasive pest status

Island

2 Direction

1

Home Horsburgh North Keeling South West

Feral cat X X X Junglefowl X X X X X Feral goat X House mouse X X X X Rabbit X Rattus spp. X X X X Siam weed X X X Yellow crazy ant X White-breasted waterhen

X X X X X

1 Not all islands are listed here. It is assumed that the smaller islands of the southern atoll have similar pest status due to close proximity. 2

Current status of other invasive species not clear.

The long-term cost of invasive species control programs and the ongoing monitoring effort highlight the importance of having preventative biosecurity strategies in place. The Australian Government has invested resources in controlling some of the weed species on PKNP. A Caring for our Country program grant project was undertaken at the park between 2009 and 2013. The project funded a series of weed management activities that aimed to protect the park from the impacts of established weed species (Commonwealth of Australia 2013). The results of weed surveys undertaken as part of the 2012 Island Wide Survey (IWS) were variable (Detto 2012). They showed that some weed species had declined in distribution whereas others had increased (Detto 2012). The ongoing threat of established weed species on PKNP demonstrates why preventing the incursion of invasive species is preferable to ongoing systematic control programs.

No new invasive species were detected during the 2010 Technical Audit, but the incursion threat continues to be of concern (Director of National Parks 2010). There are many pathways for potential introduction of exotic species to PKNP. Recent examples are the ongoing threat from Suspected Illegal Entry Vessels (SIEV) (three SIEVs landed and were wrecked in mid to late 2012) and the possibility of biosecurity incursion resulting from illegal use (fishing, hunting) of PKNP resources (Commonwealth of Australia 2013).

The draft management plan indicates that the introduction of new invasive species by visitors to PKNP (both legal and illegal) and the increase in distribution and abundance of existing invasive species remain key threats to natural ecosystems in PKNP. Although visitation is low, the potential introduction of new invasive species by park visitors needs to be managed. Therefore visitation must be managed in line with the principles of PKNP’s assigned IUCN classification as a strict nature reserve.

21

Illegal visitor access has the potential to negatively impact the values of PKNP and interfere with their protection and preservation. It is possible that invasive species could be unknowingly transported to PKNP and remain undetected because of the limited opportunities for surveillance.

Horsburgh Island

The threat of biological invasion on Horsburgh Island is of concern because it contains the translocated population of the endemic CBBR (Hill et al. 2008, Woinarski and Detto 2013). The island also contains native vegetation protected under Schedule 12 of the EPBC Act. The national recovery plan for the CBBR noted that biosecurity in the CKI is limited despite adequate legislative powers and protection (Commonwealth of Australia 2005). The recovery plan recommended a review of quarantine arrangements to determine if adequate protection is provided to the CBBR on Horsburgh.

The island currently supports some invasive species Table 2 whose population numbers and current status are largely unmonitored. One objective of the recovery plan was to ensure that the island targeted for reintroduction remains free of all major threats, which include cats (Felis catus) and rats (Rattus spp.) (Commonwealth of Australia 2005). In the future, if these invasive species were accidentally or deliberately introduced, control programs would be essential for the protection of the CBBR (Commonwealth of Australia 2005). Such programs would be costly as well as logistically and technically challenging. Consequently, preventing such introductions is a far more effective and efficient strategy.

Stakeholders

It is important that implementation of this biosecurity plan is supported by all of the necessary stakeholders. Currently, Parks Australia works in collaboration with many stakeholders and organisations to strengthen and develop partnerships, use whole-of-government approaches, and address regional conservation issues and other issues of mutual interest. Community and stakeholder involvement in PKNP management will continue under the new management plan.

Maintaining established relationships with stakeholders and having ongoing support will be vital to the successful implementation of this plan. The support will come largely on a voluntary/community basis and raising the profile of biosecurity issues is important so that interest is maintained. Communication about this biosecurity plan has been undertaken with a number of key contacts via face to face meetings, email and phone. In the future, articles in the fortnightly Atoll newsletter will be a main source of communication between Parks Australia and the community. A list of stakeholder contact details are at Appendix A and each of the key stakeholders are mentioned below.

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

The CKI Territory is non self-governing and the Commonwealth provides State Government type services as well as Federal Government services. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development administers the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 and provides the legislative basis for the administrative, legislative and judicial systems in the CKI.

22

Department of Agriculture

The Department of Agriculture administers the Quarantine Act 1908. This legislation deals with quarantine and biosecurity matters in relation to animal, plant and quarantine. The department’s main office in the region is on Christmas Island but a presence on the CKI (West Island) is also maintained. Staff inspect sea vessel and aircraft arrivals to ensure compliance with biosecurity import/export requirements and prevent new biological invasions.

Australian Customs and Border Protection Service

The Coastwatch Program of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS) protects Australia’s borders from the entry of illegal and harmful goods, the threat of illegal fishing, the entry of unauthorised people and plays a role in environmental protection (ACBPS 2010). ACBPS vessels operate out to and beyond Australia’s 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, in coastal waters and in commercial and recreational ports and harbours. The Maritime Operations Support Branch has overall command of the Customs and Border Protection Marine Unit and provides personnel and logistic support to combat illegal activity in Australia’s waters.

ACBPS responds to SIEV landings on the CKI including PKNP where, in 2012, three SIEVs landed with people seeking asylum. Joint patrols of PKNP with PKNP and ACBPS staff have also been conducted. Information sharing and orientations about PKNP have also occurred for ACBPS staff. This has resulted in effective responses to SIEV landings, closer working relationships with ACBPS and the effective and efficient use of Commonwealth resources in the region. Parks Australia also prepared procedures to respond to SIEV landings on PKNP, in consultation with the AFP and the ACBPS.

Australian Defence Force (Royal Australian Air Force)

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is a defence group under the Department of Defence. The RAAF contributes to the Australian Defence Force’s whole-of-government effort (Operation Sovereign Borders) to protect Australia’s borders and offshore maritime interests (DoD 2013). Patrol aircraft operate from the RAAF Base in Darwin providing aerial surveillance of Australia’s north-west and northern approaches in Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone which extends up to 200nm around the Indian Ocean Territories.

The RAAF uses the West Island airport intermittently as a refuelling station and undertakes sweeps of key locations to protect Australia’s maritime domain from security threats including illegal arrivals, compromises to biosecurity, illegal activity in protected areas (including PKNP), illegal exploitation of natural resources and marine pollution (DoD 2013). These operations are vital to the detection of potential SEIVs that have landed at or are travelling in the vicinity of the park.

Currently, the main role of the RAAF on West Island is to maintain the communications station on the southern point and liaise with the local authorities as needed. There is the possibility that the RAAF may increase its presence in the CKI from late 2014.

23

Australian Federal Police

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) is responsible for the delivery of community policing services to Australia's External Territories, including the CKI. A permanent police contingent of AFP community policing officers have served in Cocos since 1992 (Calatzis 1999). The AFP's role is diverse with a variety of functions including customs and immigration services, and emergency services management (Calatzis 1999). This includes the provision of customs procedures on behalf of the ACBPS (GHD 2008).

In 2012, the AFP coordinated rescue operations at PKNP in response to the three SIEV landings. Parks Australia staff liaise with the AFP as a first point of contact regarding such issues and the AFP contact relevant authorities if further assistance is required.

Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire

North Keeling Island is leased to the DNP by the CKI Shire (the local shire). The lease agreement provides for a community management committee (the Pulu Keeling National Park Community Management Committee) to advise the DNP in relation to the preparation of management plans for the park and matters that arise in relation to management plans, such as this biosecurity plan. Parks Australia liaises with the Shire on matters of mutual interest. The Shire has expressed willingness, where possible, to collaborate in regards to future recommendations for the management of Horsburgh Island that may arise from this biosecurity plan (P. Clark 2013, pers. comm., 10 Oct).

Cocos (Keeling) Island Tourism Association & Cocos (Keeling) Island Resource Centre

The CKI Tourism Association provides visitors with information about experiences and tours in the CKI; Parks Australia is a member of the Tourism Association. The association is the first port of call for most visitors and there are opportunities to provide pamphlets and relay messages about the significance of PKNP and Horsburgh Island via the association’s website (K. Keogh 2013, pers. comm., 10 Oct). It is important that the relationship with the Association is maintained for mutual benefit if opportunities arise for tourists to visit PKNP or Horsburgh Island in the future.

The CKI Resource Centre is an information hub on the island. It publishes the fortnightly Atoll newsletter that keeps the community up-to-date with the latest news and information (K. Edwards 2013, pers. comm., 10 Oct). The centre also maintains a distribution list used to send out critical messages to the community at short notice.

Port authority

The Attorney-General’s Department developed a new freight handling and passenger transport facility at Rumah Baru on the West Island of the CKI in 2012 (GHD 2008). The port manager is in charge of all port operations. One of the management objectives of the port authority is to ensure that quarantine facilities remain in adequate condition to cater for the quarantine requirements of the CKI and make certain that non-native species are not introduced to the islands (GHD 2008).

24

Local community

The level of support amongst the local community (Home and West Islanders) is relatively high in relation to conserving the natural state of PKNP and other aspects of the CKI natural environment (e.g. conservation of marine turtles and the translocated CBBRs on Horsburgh Island). There are outreach projects conducted to educate the community about the work of Parks Australia staff. Generally, community members are comfortable approaching Parks Australia staff to seek information, for permits or to resolve problems.

Pondok owners (Horsburgh Island)

There are a number of pondoks (holiday dwellings) spread throughout the Islands of the southern atoll, including on Horsburgh Island, the destination of the translocated CBBR. Pondoks are owned by Cocos Malay community members and have been in family ownership for generations. Parks Australia staff have liaised with pondok owners to gauge the level of support for potential management activities on Horsburgh in collaboration with the Shire to prevent the spread of rats.

25

6 EXISTING BIOSECURITY ARRANGEMENTS

Identifying existing biosecurity arrangements at national and local levels is critical to the success of implementation of this biosecurity plan. The Australian Government and their supporting agencies work together at national and local levels to provide biosecurity/quarantine services. This biosecurity plan outlines the relevant authorities and their current roles and responsibilities. Australia’s current approach to managing the risk of incursions of exotic pests and diseases is multi-layered, involving complementary measures applied along the biosecurity continuum offshore, at the border and onshore (DAFF Biosecurity 2012).

Biosecurity requirements for Australia’s Indian Ocean Territories

Formal biosecurity procedures were put in place for the Indian Ocean Territories in 1994 with the appointment of a quarantine officer via the then WA Quarantine Inspection Service and funded by the Australian Government, through the predecessor to the current Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development which has overall responsibility for administration of Australia’s non-self-governing territories.

The Australian mainland, Christmas Island and the CKI all have complex and unique ecosystems with different pest and disease status due to the geographic distances between them (Commonwealth of Australia 2013). As a precaution, the import and export requirements of the Department of Agriculture differ depending on the location and plant/animal life and the pests and diseases present at the origin and the destination of the goods (Table 3). Additionally, all goods entering the Indian Ocean Territories must

Commonwealth of Australia 2013 be clean and free from any

contamination, including soil, insects, pests and diseases ( ).

Biosecurity management arrangements on Cocos (Keeling) Islands

In 2004, the Quarantine Act 1908 (the Act) was extended to the CKI by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 2004. The extension of the Act to the CKI was in accordance with the Australian Government's policy to align conditions and standards in the Indian Ocean Territories with those of comparable communities in the rest of Australia.

The Quarantine Proclamation 1998 (“the Mainland Proclamation”) had dealt with declarations and prohibitions for both Australia and the Indian Ocean Territories. With the extension of the Act to the CKI, the Australian Government chose to create separate proclamations for each territory in the interests of transparency and ease of use. The Quarantine (Cocos Keeling Islands) Proclamation 2004 (“the Cocos Keeling Islands Proclamation”) created a separate proclamation for the CKI that reflects its unique pest and disease status. Key differences from the other proclamations focus on restricting the importation of crustaceans (primarily crabs) and their products from all sources including mainland Australia as well as a less restrictive approach to some plant commodities, as their importation poses a reduced risk to animal and plant health given the absence of agricultural industries on the CKI. A summary of the import controls for the CKI imposed by the proclamation is in Table 3.

26

Table 3 Biosecurity import/export requirements for Indian Ocean Territories

Locations

CommoditiesPermit required

1 Not allowed 2

Biological (animal or microbial derived products)

Live Animals (including live fish)

Live Plants

Crabs (raw)

Eggs (raw)

Nuts (raw)

Meat and Products (raw)

Non-milled rice

Soil Non-bottled water

Used bee keeping equipment

Australian Mainland to Christmas Island

X X X X X X X X

Christmas Island to Cocos Islands

X X X X X X X X X X

Cocos Islands to Christmas Island

X X X X X X X X

Overseas countries to Christmas Island

X X X X X X X X X X

Overseas to Cocos Islands X X X X X X X X X X X 1 Commodities are under constant review by the Department of Agriculture and are subject to change at any time. 2 http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/travel/biosecurity-requirements

27

Current biosecurity management activity levels on Cocos (Keeling) Islands

Australian Government agencies on the CKI undertake a number of pre-border and at-border activities (Table 4). Major biosecurity risk pathways for the CKI are passenger movement (including local people, government officials and tourists); importation of air and sea cargo; and the arrival of vessels and aircraft, including SIEVs. The policies and procedures for managing the biosecurity risk posed by these pathways are consistent with those used nationally, with variations that reflect the differences in the animal and plant health status of the CKI.

Table 4 Australian Government biosecurity arrangements for Cocos (Keeling) Islands

Agency Roles/responsibilities Director of National Parks Manage PKNP in accordance with EPBC Act

requirements and the management plan (in an operational sense this includes responding to potential biosecurity breaches, including responding to the impacts of SIEV activity in and surrounding PKNP)

Australian Customs and Border Protection Service

Respond to SIEV landings in the CKI region including if/as needed on PKNP

Department of Parks and Wildlife (WA) Department of Agriculture and Food (WA)

Provide advice for and where possible support invasive species eradication programs

Department of Agriculture Quarantine (Cocos Islands) Proclamation 2004* Quarantine Act 1908*

Quarantine risk profiling and physical inspections (air and sea transport pathways) Import/export clearance Issue of import permits Monitoring compliance with ‘top of descent’ residual spraying of international plane arrivals (RAAF, private charter) Administration of the Quarantine Act 1908 Mosquito vectoring/monitoring Physical inspection of mail

Australian Federal Police Assist Department of Agriculture with quarantine inspections Assist in responding to SIEV landings in the CKI region including if/as needed on PKNP

Port Authority Assist in quarantine management, including wash down for containers and other vessels docking at the Rumah Baru freight handling and passenger transport facility

* Legislation administered by the Australian Government department

28

Pulu Keeling National Park

The quarantine/biosecurity risks to PKNP are twofold with the main concerns originating from authorised visitation and illegal access, including SIEVs. Legal visitor access to PKNP occurs under permit and/or with park staff. On PKNP, visitors are generally restricted to beaches and existing walking routes with the exception of park staff and contractors. Current quarantine arrangements for all visitors include the thorough cleaning of equipment and continued prohibition of boat access to terrestrial areas of PKNP (Director of National Parks 2010). Statistics of illegal visitation to PKNP are currently unknown but frequency is thought to be low because sea conditions that allow access for smaller sea vessels are rare. However, this apparent low level of illegal visitation still poses a biosecurity risk.

The ACBPS respond to SIEV landings on the CKI with assistance as required from the AFP and other government departments. Between January 2012 and October 2013 there were 91 (79 in 2012, 12 in 2013) SIEV arrivals at the CKI (ACBPS 2013, pers. comm., 14 Nov).

In mid to late 2012 three SIEVs landed and wrecked on PKNP. Collectively they carried up to 70 people who remained undetected for an undetermined period of time due to the remote location of PKNP and infrequent surveillance. There are a number of key issues associated with SIEV landings. However, the increased threat to the natural values of PKNP from the potential introduction of invasive species is the paramount concern for the conservation of PKNP’s natural values.

Draft joint operational guidelines between the DNP and ACBPS have been prepared in response to the threats and risks posed by the SIEV arrivals to PKNP but as of December 2013 are yet to be formally adopted. The draft guidelines outline the following proposed responsibilities:

• DNP has the primary responsibility for managing and addressing conservation issues associated with SIEV landings on PKNP and the ecological integrity of the park. Where needed and possible, the DNP may seek the support and advice of ACBPS for addressing issues, particularly for joint surveillance patrols and the disposal of wrecked SIEVs.

• ACBPS has the primary responsibility for SIEV surveillance and responding to landings or their presence, including the retrieval of illegal asylum seekers from PKNP and disposal of SIEVs at sea. As needed, ACBPS may seek the support of the DNP, for instance in regard to reporting SIEV activity in and around PKNP and the CKI if and when detected.

Regardless of the draft guidelines, it is foreseeable that there could be further SIEV landings or illegal foreign fishing activity at North Keeling Island either intentionally or by accident. This further highlights the ongoing need to manage biosecurity issues at PKNP.

29

7 RISK ASSESSMENT

In developing this biosecurity plan, a predictive analysis was undertaken to determine the level of threat to PKNP from biological invasion by selected species. The analysis included the following:

• determination of potential entry pathways for invasive species and the likelihood of the entry of invasive species through these pathways

• identification of high risk species (the black list)—invasive species not yet present that have been shown through risk assessment to pose high risk to PKNP and for which it is recommended to apply surveillance efforts, implement prevention measures and respond to incursions by recording expansion and impacts or executing control measures according to the biosecurity procedures

• identification of medium risk species (the watch list)—invasive species not yet present that may pose a risk to PKNP for which it is recommended that surveillance efforts be applied to enhance response in the case of incursion.

Pathways

Invasive species can arrive via three mechanisms: trade, transport vectors and natural spread (Hulme et al. 2008). Potential entry pathways to West Island, Horsburgh Island and PKNP have been identified and are listed in Table 5 and Table 6. The tables summarise origin locations, determine pathway proximity and outline potential conveyance methods via air, sea and natural dispersal.

Table 5 Potential entry pathways to West Island

Origin Pathway Conveyance1 Air Sea Natural3

Australian Mainland (Perth, Broome, Darwin, Fremantle) via Christmas Island

Domestic Domestic passenger Government charter Cargo Private jet

Shipping container RAN vessel Govt. vessel Customs vessel Yacht, Rig

N

Australian Mainland (direct)

Domestic Private jet

as above N

South East Asia via shipping (e.g. Singapore, Malaysia

International N

Shipping container N

Other international destinations (including Indonesia, Sri Lanka)

International Private jet RAAF

Yacht SIEV N

1Y= yes, N= no, P= possible

2

Dispersal methods could include but are not limited to: floating on sea, windblown, swimming, transport in feathers/fur

30

Table 6 Potential entry pathways to North Keeling Island (PKNP)

Origin Pathway ConveyanceAir

1 Sea Natural

Australian Mainland (Darwin)

2 Domestic N Govt. vessel

Customs vessel N

Horsburgh Island, South Island

Local 3 N

Local vessel Govt. vessel Yacht

P

Home Island Local 3

N

Parks vessel Tour charter Local vessel Govt. vessel

P

West Island Local 3

N

Parks vessel Tour charter Local vessel Govt. vessel

P

Direction Island Local 3 N Yacht Rig P

Other international destinations (including Indonesia, Sri Lanka)

International

3 N

SIEV

N

1Y= yes, N= no, P= possible

2 Dispersal methods could include but are not limited to: floating on sea, windblown, swimming, transport in feathers/fur 3

Origins which provide likely pathways to Horsburgh Island

Figure 3 depicts the camp and small boat or swimming landing area on North Keeling Island. The “landing area” is a sheltered beach on the western side of the island. It is the only safe area to land and is used by Parks Australia staff on field trips to PKNP. Feasibly, unauthorised entries could occur along any of the PKNP coastline.

For the purpose of developing biosecurity procedures, the local pathways identified in Table 5 and Table 6 have informed the risk rating in the high risk species risk analyses. The international and domestic pathways listed above are not covered in great depth by this assessment. Although several high risk species may be present at domestic and international origins.

31

Figure 3 North Keeling Island camp and landing area

32

Species risk analysis

Predictive risk analyses have been completed for terrestrial species to determine the level of risk to PKNP from incursion threats. The risk analyses are split into two components:

• rapid assessments for species considered low to medium risk

• detailed assessments for species known to be high risk.

These analyses identify the threat or level of risk of incursion/biological invasion at the individual species level. The results of the risk analyses were used to prioritise the level of threat prevention, surveillance and incursion response. Each high risk species has been placed on a black list and has a corresponding biosecurity procedure (threat prevention, surveillance, incursion response).

Detailed risk analyses were prepared for:

• Siam weed (Chromolaena odorata)

• cottony urbicola scale (Pulvinaria urbicola)

• yellow crazy ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes)

• rats (Rattus spp.)

• house mouse (Mus musculus).

Rapid risk assessments were prepared for:

• grader grass (Themeda quadrivalvis)

• gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus)

• common sensitive plant (Mimosa pudica)

• leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala)

• cane toad (Rhinella [Bufo] marina)

• domestic/feral cat (Felis catus)

• red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) and green jungle fowl (G. varius)

• white-breasted waterhen (Amaurornis phoenicurus).

Determining the level of threat to the marine area of PKNP is challenging due to the lack of long-term data for the condition of the marine environment. A workshop (Parks Australia 2013) was held to determine marine assets and threats for the CKI. The asset and threat matrix at Appendix B provides an indicative (but not complete) threat assessment. It shows that the majority of species and habitat types could be negatively impacted by introduced species and disease. Aquatic invasive species have not been included in detail in this assessment as most human activity occurs in the terrestrial area of the park. However, this biosecurity plan recognises that private and small craft vessels do have the potential to spread aquatic invasive species (Minchin et al. 2006). It is proposed (ACTION 1) that risk

33

assessments be undertaken to determine the likelihood of introduction and establishment of marine pests.

The overall risk was determined using a risk matrix. The overall risk score will be used to prioritise prevention, surveillance and response effort and management decision-making for PKNP. If needed, it may also provide advice for future invasive management of mammals (e.g. rats) on Horsburgh Island. The results of the risk analyses are found in Appendix C and overall risk ratings are in Table 7.

Table 7 PKNP Invasive species black list and watch list

Black list

Species Overall risk rating Common sensitive plant VERY HIGH Cottony urbicola scale Yellow crazy ant

HIGHEXTREME

Grader grass HIGHVERY HIGH House mouse VERY HIGH Leucaena VERY HIGH Ship rat VERY HIGH Siam weed VERY HIGH EXTREME Watch list Species Overall risk rating Cane toad LOWVERY HIGH Domestic cat MEDIUMHIGH Junglefowl MEDIUM White-breasted waterhen MEDIUM 1

Refer to individual risk assessments for impact descriptions

34

8 THREAT PREVENTION – BLACK LIST SPECIES

Preventing invasions is better than responding to them because it eliminates the impacts entirely (Hulme 2006, Rout et al. 2011). The main principle of biosecurity threat prevention is to place multiple barriers along the pathways of introduction to reduce the movement of invasive species onto islands (CII 2011). Because of the range of potential impacts to flora and fauna and to the values of the park, threat prevention2

Moore et al. (

is a high priority for PKNP.

2010) modelled scenarios with differing quarantine and surveillance efforts to determine how much effort should be invested. The studies showed that prevention measures are preferable if the impacts to the environment would be considerable and eradication expensive (Moore et al. 2010). This biosecurity plan recognises that preventative management eliminates the problem at its origin, results in the most desirable environmental outcome and is cost-effective (Browne et al. 2009).

Prevention strategy

Parks Australia staff have the greatest opportunity to influence their own existing management actions. The following threat prevention measures establish two barriers between areas containing black listed invasive species and PKNP:

1. Prevent transport to PKNP—controls aim to prevent the transport of invasive species from places where they are established to PKNP:

a. educating park staff, visitors and tour operators b. developing improved inspection, packing and transportation procedures and methods

for persons, equipment and vehicles leaving the areas where high risk species are present.

2. On arrival at the island—controls aim to prevent the arrival of species to PKNP by establishing and maintaining recommended prevention activities.

Threat prevention strategies have been prioritised for species rated very high to extreme in the risk analyses. The biosecurity procedures (Appendix D) aim to prevent incursions using quarantine and surveillance to reduce the threat of biological invasion on PKNP.

In addition to the biosecurity procedures, this biosecurity plan proposes that the following threat prevention measures be implemented in the CKI:

• ACTION 2 Signage—prepare additional signage in Cocos Malay (to complement the existing signs in English) to educate the community and visitors to PKNP and Horsburgh Island about the importance of quarantine. Signs to be erected at:

Rumah Baru on West Island

the Jetty on Home Island

2 The risk of incursion by SIEVs and other illegal entry cannot be prevented. Threat prevention measures are assigned to prevent incursions from visitors entering with current permits.

35

all small vessel boat ramps on West and Home Islands

the launch beach near buoys on Horsburgh Island

the jetty on Direction Island.

• ACTION 3 Education—a number of programs are proposed:

3.1 Changes to online content:

3.1.1 change the Parks Australia website3 and seek amendment of the Cocos Keeling Tourism Association website4

3.1.2 include on the Parks Australia website and seek inclusion on the Cocos Keeling Islands Tourism Association of visitor/tour operator guidelines (Appendix E to this biosecurity plan).

to include messages about the importance of quarantine/biosecurity

3.2 Amend Parks Australia permits for PKNP tour operators to include strong biosecurity conditions and requirements:

3.2.1 tour operations will remain low or there may be no visits over the next few years. However, promoting the voluntary guides and practices at the contractor, operator and community level will ensure correct information is provided to potential visitors

3.2.2 Parks Australia staff to arrange the distribution of the visitor/tour operator guidelines before the 100th

3.3 Include an article in the Atoll to bring attention to the new biosecurity effort for PKNP and Horsburgh Island, including photographs and wildlife updates to enhance community interest.

anniversary of the grounding of SMS Emden occurs in November 2014. Any special arrangements provided by Parks Australia during the anniversary period to cater for visitation should to be carefully managed to ensure proposed activities do not impact upon the values of PKNP.

3.4 Include periodic messages in the Atoll as required to maintain interest in biosecurity and PKNP conservation in the community.

3.5 Use the Cocos Keeling Resource Centre distribution list to send out important emails to the community.

3.6 Convene a community meeting to encourage vessel owners to adopt relevant threat prevention measures.

3.7 All Parks Australia vessels will be fitted out with biosecurity prevention tools (e.g. rodent baits, zip lock bags) and inspected before use.

3 http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/cocos/index.html

4 http://www.cocoskeelingislands.com.au/home-7/pulu-keeling-national-park

36

9 SURVEILLANCE – HIGH RISK SPECIES

Surveillance increases the chances of early detection and eradication (Mehtaa et al. 2007, Rout et al. 2011). It is important that incursions are detected so management responses can be implemented to minimise the risk of establishment of an invasive species on PKNP. Timely response will decrease the opportunity for an invasive species to cause damage and, if controlled, will limit the need for ongoing expense (Rout et al. 2011).

Surveillance measures

This Biosecurity Plan proposes that regular surveillance be undertaken in accordance with the methods and timelines outlined in the biosecurity procedures and summarised in Table 8 (ACTION 4). Given the logistical constraints of accessing PKNP, alternative/remote methods of surveillance need to be explored and implemented if feasible (ACTION 5). Each species on the black list has been assigned a surveillance method to detect incursions. As resources are limited, surveillance efforts will focus on the following groups of species, which are likely to have the greatest impacts to PKNP’s values. As biological differences between each group are inherent, individual surveillance systems have been designed for each to efficiently target surveillance as suggested by Jarrad et al. (2011).

The sooner an arrival is detected (while numbers are small) the cheaper the immediate response (Rout et al. 2011). If eradicated the ongoing cost of a control program will be avoided. The biosecurity procedures

This biosecurity plan proposes the following list of activities be undertaken to enable the surveillance program on PKNP (ACTION 6):

guide decision processes, clarify roles and responsibilities and provide a dedicated structure to ensure a competent response to invasions.

• 6.1 Translate the biosecurity procedures into Cocos Malay.

• 6.2 Undertake a stocktake of the current stock of available surveillance equipment and determine the levels of stock needed to maintain ongoing programs and after SIEV arrivals.

• 6.3 Transport stock to PKNP for storage and maintain adequate stock levels on West Island.

• 6.4 Develop new biosecurity datasheets (based on biosecurity procedures) to record ongoing and opportunistic surveys.

• 6.5 Prepare laminated photo identification cards depicting:

high risk species (weeds, rodents, scale insect)

native flora of PKNP.

37

Table 8 Surveillance methods for black list species

Invasive species Surveillance methodRodents

1,2

House mouse 1. Each visit—detecting rodent species:

a. during visits record any opportunistic sightings

b. search for rodent activity (e.g. droppings, nibbling, nests) in and around the shed and igloos

c. maintain long-term rodent bait stations with cameras in and around the landing site

2. Annually—undertake a comprehensive ink card survey to detect rodent activity

3. If/when new SIEVs arrive—mark the location of the landing and set up a baiting array as outlined in the biosecurity procedures

Ship rat

Insects Cottony urbicola scale 1. Each visit—detecting scale species:

a. during visits record/photograph any opportunistic sightings of scale insects

2. Annually—undertake a comprehensive survey to detect new scale species, specifically cottony urbicola scale and monitor crazy ant activity (using, where possible, Christmas Island National Park IWS methods)

Yellow crazy ant

Weeds Common sensitive plant 1. Each visit—detecting weed species:

a. PKNP landing area sweeps

b. random checks of high traffic transit routes on PKNP

c. ongoing monitoring of 2012 SIEV landing sites

d. ongoing monitoring of sites where a new species was detected

2. Annually—undertake a comprehensive weed survey to detect new weed species

3. After new SIEV arrivals—mark the location of the landing and include in list of ongoing monitoring sites for each visit

NB: use exotic plant identification card to determine species. Take a photo and specimen sample to West Island for conclusive identification.

IMPORTANT: ensure ready access to a clean water source for mixing glyphosate if an incursion is detected.

Grader grass Leucaena Siam weed

1

Mehtaa et al. 2007

The probability of detecting the targeted species is increased by allocating resources towards surveillance programs. However, having the program in place does not guarantee rapid detection of an incursion as unknown factors could reduce the likelihood of detection ( ). 2

Occasional surveillance is recommended for Horsburgh as it is considered lower priority than PKNP. Horsburgh Island is easily accessed from Home/West Island due to its close proximity.

38

10 INCURSION RESPONSE – TARGET SPECIES

Regardless of how comprehensive and effective prevention and surveillance approaches are, there is always a chance that a species will be introduced (Hulme 2006). Incursion response (or timely control/eradication) aims to eliminate newly-arrived invasive species before they can multiply and establish (Meyerson and Reaser 2002, Rout et al. 2011). Successful eradication of invasive species on islands has occurred in the past and is increasingly being practiced around the world as methods improve and costs decrease with experience (Nias and Ball 2010). Having response protocols in place reduces the magnitude of impact caused by different stages of a biological invasion (Rout et al. 2011).

Response decision making

As part of this biosecurity procedures for incursion response have been developed. They detail:

• the process that should be followed to confirm whether an incursion has occurred • the subsequent plan of action to respond • peoples responsible for decision making and undertaking the itemised tasks.

In addition to the processes in the biosecurity procedures, communications among Parks Australia staff will include details of a possible incursion, the outcome of the confirmation of the species, the agreed timeline for the response plan and any outcomes of control programs (ACTION 7).

Response preparation

In developing the incursion response, the operational capacity has to be taken into consideration and best practice approaches were modified from those existing if possible or developed where necessary. In relation to the possible biosecurity enhancements, this biosecurity plan has identified procedures that are relatively cost-neutral as well as some response measures which will inevitably have resource implications. However, as the primary goal is to develop environmentally sound techniques to control and eradicate incursions some increased costs are inevitable5 Meyerson and Reaser 2002 ( , Buhlea et al. 2005).

Timely response requires tested response plans in place, and resources ready for action (Tye 2009). Establishing incursion response readiness/capability, including making equipment available, is critical to the success of any biosecurity management system (Nias and Ball 2010). Therefore, it is vital that PKNP purchase adequate stocks of equipment to prepare staff for invasive species incursions (ACTION 8).

5 Often when adding economic considerations the optimal strategy can shift or be modified to recognise organisational capacity and priorities.

39

Incursion response

The biosecurity procedures provide a plan that will guide staff in their response to incursions and in the implementation of agreed response procedures. There is a biosecurity procedure for each species/group of species that is under surveillance. They identify roles and describe the response actions/activities and methods as well as the equipment required.

All incursion response controls have been chosen to minimise the impacts to the species and ecosystems of PKNP. Chemical use in the park is limited and application only occurs if there is threat to the park’s values (e.g. weed control). Of the few chemicals recommended for use by this biosecurity plan, most have been used in the park in the past. If unidentified and unacceptable impacts on non-target species (e.g. land crabs, seabirds, CBBR) occur, this biosecurity plan proposes that they be assessed, quantified and managed (ACTION 9). Parks Australia could consider the temporary removal of species, temporary enclosure, varying bait application rates, applying a repellent, using tamper-proof bait stations and if possible varying the time of application. If the methods in the biosecurity procedures are modified, the biosecurity procedures should be amended to reflect the changes. However, in any assessment, the risks of taking no action to control introduced species will need to be weighed up with the risks posed by chemical control in terms of overall environmental benefit.

40

11 CONCLUSION

Human induced biological invasions have occurred on many oceanic islands, including Christmas Island and the CKI, due to a lack of effective quarantine. On Christmas Island, invasive species have led to the decline and extinction of endemic species. PKNP has high conservation significance and the island has not suffered the same degree of disturbance as the southern atoll, many other oceanic islands or areas of mainland Australia. North Keeling Island is a yardstick against which changes to similar islands in the Indian Ocean can be measured and it provides critical habitat for several seabird species, including an estimated 30,000 breeding pairs of red footed boobies, as well as the endemic ground-dwelling Cocos buff-banded rail.

Biological invasions and invasive species present challenging policy, conservation management and operational challenges for Parks Australia. The draft Puua Keeling National Park Management Plan (in preparation) highlights the need to develop and implement strict biosecurity strategies to assess and minimise the risk of biological invasion and the establishment of new invasive species and pathogens to PKNP.

There is a number of recommendations arising from the biosecurity assessment (Appendix F). Risk assessments were completed that showed the park is at high risk from invasion by a number of species, including Siam weed and other weeds, cottony urbicola scale and rodents. The standard operating procedures are designed to support Parks Australia staff in preventing, preparing for and responding to biological invasions. Visitor and tour operator guidelines have also been drafted and, if adopted, will reduce the chances of invasive species being introduced to PKNP.

This biosecurity plan helps address the need to upgrade biosecurity management for PKNP at multiple levels within park management in collaboration with a number of stakeholders. It contains a template for future decision-making by the DNP concerning possible improvements to biosecurity management in PKNP and potentially for other national parks. Encompassing threat prevention, surveillance and incursion response recommendations, the framework is critical to the future preservation and conservation of the island’s threatened and migratory species and its values.

41

12 REFERENCES

ACBPS (2010). Northern patrol vessel – acv triton. Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.

Broome, K. (2007). Island biosecurity as a pest management tactic in New Zealand. Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species: Proceedings of an International Symposium

Browne, M., S. Pagad and M. De Poorter (2009). "The crucial role of information exchange and research for effective responses to biological invasions."

. G. W. Witmer, W. C. Pitt and K. A. Fagerstone. National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO. 2007., USDA/APHIS/WS. Paper 4: 104-107.

Weed Research

Browne, M., S. Pagad and M. d. Poorter (2009). "The crucial role of information exchange and research for effective responses to biological invasions."

49(1): 6-18.

Weed Research

Buhlea, E. R., M. Margolisb and J. L. Ruesinka (2005). "Bang for buck: cost-effective control of invasive species with different life histories."

49: 6-18.

Ecological Economics

Calatzis, D. S. M. (1999). "Cocos (Keeling) Islands policing "

52: 355-366.

Platypus Magazine June. Retrieved 3 October, 2013, from http://www.afp.gov.au/media-centre/publications/platypus/previous-editions/1999/june-1999/cocos.aspx.

CIEWG (2010). Final Report of the Christmas Island Working Group to the Minister for Environment, Protection, Heritage and the Arts, The Chrismas Island Expert Working Group.

CII. (2011, 18 August). "Cooperative Islands Initiative." Retrieved 17 September, 2013, from http://www.issg.org/cii/.

Commonwealth of Australia (2005). National Recovery Plan for the Buff-banded Rail (Cocos (Keeling) Islands) Gallirallus philippensis andrewsi. Canberra, Department of the Environment and Heritage.

Commonwealth of Australia (2013). Annual Report 2012-2013 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Canberra, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2013, 09 August). "Biosecurity requirements for Australia's Indian Ocean Territories." Retrieved 11 September, 2013, from http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/quarantine/australias-indian-ocean-territories/biosecurity-requirements.

DAFF Biosecurity (2012). Reform of Australia’s biosecurity system. Canberra, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Detto, T. (2012). Pulu Keeling National Park Island-Wide Survey, Final Report Internal report, Director of National Parks.

Director of National Parks (2004). Pulu Keeling National Park Management Plan. Darwin, Commonwealth of Australia.

42

Director of National Parks (2010). Pulu Keeling National Park Management Plan 2004-2011 Technical Audit, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

DoD. (2013). "Border Protection Air Force Involvement." Retrieved 3 October, 2013, from http://www.airforce.gov.au/Operations/Border-Protection/?RAAF-xT0MyPljhubrOLzEN/CTtK9OSfI4b3LF.

DoD. (2013). "Border Protection General Information." Retrieved 3 October, 2013, from http://www.defence.gov.au/op/borderprotection/general.htm.

EEA (2010). Towards an early warning and information system for invasive alien species (IAS) threatening biodiversity in Europe. EEA Technical report

Floerl, O. and G. J. Inglis (2005). "Starting the invasion pathway: the interaction between source populations and human transport vectors."

, European Environment Agency.

Biological Invasions

GHD (2008). Rumah Baru-Freight and Passenger Facilities, Cocos (Keeling) Islands Environmental Management Plan. unpublished, Report to the Attorney-General's Department.

7: 589-606.

Hale, J. (2010). Ecological Character Description for the Pulu Keeling National Park Ramsar Site. Canberra, Report to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

Hill, B., J. Reid and R. Heinsohn (2008). Development of a Translocation Protocol for the Endangered Cocos Buff-banded Rail through the Application and Refinement of Wildlife Management Techniques, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

Hulme, P. E. (2006). "Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions." Journal of Applied Ecology

Hulme, P. E., S. Bacher, M. Kenis, S. Klotz, I. Kühn, D. Minchin, W. Nentwig, S. Olenin, V. Panov, J. Pergl, P. Pysek, A. Roques, D. Sol, W. Solarz and M. Vilà (2008). "Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy."

43: 835-847.

Journal of Applied Ecology

IUCN (2000). Guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss due to biological invasion. Gland, Switzerland., IUCN – The World Conservation Union.

45: 403-414.

IUCN. (2011, 9 November). "Invasive species." Retrieved 17 September, 2013, from http://www.iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/esaro/what_we_do/invasive_species/.

Jarrad, F. C., S. Barrett, J. Murray, R. Stoklosa, P. Whittle and K. Mengersen (2011). "Ecological aspects of biosecurity surveillance design for the detection of multiple invasive animal species." Biological Invasions

McGeoch, M. A., S. H. M. Butchart, D. Spear, E. Marais, E. J. Kleynhans, A. Symes, J. Chanson and M. Hoffmann (2010). "Global indicators of biological invasion: species numbers, biodiversity impact and policy responses."

13: 803-818.

Diversity & Distributions 16(1): 95-108.

43

Mehtaa, S. V., R. G. Haight, Frances R. Homansa, S. Polaskya and R. C. Venettec (2007). "Optimal detection and control strategies for invasive species management." Ecological Economics

Meyerson, L. A. and J. K. Reaser (2002). "Biosecurity: Moving toward a Comprehensive Approach."

61: 237-245.

BioScience

Minchin, D., O. Floerl, D. Savini and A. Occhipinti-Ambrogi (2006). Chapter 6: Small craft and the spread of exotic species.

52(7): 593-600.

The Ecology of Transportation: Managing Mobility for the Environment

Misso, M. and I. MacRae (in press). "The conservation management of Pulu Keeling National Park: challenges and perspectives."

. J. Davenport and J. L. Davenport. Netherlands, Springer.

The Raffles bulletin of zoology

Moore, J. L., T. M. Rout, C. E. Hauser, D. Moro, M. Jones, C. Wilcox and H. P. Possingham (2010). "Protecting islands from pest invasion: optimal allocation of biosecurity resources between quarantine and surveillance."

.

Biological Conservation

Neville, P. J., D. J. O’Dowd and A. L. Yen (2008). "Issues and implications for research on disturbed oceanic islands illustrated through an ant survey of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands."

143: 1068-1078.

Journal of Insect Conservation

Nias, R. C. and D. Ball (2010). A National Island Biosecurity Initiative: A proposal to build ecosystem health and resilience on Australia's islands through improved biosecurity, WWF Australia, Reef Catchments NRM, Birds Australia, Invasive Species Council.

12: 313-323.

Pacific Invasives Initiative (2011). Guidelines on Biosecurity.

Parker, I. M., D. Simberloff, W. M. Lonsdale, K. Goodell, M. Wonham, M. H. Williamson, B. Von Holle, P. B. Moyle, J. E. Byers and L. Goldwasser (1999). "Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders." Biological Invasions

Parks Australia (2013). Indian Ocean Territories Marine Conservation Research Workshop May 2013 - Workshop Report. Christmas Island.

1: 3-19.

Perrings, C. (2005). "Mitigation and adaptation strategies for the control of biological invasions." Ecological Economics

Rout, T. M., J. L. Moore, H. P. Possingham and M. A. McCarthy (2011). "Allocating biosecurity resources between preventing, detecting, and eradicating island invasions."

52: 315-325.

Ecological Economics

Simberloff, D. (2002).

71: 54-62.

Today Tiritiri Matangi, tommorrow the world! Are we aiming to low in invasives control?

Simberloff, D., I. M. Parker and P. N. Windle (2005). "Introduced species policy, management, and future research needs."

Turning the tide of biological invasion: the potential for eradicating invasive species, University of Auckland, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Tye, A. (2009). Guidelines for invasive species management in the Pacific : a Pacific strategy for managing pests, weeds and other invasive species. Apia, Samoa, Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme.

3(1): 12-20.

44

Veitch, C. R. and M. N. Clout (2002). Preface

Williamson, M. (1998). Measuring the impact of plant invaders in Britain.

. Turning the tide of biological invasion: the potential for eradicating invasive species, University of Auckland, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group.

Plant Invasions. Ecological Mechanisms and Human Responses

Woinarski, J. and T. Detto (2013). Translocation of the Cocos Buff-Banded Rail from Pulu Keeling to Horsburgh Island, April 2013. Canberra, Report to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Commonwealth of Australia 2012.

. S. Starfinger, Edwards, K., Kovarik, I., Williamson. Backhuys, Leiden.

45

13 APPENDICES

Appendix A

Appendix A

Name

Key stakeholder contact details

Organisation Phone Email Brad Rayner WA Department of

Agriculture and Food (weeds)

08 9753 0310 brad.rayner@agric.wa.gov.au

Dion Maple Christmas Island National Park

08 9164 8700 dion.maple@environment.gov.au

James Matthews

Department of Agriculture

08 9164 7456

Keith Morris

james.matthews@daff.gov.au

WA Department of Parks and Wildlife (rodents)

08 9405 5159 keith.morris@DPaW.wa.gov.au

Kelly Edwards Cocos (K) Islands Community Resource Centre

08 9162 7707 cocosislands@crc.net.au

Kerenya Keogh

Cocos Keeling Islands Tourism Association

08 9162 6790 manager@cocoskeelingislands.com.au

Peter Clark The Shire of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands

08 9162 6649 ceo@cocos.wa.gov.au

Russell Palmer

WA Department of Parks and Wildlife (rodents)

08 9405 5128 russell.palmer@DPaW.wa.gov.au

46

Appendix B

Appendix B Cocos (Keeling) Islands marine asset and threat matrix

47

Appendix C

Appendix C Biosecurity risk assessments for PKNP and Horsburgh Island

Appendices C1 to C4 are found in separate documents

Appendix C1 Biosecurity risk assessment – Siam weed

Appendix C2 Biosecurity risk assessment – Rodent species

Appendix C3 Biosecurity risk assessment – Cottony urbicola scale & yellow crazy ant

Appendix C4 Rapid biosecurity risk assessments

Appendix D

Appendix D Biosecurity procedures

Appendices D1 to D4 are found in separate documents

Appendix D1 Procedures for rodent management

Appendix D2 Procedures for weed management

Appendix D3 Procedures for yellow crazy ant management

Appendix D4 Threat prevention – field trip biosecurity checks

Appendix E

Appendix E Biosecurity guide for tour operators and visitors to PKNP and Horsburgh Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands

Appendix E is found in a separate document