Licences to harm flying-foxes

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment currently issues licences to property owners to harm a limited number of flying-foxes by shooting as a last resort and only where flying-fox damage has occurred to property. These licences to harm flying-foxes are a class of biodiversity conservation licence granted under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

An independent review was commissioned in 2008 to assess the validity of the NSW licensing policy for the legal harm (including killing) of flying foxes. The key findings of the NSW Flying-fox Licensing Review Panel released in 2009 were that:

• the animal welfare issues arising from shooting flying-foxes are ethically and legally unacceptable
• shooting is ineffective at reducing crop damage when large numbers of flying-foxes visit orchards
• full exclusion netting provides the most effective protection against flying-fox damage
• the NSW fruit-growing industry could rely solely on exclusion netting as the means of flying-fox crop damage mitigation.

From 1 July 2015, these licences to shoot flying-foxes to protect crops are only issued in special circumstances.

Special circumstance conditions

From 1 July 2015, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (formerly Office of Environment and Heritage) only issues licences to shoot flying-foxes as a crop protection measure where it considers that flying-fox damage to orchards is the result of special circumstances. Licences will be issued to shoot flying-foxes for the duration of the incursion, subject to strict limits.

Orchardists can only apply for a licence where the orchard is established before 1 July 2011 (as new orchardists should be aware of potential flying-fox impacts). One or more of the following criteria must also be met:

• there is an unprecedented incursion (the flying-foxes are impacting on crop types never previously impacted in Australia)
• the topographical or physical constraints prevent netting
• the flying-fox impact is unanticipated and not regular (a licence for a particular orchard can only be applied for in 3 years or fewer within any 10-year period).

Until 1 July 2020, orchardists will also be able to apply for licences if they had previously been issued a licence between 1 July 2001 and 30 June 2014. This acknowledges the medium-term financial challenges faced by some small to medium-sized orchard enterprises in NSW and the historic role that shooting has played in their management of flying-foxes.

Definitions

An unprecedented incursion is defined as:

• Flying-foxes impacting on a crop type that has never previously been recorded as sustaining flying-fox damage anywhere in Australia i.e. a crop type not listed in Table 1 below.
• Photos from the orchardist and a site inspection from Department staff will be required.

Letters from two netting contractors and photographic evidence is required to support an application for special circumstances such as topographical or physical constraints.

An unanticipated and not regular incursion is defined as:

• Flying-foxes are present in an orchard impacting on fruit crops (as indicated by shooting licence applications) in three years or fewer within any 10-year period, commencing 1 July 2011. The 3 years may be consecutive or non-consecutive. After a third licence has been issued within a 10-year period for any given orchard, flying-fox damage may no longer be considered an unanticipated incursion for that orchard. We may take into account the number of licences previously issued to an orchardist.

We will maintain a register of all licences issued under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and will publish these on the Department website.

Table 1: Crops known to be impacted on by flying-foxes

Crop type	Scientific name	Reference
Stonefruit (incl. peaches, apricots, plums, nectarines, cherries and hybrids)	All Prunus spp.	1998/99 annual report
Apples	Malus spp.	1998/99 annual report
Pears	Pyrus spp.	1998/99 annual report
Australian paradise pear	Pyrus spp.	Ullio (2002)
Nashi	Pyrus pyrifolia (inc. subsp.)	2005/06 annual report
Bananas	Musa spp.	1998/99 annual report
Grapes	Vitis spp.	1998/99 annual report
Citrus	Citrus spp.	Ullio (2002)
Mulberries	Morus spp.	1998/99 annual report
Guavas	Psidium spp.	1998/99 annual report
Avocados	Persea americana	2000/01 annual report
Figs	Ficus spp.	1999/00 annual report
Persimmons	Diospyros spp.	2001/02 annual report
Mangoes	Mangifera spp.	1998/99 annual report
Paw paws (papaya)	Carica papyra	1998/99 annual report
Loquats	Eriobotrya japonica	1998/99 annual report
Lychees	Litchi chinensis	1998/99 annual report
Longans	Dimocarpus longan	Ullio (2002)
Rambutans	Nephelium lappaceum	Ullio (2002)
Custard apples	Annona reticulata	Ullio (2002)
Coffee	Coffea spp.	2000/01 annual report
Passionfruit	Passiflora edulis	DECCW (2008)
Mulberry	Morus spp.	DECCW (2008)
Jackfruit/breadfruit	Artocarpus heterophyllus	Lim et al. (1993)
Breadfruit	Artocarpus altilis	Lim et al. (1993)
Starapple	Chrysopyhllum cainito	Lim et al. (1993)
Hogs Plum	Spondias mombin	Lim et al. (1993)
Cashew	Anacardium occidentale	Lim et al. (1993)
Sapodilla	Manilkara zapota	Lim et al. (1993)
Bactris (peach palm)	Bactris gasipaes	Lim et al. (1993)
Waterapple	Syzygium samarangense	Lim et al. (1993)

Procedure

• Orchardists will notify their local National Parks and Wildlife Service Area Office that fruit trees (including fruit and/or branches and twigs) have been damaged by flying-foxes or that damage is imminent. Orchardists will need to demonstrate this actual or imminent damage.
• We may issue shooting licences on the grounds that topographical constraints prevent netting installation where the slope of the land exceeds 20° and two netting contractors have inspected the property and identified that they are unable to net.
• We will only issue shooting licences on the grounds that powerlines, pipes or other infrastructure prevent netting if a contractor has inspected the property and identified that no options for netting exist, e.g. raising lines, throw over netting or lowering net heights. We may accept that powerlines prevent netting installation where the minimum clearance distance between the top of the netting structure and the powerlines is less than 3 metres. Licences may be issued for the area affected by the infrastructure, e.g. the powerline easement.
• Licences to shoot flying-foxes on the grounds that topographical or physical infrastructure constraints prevent netting will be issued to orchardists for up to 3 years from the date of the first application. This provides orchardists with additional time to acquire funds to meet extra costs associated with resolving issues associated with installing nets on difficult terrain or modifying their orchards to enable nets to be erected.
• We may issue shooting licences on the grounds of unprecedented incursion for un-netted crop types not previously recorded as sustaining flying-fox damage.
• If a licence application is received for an unprecedented incursion, the crop type and date of application will be added to Table 1 and published on Department website. We may issue the orchardist with a shooting licence for that crop type for a maximum of three years within any 10-year period from the date of their first application (consecutive or non-consecutive years). This ‘3 year in 10’ condition may only be considered for orchardists who planted this crop type before it was added to Table 1.
• If a local council declines a development application for installing full exclusion netting, a letter from council detailing the reasons must accompany the licence application.
• Until 1 July 2020, orchardists will also be able to apply for licences if they had previously been issued a licence between 1 July 2001 and 30 June 2014. An application for a licence under this ‘Special Circumstance’ will need to be accompanied with adequate information to identify the previous license issued. Licenses issued under this special condition will only be issued to the same named person (or persons) as the previous license was issued to for the same property.

Technique	Method	Success/comments
Netting – full exclusion netting	Netting held firmly in place by a rigid structure of poles and tensioned cables over the entire orchard.	Very high. Method is initially expensive to set up and may be damaged by cyclones, high wind and hail.
Netting – tunnel netting and throwover netting	Netting that is supported by light frames or draped directly over trees and vines. Nets are reusable and removed after harvest. See Wildlife Friendly Netting.	Less successful than full-canopy. Often suitable where full exclusion netting is not, due to ease of set up. Fruit touching the net can be damaged by flying-foxes on the outside of the net. Initial outlay may be less expensive than full-exclusion, however set-up time must be repeated each year.
Bags	Fruit protection bags placed over fruit.	Reasonably successful. Has been used on banana crops. Labour intensive and costly. Not feasible for most commercial farmers.
Sound	Replaying recorded sounds including loud sudden noises, natural predator calls or sonic sounds.	Reports of medium success in the short-term. However flying-foxes may become accustomed to the sound if no danger presents. May be more successful if combined with other methods such as light and radar detection systems (e.g. Phoenix Wailer). Also more successful if sound, light and scaring options localities are rotated around the property (avoiding deterrent desensitisation).
Lights	Flashing strobe lights and bright light grids over orchards; long wavelength lasers.	Medium success in the short-term. However flying-foxes can become accustomed to the sound if no danger presents. May be more successful if combined with other methods. Also more successful if sound, light and scaring options localities are rotated around the property (avoiding deterrent desensitisation).

The NSW Government commissioned an independent review panel to determine whether the current Department licensing policy for the legal harm (including killing) of flying-foxes in NSW remains valid (environmentally, economically and socially), particularly for the threatened grey-headed flying-fox. The review panel considered whether:

• the animal welfare issues that result from shooting are acceptable legally and ethically
• shooting of the threatened grey-headed flying-fox is impacting on the viability of the species
• shooting is effective in reducing levels of crop damage, compared with other available, nonlethal techniques (including full exclusion netting)
• industry has the capacity to solely rely on netting

The panel concluded that:

• the animal welfare issues that result from shooting as a method of mitigating crop damage caused by flying-foxes are unacceptable ethically and legally
• it is highly probable that the Grey-headed Flying-fox population is in decline and that any additional mortality can only increase the rate of decline. No matter what the causes, all death, mortalities are additive. Therefore any orchard shooting will hasten decline of the flying fox population, albeit by only a relatively small amount
• shooting is ineffective when larger numbers of flying fox visit orchards. Full exclusion netting provides the most effective protection against damage from flying fox
• the industry could rely solely on exclusion netting, as the means of Grey-headed Flying-fox crop damage mitigation. It is considered unlikely that netting would be erected to any large extent, in the Sydney area, without adequate government grants

Download

• NSW Flying-fox Licensing Review Panel report

• 2014-2016
• Annual Report 2013-2014 (including data since 2011)
• 2010-2011
• 2009-2010
• 2008-2009
• 2007-2008
• 2006-2007
• 2005-2006
• 2004-2005
• 2003-2004
• 2002-2003
• 2001-2002
• 2000-2001
• 1999-2000
• 1998-1999