AUSTRALIAN BIRD STUDY ASSOCIATION Inc.
REVIEW OF ANIMAL RESEARCH ACT 1985 (NSW)
ABSA SUBMISSION
The following is the Association's response to the Review of the Animal Research Act 1985 Issues Paper published by NSW Agriculture, the government department that administers the Act.
It outlines the Association's views on the application of that act to amateur bird research, and banding activities carried out under the auspice of the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Schemes in particular.
The response was submitted on 31 July 1999
Issues identified as relevant to the Association
4.8 Should there be provision to exempt specific animal research activities?
4.9 If there is an argument to include a broad range of animal research activities, should all activities be treated in the same way by legislation? Are there non-legislative alternatives to meet the objectives for some classes of activities (for example, membership of a voluntary accreditation scheme such as the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme)?
4.18 Should fees be set for considering applications for accreditations, authorities and licences?
4.19 Are the current fees appropriate?
5.3 What costs are imposed by these restrictions? Who bears the costs?
5.5 Are there alternative less competition restricting approaches which would effectively achieve the policy objectives underlying the current legislation?
Introduction
The Australian Bird Study Association (ABSA) represents approximately 400 active members. The goals of the Association are to support, encourage and promote the study of Australian birds and to contribute to their conservation. The majority of amateur bird banders in Australia are members of the Association.
Many amateur avian researchers start as bird watchers but, with the realisation that the techniques applicable to more in-depth research are readily accessible to them, aspire to develop a greater understanding of the birds they encounter. Many such amateur researchers make significant contributions to our knowledge of and the conservation of Australian birds.
The banding of birds in Australia is well regulated by the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Schemes (ABBBS) and banders must undergo a rigorous training process in order to obtain an ABBBS banding authority. Banders in Australia currently undergo an apprentice-like system of banding, working with an "A" class bander until the trainee has demonstrated a satisfactory level of competence in all of the skills required by the ABBBS to qualify for a banding authority. The ABBBS requires the trainee to have banded a minimum of 500 birds during this training period. Final assessment is made after referee reports from an additional two banders who have appraised the trainee in the field. This peer review ensures that a high standard is maintained for the issuing of banding authorities. The training process typically takes at least one year to complete.
The Australian Bird Study Association is conscious of the need to maintain high standards of competency amongst banders. In a move to standardise bander training the Association has produced a Training Workbook that will be made available to "A" class banders involved in training. ABSA has also taken the step of organising banding courses that provide intensive training for people who either have limited access to an "A" class bander or who wish to complete their training in a shorter time frame than would ordinarily be possible. This latter category often includes post-graduate students about to commence a project that involves the marking of birds. The ABBBS is working with the ABSA in the development of a bander training course.
Bander training necessarily places great emphasis on animal welfare as the very nature of capture, band and release studies relies on minimal disturbance to habitat, population structure and bird behaviour. Of paramount importance is the question, and the ABSA emphasise this in its training workbook, of whether the project is well designed, and whether banding is even necessary to obtain the data.
The Australian Bird & Bat Banding Scheme is responsible for the regulation and licensing of bird banders and already performs many of the administrative procedures carried out by an ACEC. This includes ensuring that licensees meet experience/competence requirements as well as annually reviewing projects and justification for their continuation. This review is conducted by staff that are not only proficient in all aspects of bird research but generally have a direct insight into the training and experience of the individual bander.
The ABSA recognises the need to maintain high standards among bird banders and to address a number of issues in relation to animal ethics. Some members of the ABSA have concerns about the current high level of controls imposed by government authorities, including the ABBBS. The Association does not wish to see added to those controls, a complex and wide-ranging assessment that, while appropriate for commercially driven research, and for research which uses new and often untested techniques, is not appropriate in an area which has no commercial imperative, and which uses a limited number of tested and approved techniques. The danger of discouraging this largely volunteer research makes it imperative that some compromise is reached.
The proposals that ABSA present apply only to non-invasive research, and as such apply to the majority of banding projects. The Association fully supports the need for researchers using invasive techniques, such as the collection of blood, stomach flushing, fitting of radio transmitters etc, to obtain ACEC approval for these projects.
Proposals
Three proposals are made in respect to the application of the Animal Research Act to bird banders:
The following points are made in respect to the above proposals.
Proposal 1
The current procedures required by the ABBBS call for individual banders to report on their projects on a yearly basis, these reports must be submitted to ABBBS prior to renewal of their authority and project. The ABBBS has excelled in its commitment to animal welfare however ABSA acknowledges the need for the process to be above reproach. There is always a fear that a system, no matter how good, run by researchers for researchers could be perceived to be something other than open, ethical and unbiased.
Proposal 2
This proposal has merit as it ensures a desirable degree of standardisation that takes into account all aspects of animal welfare during capture, handling and release of birds. The skills required to comply with these standards would need to be demonstrated by researchers before a project can be approved, as is currently the case. If project proposals are within the confines of the SOPs then there should be no need for further ACEC endorsement. The ABBBS requires an annual report for each approved project prior to its renewal. This ensures an annual review of the project using an administrative process already in place. This system has operated successfully for many years and reflects the general principles for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes as outlined in the NH&MRC code of conduct.
Issue 4.1 asks "Is a system of enforced self-regulation appropriate for ensuring the welfare of animals used in scientific research and teaching?". This is one case where self-regulation is achievable as the system is already in place and functioning effectively.
Proposal 3
This would seem to duplicate current administrative procedures as it would require approval of projects already approved by the ABBBS. Furthermore, it would also result in additional financial constraints on the ABBBS, which has recently had to impose licence fees on banders in order to reduce the financial burden of administering the banding scheme.
Nevertheless, this proposal is more desirable than banders being required to use the Director General's ACEC within NSW Agriculture, as this is both costly, complex and the NSW Agriculture ACEC has less first hand experience with banding project proposals. An ACEC administered by the ABBBS would process applications solely related to the banding of birds and bats and would not require banders to address many of the superfluous questions that relate directly to a variety of research techniques not employed by banding projects.
Discussion
The ABSA would welcome any changes to the Animal Research Act that will promote an increase in awareness, and adherence to, animal welfare issues. The major concern, however, is that in the process barriers are not created that hinder research which, in itself, is necessary to ensure the wider conservation of wild birds in Australia. Of particular concern is the imposition of additional costs, both financial and in time, to non-professional researchers. This is particularly pertinent to Issues 4.18, 4.19 and 5.3.
Dr Mike Clarke recently highlighted the importance of the contribution made by non-professional researchers in the paper "A review of studies of the breeding biology of Australian birds from 1986-95: biases and consequences" (Emu 97: 283-289). Dr Clarke makes the very important point that studies carried out by professional scientists tend to be very strongly biased towards common, sedentary species which, often breed colonially or cooperatively. This is driven by the necessity to obtain large data samples in a relatively short period of time. Non-professional researchers tend to have the luxury of being able to conduct long-term studies and can make substantial contributions to scientific knowledge by collecting data on bird distribution, movement, community and population structure, breeding habits, etc. In particular, the non-professional ornithologist can study species that make poor research subjects for professional ornithologists - for example, mobile and threatened or endangered species. The non-professional researcher can provide the professional researcher with valuable data on which to make decisions regarding a specie's conservation. This data source is one we cannot afford to lose.
In concluding, Dr Clarke states, "Ironically, increasing legislative restrictions aimed at ensuring the welfare of individual birds have potential to inhibit research that involves the capture and marking of birds be amateurs and professionals; research that might enhance our ability to conserve whole populations of species. For example, a recent study of a critically endangered species and one of its congeners could not commence until nine separate permits had been obtained from institutional and government bodies - all requiring a separate annual progress report and some only being issued after payment of a fee (MFC per. obs.). Such requirements are likely to provide a strong disincentive for amateurs to initiate the intensive studies of breeding biology that need to be done."
We must be careful that we do not head down this pathway. Research by non-professional bird banders will be severely curtailed if another tier of bureaucracy, and its associated costs, is added. This will be a significant loss for research and conservation of birds in this country at a time when it is becoming increasingly apparent that more species are declining and research is urgently required.
In its Introduction the review states "The Review must determine whether the powers and activities provided within the Act create a net public benefit and whether the objectives of the legislation are being achieved in a manner that least restricts competition." At present there is a degree of inequality where researchers within institutions are required to obtain ACEC approval to carry out banding studies while amateurs are not. However, should amateur banders be required to seek ACEC approval through the existing system the additional cost to individuals will result in further inequity between the two types of researcher in terms of the financial constraints that would be imposed by the impending legislation. At present the organisation or funding body incurs the costs of the ACEC procedure not the individual. Under the current system the amateur researcher will personally have to pay the proposed fee of $100 pa to have each of their projects approved. This cost will be in addition to current state fauna authority charges and ABBBS licensing fees.
The ABSA considers that any changes to the legislation should also take into account points made in Section 5, which deals with Restrictions of Competition. The relevant paragraph states, "The term 'restricting competition' can mean obvious and major restrictions, such as restricting entry to an industry, the vesting of a commodity, setting prices or banning certain commercial behaviour. However, it may also include restrictions where the effects are more subtle." The definition applied by the Review Group indicates that competition is restricted when the behaviour of individuals or firms is changed from that which would otherwise occur in a totally free market (i.e., in the absence of regulation). This can also be applied to individuals who, because of the substantial costs incurred in obtaining ACEC approval, may not undertake benefits for the public good, ie conservation research. Thus, fees directly increase the costs and impact on competitiveness. Therefore to the extent that fees imposed under the Animal Research Act 1985 affect the behaviour or entry of individuals in the animal research 'industry' they restrict competition and must be assessed to determine whether they deliver net public benefits.
Recommendations
In principle, the Australian Bird Study Association has no objection to amateur banders being required to meet the same high standards of animal ethics practice and supervision that currently applies to professional researchers. The Association is comfortable that most banders already maintain these standards.
We therefore recommend that the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme be made responsible for these standards being met. This could be achieved by adopting either proposals 2 or 3.
The great advantage of this is that ABBBS already screens projects; adding ethics approval to that process would be
The only reservation the Association has about requiring amateurs to obtain ethics approval on this basis would be the cost to both the ABBBS and, ultimately, the bander. On this basis Proposal 2 is preferred as it takes advantage of an administrative process already in place. It has the advantage over Proposal 3 in that it minimises the burden of the additional reporting process that an ACEC would impose. The reporting system already established by the ABBBS is sufficient to ensure that animal ethics considerations are satisfied.
The question proposed by 5.5 "Are there alternative less competition restricting approaches which would effectively achieve the policy objectives underlying the current legislation" also suggests that the establishment of a set of Standard Operating Procedures is a more satisfactory arrangement.
The Australian Bird Study Association would be most willing to work with the review panel or its nominated committee to develop a workable alternative for amateur banding authorities that will ensure the continuation of the first-class conservation research that is essential in the next millennium.