EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PART I ISSUES
Introduction
Historically throughout the world, wildlife has been hunted and farmed for food and other products and
in this way given a commercial value. More recently, however, commercial use of wildlife has come
about through the deliberate placement of a value on a species to provide an incentive to preserve that
species and indirectly its habitat. While hunting operations in the past sometimes harvested well beyond
the capacity of the population to recover, modern commercial harvesting practices seek to operate at an
'ecologically sustainable' level.
This philosophy has emerged for two reasons. First, there is increasing concern that 'protectionist'
conservation practices are not working particularly well and have become expensive to support while
covering only a small proportion of land. Second, practical experience overseas has shown that in some
instances placing a value on endangered wildlife has ironically resulted in greater protection of that
species than when it had no commercial value.
Put together, these two concepts have resulted in a 'user-pays' system which is believed by protagonists
to be more efficient and effective than a blanket 'protectionist' approach. When used wisely, it has the
potential to result in more than just economic gain and can become an important conservation 'tool'. The
whole approach, however, depends on whether it is managed in an ecologically and economically
sus-tainable manner. In addition to con-servation of the species subject to commercialisation, a number
of other benefits can arise from utilisation of wildlife including:
- the provision of incentives for private landholders to retain and rehabilitate natural habitats;
- the undermining of illegal trade in wildlife;
- an increase in the amount of information gathered about the commercialised species;
- financial returns from wildlife industries which may be used to assist other conservation objectives;
and
- ownership of the wildlife is returned to the people who own the land (or a quota is given) which
may result in social and cultural benefits.
- There is a second reason for increasing interest in commercial utilisation of wildlife in Australia and
this is that wildlife industries may offer opportunities to broaden the income-base of struggling
rural businesses. Degradation of marginal agricultural land which has resulted in reduced
productivity and increased fluctuation in profitability of traditional income sources has led to an
upsurge in interest in alternative agriculture enterprises.
- As well as a commercial impetus, there is an ecological reason for this movement: the realisation
that the Australian landscape is for the most part better suited to production of indigenous species
than exotic species. Wildlife enterprises present a strategy whereby traditional agricultural
practices could be replaced, partially or totally, with activities that would allow natural habitats to
recover while still providing an income to landowners. In addition, the financial security that could
arise from income diversification may allow increased returns to be directed into habitat recovery
and protection.
- The term 'commercial utilisation of wildlife' encompasses a spectrum of activities, ranging from
high intensity use such as farming of animals and the manufacture of products from those animals,
to low intensity, supportive 'management' of wild populations for benign purposes such as
ecotourism.
- There are a number of broad types of commercial utilisation of wildlife, each with its own term:
hunting, harvesting, ranching, farming, and nature-based or ecotourism. To these can be added
floriculture, aviculture, mariculture and aquaculture. There is also the use of wildlife by indigenous
people provided for under various state laws, termed 'subsistence' use, which although not strictly
commercial, has a commercial value in the sense that it replaces food which would otherwise be
purchased.
- As wildlife industries develop they generally move through a spectrum of activities from hunting to
harvesting (or ranching) and finally, if appropriate, to farming. Generally also, intensive farming
makes the least contribution to wildlife conservation and maintenance of biodiversity and
harvesting, ranching and hunting the most, if they result in habitat preservation.
- The economic use of Australian native wildlife has been limited in the past by a number of factors
including government regulations, lack of entrepreneurs and lack of markets. Thus commercial
activities have come about in an ad hoc way, rather than through coordinated or systematic
processes. In general, with the exception of fisheries and marine mammals (seals and whales),
flora has been much more extensively commercialised than fauna.
- Aside from timber production, there are seven main areas of commercialisation of flora: the
propagation of native plants; seed collection and seedling cultivation of native species for habitat
rehabilitation; growing of native plants for the floral industry; the collection of plant parts for the
floral and home decorating industries; the harvesting and cultivation of plants for bush foods; use
of plants in specialist industries; and the use of plant extracts, such as essential oils and gums.
- In the past, commercialisation of vertebrate fauna has mainly arisen from by-product use of pest
culling (such as kangaroos and wallabies) or the taking of abundant species for specific products
(for example, koalas and possums for fur). In addition, there has been limited use of reptiles for
venom. However, in the last decade commercialisation of several other native animal species has
commenced (primarily emus and crocodiles), and the pet trade in reptiles, birds and mammals has
expanded considerably, particularly overseas. There is also some use of insects and marine
invertebrates such as jellyfish, coral, shells and pearls.
- Ethics and Opinion
- The degree to which individual members of the public accept commercial utilisation of wildlife
varies greatly. In the first instance, acceptance depends primarily on the ethical stance taken (that
is, whether they believe that it is morally or ethically right to use animals). A decision at this point
is usually based on a value judgement which relates to an individual's general moral viewpoint.
- Should there be acceptance at this point, the next level is whether 'wildlife', as opposed to
European agricultural species, should be subject to commercial use. A decision at this point is also
frequently based on a value judgement as to whether 'wildlife' is inherently different from
domesticated species and is thus sacrosanct. Curiously, at this point there is often acceptance of
the use of native plant species but not native animals, or of some animals but not others.
- Should there be acceptance of commercial use of wildlife in theory, the next question is whether
wildlife can be used in an ecologically sustainable manner. Critically, a decision at this point is
most likely to be based on the degree to which there is education and understanding about the
management of wildlife utilisation, the ways it can assist conservation and the potential for
mitigation of detrimental impact. If it is accepted that ecologically sustainable utilisation of wildlife
is possible, often an element of animal welfare is then raised whereby proponents concede that
wildlife can be used as long as the welfare of the animal is given due consideration.
- The submissions sent to the Committee revealed a high degree of disagreement about the ethical
desirability of commercial utilisation of wildlife, aside from any impact on the environment,
economics or biodiversity, and it was clear that the subject of commercial utilisation of wildlife and
its potential benefits to biodiversity conservation is complex. It was equally clear that at times
people and groups entered the debate without adequate scientific information and without a full
appreciation of the issues and their intricacies, or without practical experience of conservation
problems.
- From the breadth and depth of submissions, the strong element of moral judgement and the
expression of views not necessarily based on rigorous scientific information, it is clear that in
Australia there is a strong and vocal minority who believe that there should be no commercial use
of native wildlife. At the other extreme there are a few people who have little respect for native
fauna or flora. In between, there is in all likelihood a large majority of people who hold the view
that there could be some sustainable use of wildlife, with differing views on which species can be
used and under what circumstances.
- Current Policy and Regulations
- Each state and territory has legislation which controls the keeping and movement of wildlife and
regulations which govern regional and local conditions such as farm practice, cull quotas and
provision of products for the domestic market. While most regulations lie within the ambit of state
government control, the Federal government plays a critical role in the control of exports through
its administration of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982.
- The Committee notes that the Federal Government is currently undergoing a comprehensive
reform of all Commonwealth environment legislation which will bring an amalgamation of all
existing statutes into three areas (biodiversity conservation, environment protection and heritage)
and which may bring a greater emphasis on the sustainable use of wildlife.
- State governments generally support ecologically sustainable commercial utilisation of wildlife in
policy and in practice, although they vary in the extent of their support.
- Potential Environmental Impact
- The traditional approach to biodiversity conservation in Australia is now considered to be too
narrow in focus. While it has resulted in the protection of many areas which are representative of
various ecotypes, a vast proportion of Australia is not protected in this way and much of it is
subject to varying degrees of environmental stress.
- The Committee concludes that the future of biodiversity conservation in Australia now
depends very much on finding mechanisms, and particularly financial incentives, for
natural habitat to be restored and conserved on private lands. The Committee concludes
that, if appropriately managed, commercial utilisation of wildlife is one such mechanism.
- Sustainable utilisation of wildlife is based on the principle that many plant and animal species
reproduce far in excess of the carrying capacity of the environment, and seeks to remove excess
numbers of a population either before they are subject to the natural forces of removal or at the
adult stage to allow juveniles the resources to develop into adults.
- The ability of a population to sustain repeated harvesting depends on a number of factors, the
most important of which are: rate of harvest; selectivity; timing; rate of population increase; and
the susceptibility of the population to non-harvest mortality factors. If harvesting of a species
cannot be biologically sustained, either the species is forced to extinction or, more commonly, the
industry collapses.
- Monitoring of population stability is crucial to any commercial harvesting program and any large
scale operation must include provision for independent and ongoing assessment.
- Whether commercial utilisation of wildlife has an environmental impact is largely dependent on
how the commercial venture is managed. There can be both beneficial and detrimental impacts
and these may affect both target and non-target species, as well as physical aspects of the habitat.
- Although there is a general relationship between the degree of consumption and severity of the
impact, this may not always be the case. Beneficial impacts of wildlife use tend to be general and,
as such, are less tangible than detrimental impacts which tend to be more specific and thus more
noticeable.
- There are three fundamental ways in which environmental benefits can be achieved through the
commercial harvesting and ranching of wildlife: (1) through the provisions of incentives to preserve
habitat; (2) through the removal of a proportion of superabundant species which relieves pressure
on the environment and on other species; and (3) through the use of income generated by
government from wildlife industries for other conservation work. These actions can lead to a
number of other long-term and broad benefits.
- Of all forms of wildlife use, harvesting has the greatest potential to reduce the viability of a
population. Detrimental impact to the environment as a result of harvesting can occur directly
through the loss of the species taken and indirectly through flow-on effects to non-target species.
Direct physical impact on the environment can also occur through the harvesting methods used.
- Whether harvesting of a particular species will have a long-term detrimental impact depends on
the initial stability of the population, its innate reproductive capacity, the relative number of
individuals taken, the type of individuals taken and the degree to which habitat integrity is
maintained. The primary risk arises if the population is reduced below the level from which it can
easily recover. This risk increases as an industry gathers momentum and market forces increase
pressure to take more animals in order to satisfy demand.
- Adverse impacts on other species include direct disturbance to behaviour and the removal of food
and shelter resources. Impact on the physical environment may result in soil compaction or
erosion, damage to water resources and to vegetation, and the transport of weeds and pathogens
- The environmental impacts of farming of wildlife in closed-cycle operations are different to those
generated by harvesting and, on the whole, are much fewer. Similarly, there are no direct benefits
to biodiversity conservation. However, there can be a number of indirect impacts, both positive
and negative.
- There is considerable potential for conservation benefit to arise through sustainable use of wildlife
on private lands. The model for this comes from southern Africa where a change in land use
policies has returned ownership of wildlife to landholders. The result has been an increase in the
distribution and abundance of many game species and the return of much habitat to its original
state. While this model is considered by some conservation groups to be inappropriate, a number
of eminent scientists believe that the principle is still relevant because native species have the
advantage of being better adapted to the Australian environment than exotic agricultural species.
To test this model in Australia, it was suggested that an experimental trial be carried out to
manage a large area of marginal land (about 2000 square kilometres), where the impacts of
grazing can be severe, for the sustainable use of a diversity of wildlife rather than for cattle or
sheep.
- The Committee believes that the concept of replacing traditional farmed animals with native
wildlife in marginal agriculture lands has merit and supports the suggestion that experimental trials
be conducted.
- The Committee recommends that the Federal Government investigate the possibility of
an experimental management trial, preferably in the rangelands region of Australia.
Such an investigation should include discussions with officers from all relevant Federal
Government instrumentalities (including Environment Australia, Department of Primary
Industries and Energy, Bureau of Resource Sciences and RIRDC), wildlife scientists,
state government officials and private landowners. Funding for such trials could come
from the Bushcare: National Vegetation Initiative program of the Natural Heritage
Trust. (Recommendation 1)
- There is no definitive answer to the question of whether superabundant species should be subject
to commercial utilisation: in some instances it may be considered appropriate by government
(kangaroos, for example) and in other instances it may not be considered appropriate (koalas, for
example). However, the Committee concludes that if superabundant species are to be
utilised commercially, it is not helpful to have them classified as a pest.
- Although the Committee's terms of reference refer to 'native' wildlife, many witnesses raised the
subject of feral animals in Australia. Two main concerns were expressed. First, that there was a
danger in allowing the establishment of harvesting programs based on feral species because there
was a temptation to retain the population of feral animals at a sustainable level to maintain the
economic return, rather that to have as an aim the complete eradication.
- Second, and more importantly, that feral animals, and particularly cats and foxes, are responsible
for the removal of very many small animals, including birds, reptiles, insects and small mammals.
The loss of small animals through predation from feral animals was far greater than any loss arising
from both legal and illegal removal of animals.
- The Committee concludes that, aside from habitat loss, one of the greatest threats to
biodiversity in Australia is the impact of feral animals, and in particular the predation of
foxes and feral cats on small animals.
- The Committee notes the success of feral animal exclusion fences in wildlife conservation projects
carried out by both public and private enterprises. The Committee is aware that the Natural
Heritage Trust includes provision for a National Feral Animal Control Program, and that other
state and Federal government feral animal control programs exist. However, the Committee
believes that an even greater effort is required, particularly in the area of research on mechanisms
for fertility control of feral animals.
- The Committee recommends that the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
References Committee review the effectiveness of programs related to feral animal
control in two years' time. (Recommendation 2).
- It was clear from the evidence that there is opposition to commercial utilisation of wildlife among
some groups, notably animal rights and aligned conservation groups. These groups believe that it
is wrong to kill animals for personal profit and that cruelty is an entrenched aspect of animal
harvesting. In addition, because harvesting of plants and animals will have some impact, however
small, on the ecosystem from which they are taken, some conservation groups completely reject
the concept of wild harvesting. However, this philosophy has some profound consequences for
conservation and scientists expressed concern about the possible impact of such a narrow focus.
- The Committee concludes that the challenge for government agencies, entrepreneurs
and conservation groups is to manage wildlife use so as to minimise the environmental
risks and maximise the benefits to biodiversity conservation. Harvesting and ranching
proposals need to be considered on a case-by-case basis through comprehensive
management plans which take into account a cost-benefit analysis of other land uses and
other mechanisms for preserving habitat.
- Economic Viability of Commercial Activities
- The 'value' of wildlife may be defined in a number of ways (financial and non-financial) which may
differ according to personal opinion and understanding. Opponents of commercial utilisation of
wildlife reject the notion that wildlife should have a financial value placed on it, choosing instead to
believe that wildlife has an 'intrinsic' value and therefore that society should accept responsibility to
preserve wildlife simply on that basis.
- In contrast, proponents of commercial utilisation of wildlife believe that not only can wildlife have
a monetary value placed on it, but that it must. However, regardless of these views, it appears
important now for wildlife, and particularly habitat, to have some economic value placed on it, if
only to ensure that it can compete on an equal basis with other land uses which already have an
economic value and which, by default, are seen to be more important.
- The Committee concludes that natural habitat must be valued as an economic resource if
it is to be fully respected and conserved.
- The use of a plant or animal species in a commercial system exposes it to market forces which are
based on conventional elements of supply and demand. This is considered to be dangerous by
some people who believe that once demand for a wildlife product is established, it will place
inordinate pressure on supply, resulting in over-harvesting and serious consequences for the
species involved.
- In contrast, proponents of wildlife use suggest that it is market demand which provides the
incentive for that species to be preserved so that supply can be met. However, despite the merit
of these views, the debate over economic viability is perhaps secondary to the debate over
sustainability because if a species cannot sustain commercial use biologically and ecologically, the
industry will not survive financially anyway.
- The economic benefits of commercial utilisation of wildlife are varied. In addition to creating
wealth for the industry involved and for the nation (through employment and taxation), they may
assist in biodiversity conservation in a number of ways: first, by providing incentives to private
landholders to preserve habitat which would otherwise require government funding if conserved
through the public nature reserves system; second, by providing direct and indirect revenue from
wildlife industry activities; and third, by managing superabundant wildlife which causes damage to
the environment (a cost in itself), the control of which represents a cost to landowners (private or
government).
- The costs of commercial utilisation of wildlife are largely borne by the relevant business. However,
if the 'user-pays' principle is not kept firmly in mind, there may be substantial public sector costs
incurred. These include administrative costs (monitoring, quarantine and enforcement), as well as
contributions in the form of grants, subsidies, incentives, supporting R&D and the provision of
information resources. If wildlife industries result in damage to the environment, there may also be
costs involved in mitigation and rehabilitation.
- Economic concerns centre on the fact that when public resources are used to assist private
enterprise, the benefits often fall disproportionately to those directly involved in the industry, while
any costs (environmental and social) are often borne by society at large. Mechanisms are needed
to ensure that commercial utilisation of wildlife does not result in a net economic loss to society.
- The Committee alerts Federal and State Governments to the fact that industries based
on commercial utilisation of wildlife have the potential to result in high administrative
costs to the public sector, and the consequent need to fully and publicly monitor those
costs.
- As with any new industry, the economic viability of emerging wildlife industries may be uncertain.
However, compared to industries based on inanimate resources (or services), economic
uncertainty in wildlife industries is exacerbated by two factors: the inherent unreliability of supply
(the tendency of biological systems to fluctuate); and the fickle nature of demand for wildlife
products which is often influenced by decisions based on emotion rather than fact and influenced
by zealous animals rights campaigns and a media obsessed with emotive issues.
- Because many wildlife industries are relatively new and many supply niche markets, their
economic importance to Australia is largely unquantified. However, this information is critical to
any assessment of the significance of these industries to regional economies and to the general
economy of Australia.
- The Committee recommends that the Government monitor the environmental, social and
economic impacts of commercial utilisation of wildlife so that a balance sheet can be
constructed to assess the full impact of wildlife industries on the Australian economy.
(Recommendation 3)
- The Committee concludes that the related issues of property rights in wildlife assets and public
investment in biodiversity conservation are of considerable importance. The Committee believes
that the current and potential role of the private sector in biodiversity conservation is significant,
but currently considerably undervalued.
- The Committee recommends that the Federal Government investigate ways in which
private sector investment in biodiversity conservation can be supported and encouraged.
In particular, the Committee draws attention to the model of sustainable use of wildlife
as used in southern Africa, whereby in some areas ownership of wildlife is transferred to
local landowners, and recommends that the Government examine the appropriateness of
such a model to biodiversity conservation in Australia. (Recommendation 4)
- Adequacy of Wildlife Regulations
- A number of different views on the adequacy of government regulations on the commercial
utilisation of wildlife were presented in evidence. First, animal rights groups argued that the current
legislation was fundamentally flawed because it allowed for the exportation of wildlife products
and thus failed to adequately protect all native animals.
- Second, industry groups provided strong evidence that because commercial utilisation of wildlife
had evolved in an ad hoc way, many statutory requirements were unnecessarily restrictive to their
businesses. Three types of problems were encountered:
- inflexibility in statutory arrangements in the Federal Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports
and Imports) Act 1982 which prevented export of live animals and caused difficulties in the
export of products;
- an overall excess of administrative procedures, compliance with which was costly and
time-consuming; and
- inconsistencies between state arrangements, and between state and Federal arrangements leading
to a call for a national approach to commercial utilisation of wildlife.
The Committee is concerned that duplicated and onerous administrative procedures are unnecessarily
hindering legitimate industries in Australia.
The Committee recommends that State and Federal Governments together review all
administrative procedures relating to commercial utilisation of wildlife in Australia with a view
to increasing their efficiency so as to ensure that there are no unnecessary hindrances to
industry. (Recommendation 5)
Third, many conservation groups, scientists and amateur biologists argued that some regulations were
counter-productive to the conservation of wildlife and maintenance of biodiversity. While amateur
research and voluntary conservation efforts in Australia had made a significant contribution to scientific
knowledge in the past, the ability of non-professionals to contribute to the knowledge base was ever
decreasing. In addition, the current prohibitionist approach failed to recognise the importance of fostering
kinship between people and their wildlife.
The Committee is particularly concerned that Federal and in particular state government regulations in
some instances act to hinder biodiversity conservation. The Committee believes that governments
should make greater efforts to recognise the contributions made by amateur biologists. The
Committee recommends to Federal and state Governments that they review wildlife
regulations with a view to facilitating the work of professional and amateur scientists so that
they can actively contribute to biodiversity conservation. (Recommendation 6)
Fourth, animal rights groups and the RSPCA argued that the current system of voluntary codes of
practice did not contain sufficient legislative strength and that there was insufficient industry
self-regulation to protect the welfare of individual animals subject to commercial use. The Committee is
particularly concerned about animal welfare. While considering that the code of practice system is an
appropriate mechanism for regulation, the Committee believes that some aspects of the system need
strengthening.
The Committee recommends that codes of practice relating to wildlife industries should: (1) be
in place prior to approval being given for an industry to commence operations; (2) have a clear
connection between licensing conditions and compliance with a code of practice such that
failure to comply results in a withdrawal of the licence; (3) be consistent between states; and
(4) where several codes apply to the same industry, be consistent between codes.
(Recommendation 7)
Export of Live Wildlife
That illegal trade in native wildlife exists is not debated; nor is it debated that fauna and flora smuggling
causes damage to individual species and to their habitats. The debate centres on whether legalising the
export of live animals would act to reduce incentives for illegal trade or whether illegal activities would
increase.
Opponents of live trade reject the notion that it would reduce the incentive to smuggle live wildlife and
suggest that activities would be directed instead to species which have not yet been approved for trade.
They suggest that live trade in wildlife would create further problems for enforcement which already
suffers from lack of resources. The export of live animals would also create problems for animal welfare
and introduce the possibility that exported species would become pests in other countries.
Proponents of live trade claim that the prohibitionist approach has not worked, as evidenced by the
presence of Australian fauna in captivity in other parts of the world, and that prohibition actually creates
demand. They claim that allowing trade in wildlife would strongly undermine smuggling activities. A
number of other benefits would arise from legalised trade including: the generation of export revenue and
flow-on economic benefits to Australia; furthering of research; expansion of the gene pool of rare
species; and a return to conservation through a levy on exports.
In discussing the problems of illegal trade in wildlife, witnesses noted that there were inadequacies in
state and Federal legislation and differences between wildlife statutes in the various state jurisdictions
which made protection of wildlife difficult and presented opportunities for the laundering of illegally
acquired animals. There are strong arguments in favour of at least complementary, if not uniform wildlife
laws across Australia.
While wildlife crime is regarded as significant by government in Australia, this has not been matched by
allocation of resources and enforcement has declined considerably in recent years. Enforcement
problems exist because of differences between state and Federal jurisdictions in the powers of
enforcement personnel, licence conditions, penalty provisions, levels of protection for species and
requirements for interstate trade. A significant difficulty with the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of
Exports and Imports) Act 1982 is that it lacks a reverse onus of proof for ownership of wildlife.
However, the view was also expressed that too much emphasis was placed on smuggling for too little
return and that enforcement was inappropriately concentrated on regulating amateur biologists and
hobbyists.
However, while the link between prohibition and illegal trade is debated, the small number of
prosecutions for wildlife crime suggests that either the extent of illegal trade is not large or, if it is large,
the ability of surveillance authorities to detect wildlife crime and to achieve prosecutions is not great.
Statistics on prosecutions can only indicate the minimum level of crime and given that illegal trade in
wildlife is a covert activity, the true level of crime may be impossible to ever ascertain.
Quite a number of significant submissions to the Committee supported the concept of allowing the
controlled export of live, captive-bred animals from Australia. In addition, several recent reports have
recommended allowing exports of live native wildlife under certain circumstances.
If trade in live native wildlife was approved, witnesses suggested that the most appropriate species were
birds that were already well established in captive-bred populations and a number of species of
captive-bred reptiles and amphibians. Evidence overwhelmingly supported the argument that, if exports
were allowed, they should be derived only from captive-bred populations (accompanied by DNA
identification) and not from the wild, and that each species should be considered on a case-by-case
basis. The Committee agrees with these views.
While the Committee appreciates the threat to wildlife should trade in live animals result in an increase in
illegal activities, it can also see a number of benefits which may arise should illegal activities decline as a
result of the opening up of legalised trade.
In considering the question of whether live exportation of wildlife should be legally available to
commercial interests, the Committee notes that prohibition of trade has not prevented smuggling of live
animals (or eggs) overseas and that private enterprise in other countries has benefited from commercial
use of Australian species.
The Committee believes that these factors point strongly to the conclusion that the current
prohibitionist policy does not work to protect wildlife from illegal activities, although the extent
to which it does not work is difficult to ascertain. The Committee notes that the Federal
Government is currently undertaking a review of all environmental legislation.
The Committee recommends that the Government include in that review consideration of other
policy options for wildlife protection. (Recommendation 8)
Conditions of Commercial Wildlife Use in Australia
There is no debate over whether wildlife should be given a value. The debate centres on what value it
should be given (intrinsic worth, financial, economic, etc). While many people would like to believe that
attributing a purely intrinsic worth to wildlife or habitat should be sufficient to preserve it, the practical
reality is that in many cases this philosophy has not resulted in its protection. The service provided by
attributing to wildlife an economic value is that it allows natural habitat to compete on an equal basis with
other land uses which already have a clear economic value (such as farming, mining or residential land).
Whether individual species should be commercialised for financial gain is a separate question, the answer
to which is not simple. This is in part because commercial utilisation of wildlife has now been strongly
linked with the concept of serving a good to conservation. In attempting to answer the question of
whether commercial use of wildlife should be inextricably linked to conservation benefit, the Committee
notes that there are a number of wildlife-based industries already operating in Australia which do not
provide a direct benefit to conservation.
The Committee also notes that some industries have a higher risk of detrimental environmental impact
than others and that it would seem logical then to offset 'risk' with an insurance 'premium': that is, the
higher the risk of detrimental environmental impact, the higher the requirement for conservation benefit.
Thus wildlife farming activities, which have a low risk of detrimental environmental impact, should have a
lesser requirement for conservation benefit. Harvesting and ranching, which have a higher risk of
detrimental environmental impact, should have a higher requirement for conservation benefit.
Having reviewed the various suggestions made to the Committee as to the constraints which should be
applied to commercial use of wildlife, the Committee concludes that the following principles should be
taken into account.
- There should be broad legislative frameworks within which proposals for the commercial use of
wildlife are approved, regulated and administered. Regulatory structures should be consistent
across legislatures and allow industry to operate at maximum efficiency.
- The principle of ecologically sustainable development should underpin any assessment of
commercial use of wildlife and before any approval is given for commercial utilisation of wildlife, it
should be proven beyond reasonable doubt that such use will be ecologically sustainable.
- In granting approval for proposals to use wildlife on a commercial basis, governments should take
into account the precautionary principle and the principle of inter-generational equity.
- Proposals for the commercial use of wildlife need to be identified and managed on a case-by-case
basis. The conditions of commercialisation that are appropriate to each animal must be
determined by the biology of the species, a basic knowledge of which should be ascertained prior
to commencement of the proposal. Information about the species should include its distribution,
abundance and demography. However, lack of detailed information about a species should not be
used as an argument against the commencement of commercialisation on a trial basis.
- The risk of overharvesting should be low and legal harvesting should be set at a level well below
the scientifically calculated off-take rate. Where a legitimate increase in quota is indicated, it
should still incorporate a safety margin. There should be a low risk of 'by-catch' of non-target
species.
- The management of commercial use of wildlife must be adaptive so that managers can respond to
changing circumstances.
- The management of commercial use of wildlife must include monitoring of population levels and
demography; large proposals must include provision for independent monitoring.
- The management of commercial use of wildlife must include monitoring of environmental impacts
through an EIS procedure. Small, diffuse commercial harvesting programs must be monitored by
a centralised agency to allow assessment of total impact across each state or across Australia.
- The risk of detrimental environmental impact should be matched to the requirement for
conservation benefit. Commercial utilisation of wildlife should never be a threat to the
conservation status of a species or population.
- Decision making, public accountability and monitoring processes must be transparent and
accessible.
- Regulations should be in place to ensure that the treatment of animals is humane at all times and
that all wildlife programs endeavour to achieve the highest standard possible for animal welfare; as
far as possible, all suffering and cruelty should be eliminated.
- It is undesirable to remove adult birds from the wild for any purpose other than to provide
breeding stock, either for a closed-cycle breeding program or to breed up numbers of rare or
endangered species.
- Governments should make efforts to ensure that there are no unnecessary economic, legal or
administrative barriers to inhibit wildlife from realising its competitive advantage as a land use.
- In general, the principles of 'user-pays' and 'cost-recovery' should be applied in the administration
of wildlife industries but in calculating these costs community benefits should also be taken into
account.
- Wherever possible, there should be local community participation in and benefit from
commercialisation of wildlife.
PART II WILDLIFE INDUSTRIES
Macropods (Kangaroos and Wallabies)
The commercial kangaroo industry has expanded considerably over the last decade, particularly in the
area of meat for human consumption. The industry makes an important economic contribution to the
rural sector. Non-tariff barriers appear at this stage to be a greater constraint to industry expansion than
tariff barriers or industry structure. There are three key issues currently facing the kangaroo industry:
matters relating to animal welfare; public opinion about the acceptability of kangaroo products; and
whether kangaroos are considered a pest or a resource.
The belief disseminated by some non-government organisations that the kangaroo industry is chronically
and inherently cruel forms the basis for widespread campaigns aimed at boycotting the industry. Their
emphatically negative views play a strong role in limiting public perception of kangaroo products as
acceptable. Positive aspects of the industry do not receive nearly as much attention.
The Committee believes that the major problem facing development of the kangaroo industry,
both within Australia and internationally, is its lack of a strong positive image.
The Committee endorses the approach taken by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in
attempting to counteract the factually incorrect material disseminated by some non-government
organisations overseas. In fact, the Committee believes that even stronger efforts should be made to
impart factual information to people in overseas countries.
The Committee believes that it is a legitimate activity of the Federal Government to support
an export industry based on the commercial harvesting of kangaroos, which is being prejudiced
overseas by public campaigns based on false information.
Contributing to the low public acceptance of the kangaroo industry is the widespread view that
superabundant kangaroos are a 'pest' to be removed rather than a 'resource' to be efficiently utilised.
This view stems primarily from the fact that kangaroos continue to be killed in many rural areas under
pest control permits which, while regulated by government, are not carried out with any long-term
management objective in mind other than to control total grazing pressure.
The Committee believes that the non-commercial sector would benefit from a move away from
the image of 'pest control' towards the development of an image based on resource
management. The Committee acknowledges, however, that action in this area is primarily a
state responsibility.
Emus
Emus have been farmed commercially for almost two decades and there are now some 1330 licensed
emu farms holding over 80,000 emus in all states of Australia. Three main product lines are marketed:
meat, hide and oil. Emu meat is low in fat and is at the high end of the gourmet food line. Emu leather is
ideally suited for garment and accessory item manufacture. Emu oil, refined from fat, has a number of
domestic and light industrial uses.
While the emu has proved to be a species that has adapted well to being farmed, a number of
non-government, animal welfare organisations expressed concerns about husbandry practices in the
industry. Environmental regulations relating to emu farming are aimed at preventing birds being taken
from the wild and the dumping of excess stock, or stock from failed businesses back into the wild.
The emu industry has moved from an initial phase of stock expansion to a phase of processing and
market development. The current farm-gate value for the industry is between $6 to $8 million. The
commercial success of the industry now depends very much on the degree to which markets are
pursued. Major problems encountered by industry include an excess of administrative procedures and
variations between states in many aspects of government regulation which combine to considerably
hinder business efficiency.
The Committee concludes that the emu industry is now at a critical point in its development.
Production has expanded considerably over the last 10 years and there is now a strong base of stock
held in closed-cycle breeding enterprises over six states. Market development, however, has lagged
especially in the areas of quality leather production and oil analysis and refining. These two areas are
critical to the overall economic success of the industry. The Committee believes that the emu
industry is worthy of continued government support.
Crocodiles
Two species of crocodiles are farmed in Australia: the saltwater crocodile and the freshwater or
Johnston's River crocodile. There are currently 17 licensed crocodile farms or ranching operations;
seven in Queensland, eight in the Northern Territory and two in Western Australia, with a total number
of crocodiles held at about 50,000. The industry is capital intensive, long-term and export oriented, and
is well established and expanding. It currently generates about $3m per annum in sales of meat and
skins.
Young crocodiles are obtained either through the breeding of adult stock in a contained environment
(captive breeding) or through the ranching of eggs or juveniles from the wild and subsequent incubation
and rearing in captivity. Ranching is less capital intensive than captive-breeding. There is strong evidence
that the ranching of crocodile eggs and hatchlings has a conservation benefit to the broad habitat in which
the two species are found. In addition, the ranching of crocodiles has become important for Aboriginal
people in the Northern Territory, providing a significant source of income and employment.
The cost of regulatory compliance and lack of coordination and consistency between state and Federal
governments in administration is of particular concern to industry. The commercial use of crocodiles was
criticised on animal welfare grounds by a number of groups.
The Committee concludes that the crocodile industry in Australia is small but apparently
strong and growing. It is supplemented to an undetermined extent by income from tourism enterprise.
There is considerable potential for value-added income from crocodile leather if high quality tanneries
can be established in Australia.
The Committee accepts advice from expert witnesses that the industry is, at the current level
of harvesting, ecologically sustainable. The Committee concludes that the two most significant
aspects of the crocodile industry are its potential to assist in the preservation of wetlands
habitat and the potential for indigenous communities to become more significantly involved in
local, economic enterprises.
Possums
The brushtail possum has an extensive range throughout eastern Australia but is most abundant in
Tasmania, the only state where the species is harvested commercially. Despite sustained harvesting at a
relatively high level, brushtail possum populations in Tasmania have increased considerably over the last
few decades. In some regions they are now in plague proportions, causing considerable damage to their
environment.
According to industry and the Tasmanian Government, the Brushtail Possum Management Program,
which includes provision for both a commercial harvest and a legal cull, is a mechanism whereby this
impact could be reduced while at the same time provide an economic benefit to the Launceston region.
Products from the commercial harvest are sold domestically and overseas.
Conservation groups raised three particular concerns: animal welfare; the potential for game meat to
contain parasites; and the use of the poison 1080 in the control of possum numbers.
Koalas
Koalas have gained the status of a national icon through the use of their image by the tourism industry.
However, the enormous 'value' of koalas to tourism has had a detrimental impact on the ability of wildlife
agencies to manage populations which have increased beyond the capacity of their habitats, which are
often geographical or biological islands, to provide resources.
Platypus
While there is a strong interest from foreign zoos in obtaining platypus for display, they present significant
husbandry problems. The main issue with their use centres on the desirability of allowing captive-bred
animals (which are rare in themselves) to be exported by private enterprise for commercial gain.
Flying Foxes
Flying-foxes are an important but neglected species and loss of habitat is a significant problem for them.
In turn, they cause significant damage to orchards. At present there are disincentives to preserving
flying-foxes and they are culled in large numbers at a cost to both orchardists and government. The
Committee notes the proposal that a program of commercial use of flying-foxes would allow
these costs to be off-set, in addition to providing an incentive to preserve habitat.
Aviculture (Birds)
The avicultural industry in Australia is large and commercial trade in native birds has existed within
Australia for many years. Almost all endemic birds species are now kept and bred in captivity and many
species which are rare in the wild exist in large numbers in captivity. The avicultural industry believes that
second or later generation native birds, bred in captivity, should no longer be defined as 'wildlife' but
instead should be defined as 'livestock'. Wild-caught birds are difficult to manage in captivity and do not
make good companion animals, whereas captive-bred, hand-reared birds can make very good pets.
The Committee does not agree with the routine capture and commercial use of adult wild birds
and believes that, with the exception of particular circumstances where the capture of a limited
number of birds, accompanied by a management plan, may result in some conservation benefit,
harvesting adult birds from the wild should be prohibited.
The avicultural industry believes that there is no longer any rational reason for prohibiting the export of
captive-bred native birds, and that in fact there may be good reasons for allowing their export. These
reasons relate to both the economics of the industry and the conservation status of various birds. The
industry is keen to have commercial use of native birds extended to the export trade, under a well
regulated scheme. However, some community groups hold opposing views and are keen to ensure that
no changes are made to the legislation.
While a number of arguments against legalised export of live native birds have been raised, the most
significant in terms of conservation and biodiversity is whether such a change would reduce activities
associated with the illegal removal of birds from the wild.
As stated above, the Committee notes that prohibition of trade has not prevented widespread
smuggling of live birds (or eggs) overseas and that private enterprise in other countries has
benefited from commercial use of Australian species.
Reptiles, Amphibians, Insects and Venom Supplies
There is a diffuse commercial industry in Australia based on the keeping of reptiles by hobbyists. While
reptile keeping in Australia has expanded considerably over the last few years this has been small
compared to other western countries where many Australian species, smuggled out of the country, are
kept and bred. State regulations vary considerably in relation to the keeping of reptiles, but are generally
very restrictive in policy.
Amateur herpetologists make an important contribution to scientific knowledge but their efforts are
seriously hampered by administrative arrangements. They believe that regulations on collecting could be
relaxed without a significant impact on wild populations occurring.
There is considerable support among herpetologists and others for a change to the Wildlife Protection
(Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 to allow the export of live reptiles and amphibians.
This would result in an undermining of illegal activities and would allow private enterprise to engage in
overseas commercial activities.
Commercial insect breeding facilities contribute to tourism, play an important role in education and
provide insect material to domestic and export markets.
The production and supply of venom from toxin-bearing animals is a small but important commercial
industry. Its expansion, however, is limited by a number of factors the most significant of which is
government regulations which are considered to be costly, unnecessarily restrictive and repeated
between state and Federal jurisdictions.
Coastal and Marine Species
With the exception of the large offshore commercial fisheries, most marine-based industries in Australia
are small and very localised. There is a small but culturally important industry based on the commercial
use of muttonbirds, primarily by Aboriginal people on the Islands of Bass Strait. The industry has local
and export markets in meat, oil and feathers but is currently in decline due to lack of market
development. Despite having sustained a commercial harvest for many decades, populations of
muttonbirds are increasing and the industry has played an important role in habitat retention. Animal
rights groups object to muttonbirding on the basis of cruelty.
Preliminary investigations in the Northern Territory suggest the Hawksbill turtle is suitable for commercial
development through a ranching program and export of products. However, development of the project
is currently constrained by uncertainty as to whether the Federal Government would support such a
proposal because the species is currently listed under CITES Appendix II.
The Committee notes that there are some anomalies in regulations relating to the sale and export of coral
and shells and that difficulties associated with their export have a negative impact on the economic
viability of business. The Committee notes, however, that Environment Australia is currently investigating
these issues.
The Committee believes that the Government should act wherever possible to support
legitimate small businesses in Australia and thus recommends that Environment Australia give
priority to resolving problems relating to the sale and export of coral and shells so as to assist
industry. (Recommendation 9)
While industries based on the harvesting of various marine species (jelly fish, seaweed, sea cucumbers,
molluscs, etc) are small and highly localised, some conservation groups objected to them on the basis
that insufficient research has been carried out on the environmental impact of harvesting, and because it
was difficult to monitor illegal activities.
Aquaculture appears to be expanding rapidly with interest in a range of marine and freshwater species.
Concerns include the need for stringent controls to prevent escape into the wild of translocated species
and the need for regulation to prevent commercial threats to wild populations.
Wildflowers, Native Plants, Essential Oils and Bushfoods
Over the last decade in Australia there has been a dramatic expansion in the range of native plants used
for commercial purposes. These include native wildflowers, garden plants, essential oils, bushfood and
other specialist applications. There is also increasing interest in native plants for medicinal and
pharmaceutical applications. The use of products from these industries in Australia and their export has
assisted in the development of a truly Australia identity.
The Committee notes the concern of conservation groups that environmental damage could occur
through poorly managed plant harvesting practices. However, the Committee received no clear and
convincing evidence that current plant harvesting practices were causing widespread or irreversible
environmental damage.
The Committee urges Federal and state governments to continue to adequately monitor the
environmental impact of plant harvesting activities.
The Committee did, however, receive evidence that not only did plant harvesting have the potential to
benefit the environment by providing incentives to preserve habitat, but that these benefits were already
being realised.
The Committee believes that industries based on Australian native plants should continue to
receive government assistance in areas of research and development and that bodies such as
RIRDC should continue to assist in the identification of economically and environmentally
viable plant-based industries.
The Committee notes that considerable potential exists for the identification of plants which
may have medicinal or pharmaceutical applications and urges government to assist industry in
this area. The Committee also notes that indigenous people have a strong affiliation with and
knowledge of plants in their traditional lands and believes that efforts should continue to be
made to include Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders in such projects, particularly in
the tropical north of Australia.
Companion Animals (Pets)
Two opposing points of view were expressed in relation to the keeping of native animals as pets. On one
hand, animal rights groups opposed the keeping of native animals in captivity. In addition, groups of
wildlife carers argued that in general native animals did not make good pets because they were
particularly vulnerable to stress, their behaviour at maturity was aggressive and difficult to manage, they
were often difficult to keep in small areas, and they were generally incompatible with domesticated pets.
In contrast, the pet industry and others argued that some native species can and do make good pets.
This view is supported by some state governments (notably South Australia) which allow a number of
species of native marsupials to be kept (the hopping mouse, fat-tailed dunnart and the brushtail bettong),
as well as a number of species of reptiles and frogs (pythons, dragon lizards, gecko lizards, green-tree
frogs and white-legged tree frogs).
A large number of native Australian animals have found their way overseas and are now sold
commercially throughout America and Europe. According to the companion animal industry, there is a
'huge' potential both to expand commercially and to assist in conservation of rare or endangered species.
However, this would require a considerable change in attitude by most governments and consequent
changes to regulations.
Zoos, Wildlife Parks and Tourism
The exhibition of wildlife in Australia is a multi-million dollar industry, employing thousands of people.
Zoos and wildlife parks make a valuable contribution to regional economies and contribute both to
scientific research and public education. They have evolved over the last two decades from having an
almost purely 'display' role to being involved directly and indirectly in biodiversity conservation. Private
wildlife parks have increased in importance over the last two decades and the majority of wildlife parks
in Australia are now privately owned. More than twice the number of animals (and species) exist in
private zoos as exist in public institutions.
There is a strong demand from overseas zoos for quintessentially 'Australian' animal species (koalas and
platypus) and the lure of potentially high financial returns from overseas zoos has led to the suggestion
that they should be exported so that money can be returned to conservation efforts in Australia.
However, there is considerable opposition to this on tourism and animal welfare grounds.
Tourist activities in non-urban areas are increasing world-wide and nature-based tourism has wide
acceptance. Considerable conservation benefits can be derived from nature-based tourism as it provides
an incentive for retention or rehabilitation of habitat. This is particularly important for areas where there is
little other economic incentive to preserve habitat, such as wetlands. In addition, a number of direct and
indirect economic benefits can be derived. The major non-economic benefit of nature-based-tourism is
public education.
Groups opposed to other commercial uses of wildlife tended to see tourism as a panacea for funding
conservation. However, the Committee notes that although it is widely claimed to be 'non-consumptive',
nature-based tourism can have a range of detrimental impacts on individual populations of animals and
on environmental quality if not managed correctly. In addition, broad conservation objectives may
ultimately suffer if small areas are preserved solely because of tourist interest in one charismatic animal.
The Committee concludes that the challenge for the future is to link the growth of tourism to
the needs of wildlife and for nature-based tourism to be an effective force in biodiversity
conservation.
Hunting
Hunting is a major recreational pastime in some western countries and big game hunting has become a
lucrative business in some first and third world countries providing financial return to governments,
landowners and local people. There are a number of different types of recreational hunting in Australia
(game birds; kangaroos, feral animals, game ranch hunting and safari hunting).
Hunting has considerable potential to assist with conservation objectives particularly for areas of land
which are perceived to have little other economic value (such as swamps and wetlands). It also has the
potential to contribute wealth, through big game hunting activities, to local communities which may have
little other opportunity to derive income from their land and wildlife. Despite these benefits, hunting is
rarely promoted as a conservation tool, especially by government. This is primarily due to the intense
lobbying carried out by non-government organisations opposed to hunting for ethical reasons.
Indigenous Use Of Wildlife
To Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders all aspects of life are strongly associated with their
natural environment: the physical landscape and the plants and animals that live within it. In recognition of
the importance of wildlife to indigenous people, various state laws have made provision for Aboriginal
people to harvest wildlife for 'subsistence' use.
Because a significant proportion of Australia's land area is under the ownership and control of indigenous
people there is a need to manage the natural resources in an ecologically sustainable manner, within the
constraints imposed by Federal and state legislation. However, legislative arrangement are not
completely clear resulting in some uncertainty as to the rights of indigenous people in their subsistence
use of wildlife. The consequence of this has been a diminution in the ability of government to manage
indigenous wildlife use by regulation. Although subsistence use may constitute a significant commercial
use of wildlife (in the sense that it replaces food which might otherwise have been purchased), little effort
has been made to quantify the level of use or its impact on biodiversity conservation.
The Committee is concerned that there is insufficient monitoring of the level of subsistence
use by Aboriginal people and its impact on wildlife populations and hence on biodiversity. The
Committee notes that the lack of clarity as to what constitutes 'rights to wildlife' and the prohibitionist
approach generally taken by government wildlife authorities are major factors which may inhibit
Aboriginal people in assessing the full extent and impact of subsistence use. The Committee believes that
joint environmental management between indigenous and non-indigenous people is crucial to the welfare
of Australia's environment and urges both government and Aboriginal peoples to work together towards
sustainable use objectives. More specifically, the Committee recommends a remote Aboriginal
community be invited to carry out a trial survey of the levels of subsistence wildlife use and its
impact on biodiversity, supported by a grant through the National Heritage Trust.
(Recommendation 10)
Aboriginal people in general supported the concept of commercial utilisation of native wildlife and their
involvement in it. It was seen by many as an appropriate activity with economic, cultural and social
benefits. There is already a variety of projects involving Aboriginal people in the commercial utilisation of
wildlife. Payments to Aboriginal people for use of wildlife on their land is also an increasing trend in
northern Australia. Examples of this include crocodile egg ranching, barramundi fishing and buffalo
shooting. Aboriginal people are also involved in the farming of crocodiles and emus. Tourism enterprises
are of increasing importance to Aboriginal people and interest has also been expressed in safari hunting
of native animals (currently prohibited).
Despite strong interest, however, the involvement of Aboriginal people in commercial ventures based on
wildlife in remote parts of Australia has not been, overall, greatly successful. The two major obstacles to
increased development of wildlife resources are distance from markets and lack of experience and
expertise in commercial ventures.
A number of key issues of concern about commercial utilisation of wildlife were expressed by Aboriginal
people and in particular those people represented by the Central Land Council. In essence those
concerns related to the lack of scientific information on species distributions and abundances, the
potential for detrimental impact on Aboriginal traditions, customs and contemporary land uses, respect
for traditional knowledge and the potential for interference with subsistence use.
Nevertheless, the Committee concludes that commercial utilisation of wildlife by Aboriginal
people has an important role to play in the economic development of some Aboriginal
communities. The Committee recommends that Aboriginal people should be consulted where
commercial opportunities are identified on lands where there are communities which have
strong traditional links to those lands. (Recommendation 11)
The Committee notes that the various rights and obligations of parties involved in commercial utilisation
of wildlife with respect to prior Aboriginal knowledge are currently unclear.
The Committee believes that the importance of intellectual property rights of Aboriginal
people in relation to the use of wildlife has not received sufficient recognition and the
Committee recommends that the Federal Government give greater attention to this issue.
(Recommendation 12)
Finally, the Committee suggests that government agencies provide information
to Aboriginal peoples, either through land councils or other organisations,
about animal welfare issues.
Paste text of committe report chapters, appendices, etc here