EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Commercial Utilisation of Australian Native Wildlife

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