CHAPTER 3 - CURRENT REGULATIONS
AND POLICY
Introduction
3.1 Under Section 92 of the Australian Constitution, trade in fauna within Australia cannot be prevented.
However, the control of wildlife use, both commercially and non-commercially, can be regulated and
power to do this is vested in both Federal and state legislatures. 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.
3.2 However, while most regulations concerning commercial use of wildlife lie within the ambit of state
government control, the Federal government plays an important role in some areas (such as production
processes, post-marketing and industry development) [1] and, critically, in the control of exports. [2]
Thus regardless what each state government does, because exports are controlled by the Federal
government and because the economic development of wildlife industries depends to a large extent on
obtaining overseas markets, ultimate control primarily lies with the Federal government.
3.3 Control of actions relating to the environment in Australia and in particular actions relating to wildlife,
occurs at the Federal level through a suite of over 30 pieces of legislation. The statute most relevant to
this inquiry is the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 which controls
the export of all wildlife and wildlife products from Australia and into Australia.
Federal Legislation
Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982
3.4 The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 is the legislative basis for
Federal control over the export and import of wildlife and wildlife products. Controls under the Act
apply to all relevant transactions by museums, zoos, scientific institutions, commercial organisations,
tourists, migrants and the general public. 'Wildlife' is not defined in the Act but is usually interpreted in its
broadest sense and refers to all animals and plants subject to regulations under the Act. The terms
'animal' and 'plant' are defined.
3.5 The two main objectives of the Act are: (1) to put into legislative framework Australia's obligations
under the international Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
which was signed in Washington on 3 March 1973; and (2) to further the protection and conservation of
the wild fauna and flora of Australia and of other countries through the regulation of export and import of
plants (and plant parts) and animals (and animal parts).
3.6 The administration of the Act is primarily undertaken by the Wildlife Protection Section of
Environment Australia. [3] The assessment of applications for approved management programs (section
10 of the Act) and controlled specimens (section 10A of the Act) is undertaken by the Wildlife
Population Assessment Section of Environment Australia. Enforcement of the Act is undertaken
primarily by the Australian Customs Service with whom the Wildlife Protection Section works in close
cooperation. Enforcement is also assisted by the Australian Federal Police. Disputed decisions are
subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Act also provides for exemptions of
certain specimens used by traditional inhabitants (Australian Aboriginal people, Torres Strait Islanders
and Papua New Guineans).
3.7 The Act provides for permits or authorities to be issued for a variety of purposes and specifies the
criteria which must be met before they can be granted. Any application to export a live specimen must
be approved via a permit and the Act lists the conditions which must be satisfied before the Minister can
issue a permit. Permits to export live native Australian animals may be granted only in four types of
circumstances:
- the commercial export of live invertebrates and freshwater fish which have been bred in captivity
or taken under an approved management program;
- the export of certain species of live native birds as household pets (listed in Schedule 7 of the
Act), by persons that have met specific criteria;
- transactions involving a scientific institution where the institution is primarily non-commercial, has
demonstrated the capacity to undertake the proposed research, makes the results of such
research publicly available; and
- transfers between publicly owned Australian and overseas zoos is permitted provided the zoos
can demonstrate they have a high standard of management, animal husbandry and
accommodation and have the facilities and expertise to properly care for the animals being sought.
3.8 Because these conditions do not include any provision for a private individual or company to export
live specimens for commercial purposes, this activity is by default prohibited.
3.9 Section 10 of the Act regulates wild harvested specimens (that is, products obtained from native
wildlife). [4] Specimens may be harvested under a Management Program or as a Controlled Specimen.
A Management Program or Controlled Specimen Program may not be declared unless legislation
relating to the protection, conservation or management of the animals or plants is in force in the state or
territory [5] and, in the opinion of the Minister, the legislation is effective. This requirement can, in special
circumstances, be waived for Controlled Specimens.
3.10 The major difference between the two arrangements are that in Management Programs the Minister
must be `satisfied' about a number of criteria in making a decision, while under Controlled Specimens
similar criteria must be `taken into account' when making a decision. Management Programs are
generally required for larger, more established harvesting proposals, while Controlled Specimen
declarations are used for smaller, start up operations where there is often less information on the biology
and ecology of the species in question. The Act provides for Management Programs to be declared
where there is sufficient information available on the biology of the species proposed for harvesting to
ensure that it will not be to the irreversible detriment of the species or its habitat. Management Programs
are usually administered by state government agencies and reflect state-wide management for the
particular species concerned. The criteria for a Management Program are listed in Appendix IV of this
report. The Act provides an opportunity for public consultation on proposed Management Programs
and Controlled Specimens and concerned persons are invited, by annual public notice, to register their
interest in receiving copies of proposals for comment before the programs are approved and declared.
3.11 The Controlled Specimens provision allows for commercial harvesting and trade, under strict
conditions, where it would be inappropriate to insist on a Management Program and where it is
consistent with the object of the Act not to declare an Approved Management Program. Such
circumstances might include short-term salvage harvesting, small scale harvesting of common species, the
developmental stages of Management Programs and the importation of CITES listed species from
overseas. All harvesting proposals are currently assessed in accordance with the principles of ecological
sustainability and conservation of biological diversity. The criteria for a Controlled Specimen are also
listed in Appendix IV of this report.
3.12 Since coming into effect in May 1984, there have been three major amendments to the Wildlife
Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982. [6] In addition, about every two years,
Schedules 1 and 2 are amended to reflect changes to Appendices I and II of CITES.
Review of Federal Environment Legislation
3.13 In March 1998, the Federal Government released a proposal for the comprehensive reform of all
Commonwealth environment legislation. This proposal will bring an amalgamation of all existing statutes
into three areas: (1) Biodiversity Conservation; (2) Environment Protection; and (3) Heritage (to occur
at a later stage).
3.14 The proposed Biodiversity Conservation legislation aims to 'promote the conservation and
sustainable use of Australia's biodiversity' and the Acts to be subsumed by it are:
- Endangered Species Protection Act 1992;
- National Parks and Conservation Act 1975;
- Whale Protection Act 1980;
- World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983; and
- Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982.
3.15 According to the Consultation Paper issued by the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment,
Senator The Hon. Robert Hill, the Act 'will address biodiversity issues by adopting several integrated
approaches'. These include the following concepts.
- Protection of wildlife, especially endangered and vulnerable species and migratory species.
- Protection of ecosystems; recognition of critical habitat; protection of endangered ecological
communities; and promotion of off-reserve conservation measures.
- Recognition of processes that threaten all levels of biodiversity.
- Providing for the sustainable use of wildlife and the regulation or prohibition of trade in native
wildlife and internationally protected wildlife.
- Ensuring that activities and proposals which may have a significant impact are properly assessed
under the Environment Protection Act.
- Promoting a partnership approach to biodiversity conservation through bilateral agreements with
states, conservation agreements with landholders and the involvement of the community in
management planning. [7]
3.16 The proposed Act contains a number of initiatives including one of particular relevance to this
inquiry: 'increasing the emphasis on biodiversity considerations in the assessment of proposals for the
sustainable use of wildlife'. [8] The Government Consultation Paper also states that the Act 'will
provide a framework for administrative action which the Commonwealth may take to progress, in
cooperation with the states, the identification and monitoring of:
- components of biodiversity important for its conservation and sustainable use;
- the conservation status of biodiversity components; and
- processes and activities which have, or are likely to have, significant impacts on the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity'. [9]
National Strategies
3.17 The Federal Government has initiated a number of 'National Strategies' on the environment which
have been endorsed by state governments and which include aspects of sustainable use of wildlife. These
include: the National Strategy on Ecologically Sustainable Development, the National Strategy for
the Conservation of Biodiversity, and most recently the National Strategy for Rangeland
Management. There is also a Commonwealth Government Wetlands Policy.
3.18 The National Strategy on Ecologically Sustainable Development had its origins in Australia's
participation in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in the late 1980s, and
was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in 1992. The goal of the Strategy is
'development that improves the total quality of life, both now and in the future in a way that maintains the
ecological process on which life depends'. A core objective of the Strategy is 'to protect biological
diversity and maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems'. [10]
3.19 The National Strategy for the Conservation of Biodiversity was prepared by the Australian and
New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC), and endorsed by all state and
Federal governments in early 1996. The goal of the Strategy is 'to protect biological diversity and
maintain ecological processes and systems'. The Strategy seeks to:
- strengthen the conservation of biological diversity across Australia;
- integrate biological diversity conservation and natural resource management;
- manage threatening processes;
- improve our knowledge of biological diversity; and
- involve the community in biological diversity conservation.
3.20 According to the Department of Environment, the Strategy 'recognises that maintaining biological
diversity is much more than just protecting wildlife and their habitats in nature conservation reserves. It
also recognises the importance of ecologically sustainable use of biological resources and, in particular,
aims to: 'Achieve the conservation of biological diversity through the adoption of ... ecologically
sustainable wildlife management practices' (Objective 2.7). [11]
3.21 The strategy recommends that governments take action to achieve Objective 2.7 as follows:
In accordance with the IUCN resolution on sustainable use, develop wildlife utilisation programs that
create economic and other incentives for the retention, rehabilitation, maintenance and management of
natural habitats.
Review the appropriateness and ecological sustainability of current management strategies involving the
harvesting of native species by:
- ensuring that coordinated research into and monitoring of exploited species is undertaken to
determine ecological sustainability;
- ensuring the development and regular review of management plans, for domestic and export
purposes;
- ensuring that harvesting arrangements are based on the long-term viability of the species
concerned; and
- ensuring thorough public consultation and government accountability in the management, planning
and implementation process. [12]
3.22 The National Strategy for Rangeland Management seeks to focus on ecological problems in the
rangelands areas of Australia (generally defined as those areas which receive too little rain to support the
intensive growing of crops or intensive grazing of livestock). It has a broad objective of identifying and
supporting multiple uses which are compatible with the principles of ecologically sustainable development
and it has paid specific attention to the potential for commercial use of wildlife. The Commonwealth
Wetlands Policy seeks to ensure that the activities of the Commonwealth Government promote the
conservation, ecologically sustainable use and, where possible, enhancement of wetland functions.
International Conventions and Treaties
3.23 Australia is signatory to a number of treaties on the environment, the most relevant of which are the
Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Australia is also a member of the IUCN, the World
Conservation Union.
Convention on Biological Diversity
3.24 Ratified by the Federal Government in June 1993, the Convention on Biological Diversity has
three objectives: the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the
fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. Article 10, in
particular, deals with sustainable use of wildlife resources.
CITES
3.25 The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) is a legal structure adopted by the international community on 1 July 1975 in response to
concerns about the detrimental impact that both legal and illegal trade was having on wild plants and
animals, and their habitats. Australia is a party to CITES and the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of
Exports and Imports) Act 1982 enables its obligations under CITES to be discharged. In some cases,
the Act provides stricter measures than are provided for by CITES.
3.26 Trade is monitored by CITES through a system of reciprocal permits issued by a formally
recognised government organisation or agency. Species of concern are listed on one of three
appendices. Species which are identified as being in imminent danger of extinction are listed in Appendix
I, and commercial trade in wild specimens or products from them is prohibited. Appendix II lists species
for which international trade must be regulated and monitored in order to safeguard against excessive
trade which would result in the species becoming threatened with extinction. Countries that are party to
the convention may also list, in Appendix III, any native species that it considers warrants monitoring,
which is achieved through the issue of export permits. There are some 675 species listed on Appendix I
and some 27,000 species listed on Appendix II, an indication, according to WWF, that international
trade in wild species often exceeds the sustainable harvest. [13]
3.27 In 1992, CITES adopted a resolution which 'recognises that commercial trade may be beneficial to
the conservation of species and ecosystems and/or to the development of local people when such trade
is carried out at levels that are not detrimental to the survival of the species in question' (Resolution Conf.
8.3).
3.28 However, there has been considerable debate among the signatories of CITES over sustainable
use and, in particular, the commercial utilisation of wildlife. A major schism occurred in 1989 when the
issue of the ivory trade was debated and a decision was taken to ban all trade. The gap between the two
groups that formed at that time widened further as some African countries moved to increase
commercial use of wildlife and, in particular, to seek approval to re-open the ivory trade.
3.29 There are now two major lobbying caucuses: the Species Survival Network, under which name
animal rights and some conservation groups have united in opposition to commercial utilisation of
wildlife, and the Conservation Action Network which represents the rights of indigenous people to
exploit local wildlife resources. After losing ground in the late 1980s, the 'consumptive users' are now
regaining ground, largely with the support of scientific advisers from the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN). [14]
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
3.30 Australia is a member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN - also
known as the World Conservation Union), an international conservation forum which was established
under the auspices of the United Nations 50 years ago and which allows both government and
non-government members. In 1990, the IUCN General Assembly adopted Resolution 18:24
'Conservation of Wildlife Through Wise Use as a Renewable Natural Resource' which recognised that
the sustainable use of wildlife can be a useful tool to encourage the conservation of wildlife and its
habitat.
3.31 In 1991, the IUCN published its global strategy for conservation Caring for the Earth: A
Strategy for Sustainable Living, which also recognised the fundamental importance of the sustainable
use of natural resources. In addition, the IUCN reaffirmed at its 1996 Montreal World Conservation
Congress the importance of the commercial use of wildlife as a conservation tool. The IUCN believes
that 'blanket' trade bans create conflicts and are unworkable in the long run because they are
counter-productive to more rational conservation programs. [15]
3.32 In the most recent (third) Draft Policy Statement on the Sustainable Use of Wild Living Resources,
the IUCN stated that it is 'committed to enhancing the sustainability of uses of wild living resources and
to this end it has established the Sustainable Use Initiative which incorporates regionally-structured
Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission to:
(a) identify, evaluate and promote the principles of management that contribute to sustainability and
enhanced efficiency in the use of wild living resources; and
(b) to regularly communicate its findings to members and the broader community. [16]
3.33 At the 1996 Congress, a draft proposal put jointly by the Australian Conservation Foundation
(ACF), the Nature Conservation Council of NSW (NCC) and the World Wide Fund for Nature,
Australia (WWF), sought to ban the commercialisation and consumptive use of all mammals, birds,
reptiles and amphibians (Draft Resolution 1.87). According to Dr Grahame Webb of Wildlife
Management International, the draft resolution was 'bitterly attacked by virtually all people who attended
the contact [discussion] group' and when put to the vote it was 'rejected with acclamation'. [17]
However, according to the NCC, 'owing to pressure brought to bear by Third World Countries,
indigenous peoples and Australian State Government agencies from the Northern Territory and Western
Australia, the NCC's resolution … was defeated'. The NCC claimed: 'Nevertheless, a great deal of
sympathy for the resolution was due to increasing awareness of the negative aspects of rampant
commercialisation trends elsewhere in the world'. [18]
Other International Agreements
Australia is signatory to a number of other international agreements of importance to the commercial
utilisation of wildlife. These include: the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
(Ramsar Convention, 1971); the World Heritage Convention (1972); and the World Conservation
Strategy (1980).
Federal Government Policy
3.34 Within the relevant instrumentalities of the Federal Government, a range of views are evident
according, as expected, to the charter of each organisation. Both the Department of Primary Industries
and Energy and, in particular, the statutory body Rural Industries Research and Development
Corporation (RIRDC), are involved in a number of ways in the promotion of industries based on native
wildlife. As described by the Managing Director of RIRDC, Mr Peter Core:
It is our view at the corporation that the commercialisation of native wildlife is an option that should be
promoted and promoted strongly. It requires a strong R&D program that focuses on the identification of
particular market niches and their characteristics and \DB\PGN\1119on sustainable production systems
and practices for the development of those industries. The development of what I call minor agricultural
enterprises does promote diversification options for rural Australia and helps to promote an agricultural
culture that not only accepts change but is continually seeking out new opportunities. [19]
3.35 The Department of Environment, Sport and Territories has particular concern for the environment
and its prime interest is ensuring that any commercial use of wildlife complies with the Wildlife
Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 and has no detrimental impact on the
environment. The Department, however, tends to be conservative in its approach. In particular, the
position taken by the Government in its Environment portfolio at overseas meetings was criticised in
evidence to the Committee by a number of people. In this regard, Dr Max King of Safari Club
International commented:
[The] protection and preservation position taken by the Australian government at the recent CITES
meeting in Harare (June 1997) … is in direct conflict with its supposed support for a series of
sustainable use projects involving Australian wildlife … The Australian government has clearly taken a
position allied to that of the Humane Society International, a multi-national, US directed organisation
which has strident animal liberationist views and which is opposed to any form of consumptive use of
wildlife. [20]
3.36 Dr Grahame Webb of Wildlife Management International commented in oral evidence to the
Committee about Australia's international profile:
Australia's role internationally and nationally can and should be much greater than it is. Currently, the
positions we often hold are an international embarrassment. We are the only country whose proposals
the IUCN delegates refuse to vote on. At the CITES' recent meeting in Zimbabwe we adopted such a
strong attitude against the Africans and their rights to deal with elephants that very senior Australians had
to be introduced as though they came from another country.
I have dealt with this problem for years overseas. It is something that is wrong. We are out of touch with
global trends and it is time that we re-evaluated where we are and where we are going. [21]
3.37 This point was also the subject of comment by a representative of the Western Australian
Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM), Mr Keiran McNamara, who stated, in a
personal capacity:
I believe it is now apparent internationally that some of the thinking in Australia often seems to be
somewhat isolated from modern international thinking and trends in that area. [22]
State Legislation and Policy
3.38 While the Committee's Terms of Reference refer only to Federal regulation of wildlife, there are
many aspects of state regulation that play a crucial role in both commercial utilisation of wildlife and
maintenance of biodiversity in Australia. This was strongly reflected in evidence put before the
Committee and many submissions provided detailed information about the impact of state regulations on
wildlife. In addition, the various state governments have differing policies on commercial utilisation of
wildlife, as outlined below.
New South Wales
3.39 The New South Wales Government is of the view that 'any commercial utilisation of Australian
native wildlife must be carried out strictly within the designated limitations of the need to ensure
ecological sustainability and conserve and promote biological diversity of species and natural
ecosystems'. [23]
3.40 The submission from the Director-General of New South Wales National parks and Wildlife
Service (NPWS) noted that aside from the Kangaroo Management Program, commercial utilisation of
wildlife in NSW was 'minimal' and therefore factors relating to the Committee's terms of reference were
'largely unknown at this stage'. [24] The Kangaroo Management Program is the only legal commercial
harvest of free-ranging animals in New South Wales, and emu farming is the only case of intentionally
farmed native animals.
3.41 Arrangements for the collection and cultivation of native flora are currently being reviewed and
NPWS is developing a native plant management plan for compliance under the Wildlife Protection
(Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982. The Government is also reviewing its tourism
management strategy and anticipates that nature-based tourism will result in 'improved financial benefit to
the state'. [25]
3.42 New South Wales has recently released for public comment a Draft NSW Biodiversity Strategy
which identifies actions needed to conserve biodiversity, including a range of matters relating to the
commercial utilisation of wildlife to ensure its ecological sustainability. [26] The NSW Government also
has as a policy to 'provide assistance to Aboriginal communities to establish management programs for
the ecologically sustainable harvesting of wildlife'. [27]
Queensland
3.43 Section 5 of the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 provides for the ecologically
sustainable use of protected wildlife in that state. The Act defines the term 'use' to include 'buy, sell,
process, move or gain any benefit from wildlife'. According to the submission made by the Queensland
Government: 'The Act therefore envisages a protective framework which specifically allows for the
ecologically sustainable use, including commercial use of protected wildlife'. [28] The Nature
Conservation Regulation 1994 prescribes an extensive licensing system to control the taking, keeping
and use of protected wildlife. Proposals to take wildlife species that are classified other than 'common'
must be accompanied by a conservation plan which is subject to public consultation.
3.44 The Queensland Government is confident that the state's legislative framework is sufficient to
ensure that any utilisation will not deleteriously affect the species involved. Further, the Government is of
the view that well researched and properly managed harvesting and ranching programs can deliver
positive conservation outcomes. Species available for harvesting include three species of kangaroo and
the whiptail wallaby, six species of duck, two common lizards and more than 1200 species of plants.
[29]
3.45 The Government acknowledges that wildlife farming (closed-cycle breeding or artificial propagation
on a farm) may not provide a direct incentive to retain habitat, but nevertheless supports the concept if it
is 'controlled under a licensing system which helps conserve viable wild populations and controls
threatening processes to ensure ecological sustainability of the wildlife'. [30] At the moment only a small
number of animal species may be lawfully farmed in Queensland. [31] Wildlife farming is now under the
control of the state Department of Primary Industries whereas harvesting remains under the control of
the state Department of Environment.
Victoria
3.46 The Victorian Government stated in its submission that any commercial utilisation of wildlife must
be sustainable, especially if animals are taken from the wild, and that monitoring of sustainability is crucial
to any operation. The Government is particularly concerned about the potential impact of captive-bred
populations should they escape into the wild, and pollute wild populations either genetically or with
disease, and Victoria's Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 provides mechanisms to protect against
this. [32]
3.47 Victoria provided for the establishment of the emu industry in 1994, but does not support wild
harvesting of emus because it believes that there are now sufficient numbers in captivity. The
Government does not allow the commercial harvest of macropods because there are insufficient surplus
kangaroos for an industry in that state to be economically viable. Kangaroos can only be removed from
private or leasehold land under non-commercial permits issued for damage mitigation purposes. Victoria
supports the current ban on trade in live birds and would not support removal of the ban, on the basis
that it would put wild populations at risk. It does not support the taking of wildlife for personal
collections or display purposes, but it does support ecotourism. [33]
3.48 Victoria supports the bushfood industry, provided that harvesting is carried out on a sustainable
basis and that it does not threaten the conservation status of any plant species. A management program
for bushfoods, commercial harvesting of native flowers and foliage, and whole tree ferns is currently
being prepared for approval under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act
1982. [34]
South Australia
3.49 The South Australian Government 'supports the commercial utilisation of wildlife but only on the
basis that such activities are undertaken in an ecologically sustainable manner, are economically viable
and address animal welfare concerns'. [35] The Government also believes that 'industries based on
wildlife use should contribute towards the conservation of the species being utilised and the habitat that
sustains them'. [36]
3.50 Legislation relevant to the use of wildlife, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, was
amended in 1996 to accommodate commercial use. Both harvesting and farming are provided for but
are subject to management plans that ensure that wildlife is used in a sustainable manner. The
Government noted that while there was a strong link between harvesting and conservation outcomes,
wildlife farming does not have this link but should ensure that when stock are obtained from the wild
there is no deleterious impact. The government's main concern with wildlife farming is animal welfare.
[37] Interest has been expressed in South Australia in farming Cape Barren geese, native ducks, crested
pigeons, and bronze-winged pigeons. [38]
3.51 Although the South Australia Government does not have a stated policy on the issue of exporting
live, captive-bred native birds, Mr Lindsay Best, Manager of the Resource Management Branch the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DERN), stated:
I think our general position is that if they could be exported from captive-bred animals, with due
consideration for disease and welfare considerations, then it would be acceptable. But seeing it does not
happen at the moment, there is no developed policy. But I believe the situation at the moment is that it
would be against the export of wild caught birds. [39]
3.52 An important aspect of South Australia's wildlife conservation policy is legislative provision for
'heritage agreements'. Under the South Australian Native Vegetation Act 1991, private landholders can
enter into an agreement with the government to set aside areas of natural habitat in perpetuity for wildlife
conservation. Landowners then become eligible to apply for financial assistance from the government to
meet management costs (primarily control of feral animals and weeds). The landowner retains ownership
of the property and there is no right of public access. Areas are fenced to exclude stock. The agreement
attaches to the land and is binding on the current owner of the land whether or not that owner was the
person with whom the agreement was made. Agreements may be varied or terminated by the Minister in
consultation with the owner. As of May 1998, some 1076 agreements between the South Australian
government and private landowners had been made covering an area of more than 500,000 hectares of
vegetation.
Western Australia
3.53 The Western Australian Government, as a general principle, supports the sustainable utilisation of
wildlife, and in particular believes that there is merit in assisting conservation objectives through
commercial use of wildlife. The commercial utilisation of wildlife is provided for in the Wildlife
Conservation Act 1950 and accompanying Wildlife Conservation Regulations which deal with specific
species or situations.
3.54 Through its New Industries Program, the Western Australian Government supports a number of
wildlife-based industries and is developing feasibility studies in a number of areas new to Western
Australia, including essential oils and bushfoods. [40] The Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 is scheduled
to be revised and it is anticipated that it will include more comprehensive provisions addressing
sustainable use of wildlife. [41]
Northern Territory
3.55 The Northern Territory Government has made a number of moves to support the
commercialisation of wildlife. In December 1995, the Parks and Wildlife Commission issued a draft
policy document (A Strategy for Conservation Through the Sustainable Use of Wildlife in the
Northern Territory) the stated aim of which was 'to enhance the conservation of Northern Territory
plants and animals through the development of programs incorporating their sustainable use'. The
strategy has a policy that promotes financial incentives for landholders to value and actively manage the
species and its habitat. The Government actively supports crocodile ranching and farming and has
approved a trial ranching program for red-tailed black cockatoos. The Government is looking at the
possibility of farming magpie geese and has drawn up a draft management program. [42] The
government also supports the concept of allowing limited and controlled export of live Australian native
wildlife. [43]
Tasmania
3.56 The Tasmanian Government believes that the commercial use of some species of native wildlife can
be undertaken in a sustainable manner and provide economic benefits to the community without affecting
the conservation status of the species. The over-riding consideration in the approval of any commercial
use of wildlife is long-term sustainability. Regular monitoring of the resource and regulation of its
exploitation are used to prevent demand from driving trade. The Government acknowledges that there
are major community concerns about animal welfare and the ethics of commercially using wildlife.
3.57 There are only a few species in Tasmania considered to be suitable for commercial use, notably the
brushtail possum and two species of wallaby. Harvesting of wildlife is seen as a mechanism whereby
landowners can be provided with incentives to retain wildlife on their land, and commercial gain is seen
as a way in which landowners can be compensated for damage to crops and pastures. Farming of
wildlife is regulated so that wild stocks are protected. [44] There is an increasing interest in farming
Cape Barren Geese in the Furneaux group in Tasmania and the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is
developing a specific code of practice. [45]
Footnotes
[1] Evidence, p. RRA&T 6.
[2] Submission No. 7.
[3] Environment Australia is within the Federal Department of Environment, Sport and Territories.
[4] The following section has been taken from: Environment Australia Biodiversity Group, Management
of Wild Harvested Native Species,
http://www.biodiversity.environme…v.au/plants/wildlife/mgmtintr.html.
[5] Hereafter the term 'State' includes Territory unless otherwise specified.
[6] Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Act 1986 - number 120 of
1986; Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Act 1991 - number
133 of 1991; and Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Act 1995 -
number 121 of 1995.
[7] Reform of Commonwealth Environment Legislation - Consultation Paper Issued by Senator
the Hon. Robert Hill, Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, Commonwealth of Australia, 1998,
ISBN 0642545197, p. 20.
[8] Reform of Commonwealth Environment Legislation - Consultation Paper, op cit, p. 21.
[9] Reform of Commonwealth Environment Legislation - Consultation Paper, op cit, p. 21.
[10] Submission No. 198, p. 7.
[11] Submission No. 198, p. 8.
[12] Submission No. 198, pp. 8-9.
[13] Submission No. 102, p. 2.
[14] Pearce, F 1997 Changing the game: Does banning trade in horns, tusks and skins protect
endangered animals or just make local people poorer? New Scientist Vol. 154, No. 2085.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Item 7 of the Third Draft of the Policy Statement on Sustainable Use of Wild Living Resources,
IUCN.
[17] Letter dated 4 November 1996 from Dr Grahame Webb, Wildlife Management International Pty
Ltd to Mr Warren Entsch MP, Member for Leichhardt, Attachment First World Conservation
Congress, Montreal, Canada (14-23 October 1996) Report by Grahame Webb 4 November 1996, p.
2.
[18] Submission No. 199, p. 4; see also Evidence, pp. RRA&T 380 & 644.
[19] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1118.
[20] Supplementary Submission No. 118, pp 6-7.
[21] Evidence, p. RRA&T 374; but see Evidence, p. RRA&T 752.
[22] Evidence, p. RRA&T 514.
[23] Submission No. 88, p. 1.
[24] Submission No. 88, p. 2.
[25] Submission No. 88, p. 5.
[26] Submission No. 88, p. 7.
[27] Submission No. 88, p. 7.
[28] Submission No. 209, p.1.
[29] Submission No. 209, Appendix 1.
[30] Submission No. 209, p. 2.
[31] Emu, saltwater and freshwater crocodiles, birdwing and ulysses butterflys and all species of snakes
from the Families Elapidae, Hydrophiidae and Laticaudidae.
[32] Submission No. 314, p. 1.
[33] Evidence, pp. RRA&T 925-6.
[34] Submission No. 314, p. 11.
[35] Letter dated 13 May 1997 from The Hon. Mr David Wotton MP, Minister for the Environment
and Natural Resources, to Senator John Woodley, Chairman, Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and
Transport References Committee.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Evidence, p. RRA&T 543.
[38] Submission No. 318, p. 16.
[39] Evidence, p. RRA&T 556 (Note: DERN was subsequently renamed the Department for
Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs).
[40] Submission No. 126, p. 1.
[41] Evidence, p. RRA&T 515.
[42] Evidence, p. RRA&T 376.
[43] Submission No. 112, p. 4.
[44] Submission No. 338.
[45] Evidence, p. RRA&T 909.