Commercial Utilisation of Australian Native Wildlife

Chapter 4b – Potential Environemental Impact (Continued)

Wildlife Utilisation on Private and Rural Lands

Potential for Conservation Benefit

4.2 While conservation reserves protect many representative ecological areas, the vast proportion of Australia (93%) is outside the formal protected-area estate. In addition, there has been a tendency to preserve those areas which have the highest levels of biodiversity, or other qualities such as great natural beauty or scenic appeal. Consequently, more than half of all the major biogeographic regions of Australia are either not represented or are poorly represented, and these areas particularly include those regions which are best suited to farming or grazing. In addition, because many of the protected areas are relatively small, [1] they suffer from the biogeographic 'island' phenomenon which sees isolated areas of land unable to support their original levels of biodiversity. [2]

4.3 Aside from uncommitted crown land, much of Australia is held in private arrangements (either freehold or leasehold) or under Aboriginal title. Of the total rangelands area, over 50 per cent is held as pastoral leases, 20 per cent is held under Aboriginal ownership and a further 15 per cent is vacant crown land. Very little is set aside for conservation purposes. In the Northern Territory, for example, only 4.7 per cent of land is under any form of conservation control. The remaining 95.3 per cent is either leasehold or freehold land under the control of people with commercial interests other than conservation. [3]

4.4 Land controlled in this way varies from largely untouched natural habitat to completely transformed landscapes containing vast areas of monoculture. As agricultural land, or semi-agricultural land, it is subject to a range of land uses, many of which are not compatible with biodiversity conservation. In addition, as areas of agricultural land become more intensively utilised, wildlife reserves become more isolated. Remnant vegetation on rural land then becomes critical to maintaining conservation 'corridors' and farmers have a crucial role in conservation through the preservation of bushland and restoration of degraded lands. [4]

4.5 However, while it is now critical to persuade agriculturalists to coexist with wildlife and participate actively in biodiversity conservation, [5] there must be some benefit to be gained from it to compensate for losses through not using the land for traditional agricultural purposes. [6] As conservation planner Mr Melvin Bolton has noted: 'Outside protected areas, land is everywhere under human pressure and it is naïve and unrealistic to think that wildlife can be 'left undisturbed' simply by denying it commercial value'. [7] In short, habitat protection without revenue to the landholder is not achievable. [8] With this need in mind, emphasis is being placed on finding commercial ways to assist private landholders retain and restore native habitat.

4.6 There are four main ways in which landholders can be encouraged to conserve wildlife and its habitat:

• restrictions on deliberate taking (for example, prohibiting the taking of specific species or classes of species, often animal but not plant);
• appeals for protection (for example, Landcare);
• incentives for protection, usually financial (for example, the South Australian Native Vegetation Act 1991); or
• captive conservation (private wildlife parks and zoos). [9]

4.7 Restrictions on deliberate taking may work in theory but may not work in practice, unless surveillance is rigorous, because there is no financial incentive to keep native species and there may in fact be a strong financial incentive to remove them (poaching or culling). For example, classification of kangaroos as protected species and the associated permit system which allows legal removal of superabundant animals, still does not prevent kangaroos from being killed illegally by people who find it easier to not comply with the system.

4.8 Appeals for protection rely on a sense of altruism and belief in collective good which must be strong because this method is usually at a net financial loss to the landholder, at least in the short-term. Strategies such as Landcare have only been successful where property owners are convinced of the long term benefits and where there is a certain degree of peer pressure, or support to initiate projects and retain momentum.

4.9 Governments may provide financial incentives for protection, such as the South Australian Native Vegetation Act 1991. This Act provides for land to be set aside in perpetuity by private landholders under 'heritage agreements' made with the government. Such agreements indicate that the primary use for the designated area of land will be wildlife conservation and landowners may apply for financial assistance from the government to meet expenses associated with fencing and land management (such as feral animal and weed control costs). Alternatively, as suggested by the Arid Lands Environment Council, landowners could be paid to become managers through the concept of environmental 'stewardship'. [10] More commonly, however, incentives come through activities such as hunting, fishing or other sports.

4.10 Finally, the private sector can become involved in conservation through wildlife parks and captive breeding. An excellent example of this is the Earth Sanctuaries concept (see Chapter 18). However, on the whole, the private sector is only minimally involved in this type of conservation activity in Australia: a probable consequence of highly restrictive state and Federal statutory arrangements for obtaining, keeping and transferring wildlife (see Paragraph 5.86). [11]

4.11 At present there are few incentives for rural landowners to preserve remnant bushland. According to the CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology, the most effective way of ensuring involvement of farmers and graziers is by promoting voluntary management agreements and providing tax and other financial incentives. The Division is currently working on a scheme which has five specific proposals:

• management agreements between landholders and conservation organisations;
• incentives for local government to become more actively involved in the protection of remnant vegetation;
• removal of the perverse signals that many land tax and local government rating systems give landholders;
• incentives for non-government organisations; and
• tax incentives for land holders to preserve remnant vegetation. [12]

4.12 Professor Michael Archer of the School of Biological Sciences (University of NSW) is a strong advocate of a gradual but ultimately radical change in management of rural lands in Australia. The scenario envisaged by Professor Archer, described by him as an 'environmental Riviera', includes:

• gradual replacement of economic dependence on sheep and cattle as meat animals, wherever possible, with kangaroos;
• increasing size of protected areas of habitat to at least 300,000 square km each;
• replacement of agriculture involving non-native species with ecotourism and environmentally safe mining; and
• encouragement of graziers currently on agricultural land to remain as paid custodians of healing land (using current levels of rural subsidies) and as harvesters of kangaroos, who would receive spin-off benefits from ecotourism. [13]

4.13 Mr John Weigal of the Australian Reptile Park suggested in evidence to the Committee that if property owners were able to profit from the reptiles on their land there would be a strong incentive to retain habitat in a natural state. Mr Weigal envisaged that property owners be set a bag limit and be licensed to collect and breed from those animals, and there would be a licensing system for the export of captive bred progeny. It may be an activity that Aboriginal people could be involved in:

… properties such as the Brigalow scrub in southern Queensland, which I personally know has remarkably interesting animal species,parrots, woma pythons, Yakka skinks, things that would command enormous amounts of money,could be farmed and the captive bred progeny of those could be sold for, I would guess, a lot more money than what is gleaned by turning timber into toilet paper. That would be a sustainable activity. [14]

4.14 And in discussing the role of farming native plant species, the Department of Environment noted that a number of environmental and commercial benefits could be derived but cautioned that:

… careful planning and management must be undertaken, preferably on a catchment basis, to ensure that the full range of benefits (preventing erosion, salinity, water table rise, providing shade and shelter etc) are captured. …

A sound scientific basis must be established to allow appropriate planning and management of native plants for production purposes. There is a need to know the ecological relationships within the plant community to determine the impacts of removal of vegetative material. Rotation of harvesting may allow the preservation of environmental values, or, alternatively, limits may need to be placed on the quantity of flowers, fruits and seeds removed, or regulation of certain species to allow production only from cultivated plants. [15]

Replacing Traditional Agricultural Species With Native

4.15 One of the most important ways in which agriculturalists can be encouraged to retain and restore native habitat is through the farming of native species, either in conjunction with introduced species (sheep and cattle), or on their own. [16] This concept has particular merit in country which is marginal for introduced species because native species have the advantage of being better adapted to the environment. In this regard, Environment Australia commented:

Australian wildlife which are native to the rangelands, which have evolved there, are better suited to the erratic climatic conditions found there than are mainstream agricultural plants and animals, which are better suited to more predictable climates. Australia's rangeland managers and policy makers should understand and work with the natural ecological processes and systems of Australia, rather than fight against them … Commercial use of wildlife offers an opportunity to achieve the objectives of the draft Strategy [for Rangeland Management] by providing a cost-effective means of managing total grazing pressure on properties, and diversifying the source of income of land holders. …

Australia's ecological uniqueness is a source of comparative and competitive advantage in global markets. Managing the plants and animals which are naturally adapted to this country, rather than those which can be grown more efficiently elsewhere, and which struggle in our variable climates and tough landscapes, provides an opportunity to exploit this competitive advantage. [17]

4.16 And on this matter the Department of Environment specifically recommended that: 'Use should be made of the competitive advantage that Australia has on world markets, by marketing natural products derived from native species, produced in a genuinely `clean and green' way, to help to make the rangelands commercially viable and ecologically sustainable'. [18]

4.17 The farming of native species also has merit because, from a commercial point of view, native animals do not require the considerable additional inputs usually associated with farming exotic species. Both sheep and cattle require continual drenching for intestinal parasites, and sheep require other measures of disease control such as crutching, tail docking, and dipping. Past chemical practices have left a legacy of contaminated sites, and problems periodically arise with chemical contamination of meat. Australia is a nutrient poor environment and it is not suited to fast growing, exotic species. [19] In contrast, emus and kangaroos do not have to be treated for parasites or for fly-strike, can survive much better on native pastures and with less water than can sheep or cattle, and are much more tolerant of temperature extremes.

4.18 In addition, native animals have much lower physical impact on the environment than do exotic animals, particularly in marginal areas. As argued by Yellabiddy Marketing Pty Ltd: 'there is no evidence to suggest that farming emus has a negative impact on the environment, in fact the opposite is true'. [20] Mr Neil Duncan, Managing Director of Emu Oil Therapies in Victoria described in his submission to the Committee how the property on which he had farmed emus for three years had shown 'considerable and noticeable' improvement in the native plant species growing there. As well as eating seeds and insects, the emus assisted by eating weeds such as bracken fern. [21] The Emu Producers of Victoria noted in its submission that because the emu was environmentally 'friendly' emu farming was potentially a 'very effective means of utilising large tracts of land that have been irresponsibly utilised in the past for uneconomic crops or animal husbandry'. [22] This view was also shared by the Emu Industry Development Committee of Victoria. [23]

4.19 Increased use of native animals for farming would also reduce the vulnerability of agricultural producers to disease which affect exotic species, such as brucellosis, anthrax and foot and mouth disease, and would result in a better product (lower fat, 'lean' meats from kangaroo and emu). [24]

4.20 In support of the concept of greater use of native species in agricultural areas, the Department of Environment suggested that:

To ensure that farmers would be willing to invest in production from native species, and be confident that there will be commercial returns, consideration should be given to:

• increased product and market research and development;
• establishment of an industry infrastructure;
• arrangements for long-term resource access, with clear responsibility and accountability for management of the resource;
• support for on-ground projects as trials or demonstrations;
• extensive promotion to farmers, including existing success stories, via farmer networks, facilitators, media etc; and
• consumer education and promotion, to create markets. [25]

4.21 And on this matter the Department of Environment specifically recommended that:

Any public expenditure should only occur for any areas and species where there is a reasonable probability that a more economically and ecologically sustainable industry can be developed and there are sound reasons for believing that the market will not develop without such intervention. Any subsidies should be strictly limited to trials. [26]

4.22 Support for increased 'farming' of wildlife also came from RIRDC. In evidence to the Committee, Mr Peter Core, Managing Director, explained:

… it is the corporation's view that commercialisation with appropriate safeguards can encourage land-holders to protect and improve the habitat on which native wildlife depends. To put it another way, incorporating wildlife into production systems can make a meaningful contribution to the management of agricultural systems and to conservation. [27]

4.23 And later, Dr George Wilson, RIRDC Program Manager, stated:

… my own personal view is that they [wildlife industries] have a tremendous contribution to make to diversity in Australian agriculture. We regularly hear that farmers and graziers are looking for alternatives. These animal products, just as with the plant products, provide Australia with a comparative advantage on the world scene. [28]

4.24 This view is supported by the National Farmers' Federation which is in favour of active farming of native species because it is consistent with the Federation's philosophy of increasing diversity of farming interests (greater opportunities). [29]

4.25 Finally, it should be noted that there is a belief among a few people that simply replacing conventional domestic animals with farmed native wildlife would not result in any improvement to the environment of the rangelands. In response to the argument that wildlife should replace conventionally farmed species such as sheep and cattle on degraded rangelands to reduce problems with erosion and overgrazing, Animal Liberation (Victoria) argued that 'overgrazing and erosion is only part of the problem - unsuitable irrigation schemes and insufficient time between cropping to allow the soil to repair itself seriously degrade land quality. Without looking at the whole problem, at promoting and installing better farming methods, changing the animals being farmed will not save our land'. [30] According to the Nascaring Wildlife Carers: 'This will not happen, simply because farmers, being farmers, will still clear land and trees for grazing of kangaroos where once they cleared for sheep and cattle. … It is not the species of animal farmed, it is what is done with and to the land to get the most money out of the animals grazing it which has the impact on the environment'. [31] The Humane Society International (Australia) also believes that commercial use of wildlife will not assist in conservation of rangeland environments. [32]

Experimental Management

4.26 While there was much debate about the potential for benefits to be derived from commercial utilisation of wildlife, particularly on private lands, the only way to resolve some of the issues, according to wildlife biologist Dr Grahame Webb, was for Australia to embark on a series of 'experimental management trials' where the conservation and economic impacts of commercial use could be measured. Dr Webb recommended two 'obvious' trials, as follows:

1. Attempt to manage a large area of marginal [pastoral] land (say 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.

If such a project reached commercial and biological viability (and there is every reason to believe that it could if the Federal Government was determined to assist), we would have the potential to set aside and conserve the biodiversity on some vast tracts of Australia outside national parks and reserves and do it profitably.

1. Establish a co-management agreement with one or more Aboriginal communities (for example, in Arnhem Land), and attempt to maximise the income earned by local people through the sustainable use of wildlife.

This would appear to be one of the few options for economic development in some of the remote areas occupied by Aboriginal people.

In undertaking these trials, opportunities would be created for a great range of practical training and research for landowners, scientists, managers, economists, veterinarians, etc. These skills are in urgent demand throughout the world, where the option of a 'protectionist only' approach to conservation is simply unrealistic. [33]

Superabundant Wildlife

4.27 The advent of agriculture in the Australian environment has had a beneficial impact on the distribution and abundance of a number of opportunistic species of native animals. This has largely come about through the provision of permanent water and the replacement of native vegetation with more productive pastures based on exotic plant species. Some native species, notably the large kangaroos, the brushtail possum and a number of large cockatoos species, have increased in numbers to almost plague proportions in some rural areas. Overpopulation may also come about where remnant bushland has been reduced to such an extent that animals quickly exceed the capacity of the area and must be culled or starve. For example, in some forest areas of Victoria, koalas have increased in numbers to such an extent that they have completely denuded trees and now face starvation. [34]

4.28 The superabundance of native wildlife costs Australian agriculture millions of dollars annually in control measures and lost production. Damage to crops, pasture and fences represents a significant loss to some farmers. This loss is compounded by expenditure on control measures such as shooting and poisoning. In Tasmania, for example, the Farmers and Graziers Association estimated that 'surplus wildlife costs Tasmania more than $20m per annum' and that the management of surplus wildlife was '… a major dilemma for farmers, foresters, conservationists, and Government agencies'. [35] The Browsing Animal Research Committee, alone, spent $90,000 per annum from 1993 to 1996 in research and analysis of present management practices. The forest plantation industry could not exist without the use of the poison 1080, and a loss of 10 per cent of all pasture production costs were attributed to wildlife pressure. [36] Lenah Game Meats noted that grazing by native animals on agricultural land could reduce the forage available for domestic animals on improved pasture by 94 per cent and on native pasture by 48 per cent. [37] Instead of suffering this loss, Lenah argued, the development of industries based on native species could improve the economic viability of farmers through diversification, [38] a view shared by the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association.

4.29 In Northern Territory, some 50 red-tailed black cockatoos were taken to be used as foundation breeding stock from a superabundant flock of between 5,000 and 15,000 birds. While this had negligible impact on the total population, it made farmers aware of the potential for alternative income, and the possibility that income lost through damage to crops could be made up through aviculture, and the need to retain elements of natural habitat critical to its survival, such as nesting sites in logs and trees. [39]

4.30 However, the perception of these species as a 'pest' has sometimes led to the view that their numbers should be reduced as quickly as possible, rather than considering them as a resource from which economic benefit could be derived. According to the Conservation Council of Western Australia, rather than consider superabundant wildlife as 'pests' there needed to be recognition that the ecosystem was imbalanced, and an examination made of the underlying causes and measures which could be used to redress them. [40] Other possible uses for superabundant wildlife included tourism. [41]

4.31 The consideration of superabundant wildlife as a 'pest' species is generally not helpful to consideration of it as a resource (see also Paragraph 9.109). When asked by Senator Ferris what role harvesting of native animals could play in pest management, Dr George Wilson, RIRDC Program Manager, explained:

There is a perception that kangaroos are a pest. Indeed, they are a pest under most state legislation. That really does not help the marketing of their products.

… intensively developed farmland is normally the environment in which wildlife becomes a pest. Kangaroos come into conflict with the wheat farmers or the parrots come into conflict with people growing grain. In those circumstances, then possibly there is a role for a pest control operation. It is a contradiction in terms to have a sustainable pest operation because, if it is a pest, we want to get rid of it. [42]

4.32 Furthermore, the declaration of an animal as a pest appears to remove from it the right to be treated humanely. According to the RSPCA: 'Control methods [for pest animals] are usually antiquated and known for the infliction of pain and suffering. Research monies are never available in sufficient quantity to develop humane techniques to control pest animals'. [43]

Exotic Species

4.33 Although the Committee's terms of reference refer to 'native' wildlife, the question of the commercial utilisation of feral species is related and important, not least because exotic species have had a significant impact on native species and their habitats (a subject which was frequently mentioned in submissions to the Committee). There is strong evidence, both direct and indirect, that feral animals are responsible for a decline in the numbers of many small animals, including birds, reptiles, insects and small mammals. The South Australian NPWS, for example, estimates that two million feral cats in Australia each kill approximately 500 native animals per year. [44] Feral cats may carry parasites which are capable of killing native animals [45] and they contribute to the spread of weeds, destruction of vegetation and soil erosion.

4.34 Because they are 'exotic' animals, feral species are often considered to be inferior to native species and most conservation groups support their eradication. [46] While total eradication is the preferred outcome, this is not feasible except by fencing areas which, for logistic reasons, are usually small, or on islands. The success of feral animal exclusion fences, however, is clear evidence of the enormous impact that feral animals have on Australia's biota. [47]

4.35 Because of the difficulty of totally eradicating feral animals, management strategies focus on reducing their environmental impact. One widely used method is commercial harvesting and there are a number of small industries around Australia based on species such as camels, goats, horses and pigs. However, there is a danger in allowing the establishment of harvesting programs based on feral species because there is 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 of the feral species. [48] The RSPCA argued that allowing commercial removal of feral animals should not be used to justify the continuation of populations to the detriment of the environment and the animals involved. [49] The National Farmers' Federation also noted the difficulties associated with establishing industries based on species for which there was a policy to eradicate. [50]

4.36 Dr John Hatch of the University of Adelaide argued that the Committee's terms of reference should have included exotic species for the reason that commercialisation of pest species might have considerable flow-on impact to native species and thus to biodiversity. Dr Hatch argued that it was naïve to think that commercialisation of pest or feral species would lead to control and reduction of their impact. While the authorisation of harvesting may in the first instance result in a reduction in numbers, this ignored other social and political factors which could eventually take over: 'Once a pest becomes a commodity in the normal sense, it inevitably becomes institutionalised and therefore subject to vested interest … [and] eradication, even if possible, will become politically and socially much more unacceptable'. [51]

4.37 The Queensland Conservation Council commented on the need to manage exotic pests for the conservation benefit of native species, but the Council argued that any commercial gain arising from the utilisation of these species should be made within the context of a management plan aimed at eliminating the exotic pest species from the wild. [52]

4.38 Animal Liberation ACT argued that if the extinction of exotic species in a location was desirable for any reason, commercial use of that animal was inappropriate on the basis that by creating a demand for the product you create an incentive to ensure its continuation. [53] In addition, Animal Liberation (ACT) was of the view that feral species should not be controlled in any way. They should be left to assimilate into the natural ecosystem:

If you have decided that, even though you consider the species undesirable, it is here to stay, the worst thing you can possibly do is to try to "control" it – especially by way of a commercial industry. If it is here to stay then nature needs to do what nature does best – adjust to the change and absorb the new species into the ecosystem. Human interference, whether by way of "pest" control or by way of commercial exploitation, can only delay this process and prolong the inevitable suffering associated with evolutionary change. [54]

4.39 This view, however, was not shared by many others.

Animal Rights

Opposition to Harvesting

4.40 Animal Liberation (Victoria) was particularly concerned about the welfare of animals that are subject to wild harvesting and claimed that cruelty and unnecessary suffering was a common feature of wild harvesting practices. [55] To support this view, Animal Liberation (Victoria) cited examples of possum harvesting in Tasmania, where animals kept for long periods in traps suffered from heat exposure and consequent dehydration, and kangaroo culling where animals were 'dazzled with a spotlight' and then 'picked off one by one', and pouch young are 'crushed underfoot, bashed with a wheel brace or smashed against hub caps'. [56]

4.41 Animal Liberation (ACT) noted that industries based on the capture or killing of wild animals usually operated in remote areas, at night and away from public view. Elsewhere in the world, industries involved in the export of live animals cause animals to suffer 'shock, stress, overhandling, physical abuse, fluctuating temperatures, thirst, starvation, change of diet, disease, isolation and overcrowding'. The mortality rate, even when these industries were operating legally was 'appallingly high'. [57]

4.42 Animal Liberation (Victoria) argued that 'the concept of harvesting Australian native wildlife is seriously flawed. If laws allowing it are permitted to proceed especially in the light of present wildlife harvesting problems, significantly in the areas of cruelty and especially in the light of a gross lack of scientific knowledge, Australian wildlife and subsequently the Australian people will loose [sic] out'. [58]

4.43 The RSPCA also opposed harvesting of native animals for commercial purposes, mainly because of the inherent potential for cruelty. Were harvesting allowed, the RSPCA recommended that every effort be made to ensure that it was properly supervised and carried out in a humane manner, and that species-specific management plans be enforced which defined the methods by which humane killing was to be carried out. There should also be a minimum level of competence for hunters and a mechanism for monitoring compliance. [59] In addition, the RSPCA argued that culling native animals should not be used as a means of population control; humane fertility control methods should be used instead. [60]

Opposition to Farming

4.44 Animal liberation groups argued that farming of native animals has nothing to offer, will not work and will only result in the exploitation of native animals. The captive breeding of wildlife to suit market demands would do nothing for the conservation of species in the wild and would diminish the need to preserve habitat. [61] Animal Liberation (ACT) claimed that farming of native animals caused extreme suffering by crowding animals in unnatural conditions, denying them basic environmental and behavioural needs, and subjecting them to handling, inappropriate food and a range of other stresses'. [62]

4.45 Animal Liberation (Victoria) was especially critical of husbandry practices in both the crocodile and emu industries. Its submission concluded: 'The farming of Australian fauna is unacceptable. It promotes a few people to overlook cruel, unacceptable behaviour towards Australian animals in the interests of their own purses. It does not serve conservation'. [63] In addition, the RSPCA expressed opposition to the farming of native animals primarily because of the difficulty of satisfying the needs of those animals in captivity, and is particularly opposed to the farming of carnivores for the production of fur, food, or fibre. [64]

Criticism of Animal Liberation Philosophy

4.46 The approach taken by groups which oppose commercial utilisation of wildlife on the basis of 'animal rights' has some profound consequences for conservation and a number of witnesses expressed concern about the impact of this narrow focus. As described by Dr Grahame Webb, the problems which arise from such a narrow vision are that:

• it does little to promote conservation on lands outside protected areas;
• it links 'conservation' to a single, narrow set of values that are simply not shared by many rural people because of social, cultural or economic factors;
• it creates the false impression that any actions to enhance animal rights can be justified on conservation grounds and therefore will be of benefit to 'people' and animals;
• animals rights focuses attention onto individual species when biodiversity conservation requires attention to be given to habitats and biological communities; and
• the concept of animals rights remains highly theoretical, and when subject to review and scrutiny, may prove to be fundamentally flawed. [65]

4.47 Because the 'animal rights' ethic is narrowly focused on the wellbeing of individuals, their actions frequently conflict with the views expressed by conservation groups. Three examples serve to illustrate this point.

• Mr David Millar commented in his submission: 'It is perhaps ironic that a questionable success of animal 'liberation' groups has made the wearing of fox furs unfashionable and by depressing the price of fox skins has reduced the number of foxes shot which in turn has placed our wildlife in jeopardy'. [66]
• Animal rights groups successfully lobbied against the eradication of feral brumbies and buffalo in the Northern Territory that were being culled under the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Program and thus reduced considerably the efficacy of the program. [67]
• According to Dr Grahame Webb: 'Actions such as the banning of trade in seal products have had devastating effects on the people of the circumpolar regions and have produced few if any tangible conservation advantages'. [68]

4.48 Dr Max King of the Safari Club International summed up the conflict between the two groups in the closing comments of a conference paper:

I question why we are countenancing the protectionist view of animal liberationists at this conference, views which their media spokesperson tell us are opposed to population and habitat management. The animal liberationists opt for the 19th century Malthusian approach, where nature is left to take its course; where overpopulation destroys the habitat; where animals die a lingering death; where biodiversity is eliminated. Do the animal liberationists want to repeat the destruction of Kenya's Tsavo National Park, where in the late 1960's, 40,000 elephants ate themselves out of habitat and destroyed the park, themselves, and unfortunately did even more damage to the Black rhinoceros population in that area …? How animal liberationists can juxtapose such cruelty with their touted humane approach to Animal Liberation is a logical nonsense.

The animal liberationist approach to conservation by letting nature take its course, does not work, because habitat boundaries are no longer infinite, they are finite and surrounded by man and agriculture. Destruction of habitat due to animal overpopulation can now-adays be permanent. Population management by sustainable utilisation is the only solution to long term conservation. [69]

Minimising Risk and Maximising Benefits

4.49 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. To do this effectively necessitates a case-by-case management strategy and an element of caution where there is only rudimentary knowledge of a target species. However, as noted by the Department of Environment, a lack of knowledge should not be used to reject a proposal because it may mean rejecting a cost effective opportunity to improve that knowledge base. [70] For this reason many new enterprises should be required to commence on a trial basis, with harvesting levels erring on the side of caution (the 'precautionary principle').

4.50 In its submission to the Committee, the Department of Environment listed a series of principles relevant to the wild harvesting of native species:

• there must be a legislative framework within which commercial harvesting can be regulated, new commercial harvests approved and access rights determined;
• there should be a basic level of knowledge and understanding of the biology of any species which is to be utilised commercially;
• commercial use of a species should contribute to an increase in the knowledge and understanding of the species involved, and the possible impacts of the harvesting on that species, as well as non-target species;
• where animals are to be caught or killed, they should be subjected to the least amount of suffering possible;
• where appropriate, there should be independent monitoring and assessment of the impact of commercial activity on the species concerned, non-target species, and ecosystems;
• management should provide for an adaptive response to evidence of unacceptable changes; [71]
• management should include provision for an ecosystem approach;
• management of harvested species should be integrated with other conservation actions at the regional level of resolution to ensure conservation of biological diversity;
• risk assessment and environmental uncertainty should be factored into the management regime, with a safety margin being incorporated particularly where harvest quotas are set;
• waste should be minimised; and
• there must be transparency in decision making and public accountability for management actions, with periodic public review. [72]

4.51 In addition, the Australian Veterinary Association recommended that: 'No harvest activities should be contemplated in species or populations where such census work is not possible, or carried out for any reason' and that 'no wildlife species should be harvested from an ecosystem which is not being monitored for the full range of effects which such harvesting may generate'. [73]

4.52 Finally, in promoting the concept of sustainable use of wildlife, the Department noted that the nation's base of scientific expertise in wildlife management was 'in steep decline'. Should this decline continue, Australia would not be able to achieve best practice management of its biological resources and would 'increasingly find that this portion of the national wealth will be forfeited or mortgaged simply because the skills to protect the national interest are absent'. [74] The Department recommended four areas of action:

• For Australia to achieve best practice in management of commercial uses of wildlife, the opportunity should be explored to expand and share the opportunities for education, training and employment among the wildlife scientists and technological specialists within Australasia.
• There needs to be an accurate and comprehensive assessment of employment opportunities and career structure in Australia for wildlife scientists and technological specialists.
• Strategies need to be developed and implemented to ensure that employment of wildlife scientists and technological specialists is directed at maximising the benefits for ecologically sustainable development.
• Once relevant information has been accumulated and methodologies for solving problems have been developed, the information and methodologies need to be disseminated to the public, particularly land owners and natural resource managers. [75]

Summary and Conclusions

4.53 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 imperative now is to find mechanisms to conserve habitat on private lands. One way of doing this is to consider wildlife as having sustainable economic value. When a value is placed on a species, an indirect value is placed on the habitat occupied by that species and an incentive to preserve habitat emerges. However, whether commercial utilisation of wildlife can act to assist in biodiversity conservation depends on whether the utilisation can be biologically sustained in the long-term, and the environmental impact that the activity has on non-target species and physical components of the environment.

4.54 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.

4.55 Sustainable harvesting 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 (at the egg or juvenile stage), 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 of harvest (age, sex, etc); timing of the harvest; 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.

4.56 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. The degree of impact will vary according to the type of operation and 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.

4.57 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 (royalties) for other conservation work. These actions can lead to a number of other long-term and broad benefits.

4.58 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. Of all forms of wildlife use, harvesting has the greatest potential to reduce the viability of a population.

4.59 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

4.60 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. The main benefit is in reducing harvesting pressure on wild populations. Other indirect conservation benefits include public education, research on population dynamics and biology, the deterrence of smuggling, and the provision of funds for administration through licences and royalties. The farming of wildlife in the strict sense of closed-cycle breeding does not present a direct threat to biodiversity. Indirect threats may arise through the release of genetically divergent captive-bred populations into the wild, and transferral of disease from captive to wild populations.

4.61 The potential for conservation benefit to private lands arising from sustainable use of wildlife is arguably very large. 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. The scenario envisaged by proponents of sustainable use for marginal agricultural lands would see: gradual replacement of economic dependence on sheep and cattle as meat animals with kangaroos and emus; considerable increase in size of protected areas of habitat; replacement of some areas of agriculture with ecotourism; and encouragement of graziers currently on agricultural land to remain as paid custodians of healing land (using current levels of rural subsidies) and as harvesters of kangaroos. To this end, suggestions were made for Australia to embark on a series of experimental trials to manage an area of marginal land for sustainable use of wildlife (rather than cattle and sheep).

4.62 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.

4.63 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.

4.64 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 the loss arising from the legal or illegal removal of animals.

4.65 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.

4.66 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.

4.67 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.

Footnotes

[1] In Western Australia, for example, there are 800 small reserves in the wheatbelt.

[2] Evidence, p. RRA&T 561, Submission No. 112, p. 2.

[3] Submission No. 112, p. 1.

[4] Submission No. 157, p. 19.

[5] Submission No. 105.

[6] But note that some groups do not believe that landholders should be provided with a financial incentive to preserve wildlife; they should do it out of a sense of duty to the land they own. Australians Against the Commercialisation of Wildlife, for example, states: 'Landholders, whether they be freehold or leasehold occupiers, have a responsibility to give something back to this species from which they have usurped the land. We have met many farmers over the years who are more than willing to share the land with native animals for NO commercial gain. If landholders don't aspire to these values (ie. sharing what originally was the rightful territory of whatever native species), then how can such people be trusted? If they can not transcend the mentality of profit for protection, then NO native species can be entrusted to their 'care'.' (Submission No. 57, attached letter from Australians Against the Commercialisation of Wildlife to Mr Stephen Ward, Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, dated 4 November 1996, p. 2).

[7] Submission No. 337, p. 1.

[8] Submission No. 105, p. 4.

[9] Adapted from Submission No. 337, p. 2.

[10] Evidence, p. RRA&T 321.

[11] Submission No. 337, p. 3.

[12] As reported in Changing policy to change values and protect remnant vegetation, Australian Farm Journal BUSH, August 1997, p. 14.

[13] Archer, M, Hand, S J and Godhelp, H 1997 Warnings from the fossil record and island biodiversity about the long-term viability of mammal lineages in 'protected areas' in Landcare Changing Australia, National Conference, Vol 1, Adelaide, p. 26. See also Australia: An Environmental Rivieria? in Australian Farm Journal, January 1998, p. 67.

[14] Evidence, p. RRA&T 828.

[15] Submission No. 198, p. 31.

[16] Evidence, pp. RRA&T 219, 868, 877, Submission No.s 4, 5, 141 (p.1), for example.

[17] Submission No. 198, p. 42.

[18] Submission No. 198, p. 42 (Recommendation 18).

[19] Evidence, p. RRA&T 220.

[20] Submission No. 50, p. 9, 12-13.

[21] Submission No. 72, p. 1.

[22] Submission No. 191, p. 3.

[23] Submission No. 143, p. 2.

[24] Submission No. 190, p. 4.

[25] Submission No. 198, p. 44 (Recommendation 20).

[26] Submission No. 198, p. 45 (Recommendation 21).

[27] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1119.

[28] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1123.

[29] Evidence, p. RRA&T 29.

[30] Submission No. 87, p. 7.

[31] Submission No. 297, p. 1.

[32] Evidence, p. RRA&T 755ff.

[33] Submission No. 157, p. 3; see also Evidence, p. RRA&T 386.

[34] Areas include Warrnambool and Mortlake, Snake Island, Sandy Point, Western Port Tower Hill and parts of French Island (Source: Shoot Them: Koala Plea, Sun Herald 26 April 1998, pp. 1, 3).

[35] Submission No. 335, p. 1.

[36] Submission No. 335, p.1.

[37] Submission No. 141, p. 6.

[38] Submission No. 141, p. 2.

[39] Submission No.s 59, 105.

[40] Evidence, p. RRA&T 482.

[41] Evidence, p. RRA&T 486.

[42] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1123.

[43] RSPCA Inc Animal Welfare in Australia 3.6 Introduced pest and feral animals Internet site http://www.ezycolour.com.au/RSPCA/australia.html, 9 December 1997.

[44] As quoted in Submission No. 116, p. 1.

[45] Evidence, p. RRA&T 861.

[46] Although some animal rights groups believe that feral animals are also sacrosanct and should not be killed either.

[47] Evidence, p. RRA&T 824. See also Shea S R, Abbott I, Armstrong J A & McNamara K J (undated) Sustainable Conservation – A new integrated approach to nature conservation in Australia, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.

[48] Evidence, pp. RRA&T 45, 484, 776.

[49] RSPCA Inc Animal Welfare and the Environment: 10. Control and Commercial Use of Feral Animals Internet site http://www.ezycolour.com.au/RSPCA/welfare.html, 9 December 1997.

[50] Evidence, p. RRA&T 34.

[51] Submission No. 56, p. 3; Evidence, p. RRA&T 569.

[52] Submission No. 65, p. 3.

[53] Submission No. 66, p. 2.

[54] Submission No. 66, p. 5.

[55] Submission No. 87, p. 4; See also Submission No. 66, p. 2.

[56] Submission No. 87, p. 6.

[57] Submission No. 66, p. 2.

[58] Submission No. 87, p. 7.

[59] Submission No. 169, p. 4.

[60] Submission No. 169, p. 5. The ACF also believes that the capture and slaughter of native animals subjects them to an unacceptable level of distress. ACF Policy Statement No. 61, Tabled by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, 8 September 1997, p. 3.

[61] Evidence, p. RRA&T 539.

[62] Submission No. 66, p. 2.

[63] Submission No. 87, p. 10.

[64] Submission No. 169, p. 5.

[65] Submission No. 157, pp 6-7.

[66] Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 17; see also Submission No. 157, p. 6.

[67] Submission No. 210, p. 4.

[68] Submission No. 157, p. 6.

[69] Submission No. 118, p. 12.

[70] Submission No. 198, p. 34.

[71] See also Submission No. 299, p. 4.

[72] Submission No. 198, p. 33.

[73] Submission No. 187, p. 9-10.

[74] Submission No. 198, p. 34.

[75] Submission No. 198, p. 34-35.