CHAPTER 4A - POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Term of Reference (a) - the potential impact which commercial utilisation of native wildlife might
have on the Australian environment
Introduction
4.1 The commercial use of native wildlife is controversial because, on one hand, it has the potential to
assist in the conservation of species and habitats. On the other hand, if not managed appropriately, it has
the capacity to drive species into decline, possibly to extinction, and to cause irreversible damage to the
environment. There is also a midpoint, in theory if not in practice, where environmental impact of
commercialisation can be neutral. The outcome of commercial utilisation of wildlife is entirely dependent
on how the commercial venture is managed: whether it is conducted in a sustainable manner, and what
impacts it has on other species and on the environments in which the target and non-target species live.
4.2 Individual species are important and, in the past, there has been considerable focus on preserving
species, particularly those that have been considered to be endangered or threatened with extinction.
However, the critical importance of habitat to the maintenance of overall biodiversity, and thus indirectly
the survival of species, has recently been given greater emphasis in conservation efforts. In Australia,
where vast areas of natural habitat have been degraded or destroyed, the imperative now is to find
mechanisms to conserve habitat, rather than just individual species.
4.3 The traditional approach to conservation used in Australia for many decades comprises a number of
elements:
- conservation by preservation in government sponsored reserves;
- negligible constraints on land management outside government reserves;
- crown ownership of all fauna and flora but no system of incentives to preserve biota on private
lands;
- cultivation of a philosophy of abhorrence of wealth creation from nature conservation management
(with the exception of government wealth creation through tourism in national parks);
- compartmentalisation and proliferation of state and Federal land management agencies which
maximises opportunities for demarcation disputes;
- low priority funding of nature conservation and insufficient resources devoted to controlling
threatening processes; and
- funding priorities based on ideology rather than real threats to biodiversity. [1]
4.4 The system of ecological reserves in Australia (national parks, nature reserves and nature parks), has
allowed representative areas of important ecosystems to be retained. In some cases, such as the
combined alpine national parks, a very large proportion of an ecotype has been set aside in perpetuity.
However, a vast proportion of Australia is not protected in this way and much of it, in the hands of
private owners or lessees, is subject to varying degrees of environmental stress, primarily through the
pressure of low intensity land uses such as agriculture.
4.5 There is now a growing belief that, in combination, these elements have in fact been
counterproductive to biodiversity conservation in Australia. Evidence of the failure of the traditional
system is readily available: Australia has the highest mammal extinction rate in the world; vast areas of
agriculture land has been affected by salination; conservation outside reserves has been almost negligible
with very low rates of private sector involvement; threatening processes have remained unchecked with
consequent widespread habitat loss; and the spread of exotic plants, animals and pathogens has had a
devastating impact on native wildlife and habitats. According to many observers and, in particular,
Australian scientists, there is an urgent need for a radical change to the way in which conservation is
managed in Australia. Instead of being viewed as an impediment to wealth creation, natural resources
must now be seen as having sustainable economic value.
4.6 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 the habitat emerges. Thus the 'greatest environmental benefit of the
commercial use of wildlife is the potential for it to act as an incentive for the maintenance and
management of native vegetation on private lands, as well as a means of generating the financial
resources required to manage the species involved and their habitats'. [2]
4.7 With the incentive to preserve habitat comes the idea of improving degraded habitat and from this
comes many environmental benefits. These include:
- increased vegetation retention;
- shade and shelter for native wildlife and stock;
- erosion, water table and salinity control;
- windbreaks;
- improvement to water quality; and
- carbon sequestration to reduce impacts of greenhouse gas-induced climate change. [3]
4.8 However, the commercial incentive to retain habitat comes only with ranching or harvesting. With
farming of wildlife in closed-cycle systems, there is little or no dependence on natural habitat and
therefore no direct conservation benefit. However, other indirect conservation benefits, such as the
collection of scientific data on species and public education, may result from farming enterprises.
4.9 While closed cycle operations have limited, though some ability to contribute to conservation, it is
through the combination of both in-situ (harvesting) and ex-situ (farming) operations that the greatest
benefits can be derived. In an account of the Northern Territory Government's crocodile management
program, the Federal Department of Environment observed:
The combination of both an ex-situ breeding component and a sustainable wild-harvest component …
couples the efficiency of intensive production with the conservation benefits of a wild harvest.
Establishment or management of native vegetation and other wildlife for commercial production will be of
most use when it is planned to provide a range of benefits, as occurs in multiple-use regimes. Wild
harvesting will, for instance, make a greater contribution to the conservation of biodiversity than ex-situ
or intensive breeding as it requires native wildlife populations to be retained in-situ, as functioning
components of natural ecosystems, rather than as monocultures. However, when the demand for a
product is greater than that which can be supplied by a wild harvest, more intensive breeding systems,
either ranching or closed-cycle breeding, are increasingly employed. [4]
4.10 Where native species occur in such abundance that they are actually causing damage to their own
habitat (and that of other species), sustainable harvesting can alleviate the pressure, either permanently or
temporarily, and allow the environment to recover. Because superabundant wildlife usually occurs as a
result of introduced agricultural practices, the commercial utilisation of native wildlife increases the
opportunities of farmers to economically diversify. This has led to the suggestion that in some areas, such
as the rangelands of western NSW and Queensland where kangaroos are abundant, graziers move
away from farming exotic species towards native species.
4.11 Commercial utilisation of wildlife takes many forms and any given wildlife industry must take many
factors into account to be commercially successful. However, from the point of view of biodiversity
conservation, there are only two critical issues:
- whether the utilisation is biologically sustainable in the long-term for the species utilised; and
- what environmental impact the activity has on non-target species and physical components of the
environment.
The Question of Sustainability
Biological Sustainability
4.12 Whether commercial utilisation of wildlife is acceptable and what impact it has on the target
species, depends to a very large extent on whether that species' population can withstand the impact of
repeated removal of some individuals. That is, whether harvesting can be sustained biologically over a
long period of time. In favourable circumstances, most species have a tendency to reproduce far in
excess of the carrying capacity of the environment. Through disease, predation, competition and lack of
'fitness', the number of offspring is gradually reduced, generally to the number of adults that the area can
support. Sustainable harvesting is based on this fundamental ecological principle and seeks to remove
excess numbers of a population either before they are subject to the natural forces of removal (that is, at
the egg or juvenile stage), or at the adult stage to allow juveniles the resources to develop into adults.
4.13 According to the Bureau of Resource Sciences, the factors which affect ecological sustainability
are:
- the rate of harvest;
- the selectivity of harvest (age, sex, etc);
- the timing of the harvest;
- the rate of population increase; and
- the susceptibility of the population to non-harvest mortality factors.
4.14 If harvesting of a species cannot be biologically sustained, either the species is forced to extinction
or the industry collapses. However, in practice, industry extinction usually occurs at some point prior to
species extinction. Because biological systems are complicated and knowledge about them lacking in
many cases, assessing the level of harvesting a species can sustain is often difficult. Historically, the
answer has often been discovered through error, when over-harvested populations have gone into
serious decline. As described by Dr Brian Walker, Chief of the Division of Wildlife and Ecology:
'Commercial use of wildlife has rarely been sustainable. Past and current harvesting of wildlife has led to
dramatic declines in populations in many parts of the world'. [5] Dr Walker further claimed:
There are few historical examples of sustainable commercial use of wildlife. There are numerous
examples of commercial exploitation that have led to local, regional or total extinctions. Of the 488
species known to have gone extinct since about 1600, 23% of those extinctions are thought to have
been caused by hunting (Groombridge 1992). By the end of the 1800s, there was a long list of
fur-bearing animals that had undergone marked population declines or local extinctions in North
America. This list included beaver, bison, sea otter, river otter, marten, lynx, walrus, seals and whales, all
of which were heavily harvested for commercial purposes. [6]
4.15 However, there are examples of many species that were hunted in Europe and America that were
sustained over centuries, including deer, mink and silver foxes. [7]
4.16 In Australia, the record is also mixed. On one hand, during the last century several species were
driven almost to extinction by the excesses of commercial venture combined with a lack of understanding
of Australia's special ecology and a lack of appreciation of the need to maintain biodiversity. However,
with the exception of the Thylacine, these species were saved either by conservation pressure or by
cessation of the harvest when there were too few animals for an economic return. [8] On the other hand,
a number of species have been harvested sustainably including the large macropods, possums and
muttonbirds. In truth, Australia's poor record in species conservation has been very much a result of
habitat loss, rather than commercial use.
The Sustainable Use Model
4.17 The model of sustainable use of wildlife as a conservation tool has its origins in southern Africa
where, over the last decade, biodiversity conservation has changed from protectionism to liberal but
controlled use. The success of this policy change has been widely promoted by some as a lesson for all
conservation agencies facing problems of wildlife loss and decreasing budgets.
4.18 Following colonialisation of southern Africa last century, wildlife became the property of the crown
and while for a limited time this served to protect animals. However, the build up of resentment from
indigenous people who had been denied hunting rights and displaced from their land through the creation
of national parks, led to widespread and excessive poaching. A combination of factors - high human
population growth, chronic poverty, poor land use practices and the high value of poached wildlife –
finally led to the population crash of many of the larger species (elephant, rhinoceros, lion,
hippopotamus, roan antelope, kob and bongo). In addition, inappropriate and badly managed
agricultural practices led to widely degraded habitat. The change in conservation practices stemmed
from the belief that 'protectionist' policies were not addressing the fundamental economic and social
problems which were causing habitat and species destruction. [9]
4.19 In Kenya, the government changed its laws to allow landowners to benefit from wildlife in a number
of ways and, in particular, to derive revenue from wildlife-based tourism. Zimbabwe embraced this
concept even further and now, in addition to the 13 per cent of the country set aside for national parks,
another 18 per cent has been developed as private game ranches and conservancies on land that was
previously used primarily for agriculture. Wildlife is also used for game hunting and when there is surplus
stock it competes commercially with domestic meat. In addition, the national parks services now derive
income through the sale of surplus stock from protected areas. Zimbabwe has also introduced the
'CAMPFIRE' scheme which gave back to indigenous people ownership and responsibility for wildlife
(see Box: The 'CAMPFIRE' Scheme).
4.20 Revenue from commercial utilisation of wildlife has increased considerably and some game ranches
are returning two to three times the income per hectare than they did when the land was in conventional
agricultural production. In addition, there has been considerable environmental benefit derived from the
fact that game ranches now farm more ecologically appropriate species. Another important element of
the success of game ranches has been diversification of interests which has provided greater economic
security for landowners. On some ranches, income is derived from more than 10 large animal species
which are farmed, in addition to tourism and game hunting.
4.21 Generally, the result for wildlife populations has been positive and there is evidence that the change
in policy has the capacity to now heal the scars of earlier degradation. [10] Some animal species have
experienced dramatic recovery in numbers. For example, in Kenya the populations of all the large
ungulates have increased over the last few years; and in South Africa and Zimbabwe, there is now more
wildlife on farmlands than there is in national parks. [11]
4.22 The attitude of many people to the changes in conservation policy in southern Africa is now
'guarded optimism'. However, more important than the economics of 'user pays' conservation, has been
that the philosophy of sustainable use in southern Africa 'recognizes the right of local people to control
their resources and destiny, and above all it enlists their support'. [12]
4.23 Direct evidence on the southern African sustainable use model came from Mr Peter Johnson,
Executive Trustee of the African Gamebird Research Education and Development Trust who spoke to
the Committee at length in Canberra. [13] In describing the concepts of sustainable use in Africa, and
why it was a success, Mr Johnson made the following observations:
- a country must decide who is going to own wildlife (that is, whether the government will
monopolise natural resources or allow private ownership and profitability from those resources);
- the strategy of commercial utilisation of wildlife is an offensive process rather than a defensive one:
that is, rather than having to defend small pockets of protected area (national parks), the land
where indigenous resources can be used can expand widely and is only limited by the land mass
of the country;
- opportunities for conservation through sustainable use of wildlife must be identified in
non-government land (the wildlife in national parks is already conserved);
- it is ironic that the Australian government allows extensive use of non-renewable resources
(minerals), the extraction of which damages the environment, but has a prohibitionist approach to
the use of renewable resources which have the capacity to benefit the environment;
- commercial utilisation of wildlife is about making indigenous products compete with exotic
products;
- the advantage of utilising native species over exotic species is that they cost less to maintain
because they are already adapted to the ecosystem; and
- at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is habitat.
4.24 There is considerable support in Australia for the model of sustainable use of wildlife as used in
southern Africa. For example, Professor Eugene Moll commented in evidence to the Committee:
… I am conscious of the fact that 70 per cent of the Zimbabwean elephant herd does not live in national
parks. Unless you can sell ivory, those elephants do not have value. I am glad that the Zimbabweans are
able to sell some ivory again because that means that, on tribal lands, those elephants have value. If
those elephants do not have value, tribal people say, `Why must we have them always breaking our
fences and eating our crops?' [14]
4.25 And Dr John Wamsley stated: 'The long term benefits of this method in ensuring the survival of
species has been proven in African countries where an economic value has been added to the
conservation equation. The same method could be used to reverse much of the damage done to the
Australian environment and native species'. [15]
4.26 In support of the concept of sustainable use of wildlife, Mr Keith Cook gave evidence about an
international organisation, the Asian Conservation and Sustainable Use Group (ACSUG), which
included representative from Australia and a number of Asian countries (including Japan, Philippines,
Cambodia, Laos and Indonesia). One of the main objectives of ACSUG is to increase awareness of the
fact that consumption and conservation are not mutually exclusive. ACSUG believes that because in
many places of the world there is no framework to utilise wildlife properly, it is used improperly. [16]
Criticism of Sustainable Use Model
4.27 However, while proponents of the African sustainable use model argued strongly for its benefits in
preserving wildlife and habitat, those people opposed to sustainable use were just as vocal, if not more
so in their criticisms of it. The core of the argument against sustainable use is contained in a book
published by the Humane Society International - Animals in Peril: How 'Sustainable Use' is Wiping
Out the World's Wildlife. This book was quoted widely in evidence to the Committee by those arguing
against sustainable use. The book's main thesis is that sustainable use of wildlife is a myth, being
'provocative in theory but unworkable in application', and having an 'almost unbroken record of failure'.
The book suggests that profits from wildlife industries only occur when those industries operate at a
greater than sustainable level and that 'the growing acceptance of the doctrine of sustainable use by
governments and certain 'conservation' organizations is one of the biggest dangers wildlife has ever
faced'. [17] The book advocates valuing wildlife for its intrinsic worth, promotes animal rights
philosophies and promotes ecotourism as the 'true [and only] sustainable use'. Almost half the book is
devoted to a discussion of the controversy over resumption of the ivory trade in Africa.
4.28 Animal liberation groups and some conservation groups, as well as a number of individuals who
sent submissions to the Committee, believe that the sustainable use model, as used in Africa, is a
dangerous precedent to follow. The reasons for this belief are, first, that it has not been successful in
preserving wildlife and, second, that it is not relevant to the situation in Australia. Animal Liberation
groups do not agree that it is possible to use wildlife in an ecologically sustainable manner, and argued
that the expression was a contradiction in terms. According to the ACT Branch:
If you create a market you create a demand. That demand does not conveniently disappear just because
a drought or flood or, more probably, some anthropogenic disaster has reduced the supply so that the
industry is no longer sustainable. The impractical, unrealistic and childish notion of 'ecologically
sustainable use' of wildlife is a sure recipe for extinction. [18]
4.29 With regard to the African philosophy of sustainable use, Ms Maryland Wilson of the Australian
Wildlife Protection Council stated:
If you look at what is happening in Africa and the way they put a profit motive and commercialised
wildlife in Africa you see what has happened there. It has decimated the wildlife populations. They came
up with a very poor solution, I feel. [19]
4.30 Mr Richard Jones (MLC) [20] argued that: 'The sustainable use strategy devised to protect wildlife
by giving it a commercial value has been an abysmal failure globally'. [21] He claimed that commercial
utilisation of wildlife was only tolerated where there was seen to be a need for population control and
that it would not be tolerated where that need could not be demonstrated. Mr Jones (MLC) argued that
the concept was becoming increasingly unpopular globally and, in support of this claim, cited examples
of campaigns against wildlife use such as killing of seals in Canada and Namibia, opposition to the use of
furs, renewed international campaigns against kangaroo culling, and opposition to use of ivory in Africa.
[22] He stated in his submission: 'Plausible as it may sound in theory, international experience has shown
that commercial utilisation is largely unworkable in practice … [and] an examination of virtually all
commercially harvested species shows that virtually all populations have been depleted, many to the
point of extinction'. [23]
4.31 Dr Judy Messer, Vice Chairperson of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, argued:
… when you look around at the present commercialisation of nature, it is not ecologically sustainable, it
is all on the downhill slide, and there is simply nothing in the world anywhere that we can have any
confidence in that it is in a good ecologically sustainable state. [24]
4.32 The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) argued in its policy paper on commercial utilisation
of wildlife that the situation in Africa was radically different from that in Australia. In Africa, because
local species were so depleted and habitat so degraded, the only option left was to include commercial
use of some species in wildlife management programs. The ACF maintains that: 'This can only be viewed
as an extreme and interim measure and should not be taken as an endorsement of commercial utilisation
of wildlife' and that there was 'no justification for this in an OECD country such as Australia'. [25]
4.33 The Central Land Council does not agree that the African model is appropriate for Australia,
especially within the arid zone. In its submission the Council stated:
Within the central Australian context, and indeed on a national basis, conservation through commercial
utilisation of wildlife is an inappropriate paradigm. It is a concept and practice transposed from countries
such as Africa and America where the situations are wholly different. Conservation through commercial
utilisation is a necessary means where the species you are dealing with are large (eg elephants, giraffe),
have limited reproductive capacity and high individual value. The case for such drastic conservation
measures is further strengthened where lawlessness and endemic poverty favour large scale poaching. In
Australia none of these criteria exist for native species, though there may be a case for employing this
method of preservation for estuarine crocodiles if only to off-set the negative human cost of their
conservation. [26]
4.34 However, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), which has supported the concept of ranching
native species in Africa, has a more circumspect view:
Such approaches [as used in southern Africa] are still experimental and it is unclear whether such
ventures could remain economically or ecologically viable over the long term without continuous
interventions and/or subsidies. Similarly, it is not clear what the longer-term implications of
semi-domestication would be on the species themselves or the habitat. [Intervention by farmers will]
begin to erode the benefits for the natural environment from such a scheme. [27]
Evidence of Sustainable Harvests in Australia
4.35 However, the fact that commercial utilisation of wildlife can be economically and ecologically
sustained in Australia is evidenced by the presence of a number of industries, based on wildlife use, that
have existed for many years. It is clear that for some species, consumptive use already has general public
approval. To a large extent, the inclusion of certain species has a historical base, rather than for any
scientific reasons. Species already commercially utilised include animals (for example, kangaroos,
possums and muttonbirds), plants (for example, oil from eucalyptus and tea tree, and broombrush for
fences) and habitats (for example, private wildlife parks such as Earth Sanctuaries). There are, in
addition, some newer industries which appear at this stage also to be ecologically sustainable (emus,
crocodiles, bushfoods and wildflowers).
4.36 Kangaroos have been harvested for decades in Australia and despite the annual removal of
between 2.5 to 3.5 million animals, the total population of kangaroos has continued to increase. It is now
at the highest level since intensive monitoring commenced 30 years ago. Harvest quotas which are set in
each state by conservation agencies are typically between 15 and 20 per cent of the population, as
estimated by aerial surveys, and the annual harvest averages 60 per cent of the quota. [28] (For more
detail see Chapter 9).
4.37 Emus have now been farmed for over a decade in Australia. While these businesses are all based
on closed-cycle operations and while there are at present some product marketing problems in the
industry, it is clear that the species can be sustained in captivity for commercial purposes. (For more
detail see Chapter 10).
4.38 In the crocodile industry, ranching of juveniles and eggs has now been carried out for some 15
years. Despite the removal of thousands of eggs, hatchlings and juveniles from natural habitat (Table
11.1), wild populations of both saltwater and freshwater crocodiles have continued to increase. [29] In
addition, the ranching of crocodile eggs has provided an incentive for indigenous people to preserve
ecologically valuable wetlands habitat. (For more detail see Chapter 11).
4.39 Brushtail possums have been culled and harvested from agricultural areas in Tasmania for many
years. According to Lenah Game Meats: 'Well documented and scientifically collected evidence clearly
shows that despite a constant and high harvest/cull, possum numbers have increased dramatically'. [30]
Supporting this observation, the Department of Environment noted in its submission that harvesting of
possums had 'no known significant environmental impacts'. The only concern to the Department was that
of animal welfare. [31] (For more detail see Chapter 12).
4.40 The harvesting of muttonbirds from colonies in the islands of Bass Strait has not only been
sustained for many decades (although it is now in decline), the industry is credited with the protection of
muttonbird habitat and therefore that of many other species which live on those islands. (For more detail
see Chapter 15).
Ensuring Sustainability
4.41 Dr Brian Walker, Chief of the Division of Wildlife and Ecology, in a submission put to the
Committee on behalf of the Biodiversity Sector for CSIRO, proposed a set of basic principles for
ensuring sustainable use of wildlife. These principles were:
1. Know the Animal
Wildlife being considered for commercial use must be assessed on a case by case basis. Information
about the species should include its distribution, abundance, and demography.
2. Over-harvesting Should be Difficult
There is a high risk of over-harvesting rare, high-value species and, conversely, a low risk of
over-harvesting a low-value, abundant species.
3. Harvest Conservatively
Because wild populations may vary dramatically in numbers according to season, legal harvesting should
be set at levels well below the scientifically calculated off-take rate and any increase in this rate should
only be allowed after years of experience of the particular harvested population.
4. Effective Monitoring and Enforcement is Essential
A well conceived commercial program can fail if inadequate resources are dedicated to monitoring
population stability and enforcing legal harvesting rates.
5. Non-Target Species are Rarely Taken
There should be a low risk of 'by-catch' of non-target species.
6. Local Communities Should Benefit
Local community participation and benefit from wildlife harvesting is important. When only a few dealers
and exporters gain most of the benefit, sustainable harvesting is difficult to maintain. When people who
live with wildlife gain from it, there are reasons to look after it. [32]
Monitoring Sustainability
4.42 The monitoring of population stability is crucial to any commercial harvesting program and any large
scale operation must include provision for independent and ongoing monitoring of the impact on the
species concerned. [33] Monitoring must also be sufficiently regular to detect any significant changes in
population numbers. In addition, to be 'above suspicion', the information must be publicly available.
Where an industry comprises a large number of small enterprises, there is a need to coordinate
harvesting information in order to assess the overall impact. For example, in the bushfoods industry,
there is potential for many small-scale operators to unwittingly take a very large proportion of resources.
4.43 Because absolute data on population numbers and rates of increase or decrease are almost
impossible to determine, and because extrinsic factors can have a major impact on rates of population
recruitment, sustainable harvest rates must include a margin for error. Further, to avoid 'quota creep'
which may happen if those who profit from the harvest are able to influence quota levels, it is essential
that the authority responsible for setting quotas remain completely independent of industry. [34]
4.44 Although the problem of assessing the number of animals or plants of any given species may at first
appear to be one of logistics, it is ultimately one of economics. Allocation of financial resources to carry
out 'counts' of wildlife species is often made on the basis of a perception of the 'importance' of that
species. Species become important either because they are being pushed towards the status of 'rare' or
'endangered', or because they may have a commercial value and can only be used if the harvest is
deemed to be sustainable. To do this, numbers must be counted. To do that, money is necessary.
4.45 While determining sustainability of harvesting wild animals requires an assessment of population
numbers, with many species it is not crucial to measure the absolute number of animals present. What is
important is information about the dynamics of the population; whether it is increasing or decreasing, and
at what rate. However, while knowing the relative number of animals may be necessary, it may not be
sufficient information to determine whether the population is surviving harvesting in a sustainable manner.
Other information includes demographic parameters such as sex ratio and age structure. As noted by the
Tasmanian Conservation Trust: 'You might have 100,000 possums, but they might all be under two
years old; they might be all males'. [35]
4.46 The ACF suggested that monitoring of native wildlife populations was difficult, expensive and time
consuming and suggested that there was no evidence that adequate, accountable and cost effective
monitoring programs existed or would be established by either state or Federal governments. [36] The
ACF believes that there was insufficient scientific information about most native plants and animals to
support an ecologically sustainable program of harvesting. The impact of commercial harvests on
ecosystem balance has not been adequately assessed and thus is not understood. [37]
4.47 However, while conservation groups argued that there was insufficient scientific evidence for most
species in Australia to ascertain whether sustainable harvesting could be carried out, some scientists
believe that more scientific evidence is not what is needed; research on unharvested populations was
unlikely to predict what would happen to those populations when subject to extraction. According to R
B Martin:
There is a worrying emphasis on prior scientific research and population inventories as conditions for
permitting sustainable use … With the vast complex of uncertainties surrounding biological issues,
research is unlikely to predict the response of most systems to management. Until a population is actually
exploited, little will be learnt about its behaviours. Our entire approach [in Africa] to the subject is based
on adaptive management, where the act of utilisation forms the basis for the necessary research. Through
setting quotas and monitoring offtakes, the necessary adjustments can be made to the system – and no
species is likely to go extinct through such an approach. [38]
4.48 The BRS submission also noted that commercial harvesting was unlikely to drive any species to
extinction because harvesting will generally become uneconomic as density declines. [39] However, the
BRS recommended that to avoid local extinctions, wildlife population densities should be maintained at a
level where their existence is not threatened by non-harvest mortality factors. The Bureau suggested that
regulating the total harvest was more likely to be achieved by limiting the number of operators rather than
setting quotas which were difficult and expensive to enforce. The BRS also suggested that the methods
of harvest used were irrelevant to sustainability, although they may have an impact on efficiency and on
animal welfare.
4.49 Because wildlife populations are dynamic systems, there is a need to constantly monitor the
abundance of any harvested population and management plans need to be sufficiently flexible to alter
harvesting rates downward should this be indicated. The accuracy of monitoring decreases when wildlife
populations are at low densities or occur in variable environments, thus there is a greater need for a
built-in safety margin as a buffer against unpredictable events such as disease, fire or drought.
4.50 Wildlife biologist, Dr Grahame Webb, suggested that because of the inherent unpredictability of
biological systems and the consequential need to constantly monitor sustainability of commercial use, all
management programs were experimental. As such, they required continual review and assessment and,
where necessary, fine tuning. Dr Webb claimed that this approach was 'totally consistent with an
objective scientific approach to problem solving' and could be carried out 'transparently'. [40] Dr Webb
also concluded:
- that this approach was the most rapid and most cost-effective way of developing a management
program;
- that regardless of how much effort was expended studying wildlife not subject to commercial use,
the real impacts could only ever be determined through experimentation;
- that because of the number and diversity of variables involved in a wildlife management program,
there would always be a variety of potential risks; and
- that the claim that more and more detailed scientific research was required before management
could be tested was spurious. [41]
Impact on Environment
4.51 There can be both beneficial and detrimental environmental impacts of commercial utilisation of
wildlife, 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. For example, the removal of muttonbird chicks is highly consumptive but it has served as an
incentive to preserve island habitats in Bass Strait and the harvesting period lasts less than five weeks.
Ecotourism, if used as an alternative conservation tool, may appear less consumptive in an immediate
sense, but may ultimately place more pressure on the environment if activities occurred all year round.
4.52 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. For example, the ranching of
crocodile eggs in Arnhem Land may result in the preservation of wetlands; a broad and significant benefit
but not necessarily noticed because there has been no change in the status quo. However, the removal
of eggs may result in some physical damage to the environment which, while a relatively minor impact, is
one which is noticed and erroneously taken to be more significant because there has been a change to
the status quo.
4.53 Wild harvesting can be applied to a range of animals and, in particular, plants. It is most applicable
where natural controls on a population have changed or habitats have been enhanced so that the species
is overpopulated in some areas and considered to be a pest (for example, kangaroos and cockatoos). It
is also applicable where a species reproduces sufficiently well in the wild to allow sustained harvesting
(for example, muttonbirds). Ranching specifically applies to animals and in Australia only two vertebrate
species are ranched (crocodiles and red-tailed black-cockatoos [42]). The environmental impacts of
harvesting and ranching are generally similar.
Beneficial Impacts
4.54 There are three fundamental ways in which environmental benefits can be achieved through the
commercial harvesting or 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
long-term and broad benefits:
- they have the capacity to relieve pressure on the land caused by traditional land use practises, and
contribute to development of sustainable land use in Australia; [43]
- they may lead to increased value of native habitats and improved opportunities for conservation of
Australia's biodiversity; [44]
- they offer potential for the development of new and distinctive enterprises capable of promoting
environmental awareness and generating export income; [45]
- they would assist in the education of the public to see wildlife as valuable and desirable; [46] and
- they can result in increased levels of research and monitoring; [47]
4.55 Specific examples of beneficial impacts are described at Paragraph 5.34.
Detrimental Impacts
4.56 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.
4.57 Of all forms of wildlife use, harvesting has the greatest potential to reduce the viability of a
population and to cause other environmental harm. Whether harvesting of a particular species will have a
long-term detrimental impact on that species, and therefore on its environment and ultimately
biodiversity, will depend on a number of factors. The most important of these are:
- the initial stability of the population;
- the innate reproductive capacity of the species and its ability to survive a depletion of numbers;
- the number of individuals taken in relation to the total number of individuals in the population;
- the type of individuals taken (males, females, oldest, youngest, etc); and
- the degree to which habitat integrity is maintained. [48]
4.58 The primary risk arises if the harvest is not sufficiently well regulated to ensure that the population is
not 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 to satisfy demand. [49] With
animals, preference may be directed at the largest individuals, which are often dominant males, and this
may alter the genetic composition of the population, possibly reducing vigour. With plants, the collection
of flowers, fruits, berries and seeds may lower the reproductive potential of the species. Species at
greatest risk are those with slow growth rates, late maturity and low reproductive rates, coupled with a
narrow distribution or specialised habitat requirements. [50] Risk management in this case includes a
thorough knowledge of the species' biology, especially its fecundity.
4.59 The action of harvesting one species can have a direct adverse impact on other species. These
include:
- direct disturbance to other species behaviour (for example, spot-light shooting of kangaroos may
disturb other nocturnal animals);
- removal of flowers, fruit and seeds may reduce food availability for animals dependent on them
(for example, harvesting of Xanthorrhoea flower spikes removes an important source of nectar
for a variety of birds, small mammals and insects); [51] and
- removal of vegetation may reduce shelter for animals (for example, harvesting of Xanthorrhoea
leaves results in the loss of an important source of shelter for a range of small animals). [52]
4.60 The Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc expressed considerable concern at the impact of wild
harvesting on non-target species. It noted that there were many instances, particularly in the fishing and
timber industries, where populations of 'by-catch' or non-target species had been endangered. 'We
know so little about the relationships between species that we cannot guarantee that one species will not
suffer if another species is harvested'. [53] This concern was also expressed by the Australian Veterinary
Association which observed that the removal of one species may result in predators switching to another
prey which could place further pressures on an endangered species. [54] The Australia Conservation
Foundation also suggested in its Policy Statement on 'Commercial Wildlife Utilisation' that the harvesting
of one species may 'in some cases directly cause the decline or extinction of populations of non-target
species'. [55]
4.61 Activities associated with harvesting can also cause detrimental impact on the habitat in which the
target species lives, affecting it and non-target species. These problems include:
- damage to soil structure by vehicular access (compaction and erosion);
- soil contamination with pathogens (particularly the root fungal disease Phytophthora);
- compaction of bogs (for example, during collection of sphagnum);
- damage to vegetation by access methods;
- damage to plants through collection of plant parts;
- damage to creeks resulting in altered water flows;
- damage to vegetation causing altered light flows;
- exotic weeds may be transported into new areas;
- refuse left at camps may attract feral animals; and
- creation of tracks which may become permanent trails (which may also provide increased access
for feral animals).
4.62 Other ways in which the environment can be detrimentally affected by the commercial utilisation of
wildlife include the escape of animals from commercial ventures and their expansion into other habitats,
or other countries (for example, eastern rosellas and sulphur crested cockatoos are now causing
problems in New Zealand). In addition, problems may occur with the dispersal of invasive plant species
to other areas which grow as weeds, either within Australia or overseas (species of eucalypts, wattle and
fern have all become serious invasive weeds when introduced to other countries with suitable growing
conditions). [56]
4.63 Finally, there is a risk that legal harvesting may create an opening for other harvesting to be carried
out by non-licensed operators, or may result in licensed operators increasing supply by harvesting from
non-designated areas such as national parks and private land.
4.64 Because, ipso facto, harvesting will have some impact, however small, on the ecosystem from
which a plant or animal is taken, some conservation groups completely reject the concept of wild
harvesting. The North Coast Environment Council, for example, argued in its submission to the
Committee that the sustainable harvesting of wildlife, and in particular plants, was not possible in any
circumstance because taking part of an ecosystem away would always have a detrimental impact on
other parts of that ecosystem. [57] For this reason, the Council also rejects the view that some species
can be readily harvested because they are common in occurrence. The Council gave the example of
harvesting Xanthorrhoea plants (see Paragraph 16.24).
4.65 The Waterbird Conservation Group (WA) argued that to consider allowing the commercialisation
of native wildlife, when there were already a considerable number of environmental problems in
Australia, including degraded habitats, exotic pest species competing with native, a growing list of
threatened fauna, ongoing habitat loss and an incomplete understanding of the existing environment, was
'nothing short of stupidity'. [58] Commercialisation would put a further strain on wildlife which was
already struggling to survive.
Consequences of Not Utilising Wildlife
4.66 In addition to the impacts of utilising wildlife, there may actually be a cost associated with not using
wildlife. As described by the Department of Environment, the fact that Australians have not put a value
on wildlife, valuing instead production systems based on European farming practices, has led to
wide-spread destruction of natural habitats. The Department noted in its submission: 'If landowners
could derive an income from the native vegetation, the vegetation is far more likely to be kept'. [59] In
the words of Dr George Wilson, RIRDC Program Manager: 'It is when they do not have a commercial
value that people bulldoze the habitat. They could not care less. That is when the animals disappear'.
[60]
4.67 Professor Eugene Moll of the Department of Natural Systems and Rural Management at the
University of Queensland noted that traditional (European) agriculture practices had had an enormous
detrimental impact on Australia's environment because they required considerable inputs by way of land
changes (clearing and ploughing) and additives (fertilisers and biocides): 'we attempt to farm against the
elements rather than attempting to farm with them'. [61] According to Professor Moll, it made better
ecological sense to use the species that were already adapted to Australia's environment. He proposed
'wise' use of Australia wildlife resources.
4.68 There are many species in Australia which do not have comprehensive management plans and for
this reason are not being adequately conserved. Ironically, commercialisation of a species may be the
only way in which management plans are developed. An example of this is the flying-fox. In some areas,
they occur in great abundance and cause considerable damage to fruit crops, partly because their natural
habitats and food sources are being eroded by agriculture and urbanisation. There is a sizeable potential
export market for them but the lack of a comprehensive management plan and the prohibitionist
approach of government has meant that nobody is benefiting, least of all the species (see Paragraphs
12.57 – 12.65). [62]
4.69 Finally, many submissions argued that a consequence of not legally allowing the commercial
utilisation of wildlife was a flourishing illegal trade, particularly in reptiles and birds. [63] In discussing the
impact of illegal trade on species abundance, Dr Grahame Webb of Wildlife Management International
argued: 'many more species have gone extinct or are threatened because they have no direct economic
use or value, than is the case with species with a recognised economic use and value'. [64]
Monitoring Environmental Impact
4.70 It is important that wildlife use proposals include an environmental impact assessment. This should
be done through an environmental impact statement (EIS). Although a full impact statement may not be
necessary for small scale proposals, it is advisable for large operations and ventures into new fields. [65]
However, because so little is known about the ecology of many species, the impact of harvesting those
species and the resultant impact on other species may be difficult to determine. Conservation groups
frequently expressed the concern that it was impossible for wildlife authorities to set quotas for
harvesting species when, for many species, numbers in the wild were not known. [66]
4.71 Conservation groups also expressed concern about the difficulty of monitoring activities of wildlife
industries and their impact on the environment, especially when operations were carried out in remote
areas. Mr Pat O'Brien, President of the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland (Capricorn Branch)
claimed that often there were management plans but not the resources to monitor the environmental
impact of legal activities or to monitor whether any illegal activities were going on. [67] Further, as
pointed out by the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, the onus of proof of whether a proposal would do
harm appeared to rest with conservation groups, not with the proponent, as the Trust believes it should.
[68]
4.72 However, while agreeing that environmental impact could be a problem, Mr Peter Core, Managing
Director of RIRDC, explained the position taken by that organisation:
On the environmental implications, the corporation does vet all R&D proposals that it takes against
predetermined criteria. Those criteria include benefits, methodologies and risk management. Under that
risk management criterion, research managers for the programs insist that applicants alert the corporation
of any proposal that may be considered an environmentally significant action. As part of our own due
diligence processes of the corporation, our research managers are also required to make independent
assessments of likely environmental risk. [69]
Farming Wildlife
4.73 Because the farming of wildlife is usually carried out in closed-cycle operations, the impacts that
farming activities will have on the environment are quite different to those generated by harvesting
although, on the whole, they are less. If fact, after the initial removal of wild plants or animals to establish
breeding stock, the farming of native wildlife should be environmentally neutral. That is, there should be
little or no detrimental impact on wild populations of the target species, or on non-target species.
Similarly, there are no direct benefits to biodiversity conservation. However, there can be a number of
indirect impacts, both positive and negative.
Beneficial Impacts
4.74 According to the Department of Environment, captive-breeding's 'main benefit for biodiversity
conservation is in reducing pressure on wild populations where market demand is greater than the
amount of product which can be supplied sustainably from the wild population'. [70] However, at the
moment, most wildlife industries in Australia are based either on harvesting (possums and kangaroos) or
on captive breeding (emus). The only instance where the two occur together is in the Northern Territory
where ranching and farming of crocodiles are both allowed.
4.75 Other indirect conservation benefits that can be derived from farming wildlife include public
education, research on population dynamics and biology, the deterrence of smuggling, and the provision
of funds for administration through licences and royalties. [71]
Detrimental Impacts
4.76 The farming of wildlife in the strict sense of closed-cycle breeding does not present a direct threat
to biodiversity. [72] However, there are a number of possible ways in which closed-cycle populations of
native animals can have a detrimental impact on wild populations. First, if too many individuals are taken
from the wild to establish or supplement breeding stock, the viability of the wild population can be
compromised. Second, because closed-cycle breeding favours selection of traits which suit market
demand, rather than those which confer 'fitness' in the wild, captive-bred populations become genetically
divergent and if released back into the wild, may compromise the genetic fitness of the wild population.
Third, the close confines of captive animals intensifies susceptibility to and spread of disease which may
be transferred to wild populations. To reduce these risks, the Department of Environment recommended
that: 'Where commercial non-consumptive uses of wildlife or ex-situ breeding operations are proposed
on private land, rural landholders should have access to appropriate training and support to manage the
impacts of such use'. [73]
4.77 Of these issues, the escape of farmed wildlife or its 'accidental' release was of greatest concern to
both governments and conservationists. In addition to the problem of merging divergent genetic pools
and spreading disease, there is potential for native species to be introduced into habitat where they did
not previously live. [74] Thus there is general agreement that captive-bred animals should not be
released back into the wild unless they have been specifically raised to supplement populations of rare or
endangered species and where there is a niche available for them. [75]
4.78 Because closed-cycle farming of native wildlife does not contribute directly to biodiversity
conservation, it is frequently suggested that industry should make a financial contribution to conservation.
[76] However, unless genetic stock are intermittently removed from the wild to replenish captive stock,
it is unclear why this should be so unless all commercial use of wildlife is made conditional on the proviso
that there be a net conservation benefit. To this end, the Department of Environment recommended that:
'Industry levies on ex-situ enterprises should be explored by Commonwealth, State and Territory
governments to contribute to conservation of wild stock'. [77]
Box: The 'CAMPFIRE' Scheme
In Zimbabwe, the Communal Areas Management Program For Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE)
scheme was designed specifically to allow people living in remote and impoverished communities to
benefit from commercial utilisation of wildlife. The scheme was developed in 1982 following
amendments to the Parks and Wildlife Act 1975. It is partly funded by the US Agency for International
Development.
CAMPFIRE encourages people to manage wildlife resources and to derive benefits from them through
the allocation of an annual quota. Locals can use wildlife from this quota in a variety of ways including
hunting for trophy fees, selling to private ranches, or by using them for meat. The scheme has allowed
villagers to gain valuable income from a resource that was previously legally denied to them. It has
created jobs, promoted environmental education, increased revenue for other wildlife management goals,
and increased habitat corridors between existing national parks. [78]
In many areas, the scheme has worked well: poaching has been reduced dramatically and some
communities are bringing in stock from other areas as an investment for future revenue. From 1989 to
1995, income earned from CAMPFIRE increased in real terms from $US350,000 to $US1.6 million.
Supporters of the scheme include the Worldwide Fund for Nature, which has initiated a number of
similar projects in other areas, and the Safari Club International. [79] And it has been suggested that the
concept may be applicable to Australia. [80]
However, the Humane Society of the US (HSUS) is strongly critical of CAMPFIRE. According to
HSUS, the scheme is primarily based on trophy hunting of African elephants and promotes resumption
of the ivory trade, both of which HSUS totally opposes. According to the HSUS, CAMPFIRE is
plagued by corruption and mismanagement, is environmentally unsound, is socio-economically unsound
and has not successfully involved local people in wildlife management. [81]
Footnotes
[1] Adapted from 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.
[2] Submission No. 198, p. 23.
[3] Submission No. 198, p. 23.
[4] Submission No. 198, p. 30.
[5] Submission No. 177, p. 1. Dr Walker's submission was put to the Committee on behalf of the
Biodiversity Sector for CSIRO.
[6] Submission No. 177, p. 2.
[7] Submission No. 177, p. 1; see also Submission No. 118, p. 5.
[8] In fact, the Thylacine was actually hunted to reduce predation on sheep, rather than used
consumptively itself. All other species that have become extinct in Australia have been as a result of
destruction of their respective habitats (Evidence, p. RRA&T 275).
[9] Submission No. 12, p. 12.
[10] Submission No. 301, p. 3.
[11] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1074.
[12] Hudson, R J 1997 Paths to Conservation Renewable Resources, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, http://cervid.forsci.ualberta.ca/…ENCS376/Lectures/Trade/Trade p. 2.
[13] 21 October 1997 (Evidence, p. RRA&T 1058-1082).
[14] Evidence, p. RRA&T 63.
[15] Submission No. 77, p. 2.
[16] Evidence, pp. RRA&T 275-284.
[17] Hoyt, J 1994 Animals in Peril: How Sustainable Use is Wiping Out the World's Wildlife,
Avery publishing Group NY, ISBN 0895296489. Foreword and Introduction.
[18] Submission No. 66, p. 5.
[19] Evidence, p. RRA&T 979.
[20] Independent, NSW Legislative Council.
[21] Submission No. 197, Covering Letter, p. 1.
[22] Submission No. 197, Covering Letter, p. 2.
[23] Submission No. 197, p. 2.
[24] Evidence, p. RRA&T 646.
[25] ACF Policy Statement No. 61, Tabled by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, 8 September
1997, p. 3.
[26] Submission No. 298, p. 4. This opinion was also supported by Alderman Geoffrey Harris, Alice
Springs, who expressed the view that the African model was not one which could be transposed to the
arid lands of Australia (Evidence, p. RRA&T 312).
[27] Submission No. 102, pp 7-8.
[28] Jones, D Record kangaroo numbers despite harvest in Australian Farm Journal, March 1998, p.
8.
[29] Submission No. 157, p. 12.
[30] Submission No. 141, p. 4.
[31] Submission No. 198, p. 67.
[32] Submission No. 177.
[33] Submission No. 198, p. 33.
[34] Submission No. 71, pp 5-6.
[35] Evidence, p. RRA&T 856.
[36] ACF Policy Statement No. 61, Tabled by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, 8 September
1997, p. 2.
[37] ACF Policy Statement No. 61, op cit, p. 4; see also Submission No. 48.
[38] Martin, R B, Keith Roby Address Should Wildlife Pay its Way? 8th December 1993, Perth, p.
27-28.
[39] Submission No. 71, p. 2.
[40] Submission No. 157, p. 10.
[41] Submission No. 157, pp. 10-11.
[42] For a more detailed discussion of ranching of these animals see Chapters 11 and 13, respectively.
[43] Submission No. 147.
[44] Submission No. 147.
[45] Submission No. 147.
[46] Submission No. 190.
[47] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1127, Submission No. 123, p. 2, Submission No. 157, p. 18.
[48] Dr Graham Webb suggested that as long as habitat remains intact some species can withstand even
uncontrolled exploitation (Submission No. 157, p. 11).
[49] Evidence, p. RRA&T 539.
[50] Submission No. 198, p. 25.
[51] Submission No.s 22, 139.
[52] Submission No. 22, p. 1.
[53] Submission No. 203, p. 8.
[54] Submission No. 187, p. 9.
[55] ACF Policy Statement No. 61, Tabled by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, 8 September
1997, p. 2.
[56] Submission No. 203, p. 9.
[57] Submission No. 22, p. 3.
[58] Submission No. 67, p. 2.
[59] Submission No. 198, p. 29.
[60] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1123.
[61] Submission No. 103, p. 2.
[62] Submission No. 142.
[63] See for example, Submission No. 308, p. 4.
[64] Submission No. 157, p. 10.
[65] Submission No. 299, p. 3.
[66] See for example, Submission No. 48, p. 1.
[67] Evidence, p. RRA&T 157.
[68] Evidence, p. RRA&T 854.
[69] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1119.
[70] Submission No. 198, p. 25.
[71] Submission No. 337, p. 4.
[72] Submission No. 123, Evidence, p. RRA&T 75.
[73] Submission No. 198, p. 28 (Recommendation 3).
[74] Evidence, p. RRA&T 35, 1216.
[75] So that they do not immediately die through competition from other animals.
[76] Submission No. 198, p. 25, for example.
[77] Submission No. 198, p. 28 (Recommendation 4).
[78] CAMPFIRE Fact Sheet Living with Wildlife How CAMPFIRE Communities Conserve their
Natural Resources. Africa Resources Trust, Harare, p. 2.
[79] Submission No. 118, Attachment: Hunting, Sustainable Utilisation and Conservation, Paper
presented at a conference on 'Sustainable Utilisation of Wildlife: Utopian Dream or Unrealistic
Nightmare, Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, Sydney 1995, p. 8.
[80] Evidence, p. RRA&T 678, for example.
[81] Evidence, p. RRA&T 754; see also CAMPFIRRE: A Close Look at the Costs and
Consequences April 1997 The Humane Society of the United States/Humane Society International, p.
1-2.
|
