Executive Summary
What the report is about
The purpose of this project was to illustrate potentially constraining regulations relating to native wildlife commercialisation. This is achieved through a series of case studies. The project examines selected opportunities for commercial activity and assesses the various constraints that are operating to inhibit or prevent these opportunities being pursued. Based on an initial scoping study undertaken early in the project, there does not appear to be significant pent up demand for initiating new wildlife enterprises that are being unduly constrained by present regulation.

Background
In 1998 the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee produced a significant report on the Commercial Utilisation of Australian Native Wildlife. The Senate Committee paper recognized that there is potential for the commercial use of wildlife and that commercial utilisation can also be an effective conservation tool.

The Committee also recognised that to date factors including regulations and associated lack of development of markets have inhibited the commercial use of Australian wildlife. It was thought timely to consider a review of the regulatory constraints affecting the sustainable commercial utilisation of wildlife in order to assist with further development of sustainable industries and improve conservation outcomes.

Objectives
The original objectives of this research project were:
(i) to identify and describe the regulatory constraints to Australian sustainable commercial utilisation of wildlife
(ii) to identify and describe the regulatory constraints relating specifically to a number of case study wildlife industries with commercial potential
(iii) to identify alternative regulatory controls for the four case study industries that may be developed into policy that balances utilisation with conservation outcomes
(iv) to conduct investment analyses within each of the four case studies that identifies commercialisation potential.

During the course of the project, the emphasis shifted from the regulatory constraints to a wider definition of constraints that included market, financial and technical constraints.

Methods and results
Issues and likely constraints were scoped and potential enterprises for case studies were identified.

This scoping involved the identification of and approach to:
 

• industry organisations within existing commercial wildlife industries
• current and prospective commercial wildlife industry participants
• farm organisations in each state
• a number of state government departments
• academics and other industry experts.

More than 50 people were contacted by telephone during the course of the scoping study and the internet was also employed as a research resource.

The case studies were selected from a long list of opportunities identified in the scoping study. Case studies were selected with the rationale that commercialisation may not only increase the use of Australian natural resources but also contribute to their conservation.

The five case studies presented are:
 

1. emu harvesting from the wild
2. combining kangaroo harvesting, ecotourism, and sheep enterprises
3. taking and exporting birds
4. cycad taking and exporting
5. private wildlife sanctuaries and trading of wildlife.

 The purpose of the series of case studies is to examine whether Australian regulations concerning wildlife utilisation are constraining the development of commercial wildlife enterprises. The concept is to examine some opportunities for commercial activity and assess the various constraints that are operating and whether they are predominantly economic, regulatory, social, economic or environmental in nature.

The key regulatory issues that are addressed by the case studies include:

• keeping, taking and trading (property rights)
• exporting products and live animals
• the differential treatment of zoos, sanctuaries, and landholders regarding restrictions and privilege.

Conclusions
Some of the findings from the study were:

• gathering relevant information to be able to obtain permits for taking and trading wildlife can be onerous and costly. Given the uncertainty of whether a permit will be granted adds to the risk in pursuing commercialisation in some cases.
• the constraints of market and financial returns were limiting in two of the five case studies (emus and kangaroos).
• exporting of birds does offer an opportunity to generate additional income for Australia that could be made available for conservation purposes.
• uncertainty in the interpretation of regulations limits the ‘sanctuaries’ opportunity
• potentially onerous monitoring requirements limit the cycad harvesting opportunity for export.

In order to alleviate some of the above constraints, the following should be pursued or further investigated in relation to legislation/regulation:
 

• The EPBC Act could be changed to allow significant benefits from commercialisation to be captured by Australia through the export of live animals, particularly birds with high values overseas.
• Further investigate DNA, microchips and leg banding of birds and their efficiency in preventing birds from the wild being exported, as well as the impact of controlled export of some species on illegal poaching and exporting.
• Although some continuing effort is being made to rationalise/standardise regulatory controls between the States, the different regulatory regimes between states remains a non-critical constraint that nevertheless can raise costs and impede efficiency.
• Sanctuaries should be able to commercially trade and export animals in a consistent and regulated environment, including the possibility of export to zoos.
• The definition of captivity should be clarified, and possibly made broader to include free-ranging animals in feral-proof enclosures.
• In determining who pays for monitoring and regulation in trialling potential enterprises, consideration should be given to the balance of private and social benefits that will accrue.

There is still much unknown about native wildlife management and further knowledge would need to be generated in a number of cases if commercialisation is pursued. But this may not be worthwhile in terms of private benefits alone. There does not appear to be significant pent up demand for initiating new wildlife enterprises that are being unduly constrained by present regulations.

Site map Contact us Feedback Links Disclaimer Privacy Statement