 |
|
|
|
|
Download full report (1meg) Purchase printed publication
Summary of full report
Social and institutional considerations for kangaroo management and the kangaroo industry
by Dana Thomsen and Jocelyn Davies
February 2007
RIRDC Publication No 07/039 RIRDC Project No UA-59A
Executive Summary
What the report is about
This study has addressed
a need for better understanding of social and institutional issues that
impact on kangaroo management and the kangaroo industry in South Australia.
These issues constrain industry development and efficient management of
kangaroo populations. The study focuses on the interactions between producers
(landholders and commercial kangaroo harvesters) and wholesalers (meat
processors) in the kangaroo supply chain, their interface with the kangaroo
management system administered by the South Australian Government, and
perspectives of Aboriginal people on the industry.
Background
Kangaroos are harvested
commercially for human consumption and pet food markets and the skins are
used for leather of exceptionally high quality. State government agencies
administer kangaroo management programs that include commercial harvest
in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and
Tasmania. Their kangaroo management plans aim primarily to conserve kangaroo
populations across their range and emphasise sustainability of harvest.
Harvest quotas are set annually based on population monitoring. Harvesters
are licensed and must meet accreditation standards for shooting accuracy
and hygienic handling of harvested animals.
Commercial harvest of kangaroos is important to the sustainability of Australia’s rangeland landscapes. Kangaroo populations have benefited from pastoral land use. Water points for livestock grazing together with dingo control have led to increased kangaroo populations. Kangaroos make a significant contribution to total grazing pressure in the rangelands. Kangaroo harvesting helps manage total grazing pressure, makes important contributions to the social and economic sustainability of rangeland communities and is a prospective strategy for diversification of land use and economy in pastoral regions. Commercial harvest of kangaroos has also long been advocated as an opportunity for landholders in Australian rangelands to realise value from wildlife.
The kangaroo industry contributed an estimated $200m to the national economy in 2005. The South Australian quota for commercial harvest, which averaged 645,000 kangaroos per annum from 1997 to 2004, is much smaller than that of New South Wales or Queensland. South Australia reformed its kangaroo management plan in 1996, introducing a tradeable harvest quota allocation to landholders of properties within the commercial harvest zone. It was envisaged that tradeable quotas would allow landholders to realise financial value from kangaroos by trading surplus quota and/or by harvesting kangaroos on their property. However landholders did not take up the opportunity to trade quota. In 2002 the option to trade was discontinued because it was determined to be inconsistent with legislation governing commercial harvest.
Aboriginal involvement in commercial use of wildlife has been widely advocated as a pathway for employment and economic development. However no previous research has examined Aboriginal rights, interests and aspirations in relation to commercial kangaroo harvest and its management.
Opportunities for the kangaroo industry to address social dimensions of sustainability such as through negotiated agreements with Aboriginal traditional owners may support development of differentiated ‘fair traded’ products for growing niche markets.
Objectives
This project has developed
a stronger understanding of social and institutional factors that influence
use of commercial kangaroo harvest as a strategy for promoting sustainable
rangeland landscapes in South Australia. The objectives of the research
have been to:
Methods
In-depth interviews were
conducted with landholders, kangaroo harvesters and kangaroo meat processors
who operate in three regions of South Australia: the northern Flinders
Ranges, the far north of South Australia (Marla/Oodnadatta) and west of
Port Augusta. These regions were selected to sample a range of harvest
conditions such as different topographies, species harvested and proximity
to a major regional centre. Interviews explored information and communication
networks, decisionmaking processes, economic issues and impacts of the
regulatory environment. Records of harvest rates and harvester numbers
made available by South Australia’s Department for Environment and Heritage
(SA DEH) were also analysed to explore issues raised by research participants.
We also talked about commercial harvest with Aboriginal people from two cultural regions: the Flinders Ranges (Adnyamathana traditional country) and the central north of South Australia from Coober Pedy to Marla and Oodnadatta (where Yankunytjatjara and Antakarinya people are the traditional owners).
The study has limitations for generalisability because sample sizes are relatively small. The rich data from this study nonetheless shows the range of views of industry stakeholders and identifies some key issues for future kangaroo management and industry development in South Australia.
Results
Landholders, harvesters
and meat processors consider that the kangaroo industry provides a range
of benefits to South Australia and its rangeland landscapes in relation
to human and social capital, regional economic impact and management of
total grazing pressure. Regulations that govern commercial harvest are
important to people in the industry because they engender public and consumer
confidence that the industry is hygienic and the harvest is ecologically
sustainable.
Regulations and standards for commercial kangaroo harvest are becoming more consistent between various states. However the South Australian system has some key differences to other states. In other states harvest quotas are allocated to regions. In South Australia quota is set on a regional basis but regulations require that each unit of quota/tag must be assigned to one species, one property, one harvester and one meat processor prior to harvest. In South Australia quota is allocated to individual properties at the start of each year and landholders may request additional quota allocation if they harvest all their original quota. In all states harvested kangaroos must be tagged with a numbered tag which provides proof of legal harvest. The sale price of tags incorporates a royalty. In most states it is harvesters who purchase these tags from the government management authority. In South Australia tags are purchased from the government management authority (SA DEH) by meat processors and are then passed on to harvesters.
Harvesters and landholders say that the South Australian system is less flexible in managing kangaroo populations because populations fluctuate locally due to kangaroo mobility, especially after rain.
Harvesters and landholders follow their own informal rules about where harvest should be undertaken: relationships with landholders, access to land and quota. This informal rule reflects the self interest of landholders and of harvesters. Landholders need to reduce kangaroo grazing pressure as part of their management of total grazing pressure. Harvest is most efficient where populations are high. However this informal rule can be in conflict with regulations governing kangaroo harvest.
Most harvesters work on several properties. If they run out of tags from the allocation to the property where they are shooting they use tags for the same species that they hold as part of the allocation to other properties where they shoot. This practice, known as ‘tag swapping’, is illegal. However harvesters face a low risk of sanctions because there has little capacity to enforce regulations closely.
Tag swapping is not ever likely to pose a threat to the viability of kangaroo populations or the sustainability of harvest because it targets areas of high kangaroo density and because the number of kangaroos harvested across the whole state is well within the total state quota. However tag swapping does mean that the records that harvesters return showing how many kangaroos they harvested on each property are inaccurate. We noted that tag swapping occurs both within and between the regions that are the basis for quota allocation and that the extent of inaccuracy within regions varies. It is an opportunistic practice and the methods for this study did not allow us to quantify the extent to which it occurs.
South Australia harvested 43% of quota on average each year from 1997 to 2004, the lowest of any state and significantly lower than was harvested from 1991 to 1996 before the introduction of property level quota. The number of kangaroos harvested also shows a steady decline from 1997 to 2004 which is not fully accounted for by declining quotas during this period. However demand from meat processors for kangaroo carcasses is strong. They imported an annual average of 211,000 carcasses into South Australia from New South Wales and Queensland from 2002 to 2005, equivalent to more than 30% of the South Australian quota.
The harvesters, landholders and meat processors we interviewed identified two main reasons for low harvest rates in South Australia. Landholders said the main reason was geographical, a result of isolation because rangeland South Australia has few towns and lacks transport and other infrastructure.
Isolation and lack of infrastructure mean harvesters incur high social costs. They travel long distances and stay in bush camps for weeks while harvesting which puts pressure on families and social life.
Harvesters and meat processors said the main reason for low harvest rate is institutional: a few harvesters hold exclusive harvest rights (and quota) for too many properties. Harvesters incur no financial cost for holding the right to harvest many more kangaroos than they can harvest in a year.
Harvesters who control a lot of quota minimise their risk of not being able to harvest efficiently. The harvest rates of other harvesters are limited because they cannot access enough quota. This situation is an outcome of the South Australian system of property level quota allocation promoting the nomination of one harvester per property.
The South Australian property level quota limits competition which has a number of flow on effects.
South Australia has very few harvesters compared to other states and numbers appear to be declining fast. Prices paid to harvesters by meat processors are 20% less than in other states.
Harvest costs account for half the sale price of each carcass. The annual gross profit of a sample of harvesters with an average annual harvest 6,430 kangaroos per annum is about $50,000. It would be close to $80,000 at sale prices equivalent to those in other states. On average South Australian harvesters have a much lower harvest rate than this, at approximately 2,100 kangaroos per annum.
This is nevertheless considerably higher than harvesters in other states due to a higher proportion of South Australian harvesters being ‘full timers’. Other than access to quota and kangaroo population density, harvesters identified that the main factors that influence their own rate of harvest are weather, terrain, distance to chiller and their own skills and knowledge.
Landholders view kangaroos as a resource, not a pest, although they say they can be a problem when populations are high. This challenges popular notions of landholder views and may indicate changing attitudes amongst landholders. Landholders would like to get a financial return from this resource but recognise the cost would be passed on to harvesters who cannot afford to pay. Some smaller meat processors now pay landholders a fee, typically $1 per head, for each kangaroo harvested from their property. They tend to reduce the sale price paid to harvesters to cover this cost.
The strongest relationships and communication networks in the South Australian industry are between landholders and harvesters. Both have little communication with government. Meat processors strongest relationships and communication networks are with SA DEH and with harvesters.
Landholders and harvesters are critical of methods that they used to determine kangaroo populations and feel better information would result if they talked to them more.
Kangaroos hold cultural, social and economic significance for Aboriginal people. Western Desert Aboriginal people who participated in this study have strict cultural protocols about how red kangaroo should be harvested and butchered. These conflict with the practices of the commercial industry and preclude these people’s involvement in commercial harvest. In contrast some Adnyamathanha people expressed an interest in developing enterprises based on kangaroo harvest. People from both groups said it is important for them to be involved in decisions about kangaroo management.
Landholders, harvesters and Aboriginal people all volunteered strong objections to culling kangaroos, or shooting to waste, as happens in Flinders Ranges National Park and on some private land when high population density is impacting on conservation of other species and landscapes.
Implications
The very strong reliance
on a top-down ‘command and control’ approach to kangaroo management in
South Australia is misplaced. The requirement to tag every harvested kangaroo
with a tag that is specific to property, harvester and meat processor is
a particular problem. It limits flexibility in kangaroo management because
it is not responsive to the localised temporal and spatial variability
in kangaroo numbers that results from kangaroo mobility. It makes it difficult
for harvesters to change the meat processor they sell to, or for landholders
to change the harvester they engage. This limits competition. These factors
have negative flow on effects for harvest rate, sale price of carcasses
and harvester gross profits.
It is ironic that the current inflexible system of property level quota evolved from efforts in the mid 1990s to make a flexible, competitive system based on landholders trading quota. This experience emphasises the importance of good design for effective implementation of market-based instruments.
Tag swapping has been evolved by harvesters as a mechanism to bring some flexibility into the current property level allocation system. However because tag swapping is illegal and renders SA DEH harvest data unreliable except at whole of state level, it makes the kangaroo management program and the industry vulnerable to criticism.
Competition and cooperation are both important to the effective operation of kangaroo management and the kangaroo industry. Cooperation is important to minimizing the cost of achieving compliance with regulations and to establishing strong supply chains. Competition is important to fostering innovation and to achieving efficiencies in production.
The strongest cooperative relationships at present are between landholders and harvesters. They communicate most closely and rely on each other to achieve their own goals - landholders in relation to reducing kangaroo numbers at times of high local populations as part of their management of total grazing pressure, and harvesters in relation to being able to access locally high populations for efficient harvest. Following the strict rules involved in the property level quota allocation is not compatible with achieving these reciprocated outcomes.
We have not identified any reasons to support the retention of property level quota in its current form.
Redesigning it as a tradeable quota system could introduce the necessary flexibility and competition but we expect the investment in design and implementation would outstrip the benefit because of the small size of the South Australian quota and harvest and the low financial value of kangaroos.
Changing to a regional quota allocation, as exists in other states, is the alternative option. This would engage the management system at a scale more appropriate to the characteristics of the kangaroo resource. It would introduce competition because it would be much easier for landholders to authorise more than one harvester and for harvesters to change meat processors. Harvesters would need to be responsible for the purchase of tags and this would give them financial incentives to match the number of tags they hold to their estimated harvest.
Targeted incentives could be valuable as a way of encouraging individual harvesters to put more effort into harvesting. These might involve rebates on part of the royalty or permit fee to harvesters who achieve a threshold level of annual harvest. This would encourage licensed harvesters who now need to supplement their income from other sources to put more effort into harvesting. Incentives could be planned as cost-neutral as there would be increased revenue to the self-funded kangaroo management program through the higher levels of harvest that would result.
The trend of declining harvester numbers in South Australia is likely to continue given that many harvesters are approaching retirement age. Potential incentives to attract new industry entrants include apprenticeship schemes such as are in place in Queensland. Support for prospective industry entrants to plan their businesses and secure loans for start up costs would also help to make harvesting a more attractive option.
Landholders with abundant kangaroos, good habitat and easy access for harvesting will be those most able to realise a financial return from kangaroos. Under a regional quota allocation any fee charged would be for access to the property rather than payment for a kangaroo.
However there are uncertainties about whether landholders of pastoral leases have a legal right under their lease to charge an access fee. Some of these uncertainties relate to native title. South Australia is using the statewide Indigenous Land Use Agreement process, an effective and established structure, to resolve such uncertainties in a way that builds relationships and addresses issues for government, industry and Aboriginal traditional owners. The relationships and negotiated local scale agreements generated through pastoral leaseholders and industry peak bodies being involved in this process provide the best prospects to initiate development of kangaroo products with appeal to the growing ‘fair trade’ market.
The diversity of views held by Aboriginal people make it clear that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to Aboriginal involvement in decisions about kangaroo management is not appropriate or workable.
There is scope for the industry to generate support from Aboriginal people by listening to and respecting the perspectives and priorities of different language groups. However it will not be easy to accommodate all these perspectives given the cultural values of kangaroos.
Kangaroo management needs to be adaptive because people and kangaroos are part of a dynamic social-ecological system. Informed dialogue involving resource users, scientists, officials and other interested people is critical to robust governance. Feedback is a critical factor in facilitating learning and adaptation to changing social and ecological conditions. However even though the South Australian kangaroo management generates a lot of data, this is hard to access and very little of it is fed back to people involved in the industry.
People who live and work in the rangelands know a lot about kangaroo density, movements and habits, particularly at local and regional scales. Some Aboriginal people also have detailed knowledge of aspects of kangaroo behaviour. Local people’s knowledge is important for adaptive governance of a dynamic resource such as kangaroos. It will be accessed best through local and regional scale forums.
Such forums are likely to evolve most effectively through SA DEH working in collaboration with other agencies which have a strong field presence on properties and in Aboriginal communities in the kangaroo harvest zone. A collaborative approach will increase informed dialogue with harvesters, landholders and Aboriginal people about kangaroo management in a more cost-effective way than could be achieved by the kangaroo management program of SA DEH working alone.
Recommendations
Suggested improvements to
kangaroo management in South Australia will enable the kangaroo industry
to contribute more effectively to sustainable rangeland landscapes. They
could be implemented by SA DEH in conjunction with the Kangaroo Industry
Reference Group and other people in the industry:
Use Agreement negotiation
process
|