GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee has found that there is a variety of utilisations of native flora and fauna legally permitted and occurring in Victoria.
Indeed, in undertaking its research for the Inquiry, the Committee was surprised at the extent and variety of utilisation activity already being undertaken. Much of this activity is at a developmental stage and the Committee was impressed with the motivation and efforts of the individuals pioneering the various sectors. The activities being undertaken are as diverse as the species being used.
It soon became apparent to the Committee that it was not possible, nor indeed desirable, to attempt to solve all the issues facing each sector within the restrictions of the current Inquiry, nor to make detailed recommendations for individual taxa. It has not done so.
The Committee has, however, attempted to draw together some general conclusions and recommend approaches that it believes will be of general applicability - not only responding to current issues and the problems presently facing sectors, but providing a framework that will be applicable to the issues of tomorrow.
Despite the complexity of activity, the Committee found that there were recurring themes and issues across what, at first, seemed disparate sectors. Moreover, it seems that many sectors face similar issues as they develop. Such similarities occur, irrespective of whether the utilisation is commercial or non-commercial in nature. While plant and animal sectors are often subject to quite different regulatory regimes and evoke different emotional responses, the Committee believes that for many issues there is great similarity and differentiation is unnecessary.
The Committee has observed that most sectors of consumptive use, irrespective of the species involved (or indeed whether the species is an animal or a plant), appear to pass through four main `phases' of development. Some sectors may encompass more than one phase at a time. These four phases are:
a) wild harvest;
b) ranching and/or transitional (that is, activity that is still using, but not reliant on wild harvest);
c) basic cultivation or farming (including selective breeding); and
d) `high tech' and/or genetic engineering-based production.
Those industries involved in the processing of the resultant products of such consumptive use face issues which are similar, irrespective of the particular sector and of the actual taxa, or indeed product, being produced.
There appear to be two key sorts of non-consumptive activity, each facing a different set of issues, again irrespective of the taxa being targeted. These are:
a) activity reliant on wild populations (which may be facility-dependent, such as the penguin parade, or non-facility-dependent such as nature-study activity); and
b) activity reliant on captive populations (such as aviculture).
In addition, the Committee acknowledges and recognises the need for additional requirements across all of these groups of activity to reflect the welfare needs of vertebrate animals.
In summary, the Committee believes that from a natural resource perspective utilisation can be usefully grouped into the following forms of utilisation - irrespective of the species involved:
a) consumptive uses
i) wild harvest
ii) ranching/transitional
iii) basic farming/cultivation
iv) high tech/genetically engineered
b) processing of plant and animal product
c) non-consumptive uses
i) activity reliant on wild populations
ii) activity reliant on captive populations.
The permits, legislative controls, access and property rights, research and marketing needs, monitoring and reporting requirements are likely to be similar for each of these sector groupings - and dissimilar between groupings. The notable exception is additional requirements that address vertebrate-animal welfare issues.
These groupings are not necessarily comprehensive, but have been used by the Committee to assist in its assessment of utilisation activity from an ESD perspective.
Recommendation 1
That the planning and regulation of utilisation generally be consistent within each of the following:
a) consumptive uses
i) wild harvest
ii) ranching/transitional
iii) basic farming/cultivation
iv) high tech/genetic engineered
b) processing of plant and animal product
c) non-consumptive uses
i) activity reliant on wild populations
ii) activity reliant on captive populations.
An ESD Assessment of Utilisation
The Committee believes that the best form of utilisation is one that most fully meets the three ESD objectives.
These objectives are very broad and it is appropriate to interpret and clarify them in the context of the desired utilisation objectives.1 The Committee believes that it is appropriate to give special emphasis to:
a) activities that would build on existing industry sectors;
b) activities that offer a broadening of the income base of struggling rural businesses - relating to the ESD objective of well-being of the individual and community;
c) activities that offer high flexibility of wild population use for the future (and least risk of adverse impact) - relating to the ESD objective of intra- and inter-generational equity;
d) activities that form part of a population-control program undertaken for conservation purposes - relating to the ESD objective of biodiversity and ecological processes;
e) activities that involve a clear incentive to protect species and habitat - relating to the ESD objective of biodiversity and ecological processes; and
f) activities that make use of native species that are suited to (evolved with) local conditions - relating to the ESD objective of biodiversity and ecological processes.
With these areas of special emphasis in mind, together with an awareness of all the material obtained as part of the Inquiry, the Committee undertook an assessment of the various groupings of utilisation activity. A summary of the Committee's assessment is included in Table 11.1. While it is not a matter of passing or failing ESD, and there are clearly areas of degree, in the Committee's opinion some sectors are more ready than others to respond to the principles espoused in the ESD concept.
As outlined in Chapter 2, the Committee developed a series of questions (the `Question Set') as part of its ESD Framework - to assist in its assessment of the various utilisation sectors.
|
ESD question: |
The nature of utilisation |
ESD - well-being of the individual and community |
ESD - equity |
ESD - biodiversity and ecological processes | ||
Key requirement: |
Build on existing industry sectors |
Broaden income base of struggling rural businesses |
High flexibility of wild-population use for future |
Part of population-control program for conservation |
Incentive to protect species and habitat |
Native species suited to local conditions |
Wild-harvest of plants. |
Limited |
Limited - potentially expand |
No |
Limited |
Limited |
Yes |
Ranching/transition use of wild plants |
Limited (tree ferns) |
Limited - potentially expand |
No, but potentially |
Limited |
Ranching - yes. Transitional - limited |
Yes |
Cultivation of plants |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes - no direct impact |
No |
Limited |
Yes, but genetic drift |
High tech breeding/cultivation of plants. |
Nil |
Unlikely |
No - but potentially |
No |
No |
No |
Processing of plant material |
Yes, but limited |
Yes |
Yes - depending on source |
No |
No |
No |
Wild-harvest of animals |
Yes, fisheries only. Other species elsewhere |
Limited - commercial fishery only. Potential for other species |
No |
Limited |
Potentially limited |
Yes |
Ranching/transitional use of animals |
Limited |
Limited - potentially expand |
No, but potentially |
No (collection of eggs possibly). |
Limited |
Yes |
Farming of animals |
Yes, aquaculture and emu only |
Limited - potentially expand |
Yes - no direct impact |
No |
Potentially |
Yes. |
High tech breeding/farming of animals |
No |
No |
Yes - no direct impact. |
No |
No |
No |
Wild-harvest of microbiota |
Limited, pharma-ceutical screening |
Limited |
No |
No |
No |
N/a |
High tech production of microbiota |
No |
No - but potentially high whole-community benefit |
No, but potentially |
No |
No |
No |
Processing of animal material. |
Yes - emu, kangaroo, fish |
Yes - but localised |
Yes - depending on source |
No - but potentially |
Limited |
N/a |
Ecotourism/rec - wild, no facilities |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes - no direct impact |
N/a |
Yes |
Yes |
Ecotourism/rec - captive, no facilities |
Yes - aviculture, herpetology, pets |
Limited |
Yes - no direct impact |
Limited |
Limited |
Limited |
Ecotourism - wild resource, facilities |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes - depending on facility |
N/a |
Yes |
Yes |
Ecotourism - captive resource, facilities |
Yes |
Yes |
No - but potentially |
N/a |
Limited |
Limited |
No active utilisation |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Well-being of the Individual and Community
The Committee noted that sectors involved in the cultivation and processing of plants, the processing of animal products and ecotourism presently offered the greatest opportunity to broaden the income base of rural businesses. Some other sectors currently do not contribute greatly but have the potential to expand their contribution. The high-tech production of microbiota, in particular, is considered to offer high potential for whole-of-community benefit.
Equity
The Committee considered that a key equity issue was the level of flexibility of wild-population use for future needs. Sectors not involved in the consumptive use of wild populations were considered to offer a higher level of flexibility than those involved in direct consumptive use. Some sectors offered a high level of flexibility, but may have indirect impacts.
Biodiversity and Ecological Processes
The Committee noted that few sectors, and then only to a limited extent, contributed to population-control programs for conservation purposes. Few sectors also were assessed as proving an incentive to protect species and habitat - for instance wild-harvesting to a limited extent; ecotourism activity based on wild resources was considered to provide the most incentive. The use of native species suited to local conditions was a biodiversity and ecological-process benefit offered by many, but not all, utilisation sectors.
In Conclusion
The Committee considers that the forms of utilisation which most readily meet all three ESD objectives are:
a) cultivation of plants;
b) farming of animals - especially aquaculture;
c) ecotourism/recreation - based on wild resource (whether reliant on facilities or not).
Consequent Priorities
While the Committee does not believe that it is necessarily appropriate to prohibit any particular form of activity, it does consider it desirable to provide guidance as to the relative priority of the various forms of utilisation activity. Such prioritisation should assist in the allocation of resources and in making decisions regarding alternative forms of land use.
Recommendation 2
The Committee rejects the notion of `no active utilisation' and recommends that the Government:
a) encourage ecotourism/recreation activity based on wild resources, including those forms that are facility-dependent;
b) encourage cultivation of native plants;
c) encourage aquaculture of native species;
d) provide the opportunity for the farming of other species of animal whose welfare needs can be met;
e) permit `ranching' and, in special circumstances, wild harvest - to the extent needed to establish cultivation or farming;
f) permit ecotourism/recreation activity based on captive resources;
g) permit `high tech' production techniques, especially of microbiota; and
h) avoid wild-harvest of plants and animals - unless special circumstances exist.
The Committee believes that all use that is consumptive of wild populations should be subject to some form of management regime and active regulation. The Committee notes that currently applicable legislation provides for this in a variety of ways. In some instances there is no overt basis provided for utilisation.
Recommendation 3
That all consumptive use of native species be subject to an active management regime and to regulation.
For some taxa a management regime only comes into place if problems have arisen or an operator seeks surety of operation or supply. Such regimes may be ad hoc and unnecessarily of greater imposition to some sectors than others; being based on tenure or the particular species being targeted, rather than the actual potential impact of use.
The Committee believes that the utilisation of all species should be subject to management regimes and regulatory controls that are consistent, generally applicable and proactive.
To ensure that all species are brought under the umbrella of proactive regulation, the Committee considers that the approach adopted in the current Wildlife Act 1975, by which all species are protected, with provision made for consumptive use under authorisation, should be made generally applicable. The Committee also believes that provision should be made for general exemptions for classes of activity that are currently permitted and subject to other specialist legislation or control.
Recommendation 4
4.1 That all native species be protected from commercial consumptive use, with provision made for consumptive use under authorisation and to provide for general exemptions for defined classes of activity for species not `listed' under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act.
4.2 That generally exempt classes of activity should be subject to regular review and initially consist of:
a) plants used for timber production;
b) fish subject to a fishery plan under the Fisheries Act 1998;
c) plants and invertebrates affected by agricultural production;
d) native water birds declared as `game' under the Wildlife Act 1975; and
e) developments in accord with a planning approval under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
(Such exempt activities would still be subject to meeting other existing statutory controls, including codes of practice and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988).
Existing legislation does not always provide clear objectives for utilisation activity, nor criteria for the definition of regulations or application of discretion for licences, permits or authorities. ESD does not dictate how native flora and fauna should be used - but provides principles to guide such use. In the Committee's opinion the ESD objectives should be an integral part of any provision relating to utilisation, and at the very least a clear objective of biological diversity and ecological process maintenance should be included.
Where objectives are currently in place, there is little requirement for a monitoring of outcomes to ensure that objectives are met. As part of its `ESD Framework', the Committee has prepared a `Management System' that advocates the use of a monitoring-reassessment feedback process. ESD is based on an assumption of dynamic processes.
The Industry Commission (now Productivity Commission) has proposed, in its report of its Inquiry into Ecologically Sustainable Land Management,2 that a statutory duty of care requiring all those involved in natural resource management to `take all reasonable and practical steps to prevent harm to the environment that could have been reasonably foreseen'. It is envisaged that such a duty of care will foster a proactive approach by those responsible for natural-resource management and provide a starting point for regulation.
Recommendation 5
That all regulatory control relating to consumptive use be transparent, with clear goals stated; with legislation to include ESD objectives. A statutory `duty of care' should be defined for all relevant agencies involved in administering such regulatory controls. It should reflect a `precautionary principle' approach.
That all regulatory controls of utilisation incorporate the key elements of the Committee's ESD Management System, viz:
a) initial assessment;
b) plans based on assessment;
c) implementation and monitoring;
d) regular review; and
e) reassessment and improvement.
5.3 That all regulatory controls be based on authoritative research and be subject to regular review and community consultation.
As noted above, the level of current regulatory control may be not necessarily be related to the sensitivity of the taxa involved. As noted in Chapter 9, the level of control and limitation on the nature of utilisation of some species is greater than that of other species `listed' as threatened with extinction. Discretion on permits is not necessarily based on clear criteria, and the level of discretion is not necessarily related to the sensitivity of use. Consideration of the welfare of individual animals should be clearly distinct from such consideration of the total population.
Recommendation 6
That regulatory controls take a `risk management' approach - that is be commensurate with the potential effect of utilisation to diminish adverse outcomes in terms of the ESD objectives. In particular, that:
a) utilisation of all `listed' threatened taxa (as listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988) be subject to the highest level of regulation and protection;
b) criteria for the granting of permits and conditions be defined and clear and relate to the attainment of ESD outcomes;
c) welfare issues affecting individual sentient species be clearly and separately dealt with;
d) all licences, permits and authorities for use be subject to mandatory adherence to any relevant codes of practice, with penalty provisions (including voiding licences) prescribed for non-adherence;
e) translocation of species to catchments (aquatic species) or regions outside the natural distribution of the wild population only occur after potential impacts are assessed and procedures put into place to minimise harmful effects, including the introduction of pathogens and to ensure the maintenance of indigenous genetic stock.
Utilisation activity may face regulation under the Wildlife Act 1975 and/or the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988), the need for planning permits under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, as well as requirements under local government by-law control.
The Committee believes that all such controls should deal with clearly separate issues or be integrated. It notes that the main issues dealt with by regulatory controls are:
a) planning issues - related to the suitability of a particular area for the carrying out of utilisation activity; typically these issues relate to scale and amenity;
b) access to land - provision to give legal right to occupy Crown land in particular;
c) technical issues - related to the meeting of technical standards, including animal welfare standards, the competency of the operator and, to ensure that there is no adverse impact on the wild population, the meeting of biodiversity objectives.
Recommendation 7
7.1 That the use of land for any activity involving the utilisation of native flora and fauna be subject to the normal planning processes of the Environment and Planning Act 1987 and the associated planning scheme requirements; and that there be no special requirements because native species are being used other than a cross-reference requirement to meet any technical approvals.
7.2 That leases and licences to use Crown lands for utilisation activity not deal with planning issues or technical competencies other than by cross-reference to planning schemes or the requirement to meet any technical controls.
7.3 That special regulatory controls for use of native species be limited to the meeting of technical issues.
7.4 That consideration be given to combining the Wildlife Act 1975 with the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, with a view to incorporating all technical requirements for utilisation activity into the one piece of legislation.
The Committee considers that the key technical issues that need to be dealt with by regulatory control mechanism are those relating to:
a) the meeting of biodiversity objectives - notably to ensure that there is no adverse impact on the wild population; and
b) animal welfare standards - including health and well being as well as cruelty.
The Committee understands that many of the current licensing provisions arise from the perceived need to create a `paper trail' to provide proof that biota have been bred from captive stock or obtained legally from the wild. The Committee notes, however, that the creating of a paper trail by way of licence is only one of a number of ways to provide proof of source. It notes that domestic cats and dogs can be identified through use of microchip technology, that DNA testing can be used to verify parentage, tagging systems can also enable tracking (as used for selected plant species), or use can be made of notices of purchase and disposal (as per motor registration systems).
The current wildlife licensing system in particular appears to be overly complex and administratively onerous for reasons that are not obvious to the Committee. Licensed use of biota is encompassed by three Acts, with the provisions for flora and fauna (other than fish) having similar objectives but are under two completely separate Acts. It is noted that for many species that are readily available from propagated or captivity-bred sources there is no incentive to obtain specimens from the wild, and in any case such biota are generally common in the wild.
The Committee considers that the key principles of any technical requirements are:
a) consistency across sectors;
b) ease of understanding;
c) based on obvious benefits; and
d) reciprocal rights and consistency between States (as populations of native flora and fauna are often not State-specific).
Recommendation 8
8.1 That the licensing of the use of native biota be considerably simplified and, in particular, that the licensing provisions of the Wildlife Act 1975 and Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 be reviewed with a view to creating a simpler system including the following elements:
a) a competency-based system of licensing of operators to;
i) privately keep and breed species rare in the wild (for example `listed' species) and species difficult to keep;
ii) wild-harvest or control (irrespective of whether commercial or not);
iii) undertake commercial activity - possibly with individual sectors subject to sector-specific endorsement;
b) tracking systems for individual biota - to be based on the most appropriate form for each taxa - variously nil, book registers, notice of purchase/sale, use of microchip, DNA sampling and so forth - by species or group of species on the basis of risk to biodiversity and ecological process;
c) registering of commercial premises (not necessarily under the Wildlife Act 1975, but accessible to wildlife inspectors).
8.2 That species which are essentially domesticated, with large captive or cultivated breeding stock and limited potential for environmental hazard, be treated in a similar manner to other non-native domesticated plants and animals.
8.3 That all licences be subject to meeting codes of practice and other technical standards (and proof of competency) in addition to the current `fit and proper person' requirements; and that encouragement be given for operators to seek accreditation with sector-based quality-control programs or to implement the Committee's suggested Management Framework.
