Custodianship of wildlife on private land to support conservation – an Australian model

Abstract

A large proportion of the world's extinctions have occurred in Australia, and threatened species lists continue to grow, notwithstanding government and philanthropic efforts. Most losses have been on private land, so relying on national parks and reserves is not enough to reverse trends and meet Australia's responsibilities. This paper proposes a model that could increase abundance and distribution of Australia's biodiversity, while providing financial incentives to private landholders to do so. It addresses the question, can landholder management of wildlife, and a form of private ownership, remedy shortfalls in government funding for biodiversity conservation and the resulting consequences of vast biodiversity losses? Landholders currently invest in propagating introduced livestock species, but they are prevented by current regulations from investing in a similar manner in threatened Australian native species. Market-based incentives could increase the distribution and abundance of species on private land and help protect the habitat of other biodiversity. The enabling changes would be contentious to some people but are consistent with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Sustainable Use policy. Different versions of wildlife privatisation have been successfully applied internationally: there is urgency for Australia to draw on these experiences and develop its own model to encourage and support wildlife on private freehold land. The model proposed in this paper focuses on: identifying locally overabundant populations or captive-bred populations as sources of supply; finding landholders and philanthropists who would like to have custodianship of species; enabling entrepreneurs to respond to demand; and bringing the two together where there is scope for a market-based sharing economy. Encouraging wildlife custodianship on private freehold land would be mutually beneficial, as it would not only result in an increase in biodiversity, but the economic value of wildlife could provide an income to landholders as well as enhancing Australia's conservation system.

Prospects for sustainable use of the pastoral areas of Australia’s southern rangelands: a synthesis

“…We consider that the market failure represented by the present kangaroo management arrangements, whereby neither the kangaroo industry nor landholders, acting in their own interests, can deliver outcomes for natural resource management and animal welfare that are socially acceptable, urgently requires a paradigm shift in kangaroo management. We are unable to argue in detail here the possible nature of this shift but note that several suggestions have been made in recent times, including the adoption of an active adaptive management approach by wildlife management authorities (McLeod and Hacker 2019) and the granting to landholders of a form of proprietorship or custodianship over kangaroos (Wilson and Edwards 2019;Wilson et al 2020). While other non-domestic herbivores (e.g.…”

“…Whereas these schemes have applied to only a small proportion of grazing land in the southern rangelands, the growing recognition of the importance of biodiversity conservation and other components of natural capital in agricultural landscapes is likely to see markets for ecosystem services increase in the future. However, for such mechanisms to be effective in delivering public benefits, they will need either to be assured of long-term funding through incorporation into government policy and funding arrangements, or be able to operate profitably in the commercial market as proposed by Wilson et al (2020) in relation to custodianship of wildlife on private land to support both diversified incomes for landholders and conservation. They will also require credible, landscape-scale monitoring methodologies.…”

‘All we found were bones’: Veterinary workers’ distress and trauma after Australia's Black Summer bushfires

“…This role is poorly acknowledged, with various disaster preparedness efforts in Australia, the wider Asia-Pacific and Europe failing to consider animals. [50][51][52] Reflecting this oversight, wildlife rescuers reported insufficient government support during the Black Summer bushfires, 53 despite governments holding the legal responsibility for Australian wildlife 54 and the public's expectation that native animals be protected. 55 Our participants also reported circumstances that pointed to insufficient resources, including occupying multiple roles, volunteering while maintaining paid employment, and financial constraints on assisting displaced animals.…”

Options and rationale for regional property‐based kangaroo production

“…Overseas, such changes to the management of native species through landholder custodianship or ownership have led to biodiversity benefits (Wilson et al . 2020). Doing so in Australia appears to be within the scope of current Acts and Regulations.…”

“…Well-defined, secure and transferable property rights help to establish and capture the value of resources, thereby providing an incentive for owners to efficiently use and maintain them (Demsetz 1967). Overseas, such changes to the management of native species through landholder custodianship or ownership have led to biodiversity benefits (Wilson et al 2020). Doing so in Australia appears to be within the scope of current Acts and Regulations.…”