Review of Kangaroo CMP 2012 v5 · This report comprises a formal review of the Kangaroo ... These recommendations are documented throughout the text ... Review of Kangaroo CMP for

Review of

Kangaroo Conservation & Management Plan for SA 2008 – 2012

November 2012

For further information please contact: Department of Environment, Water & Natural Resources Phone Information Line (08) 8204 1910, or see SA White Pages for your local Department of Environment and Natural Resources office. Online information available at: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au Restrictive Licence © State of South Australia through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Apart from fair dealings and other uses permitted by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of this publication may be reproduced, published, communicated, transmitted, modified orcommercialised without the prior written approval of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Written requests for permission should be addressed to: Design and Production Manager Department of Environment and Natural Resources GPO Box 1047 Adelaide SA 5001 Disclaimer While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources makes no representations and accepts no responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or fitness for any particular purpose of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of or reliance on the contents of this publication. Reference to any company, product or service in this publication should not be taken as a Departmental endorsement of the company, product or service.

Photography: © Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources ISBN

i

Contents 1 Executive summary ................................................................................. 1

1.1 Key learnings .....................................................................................1 1.2 Recommendations...........................................................................1

1.2.1 Recommendations affecting development of new plan ............2 1.2.2 Recommendations affecting KMRG.................................................4 1.2.3 Minor administrative tasks ...................................................................4 1.2.4 Actions to be completed if resources available ............................4

2 Introduction .............................................................................................. 6 2.1 Goals and Objectives of this Review..............................................6 2.2 Context ..............................................................................................6 2.3 Strategic Alignment..........................................................................7 2.4 Definition of terms .............................................................................7

2.4.1 Acronyms ...............................................................................................7 2.4.2 Glossary ..................................................................................................8

2.5 Scope & contents of review............................................................9 2.6 Methodology.....................................................................................9

3 Stakeholder Engagement & Governance ........................................... 11 3.1 Governance for this review ...........................................................11 3.2 Kangaroo Management Reference Group................................11

3.2.1 Members of the Reference Group..................................................12 3.2.2 Function of the Reference Group ...................................................12 3.2.3 Review of Reference Group effectiveness....................................13

3.3 Communication strategy for the review......................................15 3.4 Summary of feedback from stakeholder survey.........................15

3.4.1 Questions 1–2 & 15–16: Who responded to the survey?..............16 3.4.2 Questions 3 & 4: Interaction with the plan.....................................16 3.4.3 Question 5: The scope of the plan ..................................................16 3.4.4 Question 6: The balance between commercial and non-

commercial .........................................................................................17 3.4.5 Question 7: Prioritising the themes in the plan...............................18 3.4.6 Question 8: Planning framework of KCMP .....................................18 3.4.7 Question 9: Addressing the Objectives ..........................................18 3.4.8 Question 10: Reviewing impacts of commercial harvesting ......19 3.4.9 Questions 11 & 12: Considering the Code of Practice ................20 3.4.10 Positive comments - which parts of plan worked well? (Q13) ...20 3.4.11 Negative comments - which parts of plan could be

improved? (Q14) ................................................................................21 3.4.12 Question 17 – identifying landholders & processors .....................21 3.4.13 Question 18 – selling tags directly to kangaroo field

processors ............................................................................................22 3.4.14 Question 19 – electronic submissions of returns ............................22

4 Analysis of themes, objectives and targets......................................... 24 4.1 Goal of plan ....................................................................................24 4.2 Analysis of themes ..........................................................................24 4.3 Analysis of targets ...........................................................................25 4.4 Summary of progress against objectives .....................................26 4.5 Objective 1.1 – Monitoring ............................................................27 4.6 Objective 1.2 – Research...............................................................28 4.7 Objective 1.3 – Adaptive management .....................................28 4.8 Objective 1.4 – Regional knowledge and understanding ........29 4.9 Objective 2.1 – Quota setting .......................................................29 4.10 Objective 2.2 – Permits and regulations ......................................30 4.11 Objective 2.3 – Compliance and enforcement.........................31 4.12 Objective 2.4 – Total grazing pressure management ................31 4.13 Objective 3.1 – Non-commercial destruction.............................33

ii

4.14 Objective 3.2 – Kangaroo management on reserves ...............35 4.15 Objective 4.1 – Code of Practice.................................................35 4.16 Objective 4.2 – Animal welfare standards...................................36 4.17 Objective 5.1 – Partnerships with the kangaroo industry...........37 4.18 Objective 5.2 – Engage landholders and land managers........38 4.19 Objective 5.3 – Encourage aboriginal involvement ..................39 4.20 Objective 5.4 – Partnerships with regional NRM boards ............41 4.21 Objective 5.5 – Linkages with other government agencies......44 4.22 Objective 5.6 – Community understanding ................................45 4.23 Objective 6.1 – Reporting ..............................................................46 4.24 Objective 6.2 – Management plan review .................................46

5 Analysis of threats and impacts............................................................ 47 5.1 Threats to kangaroos.....................................................................47 5.2 Impacts of commercial harvest....................................................47

5.2.1 Sustainability ........................................................................................47 5.2.2 Demographic and genetic impacts...............................................47 5.2.3 Humane killing.....................................................................................48

5.3 Impacts on habitats and ecosystems ..........................................48 5.3.1 Impacts of kangaroo overabundance on conservation

areas .....................................................................................................48 5.3.2 Impacts of kangaroo harvesting processes on habitats and

ecosystems ..........................................................................................50 6 Review of implementation and processes .......................................... 52

6.1 Adaptive management ................................................................52 6.2 Processes .........................................................................................52

6.2.1 Commercial harvesting process......................................................52 6.2.2 Non-commercial destruction process ............................................52

6.3 Review of scope of plan................................................................52 6.4 Development of new plan and comparison with current plan52

7 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 54 7.1 Successes.........................................................................................54 7.2 Failures & Gaps ...............................................................................55 7.3 Recommendations.........................................................................55

Review of Kangaroo CMP for SA 2008–2012 1 of 59

1 Executive summary This report comprises a formal review of the Kangaroo Conservation and Management Plan for South Australia 2008 – 2012 (‘the plan’). The review has been carried out using a mixture of stakeholder consultation, research and evaluation of the goals, objectives and targets in the plan. The review aims to:

♦ assess the effectiveness of the plan and its implementation over the past four years

♦ provide recommendations to inform and enhance the effectiveness of the future management of kangaroos in South Australia.

1.1 Key learnings The findings of this review have been gleaned from a detailed analysis of the plan, including a review of:

♦ actions undertaken in the past four years, ♦ what has and has not worked, and ♦ feedback from stakeholders.

Overall, the plan is generally regarded as an effective document which has been consulted by a range of stakeholders, and has ensured important work is carried out as part of the kangaroo management program. One of the strengths of the plan is its thoroughness. It lays out a large number of objectives and includes detailed strategies and targets, most of which can be measured. However, because there are such a large number of targets it has not been possible to complete all of the targets in the context of declining resources. In general, the priorities for kangaroo management were set by officers of the kangaroo management program. Work identified as having the highest priority was that which is regularly reviewed by the Kangaroo Management Reference Group, namely data for quota setting. The way in which priorities are determined, and whether or not the key stakeholders of the KMRG can have more input into this, is just one of the areas which has been addressed in the review recommendations. A summary of the conclusions from this review, and the successes, failures and gaps identified during the review process is provided in section 7 of this report. In order to include all issues which arose during the process of the review, and to ensure actions to address them were considered in the future, a number of recommendations have been provided below. 1.2 Recommendations This review has identified a number of areas where improvements or specific actions are recommended. These recommendations are documented throughout the text of the review, and are summarised below into four categories:

♦ Recommendations affecting the new plan (high priority) ♦ Recommendations affecting the Kangaroo Management Reference Group ♦ Minor administrative recommendations


♦ Lower priority recommendations to be carried out if resources become available

1.2.1 Recommendations affecting development of new plan

The following recommendations comprise priority actions which will help to improve the future management of kangaroos in this state. In order for these to be completed in the future, it is recommended that these actions be included in the new plan. For further information about the context and reasons for these recommendations, consult the relevant sections of the review (indicated in brackets at the end of the recommendation).

Recommendation A1: Extend scope of the new plan to make provisions for future inclusion of other macropod species in the commercial harvest, and to define a process for doing so. (Scope of new plan)

Recommendation A2: Ensure the new plan includes actions which will directly contribute to achieving the high-level goal of the plan. (Strategic alignment and planning framework of new plan)

Recommendation A3: Implement proposal to sell tags directly to field processors. (Objective 2.2 – Permits and regulations)

Recommendation A4: Implement proposal to enable electronic submission of returns and other e-business options. (Objective 2.2 – Permits and regulations)

Recommendation A5: Continue to investigate development of an optimal monitoring strategy for kangaroo management. (Objective 1.1 - Monitoring)

Recommendation A6: Develop a research prospectus aligning with kangaroo management goals, proposing relevant collaboration, and considering research themes identified in the recommendations from this review. (Objective 1.2 - Research)

Recommendation A7: Ensure that targets are reviewed annually and, where appropriate, fed back into management decision making process. (Objective 1.3 – Adaptive Management)

Recommendation A8: Build strong partnerships between regional decision-makers, kangaroo managers and NRM groups. (Objective 1.4 – Regional knowledge and understanding)

Recommendation A9: Review and update the National Parks and Wildlife (Kangaroo Harvesting) Regulations 2003 during the life of the new plan. (Objective 2.2 – Permits and regulations)

Recommendation A10: Consider all available technologies to streamline work processes for all involved in the kangaroo industry. (Objective 2.2 – Permits and regulations)

Recommendation A11: Develop decision making tools, informed by current survey, climatic and other data, to assist regional staff in issue of permits. (Objective 3.1 – Non-commercial destruction)

Recommendation A12: Develop a mapping facility to allow landowners to determine whether they fall within the commercial harvest regions. (Objective 3.1 – Non-commercial destruction)


Recommendation A13: Finalise and release the personal use information sheet. (Objective 3.1 – Non-commercial destruction)

Recommendation A14: Provide resources to implement the business requirements of the Kangaroo management program, including development of the statewide wildlife permit system database for non-commercial destruction permits. (Objective 3.1 – Non-commercial destruction)

Recommendation A15: Engage other government departments with an interest in assisting business growth (eg, DMITRE, DPLG) with the kangaroo industry. (Objective 5.1 – Partnerships with the kangaroo industry)

Recommendation A16: Ensure new tag process collects useful information about where harvesting will occur and has occurred. (Objective 5.2 – Landholder engagement)

Recommendation A17: Use existing and new research to engage aboriginal communities and native title holders in the management of kangaroos through the commercial harvest. (Objective 5.3 – Aboriginal involvement)

Recommendation A18: Aboriginal engagement should be a priority of the new plan. Hold specific discussions with representatives of aboriginal communities to develop more effective ways of sharing information and developing partnerships. (Objective 5.3 – Aboriginal involvement)

Recommendation A19: Develop closer partnerships with NRM Boards and groups, including alignment of relevant aims and actions of the new plan with targets identified in regional NRM plans. (Objective 5.4 – NRM partnerships)

Recommendation A20: Where NRM groups exist, engage with them to improve management of kangaroos within their region (this may include land management practice, regular exchange of information, permit delivery and compliance). (Objective 5.4 – NRM partnerships)

Recommendation A21: Work more closely with NRM staff to engage with community and foster better understanding of kangaroo management issues. (Objective 5.4 – NRM partnerships)

Recommendation A22: Prepare an MOU between PIRSA, AQIS and DEWNR regarding collaboration on compliance. (Objective 5.5 – Cross-agency linkages)

Recommendation A23: Develop a formal interstate agreement to manage cross-border compliance issues. (Objective 5.5 – Cross-agency linkages)

Recommendation A24: Carry out an annual review of the plan, including reporting against real and measurable targets. (Objective 6.2 – Review Management Plan Review)

Recommendation A25: Research the impact of commercial harvesting processes on numbers of non-native predators and scavengers. If there is a linkage between current processes and increased numbers, then processes may need to be revisited. (Impacts of harvesting)


1.2.2 Recommendations affecting KMRG

The following recommendations relate to the operations of the Kangaroo Management Reference Group.

Recommendation B1: Review KMRG Terms of Reference, including potentially increasing the number of meetings, ensuring meetings are timely, and increasing roles and responsibilities of group to include influencing prioritisation of actions and discussing annual rates of royalty. (KMRG)

Recommendation B2: Hold workshop with relevant stakeholders to discuss and prioritise recommendations from this review and other relevant documents. (KMRG)

1.2.3 Minor administrative tasks

A number of targets from the current plan had not yet been completed, yet involved relatively small-scale administrative tasks. Those which this review considers would still be beneficial are included in the following list. These tasks could also be added to the new plan if they remain outstanding.

Recommendation C1: Provide information on kangaroo grazing pressure on the DEWNR website. (Objective 2.4 – Total gazing pressure management)

Recommendation C2: Include a link to information on the SA Wildlife Ethics Committee on the kangaroo management webpage. (Objective 4.2 – Animal welfare standards)

Recommendation C3: Prepare fact sheets for new entrants to industry and summarizing regulations by 2013. (Objective 5.1 – Partnerships with the kangaroo industry)

Recommendation C4: Update kangaroo management web page with relevant information for landholders and members of the aboriginal community (Objectives 5.2 & 5.3 – Landholder engagement and Aboriginal involvement).

Recommendation C5: Update the plan’s table 2 (p 76) and include in the new plan. (Impacts)

Recommendation C6: Develop fact sheet to improve community understanding of Code of Practice, in particular, humane killing methods. (Code of Practice)

1.2.4 Actions to be completed if resources available

A number of less urgent actions or projects were flagged in the plan but have not yet been completed. This review considers that it would be beneficial to seek resources to also complete these tasks if possible. These actions could also be added to the new plan, with the proviso that although not high priority at this stage, they would provide long term benefits and help to achieve the goal of improving kangaroo management in South Australia.

Recommendation D1: Assess New South Wales regional correction factors to decide how applicable they might be to South Australia. (Objective 1.1 - Monitoring)


Recommendation D2: Carry out further trials to understand impacts of kangaroos on total grazing pressure. (Objective 2.4 – Total gazing pressure management)

Recommendation D3: Develop improved material for non-commercial destruction permit applicants, including self-assessment tools and a fact sheet summarising the Code of Practice. (Objective 4.1 – Code of Practice)

Recommendation D4: Consider designing and resourcing a project researching ways to improve the animal welfare outcomes for kangaroos. (Objective 4.2 – Animal welfare standards)

Recommendation D5: Carry out research on the demographic impacts of harvesting results in SA compared to NSW, especially relating to the implications of gender distribution. (Demographic impacts)


2 Introduction This report comprises a formal review of the Kangaroo Conservation and Management Plan for South Australia 2008 – 2012 (‘the plan’). The review has been carried out using a mixture of stakeholder consultation, research, and evaluation of the goals, objectives and targets in the plan. 2.1 Goals and Objectives of this Review The high-level goals of the review are to:

♦ assess the effectiveness of the plan and its implementation over the past four years

♦ provide recommendations to inform and enhance the effectiveness of the future management of kangaroos in South Australia.

In order to achieve this, the review will aim to achieve the following objectives:

♦ assess the extent to which the plan achieved its goals, including analysis of which plan targets have been met and how well we have progressed against the higher-level objectives

♦ ensure stakeholders have opportunities to influence the review results ♦ clearly identify areas where the plan has worked well, and capture learnings

for future plans ♦ clearly identify areas which have not worked well, or where there are gaps,

and make recommendations regarding areas to be improved ♦ complete a final report summarising all findings of the review process ♦ provide recommendations to inform the new plan in a timely fashion ♦ disseminate review results to relevant stakeholders (including the

Commonwealth, and all stakeholders identified in section 3).

2.2 Context The Kangaroo Conservation and Management Plan 2008-2012 states that a review is to be commenced no less than 12 months before the expiration of the plan. This review or ‘performance assessment’ is to be carried out in consultation with stakeholders (p64 of Kangaroo Conservation and Management Plan (CMP) 2008-2012). A review of the Kangaroo CMP 2008-2012 was started in late 2011. The initial review was also used to inform the creation of an early draft of the proposed new plan (2013-17 KMP), currently available for public consultation. Several key stakeholders working in the industry have expressed reservations about some aspects of the way kangaroos are managed in this State, so the review provides a timely opportunity to seek feedback from stakeholders and to consider how these issues can be better managed in the future. The findings of the completed review will help to inform the finalisation of the new plan, as well as make recommendations for potential improvements to the way kangaroos are managed in South Australia.


2.3 Strategic Alignment This review is a requirement of the conservation management plan itself, rather than a direct requirement of any legislation or DEWNR priorities. By scrutinising the effectiveness of the plan and its implementation, this review will aim to contribute towards improved kangaroo management in the future, and in particular towards the effectiveness of the new plan at meeting its goals, objectives and actions. The plan has been developed closely in alignment to a number of high-level policies and pieces of legislation, including:

♦ EPBC Act (commercial export must be approved under section 303FO of this Act)

♦ National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (the plan must be approved under section 60I of this act)

♦ South Australia’s Strategic Plan (‘No species loss’ target and links to several others: see p8 of plan)

♦ No species loss: a nature conservation strategy for South Australia 2070 2017 (especially as related to the conservation and sustainable use of kangaroos, and the mitigation of threats to biodiversity caused by excessive Kangaroo grazing pressure, targets 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5.)

♦ State Natural Resources Management Plan ♦ Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos

The plan is also linked to other pieces of legislation that are listed on page 8 of the plan. The plan is also closely aligned to the DENR Corporate Plan 2012–2014, in particular by contributing to:

Goal 1 The environment is conserved and natural resources are used sustainably.

2.4 Definition of terms 2.4.1 Acronyms

The following acronyms appear in this review document. AQIS Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service ASAC Aboriginal Statewide Advisory Committee AWHN Australian Wildlife Health Network CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation DEH South Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage

(name of environment department at time of plan) DENR South Australian Government Department of the Environment and Natural

Resources. (Name of environment department in 2011) DEWNR South Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water and

Natural Resources. (Current name of environment department) DfW South Australian Government Department for Water DPLG Department of Planning and Local Government DSEWPaC Commonwealth Department of Environment and Water Resources EPBC Act The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999


KIAA Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia KMP Kangaroo Management Program KMRG Kangaroo Management Reference Group, the stakeholder reference group for

kangaroo management run by DEH. MEC South Australian Minister for Environment and Conservation. MOU Memorandum of Understanding NPW Act South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. NRM Natural resources management. PIRSA South Australian Government Department of Primary Industries and Resources

of South Australia. RSPCA Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals SARDI South Australian Research and Development Institute.

2.4.2 Glossary

The definitions provided below are based largely on those provided in the plan. Adaptive management

A systematic process for continual improvement in management practices by learning from the results of current practices.

Biodiversity The variety of life forms: the different plants, animals, fungi, bacteria and other microorganisms, the genes they contain, and the ecosystems they form.

Code of Practice

Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos A National welfare standard for the humane shooting of kangaroos. 2nd edition published by Environment Australia in 1990, and reprinted in 1995 and 1998. Endorsed by the then Council of Nature Conservation Ministers, now the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council. Referred to in this document as The Code of Practice. Includes any subsequent approved versions of this welfare standard.

Landholders The owners or managers of land on which kangaroos are found. Natural Resources Management (NRM)

As defined in the State Natural Resources Management Plan 2006, the direct use, management and/or development of natural resources (land, soil, water, geological features and landscapes, native vegetation, native animals and other native organisms and ecosystems) by anyone in the community. Under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 the statewide NRM Council and eight regional NRM boards manage natural resources across the state.

Quota Comprises harvest quota and Special Land Management quota. Quotas are set as a constant proportion of population size: 20% for Red Kangaroo and 15% for Western Grey Kangaroo and Euro. Population size is estimated by surveys conducted from the air or on the ground.

Quota Report A written document for Commonwealth DEW that details the commercial quotas for the upcoming calendar year.

Reserve Land managed by DEH, and constituted under the NPW Act, for the purposes of conservation of biodiversity or natural or cultural heritage. Different categories of reserve are listed at http://www.parks.sa.gov.au.

Sealed tag A unique individually-numbered tag that must be affixed to each commercially harvested kangaroo, and kangaroos that are taken for personal use under non-commercial destruction permits. A royalty for each tag must be paid to DEH. Tags can only be removed at the time that carcasses or skins are processed or used.

‘the plan’ Kangaroo Conservation and Management Plan for South Australia 2008 – 2012


2.5 Scope & contents of review The review contains the following sections:

♦ Section 1 : Executive summary, including high-level reference to what did and didn't work, and a list of all recommendations arising from the review, including those which may affect finalisation of the new plan.

♦ Section 2 : Introduction, including context of this review, summary of key legislative obligations and interactions, definition of terms ad acronyms, and definition of the scope of this review

♦ Section 3 : Stakeholder information, including description of key stakeholders impacted by plan and summary of key messages from their feedback (More specific feedback from stakeholders will be integrated into analysis of targets and impacts in later sections of review)

♦ Section 4 : Analysis of the goals, objectives and targets listed in the survey, including a progress report on all targets

♦ Section 5 : Discussion of the threats and impacts identified in the plan, including which ones have been measured, what results and gaps have been identified, and whether the defined impacts are all still relevant.

♦ Section 6 : Review of the implementation of the plan, particularly whether the adaptive management process was suitably timely and effective, and whether defined processes worked well.

♦ Section 6.3 : Review of the scope of the plan, including observations on whether the scope remains appropriate (including species covered)

♦ Section 7 : Conclusions, including summary of any gaps and concerns found with plan as well as aspects of the plan which have worked well

2.6 Methodology The method for undertaking this review has included the following steps.

♦ Stakeholder survey. Compile and implement a survey (electronic and available in hard-copy) to capture feedback from representatives of all stakeholder groups (members of KMRG and relevant associates recommended by them). The survey included questions about what stakeholders think do and do not work in the plan, and how effectively it has been implemented (review of processes, effectiveness of adaptive management, etc). The survey will also ask people which areas of the review they wish to provide specific feedback on as the review process progresses.

♦ Desktop review. Review all relevant data (including previous reports and all feedback from stakeholders).

♦ Draft report. Report drafted based on contents specified in section 2.5 above. During drafting, gaps were identified where further information was required from relevant people.

♦ Consultation and analysis for objectives and targets. Draft traffic-light assessment of progress against all targets was updated in-house, and then split into sections (based on objectives) and provided to targeted stakeholders for comment (eg, high-level assessment of Objective 5.3 ‘Encourage Aboriginal involvement’ was provided to relevant stakeholder representatives for comment). This enabled a broader analysis to be completed on all objectives.


♦ Consultation and analysis for impact assessment. Provide comment on impacts identified by plan, targeting specific stakeholders for feedback as appropriate.

♦ Final phase of consultation. Draft review was provided for comment to KMRG meeting in late October.

♦ Completion of report. Report was finalised by mid November, including integration of further comments from KMRG members. Recommendations have been provided to the developers of the new plan, and will also be provided to other relevant parties, including the Commonwealth.


3 Stakeholder Engagement & Governance Stakeholders with a particular interest in this review have been defined as

♦ staff involved with implementing the Kangaroo Management Program ♦ members of the KMRG (all of whom represent relevant organisations) ♦ other relevant members of those organisation (as determined by the

KMRG representatives) and ♦ other staff of relevant government departments (including the

Commonwealth). The principal stakeholders who oversee implementation of the Kangaroo Management Program and the plan are DEWNR staff with appropriate delegations and the Kangaroo Management Reference Group. All decisions about quotas are made by the group, and their role is summarized in section 3.2 below. 3.1 Governance for this review Roles and responsibilities for those involved in the review process are summarised in table 3 .1 below. Table 3.1: Governance for review

Role Person(s) Fulfilling Role

Responsibilities Reports to

Project Director

Brenton Grear Endorse final report Tim Goodes

Project Sponsor

Vicki Linton Approve project plan, and endorse review documents

Brenton Grear

Business Owner Kangaroo management program

Implementing Kangaroo Management Plan and ensuring it is properly reviewed

Vicki Linton

Team leader/expert advice

Mike Greig Contribute to and approve project plan, and review documents

Vicki Linton

Project Manager

Anna Pope Prepare project plan, manage project, carry out stakeholder engagement and prepare review documents

Vicki Linton

Project Team Member

Peter Stokes Provide input and expert advice as required, liaise with Pt Augusta team and KMRG

Mike Greig

Project Advisory Committee

KMRG Read documents and provide feedback to the review.

Kangaroo management program

3.2 Kangaroo Management Reference Group The Kangaroo Management Reference Group (KMRG) includes a representative from each of the stakeholder groups impacted by the plan.


As part of the review process, these representatives were asked to comment on aspects of the implementation and effectiveness of the plan in a stakeholder survey. A summary of the results from the survey is provided in section 3.3 below, as well as being integrated into the analysis of targets and impacts in later sections of this review. The reference group meet twice a year, with other out-of-session correspondence being dealt with by phone or email. 3.2.1 Members of the Reference Group

The Reference Group consists of 12 members appointed by the Chief Executive of the Department responsible for the administration of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (currently DEWNR). The appointed members include a representative nominated by each of the following

• Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia (also holding a current South Australian permit for the processing of kangaroo meat)

• Qualified or experienced kangaroo field processor

• Conservation Council of South Australia

• Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (representing animal welfare interests)

• Aboriginal Statewide Advisory Committee (representing Aboriginal interests in the commercially harvested kangaroo species)

• South Australian Farmers Federation

• Pastoral Board

• Natural Resources Management Council

• Australian Quarantine Inspection Service

• Department responsible for the administration of the Primary Produce (Food Safety Schemes) Act 2004 (with experience or qualifications in meat hygiene regulation)

• Department responsible for the administration of the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989 (with qualifications or experience in pastoral land management)

• Director, National Parks and Wildlife South Australia. It is expected that all members of the Reference Group have knowledge of, or experience in, the management of commercially harvested kangaroo species. 3.2.2 Function of the Reference Group

The function of the Reference Group is to provide advice to DEWNR on the review and implementation of the management plan for commercially harvested kangaroo species in South Australia, including:

(a) Setting, allocation and issue of commercial harvest quotas;

(b) Regulation and compliance of the commercial kangaroo industry;

(c) The role of commercial kangaroo harvest in the management of total grazing pressure;


(d) Once per calendar year, provide advice on the annual quota proposal for commercially harvested kangaroo species;

(e) Once per five calendar years, provide advice on the review of the management plan for commercially harvested kangaroo species.

They may also:

(a) Provide advice to the Chief Executive and/or the National Parks and Wildlife Council on any matter relating to the management of commercially harvested kangaroo species in South Australia;

(b) Consider any other matter referred to the Reference Group by the National Parks and Wildlife Council or the Chief Executive.

It is the review described in point (e) above that is the subject of this report. The reference group have had several opportunities to feed into the process of reviewing the plan, both through the survey and also through subsequent consultation. 3.2.3 Review of Reference Group effectiveness

The Kangaroo Management Reference Group has played an important role in delivering the plan. In particular, it is integral to achieving objectives relating to quota setting and the adaptive management process. The group has also played an important role in disseminating information relating to the kangaroo management program to relevant stakeholders. One of the principal strengths of the group is that it contains representatives from each of the major stakeholder groups with an interest in kangaroo management in South Australia. This potentially provides ongoing opportunities to ensure all perspectives are considered when delivering the plan and the kangaroo management program. However, there are limitations on what can be achieved due to the relatively small number of meetings per year, the low levels of engagement habitually undertaken between meetings, and the restrictions caused by reduced resources. Given the limited resources and time of group members, it would be timely to consider how this could be improved. During the review process, a number of stakeholders provided comment on the reference group and its perceived effectiveness.

I have been a member of KMRG for I think 3 or 4 terms or over 10 to 12 years. I am getting the feeling from other members that they don’t see KMRG as effective as it used to be.

For some, it is not just a question of resources having been reduced, but a perception that the input of members is little valued and therefore ineffective.

Budget constraints are part of the problem, another that the department for a number of years never took our advice seriously and therefore didn’t enact it (stakeholders lost faith),

In particular, one stakeholder suggests an example of a decision-making process which affects them, and yet for which they have not been consulted.

We don’t have access to the financial situation which influences departmental decision making (when this sector is to be cost recovery) and one of the most important matters which affects the industry is the annual rate of royalty, the committee is never consulted.


Several of the comments from the stakeholder survey suggested that more frequent meetings should be held to increase the effectiveness and credibility of the reference group.

I do not believe that 2 meetings a year are adequate. We used to have at least 3 and sometimes in a year like this one where the 5 year plan was being reviewed we would have 4. Reason we went back to 2 was because of cost to run a meeting.

Timeliness of meetings has also been questioned:

Things such as the annual quota, it is always put to the committee mid to late October, when most of the required processes are already in action.

Some suggestions about how to better use group expertise have also been provided:

There have been so many items that were on the table for a few years, a number have fallen off it to the detriment of the industry. This is where the department really should be using the expertise sitting around the KMRG table more to help them get through the work load, in other words to help prioritise. It gives the staff an opportunity to take a step back and look at it from a different perspective in an unthreatening environment.

One of the messages which emerged from stakeholder consultation was that it would be far more effective to find ways for the reference group to do more than just discuss reports and issues. To what extent can they be involved in developing solutions, and recommending how they might be implemented?

For a number of the current agenda items, I see them as the department just ticking boxes as they have consulted. Not all but most of the agenda items are basically reports. Some create a little discussion, but what changes are made from them?

In order to address these concerns and consider some of these suggestions, it would be timely to review the terms of reference of the KMRG. This should be reviewed in light of the comments provided above as well as further consultation with group members.

Recommendation B1: Review KMRG Terms of Reference, including potentially increasing the number of meetings, ensuring meetings are timely, and increasing roles and responsibilities of group to include influencing prioritisation of actions and discussing annual rates of royalty.

This would most likely be able to be achieved by holding a workshop or special meeting with KMRG and other relevant stakeholders. It is suggested that this workshop could:

• review the KMRG Terms of Reference • review and prioritise the recommendations from this review, and • make recommendations for how priority actions can be implemented.

Another stakeholder referred to frustrations associated with lack of action on goals and aims identified in the 2003 KIRG review of the SA sealed tag system

[I refer to] the goals and aims in the tag review document. Most of the goals still reflect the business model which the regulatory process needs to let happen and a number of the aims are still relevant too, but a few have been achieved. As you can see, this document was written in 2003, so you can see the frustration by the key stakeholders that little which is required has happened. My feeling is that KMRG needs to review these business goals so that the decisions made to change processes, regulations or legislation reflect the longer term objective and wider parameters that are not part of DEWNR business. The DEWNR business directly


affects the function of private enterprise which in turn directly affects the desired outcomes of the program. To achieve these goals, the aims could be updated and could be the basis of some critical Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

This could potentially be another area of review for the KMRG workshop. Finally, the KMRG workshop could also be linked to implementation of the new plan.

Recommendation B2: Hold workshop with relevant stakeholders to discuss and prioritise recommendations from this review and other relevant documents.

3.3 Communication strategy for the review Most of the project communication was undertaken by e-mail, especially as the majority of stakeholders with whom we engaged are located in various parts of the State. Stakeholders were notified about the review by an e-mail, which also invited them to contribute to the survey of stakeholders. The survey was available to all via the internet or hard-copy (on request), and was designed to start to unpick some of the good and poor performing areas of the plan. The survey also asked stakeholders to suggest which areas of the plan they were most interested in discussing. To follow up, direct one-to-one contact was made with stakeholders who indicated specific interests (via phone or e-mail) to seek additional feedback on their areas of concern. This feedback then informed the analysis and recommendations of the review. If stakeholders had limited access to Internet, they were also able to submit a hard copy survey to the project manager by fax or post. When the draft review was completed following this consultation, KMRG were provided with an opportunity to read and make comment on the draft review before it was finalised. Apart from the key stakeholders, there was no broader communications about this project with members of the general community or DEWNR staff. However, now that the review has been completed, it is intended that relevant material will be published on the public website, and copies of the review will be provided to other relevant parties including defined stakeholders and the Commonwealth. 3.4 Summary of feedback from stakeholder survey The stakeholder survey contained 19 questions relating to the plan, and was circulated to all known key stakeholders in the kangaroo industry in South Australia. In particular, all members of the kangaroo management reference group were contacted a number of times, as well as other stakeholders known to them, and all those who receive the regular newsletters about kangaroo management. The following sections summarise the results of the survey.


3.4.1 Questions 1–2 & 15–16: Who responded to the survey?

These questions asked for information about the respondents, in particular their name (Q1), contact details (Q16) and which organisation they represented (Q2). These questions were optional, but the majority of respondents did provide their name and association. A majority of respondents also permitted us to contact them for further consultation on matters relating to the survey and the review of the plan (Q15-16). Although there were not a large number of respondents overall, at least one representative of each of the main interest groups involved in the kangaroo management reference group provided a response to the survey. This satisfied the main aim of the survey, which was to get specific feedback from each of the principal interest groups involved in kangaroo management in this state. Respondents included landowners, government officers involved with the kangaroo management program, and representatives of the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia (KIAA), RSPCA, Pastoral Board, Farmers Federation, Aboriginal Statewide Advisory Committee (ASAC) and NRM boards. 3.4.2 Questions 3 & 4: Interaction with the plan

Question 3 asked how often respondents read or consulted the plan. Of the 15 full responses, 27% consulted the plan more than once a month, one third a few times a year, one third rarely, and one person had never consulted the plan. Question 4 asked how often the respondents carried out activities outlined in the plan. 27% claim to use it daily, 13% monthly, another 27% occasionally, 27% rarely, and one person never. 3.4.3 Question 5: The scope of the plan

Question 5 stated that the plan focused on the three commercially harvested kangaroo species in South Australia, and asked respondents whether they agreed with the scope of the plan. The majority of respondents (57%) agreed with the scope of the plan, while 21% disagreed and 21% were not sure. There was also opportunity to provide comment on this question, and 6 respondents chose to do so. Three respondents commented on the need to include Eastern Grey Kangaroos within the scope of the new plan. This matter has already been flagged by the kangaroo management program and is being considered for the future plan. Eastern greys are becoming more and more common in South Australia, and it is expected that they will soon cease to be categorised as “rare”. This will also alleviate some of the issues associated with managing their numbers in the southeast, including the problems associated with kangaroos managed through permitted culling rather than commercial means, in which case carcasses tend to be left and provide food for non native scavengers, thereby also increasing the numbers of pest species such as foxes. It is understood that increasing the scope of the plan to include eastern grey kangaroos will increase resources for surveying and compliance, including adding a new region to the survey area. Comments from stakeholders included the following.

Eastern Grey kangaroos must be included in the plan as the numbers are growing fast and in SA we allow for destruction permit re eastern greys which is contradictory, eastern greys are in numbers right through the north east.


In addition, respondents commented on the need to consider future management of wallabies on Kangaroo Island.

I believe this should be a macropod plan as it was many years ago. All macropod species should be included. This would then give greater scope to deal with emerging issues such as KI wallabies and give ability to look forward. In conjunction with adding eastern greys, could we do same for wallaby for KI as they have real land management issues from them. Yes size for commercial at the moment is prohibitive, but let’s make sure the system allows for the entrepreneurs to work. I see the comment on pg 19, but I believe the numbers on KI are really beyond just a few non-commercial permits. The issue of reducing larger numbers of animals is adherence to COP and animal welfare standards. By use of qualified people to cull makes the department more proactive in their management of the species and scavengers.

This latter feedback not only applies to the need to consider changing the scope of the plan, but also the need to address issues around the standards for non-commercial destruction.

The plan is too restrictive where a lessee cannot get the cull taken either due to terrain or no market for the products. Shoot and let lie must be considered. culling of excessive quota when not commercially harvested

The need to improve standards for non-commercial culling will be considered as part of the development of a non-commercial permit system. DEWNR may develop specific policy around the management of non-commercially harvested kangaroo species. The issues around non-commercial harvesting are addressed further in section 4.13 below. Meanwhile, this review notes that there will need to be some flexibility in determining the scope of the new plan, and the potential for including other macrapod species should be allowed for when circumstances are changed, including if eastern grey kangaroos are no longer deemed “rare” (through amendments to regulations), or there are cases where specific regions become overpopulated. It is also recommended that the new plan provide a mechanism for updating the scope, including governance structures clarifying the process of making the decision for adding new species to the commercial harvest.

Recommendation A1: Extend scope of the new plan to make provisions for future inclusion of other macropod species in the commercial harvest, and to define a process for doing so.

3.4.4 Question 6: The balance between commercial and non-commercial

Question 6 asked respondents whether they thought the plan was appropriately balanced between discussion of commercial harvest and non-commercial management of kangaroos. 42% (6) of respondents considered the balance was “just right”, with two (14%) finding there was too much about commercial harvest, and three (21%) that there was too much about non-commercial harvest. A further three respondents (21%) were unsure about this question. In summary, it appears that there are no major issues with the balance of the current plan, and that it would be reasonable for it to provide some guidance for the new


plan. However, it is expected that this balance will be able to be adjusted more easily during the consultation process for the new plan. 3.4.5 Question 7: Prioritising the themes in the plan

Question 7 asked respondents to choose which of the 6 themes described in the plan they thought were the most important (with respondents able to choose as many as they wished). The results were as follows

Theme Number of respondents

who declared interest

% of respondents

Knowledge and science 8 14.04% Sustainable commercial harvest 13 22.81% Mitigate detrimental impacts 10 17.54% Animal welfare 11 19.30% Communication and education 9 15.79% Program review and reporting 6 10.53%

In summary, almost all respondents were particularly concerned with ensuring a sustainable commercial harvest is achieved, with animal welfare and mitigation of detrimental impacts being the next most prominent concerns. The review and reporting on the program were themes of least interest to respondents. 3.4.6 Question 8: Planning framework of KCMP

Question 8 talked about the planning framework of the plan in an attempt to find out whether it was easy to understand and therefore effective. The question stated that “the plan has goals, which are underlined by outcomes, then objectives, then strategies and targets – do you find the framework helpful?” 46% of respondents found the framework a bit confusing, while 38% found it very clear. Only 15% considered it was very confusing. This implies that the framework was relatively clear and successful, although could perhaps be made even simpler and easy to follow. One stakeholder queried whether or not there were too many strategies in the plan. It is recommended that the new plan focus on the aims and actions which are priorities for achieving the goal, and tries to avoid becoming either too complicated or two detailed. It is important that the plan remains balanced, and that it includes all actions which have previously been considered a useful part of the management program. But it will also be necessary to ensure that all actions do effectively contribute to achieving the goal.

Recommendation A2: Ensure the new plan includes actions which will directly contribute to achieving the high-level goal of the plan.

3.4.7 Question 9: Addressing the Objectives

Question 9 asked respondents to consider the 20 objectives in the plan, and to indicate which of them they might be able to help review (with any number being able to be selected).


Fortunately, all of the objectives have been covered, with between 1 and 7 respondents indicating that they are interested in helping to review each objective. The objectives and the number of respondents interested in assisting with the review are summarised below. These respondents were all contacted as part of the review process, and particularly as part of the analysis of goals, objectives and targets (section 4 below).

Objective No. interested 1.1 Monitoring 1 1.2 Research 1 1.4 Regional knowledge and understanding 4 2.1 Quota setting 5 2.2 Permits and regulations 6 2.3 Compliance and enforcement 4 2.4 Total grazing pressure management 7 3.1 Non-commercial destruction 6 3.2 Kangaroo management on reserves 2 4.1 Code of Practice 2 4.2 Animal welfare standards 2 5.1 Partnerships with the kangaroo industry 3 5.2 Engage landholders and land managers 4 5.3 Encourage aboriginal involvement 2 5.4 Partnerships with regional NRM boards 3 5.5 Linkages with other government agencies 1 5.6 Community understanding 2 6.2 Management plan review 4

3.4.8 Question 10: Reviewing impacts of commercial harvesting

Question 10 asked respondents to consider the 10 impacts outlined in the plan, and to indicate which of them they might be able to help review (with any number being able to be selected). Fortunately, all of the impacts have been covered, with between 1 and 7 respondents indicating that they are interested in helping to review each impact. The impacts and the number of respondents interested in assisting with the review are summarised below. These respondents will all be contacted as part of the review process, and particularly as part of the analysis of threats and impacts (section 5 below).

Impact No. interested 1 Sustainability of harvest 7 2 Sustainability of harvest during drought conditions 5 3 Demographic impacts 2 4 Genetic diversity and fitness 2 5 Ensuring animals are killed humanely 3 6 Soil 1 8 Vegetation 3 9 Predators and scavengers 1 10 Other fauna 1


3.4.9 Questions 11 & 12: Considering the Code of Practice

Question 11 asks respondents whether they agree with the principles of the National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies (2008). A majority of respondents (79%) did agree with the principles, with only three partly agreeing. When asked whether they were satisfied with the way the Code of Practice has been adopted through the plan (Q12), 54% agreed that they were, 38% partly agreed and one person was unsure. The answers to these questions seem to indicate that the Code of Practice is generally considered to have good principles and is well adopted through the plan. However, some feedback has been provided on an area to be improved:

Euthanasing pouch young and young at foot: the Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos need to be reviewed urgently especially in reference to the section quoted below: Injured kangaroos and pouch young Shot females must be examined for pouch young and if one is present it must also be killed. Decapitation with a sharp instrument in very small hairless young or a properly executed heavy blow to destroy the brain in larger young are effective means of causing sudden and painless death. This section causes the industry all sorts of problems with Animal Activists and reflexes poorly in the eyes of the public and must be changed.

The National Code of Practice will be due for review in 2013. DEWNR will participate in this review, and will include all comments raised here in relation to the code. Other comments from stakeholders have included the following:

At KMRG we have discussed influencing issues on numerous occasions such as welfare / animal rights groups and how we can counteract their misinformed campaigns. Something like the joey issue as part of the COP is a key problem. The CoP is correct, but the department should have a basic write up, scientifically based ready to release which backs the COP and the industry which is pre-agreed by the stakeholders and can be released in a very short time. re pouch young and CoP. Compared to nearly all of the KMRG members, I think I have been privy to information explaining why the method of dispatch of pouch young is used when discussing the wombat CoP. Now that I know the scientific details I can’t argue, but it just sounds gruesome. Need to upskill the KMRG members ASAP and have a discussion prior to the CoP review.

Ways in which information can better be shared about managing emotive issues such as dealing with pouched young will also be explored as part of the Code of Practice review. This may involve development of fact sheets for the community, and direct discussions with animal rights groups.

Recommendation C6: Develop fact sheet to improve community understanding of Code of Practice, in particular, humane killing methods.

3.4.10 Positive comments - which parts of plan worked well? (Q13)

Question 13 provided an opportunity for respondents to comment on what they liked about the plan or which parts of it they thought worked well. These comments are summarised below, and have been considered as part of the recommendations from


this review (ie. If things have been working well, try to ensure they continue to happen. Things respondents commented on as working well or being positive aspects of the plan were:

• Overall it seems to be a well researched document which seems to cover all relevant areas with regard to kangaroo management and is not too cumbersome to read.

• The information that has been collected over the last 20-30 years on harvest figures vs quota, weights, species is very important for us going ahead. It will give the ecologists invaluable data.

• head shooting, compliance by field harvesters

• field harvester compliance

• Framework for kangaroo management section. The appendices are useful as well.

• Overall I think the plan is workable and highlights areas for future improvements.

• The layout is good, including use of bullets, tables, graphics, pictures, headers, grey backgrounding. Colour is not needed if the variety is retained for the next plan.

• the structure of the code

• Overall, I think it works hard to address all issues very well. 3.4.11 Negative comments - which parts of plan could be improved? (Q14)

Question 14 provided an opportunity for respondents to comment on which parts of the plan could be improved, or any other specific concerns they had. In particular, specific concerns related to:

• permits and regulations (objective 2.2)

• total grazing pressure (objective 2.4)

• Code of Conduct (objective 4.1)

• non-commercial harvest processes (objective 3.1)

• commercial operations (see objective 5.1 and inter-government relations (objective 5.5))

• ongoing processes for reviewing program (objective 6.2). The issues raised in these comments have been addressed in the relevant sections of this report where progress against objectives is being measured. Where possible, recommendations have been made to try to improve areas where problems have been identified. 3.4.12 Question 17 – identifying landholders & processors

The last three questions in the survey were specific to landholders, kangaroo field processors, or kangaroo meat processors. Eight of the 13 respondents to this question identified themselves as one of the above.


3.4.13 Question 18 – selling tags directly to kangaroo field processors

Respondents were asked whether they supported the sale of tags directly to kangaroo field processors. The specified proposal was as follows:

DEWNR is currently working towards the sale of tags to field processors as per the recommendation of the Kangaroo Management Reference Group (KMRG). All tags will be sold to KFPs through the Port Augusta office. Tags will be ordered online/fax/post and can be picked up over the counter or posted. Tag life will be 12 months. There will be no refunds (unless exceptional circumstances apply). Tags will be species specific.

Generally, respondents were more positive than negative, with 2 (33%)completely supporting the proposal and 1 partly supporting it. There were also 2 neutral responses and one being partly against it. Overall, there was no strong opposition to the proposal (noone was completely against it). Several respondents made comments, as follows:

For this system to work the tags must have a shorter life than 12 months. Permit life can be 12 months, not the tags. A field processor can still buy tags for a specific area and sit on them - nothing will change. Some field processors will buy up large quantities of tags for a specific area and limit the access for other field processors. would be good to know how KFPs feel about this one and does this mean Kangaroo Meat Processors cannot purchase tags on KFPs behalf as it may be too costly for a part time KFP or one who just cannot afford to purchase tags. a field processor can be left with unused tags due to weather, family crisis or loss of market, the tags must be further allocated tag issue needs to be simple and zone/district based to work efficiently. Landholder/property needs to have a different involvement to what it does now to reflect its management requirement.

These comments will be considered during the ongoing tag reform work. This review considers that on balance, selling tags directly to kangaroo field processors would improve the process currently in place.

Recommendation A3: Implement proposal to sell tags directly to field processors.

3.4.14 Question 19 – electronic submissions of returns

Respondents were asked whether they supported the proposed e-business options, defined as follows:

DEWNR is currently investigating e-Business options, including the online submission of kangaroo field processor (KFP) returns. This would mean KFPs (or partner/friend, etc) could log on and enter return data simply and quickly. There will not be a requirement to enter individual tag numbers but simply record the number of kangaroos harvested (species on a given property per night). Electronic forms will pre-populate permit holder’s details. Paper returns may be submitted for those who choose not to submit their returns electronically.

All respondents to this question supported this proposal, with 67% completely supporting it and the remaining 33% partly supporting it. Several respondents made comments, as follows:

should be completely at the decision of the individual field processor (some may not use/have computer skills or be in a place to access the net.)


Care needs to be taken for trace back to property of origin. eg times when locust spraying occurs, properties are quarantined for some time. In cropping areas, constant unknown withholding status of chemicals of pastures. This is about protecting industry.

These comments will be considered during the ongoing tag reform work. This review considers that implementing this proposal will be an effective way to proceed and will improve current processes.

Recommendation A4: Implement proposal to enable electronic submission of returns and other e-business options.


4 Analysis of themes, objectives and targets 4.1 Goal of plan The plan states that its goal is to:

conserve Kangaroo populations in South Australia through integrated and sustainable management in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

Underneath its overarching goal, the plan includes a hierarchy of themes, outcomes, objectives, strategies and targets, with the latter being able to be measured. An analysis of the six main themes is provided in section 4.2 below, highlighting areas which were more successful, and those where improvement can be made. Finally, a summary of progress against targets is provided in section 4.3 below, with the rest of section 4 addressing each objective, including a discussion of achievements and identification of gaps. Where gaps or issues have been identified, recommendations for future actions have been provided. 4.2 Analysis of themes The plan states that its goal “will be delivered through six integrated themes of management.” These themes can be measured by assessing progress against all of the objectives which lies underneath the themes. The six themes outlined in the plan are as follows:

Theme 1 Knowledge and science - Ensure conservation of kangaroos through management actions based on knowledge and science, and management systems that are adaptive and promote the use of regional knowledge

Theme 2 Sustainable commercial harvest - Provide for the sustainable harvest of kangaroos so that they can be valued as a resource

Theme 3 Mitigate detrimental impacts - Mitigate detrimental environmental, economic and social impacts of kangaroos in a sustainable manner

Theme 4 Animal welfare - Ensure animal welfare standards for kangaroos are adhered to

Theme 5 Communication and education - Form partnerships with, and educate stakeholders about kangaroo management

Theme 6 Program review and reporting - Undertake regular program review and reporting. This review has found that progress under each theme varied, with a number of strong areas (objectives) emerging as well as areas/objectives in which more work is needed. Objectives where more work is required were identified based on whether there were a large number of stakeholder comments, or whether there were a relatively large number of targets which were not met. Progress against each of the themes is summarised in table 4.1 below.


Table 4.1 Analysis of progress against themes Theme Strongest areas Areas needing more

work Targets reached

Reached or partly reached

Targets not

reached

Knowledge & science

• Adaptive management

• Regional understanding

• Monitoring • Research

55% 85% 15%

Sustainable commercial harvest

• Quota setting • Compliance

• Permits# • Total grazing

pressure management

70% 98% 2%

Mitigate detrimental impacts

• Kangaroo management on reserves

• Non-commercial destruction#

50% 92% 8%

Animal welfare • Code of Practice# • Animal welfare

standards

63% 74% 26%

Communication and education

• Engagement with landholders

• Community • Government

agencies

• Aboriginal involvement##

• Partnerships with Kangaroo industry#

• Partnerships with NRM#

59% 79% 21%

Program review and reporting

• Reporting • Regular review## 40% 70% 30%

# Area (objective) with largest number of comments from stakeholders ## Area with poorest results based on target analysis

4.3 Analysis of targets Overall, performance against the 181 targets has been fair to good, with 107 being completed, 49 not progressed due to changing priorities or circumstances, and 25 not being completed. The relative progress against the targets is illustrated in figure 4.1 below. Figure 4.1 Comparison of targets completed against those deprioritised or not completed

Status of targets

GreenYellowRed

Red Targets which have not been completed


Yellow Targets which have been started, or have been partially completed, but in many cases they have not been completed, either because they are not considered a high priority, or target is no longer relevant due to changed circumstances.

Green target completed. The extent to which these targets have been met is summarised in section 4.4 below, and then described in more detail in sections 4.5-4.24. 4.4 Summary of progress against objectives The 181 targets all sit under 20 higher-level objectives. Some of these objectives have been progressed more effectively than others. A high-level assessment of the status of targets against each objective is provided in table 4.1 below. Table 4.2 Progress against each objective

Targets Theme Objective Progress against targets

Done Partially comple

ted

Not done

Total

1.1 Monitoring Fair–Poor 8 3 4 15 1.2 Research Fair–Poor 4 5 2 11 1.3 Adaptive management Good 7 3 0 10

Knowledge and science

1.4 Regional knowledge and understanding

Good 3 1 0 4

2.1 Quota setting Good 13 3 0 16 2.2 Permits and regulations Good 6 4 0 10 2.3 Compliance and enforcement

Good 11 3 0 14

Sustainable commercial harvest

2.4 Total grazing pressure management

Fair 2 3 1 6

3.1 Non-commercial destruction

Fair–poor 5 9 2 16 Mitigate detrimental impacts 3.2 Kangaroo management

on reserves Good 7 1 0 8

4.1 Code of Practice Fair 9 2 2 13 Animal welfare 4.2 Animal welfare standards Variable 3 0 3 6

5.1 Partnerships with the kangaroo industry

Variable 3 0 2 5

5.2 Engage landholders and land managers

Good 5 3 0 8

5.3 Encourage aboriginal involvement

Poor 4 1 6 11

5.4 Partnerships with regional NRM boards

Good 4 2 0 6

5.5 Linkages with other government agencies

Good 5 2 0 7

Communication and education

5.6 Community understanding Good 4 1 0 5 6.1 Reporting Good 3 0 0 3 Program

review and reporting

6.2 Management plan review Poor 1 3 3 7

Total 107 49 25 181 It is worth noting that the predominant reasons for targets not being met have related to staffing issues. One stakeholder noted that there was a 15 month period in which there were vacant positions and many things were not happening, including KMRG meetings. Considering ways to assess and manage these sorts of risks will also help to improve implementation of the plan.


Further detail about which targets have and have not been reached is provided in sections 4.5-4.24 below. 4.5 Objective 1.1 – Monitoring Of the 15 targets listed under monitoring, eight have been met during the period of the plan. These include the annual and three-yearly surveys that have been undertaken to monitor populations, the provision of advice on monitoring, and the obtaining of approvals where required. Three targets which have not been progressed due to changing priorities (yellow flag) include ♦ direct monitoring of kangaroo populations for non-commercial destruction ♦ review of Euro monitoring and alternative monitoring techniques, and ♦ investigation into the use and suitability of long-term harvest data (indirect

monitoring) to supplement direct monitoring. These have all been partially completed, and work on these will continue through the next plan.

Targets with red flags The four targets which have red flags should ideally have been progressed but have not yet been achieved. Gap 4.1.1 Ensure population estimates for quota setting have a coefficient of

variation equal to or lower than 25% Gap 1.1.2 Assess New South Wales regional correction factors to decide how

applicable they might be to South Australia by 2009 Gap 1.1.3 Develop regional correction factors for red kangaroo and western grey

kangaroo by 2010 Gap 1.1.4 Develop an optimal monitoring strategy for kangaroo management by

2011 Of those targets with red flags, the first (gap 4.1.1) has not been achieved in all areas, particularly low-density areas. The NSW regional correction factors (gap 4.1.2 above) have not yet been assessed, and regional correction factors have not yet been developed for SA as per gap 4.1.3 above. This work would be desirable in the future if sufficient resources become available, but is not essential.

Recommendation D1: If resources become available, assess New South Wales regional correction factors to decide how applicable they might be to South Australia.

In the case of gap 1.1.4, DEWNR have developed some optimization of current techniques, but a fully optimized strategy has not yet been implemented. A research proposal has been developed, but no suitable candidate has been identified.

Recommendation A5: Continue to investigate development of an optimal monitoring strategy for kangaroo management.


4.6 Objective 1.2 – Research Of the 11 targets listed under Research, DEWNR has achieved four. In particular, it has supported research relating to kangaroo management, has provided research proposals to the KMRG for comment, and has detailed relevant research in harvest reports. Staff of the Kangaroo Management Program also attend appropriate scientific conferences to further their knowledge of wildlife management. Five targets were not achieved in full, but are currently considered to have lower priority than some other targets (particularly in the context of current cuts). These include the regularity of contact with research partners (which is maintained, but not as regularly as twice a year), linking research to management decisions annually, communicating research findings more widely, providing an annual update on relevant research to KMRG, and regularly reviewing current research (which is reviewed, but not as often as twice per year).

Targets with red flags Two of the research targets have been allocated a red flag, namely: Gap 1.2.1 development of a DEWNR research prospectus, including allocation of

research priorities and distribution to research institutions Gap 1.2.2 maintain contact with Australian Wildlife Health Network and report

occurrences of disease in free-ranging kangaroo populations in South Australia to the network.

In the case of gap 1.2.1, a prospectus should be developed as part of the new plan (see recommendation A6 below). In the case of Gap 1.2.2, although a formal contact has not been maintained, DEWNR’s kangaroo ecologist works alongside the South Australian representative of AWHN, and reports of disease can be passed on through these channels. This meets the original intent of this target.

Stakeholder feedback During the process of this review, a number of areas for further research have also been identified. Some of these have been picked up in the recommendations, and where possible should be addressed if resources become available. One way to ensure this work takes place could be through developing closer links to university and research organisations. The sorts of topics requiring further research should be documented during the development of a research prospectus. This prospectus should also consider ways in which research goals could be met through collaboration.

Recommendation A6: Develop a research prospectus aligning with kangaroo management goals, proposing relevant collaboration, and considering research themes identified in the recommendations from this review (including D recommendations).

4.7 Objective 1.3 – Adaptive management Of the 10 adaptive management targets, seven have been met. These have related to the regular review of the kangaroo culling policy; the assessment of adaptive management proposals against the criteria in the plan; the seeking of high-level endorsement and KMRG approval for adaptive management experiments; and


appropriate reporting and communication for all implemented adaptive management experiments. The three targets that were not fully met (yellow flags) were:

♦ the annual review of progress towards the targets (which was informal rather than formal);

♦ the review of culling program every three years. This has not always occurred in the past, but will be required in the future. Therefore it has been included in the Kangaroos on Reserves (population control) Policy; and

♦ the three-yearly review of the non-commercial destruction permit policy (currently underway).

In relation to the first yellow flag, reporting against targets should be conducted annually as part of reporting to the Commonwealth. Information form these reports should feed into management decisions.

Recommendation A7: Ensure that targets are reviewed annually and, where appropriate, fed back into management decision making process.

4.8 Objective 1.4 – Regional knowledge and understanding Of the four targets relating to regional knowledge and understanding, three have been met. These include the regional use of the plan for making kangaroo management decisions, as well as all other relevant available information. The information is also gathered through regional newsletters, including anecdotal information on kangaroo populations. The one target that was not fully met relates to the collection of information on regional kangaroo populations through partnerships with regional NRM boards. Although some links with NRM groups have been developed, this review acknowledges that there is scope for improved partnerships between regional decision-makers, kangaroo managers and NRM groups. This review considers that NRM Boards provide an ideal opportunity for developing closer links with regions. The discussion of Objective 5.4 (Partnerships with regional NRM boards) provides more detail about potential improvements for the future.

Recommendation A8: Build strong partnerships between regional decision-makers, kangaroo managers and NRM groups.

4.9 Objective 2.1 – Quota setting Of the 16 targets for quota setting, 13 have been met. This includes four targets or performance measures relating to the setting of annual harvest quotas in accordance with the provisions in the Macropod Conservation and Management Plan for South Australia 2008–2012. Quotas were set annually and endorsed in a timely fashion. Stakeholders were engaged in the process via the Kangaroo Management Reference Group, and quotas were published on the kangaroo management website by the end of January each year.


Changes to kangaroo harvest regions were endorsed appropriately and displayed on the KM website within two months. Trials for new regions were also implemented as per the plan. The three targets that have not yet been implemented (yellow flags) are:

♦ a review of the current harvest management regions – this has been started but not completed

♦ stakeholder engagement around proposed changes to harvest zones – this will be undertaken when the above review has been completed, and

♦ development of monitoring triggers an harvest amendments to ensure sustainability of harvest during extended drought conditions – trigger points for harvest amendments will be included in the next plan.

4.10 Objective 2.2 – Permits and regulations Of the 10 targets under the ‘permits and regulations’ objective, six have been implemented and four have been allocated a yellow flag. Quotas have been provided annually, and tags and permits have been issued as required. Permit holders have also been advised promptly of any changes to permit conditions, and the Kangaroo Management Reference Group has been invited to provide feedback on all proposed amendments. In addition, the capacity of the industry to adapt to the regulatory change has been considered prior to implementing any regulatory amendments. The four targets that have not yet been implemented (yellow flags) are:

♦ annual review of permit conditions – instead of completing a formal review annually, permit conditions have been reviewed as needed

♦ amendment of the regulatory framework to introduce new quota and tag allocation procedures (by 2009) – the tag review has progressed but the regulatory changes have not yet been made

♦ review of the regulatory framework every three years – the regulatory framework will be reviewed along with the introduction of new administrative procedures

♦ exploring the use of new technologies that may streamline work processes by 2009 – although this is not yet been implemented, the tag review and the review of the wildlife permit system has recommended considering available technological software solutions to streamline work processes, so this may be considered in the future.

Based on a review of the four targets with yellow flags, the following recommendations are made.

Recommendation A9: Review and update the National Parks and Wildlife (Kangaroo Harvesting) Regulations 2003 during the life of the new plan.

Recommendation A10: Consider all available technologies to streamline work processes for all involved in the kangaroo industry.

Stakeholder feedback There have also been a number of comments relating to things that should be changed regarding permits and regulations. These include:


Council zone permit must be abolished as it only allows Field Processor one option to sell their carcases to one processor which is non competitive. Commercial industry not as successful as it can be for a number of reasons, including that sometimes pockets of the state are not harvested for a period of time due to the way the tag system works so that a shooter can “sit on tags” for a full 12 months? Non Commercial Harvest in large quantities whether it be in national parks or land holders areas. It is a waste of a resource. Tag programme needs to be updated and simplified. Harvesting is concentrated in pockets due to the way the programme is conducted in SA. One other thing that I feel should be part of the plan is to have a time set to review the permit application form (commercial and non-commercial) and processes to see if it is right and if questions are workable or relevant.

Updating the regulations (as per Recommendation A9 above) will consider and address all issues identified by stakeholders above.

4.11 Objective 2.3 – Compliance and enforcement Of the 14 targets under the ‘Compliance and Enforcement’ objective, 11 have been met and three have been given a yellow flag. Compliance priorities have been set and reported annually. Field processor vehicles and areas have been checked opportunistically or when required as part of the targeted compliance investigation. All data has been entered into the Wildlife Permit System, and monthly compliance reports have been run. It is also noted that investigations will be commencing to further automate the process of entering data into the Wildlife Permit System. Any reports of non-compliance have been investigated fairly and thoroughly, and offenders have been cautioned, expiated or prosecuted as appropriate. Reasons behind non-compliance have been assessed at least twice per year, and relevant information on compliance activities and priorities have been included in the biannual newsletter sent to industry. Mail-outs relating to specific compliance issues have also been provided to the industry as needed. The three targets that have not been fully implemented (yellow flags) are:

♦ annual checks of operational field chillers as well as twice yearly checks of medium high-volume chillers – when operational chillers have been checked at least once per year

♦ high volume operational meat processors have been checked at least four times per year, but lower volume meat processors may be checked less than this; and

♦ each operational skin tannery is checked at least three times per year – these have been checked but not necessarily as often as three times per year

Given resources available for compliance in the region, compliance visits have occurred opportunistically rather than regularly. This has the advantage of surprise and is considered to be an appropriate approach for compliance in the future plan. 4.12 Objective 2.4 – Total grazing pressure management Of the six targets included under the ‘total grazing pressure management’ objective, two have been met, three have not yet been implemented due to competing priorities (yellow flag), and one has been given a red flag.


The targets that have been met include:

♦ entering into discussions with the DEWNR pastoral rangelands lease establishment team regarding the potential use of rangelands monitoring data. Discussions between DEWNR staff and other relevant groups have been undertaken and are continuing. However, a result from these discussions has not yet been identified.

♦ provision of regional harvest reports to landholders twice per year – reports have been provided.

The three targets that have been allocated yellow flags are:

♦ a trial management system based on the adaptive management framework provisions of the plan has been undertaken in the South East. At this stage, no total grazing pressure outcomes have been realised but useful data on social interest has been captured.

♦ consideration of measures allowing field processors to focus harvest efforts on locations and incidents of high kangaroo grazing pressure have been considered during regulatory amendments to the tag and quota allocation system – these amendments are still in progress, but will certainly consider the measures suggested

♦ research priorities have not yet been identified, but should be considered for the future. In particular, research priorities should aim to increase understanding of the impact of kangaroo grazing on ecological systems and the extent to which management actions for kangaroos can help meet environmental and economic objectives. Some research has been undertaken in other states.

Recommendation D2: If resources become available, carry out further trials to understand impacts of kangaroos on total grazing pressure.

Targets with red flags One of the ‘total grazing pressure’ targets has been allocated a red flag, namely: Gap 2.4.1 information on kangaroo harvest and total grazing pressure is included

on DEWNR kangaroo management website by 2009. Kangaroo grazing pressure is currently not specifically mentioned on the DEWNR website, other than by a link to the management plan.

Recommendation C1: Provide information on kangaroo grazing pressure on the DEWNR website.

Stakeholder feedback In addition, the management of total grazing pressure was also flagged in one of the stakeholder comments:

understanding total grazing pressure and pastoral board requirements of total grazing pressure regulations needs to be improved.

This will be partly addressed through the above recommendations.


4.13 Objective 3.1 – Non-commercial destruction Of the 16 targets allocated under the ‘non-commercial destruction’ objective, five have been met, nine have been allocated a yellow flag, and two a red flag. The five targets that have been met include the assessment and issuing of non-commercial destruction permits in accordance with procedure; the review and updating of the non-commercial destruction permit application form; the review of delegations for issuing permits to destroy wildlife; the provision of personal use sealed tags (yellow) as per regulations; and methods for managing abundant wildlife are displayed on DEWNR’s ‘living with wildlife’ webpage. The nine targets that have been allocated yellow flags are:

♦ inviting KMRG to comment on the non commercial destruction permit policy framework by 2009 – this has not occurred as specified, as that specific framework has not been reviewed. Instead, a draft Management of Over-abundant and Impact Causing Wildlife Policy has been developed (including comment on permits to destroy wildlife), and this has been provided to KMRG for comment.

♦ investigation of carcass disposal options and development of an information sheet by 2008 – although options to destroy wildlife have been reviewed, information sheet has been developed, and requires portfolio endorsement prior to publication.

♦ investigating the use of broad-scale aerial survey data and environmental conditions as a proactive guide for permit issue did not happen by 2010. However, some broad-scale data is used when issuing permits to destroy wildlife, and this work is continuing to be refined.

Recommendation A11: Develop decision making tools, informed by current survey, climatic and other data, to assist regional staff in issue of permits.

♦ Informal monitoring of kangaroo populations has been conducted and supported by the monitoring of the impacts of kangaroos on vegetation. This in turn has informed the allocation of permits to destroy wildlife.

♦ All non-commercial destruction permits are entered into the Wildlife Permit System database at point of issue or within one month of issue. While this target has been met in some areas, some regions do not have ready access to the Wildlife Permit System. Work is underway to develop a system that enables wider access to the database.

♦ Information detailing the management option of commercial harvest is developed for the DENR ‘Living with Wildlife’ webpage by 2008. This target has not yet been fully met. Information about the commercial harvest of kangaroos is available on the DEWNR website, but it is not yet directly linked to the ‘Living with Wildlife’ webpage.

Recommendation A12: Develop a mapping facility to allow landowners to determine whether they fall within the commercial harvest regions.

♦ An information sheet about the personal use of carcasses has not been developed and promoted by 2008. However a draft ‘personal use’ information sheet has been prepared, and will be finalised and released in 2013.


Recommendation A13: Finalise and release the personal use information sheet.

♦ Due to reduced resources, DEWNR staff have not been able to regularly attend regional agricultural field days to explain ‘Living with Wildlife’ and the non-commercial destruction permit system. The Kangaroo Management Program will work collaboratively with regions to promote an understanding of kangaroo management options to stakeholders through the regional delivery model.

♦ Management methods for resolving emerging kangaroo conflicts with revegetation programs are developed and promoted by 2009. Some methods have been investigated as part of the development of the Kangaroos on Reserves Policy. However these have not yet been widely promoted. This information is transferable to other areas, and is available to any people applying for permits to destroy wildlife.

Recommendation A14: Provide resources to implement the business requirements of the Kangaroo management program, including development of the Statewide Wildlife Permit System database for non-commercial destruction permits.

Targets with red flags Two of the ‘non-commercial destruction’ targets have been allocated a red flag, namely: Gap 3.2.1 Reports on permit issue in each commercial harvest management

region and each DEH region are produced and analysed four times a year.

Gap 3.2.2 An information sheet for DEH district offices linking non-commercial destruction and commercial harvest is developed by 2009.

In the case of the first target gap, permits to destroy are analysed as part of the annual harvest and quota reports. This information is taken from the Wildlife Permit System, but may not always be up-to-date. Therefore, this work is not carried out four times a year as per target, but it has been carried out regularly. The second gap relates to an information sheet that has not yet been developed. DEWNR officers are advised to ask applicants to consider commercial harvest prior to non-commercial destruction, but the information sheet has not yet been prepared to promote this. DEWNR will now look to include this query on all permits for kangaroo destruction.

Stakeholder feedback There have also been a number of comments relating to things that should be improved regarding non-commercial harvesting processes. These include:

Non-commercial destruction permits must have the same tag value as the commercial tag. Non Commercial Harvest in large quantities whether it be in national parks or land holders areas. It is a waste of a resource. Tag programme needs to be updated and simplified. Harvesting is concentrated in pockets due to the way the programme is conducted in SA. Get back to basics. Kangaroo populations are in plague numbers yet landholders are unable to remove their quota from the land.


While DEWNR prefers culling to be undertaken by trained professionals, it also wants to keep records of all culling operations undertaken. Therefore, non-commercial destruction permits will likely remain free of charge. However, tag administration will be simplified to allow easier access to the commercial harvest for land holders, and landholders within the commercial harvest regions will be encouraged to apply for commercial harvest permits, rather than non-commercial permits. Ultimately, if a landholder wishes to remove kangaroos from their property, both options will remain open to them. 4.14 Objective 3.2 – Kangaroo management on reserves Of the eight targets under the ‘kangaroo management on reserves’ objective, seven have been met and one has received a yellow flag. The targets which have been met have included adherence to a statutory three-month consultation phase for all reserve management plans; any culling that has taken place has been in accordance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985; any culling has also been implemented in accordance with the DEWNR policy framework and on the understanding that the culling is identified as the only practicable management option to prevent or mitigate impacts (namely, other management options are always considered prior to culling). Kangaroo culling strategies have also been informed by monitoring of kangaroo populations, and culling data has been recorded to inform future management decisions. All kangaroo culling programs for ecological restoration outcomes have also incorporated direct ecological monitoring to measure the ecological response to culling. Finally, reserves on which the culling of kangaroos is proposed for ecological restoration outcomes either have management plans that include detail on kangaroo culling programs and an assessment of management options, or are allocated transitional culling plans which can last up to 3 years while they prepare or update their management plan. The target that received a yellow flag is:

♦ Increasing understanding of the impacts of kangaroo grazing on native landscapes is a research priority under this plan. To date, research priorities have not specifically been listed, and this has previously been addressed by a recommendation.

4.15 Objective 4.1 – Code of Practice Of the 13 targets listed under this objective, 9 have been completed during the process of the plan. These mostly related to development of a new Code of Practice, delivery to stakeholders and implementation. In addition, regulations enforcing a zero tolerance to breaches of the Code of Practice were enforced. Two of the targets were not progressed due to reassessment of priorities by KMRG, who considered firearms accuracy refresher training not necessary at this time, and TAFE SA who considered their firearms accuracy accreditation course currently requires no review (based on positive feedback).

Targets with red flags The two targets which have been flagged as red and have not yet been met are: Gap 4.1.1 Develop self-assessment material for non-commercial destruction

permit applicants by 2009, and


Gap 4.1.2 Develop a synopsis of the Code of Practice specific to non-commercial destruction permit applicants by 2009.

Both of these targets were intended to be completed by 2009, but have not yet been implemented.

Recommendation D3: if resources become available, develop improved material for non-commercial destruction permit applicants, including self-assessment tools and a fact sheet summarising the Code of Practice.

Stakeholder feedback There have also been a number of comments relating to improvements which could be made to the Code of Practice. Some of these have been discussed and addressed in section 3.4.9. Other comments related to the non-commercial Code of Practice:

Non-commercial destruction permits should only be given to persons whom have done a recognised course in animal welfare and successfully completed a recognised firearm accuracy course. There should be better checking of applicants 'ability to conduct the killing' for non-commercial harvesting. Very little compliance checking for non commercial harvest where it is alleged that there is much more animal welfare issues with the way animals are killed.

The first two of these will be initially addressed by Recommendation A11 above. The third regards compliance checking, and will be discussed with regional staff. 4.16 Objective 4.2 – Animal welfare standards Of the six targets listed under this objective, three have been implemented and three have been allocated a red flag. To summarise those targets which have been achieved:

• a representative of the RSPCA has been an active member of the Kangaroo Management Reference Group

• all persons shooting kangaroos are required to adhere to the national Code of Practice and the Animal Welfare Act 1985.

• all research conducted on kangaroos in South Australia has been approved by the Animal Ethics Committee.

Targets with red flags Three of the animal welfare targets have been allocated a red flag, namely: Gap 4.2.1 The Animal Welfare Strategy, Wild Animals Working Group, is

contacted twice per year, to keep apprised of updates to the Strategy

Gap 4.2.2 Improving animal welfare outcomes for kangaroos is listed as a research priority under this plan (see Objective 1.2 Research).

Gap 4.2.3 Information on the South Australian Wildlife Ethics Committee is added to the DEH kangaroo management website, by 2009.

In the case of Gap 4.2.1, the Kangaroo Management Program has operated within the bounds of the Animal Welfare Strategy. The target of providing the Wild Animals


Working Group with twice yearly updates is no longer relevant because the group has largely been disbanded. It would be timely to consider whether a similar group will be convened, or if not, who should be contacted in the event of any relevant updates. However this is not considered to be a responsibility of the Kangaroo Management Program. In the case of gap 4.2.2, research into animal welfare has not been undertaken as part of the plan, or under objective 1.2 of the plan. It is recommended that a suitable research project be considered as part of the new plan.

Recommendation D4: consider designing and resourcing a project researching ways to improve the animal welfare outcomes for kangaroos.

In the case of gap 4.2.3, information about the SA Wildlife Ethics Committee has been made available on the DEWNR website, but has not been added to the kangaroo management page. It is recommended that a link to the relevant information is included on the kangaroo management webpage as soon as possible.

Recommendation C2: Include a link to information on the SA Wildlife Ethics Committee on the kangaroo management webpage.

4.17 Objective 5.1 – Partnerships with the kangaroo industry Of the five targets listed under this objective, the first three have been implemented and the last two have been allocated a red flag. Targets achieved included the following:

• the KMRG included representatives from the Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia (South Australian branch) and Kangaroo Field Processors

• members of the industry were provided with regular newsletters • the kangaroo industry were invited to provide comments on the commercial

program via the newsletter.

Targets with red flags Two of the research targets have been allocated a red flag, namely: Gap 5.1.1 regulatory fact sheets are developed for the industry by 2009 Gap 5.1.2 fact sheets for new entrants to the industry are developed by 2009. Fact sheets are yet to be developed regarding regulations and for new entrants to the industry. However, all enquiries directed to DEWNR are always responded to promptly.

Recommendation C3: prepare fact sheets for new entrants to industry and summarizing regulations by 2013.

Stakeholder feedback One of the stakeholders commented that

the department continues to overlook the commercial aspects of the harvest and understand how this side of the programme relates to the success of the plan.


They provided further comment that as commercial harvesters are key players in the plan, their needs should be considered more, and that it was an issue that the harvest figures had been lower than 50% for several years in a row. These issues relate more to the commercial operations of the industry, and would be more ably supported by an agency such as DMITRE. In acknowledgement of this, officers implementing the plan could become more involved in brokering relationships between the kangaroo industry and relevant government departments.

Recommendation A15: Engage other government departments with an interest in assisting business growth (eg, DMITRE, DPLG) with the kangaroo industry.

The review also received some positive feedback about information flow between commercial operators and program staff.

The field processors are difficult group to engage as they are so fractionalized. The staff in Pt Augusta do a good job with them all and I feel that is the best avenue as they are often in contact and will be more so into the future when they have to buy their tags. The processors are constantly in contact with the department so I feel little work is required there as far as information flow goes.

Further discussion about these matters will help to ensure communication and partnerships are effective.

4.18 Objective 5.2 – Engage landholders and land managers Of the eight targets listed under this objective, five have been implemented, and three have been allocated a yellow flag. Those targets which have been achieved included the following:

• the South Australian Farmers Federation and Pastoral Board were represented on the Kangaroo Management Reference Group.

• Landholders in the commercial harvest zone have been asked to provide feedback on kangaroo management strategies via the regular newsletter

• Landholders in the commercial harvest zone were provided with regular property harvest reports and newsletters

• Any requests for information on kangaroo management options have been dealt with promptly.

Targets allocated a yellow flag include the following:

• DEH staff attend regional agricultural field days to explain ‘Living with Wildlife’ and non-commercial destruction permit system.

• Information for landholders is developed and loaded to the DEH kangaroo management website, by 2009.

• Information on kangaroo management options is made available at all DEH district offices, by 2009.

In the case of the first yellow flag, DEWNR staff have attended some field days in a general capacity, at which time they have been available to discuss these matters. However due to reduced resources, this is not able to be a regular occurrence, and therefore there has not been a formal presence focused on explaining ‘Living with Wildlife’ and non-commercial destruction permit system.


One way to improve the availability of materials and information for landholders and land managers through events such as agricultural shows may be through partnership with NRM. This is discussed further in section 4.20 below. In the case of the second yellow flag, some general information for landholders is available on the DEWNR website (eg the KCMP), but no specific information has been developed and uploaded. Similarly, fact sheets have not been developed for use in regional offices, although information is available on request.

Recommendation C4: Update kangaroo management web page with relevant information for landholders (Objective 5.2).

Stakeholder feedback The review received some positive feedback relating to consultation with landholders:

The current format of information is quite good and frequency is good too. This and a lack of any negative feedback indicates that continuing with current engagement processes would be desirable. However, one issue which has been raised is the way data is collected and shared from properties:

the data of what has actually been taken of a property is not being conveyed regularly. Hopefully this will improve in the future with the proposed changes. When some of this information went out regularly a couple years ago, some landholders found out the shooters were not taking many from their property at all, just used their tags elsewhere. Shook things up in places, and rightfully so.

This issue should be addressed as part of the review of the tag issuing process.

Recommendation A16: Ensure new tag process collects useful information about where harvesting will occur and has occurred.

4.19 Objective 5.3 – Encourage aboriginal involvement Of the eleven targets listed under this objective, four have been implemented, one has been allocated a yellow flag, and six have been allocated a red flag. Overall, this is one of the objectives which has achieved the worst results. It is recommended that encouragement of aboriginal involvement in kangaroo management should become a priority area in the new plan. The four targets which have been met include the following:

• A representative of the Aboriginal Statewide Advisory Committee sits on the Kangaroo Management Reference Group

• Newsletters on commercial harvest have been provided to aboriginal stakeholders at least twice per year

• Advice and information related to kangaroo management is available for parties involved in ILUA negotiations if requested (although there have not been any requests)

• Permit conditions of commercial harvest or non-commercial destruction acknowledge the rights of native title holders, and are varied as necessary to


minimize any effect on the rights of native title holders. In particular, Permits to Destroy Wildlife and Class 13 and 14 Commercial Permits include reference to rights of native title holders.

The target which has been allocated a yellow flag is:

• Information on Aboriginal interests in kangaroo management is included on the DEH kangaroo management website, by 2008.

In this case, the relevant information is available for those who request it, but has not yet been included on the website. This can be addressed through Recommendation C4 above.

Targets with red flags Six of the aboriginal involvement targets have been allocated a red flag, namely: Gap 5.3.1 A process to involve native title claimants in consultation regarding the

implementation of this plan is investigated and developed, by 2008 Gap 5.3.2 A fact sheet on the requirements of becoming a Field Processor is

developed by 2008 Gap 5.3.3 A fact sheet on ILUAs and kangaroo management is prepared by 2008 Gap 5.3.4 The Native Title Section, Attorney General’s Department, is contacted

to ensure that the regulatory framework for kangaroo management remains current, as required and at least once per year

Gap 5.3.5 Potential economic opportunities for Aboriginal involvement in commercial harvest are investigated by 2009

Gap 5.3.6 In collaboration with meat hygiene regulators and Aboriginal stakeholders, the potential options for enabling the marketing of culturally appropriate meat products from commercial harvest is investigated by 2010.

In the case of 5.3.1, native title claimants have not specifically been consulted for the implementation of the plan, but have generally been consulted through the KMRG.

Recommendation A17: Use existing and new research to engage aboriginal communities and native title holders in the management of kangaroos through the commercial harvest.

In the case of gaps 5.3.2 and 5.3.3, the relevant fact sheets have not yet been developed. However, any inquiries directed to the DEWNR are always responded to promptly.

Recommendation A18: Aboriginal engagement should be a priority of the new plan. Hold specific discussions with representatives of aboriginal communities to develop more effective ways of sharing information and developing partnerships.

Regarding gap 5.3.4, the Native Title Section of the Attorney General’s Department has not been contacted on a regular basis. The Native Title Section will be contacted and engaged whenever changes are being made to the regulatory system. In the case of gaps 5.3.5 and 5.3.6, investigations have not yet been undertaken into the potential for specific aboriginal involvement with commercial harvesting and the


marketing of culturally appropriate meat products. This is captured in Recommendations A17 & A18 above.

Stakeholder feedback During the review process, the following feedback was provided by stakeholder Loralee Wright. She has expressed interest in being involved with future discussions about this matter.

I believe that DEWNR should walk amongst the community that they are targeting. Have a specific agenda and get the message out clear and straight to the point. Informal discussions are good. This could be organised with chairperson to be done at AGM’s with a clear short informative presentation and allow community members to probably talk one on one with DEWNR staff. Also having a good working relationship with various aboriginal group chairpersons. This can easily be accessed through the Native Title Unit. I believe that you cannot just rely on just a website to convey your information. There could be some room to provide an aboriginal scholarship focusing on kangaroo management, to enable young aboriginal school leavers an insight into this particular avenue. Economic opportunities definitely need some focus. My knowledge of kangaroo shooting professionally is that is quite expensive for the initial establish of business. stainless steel trays, cooling, reliable vehicles etc. Some kind of financial incentive needs to be established for an individual or group that are looking at a business perspective.

These comments should be considered when implementing Recommendations A17 & A18 above. 4.20 Objective 5.4 – Partnerships with regional NRM boards Of the six targets listed under this objective, four have been implemented and two have been allocated a yellow flag. The four targets which have been implemented are:

• A representative of the NRM Council is an active member of the Kangaroo Management Reference Group

• All regional NRM Boards are contacted to advise them of this management plan and the kangaroo management options detailed in it. (this plan was promulgated through NRM boards)

• Support is provided to regional NRM Boards as needed to develop regional monitoring programs that will increase understanding of kangaroo populations and their impacts. (support has been provided as requested)

• Support is provided to regional NRM Boards as needed to develop kangaroo management strategies tailored to meet regional priorities. (support has been provided as requested, although there have been no recent requests).

The two targets which were allocated a yellow flag are:

• Reports detailing kangaroo management information (e.g. population monitoring, commercial harvest statistics, non-commercial destruction permit issue) at a regional NRM Board level, are developed by 2009, and then provided to regional NRM Boards at least once per year.

• Kangaroo management is incorporated into comprehensive regional NRM plans (as needed according to regional priorities), in accordance with this management plan.


In the case of the first of these yellow flags, kangaroo management information is available at the NRM board level if requested, but a formal regular report has not been developed. In the case of the second yellow flag, kangaroo management is referenced in the NRM plans. However, this review notes that specific opportunities could be outlined in more detail.

Stakeholder feedback In addition to considering to what extent targets in the plan have been met, there have also been a number of stakeholder comments about the effectiveness of targets and the way we have managed the objective ‘partnerships with regional NRM boards’. It is important to consider what partnership with NRM boards should actually entail, and it is noted that the targets in the current plan relate to providing NRM boards with relevant information, rather than working more closely at building a two-way relationship. Ideally, it would be good to develop a more effective partnership which can both help deliver the overall goal of the Kangaroo management program, as well as fit in with NRM strategic planning and implementation. The following stakeholder feedback summarises some of the issues:

I haven’t seen effective communication with NRM. I still haven’t seen this section of the department make inroads into NRM Boards so that the Boards understand their role in kangaroo management and I am not sure the plan truly defines it either. There are some major land management issues out there in terms of overgrazing due to kangaroos, but the Boards are not being truly engaged. When reports are forwarded to the boards, it is not hitting the spot as this information is being lost in their system. The Boards are too strategic to worry about this type of information. The information needs to be provided directly to the on ground people, especially the groups as they are operationally focused and community-based. This is where the focus of partnership needs to be directed, there could also be some work to create champions in these networks to help promote the issues.

The way these issues can be addressed needs to be considered during preparation of the new plan, and relevant recommendations and discussion are provided below. One of the challenges of enabling NRM boards and staff and deliverers of the Kangaroo Management Program to work together more effectively will be to align their goals and strategic planning. As part of the new plan, it would be worth flagging the need for some work in this area. In particular, to consider how the aims of the new plan links to priorities in Regional NRM plans. These may include issues related to land management such as grazing pressure or regeneration of native vegetation. If identified Kangaroo management actions are related more closely to issues NRM are already dealing with, then it will be easier to engage and work together on managing this. One stakeholder has commented that the current information provided by the Kangaroo management program does not generally fit NRM priorities. This would be worth addressing through the new plan.

Recommendation A19: Develop closer partnerships with NRM Boards and groups, including alignment of relevant aims and actions of the new plan with targets identified in regional NRM plans.


As well as linking more closely in planning, the Kangaroo management program should also look at how its priorities can be implemented in partnership with NRM groups. As NRM are the land management authority in areas such as the south-east, it would be more effective to work with them to deliver on ground species management actions such as quota allocations. This would avoid issues such as the following comment highlights:

We need to create partnerships and engage with NRM Groups where they exist to improve management of the species. The trial in the SE to allocate commercial quota is a classic example. NRM are the land management authority and should be recognized as such, but the department tried to set it up through Local Government who are not in the business of land management. If they had worked through NRM Groups, a better outcome and use of limited resources may have happened which in turn would have achieved the target of engagement.

Some more specific examples of processes that have worked well in past and could be used again are provided in the following stakeholder feedback:

When I become first involved with kangaroo management over 15 years ago, the department would have a quick phone hook up with each Soil Board sub committee about 3 times a year, depending on annual situation, to discuss population changes and tag allocation issues for their district. This was valuable information especially local knowledge of population shifts outside of the annual count. It was a good 2 way engagement process and was a way for local issues to be dealt with in a timely fashion including illegal shooting. We developed a close working relationship. It also let KIRG in those days deal with the strategic issues, not local operational aspects. But the local operational aspects would be fed back to KIRG as a report from the ecologist to be discussed if change was required. This is where I feel a number of NRM Groups could be more engaged, which in reality is engaging the local community.

The way in which annual and other more specific reporting could be used to improve integration with NRM by exchanging valuable information has also been discussed in the following comment:

Another aspect that used to exist in the annual report was to show a target density for a district. I understand this was not used after some time as it created a few headaches as it was being interpreted as a strict figure, not figuratively speaking as a guide. In a report our Soil Board did, we tried to develop a plan which showed population densities for differing land systems. This plan worked very well and was proposed at that time to try to develop a land system based management program across the commercial take area. Target densities of varying species in different land systems would be of high value to NRM. After the extrapolation of aerial survey data, highlighting to NRM annually of areas that have high to extreme population densities should trigger a response from them for the need to monitor and manage that area better. Also, feeding them [NRM] information about noncommercial permit data in non commercial areas should be of value. At the moment you are throwing them basic information, I believe they need specific information that is targeted in content and to whom it is sent. To explain a simple way of giving relevant information to NRM Groups/Boards, I have provided what we were being sent years ago which proved really valuable as basis information which is time relevant and much better than a district average. From this, discussions can progress. [This comment is from David Lindner, contact him for further information.] The other side of this [better collaboration with NRM ad more focused reporting] is that as a department you can see if there are areas which are “technically” below the thresh hold and can monitor allocations and in the reverse be proactive in promoting the


grazing pressure exertion from kangaroos in these areas to the right people and making sure the systems are working in the high density areas. We know that when densities get below a level there is less likelihood that there will be commercial take on those properties, but the land holder may then request a non-commercial permit to deal with an issue of which you can make an informed decision on allocation of numbers in the permit.

Finally, this review also observes that it may also be more efficient to work with those delivering on-ground NRM services to implement actions from the management program such as issuing of permits and compliance. Whether or not these sorts of partnerships will work in the future should be considered as part of the development of the new plan.

Recommendation A20: Where NRM groups exist, engage with them to improve management of kangaroos within their region (this may include land management practice, regular exchange of information, permit delivery and compliance).

NRM also have established community engagement and education programs, which would provide an ideal opportunity for delivering messages about kangaroo management in South Australia.

Recommendation A21: Work more closely with NRM staff to engage with community and foster better understanding of kangaroo management issues.

4.21 Objective 5.5 – Linkages with other government agencies Of the seven targets listed under this objective, five have been implemented and two have been allocated a yellow flag. The officers of the kangaroo management program have maintained regular contact with PIRSA, DfW, AQIS, the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Water Resources (currently DSEWPaC), and kangaroo managers in other states. In the case of PIRSA (meat hygiene), DfW and AQIS, representatives have been active members of the Kangaroo Management Reference Group. In the case of contact with the Commonwealth, quota and harvest reports have been submitted to DSEWPaC annually, in addition to other regular contact is required. All national meetings of kangaroo managers have been attended by the DEWNR Kangaroo Ecologist (target five), and the Operations Manager has also attended meetings annually. These regular meetings also provide a networking opportunity for obtaining updates on kangaroo management in other jurisdictions (the sixth target). The first target allocated a yellow flag regards the development of a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with PIRSA and AQIS regarding a collaborative approach to compliance checks at field chillers (by 2009). This MOU has not yet been developed, but working relationships exist between PIRSA, AQIS and DEWNR. A formal MOU remains the preferred way forward, and it is recommended that this should be prepared during implementation of the new plan.


Recommendation A22: Prepare an MOU between PIRSA, AQIS and DEWNR regarding collaboration on compliance.

The last target under objective 5.5 that was allocated a yellow flag involves the development of an interstate agreement for cross-border compliance issues (due to be completed by 2009). This has not yet been investigated. Although working relationships do exist between interstate kangaroo management programs, a formal agreement is yet to be developed.

Recommendation A23: Develop a formal interstate agreement to manage cross-border compliance issues.

Finally, there have been some stakeholder comments around the need for the plan to better support the commercial kangaroo industry. Although other agencies have more direct responsibility for supporting industry in this state, it would be reasonable for Kangaroo Management Program staff to form closer alliances with relevant agencies and broker connections. This is addressed further and a recommendation has been made in section 4.17 - Partnerships with the Kangaroo Industry. 4.22 Objective 5.6 – Community understanding Of the five targets listed under this objective, four have been implemented and one has been allocated a yellow flag. For those targets successfully undertaken:

• Media releases have been developed on an as needs basis. However, this is generally only one or two per year.

• The DEWNR website was updated and enhanced in 2010 • The management plan has been made available on the DEWNR website • DEWNR staff attended scientific conferences including the AWMS conference

in 2010. The target allocated a yellow flag relates to DEH attending rural field days to promote the management plan. Due to available resources, DEWNR staff only occasionally attend field days. When they do so, they are there in a general capacity, but they are certainly available to discuss the management plan and other matters relating to kangaroo management. However a focused education and engagement program has not been undertaken for field days.

Stakeholder feedback In addition to considering to what extent targets in the plan have been met, there has also been some stakeholder feedback about the effectiveness of targets and the way we have managed the objective ‘community understanding’. It is important to consider how we can better foster understanding in the community about kangaroo management, especially considering reduced resources. The following stakeholder feedback summarises some of the issues:

Regarding engagement with the community, it is one thing to deliver information, but it is another to engage people. Engaging is a two way action which gets on ground results. This plan has basically only given information and not discussed the issues well outside of the Department. KMRG is not an area which I would classify as fitting the engagement


criteria. Within the community, eg land holders, industry, community in general and organizations, there are differing levels of two-way information flow required.

A realistic way to improve the way we engage with the community about kangaroo management will be to work more closely with NRM staff. A recommendation to reflect this is provided in section 4.20 above. 4.23 Objective 6.1 – Reporting All three of the reporting targets have been met, including annual reporting on harvest and quota. 4.24 Objective 6.2 – Management plan review Only one of the targets associated with the management plan review has been met namely commencement of a review of the plan. This review should be completed by the end of 2012. Three of the targets have not been progressed as specified due to staff shortages, including the annual review of targets, and the early commencement of preparation of the new plan. However the new plan for 2013-17 is now on track for completion by the end of 2012, and will be finalised in conjunction with this review.

Targets with red flags There are three areas of concern where targets haven't been met. These are all related to the lack of annual review of the current plan. In particular, the annual review has not been able to inform the KMRG, DEWNR and be updated on the kangaroo management website. The need for an annual review is addressed in the recommendation below.

Stakeholder feedback One of the stakeholders observed that the periodic review process carried out during the life of the plan was not clear enough about what was measured and how it was measured, and that it would be more useful to list succinct actions. A second stakeholder commented on the impacts of not having regular reviews.

Whilst it was discussed at the start of the last plan to do annual reviews, with changes in staff and other factors this has not happened regularly. By this not happening, desired outcomes are not being tracked or picked up in a timely fashion.

In order to address these concerns, the following recommendation is made for the new plan.

Recommendation A24: Carry out an annual review of the plan, including reporting against real and measurable targets.


5 Analysis of threats and impacts 5.1 Threats to kangaroos Part 3 of the plan assesses the impacts and threats relating to kangaroos, particularly in relation to harvesting and human intervention. The chief biological threats identified are rainfall, drought, flooding, disease, predation and climate change. In addition, anthropological threats to kangaroos have been described as clearance of native habitats, human predation and socio-economic changes. These threats all remain relevant. The main way these threats have been managed via the plan is by regularly monitoring changes in kangaroo populations. These changes have then informed the quotas, which are set based on population estimates. If kangaroo populations have reduced or increased, then quotas have been altered accordingly. The threat that has had the most obvious impact on kangaroo populations is drought. After periods of prolonged drought, there was a noted population decline and quotas were reduced accordingly. A summary of some of the literature review undertaken to identify and make comment on threats to the conservation status of kangaroos in South Australia is provided as table 1 in part three of the plan (page 71). A further literature review was undertaken in the development of the NSW Kangaroo Management Plan 2012-16, which has been used to develop the draft SA Kangaroo Management Plan 2013-17. Management of kangaroos under the regime outlined here has not threatened the status of kangaroos in South Australia, and, with reference to any new information, these comments are still relevant. 5.2 Impacts of commercial harvest 5.2.1 Sustainability Regular population and harvest monitoring is carried out to inform the setting of quotas. The process for doing this is designed to ensure that kangaroo harvesting occurs only to the extent that it is sustainable. This process is also overseen by the multi-interest KMRG. In general, experience has shown that quota levels have been set conservatively. To check this, the sustainability of the kangaroo populations being commercially harvested is itself measured by regular monitoring of population and harvest. This is part of the adaptive management process prescribed in the plan. Monitoring results show that this process has been working effectively to ensure populations are not reduced to unsustainable levels.

5.2.2 Demographic and genetic impacts Over the period of the plan, several things have been identified about the changing demographics of kangaroo populations, and the effects of commercial harvesting on them. In particular, the harvesting profile in South Australia has a number of differences to those in the eastern states. One stakeholder has provided the following observation:

question – we know that taking a known % of females will fluctuate the population numbers. Answer – the plan is about reducing the grazing pressure which is all about numbers which in real terms is “culling” the known population and that should be all sizes for numerous reasons. The current high male take of NSW is a “harvest” in the truest sense. Two completely different objectives when you are a land holder that is making a


living from an income source they have established which they require to be profitable on their capital investment of land.

Typically, areas for commercial harvesting of kangaroos in South Australia are more remote than those in New South Wales. This will generally encourage a more generic approach to kangaroo harvesting. In South Australia, when field operators are out in the field, they usually hair for a short concentrated period of time. This means that they are probably more likely to select an equal number of female and male kangaroos, whereas in New South Wales, relative numbers of the larger male kangaroos selected can be as high as 95%. It is not clear exactly what impacts this gender selection has on the demographics in either state, or whether one cause and effect is better than another. If resources were available, this review feels that this would be a valuable area to do further research.

Recommendation D5: If resources become available, carry out research on the demographic impacts of harvesting results in SA compared to NSW, especially relating to the implications of gender distribution.

5.2.3 Humane killing The plan and associated legislation clearly states that all killing of kangaroos must be done in accordance with the Code of Practice. As described in section 4.15 above, all targets under the ‘Code of Practice’ objective relating to commercial harvesting have been met. Only the targets relating to improving the application and understanding of the Code of Conduct for non-commercial culling have not yet been fully met. These are captured under the Code of Conduct discussion and recommendations (section 4.15). Monitoring of adherence to the Code of Conduct has taken place regularly. Based on the goals of the plan, the targets relating to the ‘Compliance and enforcement’ objective have generally been met (except where actions deemed to have a relatively lower priority), as described in section 4.11 above. Both of these areas have been a high priority for implementation of the plan. Adherence to and breaches of the Code of Practice are also reported annually. 5.3 Impacts on habitats and ecosystems There are several ways in which the harvesting or culling of kangaroos can impact on habitats and ecosystems, with some being positive impacts and some being negative. These include the impacts of kangaroo overabundance on conservation areas, and the impacts of harvesting processes on habitats and ecosystems (including soil, water, vegetation and predators).

5.3.1 Impacts of kangaroo overabundance on conservation areas The most damaging impacts to habitats and ecosystems are likely to be caused by an overabundance of the species. These impacts are usually only measured in parks and conservation areas. Because of the perceived damage done by kangaroos in some conservation areas, park managers can apply to cull kangaroos via a ‘proposal to control kangaroos on reserve for conservation purposes’. This document asks for evidence to be supplied about

♦ whether the Park has a management plan, and whether that plan is compliant with the criteria for the control of kangaroos on reserves


♦ the values being affected by the population of kangaroos ♦ information known regarding the population demographic graphics of

kangaroos suspected of causing damage on the reserves (including abundance, density, and gender ratios). Expected evidence here includes monitoring history and the scope of data collection.

♦ details of the control programme and proposed monitoring ♦ details of proposed kangaroo control programme to be implemented in the

reserve, and ♦ the resources and methodology being used to implement the control

program. This process has proven a reasonably effective way to ensure culling in parks is carried out for the right reasons and in an appropriate manner. However there is still limited monitoring of many aspects of this work, and more monitoring would help to and managed. An example of where the impacts of kangaroo populations have been documented and managed is in the Venus Bay Conservation Park. In their ‘proposal to control kangaroos on a reserve for conservation purposes’, they articulate the way management of kangaroo populations is designed to reduce impacts identified by specific monitoring.

Most of the impact on vegetation communities, significant plant species and the habitat quality of threatened fauna species is thought to be the result of a high total grazing pressure of kangaroos (Western Grey kangaroos and Euros) and rabbits. However rabbit numbers have been kept at a relatively low level for most of the past 10 years to disease (RHD and myxomatosis) and active management, therefore kangaroos are considered to be largely responsible for the impact on conservation values... The impacts of kangaroos and other herbivores on the legislation of Venus Bay Conservation Park have been monitored since 2003. Photo monitoring points showed an obvious increase in plant abundance (diversity, size and cover) at sites where kangaroos have been excluded (Cobiac 2009), is sitting where staff observations. [Venus Bay Conservation Park, Proposal to control kangaroos on a reserve for conservation purposes, 2010]

Venus Bay provides a good case study for the impacts of kangaroo populations on both she conservation areas and threatened species, because they not only carry out vegetation monitoring, but also have an extensive fox exclusion zone in the Park. Because large predators such as foxes are excluded from this zone, she is the decline in the number of Bettongs within the park has been mostly attributed to causes other than predation, particularly reduction in habitat and food availability. It is considered highly likely that kangaroos comprise the major contributing factor to the decline of species such as the Bettongs. This is however an area requiring more direct research, as there are also other potential factors (such as cats, which have not been observed in large numbers, but are not being formally measured). At Venus Bay, specific evidence has been gathered to measure the impact of kangaroos on the reserve. Most of the evidence has been quantitative, and has been considered to be adequate to justify the need for culling of kangaroos within the park. The monitoring of kangaroos has included opportunistic population counting of kangaroos, bettongs, bilbies and rabbits approximately every two months along a 5 km transect (within the fenced area). There is also a quarterly survey of all wildlife along a 24 km transect. The transect runs along the peninsular, and includes an area


which is half inside the fenced area (where culling occurs) and half outside (where culling does not occur). Generally in national parks and reserves across the state, there are a number of monitoring programs that provide some insight into the potential impacts of kangaroos within conservation areas. However, unlike at Venus Bay, many of these are not specifically designed to report on kangaroo impacts but on the effects of the overabundance of introduced and native species generally. On the whole however, this information only provides part of the picture, rather than interrogating the whole. The types of monitoring that provide these glimpses include vegetation monitoring, and the monitoring of specific species and their habits. However, in parks where culling is planned to occur, an assessment of the actual impacts of kangaroos does need to be undertaken as evidence for approval of the management action. In the case of areas outside parks, there is generally less known about the impact of kangaroos on habitats and ecosystems, as these are not being protected and measured in the same way. As a general rule, an approximate number of one million kangaroos has been identified as the preferred number of kangaroos in South Australia. When population counts show that numbers have increased well beyond this, then higher rates of commercial harvesting are accordingly allowed. Although kangaroo harvesting is only permitted in some parts of the State, these areas tend to be those in which kangaroos are most abundant. Therefore, commercial harvesting remains the primary way that kangaroo numbers are managed across the state.

5.3.2 Impacts of kangaroo harvesting processes on habitats and ecosystems The process of harvesting and culling kangaroos itself also has a number of implications for habitats and ecosystems, although in general these are considered to have significantly less impact than the issues associated with overabundance (as described in the section above). Soil, water and vegetation The impacts identified in the plan include soil, water and vegetation. Index of harvesting on soil and water have not been measured. This is essentially because although the department is aware that there may be impacts, these are not considered to be at the level we should be concerned about. There has been some vegetation monitoring, and there have been no notable concerns raised about the impacts of the harvesting process. This is in contrast to be concerns that have been noted due to the overabundance of kangaroos were vegetation monitoring have occurred. Other native fauna This has not been an area of targeted research, although it has been considered in the management plans of some parks. For example, kangaroo control programs have been implemented in parks such as Venus Bay Conservation Park, to mitigate high numbers of kangaroos impacting negatively on the habitat of other, smaller native animals through over-browsing. It is likely that the commercial harvest also helps to reduce over-abundant kangaroo pressures on smaller native animals. Some fauna will also be affected if large numbers of kangaroo carcasses help to support growing numbers of predators and scavengers. Predators and scavengers Regarding the impact on predators and scavengers, again this has not been formally monitored, but it is likely that some of the offcuts left after the harvesting or culling process will provide food for predators and scavengers. As these may be either native or non-native, there may be an issue that increased numbers of non-native


predators are being caused by the commercial harvesting process. As these impacts have not generally been measured, we do not know the scale of this problem. However, the plan did note that:

Offcuts are particularly utilised by foxes during the breeding season, suggesting that it may increase breeding success in foxes. This may artificially increase the populations of foxes, causing pressure on threatened species that are preyed upon by foxes, although these impacts are likely to be localised nature. [table 2, p 76 ‘Other fauna’, Kangaroo Conservation & Management Plan in South Australia]

On the other hand, anecdotal evidence suggest that the presence of kangaroo field processors can lower numbers of feral predators and scavengers, as they will target these animals opportunistically. If sufficient resources were available, the impact of commercial harvesting processes on increasing numbers of non-native predators and scavengers would be a relevant question for future research.

Recommendation A25: Research the impact of commercial harvesting processes on numbers of non-native predators and scavengers. If there is a linkage between current processes and increased numbers, then processes may need to be revisited.

It is also recommended that table 2 is updated and included in the new plan.

Recommendation C5: Update the plan’s table 2 (p 76) and include in the new plan.


6 Review of implementation and processes 6.1 Adaptive management The adaptive management process has been working relatively well for the Kangaroo Management Program, although that is based on a relatively simple decision-making process, and a relatively small focus. The main management decision is the setting of quotas, which is carried out by the Kangaroo management reference group based on regular headcounts. This has been carried out effectively, which has ensured that the number of kangaroos which can be harvested is maintained at sustainable levels. However, whether or not the levels remain sustainable for the kangaroo industry has not been specifically addressed through this process. Perhaps the adaptive management processes for the future plan should consider both the long-term sustainability of the species, and better management of the impacts caused by overabundance? The commercial kangaroo industry is a valuable tool for managing impacts of kangaroos, and a valuable industry in its own right. The sustainability of the industry should also be assessed on a regular basis, by agencies with specific and general knowledge of industry function. This will be addressed through implementing Recommendation A15 above. 6.2 Processes 6.2.1 Commercial harvesting process

The process for commercial harvesting is summarized in Appendix 2 of the plan. Consultation has indication that this process is less efficient than it should be, and that it would be better to combine step 2 with step 3, allowing field harvesters to obtain tags directly. This change is recommended for the new plan in Recommendation A3 above. 6.2.2 Non-commercial destruction process

The processes for non-commercial destruction have been discussed and addressed under the relevant objectives (permit and non-commercial destruction) in sections 4.10 & 4.13 above. 6.3 Review of scope of plan The scope of the plan has been considered as part of the review process, including feedback through the stakeholder survey and in discussions with those administering the Kangaroo Management Program. This is discussed further in section 3.4.9, which also includes a recommendation regarding extending the scope of the future plan to include eastern grey kangaroos. 6.4 Development of new plan and comparison with current plan During early development of the new plan, stakeholder consultation identified that aligning South Australia's plan more with the New South Wales model would be better for the long-term management of kangaroos in this state. In order to make sure that the good features of the South Australia plan were not lost in this transition to the new plan, a gap analysis has been carried out as part of this review. This gap analysis compared the themes and objectives covered by the current plan, with the proposed aims and actions of the new plan. The gap analysis showed that all objectives managed through the current plan have been picked up in the proposed framework of the new plan. The differences will lie in the detail


underneath the actions, where some targets will be included, and others will not be considered necessary for the new plan. As part of this review, how effectively current targets have been addressed and whether they are considered relevant to the new plan has been discussed in detail in section 4. Where appropriate, recommendations have been made to capture areas that need to be developed further in the new plan.


7 Conclusions In general the plan has been an influential and useful document. Influential because either the plan or the activities undertaken to implement the plan are known and used by the majority of people who are in some way involved with the management or conservation of kangaroos in this state. And useful as it provides specific targets for what needs to be done to achieve higher level objectives, and ultimately the goal of the plan. The plan set a large and ambitious number of targets, and overall, progress against these was fair to good. Of the total of 181 targets, 107 (59%) were completed (green flag), 49 not progressed due to changing priorities or circumstances (yellow flag), and 25 (14%) were not completed (red flag). Those targets not completed have been identified as gaps, and whether or not these gaps still need to be addressed has been reflected in the recommendations. A crucial part of the review process has also involved surveying and seeking direct feedback from stakeholders. This has enabled the review to broaden its perspective, and look beyond whether or not targets have been achieved, to how effectively the aspirations and tools provided in the plan have really helped improve the way kangaroos are managed in this state. This feedback provided an opportunity to identify further gaps in what we have been doing or how we have been doing it, and again these are reflected in the recommendations. Finally, a summary of the areas where the plan has been most successful, as well as those where the largest number of gaps or issues have been identified, is provided below. 7.1 Successes To a large extent, the plan itself can be considered to be a successful document. Although not all objectives were achieved, there have been a number of areas where positive actions have been undertaken, and objectives have been progressed well. In addition, the planning framework was comprehensive and inclusive, and no additional objectives have been identified during the review process. The themes and objectives laid out in the plan cover areas of concern for all key stakeholders. However, alongside this success, the question of whether or not the targets effectively help the objectives to be properly achieved is relevant, and based on stakeholder feedback, this is a less successful aspect of the planning framework. Areas which stakeholder feedback and a review of targets suggest have been most effective are:

♦ Adaptive management ♦ Regional understanding ♦ Quota setting ♦ Compliance ♦ Kangaroo management on reserves ♦ Engagement with landholders ♦ Community ♦ Government agencies


♦ Reporting In particular, the targets and tasks which were considered to have the highest priority have been completed. Whether or not these priorities may or should change in the future has certainly been raised in stakeholder feedback, but based on the expectations laid out in the plan, the kangaroo management program has performed relatively well. 7.2 Failures & Gaps As indicated above, although there are no major gaps which have been identified within the upper levels of the planning framework, it has been timely to revisit the original targets in the plan, and to not only consider whether they have been achieved, but also to identify what sorts of actions were missing if objectives were to be achieved. Firstly, the objectives against which a number of targets were not achieved or progress was less good were:

♦ Monitoring & Research ♦ Total grazing pressure management ♦ Animal welfare standards ♦ Aboriginal involvement ♦ Regular review

In particular, Aboriginal involvement and achieving a regular review were the areas in which the smallest proportion of targets was achieved. Recommendations for ways to improve this are in section 1.2 of this report. Areas about which stakeholders expressed the most concern were

♦ Permits and regulations (including processes) ♦ Non-commercial destruction ♦ Code of Practice ♦ Partnerships with Kangaroo industry (including support of commercial

operators) ♦ Partnerships with NRM ♦ Regular review ♦ KMRG operations

The recommendations from this review have been based on an analysis of the plan and its implementation, including all stakeholder feedback. 7.3 Recommendations A full list of recommendations resulting from this review is provided in section 1.2 of this report.

Documents

Review of Kangaroo CMP 2012 v5 · This report comprises a formal review of the Kangaroo ... These recommendations are documented throughout the text ... Review of Kangaroo CMP for