A workshop was held in Broken Hill on 14 and 15 February 2008 to bring together members of the three landholder/harvester groups (Barrier Area Rangecare Group - BARG, Mitchell and District Landcare Association and Rangeland Management Action Plan-RMAP) who have been working on projects under the Sustainable Wildlife Enterprises (SWE) research program funded by RIRDC, National Landcare Program and others.

The workshop also featured invited speakers addressing specific issues affecting kangaroo management and SWEs. Representatives of the kangaroo industry, state and federal government agencies, regional NRM bodies and other landholder groups also participated in the workshop, which culminated in a panel discussion featuring representatives of the different stakeholder groups present on the topic of “the role of landholders in the kangaroo industry”.

An agenda and participant list from the workshop is available for download here.

Workshop Presentations

George Wilson and Katrina Gepp presented the following background presentations on the SWE program and the Barrier Ranges trial specifically:

·         George Wilson, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation : Sustainable Wildlife Enterprises - Can commercial value of wildlife make rangeland agriculture more sustainable?

·         Katrina Gepp, Western CMA and FATE Program UNSW: Introduction to the BARG/FATE Trial

 

Other presentations from the workshop have been organised according to theme below. Adobe Reader is required to view presentations and can be downloaded free at http://www.adobe.com/

Summary of Workshop Discussion

The key themes explored through the workshop were:

·         Managing risk (as individuals or as a group of harvesters and landholders)

·         Commercial models for landholders and harvesters

·         Aligning regulatory structures with landholder and harvester interests

·         Capitalising on new marketing opportunities

·         Supply chain issues and transparency in the kangaroo industry

The issue of risk in the kangaroo industry was revisited a number of times. Paul Moloney looked at rangeland landholders managing risk by diversifying incomes into different livestock as well as kangaroos and Alex Baumber looked at the risks posed to landholders by high variability in kangaroo numbers. Individual landholders are exposed to risks from large and unpredictable numbers of kangaroos coming onto their properties and consuming resources and also, if they are looking to invest in a kangaroo enterprise, they face business risks in trying to provide a stable supply of kangaroos to market. Data from the Barrier Ranges indicates that individual properties had much higher harvest variability than if the properties are grouped and treated as one. This indicates that landholders can reduce risk due to harvest variability by grouping together.

Download Paul and Alex’s presentations:

Rosie Cooney’s model for setting up cooperatives involving landholders and harvesters as members generated a large amount of discussion at the workshop (see Rosie’s presentation below). The model showed a way for landholders and harvesters to set standards for hygiene and quality, invest in chillers and other equipment, negotiate collective supply arrangements with kangaroo processors and potentially market a specific line of kangaroo products sourced from their group.

This cooperative model received mostly positive comments from landholders, harvesters and even processors, although key questions also arose about the costs of managing a coop, the balance of power between landholders and harvesters and the need for good communication. It was also pointed out that forming a cooperative is only one way of doing this. There were ways other of achieving the benefits of collaboration such as a company structure that for some groups might be a more attractive proposition. Overall, there was a strong interest in learning more about the coop model as it develops. The Mitchell and District Landcare Association and their associated harvesters will be exploring this model in further detail and Rosie will be working on developing a version of the coop model for BARG to explore.

Download Rosie’s presentation:

The issue of how well regulatory structures work in with the interests of landholders and harvesters was discussed at length. Margaret Chapman demonstrated that landholders in Queensland saw government controls over kangaroos as a disincentive to get involved in the kangaroo industry, although greater discussion overall was dedicated to the regulatory issues in NSW and South Australia. Dana Thomsen outlined a number of ideas on how legislative and policy frameworks could be amended to create incentives for landholders and harvesters to revitalize the industry in SA. Harvester numbers in SA are in decline and the harvest rarely exceeds 50% of the available quota, yet around 200,000 carcasses are imported from interstate by SA processors annually. Many reasons were suggested for this at the workshop, including the remoteness of the SA rangelands and competition for young workers with the mining industry, however, Dana argued that policy changes such as greater tag flexibility, group licensing, reduced barriers to new harvesters and incentives for major harvesters could all make a difference.

Alex Baumber summarised the experiences of FATE and BARG in developing a group licensing system under the adaptive management provisions of the Department of Environment and Climate Change’s NSW Kangaroo Management Program. While this process has been a long and challenging one, significant progress was made at side meetings during and after the workshop. The group licence for BARG members and harvesters will make it possible for a group of properties to function as one, with tags issued to the group usable on all group-licensed properties. It was also stressed by people involved with the trial that the group’s motivation is as much about developing a more flexible system of licensing and tagging for better land management as it is about generating economic returns from kangaroos.

The challenges posed by a single property licensing system, as exists in NSW and SA (where tags can only be used on one property and not transferred), were debated at the workshop. Whilst FATE argued that such a system makes collaboration more difficult, Nicole Payne of DECC argued that the current system has a lot of flexibility for landholders, but many aren’t aware of how it can be used.  Dana Thomsen also argued that tying tags to a specific property works against harvesters’ interests by preventing them from focusing their harvest effort where kangaroo numbers are greatest at a given point in time. Her research reported that harvesters were under pressure to work around the single property regulations to stay viable and that as a result, considerable tag swapping took place. This left harvesters open to penalties and meant that harvest data received by the regulatory agencies was not always accurate.

A number of examples were cited in the workshop of where regulators make decisions based on ensuring the economic viability of the kangaroo processing industry (eg limiting the number of fauna dealers in NSW, setting minimum carcase weights for economic rather than conservation reasons and banning skin-only shooting). This indicates that regulators are clearly prepared to step beyond the species-protection role emphasised in their management plans. Harvesters and landholders can therefore reasonably expect their economic interests to figure in decision-making too - provided that they express those interests clearly and lobby for them.

Download Margaret, Dana and Alex’s presentations:

The marketing of kangaroo products with landholder involvement was explored by Peter Chudleigh and Peter Ampt on the Friday morning session of the workshop. Peter Chudleigh concluded that a market niche could be developed for environmentally-badged kangaroo products but it would be challenging and would require high quality, clear environmental credentials and heavy promotion. Peter Ampt’s presentation on FATE’s consumer choice research showed that attractively-priced kangaroo mince and deli meats were the most promising options for increasing the sales of manufacturing meat on the domestic market.

Peter Ampt also reported that most consumers surveyed were unaware that kangaroos were wild-harvested and suggested that promoting a connection to landholders and a positive environmental message could offset any negative reaction to the idea of wild harvest. The ideas of regional and environmental badging received strong support from landholders involved with the SWE program. There wasn’t much indication from processors at the workshop regarding whether they thought these ideas had commercial potential, however, there was discussion on the fact that one processor (Macro Meats) had recently introduced an environmental badge for its domestic supermarket packages, highlighting that kangaroos were softer on the environment than sheep or cattle and did not produce methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas. The issue of kangaroos vs cattle regarding the production of methane received considerable media attention in late 2007, both in Australia and overseas.

Download Peter C and Peter A’s presentations:

Supply chain issues in the kangaroo industry were covered in a number of workshop presentations and also generated a large amount of discussion in their own right. Meat quality, quantity and consistency of supply and skin size were three of the main areas discussed. The issue of transparency and accountability in the kangaroo industry came up a number of times and in some ways the workshop helped to bring about improvements in these areas by attempting to understand supply chain issues from the points of view of the different stakeholders.

The main issues regarding quality from processors’ perspective were detailed as: how well dressed a carcase is; how quickly it enters a chiller after shooting; how it is stored in the chiller; and whether the carcase has been affected by dust or dirt. The view was expressed that these issues are less about final product quality reaching the consumer and more about yield – the better condition the carcase is in when it reaches the plant, the greater the yield of high-value cuts and the less meat that is wasted or downgraded. Quantity issues were based around efficiency and reliability of carcase collection – if a large number of carcases can be collected reliably from fewer locations, this adds value to the industry through efficiency gains.

The issue of skin size generated considerable discussion. Processors reported a glut of small skins and a number of measures they have undertaken to address this problem, including refusing to take smaller kangaroos, encouraging regulators to lift minimum weights and implementing a two-tied pricing structure, where kangaroos above the desired weight attract 80c/kg and those below 40c/kg. Harvesters particularly take issue with the two-tied pricing system, as it leaves them in the difficult position where landholders who have concerns about large numbers of small kangaroos (especially in Qld) are pressuring harvesters to take them , whilst processors are pressuring harvesters not to deliver small kangaroos through pricing mechanisms which make it uneconomic.

Opportunities were identified for landholder and harvester groups working together to improve a number of these supply chain issues. The Mitchell group has been negotiating for a return from processors if certain steps are implemented, such as reducing the number of shoot-and-let-lie licenses, imposing voluntary weight restrictions and applying standards that exceed regulatory requirements - all of which would benefit the industry overall. The small skin issue is a clear case where a better understanding of each stakeholders’ business needs could be to the benefit to all – landholders could receive a return for accepting some of the impacts of smaller kangaroos, whilst processors could pay more to get a consistently larger-sized skin and a sustainable source of maturing kangaroos and harvesters could escape being squeezed from both ends.

Workshop Outcomes

There were a number of clear messages coming out of the workshop discussions:

·         Landholders and harvesters need to work together on their common interests: This was reflected in a decision taken after the workshop by members of the three SWE groups to work towards a National Association of Kangaroo Growers and Harvesters. The SWE groups were initially formed around landholder organisations and sought to find economically valued roles for landholders in the kangaroo industry. However, these groups have morphed over time to include strongly-motivated kangaroo harvesters and much of the progress so far has been driven by the knowledge and interests of harvesters. Each of the groups has agreed to nominate a landholder, harvester and landcare/NRM representative to work towards the formation of a national association and FATE has agreed to provide secretariat support, including a website which can act as an information exchange for the SWE groups. The association’s name, status, membership, aims and future funding requirements will all be considered over coming months.

 

·         There is a need for transparency and understanding each others’ interests: A number of participants (particularly landholders and harvesters) felt that the level of information-sharing, transparency, accountability and unity in the kangaroo industry was less than for other primary production industries. Partly this was explained by the ever-present need to defend the very existence of the industry from attacks by animal rights and “wildlife protection” groups, however, many participants argued that this lack of unity and transparency was a threat to the industry in itself. Understanding the business needs of each stakeholder and the ways in which decisions taken by one player impact on the others, particularly through business arrangements involving processors, harvesters and landholders, may help to resolve some of these issues.

·         There are ways for landholders and harvesters to add value to the industry: The kangaroo processing industry indicated that, as a whole, it would continue to be hostile to any landholder/harvester proposals that did not add value to the industry.  A number of different ways of adding value to the industry were discussed at the workshop, generally falling into two categories – increased sales (eg creating new markets or attracting higher prices from consumers) and reduced costs (eg efficiency gains through less transport or higher yields). In addition, it was also argued that the ability of a group to provide a processor with exclusive access to their product adds value as well. Discussions with processors collectively have not been able to identify which of these options present the best opportunities for landholder/harvester groups and therefore negotiations with individual processors would seem to provide the best course of action. Deals between individual processors and landholder/harvester groups may initially be based around the benefit of exclusive access, but over time other ways of adding value to the industry overall may be demonstrated - which could help overcome the collective resistance of the processing industry.

 

·         More active landholder involvement in the industry would provide a positive message to the market: Consumers already generably believe that ‘farmers’ are involved in kangaroo meat production and that is a positive thing. When confronted with adverse publicity, the advocacy of landholders and evidence of their integration of kangaroo management into sustainable land management could provide a strong positive message. It would be consistent with messages of a sustainable harvest of a valuable resource, rather than culling of a pest. In time, some landholder groups could also take these market opportunities further by badging specific kangaroo products as locally-produced and part of a sustainable land management system.

 

·         Commercial and regulatory models may have broad applicability: There was strong interest amongst landholders, harvesters and other stakeholders in learning from the experiences of other groups with regard to commercial and regulatory models. The experiences of the Mitchell group with their processor negotiations and cooperative model and the experiences of the Barrier Ranges group with group licensing arrangements should be shared with other interested parties. The agreement to work towards a National Association of Kangaroo Growers and Harvesters should assist with this process and the new SWE website and contact group will facilitate further information-sharing.

 

We’ve attempted to cover the key points here, but of course there was a lot more discussed over the two days than we can fit in this summary. If you feel that any key points have been left out or misrepresented, please let us know by email or post a comment on the SWE blog.

The SWE website and blog will also feature news and information on developments taking place as part of the establishment of the National Association and other activities arising from the workshop.