It is important to put the exploitation of Australia's magnificent kangaroos into the broader context of wildlife trade, before addressing the specifics of new policy needs. The following is an edited version of an article published under my name in the Canberra Times on November 17th, 1998, responding to an industry propaganda piece by Dr. Graeme Webb (Wildlife Management International), promoting the further utilisation of our native wildlife.

In "Science and Technology" (Canberra Times, 29/9/98) guest commentator Graeme Webb seeks to suggest to readers, through a veritable dictionary of weaselly economic jargon, that the only way to protect and conserve our enormous wildlife heritage is to avail it of the loving arms of commercial traders; that the "standard wildlife paradigm in Australia is sad, old, confused and outdated" - a convenient philosophy for those with Asian and other insatiable export markets in mind.

History is littered with the usual half-truths, misleading statements and other fanciful pro-trade comments - the wishful thinking of an industry representative keen to maximise economic opportunities under the guise of conservation - a willing soldier of a well known band of nations, lead by the South African States, Japan and Canada, eager to set the world on the correct path of maximum resource use and theoretical economic and environmental salvation (amongst animal welfare/conservation organisations for example, the Northern Territory is better known by its nick- name of "Southern Zimbabwe").

What Webb has so indelicately danced around is the plain fact that his industry lobby is doing its very best to promote the broadscale private use of yet another public resource (Australian wildlife owned by every Australian in exploitation programs that would be centred on the destruction of (yet further) millions of individual animals of all species- under some half-baked and already thoroughly disproved theory that such trade will provide appropriate incentives to landholders and save the world from the clutches of those terrible environmentalists. The tale is as clumsy and inadequate as is his clearly mischievous attempt to portray the philosophies and policies of all non-government organisations towards commercial wildlife trade.

But let's take a closer look at some of Webb's assertions about his new buzzword "sustainable use" that he suggests is revolutionising conservation around the world. He states that the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the World Wildlife Federation International (these were Webb's words, the correct title is the World Wide Fund for Nature International), the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITIES) all urge ecologically sustainable use. But these organisations do not, as implied by Webb and his cohorts, actively promote the commercial use of all living things. They merely say that if any nation that is a party to these agreements decides that it will engage in the economic utilisation of wildlife, that it had better be pretty damned sure that it does so on an ecologically sustainable basis. Webb's continual misuse of the intent of these Conventions is perhaps one of the most disingenuous aspects of the pro-use lobby's activities.

However, the pro-use lobby does like to have things both ways, and their arguments as to treaty interpretation tend to change depending upon circumstance. On the one hand they say that CITIES promotes sustainable use, but on the other have already tried, unsuccessfully, to have the intent and legal wording of the CITIES Convention altered, contending that the treaty was a blockage to free trade and was anti-conservation. The lobby further asserted that CITIES was in contradiction with the Convention on Biological Diversity, perceiving as they and Webb still do that this new Convention is their best chance at kick-starting a new and massive wave of global wildlife trade. As a member of the Australian Government negotiating team to the Biodiversity Convention, I have always failed to understand the pro-lobby interpretation of this treaty. In the introduction to a Humane Society International publication discussing both these treaties, the CITIES Secretariat stated in part. "Those who consider that CITIES is in contradiction with the Convention of Biological Diversity, and there are a number of such people, either do not know CITIES correctly or make their judgment on the basis of certain interpretations of the Convention. Such judgements are a response to the way in which some individuals, organisations and even States wish to see CITIES used and implemented." The pro-use lobby were out of luck.

Webb predictably makes great play of the outcomes of the Senate Inquiry (Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee) into the "Commercial Use of Australian Native Wildlife", which reported to the Parliament in June 1998. He states for example that the "inquiry called for "fundamental changes in our approach to wildlife conservation" but close scrutiny of the recommendations does not bear this out. The conservative and biologically inept nature of the recommendations from a Committee more concerned with rural economics than wildlife were disturbing but not surprising and brought a speedy and vigorous Minority Report from Australian Democrat Senator Andrew Bartlett who noted the "misreading of the evidence and of the breadth and nature of community concerns with the commercial use of wildlife", that "the majority of submissions that the Committee received were opposed to any commercial use of Australia's wildlife" and that "most of the evidence and submissions in favour of commercialisation were driven by potential economic gains".

The Committee's primary concern for the economic wellbeing of the rural community is highlighted by its corruption of the interpretation of the precautionary principle laid down in the Convention on Biological Diversity, asserting that "lack of detailed information about a species should not be used as an argument against the commencement of commercialisation on a trial basis". Flying in the face of all international law and ecological requirements, this statement merely reflects the Committee's parroting of Webb's "let's suck it and see" management philosophy to exploiting our wildlife - science and biological management at its best!!

Webb also hopes that the Inquiry might encourage all political parties to make significant changes to wildlife trade policy, proposing strategies for change that the public can vote for or against. A quick look at the stated policies of the main parties prior to the election will disappoint Dr. Webb, all parties opposing the live commercial exports and promising to improve trade protection for native species.

The real issue of course is whether trade can or cannot benefit conservation, but history shows it cannot. The past commercial exploitation of the world's wildlife has been demonstrably responsible for destroying large portions of the natural world, but can make no claims for its conservation. CITIES is littered with examples of spectacular species' decline by uncontrollable market demands, thousands upon thousands of species subject to exploitation programs that have no hope of being sustainable. The African elephant, black rhinos, tigers, bears, corals, shells, cycads, numerous timber and marine fish species, all threatened by a trade that inevitably overcomes any intended conservations efforts. Humane Society International believes that most of the world's trade in wildlife (worth perhaps some US$20 billion per annum and involving some 350 million animals and plants) is unsustainable; that virtually all species which are being harvested commercially are being depleted. Perhaps a third of this trade is illegal, a matter substantiated by history. Webb's proposals for expanded utilisation programs offer only a contribution to the further decline and loss of Australia's and the world's biological diversity.

Finally, and as noted by Dr. Ray Nias, Conservation Director for the World Wide Fund for Nature in Australia, an organisation Webb suggests endorses his economic rationalist philosophies, stated in their submission to the Senate Inquiry that, "The consumptive use of wildlife is inevitable for the foreseeable future, however, it is difficult to find unequivocal examples that demonstrate the sustainability of consumptive wildlife. It is even rarer to find examples that demonstrates a clear benefit to the conservation of the species in its natural state."

Wildlife of course can be utilised for the benefit of all Australians but this can only be achieved appropriately through non-consumptive means. The value of wildlife to tourism in this country is simply enormous and recent research funded by the Australia Koala Foundation has shown that the Koala alone is worth $1 Billion per year to our economy.

Species that are attractive to international markets are those that will face the gravest trade threat. Nobody seriously believes these days that kangaroos are at the centre of land degradation problems nor that the massive export industries that rely on killing millions of kangaroos every year are merely "pest control programs". They are purely commercial industries eager to satisfy any market desiring their product.

Policies that permit exploitation without adequately addressing conservation benefit, economic viability (exposing the perverse use of public monies to subsidise these killing industries), animal welfare and cruelty matters and effective enforcement and monitoring must now be exposed. The moral and ethical issues intertwined with this debate must be fully brought into account.

• Now that the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Bill, 1999 has been passed., it is likely that in the next few months, the Federal Government will be developing new amendments to the legislation in relation to wildlife trade. The amendments will replace the existing Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act, 1982.
  
• This is a very crucial opportunity for us to ensure that the laws governing the commercial utilisation of our unique native wildlife are strengthened as much as possible - to make them the best in the world.
  
• All animal welfare and animal cruelty concerns must be fully accounted for and me