Australia

Tourism_Dingoes_Australia

Emma_Hemmerle — Tue, 08 Feb 2022 12:35:41 +0000

Tourism_Dingoes_Australia Emma_Hemmerle Tue, 02/08/2022 - 12:35

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Tue, 02/08/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Unknown/not recorded

Record Source

Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)

When wildlife tourism goes wrong: a case study of stakeholder and management issues regarding Dingoes on Fraser Island, Australia

Unknown/not recorded

Is the species endemic HIDE

Unknown

Population Status

Unknown/not recorded

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Unknown/Not Recorded

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Canis lupus dingo

Common Name(s)

Dingo

Type of Use

Non-Extractive

How is the primary use carried out?

Watching/experiencing terrestrial, aerial, or aquatic fauna and flora in the wild (e.g., birdwatching, snorkeling, wildlife watching)

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Recreational

Additional Details (if available)

Wildlife Tourism

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Conservation Management (translocation, restoration, ex-situ breeding)

Amount

350000.00

Units Of Measurement

approximate number of tourists on the island annually

Time period over which this has been recorded

2003

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Increasing

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Yes, customary and complied with

Additional Details (if available)

. Currently, both direct and indirect feeding of Dingoes is strongly discouraged and transgressors face heavy penalties.

Geographic Location

Oceania

Country

Australia

Sub region/state

Queensland

Name

Fraser Island

Site Description

Located off the Queensland coast, approximately 190km north of Brisbane, Fraser Island was given its European name after Captain James Fraser and his wife Eliza were shipwrecked there in 1836 (Sinclair 1990, p. 76–77). The world’s largest sand island, it is almost 125km long, 25km wide in some places, and over 160,000 ha in area.4

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Yes

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

National external (individual, groups. e.g., hunters, anglers, photographers, tourists)

International external (individual, groups. e.g., hunters, anglers, photographers, tourists)

If more than one box ticked, please provide more details

tourists

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Yes – use is negatively affecting the status (e.g., population is declining; extraction effort is increasing)

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Details of assessment carried out

as the number of tourists to the island increase, so do the reports of Dingo attacks. The first recorded death from such an attack on Fraser Island occurred in April 2001, and was immediately followed by a government-ordered cull of Dingoes. For WT to be sustainable it is not acceptable to have wildlife a risk to human life, nor is it acceptable to eradicate the fauna visitors expect to see.

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

as the number of tourists to the island increase, so do the reports of Dingo attacks. The first recorded death from such an attack on Fraser Island occurred in April 2001, and was immediately followed by a government-ordered cull of Dingoes.
Between 1996 and 2001, 279 incidents were reported of which 74 were rated ‘insignificant’ 70 were rated ‘minor’, 95 ‘moderate’ 39 ‘major’ and 1 ‘catastrophic’ (EPA, 2001c, attachment 8).

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Yes, recorded as negative

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Support from NGOs

Present

Support from Government

Present

Biological characteristics of target species

Present

Is this use legal or illegal?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Source Reference(s)

Burns, G., & Howard, P. (2003). When wildlife tourism goes wrong: a case study of stakeholder and management issues regarding Dingoes on Fraser Island, Australia. Tourism Management, 24(6), 699-712. doi: 10.1016/s0261-5177(03)00146-8

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Unknown/Not Recorded

Who is involved in the use?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Does the site have any designations? HIDE

World Heritage Site

The site is a National Park

Scale of Assessment

Sub-national

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate

Yearly Financial Flows

No assessment recorded

Yes, considered unsustainable

Country reference

Australia

Aquaculture_Pinctada Maxima_Australia

Emma_Hemmerle — Wed, 12 Jan 2022 12:20:05 +0000

Aquaculture_Pinctada Maxima_Australia Emma_Hemmerle Wed, 01/12/2022 - 12:20

Sat, 04/01/2006 - 12:00

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Wed, 01/12/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species sourced from the wild but reared/cultivated in a managed site (e.g., cultivated wild specimens, eggs/juveniles from the wild)

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Unknown/not recorded

Record Source

Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)

An assessment of the environmental impact of wild harvest pearl aquaculture in western australia.

Unknown/not recorded

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Common and wildly distributed

Unknown/not recorded

National Level

Formal national protection in place

Pearling and pearl farms for P. maxima, are managed by the Department of Fisheries Western Australian (DFWA) under the provisions of the Pearling Act 1990.

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Pinctada Maxima

Common Name(s)

Pinctada Maxima

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

Only parts or products of the organism (e.g., feathers, leaves, branches, eggs, nuts)

Details of parts/products taken

pearl extraction

How is the primary use carried out?

Ranching, farming or cultivation or wild species

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Largescale commercial exploitation for trade

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Ornamentation, decoration and apparel

Amount

572000.00

Units Of Measurement

annual quota of allowable catch in western Australia

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Geographic Location

Oceania

Country

Australia

Sub region/state

Western Australia

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

Unknown/not recorded

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Yes, considered sustainable

Additional Details (if available)

Clearly establishing facilities for the pearling industry has some effect on the habitat. However the farms are small when compared with the vast distances on the north coast of Western Australia. They are also predominantly situated over mud bottom for maxi- mum pearl growth. The major impact is the visual presence of the longlines, which are floating in the water, except for an anchor on each end, which is placed in the mud bottom

Details of assessment carried out

Thirteen environmental and ecological issues were identified across the P. maxima fishery. None were considered to be high risks; all were ranked as either moderate (23%) or low (77%); The industry is considered to be environmentally benign. However, recommendations are made on how to further minimize risk.

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Yes

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has any assessment of socio-economic sustainability been recorded

Yes, considered sustainable

Details of assessment

In terms of dollar value, the fishery is second in Western Australia only to the western rock lobster, Panulirus cygnus.

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Strong community governance/institutions/rights for wildlife management

Absent

Supportive policy and legislative framework

Absent

Adequate capacity to implement and enforce governance arrangements

Absent

Good alignment of legal protections with local cultural values and traditional

Absent

Support from NGOs

Absent

Support from Government

Absent

High financial returns from use

Absent

Abundant population of target species

Absent

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Capacity building of community

Absent

Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan

Absent

Effective private sector approach engagement through certification

Absent

Good Market Strategies

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Legal under national law

Source Reference(s)

FRED E. WELLS and PETER JERNAKOFF "AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF WILD HARVEST PEARL AQUACULTURE (PINCTADA MAXIMA) IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA," Journal of Shellfish Research 25(1), 141-150, (1 April 2006). https://doi.org/10.2983/0730-8000(2006)25[141:AAOTEI]2.0.CO;2

Who is involved in the use?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

Sub-national

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate

Yearly Financial Flows

Year

2005

Amount

$125000000.00

Country reference

Australia

Harvesting_Saltwater Crocodile_Northern Australia

Emma_Hemmerle — Fri, 17 Dec 2021 10:12:40 +0000

Harvesting_Saltwater Crocodile_Northern Australia Emma_Hemmerle Fri, 12/17/2021 - 10:12

Thu, 10/31/2019 - 12:00

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Wed, 12/15/2021 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species sourced from the wild but reared/cultivated in a managed site (e.g., cultivated wild specimens, eggs/juveniles from the wild)

Wild species born/bred and raised/produced in captivity or through artificial propagation (e.g., activities such as closed-cycle breeding, horticulture or aquaculture)

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Primary Producer/harvester (e.g., NTFP collectors, egg collectors)

Record Source

“Grey” literature (e.g., NGO reports, case studies, non-detriment studies; project documents etc. (not necessarily peer-reviewed))

Legal and sustainable harvesting and ranching of Corodylus porosus in Norther Australia, mainly for use in fashion industry.

Stable

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Common but only within narrow areas of distribution

Formal international protection in place

International Level

CITES listing

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Listed as Vulnerable by the Australian State of Queensland

Additional Details (if available)

but according to the paper, harvesting is not actually a threat, at least not anymore, as it is carried out following strict regulations and guidelines, and population sizes have actually been increasing for the past 40 years.

Population Trend

Increasing

Sub-national Level

Formal sub-national protection in place

Additional Details (if available)

Human-crocodile conflict is also an important component, with crocodiles sometimes attacking cattle, and otherwise compete for resources.

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Crocodylus porosus

Common Name(s)

Saltwater crocodile

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

Only parts or products of the organism (e.g., feathers, leaves, branches, eggs, nuts)

Details of parts/products taken

The crocodiles are mostly harvested for their skin and meat primarily, as well as for other products such as skulls as souvenirs, feet as backscratchers, etc.

How is the primary use carried out?

Ranching, farming or cultivation or wild species

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Income generation from trade at individual or household or community

Cultural/spiritual

Additional Details (if available)

Saltwater crocodiles are recognized as a valuable commercial resource, generating income and employment to local communities, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. The economic value of the crocodile farming industry to the NT as a whole has been estimated to be AUD $107,000,000 per year (approximately USD 74,600,000). Involvement in the crocodile harvest and management builds on and strengthens cultural and traditional knowledge and practices of indigenous people, enabling them to stay “on country” and use traditional skills rather than needing to move to urban areas for jobs.

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Ornamentation, decoration and apparel

Amount

90000.00

Units Of Measurement

eggs

Time period over which this has been recorded

Quota applied for harvesting in the year 2019

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Yes, formal (e.g., quotas, viewing or catch-size limits) and complied with

Additional Details (if available)

The North Territories Government sets quotas and issues permits to crocodile harvesters and farmers.

Geographic Location

Oceania

Country

Australia

Sub region/state

Northern Territories

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)

National / local government

International private sector

If more than one box ticked, please provide more details

local people are involved in harvesting, ranching, and production, while the local government is responsible for regulations, and international private sector is the destination for the majority of the primary products produced.

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Yes

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Yes – use is improving the status (e.g., population is increasing or stabilising, extraction effort OR catch per unit effort is decreasing or stable)

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Wild crocodile populations have steadily increased in the NT under sustainable harvesting. Extensive wetlands are now highly valued and protected by landowners to ensure an annual supply of eggs. This motivates not only habitat retention, but active habitat management for crocodiles through means such as control of feral pigs and invasive plants that damage wetland habitats. Further, the involvement of Indigenous ranger groups in harvest programs, as both harvesters and regulators, has built and strengthened community-based wildlife management on Aboriginal lands.

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Yes, it is having a positive effect (e.g., reduced competition, reduced risk of hybridization)

Yes, positive (e.g., it increases / retains land area for conservation)

Yes, considered sustainable

Additional Details (if available)

Extensive wetlands are now highly valued and protected by landowners to ensure an annual supply of eggs. This motivates not only habitat retention, but active habitat management for crocodiles through means such as control of feral pigs and invasive plants that damage wetland habitats.

Additional Details (if available)

Details of assessment carried out

Findings in terms of population sizes: Since the introduction of protection measures and subsequent sustainable use programmes, all populations have recovered significantly.

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Yes

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Crocodile harvest and the ranching industry also provides local communities with significant opportunities to learn important skills and knowledge on the species and its management.

Involvement in the crocodile harvest and management builds on and strengthens cultural and traditional knowledge and practices of indigenous people, enabling them to stay “on country” and use traditional skills rather than needing to move to urban areas for jobs.

Saltwater crocodiles are dangerous predators, and regularly kill both people and livestock. Without the crocodile industry and the jobs and other social benefits it provides, local communities would be much less tolerant to crocodiles being around human settlements.

Has any assessment of socio-economic sustainability been recorded

No assessment recorded

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Strong community governance/institutions/rights for wildlife management

Present

Supportive policy and legislative framework

Present

Adequate capacity to implement and enforce governance arrangements

Present

Good alignment of legal protections with local cultural values and traditional

Present

Support from NGOs

Absent

Support from Government

Present

High financial returns from use

Present

Abundant population of target species

Present

Biological characteristics of target species

Present

Capacity building of community

Present

Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan

Present

Effective private sector approach engagement through certification

Present

Good Market Strategies

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Legal under national law

Source Reference(s)

CITES (2019) CITES & Livelihoods Case Study 2019: Saltwater crocodile harvest and ranching in Australia’s Northern Territory.

The Australian populations were severely depleted by uncontrolled hunting during the 1940s to 1960s. The incentives generated by the wild harvest are a key factor in winning public and political tolerance for re-establishment of a large and healthy wild population, and hence a significant contribution to conservation.

Who is involved in the use?

Men

Unknown/Not Recorded

Women

How are local community members involved?

Harvest of crocodiles from the wild in the NT primarily involves collecting wild eggs for ranching (i.e. incubation and rearing in captivity within crocodile farms), with a limited direct harvest of sub- adult/adults. Most crocodiles are slaughtered and processed locally at a specialist abattoir and the skins are exported with CITES tags for further processing overseas

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Yes

Women are involved in most aspects of the harvesting of saltwater crocodiles in Australia. While female egg collectors are uncommon, a substantial number of women (including Aboriginal) work in hatcheries or farms, constituting an estimated 20% of workers. Women are also involved in the processing of captive crocodiles for skins and meat, and in the production and sales of crocodile skin products.

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Yes

Scale of Assessment

Sub-national

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Least Concern (LC)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate