Reducing feral camel impacts across remote Australia:

Australian Feral Camel Management Project

21st November 2013, Parliament House Theatre, Canberra

Session One: From Science to Solution Speakers: Tom Calma, AO – Chair Ninti One Glenn Edwards – Northern Territory Government Quentin Hart – Ninti One, Australian Feral Camel Management Project Roger Smith – Chair Australian Feral Camel Management Project Steering Committee

Forming a successful and enduring AFCMP collaboration Roger Smith

The need for collaboration:

• Dealing with a highly mobile pest animal that moves easily across all land tenures > coordinated action required

• Different perspectives about the way to manage feral camels – e.g. commercial use

• Need to account for broader community concerns – e.g. animal welfare (RSPCA involvement)

The need for collaboration:

• The AFCMP did not have the same legislative basis for land access as programs such as other national-scale large feral herbivore management programs such as the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication campaign

• Achieving informed landholder consent for feral camel management was critical to the success of the AFCMP, and there needed to be good collaborative processes for this

Motivation for collaboration:

• There was strong motivation across all landholders (Aboriginal, pastoral, conservation) to do something about feral camels…but how was this best done?

• Needed effective collaborations to allow these discussions to take place and to oversee rollout of the agreed management approaches

Project partners • Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Board (South Australia) • Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands (APY Lands) • Australian Wildlife Conservancy • Biosecurity SA • Central Land Council • CSIRO • Department of Agriculture and Food WA • Department of Environment and Conservation (WA) • Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SA) • Department of Environment and Resource Management (Qld) • Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport (NT) • Flinders University • Kimberley Land Council • Natural Resource Management Board NT Inc • Ngaanyatjarra Council Inc (WA) • Ninti One Ltd • NT Cattlemen’s Association • Pila Nguru Aboriginal Corporation (WA) • Rangelands NRM (WA) • South Australian Arid Lands NRM Board

AFCMP governance structure:

• Necessarily comprehensive to account for the need to: allow involvement of all landholder

interests and broader stakeholders consult within and between jurisdictions ensure good exchange between policy,

operational and monitoring components of the project

Features of good collaboration: • Craft simple, outcome-oriented goals • Consistently review team/project goals • Discuss how the team’s goals tie into the

organisation’s • Constantly clarify roles • Explicitly state responsibilities • Explicitly identify who’s responsible for

each decision and how it will be made • Go into the conflict zone, respectfully • Be honest about mistakes • Create systems for sharing information

Features of good collaboration: • We believe that we achieved these features: clear goals (feral camel density targets and capacity

building for future management) annual review of performance against goals agreed investment guidelines and annual workplans consistent messages (e.g. website and involvement

of national manager with all AFCMP groups) respected the legitimacy of everyone's views operated at a strategic level, focusing on outcomes Identified common ground and built consensus for complex issues, use smaller working groups out

of session to build consensus positions

AFCMP Steering Committee • Inclusive structure and regular

opportunities for input: 20 project partners; most with direct SC

involvement SC collaboration included 5 govts, 6

Aboriginal orgs, Rangelands Alliance, RSPCA, NTCA, ACIA, 2 abattoirs and Ninti One

3-5 meetings per year interaction between SC and operational

(NOG, SOGs) and technical (MERI) groups

AFCMP Steering Committee • Agenda items included: partner/stakeholder reports strategic issues – e.g. seasonal

conditions and implications, cross-border collaboration, project governance, annual planning and reporting risk management – participatory and

reviewed at every meeting communications

The future: • Many formal and informal collaborations

established • Examples of collaborations and

approaches being applied to management of other LFHs (e.g. feral horse cull on Tempe Downs in Aug 2013)

• We hope that AFCMP collaborations can be maintained and will keep looking for resourcing options

www.nintione.com.au