Advocating kangaroo meat: towards ecological benefit or plunder?

With the advantage of hindsight we examine the four key assumptions and confront them with published scientific evidence to assess their bearing on the sustainability of kangaroo harvesting in Australia. Australian consumers increasingly believe that eating kangaroo meat encourages destocking in the rangelands in favour of more harvesting of kangaroos. The replacement of livestock, particularly sheep, is perceived as a mitigation measure against ecosystem degradation, biodiversity loss, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions released by sheep. However, while kangaroo harvesting for meat has been conducted for over 20 years there is no evidence of sheep replacement. This is a significant challenge to the sheep replacement concept and its underlying environmental principles. Key assumptions in replacing sheep with kangaroos as a meat source have had little evaluation. With the advantage of hindsight we examine the four key assumptions and confront them with published scientific evidence to assess their bearing on the sustainability of kangaroo harvesting in Australia. These assumptions are: that (a) increased consumption of kangaroo meat by humans will lead to an increased value of kangaroo meat; (b) increased value in kangaroo meat will lead to sheep replacement; (c) destocking will lead to a sufficient increase in numbers of kangaroos to service demand for red meat currently supplied from sheep; and (d) proper regulatory mechanisms are in place to counter increased market demand for kangaroo products that may result in overexploitation. Our assessment indicates that interactive forces between kangaroos, sheep, the land-scape and stakeholders are complex and uncertain. Current kangaroo industry meat marketing strategies and ongoing hygiene concerns suggest that an increased consumption by humans is unlikely to lead to an increased value of kangaroo meat for the shooter. Competing stakeholder interests, uncertainty around future kangaroo populations and small property sizes are likely to impede sheep replacement in spite of a hypothetical increase in value. Long-term studies indicate there is minimal competition between livestock and kangaroos. Short and long-term landscapeexclusion assessments suggest that destocking will result in only marginal kangaroo population increases. The number of kangaroos necessary to supplant meat production from sheep (greatly augmented if goats and cattle were also included) for an environmentally meaningful benefit is ecologically unfeasible. Lastly, an increased demand for kangaroo meat and high discount rates associated with uncertainty around kangaroo populations will increase the risk of overexploitation. This will require the maintenance of stringent regulatory mechanisms which are mostly untested due to historically underutilised quotas. The establishment of functioning rangelands in Australia remains an ecological and social imperative, yet the expectation of a panacea of reduced total grazing pressure and GHG abatement from kangaroo meat does not match the scientific evidence. Better outcomes for Australia’s economic and sustainable future may be better achieved via a long-term decline in sheep numbers coupled with value driven non-consumptive mechanisms such eco-tourism, carbon crediting and improved livestock management.