Economics of camel control in central Australia
Adam G. Drucker A C , Glenn P. Edwards B and William K. Saalfeld BA School of Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia.
B Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport (NRETAS), PO Box 1120, Alice Springs, NT 0871, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: a.drucker@cgiar.org
The Rangeland Journal 32(1) 117-127 https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ09046
Submitted: 10 July 2009 Accepted: 22 December 2009 Published: 23 March 2010
Abstract
A cost-effectiveness analysis based on a bioeconomic model was carried out with regard to specific feral camel control strategies in central Australia.
Two different aerial control strategies were modelled for the period 2009–20. Strategy 1 involved annual removals, whereas strategy 2 involved periodic removals only when a specific feral camel density was reached. The direct benefits to the pastoral industry of feral camel control were also modelled in terms of reduced grazing competition together with infrastructure damage. A single environmental service related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions was further considered.
Although the present costs of control under the two strategies are considerable ($4.10–4.95 million over 12 years at a 5% discount rate), they are far outweighed by the present benefits to the livestock industry from reduced competition ($46.3 million), as well as to society as a whole through reduced greenhouse gas emissions ($32.1 million). Including reduced infrastructure damage, the net present value of control is $75.2 million under strategy 1 and $73.3 million under strategy 2 (over 12 years at a 5% discount rate), suggesting that a control strategy based on annual removals should be preferred over a strategy of periodic removals. Given the large positive net present value of control and the robustness of the overall findings, there would appear to be a strong argument for considering the implementation of a full-scale, long-term feral camel control programme in the near future.
Acknowledgements
We should like to thank Clive McMahon and Stephen Garnett (SER/CDU) regarding advice about population modelling. The model development also benefited from previous work carried out under the NHT-funded NRETA project ‘Review of threats to biodiversity in the Northern Territory’. The work reported in this publication is supported by funding from the Australian Government Natural Heritage Trust through the Desert Knowledge CRC; the views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government or the Desert Knowledge CRC or its participants.
Barlow N. D.
(1987) Pastures, pests and productivity: simple grazing models with two herbivores. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 10, 43–55.
(accessed 6 March 2010).
Edwards G. P.,
Eldridge S. R.,
Wurst D.,
Berman D. M., Garbin V.
(2001) Movement patterns of female feral camels in central and northern Australia. Wildlife Research 28, 283–289.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
(accessed 6 March 2010).
Grigg G. C.,
Pople A. R., Beard L. A.
(1995) Movements of feral camels in central Australia determined by satellite telemetry. Journal of Arid Environments 31, 459–469.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
(accessed 6 March 2010).
Pople A. R., McLeod S. R.
(2010) Demography of feral camels in central Australia and its relevance to population control. The Rangeland Journal 32, 11–19.
Saalfeld W. K., Edwards G. P.
(2010) Distribution and abundance of the feral camel (Camelus dromedarius) in Australia. The Rangeland Journal 32, 1–9.
Short J.,
Caughley G.,
Grice D., Brown B.
(1988) The distribution and relative abundance of camels in Australia. Journal of Arid Environments 15, 91–97.
Vaarzon-Morel P.
(2010) Changes in Aboriginal perceptions of feral camels and their impacts and management. The Rangeland Journal 32, 73–85.
Zeng B., Edwards G. P.
(2010) Perceptions of pastoralists and conservation reserve managers on managing feral camels and their impacts. The Rangeland Journal 32, 63–72.
1For simplicity, it is assumed that the camel population is made up largely of adults emitting methane at the levels stated above.
2Hatfield-Dodds et al. (2007, p. 8) present a range of estimates of the Australian carbon price associated with steady action to achieve significant reductions in emissions from 1990 or 2000 emission levels, along with a mid-range estimate of international carbon prices associated with feasible global action to avoid dangerous levels of climate change. While these different estimates reflect different levels of annual and cumulative emissions, they suggest a likely price range of $15–65 in 2020 and $20–75 in 2025, and an effective mid-term ‘price floor’ of $15–20 even with a very modest long-term emissions target or offset sales targeting only overseas markets.
3Although the benefit /cost ratio of control strategy 2 is larger than that of strategy 1, the actual choice criterion should be based on the net present value figures.
4Bayliss estimated that helicopter costs in 1989 were ~$220/h, which is equivalent to $500 in 2007 dollars. Given that helicopter costs are currently ~$800, it appears that such costs have increased much faster than suggested by the ABS consumer price index for transport in general.
