Mapping Australia's Weed Management System

Mapping Australia’s Weed Management System

MARCH 2013 RIRDC Publication No. 13/019

Mapping Australia’s Weed Management System

by G. Cattanach, A. Harris and J. Horne

March 2013

RIRDC Publication No. 13/019 RIRDC Project No. PRJ-006923

ISBN 978-1-74254-512-7 ISSN 1440-6845

Mapping Australia’s Weed Management System Publication No. 13/019 Project No. PRJ-006923

The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances.

While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication.

The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors.

The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.

This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the RIRDC Publications Manager on phone 02 6271 4165.

Researcher Contact Details:

Name: Mr Rodney Turner Address: Plant Health Australia Level 1, 1 Phipps Close, Deakin ACT 2600

Email: [email protected]

In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form.

RIRDC Contact Details:

Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 2, 15 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600

PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604

Phone: 02 6271 4100 Fax: 02 6271 4199 Email: [email protected]. Web: http://www.rirdc.gov.au

Electronically published by RIRDC in March 2013 Print-on-demand by Union Offset Printing, Canberra at www.rirdc.gov.au or phone 1300 634 313

Foreword

Weeds have a huge impact on the Australian environment and community. They invade our agricultural lands and the natural environment, causing economic, environmental and social damage. Significant resources are expended in Australia each year to prevent incursions, contain outbreaks and manage established weeds by a diverse range of organisations and individuals, from government departments to local communities.

It is well recognised that weeds are a significant threat and that multiple stakeholders undertake weed management. However there is no comprehensive nation-wide review of weed management activities. Plant Health Australia (PHA) was commissioned to review and clearly demonstrate the benefits to Australia of the current investment in weed management and provide a basis for sound investment in the future. This report identifies the key stakeholders involved in weed management and outlines their roles. The project assesses current activities in weeds management, and draws brief conclusions on what is working well and where the system could be improved. This information can be used by policy makers, regulators, industry, educators and community leaders to assist in future investment decisions in weed management, and to ensure that the investment is strategic, effective and economically sound.

This report concludes that Australia has a robust weed management system, and that it must be maintained if we are to prevent weed problems worsening. While the prevention of incursions and national coordination of weed management have improved, there is still scope for better harmonisation between jurisdictions. Weed management is being funded more strategically, but continued attention on the important role of the community must be secured.

Given that prevention of weeds is better (and less expensive) than a cure, weed issues are being viewed more as a biosecurity issue than a natural resource management issue. Other important issues from this project that require further consideration include maintaining Australia’s weeds R&D capacity, including continued use and development of biological controls, how emergency weed issues are dealt with, and continued access to herbicides.

This project is part of the National Weeds and Productivity Program, which was funded to 30 June 2012 by the Australian Government with the goal of reducing the impact of invasive weeds on farm and forestry productivity as well as on biodiversity.

All RIRDC research investments in this Program are oversighted by the Weeds R&D Advisory Committee in accordance with the National Weeds and Productivity Research Program R&D Plan 2010-2015 that has been approved by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Solutions to weeds in Australia require a long-term, integrated, multi-stakeholder and multi- disciplinary approach. RIRDC is seeking project applications that involve collaboration between stakeholder groups, and where possible, including external contributions both monetary and in-kind.

This report is an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 2000 research publications which can be viewed and freely downloaded from our website www.rirdc.gov.au. Information on the Weeds Program is available online at http://www.rirdc.gov.au/research-programs/rural-people-issues/weeds.

Most of RIRDC’s publications are available for viewing, free downloading or purchasing online at www.rirdc.gov.au. Purchases can also be made by phoning 1300 634 313.

Craig Burns Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

iii

About the Authors

Gavan Cattanach works for John Thorp Australia, after an extensive career in the Australian Public Service. He managed the Weeds and Pest Animals area within the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry including representing the Department on the Australian Weeds Committee, before retiring in 2008.

Dr Adrian Harris joined Plant Health Australia in 2011. He has a wealth of experience in federal and state government departments and industry, both in Australia and overseas. He has worked in areas of plant disease research, biosecurity policy, pesticide regulation and training. At Biosecurity Australia he managed the weeds team, which implemented the Weed Risk Assessment system and reviewed the Permitted Seeds List.

James Horne worked in Plant Health Australia from September 2011 to May 2012. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science, majoring in Plant Science, from the University of Queensland in 2010.

Acknowledgments

The authors of this study would like to acknowledge those organisations and community groups who responded to our questionnaire to provide valuable information, which we hope we have reproduced appropriately.

We would particularly like to thank those community organisations who gave of their own time to answer our questions, a reflection of the passion they have for weed management.

Contents Foreword ...... iii

About the Authors ...... iv

Acknowledgments ...... iv

Executive Summary ...... xv

About this study ...... 1

CHAPTER 1. Weeds – How important are they? ...... 3

1.1 What is a weed? ...... 4

1.2 Economic impacts of weeds ...... 6

1.3 Environmental impacts of weeds ...... 7

1.4 Social impacts of weeds ...... 9

1.5 How are weeds spread? ...... 10

1.6 National weed lists ...... 12

Weeds of National Significance ...... 12 National Environmental Alert List ...... 14 Permitted Seeds List ...... 16 Prohibited List ...... 16 Sleeper weeds ...... 16 Species targeted for eradication ...... 18 Species targeted for biological control...... 20 1.7 Weed management ...... 20

1.8 National coordination of weed management ...... 22

Australia’s biosecurity ...... 22 Primary Industries Committees ...... 24 National Biosecurity Committee ...... 24 Plant Health Committee ...... 24 Australian Weeds Committee ...... 24 National Weeds Management Facilitator ...... 25 Australian Weeds Strategy ...... 25 CHAPTER 2. An overview of who is involved in weed management in Australia ...... 27

2.1 Introduction ...... 28

2.2 Government agencies ...... 28

Australian Government ...... 28 State and territory governments ...... 29 2.3 Legislation governing weeds ...... 30

Commonwealth legislation ...... 30 State and territory legislation ...... 31 2.4 Local governments ...... 36

2.5 Regional bodies ...... 36

2.6 Agricultural industries ...... 36

2.7 Responsibilities of other land managers ...... 36

2.8 The community ...... 37

2.9 State herbaria ...... 37

2.10 Research and development ...... 38

2.11 Education and training ...... 38

CHAPTER 3. What are we doing to prevent new weeds? ...... 39

3.1 Introduction ...... 40

3.2 Role of the Australian Government ...... 40

3.3 Pre-border ...... 44

Prohibited List ...... 45 Plant screening process ...... 45 Permitted Seeds List ...... 45 Weed Risk Assessment system ...... 45 Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy ...... 46 3.4 Border ...... 48

Border controls ...... 48 3.5 Post-border ...... 50

Plant pest incursion management ...... 52 Plant Health Australia ...... 54 National Plant Biosecurity Strategy ...... 56 Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity ...... 57 National Environmental Biosecurity Response Agreement ...... 57 BioSIRT ...... 58 3.6 Role of state and territory governments in preventing spread ...... 59

3.7 State herbaria ...... 62

3.8 Local governments ...... 64

3.9 Agricultural industries ...... 64

3.10 The community ...... 64

CHAPTER 4. How are we reducing the impacts of existing weeds? ...... 66

4.1 Introduction ...... 67

4.2 Role of the Australian Government ...... 67

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry ...... 67 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities ...... 67 Caring for our Country program ...... 68 Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority ...... 70 Department of Defence ...... 70 4.3 Role of state and territory governments ...... 71

Weed strategies ...... 79 Noxious weeds ...... 80 4.4 Local governments ...... 83

Local government weed funding ...... 87 Local government weed strategies ...... 89 Weeds in green waste disposal ...... 89 4.5 Role of regional bodies ...... 89

NRM roles and responsibilities ...... 89 NRM regional activities and investment ...... 91 4.6 Weed management in National Parks and reserves ...... 97

National Reserve System ...... 98 National Parks and state reserves ...... 98 4.7 Role of agricultural industries ...... 99

Grains ...... 100 Cotton ...... 103 Sugar...... 104 Rice ...... 105 Fodder ...... 106 Grazing ...... 106 Beef and sheep ...... 108 Vegetables ...... 112 Macadamias ...... 113 Pineapples ...... 113 Turf ...... 113 Apples and pears ...... 113

vii

Cherries ...... 114 Raspberries and blackberries ...... 114 Nursery and garden industry ...... 114 Minor uses of herbicides ...... 116 Control of contentious plants ...... 117 Biosecurity and Industry Biosecurity Plans ...... 122 4.8 Mining Industry ...... 123

4.9 State road and rail authorities ...... 123

4.10 Public utilities ...... 125

4.11 Aboriginal land management ...... 125

4.12 The community ...... 127

Australian weed societies ...... 127 Landcare ...... 128 Bush Regenerators ...... 128 Bushcare ...... 128 Conservation Volunteers Australia ...... 129 Greening Australia ...... 129 Local community groups ...... 130 The Friends of Eastern Otways Group (Vic) ...... 130 The Anglesea, Aireys Inlet Society for the Protection of Flora and Fauna (Vic) ...... 133 Friends of Yellagonga Regional Park (WA) ...... 134 Stirling Natural Environment Coastcare (WA) ...... 136 Friends of Queens Park Bushland (WA) ...... 136 Friends of Hollywood Reserve (WA) ...... 137 Bungendore Park Management Committee (WA) ...... 138 Armadale Gosnells Landcare Group (WA) ...... 139 Friends of Dianella Bushland (WA) ...... 139 Barkly Landcare and Conservation Association (NT) ...... 140 4.13 Weeds of National Significance ...... 142

4.14 Biological control of weeds ...... 146

Classic weed biocontrol ...... 147 Current weed biocontrol research in Australia ...... 151 Economic benefits of weed biocontrol ...... 152 Improving weed biocontrol in Australia ...... 153 CHAPTER 5. What are we doing to enhance our capacity and commitment to solving our weeds problems?...... 154

5.1 Research and development ...... 155

viii

Research and development projects ...... 155 RIRDC National Weeds and Productivity Research Program ...... 163 Research and development databases ...... 163 5.2 Education and Training ...... 163

Tertiary courses ...... 163 Professional development ...... 163 Vocational Education and Training ...... 164 Accredited training ...... 164 Interest/short courses ...... 164 5.3 Advisory Committees ...... 164

Sydney Weeds Committee ...... 164 Riverina Noxious Weeds Advisory Groups ...... 165 Macquarie Valley and Lachlan Valley Weeds Advisory Committees ...... 165 North Coast Weed Advisory Committee ...... 165 Northern Inland Weeds Advisory Committee ...... 165 Southern Tablelands and South Coast Noxious Plants Committee ...... 165 Northern Territory Weed Advisory Committee ...... 165 5.4 Weed Awareness ...... 166

What is happening to promote weed awareness and why is it important?...... 166 State and territory governments ...... 166 Local Governments ...... 168 Weedbusters ...... 169 WEEDeck ...... 170 Weed websites ...... 170 CHAPTER 6. What can we conclude? ...... 171

6.1 Synopsis ...... 172

Weed management ...... 172 Preventing new weeds ...... 173 Enhancing capacity and capability ...... 179 6.2 Discussion ...... 180

Prevention is better than cure ...... 180 Eradication is feasible only for small infestations ...... 180 Harmonisation needed between jurisdictions ...... 182 The Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed and weeds ...... 182 Research and development – Is the investment optimal? ...... 183 Biological control – Is Australia’s resourcing sustainable? ...... 184 Other land managers – Are they managing weeds adequately? ...... 185

Community support ...... 186 Weed awareness – Is it adequate? ...... 186 6.3 Conclusions ...... 186

Appendices ...... 189

Appendix 1. Weed species targeted for biological control in Australia ...... 189

Appendix 2. Chronology of major events and policies in weed management in Australia ...... 194

Appendix 3. Key contacts ...... 196

Appendix 4. Acronyms and abbreviations ...... 215

References ...... 217

Tables Table 1: Weeds of National Significance ...... 13

Table 2: Australia's Alert List for Environmental Weeds ...... 15

Table 3: Commonwealth, state and territory government responsibilities in weed management...... 29

Table 4: Exotic weeds watch list ...... 41

Table 5: New and potential weeds in Australia in 2011 ...... 43 Table 6: Number of rejected consignments failed inspection due to soil or weed contamination from the South East Region (2011, DAFF) ...... 50

Table 7: Recent incursions of exotic weeds of concern ...... 51

Table 8: National Eradication Program...... 52

Table 9: Staff and resources allocated by DSEWPaC in 2011 ...... 68 Table 10: Australian Government funding to NRMs and CMAs, and community projects for weed management under the Caring for our Country program* ...... 69 Table 11: State and territory government direct spending and staff dedicated to weed management in 2010-11 75

Table 12: State and territory government grants for weed management in 2010-11 ...... 79

Table 13: What investment was made by NRMs in weed management in 2010-11? ...... 91

Table 14: NRM weed management strategies ...... 92

Table 15: What is being done by NRMs to tackle new and emerging weeds? ...... 93

Table 16: What is being done by NRMs to increase public awareness? ...... 94

Table 17: Number of staff involved in weed management by NRMs ...... 95

Table 18: NRM grants to local government ...... 96

Table 19: NRM grants to the community ...... 97

Table 20: Costs of weeds by crop industry ...... 100

Table 21: Weed research and development projects, 2010-11 ...... 155

Figures Figure 1: Mimosa (Mimosa pigra) invasion ...... 5

Figure 2: Garden escapes competing with native vegetation in a coastal setting ...... 6

Figure 3: Invasive weeds crowding out native vegetation in a coastal setting ...... 7

Figure 4: Rubber vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora) ...... 8

Figure 5: Parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus) ...... 9

Figure 6: Harvesting Salvinia (Salvinia molesta) on the Nepean River, NSW ...... 10

Figure 7: Cabomba (Cabomba caroliniama) infestation of waterway ...... 11

Figure 8: Generalised invasion curve showing actions appropriate to each stage ...... 12

Figure 9: Mimosa (Mimosa pigra) invasion, Finnis River, Northern Territory ...... 16

Figure 10: Koster’s curse (Clidemia hirta), Queensland ...... 18

Figure 11: Limnocharis (Limnocharis flava) at Feluga, N. Queensland...... 19

Figure 12: Miconia (Miconia racemosa) ...... 19

Figure 13: Fumigating soil to control the parasitic plant, Branched broomrape (Orobanche ramosa) . 20

Figure 14: Weeds establishment and management timeline ...... 21

Figure 15: Lantana (Lantana camara) invasion of a forest ...... 22

Figure 16: National governmental consultative committees ...... 23

Figure 17: Relationship between weeds policy and strategies ...... 25

Figure 18: Main jurisdictions and organisations involved in weed management in Australia ...... 28

Figure 19: Roadside sign to prevent spread of Branched broomrape (Orobanche ramosa) ...... 34

Figure 20: Weedy plants making access very difficult ...... 35

Figure 21: Volunteers cutting weeds in bush ...... 37

Figure 22: The relationship between key bodies involved in weed prevention ...... 40

Figure 23: Mexican feather grass (Nassella tenuissima) ...... 43

Figure 24: Mikania (Mikania micrantha) flowering ...... 47

Figure 25: Mikania (Mile-a-minute) (Mikania micrantha) is under eradication ...... 47

Figure 26: Quarantine inspection of plants at the national border ...... 49

Figure 27: Branched broomrape (Orobanche ramosa) parasitising a carrot ...... 52

Figure 28: Miconia (Miconia calvescens) is under eradication ...... 53

Figure 29: Miconia (Miconia nervosa) is under eradication ...... 54

xii

Figure 30: Industry members of Plant Health Australia ...... 55

Figure 31: Emergency response to an incursion ...... 56

Figure 32: Bridal creeper (Asparagus asparagoides), a garden escape, smotherimg native vegetation at Gairdner River, Western Australia ...... 60

Figure 33: Tasmania uses detector dogs for quarantine inspections at its sea ports and airports ...... 62

Figure 34: Primary jurisdictions and organisations involved in management of existing weeds ...... 67

Figure 35: Blackberries (Rubus fruticosus agg.) invasion ...... 70

Figure 36: Contractor applying a granulated herbicide on specific roadside weeds, ACT ...... 74

Figure 37: Bulldozing Gorse (Ulex europaeus) ...... 78

Figure 38: African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) is a noxious weed in NSW ...... 81

Figure 39: Local council funding for weed management from various sources in 2010-11...... 88 Figure 40: Number of respondent councils that received funds for weed management from each source in 2010-11 ...... 88

Figure 41: Local council employee providing advice to the local community on weed issues ...... 95

Figure 42: Wild oats (Avena sp.) infesting a wheat crop ...... 101

Figure 43: Nutgrass (Cyperus rotundus) competing with young cotton crop ...... 104

Figure 44: Weeds can spread into pastures from surrounding land ...... 107

Figure 45: Effect of grazing management on Serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) ...... 108

Figure 46: Giant rat’s tail grass (Sporobolus pyramidalis) ...... 109

Figure 47: Weeds can also invade dairy pastures ...... 110

Figure 48: Serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) ...... 112

Figure 49: Garden escapes invading native vegetation ...... 116

Figure 50: Hymenachne (Hymenache amplexicaulis), a Weed of National Significance ...... 117

Figure 51: Cultivated berry crop ...... 118

Figure 52: Blackberries (Rubus fruticosus agg.) invading bush ...... 119

Figure 53: Paterson’s curse (Echium plantagineum) turns fields purple when flowering in spring.... 122

Figure 54: Prickly acacia (Acacia nilotica ssp. indica) along a waterway in north-west Queensland 126

Figure 55: Gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus) can change fire regimes ...... 127

Figure 56: Conservation volunteers removing woody weeds in bush...... 129

Figure 57: Athel pine (Tamarix aphylla) in Finke River, South Australia ...... 142

Figure 58: Infestation of Parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus), a WoNS ...... 144

xiii

Figure 59: Prickly pear (Opuntia cacti) invasion in 1920...... 147

Figure 60: Harvesting Salvina (Salvinia molesta) in waterway ...... 151

Figure 61: Trends in staffing levels of the Tropical Weeds biological control group within CSIRO . 152

Figure 62: Non-flowering infestation of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) ...... 167

Figure 63: Aborigines play an important role in surveillance for incursions in northern Australia .... 177

Figure 64: Community group clearing invasive weeds from bush...... 178

Figure 65: Branched broomrape (Orobanche ramosa) flowering ...... 181

Figure 66: Mimosa (Mimosa pigra) invasion ...... 182

Figure 67: Fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis) was added to the WoNS list in 2012 and is a candidate for biological control ...... 185

Case Studies Case Study: Illawarra District Noxious Weeds Authority ...... 85

Case study: Sydney Weeds Committee ...... 86

Case study: Serrated tussock ...... 111

Case Study: Blackberries ...... 120

Case study: Honey bee industry and Paterson’s curse (Echium plantagineum) ...... 121

Case study: Bitou bush ...... 145

Case study: Salvinia ...... 150

xiv

Executive Summary

Weeds are among the most serious threats to Australia's natural environment and primary production industries. They displace native species, contribute significantly to land degradation, and reduce farm and forest productivity. Australians spend significant time and money each year combating weed problems and protecting ecosystems and primary production. From 1992 to 2010, there were 23 incursions of prohibited or regulated weeds detected in Australia. In 2011 alone, 11 new or potential weeds were officially recorded in various states.

Weeds need to be managed for economic, environmental and social reasons. In Australia, all levels of government have various roles to manage weeds on public and private lands. These roles are established by legislation. Industry and the community are also, importantly, involved in weed management by choice or legislation.

This study of the status of weed management in Australia aims to ensure that future investment in weed management is strategic, effective and economical. The report identifies key stakeholders’ involvement in weed management, their interactions, and the resources invested (particularly in 2010-11). It analyses future prospects and draws brief conclusions on what is working well and where Australia’s weed management system could be improved.

To gather data for the project, questionnaires were sent to key participants in weed management with follow-up interviews where appropriate. Online sources were also used to supplement information provided directly and where no information was provided. A review of key literature on weed management in Australia was conducted to prepare this report. It summarises currently available information and provides an overview of the weed management framework in Australia. Resources expended on weed management are quantified where possible, but given that the data is limited, a reliable total estimate was difficult to formulate.

Weed management will be an ongoing issue for Australia. Australia is a geographically isolated island continent with unique flora and fauna. It has vast areas of native vegetation with sparse human habitation. Australia also has a large dependence on agriculture with over half of the country’s agricultural and forestry produce exported. As a result, many overseas plants that do not occur in Australia pose a serious threat to Australia’s agriculture and environment. Quarantine aims to prevent unwanted incursions, but there is no such thing as zero risk. Even if all international travel and trade ceased, weed seeds could be blown in or float onto Australian shores. Once weeds arrive in Australia, they can be spread by plant propagators, wind, water, animals, birds, on clothing, vehicles and equipment, and by dumping of garden or aquarium waste.

Summary of recommendations • To enhance national co-ordination and consistency of weed management across Australia, the Australian Weeds Committee (AWC) should develop an agreed set of weed management priorities and refine the Australian Weeds Strategy, including a detailed operational plan with measurable action items, for implementation in each jurisdiction and region. The AWC should monitor the implementation of this Strategy, using the Strategy to drive the delivery of consistent legislation across jurisdictions as well as to co-ordinate weed management programs so that they are applied in a nationally consistent manner against the endorsed weed priorities.

• The remit of the AWC should encompass the findings and responsibilities of: o the Australian Weeds Strategy, o the National Weeds Management Facilitator position, o the Weeds Australia website, o the Weeds of National Significance initiative, and

o the weed surveillance and reporting networks that have been established at a state and local council level. • A national program should logically address the current differences that various jurisdictions have in weed definitions and legislation, aiming for a nationally consistent system of weed classifications. • A national program should also implement the recommendations from the Australian Weeds Strategy including: o Funding a National Weed Awareness Action Plan to increase community and government understanding of weed spread as a prerequisite to achieving long-term management of weeds. o Establish a nationally coordinated weed alert and early warning system that includes effective surveillance mechanisms. • Include emergency weeds1 in the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed.

• Continue investment in a national weeds R&D program to deliver research results that assist in a coordinated, nationally focused weed management program that has the ability to address issues that cross jurisdictions. Encourage research and development programs that include herbaria, education courses and training, biological controls and studies on how best to engage with indigenous Australians to facilitate weed management on their land.

• Work with plant production industries and national parks to develop agreed principles for the management of weeds. This will minimise resistance to chemicals and establish uniform measures for weed management.

• Determine an appropriate balance of funding between the management of existing weeds and the prevention of new weeds in order to obtain the most effective use of limited funds.

• Develop a streamlined registration process for minor uses of chemicals to enable control of environmental weeds and manage the herbicide resistance problem in all agricultural industries.

• Enhance plant import policies to include aquarium plants and seeds of exotic plant species held by Genetic Research Centres.

Prevention of new weeds The Australian Government has prime responsibility for maintaining the biosecurity of Australia’s borders and for preventing new weeds from entering Australia. It is also involved in agricultural and environmental weed policy issues. In 2010-11, 16 new weed species were confirmed in Australia.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) develops quarantine policy, notably regarding plant imports. It assesses all applications to import plants and conducts a Weed Risk Assessment on all exotic plant species before importation. DAFF conducts border inspections, post- entry quarantine and further evaluation of indeterminate plant species proposed for importation. DAFF also administers the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy, which conducts surveys for exotic weeds in neighbouring countries to Australia’s north and conducts surveillance in northern Australia to detect incursions of weeds. DAFF coordinates surveillance, spread prevention, containment, monitoring and eradication of weeds that are already in Australia.

1 Emergency weed: An invasive plant species that would meet the Emergency Plant Pest criteria as defined by the EPPRD.

State and territory governments have various programs to prevent weeds and reduce spread of emerging weeds in their jurisdictions, including national cost-shared eradication programs. Each state and

xvi

territory has a herbarium that houses collections, conducts weed identifications, surveillance and advice, and provides a vital service to state agencies and the community for prevention and management of new weeds.

Local governments report new weed incursions in their areas, and most local councils conduct some level of weed surveys. Agricultural and horticultural industries are also crucial in the frontline to report new weeds. Australia does not have a nationally coordinated weed surveillance or reporting network, but Victoria and Tasmania maintain community-based volunteer weed spotter programs.

Management of existing weeds Protection of public assets is primarily coordinated between Australian state and territory governments, and regional bodies. Coordination has improved over recent years with the establishment of the Australian Weeds Committee, the Australian Weeds Strategy, the National Weeds Management Facilitator position, the Weeds Australia website and the Weeds of National Significance initiative. A number of national governmental consultative committees have been established to facilitate consultation, coordination, cooperation and guidance of policy development between the many stakeholders.

The Australian Government provides funding through the Caring for our Country program for natural resource management, including weeds, and over $200 million was committed between 2008 and 2011 to reduce the impacts of weeds and pest animals. Table 10 and following text gives a breakdown by jurisdiction of over $148 million allocated to weed-related projects.

State and territory governments have primary responsibility for the management of existing weeds in Australia, but the way weeds are managed differs between jurisdictions. Responses by state and territory governments indicated that they spent over $54 million and employed over 600 staff on weed management activities (Table 11), with a further $19 million in grants to local government and community groups for weed management in 2010-11 (Table 12). Each state and territory has different definitions, classifications, legislation and management approaches for declared plants and noxious weeds.

Local governments manage weeds on their lands and in some jurisdictions conduct weed inspections on private land. Some of the local councils in New South Wales have collaborated to form county councils that deliver weed management over larger areas with greater regional coordination and resources. The 105 councils that responded to our questionnaire indicated that they spent a total of $28 million on weeds in 2010-11. Over 75 per cent of this funding came from general rates and environmental levies (Figure 39), but 59 per cent of the respondent councils received some of this funding from the state and/or federal government and/or regional bodies (see Figure 40).

Australia’s 56 Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions have been established to manage the natural resources in their region, including weeds. However, responsibilities, roles and powers of the regional bodies differ greatly between states and territories. Of the ten regional bodies that responded to our questionnaire, investment in weed management ranged from $3.5 million to $170,000 in 2010- 11, and all but one provided grants to the community, but only three provided grants to local governments.

About 1000 weed species impact agriculture and the most serious impacts are in the grains, cotton, rice, hay, vegetable and turf industries. Weeds lower crop yields, increase production costs, contaminate produce and can injure livestock. Problem weeds and their management differ greatly between industries and regions, but most production systems require both chemical and non-chemical control methods. In the last quarter century, farmers adopted no-till production systems that rely on herbicides to control weeds. These systems reduce costs, save fuel and conserve soil, but in some cases overuse has resulted in some weeds developing resistance to certain chemicals. Herbicide resistance threatens the sustainability of no-till production systems.

xvii

Some agricultural industry peak bodies produce weed management manuals or strategies (e.g. for cotton, sugar and pineapple industries) and conduct extension, and the larger industry organisations conduct weed surveillance and research. The nursery and garden industry is attempting to limit the sale of potentially weedy plants and educate the public to buy less invasive plants. Contentious plants are a problem and competing interests have not been resolved for many of them.

Other land managers are responsible for managing weeds on their land. Parks and reserves occupy large areas of public or private land that potentially are sources for weed spread. Weed management is recognised as a significant issue but weeds are managed differently in different states.

Mining increases the risk of weeds spreading and recolonising disturbed sites. In most states, mining licences require an environmental impact statement. Most mining companies have sustainable development policies and plans, and some have specific weed management plans.

Roads, railways, water pipelines and public utilities networks are potential corridors for weed spread. In different states, various government agencies and relevant private companies are responsible for managing weeds on their land, and they vary in their level of collaboration and approaches. Some have weed management plans, but little information was available on the resources invested. The Energy Networks Association, which represents electricity and gas network companies, is developing an industry environmental handbook that will cover weed control, and indicated that all electricity and gas network companies have vegetation management policies, including identification of specific weeds.

Traditional aboriginal ecological knowledge does not embrace the concept of weeds. Aborigines consider some introduced species to be useful plants rather than weeds. Environmental weeds are often not considered a problem unless they impede traditional human activities. Some Aborigines are involved in natural resource management projects that involve weed management, while others conduct surveillance for weed incursions for the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy.

Hundreds of local community groups across Australia are involved in weed management to restore and maintain local bushland. Community volunteers work through formal organisations such as Landcare, Conservation Volunteers Australia and Greening Australia, or smaller informal groups such as local ‘friends of’ groups. The larger, more formal organisations interact with government agencies and many seek funding from governments so they can provide more strategic or regional perspectives and more resources. The smaller groups often work closely with their local government and have little or no interaction with the federal or state governments.

The Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) initiative is a partnership between governments, industry and the community that has delivered a nationally coordinated approach to the management of 20 designated weeds. The governments agreed in 2012 to the addition of 12 species to the WoNS list.

Biological control has a high success rate and high benefit-cost ratios. There have been many success stories of biological control of numerous weed species in Australia without environmental damage, for example Prickly pear (Opuntia cacti), Skeleton weed (Chondrilla juncea) and Salvinia (Salvinia molesta).

Capacity State governments, CSIRO and universities conducted most of the 115 weed research and development (R&D) projects identified in this study. About half of the projects were funded by the Australian Government and almost a quarter by rural industry R&D organisations, with state governments funding fewer projects. However, the National Weeds and Productivity Research Program has ended and not replaced.

There was an even split of R&D projects between agricultural and environmental weeds, although some species can be weeds of both sectors. Most of the projects were about managing existing weeds

xviii

with similar numbers for herbicides, biological control and other control methods. Less than 16 per cent were for prevention of new weeds.

In the agriculture sector, weed research is often relevant to broad-acre cropping and grazing industries, undoubtedly a reflection of the size and resourcing capacity of the industries. Horticulture covers a wide range of crops, many too small to attract research funds or projects, and forestry has no current externally funded R&D projects on weeds.

Eight Australian universities offer formal courses on weeds and there are many vocational education and training courses offered by Registered Training Organisations. Accredited training, recognised by the Australian Qualifications Framework, is required for specific certification or licences to work in the industry, particularly for handling chemicals. Various short courses on weed identification and control are provided by community groups, consultants and technical colleges.

Weeds awareness aims to ensure that the public understands the weed problem, and provides information for community involvement in weed management. Governments, particularly local councils, tend to use low key approaches due to the high cost of mass media. State and territory governments and local councils in each jurisdiction vary greatly in their approach and level of weed awareness activities. The Australian, state and territory governments have good weed websites providing valuable information on weeds. At a local level, awareness-raising activities centre on provision of information through field days, exhibits, booklets, leaflets and articles in the local press.

Discussion Prevention is better than cure Prevention and early intervention are the most cost-effective means to manage weeds, a fact recognised as a key principle in the Australian Weeds Strategy. Stopping weedy species entering Australia is the first and best strategy, and this involves sound science-based import policies and effective quarantine operations. Plant import policies have been considerably tightened over the last 15 years with the implementation of mandatory Weed Risk Assessments and the Permitted Seeds List, which plugged loopholes that previously allowed potential importations of weedy plant species. Despite improvements in plant import policies to prevent potential weed incursions, there are still gaps, such as aquarium plants and seeds of exotic plant species held by Genetic Research Centres.

Once a weedy species is in Australia, preventing its establishment is the next most effective method of weed management. The majority of recently naturalised taxa were introduced deliberately and usually legally, mostly as ornamentals, but several are known to be major weeds worldwide. Early recognition of potential weeds before they naturalise and spread could avoid many problems with management of invasive plants. Once established, weeds become part of the natural environment and complex ecosystems, and must be managed as part of broader natural resource management.

Eradication is feasible only for small infestations

xix

When prevention fails, eradication is the next desirable step in the weed management continuum. Experience and research have shown that eradication is more likely to be successful if the infested area is less than 100 hectares. Given a realistic amount of resources, a typical initial incursion of greater than 1000 hectares is extremely unlikely to be eradicated. Therefore, detecting weeds early in their spread can make the critical difference between eradication being feasible and the need to resort to less effective control methods. A strong case exists for emergency weed incursions to be included in the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed and Plant Health Australia’s remit, to speed up responses to incursions, improving the likelihood of eradication.

Harmonisation needed between jurisdictions Differences between jurisdictions in weed definitions and legislation lead to difficulties in coordination of national weed management programs. Very few weeds have similar classification in all states, and even fewer are listed as weeds in multiple states, reflecting differences in both legislation and impact across different areas. Lack of harmonisation also causes confusion to land managers. The study notes that there have been attempts to simplify the classification of weeds to accommodate the different state classifications, but these have yet to deliver a nationally consistent system. Having a harmonised approach is in line with Strategy 1 of the National Plant Biosecurity Strategy, which aims to “adopt nationally consistent plant biosecurity legislation, regulations and approaches where possible within each state and territory government’s overarching legislative framework”. This strategy is endorsed by the Australian, state and territory governments, together with most of Australia’s agriculture industries. It is hoped that Australia will soon work to have a less confusing approach to weed legislation and definitions.

The Australian Weeds Committee (AWC) provides some prioritisation and coordination between the Australian, state and territory governments, but the AWC could be more effective if it were given greater funding and powers to direct weed management activities. The Australian Weeds Strategy set three broad goals and 45 strategic actions in 2006, and an implementation report on progress is being compiled. Many of the achievements reflect ongoing activities of various stakeholders, and more may be achievable if a more detailed operational plan is developed with clear priorities and directives to jurisdictions and others, and measurable action items. The AWC is currently reviewing the Australian Weeds Strategy. This study welcomes this review and requests that any future plan be framed so that it is relevant to all sectors in Australia.

It has been clearly demonstrated what can be achieved when jurisdictions, industry and the community work together in a nationally coordinated way, for example, the containment and reduction of Bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera) ocupation. The WoNS system has set up this sort of interacting system. The selection of 12 new WoNS is welcomed, but it is important that the original WoNS continue to be managed in a coordinated fashion to ensure that they do not extend their range. There is also an opportunity for jurisdictions and other stakeholders to learn how they might collaborate on other weeds from the WoNS approach. As weeds do not respect borders it is important for all weed managers to work together.

Research and development – Is the investment optimal? Knowledge gained from strategic investments in research and development (R&D) has underpinned many of the successes in weed management. Nearly half of the R&D projects identified in 2012 were funded through the Australian Government’s National Weeds and Productivity Research Program administered by RIRDC. This program concluded in June 2012 and no new weeds R&D program has been announced to date, which is a concern for long-term research planning and resourcing. The absence of national, co-ordinated long-term funding for R&D could lead to a decline in expertise and severely inhibit Australia’s future capacity to solve its weed problems. Since 2008, several other programs and institutions involved in weed research, development and extension have been terminated, leaving significant gaps in national weed focus and coordination.

Funding uncertainty is a source of inefficiency and inadequate planning for researchers, especially for long-term research such as biological control and for smaller industries. Like other aspects of weed management, there is a need for on-going certainty of funding and there are calls on governments to develop a program to deliver research results that assist in coordinated, nationally focused weed management.

Herbaria, education courses and training are also vital to effective ongoing weed management, and must be supported and funded adequately with future certainty to facilitate long-term planning.

Biological control – Is Australia’s resourcing sustainable? Biological control is a long-term, cost-effective method of weed management but the research required for success necessarily takes a long time, so continuity of funding is essential. Unfortunately, there appears to be a decline in the resources available to undertake the research (Figure 61), which could limit the future availability of this approach. There is a strong case for Australia to increase its investment in biological control.

Other land managers – Are they managing weeds adequately? During the course of the study, some concerns were expressed that the management of pest plants in national parks and reserves and along utilities corridors can be a cause of frustration in some districts. Responses on behalf of the managers of parks and utilities indicated that they recognise their responsibilities and most have environmental plans and strategies, including weed management. However, resource constraints, inadequate community consultation and the timing of their weed management activities may lead to a perception that they are not doing enough.

The revolution in the widespread adoption of no-till farming has led to productivity gains and environmental benefits, but relies on the use of herbicides to control weeds. Unfortunately a number of weed species have developed resistance to some herbicides and loss of the effective use of these chemicals threatens no-till systems. Weed resistance to the popular herbicide, glyphosate, is now common along roadsides from Queensland to Western Australia, and its overuse by managers of public and agricultural lands could lead to loss of this effective weed management tool. The efforts of the Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, the Grains Research and Development Corporation and CropLife Australia to further develop and disseminate herbicide resistance management strategies are crucial to sustainable cropping across Australia. Loss of these herbicides would also limit control options for many environmental weeds. Resistance management strategies also need to be incorporated into the weed strategies and weed management operational plans of local governments and other land managers.

Difficulties in registration of herbicides for minor uses have also restricted the availability of some of these invaluable tools for controlling environmental weeds and managing the herbicide resistance problem. This lack of legal access to some essential herbicides needs to be addressed through a streamlined registration process for minor uses.

Indigenous landowners have different views on many weedy species. This report welcomes past and future studies looking at how best to engage with Indigenous Australians to facilitate weed management on their land.

Community support There is currently pressure within government to ensure that weed management and natural resource management projects are more strategic and longer term in nature, with a focus on protecting key assets. This focus on larger priority projects may disenfranchise those interested in protecting the local bush, such as local community volunteers.

xxi

Weed awareness is inadequate Weed awareness is not promoted well. Valuable information on weeds and weed management activities is available on websites, in printed material and at targeted events for those who are interested and know where to look. Mass media campaigns are very expensive with benefits hard to quantify, so low key approaches are more usual. It is disappointing when national programs, such as Weedbusters, are not supported, because such programs provide a coordinated focus for weed awareness activities.

The Australian Weeds Strategy calls for a National Weed Awareness Action Plan to increase community and government understanding of the pathways for weed spread as a prerequisite to achieving long-term management of weeds.

Reporting of new weeds by the public is not well organised. There are so many bodies involved in weeds that people are unsure of who they should contact. A strategic action of the Australian Weeds Strategy is to “Establish a nationally coordinated weed alert and early warning system that includes effective surveillance mechanisms” but this has not been implemented. To complement surveillance by governments, a one-stop-shop could be established for the public to assist identification and reporting of new weeds.

Conclusions This study of weed management gives an overview of the huge current and potential impacts of weeds in Australia and a snapshot of the large amount of financial and human resources invested by many diverse players through all levels of society in managing them. Determining what is actually spent on weed management is very difficult because it is a part of Australia’s efforts in biosecurity and natural resource management. Furthermore, government agencies and other bodies report in different ways.

Considerable progress has been achieved in weed management over the last 15 years, particularly in tightening plant import policy, adopting integrated weed management on farms and engaging the community. National coordination has improved with the establishment of the Australian Weeds Committee, Australian Weeds Strategy and Weeds of National Significance.

Despite many significant successes, weeds will be an ongoing problem and one that is likely to worsen, particularly if resources are withdrawn. There are increasing threats of new incursions due to human travel and trade, and weeds will continue to spread in the absence of human intervention. Ongoing effort is required, not just to maintain the status quo, but also to protect Australia’s agriculture and environment into the future. However, that effort requires optimum prioritisation and coordination across jurisdictions.

If we are to continue to make a difference, then we must be better organised, coordinated and strategic. Australia will never be able to tackle all its weed problems, and the report agrees with the current approach that focuses on reducing the spread of new weeds, eradicating outlier infestations and protecting key assets within core or major infestation areas. It is apparent from this study that Australia does have a robust system that is tackling the weed menace at all levels, but there are opportunities for the system to be enhanced and improved.

xxii

About this study Introduction This report presents a comprehensive study of the status of weed management in Australia. It is a landmark study that identifies the key stakeholders involved and outlines their roles in weed management in Australia. It also highlights the vital role played by the community. It explores why weeds are an essential element of Australia’s biosecurity and whether there is a need for a greater emphasis on weeds as a biosecurity issue.

Plant Health Australia (PHA) was commissioned by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) in 2010 to conduct the project to assist future investment in weed management and ensure that it is strategic, effective and economic. The specific objectives of the project were to: 1) Collect and collate information on weed management from all stakeholders in Australia.

2) Analyse the collated information and conduct a literature review.

3) Test with selected stakeholders.

4) Produce a published report for use by stakeholders.

5) Include summary information from the review in the National Plant Biosecurity Status Report.

The project aims to take a snapshot of who is doing what in weed management in Australia and the interactions of key stakeholders. It looks at the weed management framework at all levels, an overview of major resources invested (particularly in 2010-11), and preparations for future weed management. The report attempts to draw brief conclusions on what is working well and where the system could be improved.

Methods Used in This Study The first element of this project was to identify all sectors that might be affected by weeds.

A questionnaire was sent to most of these groups seeking information on their involvement in weed management in 2010-11. Survey questionnaires were sent to relevant Australian, state and territory government departments and agencies, local governments, regional natural resource management bodies, herbaria, agriculture industry peak bodies, public utilities, research organisations and community volunteer groups involved in weed management. Face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted with a number of individuals and organisations to collect primary information and follow up questionnaire responses. Information was obtained from the internet, to supplement information provided directly or where no information was provided.

A review of key literature on weed management in Australia was compiled and used in the preparation of this report. An internet search on weed management in Australia revealed over 60,000 publications, but only key publications of national or broad importance were scanned.

Questions were asked in the surveys about financial and human resources expended on weed management, particularly for the 2010-11 financial year. Many organisations did not, or could not, identify or quantify all the resources invested on weeds. In this report, resources spent are quantified

where figures are available, but it is very difficult to estimate the total resources expended on weed management in Australia.

Many stakeholders did not respond to the survey questionnaire or were unable to provide all the data requested, which made it difficult to document the complete picture. Where possible, survey responses were supplemented with information from other sources such as the internet and personal contact. This report summarises the information available at the time and provides an overview of the current weed management framework in Australia and the roles of the key players, but it is not exhaustive.

The structure of this report is based on the goals of the Australian Weeds Strategy. After an introduction on the importance of weeds in Australia (Chapter 1) and an overview of who is involved (Chapter 2), the following chapters cover prevention of new weeds (Chapter 3), reducing the impact of existing weeds (Chapter 4) and enhancing Australia’s capacity and commitment to solve weed problems (Chapter 5). The final chapter discusses the findings and draws some conclusions on how well the system works.

CHAPTER 1.

Weeds – How important are they?

1.1 What is a weed? While everyone knows what a weed is, there are many different ideas and definitions of weeds, depending on your perspective. What some people regard as a weed may to others be a pretty flower, or even a commercial crop plant.

A weed, in a general sense, is a plant that is considered to be a nuisance, and the term is usually applied to unwanted plants in human-controlled settings.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines a weed as “a wild plant growing where it is not wanted”. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary goes further: “a plant that is not valued where it is growing and is usually of vigorous growth; especially one that tends to overgrow and choke out more desirable plants…”

Ever since humans first cultivated plants, we have been fighting weed invasions into crop areas. Some unwanted plants later were found to have unsuspected virtues and so were no longer considered weeds and were even cultivated. Other cultivated plants were grown in new climates, escaped cultivation and became weeds. So the list of weeds is ever changing and the term is a relative one.

Plants are usually classed as weeds because they are deleterious to human activities. A more reactive human-centred definition is “a plant that requires some form of action to reduce its harmful effects on the economy, the environment, human health and amenity.”

Plants can be considered weeds for a wide variety of reasons: they may compete with commercial crops or garden plants, contaminate harvested crops, cause allergies, have spines or burrs, poison livestock, spread plant diseases, crowd out indigenous plants, invade forests, clog waterways, harbour pest animals or host insect pests or plant pathogens of cultivated plants.

Weeds have major economic, environmental and social impacts in Australia, causing damage to natural landscapes, agricultural lands, waterways and coastal areas.

Weeds typically produce large numbers of seeds, assisting their spread. They are often excellent at surviving and reproducing in disturbed environments and are commonly the first species to colonise and dominate in these conditions.

A weed can be an exotic species or a native species that colonises and persists in an ecosystem in which it did not previously exist. Weeds can inhabit all environments from urban areas to forests, grasslands, rivers, oceans, deserts and alpine areas.

A plant species can be a weed in one environment (e.g. tropical) and benign in another (e.g. temperate or coastal), for example, Bellyache bush (Jatropha gossypifolia) and Mimosa (Mimosa pigra) only in northern Australia, or vice versa, Bridal veil (Asparagus declinatus), Golden dodder (Cuscuta campestris), Pampas grass (Cortadiera spp.), Ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) and Willows (Salix spp.) only in temperate southern Australia. Some species are weeds in both agricultural and natural environments, for example, Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg.) and Lantana (Lantana camara). Other species are considered weeds in only one situation, for example, Serrated tussock (Nasssella trichotoma) is primarily a weed of sparse pastures and grasslands, but does not compete well in dense bushland, whereas Cabomba (Cabomba caroliniana) is only an aquatic environment weed.

Figure 1: Mimosa (Mimosa pigra) invasion (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

In an agricultural context, weeds are unwanted plants that compete with commercial crops for space, light, water and nutrients, contaminate harvested produce or damage livestock or their products. The direct effects of weeds and the costs of controlling them increase the cost of food. Weeds of rangelands and pastures may be unpalatable, or even poisonous, to animals or may have burrs or spines that can cause injuries to livestock.

Some garden plants, such as Broom (Cytisus scoparius and Genista spp.), can become invasive weeds on farms. On the other hand, some commercial crops, such as Blackberries (Rubus fruticosus agg.) and Olives (Olea europaea), can become invasive weeds in bushland. These are sometimes called contentious plants or conflict species.

Commercial weeds are species from which commercial products may be harvested, but which have negative economic, social or environmental impacts. An example is Paterson’s curse (Echium plantagineum), considered a weed and extremely toxic in many agricultural settings but valued by bee keepers as a source of quality honey and by graziers as a source of livestock feed during drought. The costs of negative impacts are commonly borne by those who are negatively affected, while those who cultivate or harvest the plants obtain the benefits.

An environmental weed is a weed that is in some way deleterious to the environment. Environmental weeds are naturalised exotic species that have invaded areas of natural vegetation and negatively impact native species diversity or ecosystems. Environmental weeds are often referred to as invasive plants because they invade natural ecosystems and crowd out native plants. They can reduce biodiversity and have adverse effects on animals, birds or fish through changing habitat, food sources or being poisonous. Invasive species are considered the greatest threat to natural environments after land clearing.

In our riparian zones, aquatic weeds block and pollute waterways, reducing water quality and destroying native fish habitats.

Figure 2: Garden escapes competing with native vegetation in a coastal setting (Figure courtesy of PHA)

Weeds in the garden are unwanted plants that compete with ornamental, lawn, fruit and vegetable plants. Some weeds are poisonous or can have annoying burrs or thorns. Many imported ornamental plant species have escaped from gardens, naturalised in the wild and become major invasive weeds threatening the natural environment.

Weeds also have a social impact, with some weeds having adverse effects on people’s health, recreation, safety and/or aesthetics. Some weeds can cause allergies, spoil natural landscapes and affect recreational use of natural areas. They can reduce the amenity of parks, gardens, recreation areas, forests and landscapes.

1.2 Economic impacts of weeds The economic impact of weeds is difficult to quantify. The stakeholders surveyed for this study were asked about their costs, and while most attempted to answer this question, most answers were qualified preventing an accurate assessment being made.

The most comprehensive estimate of the cost of weeds to Australia put the total economic cost in 2001-02 at over $4 billion annually (Sinden et al., 2005). The main economic impacts were on agriculture, but the landmark study was unable to estimate the impacts of weeds on the outputs of natural environments or in urban areas. The figure included costs of control, decreases in yields, and reductions in economic surplus. The impacts of weeds on primary production included all three measures, but, due to lack of data, the impacts of weeds on natural environments, other public land and indigenous land, could only be measured as the costs of control. The figure also included expenditure on research and weed management, but was considered to be a conservative estimate and the figure has undoubtedly increased since that time.

Weeds reduce agricultural output, decreasing farm income and increasing the cost of food to consumers. The Sinden study estimated that the combined annual loss to farmers and consumers in 2001-02 was $3,442 – 4,420 million. It was estimated that about 80 per cent of this annual mean loss fell on farmers and 20 per cent on consumers. The annual loss of $3,927 million was 0.5 per cent of Australia’s gross domestic product and 14 per cent of the value added by agriculture to the economy (Sinden et al., 2005). These impacts in agriculture were calculated as the change in farm income and the cost of food with and without weeds. The difference is the maximum benefit that could be achieved by reducing the weed population, so it represents the size and national significance of the problem.

1.3 Environmental impacts of weeds Weeds are one of the major threats to Australia's natural environment. Major weed invasions change the natural diversity and balance of ecological communities. These changes threaten the survival of many plants and animals because weeds compete with native plants for space, nutrients and sunlight.

Almost all of Australia's native vegetation communities have been invaded, or are vulnerable to invasion by exotic species that could result in changes to the structure, species composition, fire frequency and abundance of native communities.

Figure 3: Invasive weeds crowding out native vegetation in a coastal setting (Figure courtesy of PHA)

Nationally, invasive plants continue to invade the land with exotic species accounting for about 15 per cent of flora. About one-quarter of them are either serious environmental weeds or have the potential to become serious weeds. Approximately 2,300 weed species are considered a problem for natural ecosystems in Australia and about ten species are added to the list of invasive weed species yearly.

Weeds can out-compete native plants because the pests or diseases that would normally control them in their natural habitats are no longer present and the disturbed environment provides different conditions that better suit the invading weed.

As a result, the weed may: • grow faster than native plants and successfully compete for available nutrients, water, space and sunlight • reduce natural diversity by smothering native plants or preventing them from growing back after clearing, fire or other disturbance • replace the native plants that animals use for shelter, food and nesting. Weeds are often excellent at surviving and reproducing in disturbed environments and are often the first species to colonise and dominate in these conditions.

Rubber vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora) is an example of an introduced invasive weed that could destroy entire unique ecosystems. It was introduced into Australia as an ornamental shrub in 1875, but it is a vigorous climber that has the potential to completely destroy all deciduous vine thickets in northern Queensland, possibly leading to the extinction of many plant and animal species.

Figure 4: Rubber vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora) (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

Weeds in the ocean spread over wide areas in a very short time. Introduced seaweeds came to notice in Australia in the early 1980s in the ballast water of ships but have probably been invading since European settlement. They are now invading marine environments along the coast of south-eastern Australia.

1.4 Social impacts of weeds Some weeds can have adverse effects on people’s health, recreation, safety and aesthetics. For example, one of the Weeds of National Significance, Parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus), produces pollen that contains potent allergens that can cause reactions such as dermatitis and hay fever. Weeds like Ryegrass (Lolium species) produce pollen that can cause hay fever and other allergies in sensitive people. Other weeds, such as Oleander (Nerium oleander), Blackberry nightshade (Solanum nigrum), Silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) and Castor oil plant (Ricinis communis), are poisonous.

Figure 5: Parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus) (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

Many weeds have annoying thorns, spines, burrs or sticky seeds that can cause injuries to humans, pets and livestock. They are annoying to gardeners and add to the costs of gardening and park management, as well as acting as reservoirs for some diseases and pests of vegetable plants and ornamentals.

Many aquatic weeds, such as Salvinia (Salvinia molesta), cause safety hazards and interfere with recreational activities such as swimming and fishing and also reduce the aesthetic value of lakes and streams. Weeds also spoil natural landscapes and affect recreational use of natural areas for activities such as bushwalking and water sports. They can also increase the risk of bushfire and harbour feral animals.

Figure 6: Harvesting Salvinia (Salvinia molesta) on the Nepean River, NSW (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

Weed control along road and rail corridors is also undertaken for safety considerations to ensure that plants do not obstruct line of sight on road and rail networks. 1.5 How are weeds spread? The most important mechanism for long-distance spread of weeds is human travel and trade. Humans have transported large numbers of plant species between continents to propagate them for ornamental, horticultural or agricultural use. In the past, most plants were imported legally with little recognition or assessment of their weediness potential, some were imported illegally and others hitchhiked on goods or clothing. Many plant species became weeds when grown in new environments, often in the absence of their natural enemies.

Other plants are naturally contentious, regarded by some as economic crops [e.g. Blackberries (Rubus fruticosus agg.), Olives (Olea europaea)] or beautiful ornamentals [e.g. Brooms (Cytisus and Genista spp.), Agapanthus (Agapanthus spp.)], but recognised as invasive weeds by others. Dumping of garden waste has spread many weeds into the natural environment.

There is a potential for the movement of seeds via international travellers and cargo as well by the mail ordering of seeds via the internet. Marine weeds can be transported in ship ballast water or on hulls, and improper importation or disposal of aquarium plants poses a threat of waterweed infestation of waterways.

Figure 7: Cabomba (Cabomba caroliniama) infestation of waterway (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

Within Australia, weed seeds can be spread on the fur or in the gut of animals (including livestock and horses), birds or on clothing and boots. Weeds can be transported as contaminants in soil, grain, hay and mulch or on vehicles, machinery and boats.

The natural spread of weeds is usually much slower and over relatively small distances. A few plant species produce seeds that can be transported long distances by wind or water. Floods and heavy rains are an important vector. The increased flow of water through rivers and over usually dry or irrigated land greatly increases the water-borne dispersal of seeds and plants parts that can begin new infestations in areas where they had not been previously.

Seeds of thousands of species, varieties and cultivars of crop, pasture and horticultural plants were imported into Australia before 2006 with little assessment of weediness potential, and are now held in germplasm banks in research institutions and botanic gardens. Biosecurity Plant (DAFF) is systematically assessing the species held in these collections for weediness potential before allowing further releases into the environment for research, commercial or ornamental purposes.

A generalised invasion curve demonstrating a typical weed management program is shown in Figure 8, starting with a prevention program and finishing with asset protection. In general terms, management systems are modified as the area occupied by the weed increases. This is because the economic returns of control tend to decrease as the weed spreads. In other words, prevention usually provides a higher return on investment than eradication, eradication is better than containment and containment is better than managing impacts of widespread invasive species (with the exception of biological control). This analysis is valid whether the returns derive from protecting primary production, protecting the environment or some combination of the two.

Figure 8: Generalised invasion curve showing actions appropriate to each stage (Source: DPI, Vic)

Hester et al. (2004) indicated that every $1 invested in eradication programs of newly established weeds results in benefits of between $9.90 and $26.80.

1.6 National weed lists At a national level, there are a number of recognised lists of weeds of national interest (or ways of defining weeds). These are:

Weeds of National Significance Weeds of National Significance (WoNS), identifies 32 of Australia’s worst weeds for coordinated national action, listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Weeds of National Significance

Scientific name Common name

Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligator weed

Tamarix aphylla Athel pine

Chrysanthemoides monilifera Bitou bush/Boneseed

Rubus fruticosus agg. Blackberry

Cabomba caroliniana Cabomba

Nassella neesiana Chilean needle grass

Ulex europaeus Gorse

Hymenachne amplexicaulis Hymenachne

Lantana camara Lantana

Prosopis spp. Mesquite

Mimosa pigra Mimosa

Parkinsonia aculeata Parkinsonia

Parthenium hysterophorus Parthenium weed

Annona glabra Pond apple

Acacia nilotica subsp. indica Prickly acacia

Cryptostegia grandiflora Rubber vine

Salvinia molesta Salvinia

Nassella trichotoma Serrated tussock

Salix spp. except S. babylonica, S. calodendron Willows except Weeping willow, Pussy willow and S. reichardtii and Sterile pussy willow

Additional WoNS from April 2012:

Scientific name Common name

Lycium ferocissimum African boxthorn

Asparagus aethiopicus, A. africanus, A. Asparagus weeds asparagoides, A. declinatus, A. plumosus and A. scandens

Jatropha gossypiifolia Bellyache bush

Scientific name Common name

Cytisus scoparius, Genista monspessulana, Brooms Genista linifolia

Macfadyena unguis-cati Cat’s claw creeper

Senecio madagascariensis Fireweed

Andropogon gayanus Gamba grass

Anredera cordifolia Madeira vine

Opuntia spp. (excludes O. ficus-indica), Opuntioid cacti Cylindropuntia spp., Austrocylindropuntia spp.

Sagittaria platyphylla Sagittaria

Solanum elaeagnifolium Silverleaf nightshade

Eichhornia crassipes Water hyacinth

National Environmental Alert List Table 2 lists plant species that are in the early stages of establishment and have the potential to become a significant threat to biodiversity if they are not managed. This List was developed in 2000 by the then Department of the Environment and Heritage with the Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management and other experts, and identifies 28 non-native weeds that have naturalised populations in the wild. Species were identified for the Alert List based on three criteria: • Posing a high or serious potential threat to the environment • Having limited distribution within Australia at present • Being amenable to successful eradication or containment programs.

Table 2: Australia's Alert List for Environmental Weeds

Scientific name Common name

Acacia catechu var. sundra Cutch tree

Acacia karroo Karroo thorn

Asystasia gangetica ssp. micrantha Chinese violet

Barleria prionitis Barleria

Bassia scoparia Kochia

Calluna vulgaris Heather

Chromolaena odorata Siam weed

Cynoglossum creticum Blue hound’s tongue

Cyperus teneristolon Cyperus

Cytisus multiflorus White Spanish broom

Dittrichia viscosa False yellowhead

Equisetum spp. Horsetail species

Gymnocoronis spilanthoides Senegal tea plant

Hieracium aurantiacum Orange hawkweed

Koelreuteria elegans ssp. formosana Chinese rain tree

Lachenalia reflexa Yellow soldier

Lagarosiphon major Lagarosiphon

Nassella charruana Lobed needle grass

Nassella hyalina Cane needle grass

Pelargonium alchemilloides Garden geranium

Pereskia aculeata Leaf cactus

Piptochaetium montevidense Uruguayan rice grass

Praxelis clematidea Praxelis

Retama raetam White weeping broom

Senecio glastifolius Holly leaved senecio

Thunbergia laurifolia Laurel clock vine

Tipuana tipu Rosewood

Trianoptiles solitaria Subterranean Cape sedge

Figure 9: Mimosa (Mimosa pigra) invasion, Finnis River, Northern Territory (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

Permitted Seeds List The Permitted Seeds List, administered and maintained by Biosecurity Plant within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, lists all plant species that are permitted entry into Australia and details of their import conditions in the Import Conditions database (ICON).

Prohibited List The Prohibited List of plants specifies species that are prohibited entry into Australia, mainly because of weediness potential or potential to carry pests and diseases. This list is maintained by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Sleeper weeds Sleeper weeds are plants that have currently established only small wild populations but have the potential to spread widely and affect agricultural or natural environments. Significant environmental damage and control costs can be prevented if these weeds can be eradicated before they become widespread. Agricultural sleeper weeds are naturalised exotic plants, that are currently only present in small areas but that have the potential to spread widely and have a major impact on agriculture.

In 2003 the Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS), in consultation with the Australian Weeds Committee, short-listed 17 potential agricultural sleeper weeds. BRS prioritised 10 species for which eradication was thought to be both desirable and feasible. The list has four categories:

Category 1 - Species that are considered to have been eradicated but are recommended for ongoing field monitoring:

Scientific name Common name Extent in Australia

Crupina vulgaris Common Crupina SA

Eleocharis parodii Parodi spike rush NSW

Piptochaetium montevidense Uruguayan ricegrass Vic

Category 2 - Species for which recent field surveys are complete and that are recommended for immediate eradication:

Scientific name Common name Extent in Australia

Asystasia gangetica ssp. Chinese violet NSW micrantha

Baccharis pingraea Chilquilla NSW

Centaurea eriophora Mallee cockspur SA

Nassella charruana Lobed needle grass Vic

Oenanthe pimpinelloides Meadow parsley, Water SA, Vic dropwort

Onopordum tauricum Taurian thistle Vic

Category 3 - Species considered suitable for eradication, but for which field surveys on distribution are recommended to confirm feasibility of eradication:

Scientific name Common name Extent in Australia

Aeschynomene paniculata Pannicle jointvetch Qld, NT

Gmelina elliptica Badhara bush Qld

Rorippa sylvestris Creeping yellow cress Tas, SA

Category 4 – Species whose eradication is desirable but probably not feasible, and for which field surveys on distribution are recommended to confirm this assessment:

Scientific name Common name Extent in Australia

Brillantaisia lamium Giant tropical salvia Qld

Cuscuta suaveolens Chilean dodder SA

Hieracium aurantiacum Orange hawkweed Tas, Vic

Froelichia floridana Snakecotton Qld

Hypericum tetrapterum Square-stalked St John's wort Vic, Tas

Species targeted for eradication This list identifies the six species targeted for national eradication under the National Resource Management Ministerial Council's National Cost-Sharing Eradication programs.

These programs map and monitor the full distribution of the species, and coordinate or undertake activities to eradicate that species from Australia. The programs involve extensive community engagement to identify infested areas and conduct targeted weed surveys for weed control to identify research components. The National Four Tropical Weeds Eradication Program targets: • Clidemia hirta (Koster's curse) • Limnocharis flava (Limnocharis) • Mikania micrantha (Mikania vine) • Miconia calvescens, M. racemosa, M. nervosa (Miconia).

Figure 10: Koster’s curse (Clidemia hirta), Queensland (Figure courtesy of Biosecurity Queensland)

Figure 11: Limnocharis (Limnocharis flava) at Feluga, N. Queensland (Figure courtesy of Biosecurity Queensland)

Figure 12: Miconia (Miconia racemosa) (Figure courtesy of Biosecurity Queensland)

The Siam Weed Eradication Program targets Siam weed (Chromolaena odorata). The Branched Broomrape Eradication Program targets Branched broomrape (Orobanche ramosa), but the eradication program was changed to a ‘Transition to management’ program in 2012.

Figure 13: Fumigating soil to control the parasitic plant, Branched broomrape (Orobanche ramosa) (Figure courtesy of PIRSA)

Species targeted for biological control For the list of plants that are target species for biological control, see Appendix 2. In addition to the national lists above, each state and territory government has its own definitions of noxious weeds, which are discussed in detail in Chapter 4.

1.7 Weed management Weeds are among the most serious threats to Australia's natural environment and primary production industries. They displace native species, contribute significantly to land degradation, and reduce farm and forest productivity. Australians spend much time and money each year combating weed problems and protecting ecosystems and primary production on private and public land.

Agricultural weeds are controlled primarily for economic reasons, but also for environmental protection and sustainability. As well as the direct effects on crops and animals, some weeds can act as alternative hosts for plant diseases and pests.

Environmental weeds are managed to protect native and desired plant and animal species, ecosystems and biodiversity. They are also managed to maintain access to recreational areas and for fire prevention.

Weeds in parks, gardens, recreation areas, roadsides and urban areas are managed largely for aesthetic reasons, but sometimes for safety reasons.

Weed management can be defined as any activity that reduces the adverse impacts of weeds. This could involve quarantine, surveillance, monitoring, containment, eradication, tillage, grazing, herbicides, biological control, burning and integrated weed management (IWM).

Weed management measures are tailored according to the type of weed, situation, area of infestation, other plants in the area, labour required and economics. In agriculture and forestry, weeds are most commonly controlled by herbicide sprays, tillage, slashing, grazing, burning, or a combination of appropriate measures (Integrated Weed Management).

Environmental weeds are commonly controlled by selective herbicides, physical removal or biological control, depending on the type of weed, environment, area of invasion and labour available. Aquatic weeds can be harvested in accessible, small areas, but selective herbicides are needed to control widespread infestation if safe, registered products are available.

Weed management can be classified into one of four approaches: • prevention • eradication • containment • asset protection.

These four categories can be thought of as matching the invasion process of a weed species from arrival through to widespread establishment.

Figure 14: Weeds establishment and management timeline

The area invaded increases over time and the management approach differs: • prevention of new species arriving usually involves quarantine activities • eradication aims to remove newly arrived or naturalised weeds (e.g. Siam weed, Chromolaena odorata)

• containment aims to reduce the spread and/or severity of established weed infestations and is usually attempted when the weed is too widespread for feasible eradication (e.g. Bitou bush, Chrysanthemoides monilifera spp. rotundata) • asset protection aims to protect assets from the impacts of established weed species. Assets may be environmental (including catchments), agricultural, fisheries or community (health or recreational). Examples of weeds impacting on diverse assets include Lantana (Lantana camara), Boneseed (Chrysanthemum monilifera ssp. monilifera), Hymenachne (Hymenachne amplexicaulis) and Prickly pear (Opuntia cacti).

Figure 15: Lantana (Lantana camara) invasion of a forest (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

1.8 National coordination of weed management

Australia’s biosecurity Plant biosecurity is a set of measures that safeguards the economy, environment and community from the negative effects of plant pests. A fully functional and efficient biosecurity system is a vital part of the future profitability, productivity and sustainability of Australia’s plant production industries and is necessary to preserve the Australian environment.

The old adage ‘prevention is better than cure’ holds true for weeds. Prevention of incursions is also much cheaper than eradication. This is evident from the success of Australia’s border screening of plants when applied appropriately, compared to the damage and threats of invasive weeds, the limited success of eradication attempts and the ongoing costs of weed management.

As well as the direct adverse effects of weeds on Australian agriculture and the environment, weeds can carry pests and diseases, such as viruses, that can then infect crops and native plants, e.g. wheat streak mosaic virus, sugarcane mosaic virus or exotic strains of barley yellow dwarf virus. Therefore, weeds pose multiple biosecurity risks.

The Australian Government holds primary responsibility for pre-border and border biosecurity matters, including international phytosanitary obligations, export certification, trade negotiation and quarantine. The Government also coordinates and formulates national policy and, under some circumstances, provides financial assistance for national plant pest surveillance and control programs. Australian state and territory governments, in conjunction with plant industries, take a more direct role in post-border biosecurity.

Much of this work is progressed through national and international committees, which ensure consultation and cooperation are facilitated effectively. Key areas overseen by national committees include pest risk mitigation, control and eradication activities and a forum for negotiation of domestic quarantine arrangements (rules that govern interstate trade).

The national committee structure (Figure 12) provides the framework for Australian state and territory governments to work together in serving the country’s overall plant biosecurity interests. The committees guide and coordinate the various institutions responsible for delivering plant biosecurity outcomes. Additional linkages to other organisations involved in plant biosecurity are provided by Plant Health Australia (PHA).

Figure 16: National governmental consultative committees

Primary Industries Committees The Standing Council on Primary Industries (SCoPI) – formerly the Primary Industries Ministerial Council (PIMC) – is the peak government forum for consulting, coordinating and integrating government action on national primary industries issues. The membership of SCoPI includes ministers from the Australian Government, Australian state and territory governments, and the New Zealand Government, who are responsible for agriculture, food, fibre, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture industries, and rural adjustment policy.

SCoPI is supported by the Primary Industries Standing Committee (PISC), which comprises the heads of the Australian national, state and territory and New Zealand government departments concerned with agriculture, as well as representatives of the Bureau of Meteorology and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

National Biosecurity Committee PISC is in turn supported by the National Biosecurity Committee (NBC). The NBC is responsible for managing a national strategic approach to emerging and ongoing biosecurity policy issues across jurisdictions and sectors (primary production and the environment). It also monitors the development and implementation of the Inter-Governmental Agreement on Biosecurity (IGAB). The committee provides leadership to a range of supporting committees, including the Plant Health Committee (PHC).

Plant Health Committee PHC supports NBC by providing strategic policy, technical and regulatory advice on plant biosecurity matters. It also guides a range of organisations through the establishment of national standards, and facilitates a consistent national approach to legislative outcomes and standards within the plant biosecurity sector.

PHC is primarily concerned with improving biosecurity for Australia’s plant production industries and contributing to safe domestic and international trade. PHC’s membership comprises representatives from the Australian Government, the state and territory governments, Plant Health Australia, CSIRO, and the Research Priority Coordination Committee. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Biosecurity New Zealand, the Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity, and the Australian Plague Locust Commission have observer status.

Australian Weeds Committee The Australian Weeds Committee (AWC) is an inter-governmental mechanism for identifying and resolving weed issues at a national level. It is a sub-committee of NBC. It has representatives from all states and territories, the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, with the Chair provided by the NBC. The CSIRO, PHA and the National Weeds Management Facilitator are observers.

AWC’s Terms of Reference are to ensure an integrated and effective national approach to the prevention and management of weed problems by reporting to and advising NBC on the following matters: • Provide policy advice and report as directed or at the discretion of the NBC to NRM Standing Committee on national weed issues. • Support the implementation of the Australian Weeds Strategy by facilitating and coordinating consistent national action on weed tasks.

• Encourage the incorporation of weed management as an integral component of natural resource management at national, state and regional levels. • Facilitate the delivery of weed initiatives within the national biosecurity framework. Implement a communications strategy, for increasing the profile of weeds throughout the community, government and key stakeholders. • Encourage monitoring and evaluation of that national weed management effort. The AWC oversees the implementation of the Australian Weeds Strategy (AWS), which is the overarching policy for weed management in Australia. The AWS outlines goals and actions required to keep Australia's economic, environmental and social assets secure from the impacts of weeds.

National Weeds Management Facilitator In 2010-11, the AWC was assisted in its role by the National Weeds Management Facilitator (NWMF), John Thorp Australia. The NWMF is the first point of contact for national weeds information, the Australian Weeds Strategy and the Weeds Australia web site (www.weeds.org.au), which contains a purpose built search facility of Australian weeds. The site also contains summaries of state and territory weeds legislation, lists the noxious weeds of Australia and carries a weed identification tool.

Australian Weeds Strategy The Australian Weeds Strategy (AWS) is the overarching policy for weed management in Australia that provides a framework to establish consistent guidance for all parties, and identifies priorities for weed management across the nation, with the aim of minimising the impact of weeds on Australia's environmental, economic and social assets.

Figure 17: Relationship between weeds policy and strategies

The original National Weeds Strategy was released in 1997 to provide a national framework to reduce the economic, environmental and social impact of weeds and to improve coordination and integration of weed management efforts nationally. Achievements included: • National agreement on cost-sharing arrangements and action on the priority National Weed Eradication Programs. • The development of the Weeds of National Significance initiative. • Establishment of guidelines and principles to promote consistency in state and territory weed legislation. • Development of weed management strategies for all states and territories. The National Weeds Strategy was revised by the AWC, and endorsed as the Australian Weeds Strategy by the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council on 24 November 2006. The revised Strategy maintains the policy focus of the National Weeds Strategy, taking into account changes to the institutions, legislation, policies and programs that support weed management in Australia. The AWC recently commenced a review of the AWS.

The Australian Weeds Strategy is a vital part of Australia's integrated approach to national biosecurity, and complements other existing and new national strategies for invasive species, such as those for terrestrial vertebrate pests and marine pests. The Strategy has three major goals: • Prevent new weed problems. • Reduce the impact of existing priority weed problems. • Enhance Australia’s capacity and commitment to solve weed problems.

The AWS can be found via the Weeds Australia website or a pdf version can be down loaded via http://www.weeds.gov.au/publications/strategies/weed-strategy.html.

CHAPTER 2.

An overview of who is involved in weed management in Australia

2.1 Introduction The relationship between key stakeholders involved in the management of weeds in Australia is shown below in Figure 14. The key organisations involved in weed management are colour coded to reflect their involvement in weed prevention, management and/or enhancing capacity.

Figure 18: Main jurisdictions and organisations involved in weed management in Australia

2.2 Government agencies

Australian Government While constitutionally, weeds are a state issue, the Australian Government does have a significant role, like all land owners or managers, as it has a responsibility to manage weeds on its own land. The Government is also responsible for maintaining Australia’s border protection and as such, provides the front line policy and screening to prevent new ‘weedy’ plant species entering Australia.

The Australian Government also administers a major natural resource management program, Caring for our Country (CfoC), which provides funding for natural resources projects, including weeds, for regional natural resource management bodies, state, territory and local governments, indigenous groups, industry bodies, land managers, farmers, Landcare groups and the community.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) have the primary responsibility at the Australian Government level.

State and territory governments At the state and territory level, the primary industries and environmental agencies have primary responsibility for weed issues, either singly or in coordination with other departments and agencies. Table 2.1 sets out the responsibilities of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments in weed management.

Table 3: Commonwealth, state and territory government responsibilities in weed management

Jurisdictional Agency Jurisdictional Responsibilities

Australian Government

Department of Agriculture, • quarantine policy including weed risk assessments and Fisheries and Forestry import policies • quarantine operations including border inspections, post-entry quarantine, Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy • weeds policy and program delivery, jointly with DSEWPaC, through Caring for our Country Department of Sustainability, • weeds policy and program delivery, jointly with DAFF, Environment, Water, through Caring for our Country Populations and Communities

APVMA • regulation of herbicides

New South Wales

Department of Primary • weeds policy, programs and research; administers the Industries Noxious Weeds Act 1993

Office of Environment and • strategies for lands under National Parks and Wildlife Heritage Act 1974

Victoria

Department of Primary • policy, programs, research and enforcement of noxious Industries weeds legislation and management of prohibited weeds

Department of Sustainability • management of weeds on public lands and Environment

Queensland

Department of Agriculture, • weed policy, programs and research; administers the Fisheries and Forestry Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002

Department of Environment • weed management in national parks and reserves and Resource Management

Western Australia

Department of Agriculture • management of agricultural and declared weeds and Food • state border security

Jurisdictional Agency Jurisdictional Responsibilities

Department of Environment • management of weeds on DEC-managed lands and and Conservation waters

South Australia

Department of Primary • policies and research on declared weeds under the Industries and Resources Natural Resources Management Act 2004 South Australia

Department of Environment • administers the Natural Resources Management Act and Natural Resources 2004 • weed management in national parks and funding Tasmania

Department of Primary • weed policy and administration of the Weed Industries, Parks, Water and Management Act 1999 Environment • border security through administration of the Plant Quarantine Act 1997 Northern Territory

Department of Natural • weed policy; administers the Weeds Management Act Resources, Environment, the 2001 Arts and Sport

Australian Capital Territory

Territory and Municipal • weed control in nature reserves, national parks, rural Services Directorate lands and urban open areas

Environment and Sustainable • weeds policies and grant programs; administers the Development Directorate Nature Conservation Act 1980.

2.3 Legislation governing weeds The Commonwealth, state and territory Acts which deal in whole or part with weeds in Australia are summarised below. The legal status of invasive plants of national importance was summarized by Glanznig and Kessal (2004).

Commonwealth legislation The Quarantine Act 1908 established the procedures for a national quarantine protocol and inspection service. The Act describes administration arrangements for the Act, provisions for decisions affecting the environment and in general terms quarantining vessels, persons, goods, animals, plants and known vectors of disease. It outlines the enforcement powers, offences, warrants, stopping powers and penalties granted by the Act, and the delegation of authority to quarantine officers. It has the power to supersede state quarantine under certain conditions, as determined by the Governor-General.

The Quarantine Proclamation 1998 prohibits all plants from entering Australia until they are formally assessed for weediness and/or appear on the Permitted Seeds List (Schedule 5).

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places, defined as ‘matters of national environmental significance’ in the Act. The eight matters of national significance apply to: world heritage sites; national heritage sites; wetlands of international importance; nationally threatened species and ecological communities; migratory species; Commonwealth marine areas; the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; and nuclear actions.

The Act also confers jurisdiction over actions that have significant impact on the environment where the actions affect, or are taken on, Commonwealth land or by a Commonwealth agency. This Act does not supersede any state or territory legislation, so any approvals needed under this Act may also need approval by relevant state, regional and local legislation.

This Act defines Key Threatening Processes (KTP), and species that have significant impact on existing ecosystems if they are introduced or established. Threat Abatement Plans (TAP) are prepared by DSEWPaC under this Act to respond to KTPs. Two KTPs related to weed management currently listed are ‘Invasion of Northern Australia by Gamba grass and other introduced grasses’ and ‘Loss and degradation of native plant and animal habitat by invasion of escaped garden plants, including aquatic plants.’

The Biological Control Act 1984 provides for the approval, importation and release of biological control agents for specific targeted organisms, and the process by which the applications progress. This Act relates to weed management, as many plants become weeds in Australia because they are freed from their natural predators and competitors in the Australian environment. Importation of biological control agents is an effective method of controlling and suppressing exotic weeds, such as the Cactoblastis cactorum moth for controlling Prickly pear (Opuntia stricta).

Herbicides are regulated under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992 and the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) administers the National Registration Scheme for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals.

State and territory legislation New South Wales

The Noxious Weeds Act 1993 provides for the identification, classification and control of noxious weeds in NSW. Noxious weeds can be declared by the relevant Minister, who can also specify control measures and objectives, specify land areas for the declared noxious weed, and specify the term of the order (5 years or less). Plants native to NSW cannot be declared noxious weeds under this Act, unless with the consent of the Minister administering the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. This Act puts the onus of control of weeds on landowners and local governments.

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 relates to the establishment, preservation and management of ‘National Parks, historic sites and certain other areas and the protection of certain fauna, native plants and Aboriginal objects’ in NSW, which includes issues related to weed management. The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) is responsible for the weed management strategy development and implementation in areas designated by this Act.

The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 relates to conserving threatened species, populations and ecological communities and also amends the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The Act lists important invasive species, including some weeds, as Key Threatening Processes (KTPs). OEH is responsible for the development, coordination and reporting of state-wide strategic initiatives related to these KTPs. The list of KTPs in this Act is consistent with the KTPs listed in the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003 established the Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) and ‘devolved to them certain natural resource management functions in their regions’. Under this Act, each CMA must prepare a Catchment Action Plan (CAP) that outlines natural resource work in the region over a 10-year period, one target of which is specifically related to invasive species. In addition to the CAPs, many CMAs have a dedicated weeds strategy that documents approaches for various weeds.

The Environmental Trust Act 1998 established the NSW Environmental Trust, an independent statutory body, to support exceptional environmental projects that do not receive funds from usual government sources. The Trust’s main responsibility is to make and supervise the expenditure of these grants. The NSW Environmental Trust is administered by the OEH.

Victoria

The Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 provides for the classification and control of noxious weeds, the establishment of protection for industry, community and the environment, the prevention of spread of declared noxious weeds by banning sale or trade of whole plants, plant parts and seeds of declared noxious weeds. This Act requires landowners to take all reasonable steps to eradicate and prevent the growth and spread of regionally controlled weeds. The State Government is responsible for taking reasonable steps to eradicate State prohibited weeds. This Act also established the ten CMAs in Victoria.

The Water Act 1989 provides CMAs with regional waterway, floodplain, drainage and environmental water reserve management powers.

The Fisheries Act 1995 provides for the legislative framework for fishery and aquatic habitat management, and provides for the declaration of ‘noxious aquatic species’ and makes it an offence to possess, sell, transport or release them.

The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 established legal and administrative frameworks to enable and promote conservation of native flora and fauna. Part of this Act relates to the management and control of nominated ‘threatening processes’ that can affect native flora and fauna, such as invasion by weeds.

The Local Government Act 1989 contains provisions for councils to enact local by-laws targeting specific weeds.

Queensland

The Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 together with the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Regulation 2003 provides a pest management framework, as well as stock route management frameworks for Queensland. On issues of weeds, it establishes processes for the declaration of weeds; restricting introduction and trade; preventing spread of declared weeds; establishing responsibility for weed management; creating pest management strategies; establishing pest management committees; creating permits and offences related to weeds and other pests; the obligation of landholders to control weeds and pests; how to act in emergencies, including control, quarantine and offences; the establishment of the Land Protection Council; survey programs; and the powers, role, authority and responsibility of authorised persons under the Act.

The Local Government Act 2009 contains Local Law provisions for local governments to declare and enforce control of any weeds not declared under the Land Protection Act.

The Land Act 1994 has provisions requiring control of weeds declared under the Land Protection Act on leasehold land.

Western Australia Legislation used to manage agricultural weeds within Western Australia to date has been the Agricultural and Related Resource Protection Act 1976 (ARRPA). The Plant Diseases Act 1914 and the Seeds Act 1981 are also used to manage weeds in some capacity, especially at the point of entry (i.e. the state border). These acts and a number of others will be superseded by the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007 (BAM Act) in 2012-13. The Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Regulations are being developed and are expected to be in place from 1 July 2012. Information on the BAM Act can be found at www.agric.wa.gov.au and at www.biosecurity.wa.gov.au. Two elements of the BAM Act that are relevant to weed management in WA have already been enacted – these are the Industry Funding Schemes and Recognised Biosecurity Groups. Information on these can be found at www.biosecurity.wa.gov.au.

The Industry Funding Schemes (IFSs) are a mechanism for addressing biosecurity threats to specific agricultural industries, and they allow grower contributions to be raised and directed towards the management of those biosecurity threats. The Grains, Seed and Hay Industry Funding Scheme Management Committee now oversees the management programs in place in WA for the cropping weeds, Skeleton weed (Chondrilla juncea) and Three-horned bedstraw (Galium tricornutum). Recognised Biosecurity Groups (RBGs) are in the process of being established. Several are already operational (or are close to being so) in the rangelands (pastoral) regions. Their establishment in the agricultural south-west of the state is being progressed. RBGs will deal largely with widespread, well- established pests (weeds and animals) that are of concern to the RBG’s area. RBGs will be composed of a wide range of individuals who represent an area’s land use and interests, and will have the capacity to raise funds for pest management by means of a Declared Pest rate. Funds raised by RBGs for Declared Pest management can be matched by direct government funding.

The BAM Act provides for control of certain organisms and their declaration as pests; use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals; identification and attainment of standards of quality and safety for agricultural products, animal feeds, fertilisers and other substances and things; the establishment of a Declared Pest Account, Modified Penalties Revenue Account and accounts for industry funding schemes; and related matters. Section 22 relates to ‘declared pests’ and related matters. The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) has responsibility to control declared pests on land administered by it. However, the regulations relating to this Act have yet to be put in place, so control is administered under the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act 1976, which states “A Government department shall control declared plants and declared animals on and in relation to public land under its control”. This BAM Act will supersede the Plant Diseases Act 1914 and the Seeds Act 1981 in terms of border control of weeds when it comes into force in 2012-13.

The Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 makes provisions for the use, protection and management of certain public lands and waters, the conservation of native flora and fauna, and the establishment of Authorities responsible for these goals. Weed management is implemented by DEC under this Act to achieve conservation and land management goals.

The Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 makes provisions for the protection and regulation of practices related to fauna and flora. DEC has responsibilities under this Act to undertake effective weed management to conserve threatened species.

South Australia

The Natural Resource Management Act 2004 contains provisions for management of declared plants and animals as part of the sustainable management of the state’s natural resources. It also provides for the prevention or control of impacts caused by pest species of animals and plants that impact on environment, primary production or the community. This Act is administered by the State Minister for

Environment and Conservation. The Act also established the NRM Regional Boards to act as managers for their region’s natural resources.

The Plant Health Act 2009 contains provisions for control, destruction and suppression of weeds such as Branched broomrape. This Act is administered by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

Figure 19: Roadside sign to prevent spread of Branched broomrape (Orobanche ramosa) (Figure courtesy of PIRSA)

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 provides for the establishment and management of reserves for public benefit and enjoyment, conservation of wildlife in a natural environment and other purposes. Weed management in these areas is mentioned in this Act.

Tasmania

The Plant Quarantine Act 1997 regulates the import of plants and plant material into Tasmania. It details procedures for declaration of weeds; control areas, programs and agreements; appointment and powers of inspectors; importation and quarantine of prohibited plants; and other related elements such as costs, liability and other general matters.

The Weed Management Act 1999 regulates the control and management of declared weeds in Tasmania. This Act declares 115 weeds including generic weed groups listing multiple species. Weeds declared under this Act must have a documented Weed Management Plan, which must be reviewed every 5 years. It also contains the role, power and responsibility of inspectors.

Amendments to this Act in 2011 included an update of 102 weed management plans and the declaration of four new weeds.

The Natural Resource Management Act 2002 established the three Tasmanian NRM regions and committees, and devolved to them certain resource management functions within their regions.

Northern Territory

The Weed Management Act 2001 provides all forms of weed management in the Northern Territory. The Act describes the process for the declaration of weeds; development of management plans;

responsibilities of landholders in weed management and control; the creation of Weed Advisory Committees; establishing Quarantine and Cleaning Areas; the authorisation, roles, powers and responsibilities of Weed Management Officers and other Authorised Persons; and the penalties for offences under this Act.

The Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2001 contains provisions to protect and manage parks and wildlife in the Northern Territory. Any plant, even if declared protected wildlife by this Act, can have that status voided by being declared a noxious weed under the Weed Management Act.

The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 2004 controls the categorisation, registration, availability and use of products that can be used to control weeds.

Australian Capital Territory

The Pest Plants and Animal Act 2005 aims to protect the ACT’s land and aquatic resources from threats from pest plants and animals, and to promote a strategic approach to pest management. This Act describes the process for declaring a plant as a weed, preparations of weed management plans, prohibition of weeds for sale or trade, reckless use of weed-contaminated machinery and weed disposal. The Act classifies weeds into four categories, C 1-4, and makes a note that all Salix spp. (Willows), apart from three exceptions, are weeds under this legislation.

The Nature Conservation Act 1980 provides for the protection of native plants and animals in the ACT, management of the conversation reserve network, and management authority for conservation lands. It establishes a legal underpinning of nature conservation policy, management and action across the ACT. Weed management in ACT conservation lands is mentioned in this Act.

Figure 20: Weedy plants making access very difficult (Figure courtesy of PHA)

2.4 Local governments All local governments across Australia are required to manage weeds on lands that they control, own or manage, such as vacant Crown lands, within their jurisdiction. This includes public lands, parks and conservation reserves, roadsides and verges, footpaths, and other relevant parcels of land. Other powers, interactions and responsibilities for weed management at a local government level vary according to state. Generally, local governments are not responsible for weed management on private land, national parks or utility- and privately-owned land.

2.5 Regional bodies The Australian Government, in association with state and territory governments, has identified 56 natural resource management regions covering all of Australia which are based on catchments or bioregions. Each NRM region is responsible for engaging the local community in the management of the natural resources in that region, including the management of invasive pests.

2.6 Agricultural industries In an agricultural context, weeds compete with commercial crops for space, light, water and nutrients resulting in reduced yields and poorer crop quality, and can contaminate harvested produce. For livestock industries, weeds compete with pasture grasses, reducing the carrying capacity of the land, and can injure livestock through physical injury, poisoning and/or contaminating fleeces. Agricultural producers spend significant time and resources controlling weeds. Weeds significantly increase the cost of food production in Australia.

A 2004-05 Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of issues facing agricultural industries found that weeds were the most commonly reported natural resource management issue affecting landowners. Almost three quarters (73 per cent) of farmers reported that weeds were a serious issue, compared to almost half (46 per cent) of farmers reporting soil and land issues and 38 per cent reporting water issues.

The impact of weeds differs between industries, with the most serious impacts in the grains, cotton, rice, hay, vegetable and turf industries. As well as lowering crop yields and increasing production costs, weed contamination can significantly lower the quality of produce and prevent some commodities from meeting export standards, affecting domestic and international market access.

Weed management forms the foundation of most plant protection programs in Australian agricultural systems. Most production systems require the implementation of both chemical and non-chemical control methods to reduce losses associated with weeds.

2.7 Responsibilities of other land managers All land owners and managers have a responsibility to control weeds on their land, as weeds do not respect boundaries and borders. Landholders who do not manage weeds on their property aid the spread of the weeds to other properties in the district. Chapter 4 will outline how many weeds are managed on:

• national parks and reserves • defence lands • land for road and rail authorities • land used by utilities, including gas, power, telecommunications, water • land for mining

• indigenous lands.

2.8 The community While governments, NRM bodies, industry and large landholders play a significant role in weed management, the community also plays a vital role. The community is involved, from advocating for local bushland to be restored, including removing pest plants and animals, to the physical work to clear the land. Government investment is vital as it is the catalyst for much of this work, with community involvement resulting in many times that investment.

There are many ways that individuals can become involved from being a member of a weed society or volunteering with a Landcare type group, to forming or joining a ‘friends of’ group to protect local bushland. Individuals can also be involved in the front line in spotting and reporting new weeds in their area to authorities.

Figure 21: Volunteers cutting weeds in bush (Figure courtesy of D. English)

2.9 State herbaria Herbaria across Australia play are important role in identifying new and unusual plants sent to them by weed and NRM professionals and members of the public. With early detection and identification, the chances of successful eradication increase. More details are provided in Chapter 3.

2.10 Research and development Good research and development underpins a strategic (well managed) approach to weed management. Research and development is increasing our understanding of the vectors for weed invasion, the biology of weedy plants, and giving Australia better tools to manage weedy species. Details are provided in Chapter 5.

2.11 Education and training A number of formal courses are offered at tertiary institutions around Australia allowing weed and NRM professionals to gain a better understanding of weed management. Other vocational courses, training and workshops are provided, particularly for farmers and members of the public, in more specific and practical aspects of weed management. More details are provided in Chapter 5.

CHAPTER 3.

What are we doing to prevent new weeds?

3.1 Introduction Since European settlement of Australia, over 28,000 plant species have been introduced, mostly for pasture, horticulture or ornamental use. Of these, over 2,500 species have become naturalised and 65% came from urban gardens and parks (Martin, 2003). Dr Richard Groves, CSIRO Plant Industry, claimed recently that there are now more foreign plant species in Australia than native ones. Nearly 300 plant species established themselves as weeds in the wild between 1971 and 1995. Of the 460 pasture and legume species trialled in northern Australia from 1947 - 1985, 60 became weeds and only four proved useful without also causing weed problems (Martin, 2003). With increasing trade and movement of people, the risks of further weedy species entering Australia will increase without effective coordinated action.

A partnership of governments at all levels, regional bodies, industries and community groups are involved in preventing weed incursions (Figure 17).

Figure 22: The relationship between key bodies involved in weed prevention

3.2 Role of the Australian Government The Australian Government has primary responsibility for preventing new weeds from entering Australia, through the Quarantine Act 1908 and the Quarantine Proclamation 1998. The Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) administers this quarantine function by conducting quarantine activities including: • quarantine policy, particularly Weed Risk Assessments and import policies (pre-border) • quarantine operations, including border inspections, post-entry quarantine and the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy • post-border operations, including coordination of surveillance, spread prevention, containment, monitoring and eradication.

DAFF currently lists 23 plant species in its Exotic Weeds Watch List of threats to primary industries and asks that people report any weeds they suspect are exotic to Australia, noting that early detection is the key to minimising the impacts of exotic weeds in Australia. The 23 exotic plants are listed alphabetically by common name in Table 4.

Table 4: Exotic weeds watch list

Scientific name Common name

Austroeupatorium inulaefolium Austroeupatorium

Orobanche ramosa Branched broomrape

Asystasia gangetica ssp. micrantha Chinese violet (a form of)

Mucuna pruriens Cow itch

Cyperus teneristolon Cyperus teneristolon

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil

Cleome rutidosperma Fringed spider flower

Equisetum hyemale Horsetail

Acacia karroo Karoo thorn

Hieracium praealtum King devil

Bassia scoparia Kochia

Clidemia hirta Koster's curse

Lagarosiphon major Lagarosiphon

Limnocharis flava Limnocharis

Nassella tenuissima Mexican feather grass

Miconia calvescens Miconia

Mikania micrantha Mikania

Hieracium pilosella Mouse-ear hawkweed

Hieracium aurantiacum Orange hawkweed

Chromolaena odorata Siam weed

Piper aduncum Spiked pepper

Trianoptiles solitaria Subterranean Cape sedge

Striga asiatica Witchweed

Of the 23 exotic weeds, 11 have been found in Australia since 1993. Some are now established but under active management.

Case study: Mexican feather grass

Mexican feather grass (Nassella tenuissima) is an example of a plant that evaded Australia’s quarantine barriers, and highlights the need for quick action after detection of an incursion. This invasive plant was first detected in Victorian nurseries in 1998. In 2004 these plants were found at 3 garden sites in NSW, and in 2008 the first recorded naturalised populations were removed from a national park site in the ACT.

In 2007 a Victorian wholesale nursery imported seed of ornamental stipoid grasses from overseas. That seed was subsequently propagated for sale in early 2008. It is believed that the seed was either mislabelled or contaminated with Mexican feather grass. An estimated 4,000 Mexican feather grass plants were sold through retail stores in Victoria, NSW and Queensland, and 1000 plants were sold interstate under at least two erroneous names, including Stipa species, which DAFF lists as permitted imports, whereas Nassella species are prohibited. Following prompt action by Victorian DPI officers and retailers, suspect plants were removed from sale and a State-wide recall was initiated.

Mexican feather grass is now in Victoria, NSW, ACT, Queensland and WA, but it is not known to be naturalised anywhere in Australia at present. It is now a declared pest plant throughout Australia and is declared a noxious weed in all states and territories except Tasmania. This means it is illegal to import, buy, sell, propagate, plant or move the weed. However, it is still advertised as an ornamental garden plant on internet sites of many overseas garden suppliers.

Mexican feather grass is a weed in its native range of southern USA, Chile and Argentina. It is regarded as an unpalatable grass and has been classified as a non-preferred species that can become dominant under continual heavy grazing pressure. It is a low protein, high fibre grass that has no grazing value. Pure stands of Mexican feather grass would render a paddock worthless for grazing. It is a perennial tussock grass that is drought tolerant. In New Zealand and California, it has spread from cultivation as a garden plant, become naturalised and proven difficult to control. It is also a declared pest in South Africa. Mexican feather grass is closely related to Serrated tussock (N. trichotoma) and Chilean needle grass (N. neesiana), both WoNS in Australia.

Climate modelling suggests that 14 million hectares of southern Australia are at risk of serious invasion, but the total area of Australia at risk could be up to 169 million hectares. There are no registered herbicides for Mexican feather grass control in Australia. The potential impact of this weed in Australia could be about $39 million over the next 60 years. Each plant can produce 70,000-100,000 seeds per year and the seed bank can persist for four years. Seeds readily stick to clothing and livestock and can also be spread on farm machinery, by flooding or as a contaminant of seeds and fodder.

The net economic benefit of eradication could be $41-102 million over the next 5 years, if eradication were possible. Even though Mexican feather grass is recognised as a significant weed threat in Australia and is currently not widely established, it is not considered technically feasible to eradicate the weed nationally. Currently, all jurisdictions regulate, appropriately search for and control it where detected, so it is apparently being contained. However, long-term vigilance is required to prevent further spread or new incursions.

Figure 23: Mexican feather grass (Nassella tenuissima) (Figure courtesy of Biosecurity Victoria, Department of Primary Industries)

Table 5: New and potential weeds in Australia in 2011

Scientific Name Common Name Detection

Aristida longespica Slimspike three-awn Victoria. New to Australia. Invasive potential unknown

Bituminaria bituminosa Arabian pea or Pitch South Australia. New to Australia; trefoil weed risk low

Crassula sarmentosa ssp. Crassula sarmentosa South Australia. New to State; sarmentosa weed risk low?

Cyperus esculentus Yellow nutsedge South Australia. New to State; weed risk to production and natural ecosystems

Echium candicans Pride-of-Madiera South Australia. New to Australia; weed risk low

Scientific Name Common Name Detection

Escallonia macrantha Common pink Escallonia South Australia. New to Australia; weed risk low

Heteropogon contortus Bunch speargrass or Black South Australia. New to State; speargrass weed risk unknown

Limnobium laevigatum Amazon frogbit or West Queensland. Newly naturalised Indian spongeplant

Nassella leucotricha Texas needle grass Tasmania. New to State

Solanum viarum Tropical soda apple Queensland. New to State

Tamarix ramosissima Salt cedar Western Australia. Eradication underway

In 2000, the Australian Government identified 28 weed species that have limited distribution but potentially could cause significant damage and are amenable to successful eradication. These species were placed on the National Environmental Alert List (Table 2). Environmental Alert weeds are introduced species in their early stages of establishment, but with potential to become a significant threat to biodiversity.

It is not only imported plant species that can become weeds in Australia. Some native species have become weeds in Australia when spread beyond their original range (e.g. Cootamundra wattle, Acacia baileyana). Some Australian native species have become weeds when introduced to countries outside Australia in that they have major negative impacts on the biodiversity of natural ecosystems in those countries (Groves, 2001). For example, A. baileyana is classed as a Declared Invader weed in South Africa and has also become naturalised in New Zealand. In the same way, some native plants are invasive in natural ecosystems within Australia when they are moved from one biogeographic region to another, usually for horticultural purposes. Furthermore, some native plants, especially bird-dispersed species, may respond to changes in local environments and move beyond their indigenous range to impact on other ecosystems within the one biogeographic region.

Prevention of weed incursions can be viewed as a continuum which can be divided into three main areas of activity, all conducted by DAFF:

• pre-border

• border

• post-border.

3.3 Pre-border The first step in preventing weed incursions is to develop sound policy on the importation of plants across the national border and this is carried out by Biosecurity Plant in DAFF. Quarantine policy determines what plants are prohibited, what plants can be imported and the import conditions.

Biosecurity maintains a public-accessible database (ICON) on Australian import conditions for more than 20,000 plant, animal, microbial, mineral and human products.

This ICON database may be searched at http://www.aqis.gov.au/icon32/asp/ex_querycontent.asp. Biosecurity Plant develops and reviews plant quarantine policy for imports and exports and determines what plants can legally enter Australia.

Prohibited List Before 1998, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) regulated plant imports through a small Prohibited List. This meant that any plant species not on the Prohibited List could be imported into Australia with minimal assessment of weediness potential, and since European settlement, over 28,000 plant species have been introduced, mostly for pasture, horticulture or ornamental use.

Plant screening process In 1994, the Australian Weeds Committee commissioned a workshop on protocols for screening plants proposed for importation into Australia that gave guidelines (Panetta et al., 1994) for a three- tiered plant screening process:

• tier 1: Check species with reference to prohibited and permitted lists and Australian distribution • tier 2: Pre-entry weed risk assessment; possible recommendations are ‘accept’, ‘reject’ or ‘further evaluate’ • tier 3: Post-entry evaluation.

Permitted Seeds List Consistent with Tier 1 of the plant screening process recommended by the AWC, DAFF shifted its approach in regulating plant imports from using a small ‘Prohibited’ List to a larger ‘Permitted’ List in 1998 (Walton, 2001). All 6,600 plant entries on the Permitted Seeds List were deemed low risk and were therefore allowed unrestricted importation into Australia. Under Section 63 of the Quarantine Proclamation 1998, the importation of seeds is prohibited without a permit, unless the species is on the Permitted Seeds List. Prospective importers are now required to provide DAFF with information on the species by completing an AQIS Plant Introduction Form.

Biosecurity Australia finalised a review of the Permitted Seeds List (Schedule 5 of the Quarantine Proclamation 1998) in 2006. The review involved replacing 2,913 genus listings with the species within those genera that are already present in Australia and not under ‘official control’ (as defined by the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures no. 5 of the International Plant Protection Convention). In 2010-11, Schedule 5 of the Quarantine Proclamation 1998 was amended to remove 164 species reassessed as noxious weeds or plants posing a risk of introducing exotic seed-borne diseases.

Weed Risk Assessment system Tier 2 of the plant screening process involves pre-entry weed risk assessment (Panetta et al., 1994). AQIS adopted the current Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) system in 1997. The implementation of the WRA system was a component of the National Weeds Strategy and was funded by the Natural Heritage Trust.

Since 2006, Biosecurity Plant (formerly Biosecurity Australia) in DAFF subjects all plant species that are not on the Permitted Seeds List to a Weed Risk Assessment before importation is permitted into Australia. The WRA is a computer-based system devised to identify plant species that are potential quarantine pests; possible recommendations are ‘accept’, ‘reject’ or ‘further evaluate’. The WRA system uses information on a taxon's current weed status in other parts of the world, climate and environmental preferences and biological attributes (Pheloung et al., 1999). This system is now used to assess all new plant imports that can be propagated, whether they enter Australia as seeds, nursery stock or tissue culture regardless of their intended end use. The WRA system has been found to determine the weed potential of those species that pose a weed risk to the Australian environment and/or agriculture while resulting in less species being classified as requiring further assessment and thus having no decision made on their weed status. The WRA system has a high success rate in predicting weed potential and performed better than earlier systems adopted by the Australian Government (Pheloung, 2001).

DAFF consults with the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) when necessary to assess the potential environmental impact of weedy plants.

Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy In addition to legal importation of plants, weeds can enter Australia by natural or illegal means, so it is important to be aware of the potential weed threats on Australia’s doorstep. DAFF conducts surveillance and monitoring of weed threats in Australia’s nearest neighbouring countries.

The Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy (NAQS) was established within DAFF in 1989 to help identify and manage the unique quarantine risks of pests, including weeds, entering Australia through natural and uncontrolled pathways from neighbouring countries to the north. This national program, now administered by Biosecurity Plant, aims to prevent and manage incursions through the northern coastal border, including developing and implementing measures for the early detection of targeted weeds.

NAQS contributes to surveillance and monitoring activities in neighbouring countries for early signs of targeted weeds, pests and diseases. In addition to its pre-border and border surveillance, NAQS surveys coastal areas of northern Australia for early signs of targeted weeds and new weed incursions. NAQS developed an exotic weed watch list and has detected several exotic weed incursions in Queensland, which are now subject to ongoing eradication programs: • Chromolaena odorata (Siam weed) in 1993 • Mikania micrantha (Mile-a-minute) in 1998 • Limnocharis flava (Yellow burrhead) in 2001 • Croton hirtus (Hairy croton) in 2004.

Figure 24: Mikania (Mikania micrantha) flowering (Figure courtesy of Biosecurity Queensland)

Figure 25: Mikania (Mile-a-minute) (Mikania micrantha) is under eradication (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

3.4 Border If the Weed Risk Assessment of a plant species proposed for importation cannot give a clear ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ recommendation and the importer wishes to proceed with approval to import, the plant is further evaluated.

Tier 3 of Australia’s plant screening process involves post-entry evaluation either in the field or in glasshouse trials to examine directly the weed potential (and/or verify potential uses) so that ultimately the species can be placed on either the prohibited or permitted list. The Tier 3 system involves two categories of plant:

• Plants for which insufficient information is available to complete the WRA questionnaire. Glasshouse trials may be conducted in Australia or data collected overseas to obtain the necessary information. • Plants whose risk cannot be determined sufficiently by the WRA questionnaire. Experimental trials are required to determine the level of risk once control methods have been demonstrated. The trials have to be funded by the group proposing importation (mostly Australian Genetic Resource Centres) and conducted on premises approved by quarantine (Walton, 2001).

Border controls DAFF also manages quarantine controls at Australia’s borders to minimise the risk of exotic diseases and pests, including weeds, entering the country. Biosecurity Plant in DAFF conducts quarantine operations, including border inspections, post-entry quarantine and NAQS monitoring of natural and uncontrolled incursion pathways.

DAFF also provides import and export inspection and certification to help retain Australia’s highly favourable animal, plant and human health status, and wide access to overseas export markets. Passengers, cargo and mail arriving at Australia’s main entry points are required to meet quarantine conditions. Quarantine officers use a number of techniques including assessment of declarations, X- ray machines, detector dogs, visual inspection and surveillance, supported by scientific expertise at international airports, seaports, mail exchanges and container depots to detect items of quarantine concern.

Figure 26: Quarantine inspection of plants at the national border (Figure courtesy of PHA)

DAFF Biosecurity has a strong framework to manage potentially invasive weed species and to prevent the entry of weeds likely to affect the environment and agricultural production. DAFF Biosecurity inspects all consignments of seed imported into Australia for contamination with weed seeds. Individual lines or lots of imported seed (less than 8 mm size) with a combined weight greater than 10 kilograms are currently sampled by a DAFF Biosecurity officer in accordance with International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) procedures and submitted to specialist seed analysis laboratories for examination. Seed consignments less than 10 kilograms are only referred to an ISTA laboratory for analysis if contaminants are detected during on-arrival inspection. Consignments are only released if the results meet AQIS weed seed and soil contamination requirements.

DAFF will accept seed consignments without ISTA analysis on arrival provided that the consignment is accompanied by a seed analysis certificate issued by a DAFF-approved ISTA-accredited seed testing laboratory. Seed consignments for sowing that are found to be contaminated are subject to cleaning, resampling, export or destruction.

Table 6: Number of rejected consignments failed inspection due to soil or weed contamination from the South East Region (2011, DAFF)

Month No. of Pass Fail % failure consignments

January 34 30 4 12

February 51 28 23 45

March 155 140 15 10

April 96 82 14 15

May 81 58 23 28

June 159 130 29 18

July 90 79 11 12

August 126 95 31 25

September 106 90 16 15

October 108 93 15 14

November 118 100 18 15

December 101 87 14 14

TOTAL 1225 1012 213 17

In 2010 AQIS seized 35,402 consignments of seeds and 9,415 items of plant material from mail centres and air and sea passengers. Some 25,356 seed items and 6,037 items of live plant material were recovered at international airports alone.

DAFF works closely with other government agencies, including customs and immigration, to support their management of post-border detections and incursions of quarantine pests and diseases and to support its own verification and certification activities for agriculture and food products. The DAFF Annual Report shows that AQIS spent $444 million on quarantine and export services in 2010-11, but this covered all pests and diseases of plants and animals, not just weeds.

3.5 Post-border Weeds that are already within Australia’s borders (i.e. native species and incursions) are the responsibility of states and territories with some coordination by the Office of the Chief Plant Protection Officer (OCPPO) in DAFF, in collaboration with DSEWPaC. The OCPPO employs two staff and invests $2.1 million per annum.

OCPPO has a role in preparedness and responding to plant health issues such as incursions of emergency plant pests, and coordinates and manages eradication and containment programs if weed incursions occur. This involves extensive liaison with state and territory government agencies and industry, facilitated by the National Environmental Biosecurity Response Agreement, the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity, and in partnership with Plant Health Australia.

DAFF has compiled a list of new weeds recorded in Australia that are of concern to the country's plant health officials. The list covers exotic weeds that have been found in Australia from 2008 back to 1996, and is tabulated below chronologically by year (Table 7).

Table 7: Recent incursions of exotic weeds of concern (from DAFF website)

Scientific name Common name Detected

Nassella tenuissima Mexican feather grass Victoria, 2008. Subject to a national response

Acacia karroo Karoo thorn Queensland, 2008

Croton hirtus Hairy croton Queensland, 2004

Mikania micrantha Mikania vine Queensland, 2003. Under national eradication

Miconia calvescens, M. Miconia species Queensland, 2003. Under national racemosa, M. nervosa eradication

Hypericum canariense Canary Island St. Johnswort Western Australia, 2002

Miconia racemosa Camasey helpa Queensland, 2002

Phytolacca rivinoides Venezuelan poke weed Queensland, 2002

Neurada procumbens Sand button, Creeping thorn rose Northern Territory, 2002

Hieracium pilosella Mouse-ear hawkweed Tasmania, 2001

Limnocharis flava Limnocharis, Sawah flower rush Queensland, 2001. Under national eradication

Cyperus surinamensis Tropical flatsedge Western Australia, 2001

Clidemia hirta Koster's curse Queensland, 2001. Under national eradication

Eulophia graminea None (a tropical orchid) Northern Territory, 2001

Galactites tomentosa Milk thistle Victoria, 2001

Cleome rutidosperma Fringed spider flower Northern Territory, 2000

Blainvillea gayana Blainvillea Queensland, 2000

Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed Australian Capital Territory, 1999

Chromolaena squalida Chromolaena Queensland, 1998

Mikania micrantha Mile-a-minute Queensland, 1998. Under national eradication

Nassella tenuissima White tussock grass Victoria, 1998

Of the 20 weed incursions detected from 1993 to 2007, two have been eradicated (Cleome rutidosperma and Eulophia graminea in NT), Orobanche ramosa is still present and the others are being monitored. Nine of these incursions are currently being managed under national cost sharing arrangements.

In 2010-11, only 16 new weed species were confirmed in Australia, which, given the nation’s high level of international trade and tourism, illustrates the effectiveness of the surveillance and detection system.

Plant pest incursion management OCPPO is also responsible for managing the national cost-shared invasive weed eradication programs. The national eradication program is cost-shared among all jurisdictions that are either affected by the pest, or could potentially be affected by that pest in the future if the pest were to spread. The Invasive and Emergency Response section monitors the state responsible for running the eradication program, ensuring that they accomplish the program’s Annual Response Plan activities. OCPPO coordinates national weed eradication programs involving state and territory governments, in partnership with the Australian Weeds Committee. Table 8: National Eradication Program

Scientific name Common name

Orobanche ramosa* Branched broomrape*

Clidemia hirta Koster’s curse

Limnocharis flava Limnocharis

Miconia calvescens, M. racemosa, M. nervosa Miconia

Mikania micrantha Mikania vine (Mile-a-minute weed)

Chromolaena odorata* Siam weed*

* Moved from eradication program to ‘transition to management’ program.

Figure 27: Branched broomrape (Orobanche ramosa) parasitising a carrot (Figure courtesy of PIRSA)

Figure 28: Miconia (Miconia calvescens) is under eradication (Figure courtesy of Biosecurity Queensland)

Figure 29: Miconia (Miconia nervosa) is under eradication (Figure courtesy of Biosecurity Queensland)

There is also a National Weed Incursion Plan (Morton, 2008), based largely on national response plans and endorsed by the Australian Weeds Committee.

Plant Health Australia Plant biosecurity in Australia operates as a partnership between governments and industries. Through this partnership, responsibilities for maintaining the integrity and performance of the plant biosecurity system are shared. Consequently, governments (Commonwealth, states and territories) and industries all contribute to the functioning and maintenance of Australia’s biosecurity system.

In the event of an identified exotic pest incursion, it is important that all stakeholders are able to respond quickly and effectively in a coordinated manner to mitigate the potential threat posed by the pest. In Australia, this response in the plant biosecurity sector is uniquely facilitated through an independent not-for-profit company, Plant Health Australia (PHA).

PHA is the national coordinator of the government-industry partnership for plant biosecurity in Australia, which services the needs of its plant sector members and independently advocates on behalf of the national plant biosecurity system.

PHA achieves this by:

• enhancing the commitment of governments and industries to work together

• enhancing the operation and integrity of Australia’s plant pest emergency response arrangements

• assisting national management of biosecurity risks

• monitoring performance and promoting continual improvement of Australia’s plant biosecurity system

• determining future needs of Australia’s plant biosecurity system

• facilitating improved national investment in plant biosecurity.

Figure 30: Industry members of Plant Health Australia

In the event of an incursion, PHA plays a central role by establishing funding and management arrangements that enable effective responses to Emergency Plant Pest (EPP) incursions. PHA undertakes this role through its custodianship and administration of the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed (EPPRD), a legal instrument that brings together government and industry parties and PLANTPLAN, a companion agreed operational response plan. However the current EPPRD does not cover the incursion of emergency weeds. For more information see: http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/go/phau/epprd.

To assist Members to meet their obligations as signatories to the EPPRD and improve their emergency response preparedness, PHA also provides a range of services including contingency planning, surveillance and diagnostic systems support, response training and simulation exercises.

Figure 31: Emergency response to an incursion (Figure courtesy of DEEDI)

PHA’s independence and standing enable it to take a lead in monitoring performance of the national biosecurity system and determining its future needs. In close consultation with stakeholders, PHA formulates the strategies, plans and reports that direct Member efforts to meet those needs, contribute to government and industry policy development, facilitate improved national coordination and collaboration, and target investment to best effect.

National Plant Biosecurity Strategy The National Plant Biosecurity Strategy (NPBS) was released by PHA in May 2011 and sets out a blueprint for a strengthened national plant biosecurity system to 2020 through the provision of ten strategies underpinned by supporting recommendations and actions.

For more information on the National Plant Biosecurity Strategy see: http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/npbs.

Recognising a range of challenges currently facing the plant biosecurity sector, the NPBS provides clear guidance to decision makers, policy creators and funding agencies on the direction that must be taken to secure Australia’s plant biosecurity future, including the management of emergency weed incursions.

The NPBS is supported by the parallel development of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity (IGAB).

Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity As part of its response to the Beale Review (Beale, 2008), the Australian Government, with the support of a working group of primary industry officials from each state and territory, developed the IGAB in 2011. The agreement aims to strengthen the working partnership between governments, broadly identifies their roles and responsibilities and outlines the priority areas for collaborative effort to improve the national biosecurity system.

The IGAB covers specific recommendations in the Beale Review and provides a mechanism to progress them. It includes the development of a national priority pest list and increased Australian Government involvement in post-border monitoring and surveillance. Key aspects of the national biosecurity system addressed in the IGAB include:

• national Decision-Making and Investment Framework to provide a consistent approach to biosecurity risk prioritisation and investment

• national Biosecurity Information Framework to create a collaborative approach to collecting, collating, analysing, storing and sharing biosecurity information to improve decision-making and operational efficiency

• national Surveillance and Diagnostic System to detect and diagnose pests early to reduce economic, environmental and community impacts using integrated and comprehensive approach

• national Management Framework for Established Pests and Diseases to provide a national approach to managing impacts of established pests

• national Engagement and Communication Framework to improve cooperation and increase awareness

• national Emergency Preparedness and Response Agreements, to enhance the level of preparedness and provide consistent response agreements across jurisdictions to assist effective and timely management of incidents and emergencies

• national Biosecurity Research, Development and Extension Framework to facilitate an integrated national research and development capability and infrastructure to support risk management activities.

National Environmental Biosecurity Response Agreement The National Environmental Biosecurity Response Agreement (NEBRA) is the first deliverable of the IGAB. It sets out emergency response arrangements, including cost-sharing, for biosecurity incidents that primarily impact the environment and/or social amenity.

NEBRA functions similarly to both the EPPRD and the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement (EADRA) (the equivalent cost sharing agreement administered by Animal Health Australia), in that it contains provisions for how the cost-sharing between Governments will work in environmental biosecurity eradication responses, and is only geared for responses where eradication is the goal.

While NEBRA is in many ways similar to the EPPRD and EADRA, it is not intended to displace or replace these agreements. NEBRA is intended only to be used in circumstances where either of the EPPRD and EADRA cannot be used. Unlike the EPPRD and EADRA, NEBRA is not a legally- binding document.

To be dealt with under the NEBRA, a pest or disease must:

• be ‘nationally significant’ and either: - impact on the environment, including nationally important species, ecologically valuable species, nationally important places, ecologically valuable places and extensive impacts in several criteria - impact on people, culture, social amenity or human infrastructure - impact on business activity where the impact is not under a pre-existing cost-sharing agreement. • be likely to be eradicable, as determined by the National Biosecurity Management Group

• not be able to be dealt with under existing cost-sharing arrangements, such as EPPRD or EADRA

• be either by:

- a known pest - a distinguishable variant from an established pest (not a new occurrence of known pest); - be of uncertain origin - a potential area threat that is not yet present, widely distributed, officially controlled or in such a fulminant form that an emergency response is required to ensure there is no large scale epidemic of regional/national significance or serious loss of market access. Similarly to IGAB, weeds also fit into the definition of ‘pests’ in NEBRA. While the NEBRA is a cost-sharing arrangement between the Australian and state governments, private beneficiaries (i.e. industries) can also be invited to participate if it is deemed necessary.

NEBRA can only be used when the pest is declared eradicable by the National Biosecurity Management Group and there are no provisions for transition to management or other arrangements.

BioSIRT The National Biosecurity Surveillance, Incident, Response and Tracing (BioSIRT) Program seeks to eliminate information barriers and provide national consistency of information to enhance emergency response and routine surveillance and control of pests that threaten agriculture, the environment and social amenity. Costs are shared between the Australian Government and jurisdictions. Following reviews in late 2011 and early 2012, the National Biosecurity Committee approved a transformation of the program.

In collaboration with jurisdictions, the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry (DAFF) is establishing a project to create a new National Biosecurity Information Sharing System. The project comprises two components: a centrally hosted information management system and the development of data standards for national reporting. National reporting includes reporting from jurisdictions to DAFF, from DAFF to jurisdictions, inter-jurisdictional and international reporting. In the interim, existing instances of the BioSIRT information system will continue to be used by jurisdictions and DAFF.

Outcomes will be: • biosecurity information sharing for national reporting; • reduced impact of incursions resulting from faster reaction times during emergency responses; • support of industry sustainability and market access by increasing capacity to report pest status; and

• operational efficiency and savings through reduced duplication across animal and plant emergency response and routine biosecurity activities.

3.6 Role of state and territory governments in preventing spread State and territory governments have a role to play in preventing the spread of new weeds in their jurisdictions.

New South Wales The NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) has developed the NSW New Weed Incursion Plan, which it implements in collaboration with the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), and the Nursery and Garden Industry Australia (NGIA). The aim is a consistent approach to preventing new weeds and reducing spread of emerging weeds. Under the NSW Weed Action Plan, the funding to local governments means that the local government must be responsible for detection of new and emerging weeds. A range of pathway analysis and surveillance activities are conducted by DPI under the Weed Action Plan.

New biosecurity measures were introduced in May 2012 with the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment (Biosecurity) Bill 2012, which aims to improve capability to respond to an emergency disease outbreak. The laws will give the NSW Government new powers to manage the movement of plants and animals, and undertake additional disease monitoring and surveillance. They also allow for the destruction of suspect plants and animals, and introduce new measures for mandatory notification of potential plant and animal diseases.

The DPI, OEH and Nursery and Garden Industry Australia partnership was strengthened with the development of a weed risk assessment project with RIRDC funding. The project is developing robust weed risk assessments that could prevent weeds from being introduced to new areas and spread in the future. NGIA members are also being engaged in the value of risk assessments, reducing introductions and removing weeds from nursery trade.

Initiatives such as the ‘Grow Me Instead’ program provide free information to home gardeners about garden plants that can become invasive and provides a list of non-invasive alternatives.

Figure 32: Bridal creeper (Asparagus asparagoides), a garden escape, smotherimg native vegetation at Gairdner River, Western Australia (Figure courtesy of P. Turner, CSIRO)

Victoria A number of the state-prohibited weeds (SPWs) are not known to be present in Victoria, or are known at only a few locations. The Victorian Department of Primary Industries (Vic DPI) runs the Weed Alert program, focusing on detecting and treating incursions of these weeds. A weed spotter network also exists, with training in identifying the SPWs provided to interested members of the public and government staff who may come across new infestations in their day-to-day activities.

In 2010-11, the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) developed a program for DSE and Parks Victoria staff to establish a process for detecting and responding to early stage weed incursions on public land, to be implemented in 2011-12.

Queensland Queensland has the Queensland Weeds Strategy as a subsidiary document to the Queensland Biosecurity Strategy, as well as the Weed Spread Prevention Strategy. The Queensland Weed Spread Prevention Strategy is an integral part of the vision to minimise or prevent the spread of weeds. Biosecurity Queensland has also developed a policy called 'Prevention of weed reproductive material spread by departmental employees', which defines employee responsibilities in relation to preventing the spread of declared plant reproductive material. The policy provides procedures for minimising spread by vehicles, machinery, equipment, products and animals.

More than 110 species of weeds have been declared in Queensland under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002.

Western Australia The Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFWA) offers a free identification service for weeds through all of its country offices, AGWEST Plant Laboratory and the Pest and Disease Identification Service in Perth. DAFWA also collaborates with the DEC and Herbarium over weed identification matters.

DAFWA also delivers the state’s border biosecurity service (Quarantine WA) which is a key prevention element in the states system.

DEC staff and members of the public are encouraged to report suspected sightings of new weeds and provide specimens to the WA Herbarium for identification and recording of the weed population location. DEC’s Invasive Plant Prioritisation Process is currently in development, and aims to highlight weed species that do not occur in one DEC region, but do occur in adjacent DEC regions. These will then be targets of opportunistic surveillance for DEC regional and district staff.

There is no official weed spotter network in WA, but volunteer organisations and existing weed management networks, community groups and government agencies report any occurrence of weeds and provide specimens to the WA Herbarium.

South Australia The NRM Biosecurity Group is developing a list and resource material for 25 weeds not yet known to be present in SA, funded by the State NRM Fund. Detection of new weeds by the community and government officials in an opportunistic capacity is encouraged, and identification is supported by a dedicated weed botanist at the SA Herbarium.

A weed spotter network has been formed in the South East NRM region by the NRM Board, but there is no state-wide network.

Tasmania A Weed Alert Network currently operates through the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, funded by the Tasmanian Community Grants Program. The Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) is expected to take over the Weed Alert Network once the funding has ceased.

Figure 33: Tasmania uses detector dogs for quarantine inspections at its sea ports and airports (Figure courtesy of PHA)

Northern Territory The Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport webpage contains a list of declared weeds with three Schedules of classes for eradication, growth and spread control, and prohibition of introduction.

3.7 State herbaria Each state and territory has a herbarium that conducts weed identifications, collections, monitoring, surveillance and advice. The herbaria are mostly statutory bodies within the jurisdictional government, largely funded by the government, and some are associated with botanic gardens, but one is a department of a museum. Four jurisdictions (NSW, Qld, SA and Tasmania) fund weed botanists/taxonomists in their respective herbaria.

Most state herbaria provide a plant identification service either independently or in conjunction with state/territory weed officers and agencies. State agencies send suspected weed specimens, including data on location, to herbaria for confirmation of weed identity. The confirmed identity and location data allow for the tracking of populations, detection of emerging populations in new areas, or confirmations of exotic weed status, which assist in formulating an appropriate response. Members of the public are also encouraged to submit specimens of suspected weeds, along with location data, as part of passive surveillance for weeds.

How to collect and preserve plant specimens To aid identification, it is important to collect and preserve plants correctly.

The Weeds Australia website gives the following advice.

If possible, take a photograph of the plant before you collect it, pick a healthy specimen and keep it in a cool place out of the sun until it is pressed and collect as many parts as possible. Make sure you have at least parts of the root system and the flowers and buds. Ensure the sample is clean of dirt or insects.

Preserve the plant as soon as possible and keep it flat and dry by placing it between sheets of normal newspaper; press the sample between flat boards; weight the sample down; change the paper every couple of days; and most samples will be dry enough after a fortnight of pressing.

Place a label with the sample while it is drying to keep notes for each sample with the following details:

• family (if known) • genus (if known) • species (if known) • common name

• date of collection, and whether the plant was in flower or fruit

• flower colour, as some flowers lose their colours when pressed • location habitat, e.g. creek bank, hillside, etc. • soil type, general information such as sandy or clayey soil.

Plant specimens should be pressed as soon as possible after collection. If you are sending specimens away to your botanical gardens herbarium for identification have them dried, numbered and with field and location notes attached. Specimens should be sent as a flat parcel, in a newspaper folder and not be packed in any plastic.

Some weeds change shape dramatically as they mature. So collecting specimens or photos of weeds at different growth stages can help with identification

Respondent herbaria identified up to 8,200 plants each in 2010-11 and specimens were sent by state government authorities, local councils, quarantine (including NAQS), environment consultants, agronomists, farmers, museums, universities, private individuals, research institutions, nurseries, regional NRM bodies, hospitals, schools, police, utilities, Landcare and bushcare groups.

Most herbaria also conduct monitoring and surveillance for weeds. New incursions are generally reported to the responsible state government authority or quarantine authority. One herbarium uploads data to Australia’s Virtual Herbarium and the Atlas of Living Australia and specimen data is incorporated into the NSW Flora Online (PlantNET found at: http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/), which contains Weed Alert where interested parties can determine new records and range extensions for the state.

The herbaria have libraries, plant specimen collections and internet access to assist in identifications, and provide information to the community. They share specimens with other institutions, provide input to weed risk assessments, and provide information to weed alert networks of volunteers to identify new incursions. Some herbaria, universities and other organisations have made online

herbaria and interactive plant identification material available to the wider community. The technical staff of at least one herbarium has minor research projects involving specific plant species.

Respondent herbaria did not receive much external funding specifically for weeds projects in 2010-11. One herbarium received $95,000 from the NSW Department of Industry and Investment for a weed taxonomist position for one year. Another herbarium received $4,500 from Australia’s quarantine authority to identify a backlog of specimens from Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy weed surveys in northern Australia and overseas.

Respondent herbaria charge a fee for plant identifications, but some provide free identifications to the public or non-commercial organisations. One herbarium has four staff engaged in weed identifications and field surveys for weeds. Another two herbaria have a full-time weed taxonomist, one funded by the State NRM Fund to assist the detection, identification and delineation of weed populations.

3.8 Local governments Local governments are required by legislation to control weeds on their lands, and also to be on alert and report locations of new weed incursions.

Most local councils conduct some level of weed surveys in their areas, as well as producing weed awareness materials for their areas. In NSW, the state Invasive Species Plan describes ways to detect new weeds through early detection and mapping, weed risk assessments, prioritising funding to new incursions, regular inspections and staff training. In Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania, local council staff and community members are encouraged to take part in Weed Spotters, or other state equivalent programs.

3.9 Agricultural industries Agricultural and horticultural industries play an important role in the biosecurity continuum and partnership by detecting and promptly reporting new weeds to government authorities so that early eradication or containment can be implemented if appropriate. Diagnostic aids for target weeds (e.g. smart phone apps) have the potential to assist farmers identify new targeted weeds.

Weed threats have the potential to be identified and written into farm and industry biosecurity plans to assist land managers with targeted weed surveillance.

Industries can reduce the risk of spreading weeds via local and interstate trade by practising good farm and supply chain hygiene.

3.10 The community Australia does not have a nationally coordinated weed surveillance network, but Victoria and Tasmania maintain community based volunteer weed spotter programs supported by training, identification tools and reporting mechanisms.

In Victoria, the State Government is assisted by Weed Spotters in looking for and reporting State prohibited weeds. Weed Spotters is a weed surveillance network of people trained to look for and report any high-risk invasive plant species entering Victoria. They also play an important role in monitoring and recording the distribution of plant species that threaten public assets. Vic DPI provides training and support to Weed Spotters so they have the knowledge and resources to undertake weed surveillance effectively. There are currently 1,800 registered Weed Spotters in Victoria which represents a collaborative network between DPI, industry and community working together to protect Victoria’s biosecurity and the sustainability of farms, industries and rural communities.

In Tasmania, the Tasmanian Weed Alert Network is a group of volunteers on the lookout for serious new weeds. Volunteers all over the State spend much of their time outdoors and have a keen interest in controlling weeds. They include farmers, agronomists, Local and State Government staff, field naturalists, botanical consultants, weed control operators and interested members of the public. The Tasmanian Weed Alert Network is overseen by representatives from the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, State Government agencies, Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, the Tasmanian Herbarium and Tasmanian Weeds Society and is funded by the Tasmanian Community Fund.

In Western Australia, a project funded under the National Weeds and Productivity Research Program has seen the development of a Weeds Watcher portal. This portal provides a home for information collected by members of the public and community groups on the distribution and abundance of major weed species in Western Australia. This information will augment other information collected by government agencies and specialist research organisations in Australia to support the management of significant weeds in Australia. Local communities in coastal areas of northern Australia, including the Torres Strait Islands, are engaged with NAQS in reporting incursions and illegal activities to assist front line surveillance.

CHAPTER 4.

How are we reducing the impacts of existing weeds?

4.1 Introduction As illustrated in Figure 25, many jurisdictions and organisations are involved in the management of existing weeds.

Figure 34: Primary jurisdictions and organisations involved in management of existing weeds

4.2 Role of the Australian Government

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry In 2010-11, the Weeds and Pest Animals Section within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) employed 5 full-time equivalent staff (FTEs) to provide policy advice on weed and pest animal issues to government. It is also part of the Australian Government Land and Coasts team that jointly administers the Caring for our Country (CfoC) initiative with the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC).

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Within DSEWPaC, the Environmental Biosecurity Section (EBS) weeds team considers weed issues in the development of national policies and programs. EBS employs 1.8 full-time equivalent staff and had a budget of $266,000 in 2010-11. DSEWPaC is part of the Australian Government Land and Coasts team that jointly administers the CfoC initiative with DAFF.

Other areas of DSEWPaC involved in weed issues include Parks Australia which manages the Australian National Botanical Gardens, parks on Christmas Island, the Norfolk Island National Park, Boorderee National Park and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. DSEWPaC also administers the National Reserve System.

The Department also administers the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act which provides for the listing of key threatening processes, which are processes that threaten, or may threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of native species or ecological communities. The EPBC Act allows the making of a threat abatement plan to address the threat. There are currently two key threatening processes listed under the EPBC Act that relate to weed management, they are:

• ecosystem degradation, habitat loss and species decline due to invasion of northern Australia by introduced Gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus), Para grass (Urochloa mustica), Olive hymenachne (Hymenachne amplexicaulis), Mission grass (Pennisetum polystachion) and Annual mission grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum) • loss and degradation of native plants and animal habitat by invasion of escaped garden plants, including aquatic plants. Details on these listings can be found at: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicgetkeythreats.pl.

The Department was asked to indicate the resources and number of staff assigned to weed management in 2010-11. The responses noted that staff in the CfoC team were involved in weed management, but resources were not attributed to those staff members. Table 4.1 shows the response to this.

Table 9: Staff and resources allocated by DSEWPaC in 2011

Area within DSEPWaC Staff (FTE) Resources

Environmental Biosecurity Section 1.8 $266,000

Australian National Botanical Gardens 3.0 $157,000

Christmas Island 4.8 $270,000

Norfolk Island 1.7 $172,000

Booderee National Park 1.6 $151,000

Caring for our Country program The Australian Government’s major expenditure on weed management activities occurs through its Caring for our Country (CfoC) initiative, including Landcare and strategic support for the Australian Weeds Strategy and the national network of Weeds of National Significance coordinators.

Through Caring for our Country, the Australian Government is seeking improved strategic outcomes across six national priority areas: • the National Reserve System • biodiversity and natural icons • coastal environments and critical aquatic habitats

• sustainable farm practices • natural resources management in northern and remote Australia • community skills, knowledge and engagement.

Projects across all of these priority areas involve components of weed management but grants do not specially target weeds.

In October 2011, in response to a Senate Estimates question on notice, DAFF stated that between 2008-09 and 17 October 2011, over $200 million had been committed to reducing the impact of weeds and pest animals under CfoC, including:

• $81.6 million in Open Call grants • $8.6 million in Community Action Grants • $92.2 million through regional base level funding • $24.6 million via national coordination, implementation of the Australian Weeds Strategy, the Australian Pest Animal Strategy, keeping Tasmania fox free and eradicating feral pest animals on Macquarie Island. Table 10 sets out the CfoC investment in weed-related projects by jurisdictions, with the projects specifically relating to pest animals removed.

Table 10: Australian Government funding to NRMs and CMAs, and community projects for weed management under the Caring for our Country program*

Jurisdiction Base funding to Community Competitive Open regional bodies, $ Action Grants, $ Call Grants, $ 2010-11 2008-11 2009-11

Australian Capital Territory 11,773 300,000

New South Wales (incl. ACT) 2,230,741 14,394,951 14,153,097

Northern Territory 5,601,485 134,743 3,218,840

Queensland 14,245,249 2,046,238 4,783,909

South Australia 10,000,000 213,370 2,295,982

Tasmania 1,518,596 431,353 1,623,738

Victoria 27,158,041 1,036,699 5,562,075

Western Australia 18,918,519 900,021 2,864,213

Unspecified/National 0 1,354,639 7,345,658

Total 91,594,987 8,359,577 42,389,367

* As the data in Table 10 is based on the answer to a Senate Estimates question, the timescales for the funding categories are different.

Other funding supplied under CfoC but not included in Table 4.2 is an allowance of $6 million over three years (2010-11 to 2012-13) for implementing the Australian Weeds Strategy, including a 50:50 cost share component with state and territory governments to support a national coordinator for the AWS and a network of WoNS coordinators.

Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) regulates the manufacture and supply of all pesticides in Australia, including herbicides for weed control, up to the point of wholesale sale. Herbicides play an important role in management of weeds in agriculture and the environment. In 2010-11, 2,130 herbicide products were registered with the APVMA for agricultural and environmental use and total Australian sales were valued at $1.25 billion. The APVMA also issues temporary permits for minor uses, where the pesticide market is too small for manufacturers to register a product for particular uses. This is particularly important for specialty crops and environmental weed control. Some herbicides are not able to be used to control particular weeds, particularly new or environmental weeds, because they are not registered or permitted. Regulation of the use of herbicides after retail sale is the responsibility of states and territories.

Figure 35: Blackberries (Rubus fruticosus agg.) invasion (Figure courtesy of PHA)

Department of Defence The Department of Defence has a responsibility to manage weeds on its land as well as prevent the possibility of weed incursions from military machinery, equipment and personnel returning from overseas service.

The Department of Defence has an Environmental Management System that consists of a national level tier that cascades down to regional and site tiers. Planning for environmental matters occurs at each relevant tier. The central weed management policy for Defence is the Biosecurity and Overabundant Native Species (BONS) Policy. The Policy has associated guidelines that set out implementation of the Policy, including weed management and how to prepare a response plan, for example, for an outbreak of a Weed of National Significance.

There is also a series of BONS technical pamphlets that includes Managing Weeds. This pamphlet recognises that Defence’s reputation as a responsible and competent land manager would be affected if weeds were not managed because of the economic impacts on neighbouring landholders and on the social amenity of the surrounding landscape. It also states that it is important to manage weeds in a regular and cost efficient and effective manner. The pamphlet outlines the strategies for weed control and methods generally applied across the Defence estate. The Department also has local and regional weed management plans, either as part of broader Environmental Management Plans, or as specific documents targeted towards weed-specific issues. National BONS policy is the responsibility of the Environment and Engineering Branch, Defence Support Group.

The Department of Defence recognises that weeds can create a nuisance to their activities, including:

• fire-prone grassy weeds may restrict helicopter landings because of fire risk • weeds can physically obstruct or impede movement, such as dense infestations of spiny or prickly bushes, cacti, thistles or impenetrable thickets of woody weeds being a barrier to infantry • need to avoid areas of seeding grassy weeds and other weeds, so spread is not increased by tanks and other vehicles • aquatic weeds on or in ships, boats and amphibious vehicles.

Washdown facilities, and an operational requirement to use them, are the primary means for preventing spread of weeds between sites and bases. The design of washdown facilities is detailed in a BONS pamphlet, Washdown Facility Design Features. Understanding of the location of weed infestations and avoidance of those areas during exercises is a key technique to reduce spread. To achieve this, weed mapping and monitoring is conducted under various contracts to Defence, and also by Defence staff where relevant. Site-specific requirements are determined at the local level and enacted through local orders or the Environmental Management System.

Defence’s level of interaction with the local community, local governments and individual land holders is determined on a case-by-case basis. Defence cooperates closely with quarantine officers when military machinery, equipment and personnel return to Australia after overseas service.

The amount of resources that the Department spends on weed management is difficult to calculate due to the dispersed nature of the Defence estate and its management. The problem is compounded by the fact that some weed management is conducted as discrete projects, some forms part of larger projects, and some is a routine part of larger service contracts.

4.3 Role of state and territory governments New South Wales

Department of Primary Industries

The administration of the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 is the responsibility of the Minister for Primary Industries with assistance from the Department of Primary Industries (DPI). The Noxious Weeds Act

places responsibilities on the owners/occupiers of land to control declared noxious weeds on their land. The implementation of the Act in the field is the responsibility of local government councils.

DPI is the lead agency for the NSW Invasive Species Plan, the policy framework for managing weeds in NSW. NSW DPI also administers the NSW Weed Action Program, which provides funds to local governments to assist in weed management activities.

The Department employs District Agronomists (advisory officers) at various locations across the state to provide advice to primary producers and others on weed management, particularly weeds of production agriculture. The Department also employs a number of weed research officers.

The Office of Environment and Heritage The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) is responsible for the development and implementation of weed management strategies on lands protected and managed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. OEH is also responsible for the development, coordination and reporting of state-wide strategic initiatives to reduce the impacts of invasive species on biodiversity, including those weeds listed under Key Threatening Processes.

Victoria

Department of Primary Industries The Victorian Department of Primary Industries is responsible for policy direction and oversight for weeds on public and private land, including a consolidated approach to prevention and early intervention; enforcement of legislated responsibility for declared noxious weeds on private land; management of stakeholders relating to weeds on private land; funding of strategic research into weed management; managing State-prohibited weeds wherever they occur; engaging with industry to minimise the risks of new invasions and with the community to manage established weeds; and engaging with CMAs in program development and invasive plant and animal strategic plans.

Department of Sustainability and Environment The Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) is responsible for the management of invasive plants on public lands; overall accountability, to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, for the administration of the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994; communication relating to weeds on public lands; management of stakeholders relating to weeds on public lands; and administration of the Good Neighbour program to control weeds and pests on the boundary between public and private land.

Queensland

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry In Queensland, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is the lead agency for pest management, including weeds. The Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 provides legislative measures to manage pests and address the impacts pests have on the economy, the environment and society. DAFF is responsible for weeds on its own land.

Department of Natural Resources and Mines

The Department of Natural Resources and Mines is responsible for the administration of the Lands Act 1994 and determining leasehold conditions; allocation and use of state land, weed management on unallocated state land and the stock route network.

Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing The Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing is responsible for weed management in national parks.

Western Australia

Department of Agriculture and Food The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFWA) has a significant role in agricultural weed management covering both agricultural weeds and declared plants. The Department undertakes risk assessments, and management for prevention, eradication or control.

Department of Environment and Conservation The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) is responsible for management of weeds on DEC-managed lands and waters, in accordance with established priorities and consistent with DEC conservation objectives. DEC also works with adjacent landholders and community groups to achieve effective and coordinated management of weeds across land tenures, and supports or implements weed management where necessary to protect priority conservation values such as threatened species and threatened ecological communities occurring outside DEC-managed lands. DEC also undertakes research into weed impacts on native plants and contributes to community awareness of weed threats to the natural environment through identification of priority environmental weed species and similar programs.

South Australia

Department of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia In South Australia, weeds are managed by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Department of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA) (Animal and Plant Control Group). Biosecurity SA is a subsection of PIRSA, and operates the NRM Biosecurity Group, the lead authority for weed management under the State’s NRM Act. The South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) is a research division of PIRSA, and conducts industry-funded research into weeds.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has a primary role in biodiversity, conservation, environment policy and planning and environmental sustainability. DENR manages the state’s public land, i.e. land held in the conservation reserve system, botanic gardens and crown land. In South Australia, the eight NRM boards within DENR are responsible for the management of declared plants within their regions and have the power to enforce control of some declared plants on private and public property in accordance with regional plans.

Through the State Herbarium, DENR provides a resource for weed identification and encourages the collection of herbarium specimens to provide evidence of species’ identity and distribution. Specimens are housed and access is provided to past herbarium specimens and associated data to provide information on their status and distribution. The State Herbarium supports research into the taxonomy of weeds to help identify differences between closely related forms to assist in developing more effective control measures, in particular biological control agents.

Tasmania

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

The Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment administers the Weed Management Act 1999 and the Plant Quarantine Act 1997. The Weed Management Section has primary responsibility for administrating the Weed Management Act, with local governments also having weeds inspectors authorised under the Weed Management Act. Quarantine Tasmania administers the Plant Quarantine Act, principally through its staff at each of Tasmania’s border entry points.

Northern Territory The Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport is responsible for the Weeds Management Act 2001. The Act is linked to The Northern Territory Weeds Management Strategy 1996-2005 which aims to protect the NT economy, community, industries and environment from the adverse impacts of weeds.

Australian Capital Territory

Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate The Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate (ESDD) is responsible for administrating policies and grant programs relevant to weed management in the ACT. A key role for ESDD is management of the ACT Weeds Strategy. ESDD also administers the Nature Conservation Act 1980 which aims to protect and conserve native animals and plants.

Figure 36: Contractor applying a granulated herbicide on specific roadside weeds, ACT (Figure courtesy of PHA)

Territory and Municipal Services Directorate The Territory and Municipal Services Directorate (TAMS) is responsible for weed control in nature reserves, national parks and rural lands primarily targeting invasive or environmental weeds to protect biodiversity. TAMS is also responsible for weed control in urban open areas, which is primarily about amenity weed control around park furniture, playgrounds, sportsgrounds, footpaths and nature strips.

Jurisdictions were asked what staff and resources were involved in weed management in 2010-11. Tables 11 and 12 set out their responses.

Table 11: State and territory government direct spending and staff dedicated to weed management in 2010-11

State or Agency Funding Purpose Staff Full Time Comments territory Equivalents

$11,600,000 Weed At least 14 Pest 41,164 volunteer management in Management hours of weed National Parks. Officers and a management in NSW OEH support team at National Parks. the Pest Management Unit.

No figure 20 Administers NSW DPI provided Weed Action Program.

$8,000,000 Direct funding for 90 Includes DPI weed $2,744,201 for management. R&D projects.

$3,900,000 Direct funding for 30 weed VIC management DSE projects. $5,100,000 Weed 50 Management in National Parks.

$20,300,000 Invasive Plants 118.4 Weed management and Animals staff across policy, QLD DAFF program budget. science and operations.

State or Agency Funding Purpose Staff Full Time Comments territory Equivalents

$2,630,000 Weed No figure Unknown share of management. provided $1,500,000 Minister for DEC Environment's Environmental Community Grants program. WA No figures Grains programs 103 provided weed projects.

Invasive species 6.1 DAFWA program.

Skeleton weed 11.2 program.

No figures NRM Biosecurity 4 provided Group weed staff.

Branched 8 Broomrape SA PIRSA Eradication staff. SARDI weed 1 researcher.

Dedicated weed 1 botanist.

$869,550 7 NRM projects. No figure

provided

$149,000 External funding 3 for a weed DENR botanist and two others at the State Herbarium.

State or Agency Funding Purpose Staff Full Time Comments territory Equivalents

No figures Weed 5 provided Management Section staff.

Quarantine 71 TAS DPIPWE Tasmania staff authorised as weed inspectors.

Other authorised 70 weed inspectors.

No figure Part-time 1 A team of staff provided oversight on administers NRM policy and grants, programs ESDD interactions on and weed national forums. management activities.

ACT $500,000 Urban amenity 3500 ranger hours weed control bill. on weed management.

TAMS $1,400,000 Environmental and invasive weed control 2010/11.

TOTAL $54,448,550 604

Figure 37: Bulldozing Gorse (Ulex europaeus) (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

Jurisdictions were also asked to provide information on grants for weed management and Table 4.4 sets out their responses.

Table 12: State and territory government grants for weed management in 2010-11

State or Agency Purpose Funding territory

2010 grants from the NSW Environmental Trust to CSIRO, $2,231,016 OEH local governments, CMAs & community groups. NSW NSW Weeds Action Program funding to local $9,000,000 DPI governments.

Grants to local governments and community groups for $1,448,000 DPI weed management. Vic Grants for weed management. $1,220,000 DSE Landcare Program funding through CMAs. $3,353,000

Funding to local government as part of ‘2011 Flood $150,000 Qld DAFF Recovery Program’.

Funding to NRM groups as part of ‘2011 Flood Recovery $57,000

Program’.

Final payments to local governments under the ‘Reclaim $61,000

the Bush a Pest Offensive Program’.

Final payments to NRM regions under the ‘Reclaim the $106,900

Bush a Pest Offensive Program’.

Funding as part of 2011 Flood Recovery Program for $212,000

weeds awareness activities.

WA DEC 26 Weed Management grants. $320,681

SA PIRSA 42 community grants under the State’s NRM program. $524,000

DENR 39 projects on weed control and weed related projects. $509,530

TAS DPIPWE None

ACT ESDD 5 community grants. $460,075

TOTAL $19,653,202

Weed strategies New South Wales developed a ‘New South Wales Invasive Species Plan 2008-2015’ to improve the management of invasive species across the state and the plan is linked to the AWS.

Victoria has the Invasive Plants and Animals Policy Framework which incorporates a biosecurity approach and ensures that Victoria maintains a comprehensive planning framework to guide future policy, planning and community activity specific to invasive species. It is complementary to the AWS.

The Queensland Weeds Strategy establishes a state-wide planning framework, which is currently under review. It is now a subsidiary document to the Queensland Biosecurity Strategy.

In Western Australia, the State Weed Plan predates the current Australian Weed Strategy, as it was published in October 2001 and is aligned with the 1997 National Weeds Strategy. The State Weed Plan provides strategic direction for weed management rather than dealing with the management of specific weeds. It is recognised that the Plan is due for review. Within DAFWA, the Invasive Species Program will have a strategic Invasive Species Plan to provide priority and direction for agricultural weed management within the State.

Tasmania’s Weed Management Strategy, known as WeedPlan, outlines a strategic approach to weed management, with the overall objective of coordinating and integrating the available weed components to better manage weeds and lessen the impact of weeds on Tasmania’s environment and agricultural sector. It reflects at a State level the operating principles of the AWS and stresses the need to identify and prioritise existing and potential weed problems and recognise the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders.

The Australian Capital Territory Weeds Strategy 2009-2019 requires the preparation of an annual Environmental Weed Control Operations Plan which details specific planned works.

Noxious weeds Noxious weeds are weedy species that are controlled and/or managed under state and territory legislation. The legislation may prescribe a variety of management options from prohibition of sale and trade to enforced control. The Weeds Australia website (http://www.weeds.org.au/) maintains the Noxious Weeds database, which lists the noxious weeds for all states and territories. Each state and territory has different definitions for noxious weeds.

In New South Wales, noxious weeds are defined under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993. The Act imposes obligations on occupiers of land to control noxious weeds declared for their area. There are five classes of noxious weeds identified in the Act:

• class 1 - Plants that pose a potentially serious threat to primary production or the environment and are not present in the State or are present only to a limited extent • class 2 - Plants that pose a potentially serious threat to primary production or the environment of a region to which the order applies and are not present in the region or are present only to a limited extent • class 3 - Plants that pose a potentially serious threat to primary production or the environment of a region to which the order applies, are not widely distributed in the area and are likely to spread in the area or to another area • class 4 - Plants that pose a potentially serious threat to primary production, the environment or human health, are widely distributed in an area to which the order applies and are likely to spread in the area or to another area • class 5 - Plants that are likely, by their sale or the sale of their seeds or movement within the State or an area of the State, to spread in the State or outside the State. All Class 1, 2 and 5 weeds are prohibited from sale in NSW.

Figure 38: African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) is a noxious weed in NSW (Figure courtesy of NSW DPI, L.R. Tanner)

In Victoria, under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act), certain plants are declared as noxious weeds in Victoria. The CaLP Act defines four categories of noxious weeds:

• State Prohibited Weeds - These invasive plants either do not occur in Victoria but pose a significant threat if they invade, or if present, pose a serious threat and can reasonably be expected to be eradicated. If present, infestations of a State-prohibited weed are relatively small and to be eradicated. • Regionally Prohibited Weeds - Regionally prohibited weeds are not widely distributed in a region but are capable of spreading further. It is reasonable to expect that they can be eradicated from a region and they must be managed with that goal. Land owners, including public authorities responsible for crown land management, must take all reasonable steps to eradicate regionally prohibited weeds on their land. • Regionally Controlled Weeds - These invasive plants are usually widespread in a region. To prevent their spread, ongoing control measures are required. Land owners have the responsibility to take all reasonable steps to prevent the growth and spread of regionally controlled weeds on their land. • Restricted Weeds - This category includes plants that pose an unacceptable risk of spreading in this State and are a serious threat to another state or territory of Australia. Trade in these weeds and their propagules, either as plants, seeds or contaminants in other materials is prohibited.

Invasive plants are categorised into one of the above four categories for each catchment region in Victoria.

Some aquatic plants pose a serious threat to fisheries, the aquatic environment or human health. The Fisheries Act 1995 has declared some species as noxious aquatic plants. It is an offence to bring them into Victoria or possess, sell, transport or release them.

In Queensland, declaration under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 imposes legal responsibility for control by all landholders on land under their management. Declared plants are listed under three different categories:

• class 1 – Plants are not commonly present in the State and if introduced would cause an adverse economic, environmental and social impact. Class 1 plants established in the State are subject to eradication. It is an offence to introduce, keep, release or sell Class 1 weeds without a permit. • class 2 – Plants are established over substantial areas of Queensland, but their impact is so serious that they need to be controlled and avoid further spread. By law, all landholders must try to keep their properties free of Class 2 weeds and it is an offence to possess, sell or release these pests without a permit. • class 3 – Primarily environmental weeds and are commonly established in parts of Queensland but control by landholders is not deemed necessary unless the plant is impacting or potentially impacting on nearby environmentally significant areas. It is an offence to sell, introduce or supply a Class 3 weed. In Western Australia, the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act 1976 allows for plants to be ‘Declared Plants’ with different declaration categories:

• p1 – Introduction of the plant into, or movement of the plant within, an area is prohibited • p2 – Plant to be eradicated in the area • p3 – Plant to be controlled by reduction in numbers or distribution of the plant or both • p4 – Spread of plant beyond where it currently occurs to be prevented • p5 - Particular action to be taken on public land or land under the control of a local government. Information about requirements relating to the introduction, movement, eradication and control of declared plants is available from the Department of Agriculture and Food.

In South Australia, declared plants are plants that are regulated under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (the NRM Act). Declared plants are significant weed threats to the State’s primary production industries, natural environments and public safety.

Declared plants are grouped into “classes plus subclasses” in the Ministers declaration according to the various provisions of the NRM Act. A generalisation of the classes is:

• class 1 – Generally requiring notification and destruction of the plant throughout the State • class 2 – Generally requiring notification in at least part of the State and control of the plant throughout the State • class 3, 5 and 7 – Generally requiring control of the plant in part of the State • class 6, 8 and 9 – Special provisions apply • class 10 and 11 – Restricting sale only.

Plant species may be declared under various sections of the NRM Act relating to:

• movement – Some declared plants must not be moved on a public road. Inadvertent movement of the plants on animals, vehicles, machinery or produce may also be illegal. • sale – Many declared plants must not be sold at any outlet including nurseries, pet shops and market stalls. Sale of any animal, soil, vehicle, machinery or produce contaminated by the plant may also be illegal. • notification – The presence and locations of some declared plants on their own land must be reported to the local NRM Board. • control – Landholders are required to take action to destroy or control many declared plant species. There are also State Alerts that are plant species that must be reported immediately to the local NRM Board.

In Tasmania, the Weed Management Act provides the legislative backing for the State’s strategic approach to weed management. It is an approach based on community consultation, with a requirement for a Ministerial Statement of Intent to declare a plant to be made available for public comment for 30 days. Following the declaration of a weed, a weed management plan must be prepared within 12 months. This plan is required to have a period of public consultation during its development. The management plan must include the restrictions and measures required to control, eradicate or restrict the spread of the weed, including restrictions on import, control and sale.

In the Northern Territory, plants are declared under the Weeds Management Act 2001 under three classes:

• class A – To be eradicated - reasonable effort must be made to eradicate the plant within the Northern Territory • class B - Growth and spread to be controlled - Reasonable attempts must be made to contain the growth and prevent the movement of the plant • class C - Not to be introduced to the Territory - All Class A and Class B weeds are also considered to be Class C weeds.

In the Australian Capital Territory, there are four categories of declared pest plants under the Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005, namely:

• notifiable – Written notice must be given to the Chief Executive about the presence of the weed (Category 1 weeds) • must be suppressed – Direct control of all weed plants (Category 2 weeds) • must be contained – Stop weed spread to neighbours (Category 3 weeds) • prohibited – Not allowed to be sold or propagated (Category 4 weeds). Some pest plants or weeds have more than one category.

4.4 Local governments All local governments across Australia are required to manage weeds on lands that they control, own or manage within their jurisdiction. This includes public lands, parks and conversation reserves, vacant Crown lands, roadsides and verges, footpaths, and other relevant parcels of land. Other powers, interactions and responsibilities for weed management at a local government level vary according to state.

New South Wales In NSW, local governments are required by the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 to employ a weeds officer. These officers can be hired with assistance from the Inspectorial Grant, though some have council staff trained or appointed under the Act. These weed officers perform weed inspections on public and private land, carry out weed control as necessary and issue weed control compliance notices to private landholders, who are responsible for weed control on their own land.

There are several ‘county councils’ in NSW which are formed by a group of local councils banding together to deliver weed management over a larger area and with greater regional coordination and resources than would be available to the constituent local councils separately. These county councils are: Far North Coast, Castlereagh-Macquarie, New England Tablelands, Central Murray, Hawkesbury River, Upper Macquarie, Southern Slopes and Upper Hunter. There are also other committees that some local governments in NSW are involved in, including the Illawarra District Noxious Weeds Committee.

Case Study: Illawarra District Noxious Weeds Authority The Illawarra District Noxious Weeds Authority (IDNWA) is the local government organisation responsible for controlling declared noxious weeds in the Wollongong, Shellharbour and Kiama local government areas. It was formed in 1993 under a Deed of Agreement between the three member councils.

The Authority is responsible for controlling noxious weeds on council-controlled roads and reserves and vacant crown land through special grants. It is also responsible for the inspection of private property for noxious weeds and the giving of directions and advice to landholders so that adequate control is maintained. It covers an area of 1,122 km2 with a population of 275,000.

In 2001-11, investment was:

Member Council Contributions $120,383 NSW Govt. (noxious weed funds) $98,500 Vacant Crown land fund $12,500 SRCMA funds (Bitou bush program) $49,000 (Illawarra share) IDNWA unrestricted funds $22,000 Total $302,383 The IDNWA has two full-time staff employed for 38 hours per week. Casual staff and contractors are also employed throughout the year as time and resources permit.

Work is guided by the Southern Rivers Regional Weed Management Strategy and the IDNWA Management Plan and Policy. The goals of the AWS, NSW ISP, and the South Rivers CMA Catchment Action Plan are all reflected in the SRCMA Regional Weed Strategy and local IDNWA Weed Management Plan. Guiding principles for the management of weeds in the Illawarra are to prevent establishment of new weeds, manage widespread existing weeds by prioritizing actions where benefits will be greatest, and continuing to build on community education and awareness-raising programs in the local area.

To increase public awareness, the IDNWA holds at least one field day a year, attends at least 2 local agricultural shows, gives talks to training and further Education, schools and local community groups as requested. Media releases are issued as required. The IDNWA also produces a number of weed flyers and brochures and utilises the resources of the NSW DPI weeds education program.

The IDNWA belongs to the Southern Tablelands and South Coast noxious plants committee. It has a strong working relationship with this group and in particular the South Coast councils. Other stakeholder groups are part of this broader regional group. Close liaison is held with the SRCMA. The IDNWA supports individual community groups where required as part of any of its noxious weed control programs in the local area.

Some regional councils delegate their authority under the Noxious Weeds Act to their relevant County Councils, either because of a lack of resources or for better regional integration of weed control efforts. In the greater Sydney area, the councils have banded together to form the Sydney Weeds Committee, to coordinate weed control efforts across the greater Sydney region. If resources permit,

councils also provide education and extension activities and material to raise weed awareness, and support local community groups involved in weed control.

Case study: Sydney Weeds Committee The Sydney Weeds Committee is a good example of collaboration between government and non- government agencies and practitioners working together to promote effective weed management at a regional level. The Committee is an association of representatives from Commonwealth Government departments, local councils, road and rail authorities and utilities in the Sydney Metropolitan and Lower Blue Mountains Region. The Sydney Weeds Committee comprises the following four Weeds Committees: Sydney Central, Sydney South West, Sydney North and Sydney West – Blue Mountains.

Much of Sydney’s bushland and waterways are threatened by invasive weeds and are under constant pressure from storm-water run-off with high nutrient loads.

To minimize the spread and reduce the impact of weeds currently threatening the biodiversity, agricultural land and water resources of Sydney, the Sydney Weeds Committee:

• plans and helps to resource weed control projects • provides opportunities to increase skills in identifying and controlling weeds • communicates the latest best practice weed management • raises awareness of the impact of weeds on human and animal health, the environment and the economy • workshops ways to prevent and control this impact in the most effective and economical manner. The Committee aims to coordinate weed control actions and resources to prevent further spread of weeds, and to protect endangered ecosystems, waterways, agricultural land and critical habitat corridors.

Funding is provided to local councils through the NSW Weeds Action program, with detection of new and emerging weeds a top priority.

In addition to their role with noxious weeds, local governments play a significant role in managing weeds for conservation, especially in council reserves. Local governments develop bush regeneration action plans of management, fund bush regeneration and train volunteers.

Victoria In Victoria, local governments are responsible for the identification and control of weeds, either by council workers or contracted to private enterprise. Local governments are not authorised to enter private land to perform weed inspections, but are authorised to issue control compliance notices to private landholders who are not controlling weeds in accordance with State legislation. Councils alert residents to weeds in the region and support community groups through grants. In 2010-11, under the Victorian ‘Building the Capacity of Local Government to Respond to Pests’ grant program approximately $1,000,000 was provided to local governments for the management of weeds and pest animals on roadsides.

The Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment provided grants to 7 local governments through the Urban Fringe Weed Management Initiative to the value of $910,000 in 2010-11.

Queensland In Queensland, local governments provide inspection and control of weeds on public land, and are authorised to perform inspections and issue weed control compliance notices on private land under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002. Where resources permit, councils also provide extension and education to raise weed awareness, strategic planning to manage weeds on a wider scale and regional weed mapping through liaising with regional catchment, NRM authorities and the Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Western Australia In Western Australia, councils either appoint or contract people to deal with weeds on public lands. Councils do not have the authority to inspect private land for weeds, but can issue control compliance notices to landholders to control weeds on their land and any adjacent roadsides and verges.

South Australia In South Australia, councils either employ a dedicated weeds officer, whose duties include inspections and control of weeds on public land, or hire a contractor to fulfil these duties. Local governments are not authorised to inspect public property or issue control compliance notices, but they will alert residents to weed issues as necessary. Many local governments will also provide grants to local community groups to control weeds.

Tasmania In Tasmania, there are over 40 local government-authorised weed inspectors with the same powers under the Weeds Act as Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment weed inspectors, but their powers are confined to their local government boundaries. Local governments fund these positions from their own budgets, and DPIPWE provides training for weed inspectors.

Local government weed funding Most of the weed control and surveillance activities conducted by local governments across Australia are funded from general rates, and special environmental levies in some council areas, particularly in NSW. Local governments also receive some level of funding from state and Australian governments. NSW and Victoria are the states with the highest amount of non-rate funding as a percentage of total funding, and in indigenous-controlled areas such as far north Queensland, weed funding comes entirely from state and Australian Government funding.

The following charts summarise the responses from the 105 local government councils of the 560 that were sent questionnaires.

Figure 39: Local council funding for weed management from various sources in 2010-11

The total funding for weed management in 2010-11 reported by the 105 respondent councils was $28,136,754. Of the 105 respondent councils, 101 reported funding from rates and environmental levies, and the amounts for individual councils ranged from $1.5 million down to $98. Funding from rates and levies comprised 75.6% of the total funding reported for weeds management. 62 councils received weeds funding from other sources, and many received grants from several sources.

Figure 40: Number of respondent councils that received funds for weed management from each source in 2010-11

Of the 105 local government councils that responded to the questionnaire, 96% received funding from rates and environmental levies for weed management. Figure 4.2 above shows the number of councils that received funding from each of the other sources. Many councils received grants from several sources. 39% of respondent councils received funding from state governments; 17% from NRM/CMA bodies; 9% from the Commonwealth Government and 16% from other sources (including WoNS, transport and water authorities).

Local government weed strategies In most states, many local governments have produced weed management strategies that are in-line with their state’s weed strategy and AWS. In Queensland, this is a legislative requirement of local government, but in Western Australia and South Australia, most local governments do not have a weed strategy. In South Australia, many local governments defer strategic decisions on weeds to their regional NRM Boards. In the absence of any local strategy and no other regional strategy to defer to, weed management decisions are usually based on WoNS and state-declared weeds, asset protection and community concerns.

Weed resistance to the popular herbicide, glyphosate, is now common along roadsides from Queensland to Western Australia, and its overuse by managers of public and agricultural lands could lead to loss of this effective weed management tool. Resistance management strategies need to be incorporated into the weed strategies and weed management operational plans of local governments and other land managers.

Weeds in green waste disposal In most local government areas, some form of green waste collection or disposal is offered partly to deter illegal dumping of green waste in bushland and reserves. Legislative control of weeds also makes the movement of weeds, even to appropriate disposal facilities, difficult at best. Where weeds are not accepted in green waste, landowners are often encouraged to dispose of weeds properly on their own land, usually by burning or composting.

4.5 Role of regional bodies Australia has 56 separate NRM regions which were established in agreement between the Australian, state and territory governments between 2000 and 2004. The NRM regions facilitate the management of natural resources across their regions using a catchment-based approach and play a critical role linking government agencies, local government, other land managers and the community. As weeds are a land management issue, often on a large scale, weeds feature largely in the long-term goals and objectives in each NRM region. The regions also play a vital role in facilitating on-ground weed control. In NSW and Victoria, the NRM regions are known as Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs).

NRM roles and responsibilities New South Wales In NSW, the CMA Act requires each CMA to develop a Catchment Action Plan (CAP) to outline future priorities that identify natural resource targets and conditions. One target under the CAPs relates specifically to invasive species.

The CMAs facilitate the management of natural resources across their regions using a catchment- based approach and play a crucial role providing links between government agencies, local government, other land managers and the community. The CMAs also play a vital role in facilitating on-ground weed control.

The CMA CAPs are currently being upgraded. The previous CAP target relating to invasive species was ’By 2015 there is a reduction of invasive species’, with three key indicators of: • number of new invasive species established • distribution and abundance of new invasive species • success of control of widespread species.

Queensland Biosecurity Queensland coordinates the Government’s efforts to prevent, respond to and recover from pest and disease incursions. Additionally Biosecurity Queensland’s role in weed management is clarified in the Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Queensland, the Local Government Association of Queensland and the Queensland Regional Natural Resource Management Groups Collective Incorporated.

Victoria In Victoria, CMAs are responsible for developing regional invasive plant and animal strategies to address invasive plants and animals on private and public lands, prioritising actions needed, monitoring and reporting on delivery.

Western Australia In Western Australia, NRM regional groups undertake community consultation, regional planning (including for weed control) and regional delivery of the Australian Government’s CfoC program. The NRM regional groups are incorporated community groups and non-statutory, so do not have legislated roles for weed control or any specific function.

South Australia In South Australia, regional NRM Boards are responsible for administering the NRM Act and ensuring that landholders comply with statutory requirements to manage declared weeds. Regional NRM plans provide guidance for communities on the implementation of State weed policies within the region and the Board’s expectations of landholders.

Tasmania Tasmania has 3 NRM regions that invest in weed management through funding of staff, regional coordination and/or weed management roles. Investments have been made in a range of weed managements, including on-ground control of WoNS weeds, weed mapping and property planning. There is close liaison between NRM staff and the DPIPWE Weed Management team.

Australian Capital Territory In the ACT, the regional NRM body is the ACT Natural Resource Management Council, which is a non-statutory body appointed by the ACT Minister responsible for the Environment. The Council recommends and manages strategic investments in projects that maintain, protect and enhance natural resources in the ACT.

Many NRM regions have either created a stand-alone Weed Management Strategy, sometimes incorporating vertebrate pests as well, or they include weeds as part of their regional strategy. These documents set out the priority weeds for each region, the goals of weed management in the region for a prescribed period, and the procedures for dealing with weeds and weed surveillance. These documents vary in the level of detail for control, management and surveillance activities.

NRM regional activities and investment As part of this study, information was sought from all NRM regions on the investment in weed management in 2010-11: the major weeds being tackled; did they have a weed management strategy; what is being done to tackle new and emerging weeds; what is being done to increase public awareness; how many staff are involved; and are grants provided to local government and the community? Answers to these questions are set out in the following tables:

Table 13: What investment was made by NRMs in weed management in 2010-11?

State NRM Region Investment Comments

NSW Central West $185,000 To control and manage 7 WoNS species CMA

Hunter Central $703,000 Rivers CMA

SA Murray-Darling $3,511,493 Total expenditure for the NRMB Basin NRMB

SA Arid Lands $170,000 NRMB

South East $1.64m Invested from a range of sources NRMB

Vic Goulburn Broken $300,000 CMA

$430,000 Vic DPI investment

North East CMA $806,000

Wimmera CMA $294,000 $154,000 for WoNS projects

$140,000 for 2nd generation Landcare projects

Tas NRM North $205,000

WA Northern $547,000 Agricultural Catchment Council

Table 14: NRM weed management strategies

State NRM Region Weed Strategies

NSW Central West CMA Weeds management is included in their annual Business Plan.

Hunter Central Rivers The weed management strategy is located within and guided CMA by the Hunter-Central Rivers CMA Catchment Action Plan.

SA Murray-Darling Basin SA Murray-Darling Basin NRM Regional Pest Strategy. NRMB

SA Arid Lands SA Arid Lands NRMB Regional Pest Management Strategy. NRMB

South East NRMB South East Pest Management Strategy.

Vic Goulburn Broken Goulburn Broken Invasive Plants and Animal Strategy. CMA There is also a Willow Strategy.

Northern Central North Central Invasive Plants and Animals Strategy 2010-15. CMA

North East CMA The North East regional weed action plan is out of date and will be replaced with an Invasive Plants and Animals Strategy. The Regional River Health Strategy and the Willow Policy sets priorities for weed management for the River Health Program.

Wimmera CMA Wimmera Pest Plants and Animals Management Strategy.

Tas NRM North Weed Management Strategy – Northern NRM Region Tasmania.

WA Northern Agricultural No weed strategy. Has recently applied for State Government Catchment Council funding to develop one.

Table 15: What is being done by NRMs to tackle new and emerging weeds?

State NRM Region New or emerging weed programs

NSW Hunter Central Networking, staff presence in landscapes, coordination with Rivers CMA government agencies on eradication and management issues. SA Murray- Awareness, education and training $151,000. Darling Basin • Access to pest advice NRMB • Community liaison • Promotion of control programs. Managing new and established pests $132,000. • Identification and inspection of priority sites • Identity service for landowners. SA Arid Lands Works with State agencies, other NRM regions district groups and NRMB other land managers to share information. As funding permits, aerial surveys have been conducted along major water courses.

South East 12 of the 15 staff dedicated to control and management are inspection- NRMB based positions. The SENRMB has established a weed spotters group which currently has 34 trained volunteer weed spotters.

Vic Goulburn Implementing the State’s ‘Weed Alert program’ to ensure that all Broken CMA known infestations of State Prohibited Weeds are treated every year.

Involvement in the Weed Spotter project.

Commenced a program to advise the aquarium industry and plant suppliers of the potential impact of aquatic weed incursions.

North East Liaison with relevant State government agencies and internal CMA monitoring via the WaterWatch program on their regular site visits.

Wimmera The regional working group meets annually to discuss the control CMA works undertaken, trends in asset management and emerging trends.

Tas NRM North A system is in place to assist with the identification of unknown plants/weeds.

Direct involvement with other Tasmanian weed organisations and groups.

WA Northern New/emerging weeds are one of the main reasons for wanting to Agricultural develop an invasive species plan. Catchment Council

Table 16: What is being done by NRMs to increase public awareness?

State NRM Region Public awareness

NSW Central West Awareness activities held in conjunction with every WoNS CMA project.

13 activities including Bridal creeper awareness, Serrated tussock identification and management workshop, community weeds and Mesquite identification day.

Hunter Central Field days, demonstrations on control techniques, articles in Rivers CMA monthly newsletter.

SA Murray-Darling Workshops and training for landowners. Basin NRMB

SA Arid Lands Extension material provided to land managers and community NRMB through workshops, forums and direct engagement.

South East Displays in shopping centres, weed hygiene workshops, best NRMB practice field days, Weed Warriors program being run for schools. ‘Grow Me Instead’ workshops, newsletters and the use of media and annual mail out.

Vic Goulburn Broken Use of local and regional media to publicise priority issues. CMA Publication and project signage.

North East CMA One-on-one extension with landholders, media and news articles and support and advice to community groups.

Wimmera CMA Advocates invasive plant messages to the community about Regionally Prohibited Weeds (RPW) through the Future Farming Initiative: improving biosecurity at a regional scale by managing RPW.

Tas NRM North Training on weed management, weed hygiene, identification and control.

Resources to assist identification and management. Presentations and media articles.

WA Northern Conducted several information and promotional days across the Agricultural region. Has a plant guide that highlights problem plants and Catchment recommends native garden plants. Council

Figure 41: Local council employee providing advice to the local community on weed issues (Figure courtesy of PHA)

Table 17: Number of staff involved in weed management by NRMs

State NRM Region Staff Comments

NSW Central West CMA 7 Directly involved in the management of these projects.

Hunter Central Rivers 31 Directly involved with on-ground weed management CMA as a component of their role.

SA Murray-Darling Basin 22 NRMB

SA Arid Lands NRMB 1 Directly involved in coordinating and managing weed management projects.

4 Work with land managers in community engagement programs involving weed management

South East NRMB 15.6 15 dedicated FTE and 0.6 FTE contracted project officers.

Vic Goulburn Broken CMA 8 DPI staff.

0.5 GB CMA staff.

North East CMA 10 Within the river health team.

Wimmera CMA 5-6 About 176 days of labour allocated.

Tas NRM North 11

WA Northern Agricultural 1 Contract 6 staff based in local government regions. Catchment Council

Table 18: NRM grants to local government

State NRM Region Grants to local governments

NSW Hunter Central $230,000 Rivers CMA

SA Murray-Darling No. Basin NRMB

SA Arid Lands No. NRMB

South East No, although it does offer free hygiene workshops. NRMB

Vic Goulburn Broken $180, 000 from DPI. CMA $80,000 from DPI for research.

North East CMA Partner Wangaratta City Council and Indigo Shire in projects treating urban weeds in waterways and priority weeds on roadsides.

Wimmera CMA No.

Tas NRM North $60,000 plus in-kind support.

WA Northern No. Agricultural Catchment Council

Table 19: NRM grants to the community

State NRM Region Grants Comments

NSW Central West $185,000 To control and manage 7 WoNS species. CMA

Hunter Central 28 grants to the These grants are for a number of activities Rivers CMA value of including weed management. $701,000.

SA Murray-Darling $8,470 for $56,500 as part of the Murray Mallee Local Basin NRMB community Action Planning Woorinen Recovery Project. volunteers.

SA Arid Lands 12 grants to the $40,000 in other on-ground projects and NRMB value of $70,069. $40,000 in developing district weed strategies.

South East $30,000 For 3 community-based regional NRM NRMB Groups.

$61,000 Funded 9 individual property projects under the ‘Bucks for the Bush’ grants scheme.

$40,000 Supporting aboriginal involvement in NRM activities across the South East

Vic Goulburn Broken $162,200 For 8 key weed management projects from CMA the State Government through the 2nd Generation Landcare devolved grants.

North East CMA Yes, through Landcare groups.

Wimmera CMA $140, 000 Invested through the 2nd Generation Landcare devolved grants.

Tas NRM North $30,000 For 10 grants.

WA Northern No. Agricultural Catchment Council

4.6 Weed management in National Parks and reserves Across Australia there are many public landholders managing large areas of Australia and/or land corridors that have the potential to be a source of weed spread unless managed. These areas included national parks and reserves, land used in mining, road and rail corridors and land used for utility corridors for power and water.

Many of these land owners have been criticised in the past for the poor management of weeds which causes weeds to spread to neighbouring properties. While this may have been the case in the past,

most of these landholders recognise their responsibilities and have practices and processes in place to manage weeds.

National Reserve System The National Reserve System (NRS) is Australia’s network of protected areas covering 13.1 per cent of Australia in more than 9,400 reserves. The NRS aims to conserve examples of Australia’s unique landscapes, plants and animals for future generations. The NRS is a partnership between governments, conservation organisations, community, companies, individual farmers and indigenous communities.

While national parks and reserves are the backbone of the NRS, many vulnerable plants, animals and critical habitat exist only on private land. Increasingly, farmers and graziers are passing voluntary perpetual covenants over parts of their properties to help protect valuable habitat.

The community also adds to the NRS by purchasing properties, with assistance from the Australian Government. Between 1997 and 2007, community groups purchased ten properties covering more than 118,000 hectares. Local councils can also nominate reserves and open spaces that have valuable bushland, rivers, creeks and wetlands providing habitat for threatened species.

The management of weeds and invasive species across the NRS is guided by plans of management. These plans provide for monitoring and evaluation programs that address the adaptive management of threats to the property’s biodiversity, including pest plants and animals, fire and adaptation to climate change.

National Parks and state reserves In New South Wales, the Office of Environment and Heritage manages 879 national parks and reserves, approximately 8.5 per cent of the state’s land. One of the major management challenges is reducing the impacts of introduced pests and invasive weed species on park values, including impacts on biodiversity, threatened species, endangered ecological communities, cultural and historic heritage, catchment and scenic values.

In Victoria, there are more than 3000 parks and reserves which represent 17.8 per cent of the state. Parks Victoria does not have individual plans for each park or reserve. Parks Victoria uses a Level of Protection (LoP) framework to aid planning and resource allocation by placing parks in a state-wide context. The LoP framework groups parks according to biodiversity criteria and allocates broad conservation objectives to each group.

The LoP system also considers the relative risk and efficiency associated with weed management. Thus parks with high values and low levels of weed infestation are prioritised above those with high levels of infestation. LoP does not provide a formula for investment. Funds are provided to regions that prioritise weed management activities and allocate funds based on the LoP and available risk assessment information.

In Western Australia, approximately 6.9 per cent (17.4 million hectares) of the land is national parks, conservation parks and natural reserves. Other conservation categories, including State forests and timber reserves and miscellaneous reserves, make up a further 0.9 per cent (2.4 million hectares) of the State, with a further 2.3 per cent (5.9 million hectares) in purchased land awaiting conservation reservation.

Invasive plant control objectives are set out in the management plans for conservation and forest lands required under the Conservation and Land Management Act, or in the case where there is no management plan, the necessary operations are connected under the CALM Act.

During 2008-10, the DEC implemented the first stage of an Invasive Plant Prioritisation Process across each of its regions. This species-based approach assessed weed species for their invasiveness, ecological impacts, potential and current distribution and feasibility of control. It focused on infestations of species that are considered to be high impact, rapidly invasive and at a population size where it is feasible to eradicate or contain.

The second stage, is investigating the use of an asset protection-based approach to determine the priority for management actions to protect environmental assets from the threat of established weeds.

In South Australia, approximately 25 per cent of the State is covered by parks and reserves. Management plans are prepared for each park or reserve as an obligation under the National Park and Wildlife Act.

In Tasmania, 34.4 per cent (2.4 million hectares) is considered as reserves under the Nature Conservation Act. This figure rises to 44.8 per cent when all reserves (public and private land) are included. The Reserves are managed by the Tasmanian Reserve Management Code of Practice, which sets the objectives for the management of weeds, including hygiene management.

Approximately 75 per cent of the Australian Capital Territory is covered by national parks and reserves, with 62 per cent in conservation reserves (National Parks and Nature Reserves) and 13 per cent in other reserves (pine plantations and agistment land). The ACT Environmental Weed Control Operations Plan 2011-19 guides weed control operations to reduce the impact of priority weeds by setting priorities to make the best use of limited resources.

4.7 Role of agricultural industries Weeds have a significant impact on agriculture industries by increasing production costs, lowering crop yields and determining many management practices. Weed management forms the foundation of most plant protection programs in Australian agricultural systems. Most production systems require the implementation of both chemical and non-chemical control systems to reduce losses associated with weeds.

In a landmark study, the total cost of weeds (on-farm costs of control and opportunity costs from lost production) to crops was conservatively estimated in 2001-02 to be $1,379 – 1,467 million. The total cost to horticulture was $19 – 55 million (Sinden et al., 2005). While these figures are dated, it is probably the only published estimate of the total cost of weeds to Australian agriculture and it is beyond the scope of this study to conduct a new economic analysis.

These impacts in agriculture were calculated in the above study by Sinden et al. as the change in farm income and the cost of food with and without weeds. The difference is the maximum benefit that could be achieved by reducing the weed population, so it represents the size and national significance of weed management undertaken by producers.

Table 20: Costs of weeds by crop industry (extracted from Sinden et al., 2005) Crop Chemical control Non-chemical Lost production Total costs industry costs (mean) control costs, (opportunity cost) (mean) $ m* $ m $ m $ m Grain 436.0 261 171 868.0

Cotton 55.0 47 63 165.0

Sugar 32.5 12 18 62.5

Rice 26.5 16 6 48.5

Fruit 12.0 7 1 20.0

Vegetables 10.0 6 1 17.0

Grains Australian grain production is predominantly winter cereals (wheat, barley, oats) produced across a wide area in distinct climatic zones with differing environments, soils and diverse management requirements. Pulses and oilseed crops are also significant, both in their own right and as break crops to assist weed, pest and disease control. The grains industry is defined by three broad agroecological regions:

• Southern region: South-eastern Australia is the major grain production region, growing predominantly field grains (wheat, barley, oats, triticale), as well as some grain legumes (chickpeas, faba beans, field peas, lupins, lentils, mung beans) and rice. The region has varied crop production systems and many mixed farming enterprises with significant livestock and cropping. The most damaging weeds in grain crops in the Southern region are Annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum), Wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), Wild oats (Avena spp.), Brome grass (Bromus spp.), Barley grass (Hordeum spp.), Indian hedge mustard (Sisymbrium orientale) and Fleabane (Conyza spp.).

• Western region: Western Australia grows mainly field grains and grain legumes, with wheat, barley, canola and lupins being the dominant crops. The Western region has the most serious weed problems. The major weeds are Annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum), Barley grass (Hordeum spp.), Brome grass (Bromus spp.), Capeweed (Arctotheca calendula), Common sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus), Doublegee (Emex australis), Fleabane (Conyza spp.), Indian hedge mustard (Sisymbrium orientale), Silver grass (Vulpia spp.), Wild oats (Avena spp.), Wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) and Wireweed (Polygonum spp.).

• Northern region: Summer and winter crops are grown in Queensland and northern New South Wales, including sorghum, maize and tropical pulses, as well as wheat, barley and winter-growing pulses and oilseeds (canola, soybean, sunflower, safflower, linseed). In northern NSW, the major winter grain crops are wheat, barley, oats, chickpea, triticale, canola and lupin, while the major summer crops are grain sorghum, maize, soybean and sunflower. The major weeds in the Northern region are Flaxleaf fleabane (Conyza bonariensis), Feathertop Rhodes grass (Chloris virgata), Wild oats (Avena spp.), Sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus), Barnyard grass (Echinochloa spp.), Liverseed grass (Urochloa panicoides), Windmill grass (Chloris truncata) and Milk thistle (Silybum sp.).

100

Other common weeds in broadacre crops include Wild turnip (Brassica tournefortii) and Blue heliotrope (Heliotropium amplexicaule). Controlling weeds is an essential element of the management system for grain crops, as unwanted vegetation needs to be cleared from paddocks before planting. Weeds also need to be controlled during the growing season because they compete for space, water and nutrients, significantly reduce yields and quality of the product and can contaminate the harvested crop. Weeds that have very tough stems, such as skeleton weed (Chondrilla juncea), can tangle and block harvesting machinery. Weeds can also carry over into the next crop or pasture in farming rotation systems.

Figure 42: Wild oats (Avena sp.) infesting a wheat crop (Figure courtesy of PHA)

Before the 1980s, cultivation was the predominant method used to clear the paddocks of weeds before sowing. With the introduction in the 1940s of chemicals, such as 2 4-D and MCPA, grain growers had access to herbicides that could selectively control broadleaf weeds economically. Since the 1990s, grain cropping has progressively moved to a minimum-till or no-tillage approach with selective herbicides used to control weeds. This has resulted in reduced soil erosion, preservation of soil structure, reduced fuel costs and increased yields.

While herbicides have revolutionised the productivity of the Australian grains industry, their widespread use has led to significant changes in weed populations, and herbicide resistance has become one of the greatest challenges for the industry. Over-reliance on some herbicides has resulted in increasing incidence of herbicide resistance in weeds, threatening the whole system of minimum- till agriculture. Integrated weed management (IWM) is the most important tool available to grain growers to prevent and manage herbicide resistance. The core approach is to increase the diversity of weed control options through IWM and to improve effective management of weeds as farming

101

systems continue to evolve. IWM involves using a wider range of herbicides, usually in rotation and in conjunction with other weed control methods. Access to a wide range of herbicides is important for environment protection as well as agricultural productivity.

The Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) invests heavily to support grain growers to manage weeds. Its website has information and links to the Integrated Weed Management Manual, weed publications, herbicide resistance management, weed management, weed identification and key weed contacts. The website also contains details of a free downloadable mobile phone application on weed identification called ‘GRDC Weed ID. The Ute Guide’. This app is designed to assist growers to identify the most common annual, biennial and perennial weeds in southern Australia and includes photographs of weeds at various growth stages, and calendars to show when weeds are likely to be present in paddocks. It allows users to search, identify, compare and email photographs of weeds to their networks.

Chemical control and herbicide resistance management In 1987, a research study concluded that herbicides could be substituted for tillage on fallows without reducing the yield of following wheat crops (Amor and Ridge, 1987). The following 25 years have seen a revolution in agricultural practices as farmers adopted no-till or minimum-till systems to reduce costs and conserve resources, with weeds controlled by herbicides rather than tillage. Adoption of no-tillage sowing systems has increased rapidly in many Australian grain growing regions over the past decade. The extent of herbicide resistant weed populations in these regions has also increased over the same period. A survey of growers in the South and Western Australian cropping regions was conducted in 2006 to identify opportunities for more effective tillage and weed- related extension (D'Emden and Llewellyn, 2006). Trends in sowing system use were determined, as were growers’ perceptions of the long-term effects of no-tillage on herbicide costs, herbicide resistance, and soil erosion. The results suggested a major expansion in the adoption of no-tillage sowing in most South Australian cropping regions over the following 5 years, although growers expected increased herbicide costs in no-tillage systems and an increased risk of herbicide resistance. Herbicide resistance and weed control issues were the main reasons given for reducing no-tillage use. A key research and extension challenge is to develop and implement weed management strategies that are able to sustain long-term no-tillage use in a cropping environment where growers place a high value on the soil and production benefits of no-tillage, but over-reliance on herbicides can rapidly lead to resistance in major crop weeds. A later survey of grain growers in five states concluded that the no-till ‘revolution’ across diverse cropping landscapes has been highly successful. It revealed that the proportion of growers using no- till neared 90 per cent in many districts (Llewellyn and D’Emden, 2010). However a majority of growers expect the no-till system with stubble retention to lead to more herbicide resistance.

Herbicides are now an important tool in weed control and integrated weed management. However, repeated and frequent use of herbicides with the same biochemical mode of action can rapidly confer resistance to these herbicides in as little as 3-4 years. In Australia, herbicide resistance has been confirmed in 38 grass and broadleaf weed species. Resistance has already developed to glyphosate, the backbone of no-till cropping systems in Australia, in four grassy weeds and one broadleaf weed species in Australia. More worrying still, resistance has now developed to 11 distinctly different herbicide chemical groups. Cases of multiple resistance have also been commonly reported where, for example, populations of annual ryegrass are resistant to two or more chemical groups. This significantly reduces herbicide options for the grower and ultimately threatens the sustainability of minimum-till cropping systems.

102

The Grains Research and Development Corporation produced a fact sheet that discusses the importance of good management of herbicides and the need to use integrated weed management (IWM) strategies to retain the effectiveness of valuable non-selective herbicides (Anon, 2009, Grains Research and Development Corporation). Because glyphosate is such an important and widely used non-selective herbicide for control of many weeds, an expert multi-stakeholder working group was formed to develop strategies to ensure its sustainable use. Details of the Australian Glyphosate Sustainability Working Group can be found at: http://www.glyphosateresistance.org.au/.

The Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative at the University of Western Australia was established in 1998 to develop research programs targeting herbicide resistance and to disseminate resistance management messages to encourage sustainable cropping. Details can be found on their website: http://www.ahri.uwa.edu.au/.

Crop Life Australia, the peak industry organisation representing the agricultural chemical sector in Australia, with support from the Corporate Research Centre for Australian Weed Management and GRDC, introduced a classification system for herbicides enabling farmers and advisers to understand the mode of action grouping of the chemicals. The herbicide mode of action groups are explained and listed in a brochure (Anon, 2008). It is mandatory for all herbicide product labels in Australia to carry the designated mode of action group letter. CropLife Australia also developed Herbicide Resistance Management Strategies to provide a guide for herbicide product rotation through product groups and alternative management strategies to minimise the development of herbicide resistance, whilst protecting the environment. The Herbicide Mode of Action table and Herbicide Resistance Management Strategies are updated annually and are available on the CropLife Australia website at: http://www.croplifeaustralia.org.au/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=1954.

Cotton Weeds are a significant problem for the cotton industry. At crop establishment stage, weeds compete with young cotton plants for water and nutrients and interfere with irrigation efficiency during crop growth. Weeds can also affect harvest ability and quality control, or act as alternative hosts for pests and diseases of cotton plants. It is estimated that financial losses due to weeds are about $100-150 per hectare per year.

103

Figure 43: Nutgrass (Cyperus rotundus) competing with young cotton crop (Figure courtesy of PHA)

Cotton Australia estimates that about $700,000 is invested each year on weeds research and development, and growers use about 10 per cent of consultants’ time on weed issues. The main weeds identified as important by Cotton Australia are Flaxleaf fleabane (Conyzia bonariensis), Awnless barnyard grass (Echinochloa colona), Feathertop Rhodes grass (Chloris virgata), Liverseed grass (Urochloa panicoides), Annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidium), Milkthistle (Silybum sp.), volunteer cotton (Gossypium hirstum) and vines. To assist growers, Cotton Australia has developed an Integrated Weed Management ‘manual’ and recommended best management practices. The Cotton Catchment Communities Cooperative Research Centre has produced WEEDpak manual, an integrated weed management (IWM) document on different approaches to achieve sustainable, cost effective and environmentally sensitive weed management.

Cotton Australia conducts a wide-scale weed survey of the cotton production areas every five years. They also conduct genetic investigations for early detection of herbicide resistance. Cotton Australia has identified a need for further work on weed ecology, development of web resources, control of cotton volunteers and herbicide resistance management.

Sugar Weeds are a serious problem for the sugar industry, as sugarcane is grown in tropical climates with high humidity, an ideal climate for weedy species to compete and reduce production. The industry association, CANEGROWERS, reported that the important weeds are grasses, sedges, broad leaves and vines. Hymenachne (H. amplexicaulis), Green summer grass (Digitaria sanguinalis), and Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus) are particularly hard to manage. The industry has responded by

104

implementing a whole-farm planned approach using the BSES’ Integrated Weed Management (IWM). The IWM plans use three rules: • timely weed control, with early control when weeds are easier to kill and before they seed • consider all options available, including trash blankets, pre-emergent knockdown herbicides, mechanical and rotation crops • keep property and equipment clean to avoid introducing weed seeds. Weed management relies more on chemical control due to increased green cane harvesting and minimum tillage practices. The products used are residual herbicides and knockdowns.

It is estimated that weeds cost the sugar industry $70-$100 million annually, so any practice that can reduce the weed burden is likely to generate substantial economic benefit to growers and the industry. The industry makes a significant investment in extension, training and research and development to address the issue.

CANEGROWERS is a member of the WoNS Hymenachne Working Group and this allows it to keeps a watching brief on the species and other WoNS species. The industry is also active with growers observing, reporting and considering new and emerging weeds that may become a problem.

Rice Australian rice production relies on rapid direct seeding techniques that inevitably encourage simultaneous establishment of a suite of aquatic and terrestrial annual weeds. Effective herbicides are critical to ensuring that weed-free rice crops are established in order to reach their full yield potential and achieve maximum water use efficiency. Over 98 per cent of the Australian crop is treated with herbicides annually to ensure freedom from weeds. Failure to control weeds can commonly result in complete crop failure.

The major weeds in Australian rice crops are Barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), Malabar sprangletop (Leptochloa fusca), Variable flatsedge/Rice sedge or Dirty Dora (Cyperus difformis), Starfruit (Damasonium minus), Arrowhead (Sagittaria montevidensis) and Water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica). When unchecked, weeds can render a rice crop unworthy of harvest due to negligible yield and tangling in the grain harvester. Direct seeding, facilitated by use of selective herbicides, has removed the need for the drudgery of transplanting rice seedlings to compete with weeds. Research into effective herbicides for Australian rice crops has led to a suite of products being registered, but more research and registration of new herbicide products, and practical regulation of their use, must continue if the Australian rice industry is to remain internationally competitive.

An industry estimate of the resources expended on weeds of rice in Australia, based on a 100,000 hectare crop, is a total of $23.3 million annually (possibly more in herbicide costs). This total includes herbicide costs $20 million, herbicide application costs $3 million, and research and extension $ 0.2 million.

Integrated Weed Management (IWM) techniques are documented in ‘Production of Quality Rice in South Eastern Australia’ Chapter 9 (Parts 1 and 2), and in the NSW Government’s annually published ‘Rice Crop Protection Guide’.

Quarantine regulations prevent movement of rice into the rice production area and the industry manages a pure seed scheme to prevent incursions. An informal network of agronomists maintains vigilance for early detection and identification of any new or emerging weeds, and research will be initiated if necessary. The industry runs rice weed management field days for agronomists and growers twice per year, and pre-season growers meetings are held in all rice producing districts.

105

Fodder The Australian Fodder Industry Association indicated that weeds increase production costs given the application of herbicides to annual crops. These applications add Maximum Residue Limits risks for consumers and export markets.

The most important weed being tackled is Annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum). Invasive weeds, such as Serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma), often effectively remove the option of fodder conservation of crops for farmers as seeds could be transferred to other farms with any hay made on contaminated properties. Weed seeds are often a problem in trade of hay made from perennial pastures.

Weeds are also a problem for contractors to manage as the hygiene of their equipment impacts on their ability and suitability to undertake new works. A program called WeedStop has been introduced to manage this issue.

Weed seeds such as Annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) cause a significant cost and market threat to hay through the infection of bacteria and fungus which leads to annual ryegrass toxicity (ARGT). On the other hand, weeds have had a positive influence for a portion of the industry as oaten hay production is a management tool to control herbicide-resistant ryegrass.

While the industry has not undertaken an analysis of the cost of weeds to the industry, they believe that it is possible to calculate the cost using Australian Bureau of Statistics data on area planted to hay crops and making assumptions on the herbicide usage in that year. Calculations would also need to factor in the substantial cost of ARGT.

The industry uses forums, such as the Grains Industry Market Access Forum, to be briefed on issues such as Branched broomrape and other market access issues.

Grazing The sheep industry suffers significant financial losses caused by weed seed contamination, which can reduce production, product quality and animal health. Seeds are picked up in the sheep’s fleece and within days can penetrate the skin and move into the carcase. This can cause the animal discomfort, reduce productivity and lead to downgraded product. Seed infested carcases can be downgraded by $1/kg.

To avoid grass seed contamination of sheep carcases, producers must practise year-round integrated management of grassy weeds. Common seed management strategies include grazing management, stocking density, grazing rotation, fodder conservation, stock management, genetics, time of lambing and marketing.

106

Figure 44: Weeds can spread into pastures from surrounding land (Figure courtesy of PHA)

The major weed contaminants of sheep carcases are Brome grass (Bromus spp.), Silver grass (Vulpia spp.), Spear grass (Austrostipa scabra), Chilean needle grass (Nassella neesiana), Barley grass (Hordeum spp.), Wild geranium (Geranium carolinianum) and Wire grass (Aristida spp.). Another invasive grass that causes a greater reduction of pasture and grazing carrying capacity than any other weed in Australia is Serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma). It is closely related to several other exotic grasses, including Chilean needle grass (N. neesiana) and Mexican feather grass (N. tenuissima).

Serrated tussock can quickly spread throughout an area, rapidly forming a monoculture. Pastures that can normally carry 7-15 dry sheep equivalents per hectare can be reduced to a carrying capacity of only 0.5 dry sheep equivalents per hectare if heavily infested with serrated tussock (Campbell and Vere, 1995). In NSW alone, serrated tussock is estimated to have cost more than $40 million per year in control and lost production.

107

Figure 45: Effect of grazing management on Serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) (Figure courtesy of B. Wicks)

Once serrated tussock becomes established, it competes so aggressively for moisture, sunlight and nutrients that pasture production can be reduced all year round, particularly in drought. Serrated tussock has no grazing value because it is unpalatable to livestock and will only be eaten if nothing else is available. It is of low nutritional value to livestock and has a high fibre and low protein content. If livestock are forced to graze pastures containing only Serrated tussock, the leaves can form indigestible balls in the rumen, causing a loss of condition and eventually death. Dense infestations (over 8,000 plants / hectare) can more than halve the pasture carrying capacity for livestock, while higher densities can completely suppress pastures, making them essentially of no value for grazing.

Dispersal is mostly by wind and wind-borne seed can spread very quickly over large distances. Seed can also be accidentally dispersed through ingestion by livestock, attachment to stock, machinery, equipment or in hay. Seed can remain viable in the gut of livestock for up to ten days and in the soil for up to ten years.

Beef and sheep For the meat and livestock industries, pastures are a critical resource in grazing operations. The interaction between grazing and pasture management influences the profitability and sustainability of an enterprise. Soil nutrition, weed control and sowing or seeding are important considerations when establishing forage crops. One of the main reasons pastures fail to establish is competition from weeds.

108

Effective and lasting weed control is achieved through the development of a well-planned approach using a combination of management options, integrated with other pasture and livestock management activities. Prevention is much better than dealing with an established weed.

Figure 46: Giant rat’s tail grass (Sporobolus pyramidalis) (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

The Meat and Livestock Australia website lists six principles of weed management provide a basis for the effective control of weeds and include:

• awareness • detection • planning • prevention • intervention • control and monitoring. It notes that producers should be aware of these principles and be mindful of them when devising their weed management plan. The aim of weed control is to reduce the weed seed load in the soil seed bank to remove the threat that weeds will germinate to challenge the new pasture. Weed control should commence well before a new pasture is sown, generally several years before. This can be achieved through the use of herbicides and strategic grazing.

Strategic grazing can also be used as an effective weed control method. Spray-grazing is one useful technique, however, producers must always be careful to abide by grazing withholding periods.

109

Woody weeds crowd out pastures by competing for nutrients, water and sunlight. Woody weeds are typically difficult to control and often require a combination of herbicide, mechanical and grazing techniques.

Producers should look out for new weed infestations before they become too large and difficult to contain.

Bare or sparse ground and weak remaining perennial plants, allow weeds to get ahead quickly. Many weeds have seeds that last in the soil for several years, so producers should be particularly wary when conditions have to extensive areas of bare ground, such as after a drought.

Figure 47: Weeds can also invade dairy pastures (Figure courtesy of T. Rose)

110

Case study: Serrated tussock

Serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) is one of Australia’s worst weeds and was selected as a WoNS due to its invasiveness, potential for spread and social, economic and environmental impacts. It is a highly invasive, long-lived perennial grass weed in temperate Australia, invading pastures, native grasslands, grassy woodlands, roadsides and urban areas. It can reduce both the biodiversity of native grasslands and the livestock carrying capacity of agricultural land.

Serrated tussock is a native of South America, but has infested large areas, particularly in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. It is thought that Serrated tussock was accidentally introduced into Australia around 1900. It was first noted as a problem at Yass, NSW in 1935, then found in Victoria in 1954 and Tasmania in 1956. It is mostly confined to the cooler temperate areas, but it does have a wide climatic tolerance. Serrated tussock currently covers more than a million hectares in NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT, and is a declared weed/pest in those states, requiring landholders to control it.

Serrated tussock readily invades disturbed and degraded pastures. Only dense perennial pasture and bush areas are not invaded. Serrated tussock seedlings are weak and slow growing and may be several years old before flowering. The greatest invasion of pastures and grasslands occurs when the pre-existing vegetation is weak, with large areas of bare ground, particularly during drought, as Serrated tussock thrives in low rainfall habitats. Looking similar to many native grasses, Serrated tussock may go unnoticed in both pastures and native grasslands for many years until significant infestations have developed. Under continual selective grazing, Serrated tussock can become dominant unless controlled. Biodiversity is reduced by dominance of Serrated tussock and erosion risk may be increased by the loss of ground cover.

Serrated tussock is a weed with serious community implications: it spreads readily between properties throughout a region; many common land management strategies allow the weed to establish; vigorous and ongoing treatments are needed; and some infestations may appear daunting or irreversible and beyond the abilities of individual landholders to control.

A national strategy for Serrated tussock has been developed to reduce its impact and to prevent its spread and establishment across Australia. Control requirements vary between and within states, but can involve pasture renovation, herbicides, cultivation, grazing management and slashing to prevent seeding in summer.

111

Figure 48: Serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

Vegetables Several weeds of horticulture crops have developed resistance to a wide range of herbicides, e.g. Barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), Awnless barnyard grass (E. colona), Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), Capeweed (Arctotheca calendula), Wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), Paterson’s curse (Echium plantagineum) and Prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). AUSVEG, the national peak industry body representing the interests of Australian vegetable and potato growers, provides an overview of weeds on its website. It indicates that weeds compete with vegetable crops for plant nutrients and water and are one of the most significant sources of pests and diseases. Weed control, and the control of pests such as aphids and thrips in weeds near crops, are important for the management of viral diseases. Also effective control of weeds is critical for maximising moisture storage and crop yields, reducing the weed seed bank, and meeting quality standards at harvest.

AUSVEG has developed a number of guides for members, such as: • weed management • preventing Pests and Diseases in the Greenhouse: Get rid of all weeds • lettuce Best Practice – Integrated Pest Management Guide • brassica Best Practice – Integrated Pest Management Guide

112

• controlling Weeds in Broccoli, Cauliflower, and Brussels Sprouts: A guide to effective weed control in Australian brassicas • integrated weed management components for vegetables • Australian Vegetable Growing Handbook.

Macadamias Weeds are not considered a major issue for the macadamia industry, as the orchards are heavily canopied, allowing little light through and making it difficult for weeds to establish. Some weed control is practised under trees as part of pre-harvest clean-up, using mowers and general knock-down herbicides such as glyphosate, particularly for pasture weeds. It is estimated that weed management would make up less than 2 per cent of farm resources.

Pineapples For the pineapple industry, weeds compete directly with pineapple plants for sunlight, moisture and nutrients and can interfere with spray penetration into the crop. They also make working conditions more difficult and may harbour nematodes and insects such as Rutherglen bug, thrips and mealybugs. While weeds are an issue for the industry, to date there has been no study of their cost implications.

Turf Weed management is very important to the turf industry, with farmers aiming to sell turf free of any weeds or weed seeds. No grower wishes to have a customer complain that the turf delivered was full of weeds, because within a very short space of time the weeds will emerge and often this will lead to replacing the turf or possible litigation.

The majority of growers treat weeds after emergence with selective herbicides on a broadacre scale, or if weeds are present in isolated spots, they may spot spray. A smaller number of growers will also treat with pre-emergence herbicides if there is a recognized weed issue or they wish to add value by on-selling the benefits of ‘weed-free for xxx months’. Mechanical removal of available weeds is also employed for tough weeds, isolated patches or where no herbicide chemical is registered or available.

It is estimated that the top growers who present very clean turf might spend 6-7 cents per square metre or about 10 per cent of their cost of production on herbicides.

Recently the industry association, Turf Australia, surveyed all its levy-paying members seeking information on what weeds are problematic, when they are a problem, what is used to control them and the success of those treatments. Unfortunately, the survey rate of return was too low to gain any meaningful data. However, Winter grass (Poa annua) is considered a problem in southern areas while in northern areas Nutgrass (Cyperus rotundus), Mullumbimby couch (Cyperus brevifolius) and Crowsfoot grass (Eleusine indica) cause problems.

Apples and pears For the apple and pear industry, the significance of weeds varies greatly across the country. Weeds can be a significant problem across all regions when control strategies/options are minimal. Weeds are a significant problem for young tree growth with weed competition for water and nutrients restricting their development. When the trees reach full canopy, weeds are less of an issue, although they still need to be managed. Weeds not managed before harvest can grow into the lower layers of the canopy and occasionally affect the colour of the fruit.

113

Weeds can also be a significant expense when the species requires a specific herbicide product with no alternatives.

Cherries Like the apple and pear industry, young cherry trees do not compete well with weeds. The industry has a Production Manual that includes a section on weed management. The Manual notes that managing weeds is a constant and ever changing issue, with weeds very adept at reacting to changing environmental conditions and control measures used. As a result, weed management strategies need to be regularly adjusted, particularly with the increasing herbicide resistance of some weeds. The Manual provides information on strategies to monitor and watch for resistance problems, and non- chemical options for weed control.

Raspberries and blackberries In the Rubus industry (blackberries, raspberries, loganberries), weeds inhibit the growth of new canes during their vegetative phase, by choking the crowns of the plants and competing for water and nutrients. Taller weeds also inhibit efficient picking of the berries. The major weeds are Wild radish (Raphanus reptaristrum), Marshmallow (Althaea officinalis), Dock (Rumex spp.) and Clevers (Galium aparine). Most growers use a weedmat type covering along the plant row and spray herbicides along the edge of the weedmat. The majority of producers manage weeds in the inter-row space by mowing or use of specially planted ground cover species.

Weed management has been an increasing problem in the recent wet summers because of the widespread moisture in the soil. In drier summers, weed growth is significantly reduced because irrigation applications are targeted at the crown of the plant. It is estimated that Rubus growers spend $700 per hectare per year on weed control.

The industry sees the management of weedy blackberries in areas surrounding growers’ properties as needing improvement to prevent the spread of diseases from the wild populations into commercial plantations. The industry association (Raspberries and Blackberries Australia Inc.) is represented on the WoNS National Blackberry Taskforce.

The industry expects to produce the Rubus Industry Biosecurity Plan in the next 18 months and it is expected that the plan will address the issues of new and emerging weeds.

Nursery and garden industry The nursery and garden industry is Australia-wide and services most Australians in both urban and rural regions. When all the components of the industry are combined, it is one of the biggest agricultural industries in Australia, with a combined ‘supply chain’ annual value exceeding $5.5 billion. The nursery industry imports, propagates, distributes and sells a wide range of plants across the country. The production sector of the Australian nursery industry produces more than 10,000 plant species with many and varying target markets, including orchardists, vegetable growers, forestry, parks, gardens, landscape revegetation and mine rehabilitation. The estimated annual value of all of the industry’s target markets is $14.5 billion. The nursery industry is a small user (by volume) of pesticides, but due to the huge number of plant species produced, the industry requires a large range of pesticide products to combat the various pests, diseases and weeds that threaten the many different production systems in operation across the country.

Some plant species can be weedy in some areas and not in others. There are many common garden plants that behave like this, such as Morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea) and African Lily (Agapanthus

114

spp.). For example, a harmless garden plant from an inland area may become weedy if grown in a garden on the coast. Even popular edible species of plants that are often grown in gardens, like olives (Olea europaea) and passionfruit (Passiflora caerulea), have become weeds in some areas. They need to be carefully managed and contained to reduce the risk of becoming a weed problem elsewhere.

Even native plants can become weeds when they are grown in areas outside their original range. A classic example of this is the Cootamundra wattle (Acacia baileyana), which has proven invasive outside its natural region.

The Nursery and Garden Industry Australia (NGIA) is trying to address the problem of some plant nurseries selling plants that have invasive potential, sometimes intentionally but more often through ignorance (a good example is the recent sale and distribution of the mislabelled Mexican feather grass, Nassella tenuissima) (Csurhes, 2008) (See case study in Chapter 3).

Another example is Broom plants, which are worth about $1.5 million to the nursery industry. Cytisus scoparius and some other naturalized species are banned from sale in some states, but the continued sale of Broom varieties closely related to weedy species may pose a threat to the environment (Atkinson and Sheppard, 2000). Biological control programs against weedy Brooms may pose a threat to horticultural Brooms. Three Broom species were added to the Weeds of National Significance list in 2012, i.e. Cytisus scoparius, Genista monspessulana and G. linifolia. Over the years, the Australian nursery and garden industry has produced awareness campaigns and educational materials on managing invasive plants. Another initiative to address this problem is public education of the risks of planting invasive plant species in gardens (Anon, 2004). The nursery industry was involved with the Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management in the development of the ‘What does your garden grow?’ training program. The Grow Me Instead (GMI) program was originally initiated by Nursery and Garden Industry NSW and ACT to demonstrate environmental stewardship to industry and the wider community by removing from propagation and sale, plants deemed to be environmentally unsound. The collaborative GMI Committee developed a booklet that identified 27 potentially invasive plants and suggested suitable alternatives for planting in gardens. Following the success of this publication, the Nursery and Garden Industry Association (NGIA) developed GMI booklets for every state and territory.

The NGIA also developed an Invasive Plants Policy Position which calls for an agreed set of lists for use at each jurisdictional level to identify invasive plants, a nationally agreed weed risk assessment process and industry-based education and awareness.

115

Figure 49: Garden escapes invading native vegetation (Figure courtesy of PHA)

NGIA is currently leading a project to use the Botanic Gardens Weed Risk Assessment Procedure to screen 1000 common ornamental taxa cultivated in Australian nurseries for sale to the public, to ascertain the degree of weed risk associated with each species (National Weeds and Productivity Research Program). The project will develop an Australian white list of low risk ornamental taxa. The NGIA developed national plant labelling guidelines in 2007 that provide guidance on how to correctly label plants, including correct botanical names and potentially harmful plants.

In 2009, NGIA conducted an invasive plants survey to gather plant production and availability lists from production nurseries across Australia and scan them for Weeds of National Significance, National Environmental Alert Weeds, sleeper weeds and potentially invasive plants as listed in GMI regional publications. The survey also investigated the level of industry awareness of industry and government invasive plant/weed programs.

Minor uses of herbicides A minor use is a low volume use of a pesticide. Pesticide manufacturers will spend typically around $100,000 generating the regulatory data required to register each use for a pesticide (CropLife Australia 2010). As the markets for minor uses are often small, there is sometimes little commercial incentive for manufacturers to invest in registering these uses. As a result, there is a lack of herbicides that are legally available in Australia for many specialty crops and environmental weed control scenarios.

About 16 per cent of minor use permit applications to the APVMA each year are for non-crop uses. These are typically for environmental purposes, such as controlling noxious or invasive weeds. One example of the urgent need for a minor use program is the lack of any herbicides registered in

116

Australia to control the environmental weed Hymenachne amplexicaulis, which is spreading in north- eastern Australian waterways. Hymenachne is an invasive, perennial, semi-aquatic grass that has potential to spread across much of northern Australia, choking high conservation valued wetlands, waterways and low lying crops.

Figure 50: Hymenachne (Hymenache amplexicaulis), a Weed of National Significance (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

Originally released for grazing and use in pondage pasture infrastructure, this weed continues to spread in areas of Northern New South Wales, coastal Queensland and Northern Territory. National distribution is estimated at 14,000 hectares and priority management areas have been identified for Queensland and New South Wales. About ten herbicides are available for control of this serious weed in the USA, but the market in Australia is too small for companies to register these products for use in Australia. Environmental managers are frustrated by the lack of access to these herbicides and the difficulties of obtaining multiple temporary permits for different jurisdictions.

Control of contentious plants Contentious plants are species that are valued for their productive potential but are also a threat to other industries or natural environments. While containment of such species is desirable, it is not always feasible (Grice et al., 2010). The feasibility of containment is influenced by the characteristics of the species, the landscape and the management and social systems in which they are grown. Successful containment depends on the scale of the attempt and the location of containment lines.

Some plants are contentious, being economic crops to some people but weeds in other situations, for example:

117

• Olives (Olea europaea) and Blackberries (Rubus fruticosus) are valuable crops, but feral plants can be highly invasive; • Paterson’s curse (Echium plantagineum) is a competitive weed in pastures, but is valued by graziers during droughts because it provides stock feed when other plants cannot survive (hence the other common name – Salvation Jane); it is also valued by bee keepers as a source of quality honey; and Broom (Cytisus scoparius) is an attractive ornamental plant but also an invasive weed.

Contentious plants create a dilemma from a weed management perspective.

Figure 51: Cultivated berry crop (Figure courtesy of PHA)

118

Figure 52: Blackberries (Rubus fruticosus agg.) invading bush (Figure courtesy of S. Dibley)

119

Case Study: Blackberries Blackberry is a good example of a contentious plant and how its weed potential can be managed. Blackberry is a Weed of National Significance, but also a commercial crop grown for its fruit. It is not permitted to grow, propagate or cultivate plants of weedy Blackberry species in Australia and only commercially recognised varieties can be cultivated. Blackberry is declared a noxious weed in all states and territories except the Northern Territory. Landowners are required to control it. The name ‘Blackberry’ covers at least 14 different but closely related species, some of which may be hybrids, which have become naturalised in Australia. Biosecurity Plant has a list of Blackberry species prohibited for import on the DAFF website.

The Import Conditions database (ICON) lists Rubus fruticosus agg. as prohibited. Certain parental genetics are banned as imports, while some varieties are permitted. In order to comply with Australia’s international obligations of ensuring that species/cultivars already present in Australia are not prohibited entry, DAFF determined which Blackberry species, and in particular, which cultivars are already present in Australia and could still be sold and grown.

DAFF also considers pests of quarantine concern associated with the import of Rubus species into Australia in accordance with the International Plant Protection Convention guidelines. As a result, several Rubus cultivars (including Blackberry) were found to be present in Australia and not under official control. None of the permitted Blackberry cultivars apparently contain Rubus fruticosus agg. as a parent. There are no restrictions on production of commercially recognised varieties, once they have been permitted to be imported by Biosecurity Plant.

The feral Blackberry control program with the greatest likelihood of success in the foreseeable future includes biological control, particularly on large, inaccessible infestations of Blackberry. The Blackberry leaf rust, Phragmidium violaceum, which attacks the leaves, is now present throughout all areas of southern Australia where Blackberries are a problem. The rust is harmless to native Rubus species and varieties of commercial raspberry and brambleberry such as loganberry, boysenberry and youngberry. The rust alone will not eradicate Blackberry but slows its rate of spread and allows more time for control by other means.

120

Case study: Honey bee industry and Paterson’s curse (Echium plantagineum)

The honey bee industry benefits from many weeds. In particular, Paterson’s curse (Echium plantagineum) is valued by bee keepers as a source of quality honey, nectar and pollen. However, this plant is considered a weed in many agricultural situations because it competes with crops and pastures and contains alkaloid poisons that reduce livestock weight when eaten in large quantities, or in severe cases, death of non-ruminant livestock, commonly horses. Paterson's curse can irritate the udders of dairy cows and the skin of humans. However, in times of drought, many of South Australia’s pastures die off, and due to its drought hardiness, Echium is used as a source of relatively nutritious food for grazing animals – hence the plant’s other common name of Salvation Jane.

Echium was imported into Australia from the Mediterranean region in the mid-nineteenth century as a garden flower, but it seeds prolifically and rapidly escaped. Free from native Mediterranean insect and plant communities, the plant has become Australia’s worst broadleaf temperate pasture weed. Paterson’s curse can produce over 30,000 seeds per square metre which can survive more than ten years. The seedlings (up to 2000 per square metre) grow quickly and develop a large taproot, making them drought tolerant. Seedlings form a flat rosette, out-competing other germinating plant species. The flowering plants can turn whole landscapes purple in spring and are considered beautiful by many people. Interestingly, around Canberra in the cool, wet spring- summer of 2011-12, fields that are annually turned purple by flowering Paterson’s curse were masses of yellow St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum). In 1985, Paterson’s curse was estimated to infest over 30 million hectares in Australia, costing the wool and meat industries $125 million per year (in 2002). Paterson’s curse was suggested as a candidate for biological control at the Australian Weeds Council in 1971. CSIRO surveyed natural pests in the weed’s native range and selected eight possible biocontrol agents. The first was imported into post-entry quarantine in Canberra in 1979, but in 1980, a group of apiarists and graziers lodged an injunction in the Supreme Court of South Australia and stopped the biocontrol program because they considered the loss of Paterson’s curse a threat to their livelihoods.

The commonwealth government wrestled with this dilemma caused by conflicting agricultural interests and eventually drafted legislation that led to the Biological Control Act 1984, which made provision to compensate farmers and others who previously benefited from the weed. This Act established the principle that biocontrols could be introduced when potential gains outweighed potential losses and established procedures for assessing and authorising biocontrol programs. A subsequent enquiry by the Industries Assistance Commission found that the detrimental effects of the weed outweighed its benefits 9 to 1. CSIRO eventually released six biocontrol agents which have become established, and the crown weevil has decimated large areas of Paterson’s curse. A survey of graziers in 2005 reported 24 per cent decrease in Paterson’s curse due to biocontrol and 12 per cent increase in stock production.

121

Figure 53: Paterson’s curse (Echium plantagineum) turns fields purple when flowering in spring (Figure courtesy of N. Woods)

Biosecurity and Industry Biosecurity Plans Agriculture and horticulture industries play an important role in the biosecurity continuum and partnership by detecting and promptly reporting new weeds so that early eradication or containment can be implemented if appropriate. Being at the front line, farmers play an important part in keeping watch for exotic or new weeds.

Plant Health Australia, in conjunction with industry, state and territory governments and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry develops farm and orchard Biosecurity Manuals and Plans for individual agricultural and horticultural industries. To date, Industry Biosecurity Manuals have been published for the almond, apple and pear, avocado, banana, cherry, citrus, cotton, grains, mango, nursery and summerfruit industries, as well as for Bundaberg horticultural farms and Northern Adelaide Plains vegetable growers. These manuals highlight important information about good biosecurity practices, tips on farm hygiene and how to ensure planting material is pest and disease free.

Industry Biosecurity Plans have also been developed for the forest, onion, pineapple, potato, sugar, vegetable and viticulture industries. These Industry Biosecurity Plans cover threat identification, risk mitigation, surveillance, diagnostics and contingency plans. The Industry Biosecurity Manuals and Plans focus on pests and diseases but give very little specific information on weeds, because weeds are not covered by the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed (except for emergency weeds like Branched broomrape) and therefore have not been a significant part of Plant Health Australia’s area of responsibility. If weeds become a significant part of Plant Health Australia’s remit, then addition of specific information on weeds would enhance the Industry Biosecurity Manuals and Plans and the National Plant Biosecurity Strategy.

122

4.8 Mining Industry Australia is currently experiencing massive expenditure on exploration and infrastructure support for Australia's mining boom. In 2009-10, mineral exploration expenditure in Australia was estimated to be $5.5 billion, nearly double the average annual exploration expenditure of the past 30 years. Of this, 60 per cent was around existing or known deposits, and 40 per cent in new locations.

This expansion of mining increases the opportunity for weedy species to spread, not only through the disturbance caused by the actual mining operations, but also through increased people and vehicle movement through the areas being mined.

The Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), the peak industry body, has established an Environmental and Social Policy Committee to better serve its member companies who are actively engaged in the effective integration of the environmental, social and wealth creation elements of minerals resource development.

The industry and community recognise that the use of mining sites and associated infrastructure is for a limited term and that when mining ceases, there is a need to return the site to its natural state. In most states and territories, mining licences require an environmental impact statement that sets out how the site will be managed (including weeds) through the life of the mine and then returned to its natural state.

Most mining companies have sustainable development policies and plans to guide their operations, with the more progressive companies having specific weed management plans to manage weeds during the life of the mine.

As much of Australia’s mining is undertaken in areas with low rainfall and poor soils, there are some challenges in maintaining the soil profile during the life of the mine and selecting appropriate native plants that can colonize before other weedy species do. In the past, there have been instances of the use of less appropriate plants, such as allowing Gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus) to spread or the use of Leucaena (Leveaena spp.) or Bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata) for revegetation.

4.9 State road and rail authorities Road and rail corridors are potential vectors for weed spread as they cross both urban and rural landscapes. Without management of the vegetation of roadsides and rail corridors, weedy species move to neighbouring properties. Proper management also requires an understanding of the weed species so that action, such roadsides slashing, does not inadvertently spread weeds.

As part of this study, information was sought from the relevant road and rail authorities in each state. The information sought included who is responsible for weed management, what resources were invested, whether there was a weed management plan and its interaction with local governments and the community. Most responses indicated that it is difficult or too time consuming to extract data on resources involved in weed management from other vegetation and environmental management activities.

New South Wales In New South Wales, local government is mainly responsible for managing weeds along roadsides with the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) responsible during road construction of controlled access freeways and motorways. The RTA had three main documents for guidance on weed management, namely: the RTA Landscape Guideline, the RTA Biodiversity Guidelines – Guide 6 Weed Management, and the RTA Quality Assurance Specification M300 – Maintenance rectification requirements (corridors). At a local level, RTA staff liaise directly with local council weed staff to

123

cooperate on weed management on RTA-managed roads. At a State level, the NSW Roadside Environment Committee promotes and coordinates leading practice in linear environmental management. The Committee includes local government, community and other bodies with responsibility for linear management.

Railcorp, which is responsible for the rail corridors in the greater Sydney area, has Biodiversity Management Plans that outline how weed management is undertaken on Railcorp property. The plans incorporate maps that provide detail of locations of weeds and level of infestation. Railcorp works actively with regional weeds committees, such as the four Sydney Weeds Committees, that support land managers and local authorities with cooperative weed management, including identification, prioritisation and management of weeds.

Victoria In Victoria, the responsibility for the management of pest plants and animals along the roadside is dependent both on who the responsible road authority is, as defined under the Victorian Road Management Act 2004, and the nature and type of pest being managed. For rural arterial roads and all freeways, VicRoads is the responsible road authority and therefore generally assumes responsibility for pest management. VicRoads works in collaboration with local governments, Catchment Management Authorities, Department of Primary Industries and other public land managers in the delivery of the weeds program.

Local roads, peri-urban and urban arterial roads are generally under local government management. Under some circumstances the Victorian Department of Primary Industries and the Department of Sustainability and Environment might have responsibility.

South Australia In South Australia, responsibility for weed control on roadsides is shared between the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI), local councils and NRM Boards, depending on the type of road and type of weed. Under the Natural Resources Management Act, the NRM Boards are responsible for the control of declared plants on roadsides.

DPTI is responsible for controlling vegetation, including weeds, within the metropolitan rail corridor. The NRM Act requires land owners, including government agencies, to control certain declared weeds on their land. The NRM Board does not have responsibility for controlling declared plants within the rail corridors. Several of the rural rail corridors are owned by the Crown, but they are leased to private rail operators who have responsibility for maintaining the corridor and controlling weeds.

DPTI’s responsibilities for vegetation control are determined by what is necessary to maintain the road asset and maintain a safe travelling way. This includes removal of vegetation that obstructs sightlines around curves, intersections, road signs and traffic signals. With the exception of the controlled access roads, DPTI is responsible for covering the area immediately adjacent to the carriageway, with the relevant council responsible for the remainder of the road reserve to the boundary with private property.

Comprehensive weed management plans have been developed for each of DPTI’s regions along with weed identification guides that are used by construction, maintenance and environmental staff. DPTI is currently developing a weed management plan for the metropolitan rail corridor.

The Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources is responsible for approximately 3700 km of roads and, as the land owner/manager, has legislative responsibility to manage weeds. Each of the three maintenance regions is responsible for regional management. Each has developed their own approach to weed management but they are more about routine spray programs than dedicated Weed Plans.

124

4.10 Public utilities The Energy Networks Association (ENA) is the peak national body representing gas and electricity distribution businesses throughout Australia. All of Australia's electricity and gas network companies are members of ENA, providing governments, policy-makers and the community with a single point of reference for major energy network issues. ENA advised that the energy network businesses (transmission and distribution) all have individual vegetation management policies, including identification of specific weeds and protected flora.

The ENA currently has a working group that is developing an industry level environmental handbook for use by field crews. The handbook will cover weed control as well as a number of other environmental issues. It is expected to be completed later in 2012 and could be available to the public.

4.11 Aboriginal land management Aboriginal landowners have a strong sense of responsibility towards their land. However, traditional ecological knowledge puts emphasis on fire management and ecological balance, and has limitations in dealing with land management issues such as weeds, which are new to Aboriginal people.

Before European colonisation, there was no need for the concept of weeds, since ecological communities were fairly stable under traditional land practices. Aboriginal people can therefore have difficulty appreciating the potential environmental impacts of weeds and their spread.

One difficulty is that some introduced species are considered useful plants rather than weeds. Wild passionfruit (Passiflora foetida), Rosella (Hibiscus sabdariffa), Phalsa (Grewia asiatica) and Chinese apple (Ziziphus mauritiana) are often allowed to grow, or are cultivated, for their fruit in aboriginal communities, and any attempts to remove them would meet community resistance.

Another difficulty is that environmental weeds are often not considered a problem if they do not impede access to sacred sites, hunting grounds or water. Weeds are not considered an issue by Aboriginal landowners compared to fire and food animal management. If the weeds are not perceived as harmful to humans or the environment, there is no perceived need to remove them. This attitude allows for the treatment of thorny and impenetrable weeds such as Mimosa (Mimosa pigra), Prickly acacia (Acacia nilotica ssp. indica), Parkinsonia (Parkinsonia aculeata), Mission grass (Pennisetum polystachion), Gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus), Calotrope (Calotropis procera) and Hyptis or Mint weed (Hyptis suaveolens), which may impede access to sacred sites and hunting/camping grounds, and weeds like Puncture vine (Tribulus spp.) and Khaki weed (Alternanthera pungens) in communities where barefoot walking is standard practice.

125

Figure 54: Prickly acacia (Acacia nilotica ssp. indica) along a waterway in north-west Queensland (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

Outside these and similar concerns, environmental weeds largely do not feature in Aboriginal land management priorities. Aborigines play an important weed prevention role as quarantine officers and assist as frontline observers in the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy. They are also involved in many NRM projects that have a weed management component, such as weed removal and native vegetation restoration. Some aborigines are rangers and others manage or participate in Landcare and Caring for our Country projects. The spread of high biomass weeds, such as Gamba grass and Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris), can have a major impact on native vegetation management and hunting by fire. Some National Landcare Program case studies of indigenous NRM projects can be found on the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry website at: www.daff.gov.au/natural- resources/landcare/publications/making_a_difference_a_celebration_of_landcare/section_6_indigeno us_landcare

126

Figure 55: Gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus) can change fire regimes (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

If any strategy to deal with invasive weeds is to succeed, particularly in Northern Australia where Aboriginal communities are often the only form of settlement, then work needs to be done to engage Aboriginal communities and integrate the necessity and science of weed management into traditional ecological land management.

4.12 The community

Australian weed societies The Council of Australasian Weed Societies (CAWS) encourages and fosters the study and promotion of weed science and technology in Australia and New Zealand. It also supports the Australasian Weed conferences, including the 17th Australasian Weeds Conference, entitled “New Frontiers in New Zealand: Together we can beat the weeds” which was held in Christchurch, New Zealand from 26 to 30 September 2010.

The 18th Australasian Weeds Conferences, entitled “Developing solutions to evolving weed problems” will be held in Melbourne from 8 to 12 October 2012.

There are weed societies in each state with the objectives of: • promoting a wider awareness and interest in weeds • exchanging information on weed issues • promoting the study and dissemination of weed research • encouraging education in weed science and weed control.

127

The state weed societies are: • the Weed Society of New South Wales (http://nswweedsoc.org.au/) • the Weed Society of Victoria (http://www.wsvic.org.au/) • the Weed Society of Queensland (http://www.wsq.org.au/) • the Weed Management Society of South Australia (http://www.wmssa.org.au/) • the Weeds Society of Western Australia (http://www.wswa.org.au/) • the Tasmanian Weed Society (http://www.tasweeds.org/).

Landcare Landcare is a grass roots movement that harnesses individuals and groups under the ethic of caring for the land. It had its genesis in initiatives to improve agricultural productivity through sustainable land management. The movement has grown from this to a broader focus on sustainable management of all of Australia’s natural resource assets and now encompasses individuals and groups across the whole landscape from coastal to urban and remote areas of Australia.

There are over 6000 Landcare and Coastcare groups across Australia with a shared desire to create positive change in their communities; members recognise that as a group their efforts have greater impact.

Landcare essentially adopts a bottom-up approach and usually starts when community members with common objectives join together to solve a local environmental issue. Groups set their own agenda, undertake work as often as they like and choose their own project sites. Groups may apply for funding from a variety of different sources to support their work, including local, state and commonwealth governments and Landcare Australia.

Increasingly, Landcare groups amalgamate into Landcare networks managed by community boards that take a more regional approach to environmental issues and coordinate activities to achieve catchment-wide outcomes. Networks are now a major community link to all levels of government and industry for financial support and information.

The Australian Government, through the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, funds the Regional Landcare Facilitator program, which locates a regional Landcare Facilitator in each of the 56 NRM regions.

Bush Regenerators Concern for the continuing survival and integrity of bushland and its dependent fauna led to the establishment of the Australian Association of Bush Regenerators, which aims to foster and encourage sound ecological practices of bushland management by qualified people.

Bush regeneration is the rehabilitation of the bush from a weed affected or otherwise degraded area to a healthier community of plants and animals. Weeds are often the greatest threat to remnant vegetation so bush regeneration is closely associated with weed control. Weed management is not the aim of bush regeneration but is one of the tools used to help native vegetation.

Bushcare Bushcare is an organisation of volunteers working to restore the natural environment in urban and coastal areas across Australia, with hundreds of groups working to improve their local environment. Local councils, national parks and environmental agencies partner Bushcare groups, which allows for training, the use of tools and equipment and regular information such as newsletters and field days. As

128

the Bushcare website notes, weeds (or the desire to remove them) are what attracts many people to Bushcare.

Conservation Volunteers Australia Conservation Volunteers Australia (CVA) is one of Australia’s leading practical conservation organisations that since 1982 has been attracting and managing volunteers to improve the Australian environment. Most of the CVA projects begin with site preparation, usually removing weeds. As an example, in the ACT-Southern NSW area, there are 2 teams working 5 days a week spending approximately 60 per cent of their time on weed management. This figure drops to around 5 per cent of their time during planting seasons and can rise to 100 per cent at other times. It is also estimated that 30 per cent of their time is spent monitoring restored areas to manage weed regrowth.

CVA vehicles are equipped with WEEDeck to assist team leaders and volunteers to identify new and unusual plants in the area. All new and unusual plants are reported to the appropriate authorities.

Figure 56: Conservation volunteers removing woody weeds in bush (Figure courtesy of D. English)

Greening Australia Green Australia has 30 years’ experience creating sustainable environmental outcomes, and is committed to doing something practical about Australia's environmental problems.

Greening Australia tackles critical issues, like salinity, declining water quality, soil degradation, climate change and biodiversity loss, through an innovative blend of practical experience, science and community engagement. They are dedicated to protecting Australia’s natural heritage, its biodiversity and natural resources, giving back in a way that allows all Australians to be part of the climate change solution.

129

With a network of over 270 staff in locations across the continent, Greening Australia works with people from remote, regional and metropolitan communities.

Local community groups As noted above there are hundreds of local community groups in each state and territory that are tackling weeds, principally to restore and maintain their local environment. The following examples describe typical activities carried out by local community groups.

The Friends of Eastern Otways Group (Vic) The Friends of Eastern Otways Group, formerly known as Friends of Angahook-Lorne State Park, was formed in 1991 to support the new State Park. With the Angahook-Lorne State Park being amalgamated into the Great Otway National Park in 2005, their name changed to reflect this.

The Group presently has 89 families on its membership list with a number of families having multiple members. During 2010-11, approximately 25 members were actively involved in weed management activities.

The Friends Group is involved in the Great Otway National Park (Eastern Section) from Anglesea to Grey River along the coast. For weed management, their efforts were concentrated on the coastal section of Anglesea to Moggs Creek. During the year, they worked both in the Great Otway National Park with Parks Victoria being the land manager, and Anglesea Heath jointly managed by Parks Victoria and Alcoa Australia. They also worked on land managed by the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE).

During 2010-11 their efforts were concentrated on:

Area Weeds tackled What was achieved?

Anglesea Sallow/Coast wattle (Acacia longifolia Monthly weeding in this area Heathland subsp. longifolia / Acacia longifolia since 2004 has resulted in an subsp. sophorae) and Coast tea-tree intact site of coastal heathland. (Leptospermum laevigatum).

Swampy Riparian Sallow/Coast wattle (Acacia longifolia Removal of the weeds. Woodland subsp. longifolia / Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae), English ivy (Hedera helix), Scotch thistles (Cirsium vulgare, Flatweed (Hypochaeris radicata), Plantain (Plantago lanceolata) and some introduced grasses such as Panic veldgrass (Ehrharta erecta).

Anglesea Heath Wirilda (Acacia provincialis). Acacia provincialis was planted years ago by Alcoa as a buffer between the coalmine and Anglesea township. The large trees were cut down before the burn but the seed bank was prolific, and the burn resulted in many thousands of seedlings. Many volunteers have helped pull up the seedlings.

130

Area Weeds tackled What was achieved?

Anglesea Heath Boneseed (Chrysanthemoides Members of the Otway and the National monilifera subsp. monilifera). Community Conservation Park Network members have worked alongside Conservation Volunteers Australia and volunteer student groups.

Old Tip site at Early black wattle (Acacia decurrens), After the 1983 bush fires, Gilbert St, Aireys Flinders range wattle (Acacia iteafolia), residents from Aireys Inlet were Inlet bordering the Blue pea bush (Psoralea pinnata), allowed to dump refuse from Great Otway Sallow/Coast wattle (Acacia longifolia their homes on this site. This National Park subsp. longifolia / Acacia longifolia resulted in an area of varied subsp. sophorae), Twiggy turnip environmental weeds which are (Brassica fruticulosa), Serrated tussock being targeted for removal. (Nassella trichotoma).

A section of Great Green Melaleuca (Melaleuca On-going removal of Otway National diosmifolia) and Red Melaleuca environmental weed species. Park along the (Melaleuca hypericifolia), Sallow/Coast Great Ocean Road wattle (Acacia longifolia subsp. at Moggs Creek longifolia / Acacia longifolia subsp. just west of the sophorae), Coast tea-tree Moggs Creek (Leptospermum laevigatum). settlement

Moggs Creek Sallow/Coast wattle (Acacia longifolia On-going removal of weed Heathland Hillside subsp. longifolia / Acacia longifolia species. subsp. sophorae) and Coast tea-tree (Leptospermum laevigatum), Bluebell creeper (Billardiera heterophylla), Dolichos pea (Dipogon lignosus), Myrtle-leaf milkwort (Polygala myrtifolia), Cape wattle (Paraserianthes lophantha) and Arum lilies (Zantedeschia aethiopica).

To achieve these results, the ‘Friends Group’ invested 656 hours of volunteer labour on environmental weed management and engaged with a large number of partners, including Anglesea, Aireys Inlet Society for the Protection of Flora and Fauna, Conservation Volunteers Australia, Alcoa of Australia Limited, the local shire Surf Coast Shire Green Corps team, Anglesea Primary School, Friends of Moggs Creek (Partners in Biodiversity Management at Moggs Creek), Parks Victoria and DSE.

Their interaction with local government has enabled access to the ‘Surf Coast Shire’ Green Corps team on numerous occasions and through a partnership with the Friends of Moggs Creek they have been able to influence the Shire into providing a community program of Weed to Mulch carried out by the Shire in the Moggs Creek area as a fire and conservation program. Residents remove environmental weeds (mainly Sallow/Coast wattle (Acacia longifolia subsp. longifolia / Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae) and Coast tea-tree (Leptospermum laevigatum) and these are mulched on site with mulch being available for community use.

131

They have a very strong partnership with Parks Victoria, with Parks staff providing active on-site support for weed removal. They also have good support from DSE when working on DSE-controlled land.

Encouragement from the National Boneseed and Bridal Creeper Management Committees has assisted in the formation of the Otway Community Conservation Network, and an Australian Government grant which has supported Friends involvement with the removal of Boneseed.

Assistance was also provided in preparing a successful application for the Friends Group for a Community Action Grant ($18,750) through the Caring for our Country program to continue work on the Swampy Riparian Woodland and Heath Woodland area adjoining the Anglesea River. This will be carried out in 2012.

In 2010-11, the Friends Group received the following funding for weed management activities:

Source Funding Achievements received

Corangamite Catchment $5000 Contractors employed in the Swampy Riparian Management Authority woodland area to cut down large Coast/Sallow wattles (CCMA) and to mulch them on site.

Allowed them to work with the Aboriginal Community, the CCMA, and the Anglesea Primary School to share the plants of the area and talk about how the indigenous people would have used them in earlier days.

Also funded the preparation of a display of the project that was shared with the community at the ANGAIR Annual Wildflower Show.

Parks Victoria Community $5120 Funded the employment of two groups of CVA Grant (Biodiversity workers alongside members at Moggs Creek and on Protection Management the Anglesea Heathlands. Grant) It also funded the employment of contractors for chain-sawing and mulching.

The Friends Group sees their successes as their ability to encourage partners to work together on environmental weeding activities. With the protection of the Swampy Riparian Woodland site they are pleased to see some of the smaller indigenous species such as Desmodium gunnii, Glycine microphylla and Indigo australis spreading amongst the Eucalyptus ovata, Acacia melanoxylon and other taller vegetation. Their efforts with this smaller grant have enabled them to be successful with an application for a Community Action Grant for the same area through Caring for our Country.

On Biodiversity Day and World Environment Day, in partnership with Alcoa Australia, events were held to remove Boneseed from the Heath Woodland adjoining the Swampy Riparian Woodland site. These events were supported by all agencies in the area including the Surf Coast Shire, Parks Victoria and DSE and many community members from ANGAIR, students from Anglesea Primary School, YMCA camp and Alcoa employees.

Eleven members worked with Parks Victoria staff in a research project to endeavour to determine how best to control Sallow / Coast wattle (Acacia longifolia subsp. longifolia / Acacia longifolia subsp.

132

sophorae). Trial plots that have been treated with various herbicides have been monitored for the last three years and the Friends group has assisted with each survey.

The only limitations are time and the number of active members. However, with their ability to draw on other partners, these are not seen as a major drawback.

The Anglesea, Aireys Inlet Society for the Protection of Flora and Fauna (Vic) The Anglesea, Aireys Inlet Society for the Protection of Flora and Fauna (ANGAIR) was formed in 1969 by local residents and holiday makers to protect flora and fauna of the Anglesea and Aireys Inlet district.

With approximately 600 members, it is tackling all environmental weeds in the Eastern Otways including Anglesea and Aireys Inlet districts.

It is estimated that during 2010-11, 1,000 hours were spent on weed management, including 650 hours for 38 working bees.

ANGAIR work closely with the Friends of the Eastern Otways, Anglesea Coast Action, the Geelong Environment Council and the Victorian National Parks Association. It has very close interactions with the local government ‘Surf Coast Shire’ which manages a number of the nature reserves in which ANGAIR carries out Bushcare activities. ANGAIR members also participate in a number of environmental advisory committees for the Shire.

ANGAIR has close relationships with Parks Victoria, and DSE, as the Otway National Park surrounds Anglesea and Aireys Inlet. It is important to have good working relationships with Rangers as they do their Bushcare work. Likewise, DSE have responsibility for protection of rare plants, general protection of vegetation and provision of approval for walking track developments or lookouts on coastal reserves, so it is also important have good relationships with their officers.

ANGAIR also have good relationships with officers in the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (CCMA), particularly the management of project grants from CCMA. They have very little involvement with Commonwealth Government, except when applying for Caring for our Country grants and work with WoNS.

133

Funding received in 2010/2011:

Source Funding Achievements received

Coastcare Vic $5,500 Protection of a remnant stand of Moonah Woodland at Anglesea. Major outcome was a major reduction in environmental weeds in the woodland, and very good regeneration of indigenous plants in cleared areas

Corangamite $5,000 Community Care of Coastal Reserves in Anglesea and Aireys Catchment Inlet. $5,000 on spraying of some difficult weeds Management Authority

Coastcare Vic $5,000 Protection of the Moonah Woodland at Point Roadknight. This project allowed ANGAIR to commission a contractor to chain saw large coastal tea tree which were mulched. School students planted Moonah (Melaleuca lanceolata) and removed small Polygala weeds

Coastcare Vic $5,000 Restoration of coastal vegetation along the cliffs at Aireys Inlet by Friends of the Coast Aireys Inlet Subcommittee of ANGAIR. This involves removal of Coastal tea tree, Sweet pittosporum, Blue bell creeper, etc.

ANGAIR see their major success as a program to visit about 25 different nature reserves or sites in the district once or twice per year to remove environmental weeds. By removing environmental weeds on a regular basis they have encouraged natural regeneration of indigenous species to occur at these reserves.

Over the last few years exotic grasses have started to invade the local heathlands and as ANGAIR volunteers do not have the skills to manage the invasion, they have recently applied for a DSE Nature Grant to commission a contractor with a high level of expertise to carry out this work and train ANGAIR volunteers.

In Western Australia, there are estimated to be a couple of hundred ‘Friends groups’ around Perth, though some are quite small. The Environmental Weeds Action Network (EWAN) is a community initiative in Western Australia to tackle the problem of environmental weeds in bushland and waterways. It brings together community members in both urban and rural areas, bush regenerators, local government, weed scientists and ecologists to save indigenous flora from the threat of weeds.

Friends of Yellagonga Regional Park (WA) The Friends of Yellagonga Regional Park (FOY) was officially incorporated in April 1993. Yellagonga Regional Park covers 1400 hectares and is managed by Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). FOY works under the auspices of, and in conjunction with, DEC. Generally, their activity is limited to specific sites within the regional park.

FOY has appropriately 250 members on its database, but only about 50 are active workers. During 2010-11, 600-700 volunteer hours were engaged in weed management.

134

Weeds being tackled included:

Weeds Comments

Lupins Can be completely removed over a few seasons as they like disturbed ground and are easy to locate and pull out

Pelagonium Another weed which can be removed if one persistently returns to the same area over the years to remove young plants before seeds are set

South African veldt grass More difficult to remove because of the persistence of the seed bank. Removal of adult plants encourages germination of young plants which will set seed in the first year, so long-term removal is less successful

Annual grasses These usually emerge the second year after entrenched Veldt grass is removed. Control is very time consuming unless a herbicide is used. Timing of application is important to avoid injuring annual wildflowers

Oxalis Can be difficult to remove if missed for a single season. Usually find removal of the dominant weed species allows the next weed to take over, and thus the succession continues until the less aggressive local provenance species of indigenous plants slowly establish

Geraldton carnation weed Widespread and needs to be handled with care because of toxic (Euphorbia) white sap

Caltrop A summer weed, which appears in disturbed areas, with nasty thorns which can make areas unusable.

FOY is a member of the Conservation Council of WA and the Urban Bushland Council and they exchange newsletters with these bodies and with other environmental groups and provide specific information when requested. Some FOY members attend seminars/workshops conducted by other groups.

Local members from each tier of government belong to FOY and volunteer their time at work days when time permits. The group is also advised of funding opportunities by government representatives as they become available and has access to resources as required. During 2010-11, funding was received from a number of agencies and used for: • spraying of weeds • office equipment • turtle research • removal of non-indigenous trees. Major successes during 2010-11 included successfully lobbying DEC to erect a fence around an endangered plant site and successful and productive work days (weeding/planting).

135

Stirling Natural Environment Coastcare (WA) The Stirling Natural Environment Coastcare (SNEC) was first formed as a community group in 2005 and reformed in 2009. It currently has 15 members, with 8 to 12 regulars who volunteered appropriately 1,670 hours from 1 January to 30 June 2011.

SNEC is engaged on the linear coastal dune areas along 6.5 to 7.5 km with differing widths around Stirling in WA.

The City of Stirling is the coastal land manager and, as such, authorises SNEC to carry out work. SNEC also works with the Perth Region Natural Resource Management (Perth NRM) and the North Metropolitan Coastcare officer.

Work carried out on the ground by SNEC has been funded mostly through Caring for our Country Community Action Grants and more recently has included other funding through Coastwest (WA State Government). Occasionally, on-ground support comes through CVA funded through partnership with Woodside and Perth NRM.

SNEC project work has been initiated by SNEC, but it is in line with guidelines and priorities contained in local, state and commonwealth government coastal strategies.

The Perth NRM Coastcare officer assists SNEC through liaison and in compiling SNEC grant applications as well as taking a keen interest in on-ground works and record keeping. This liaison has been a benefit to all, especially the community groups. SNEC works in collaboration with the City of Stirling’s Natural Areas staff.

SNEC received CfoC Community Action Grant funding to commence one project in 2010-11 and is in the process of completing another. These projects primarily involved weed management, site preparation involving scheduling and carrying out both hand and chemical weed control, followed by planting and additional weed management. Work was spread over new sites and infill planting on older project sites.

In summary, SNEC aims to strengthen remnant good quality areas by reducing any weed burdens, allow natural propagation to occur and carry out judicious infill planting where required, taking into consideration that complete groundcover along exposed limestone and cliff areas is not required. In areas where disturbance has been greatest (along access paths, informal tracks and footpaths), SNEC has carried out revegetation using species to suit the plant community locality so as to simulate nature as closely as possible, constrained only by plant availability from nurseries.

Friends of Queens Park Bushland (WA) Friends of Queens Park Bushland operates in the suburb of Queens Park, Perth, but also spreads to bushland interests in the neighbouring suburbs of East Cannington and Welshpool.

The Friends of Queens Park Bushland was formed in 1992 when a piece of bushland was threatened with housing development. With the bushland saved from development, they put their efforts into conservation and restoration of the area. Over the years they have increased the number of pieces of remnant bushland under their management.

As the hectares of bush under Friends management grew, so did their membership base. They currently have 24 people on their mailing list and have approximately 10 members contributing regularly to monthly “busy bees”.

While the group would like to tackle all of the weeds, they have started with those most likely to cause long-term damage if left unmanaged, such as:

136

• grass: a major weed and the City of Canning employs contractors to annually spray all of the bushland to manage the grass. Grass has been brought under control in most areas and it is far less evident than it used to be. • wild Watsonia (Watsonia spp.): controlled with hand weeding and, in the last few years, with a bulb selective herbicide. • pink Gladiolus (Gladiolus caryophyllaceus): found throughout the areas. Successful control methods have yet to be identified. • Arum lily (Zantedeschia aethiopica): has almost been eradicated. This has primarily been achieved through hand weeding. • Bridal creeper (Asparagus asparagoides): has been reduced to controllable numbers through hand weeding.

Larger weed trees, like Tagasaste and Japanese pepper, are controlled by the City of Canning when identified by the Friends group. If there are particular problems that need a response larger than the Friends can provide, the City of Canning provides the necessary solutions or resources as required.

The Friends of Queens Park Bushland is close to neighbouring groups, with some members also members of other groups working together on projects including weed management.

During the 2010-11 financial year, the ‘Friends’ contributed 222 hours for weed management. In addition, there was significant time spent with the City of Canning discussing weed removal and applying for grants for weed control.

The group was successful in obtaining a grant for weed control and management which enabled them to engage others to hand weed selected weeds and map two of the largest infested areas.

Friends of Hollywood Reserve (WA) The Friends of Hollywood Reserve was formed in March 1997 to protect the Hollywood Reserve in the City of Nedlands, WA. It currently has 50 members who contributed over 500 hours in 2010-11.

The group liaises with the local Council through the Bushcare Officer. The Council reimburses the group for their insurance payment, and in 2011 supplied 1000 plants which they planted with the support of local school children.

Weeds being tackled include:

Common name Scientific name Abundance

Black flag Ferraria crispa Very heavy infestations

Wild gladiolus Gladiolus caryophyllaceus Minor problem now

Freesia Freesia alba x leichtlinii Big problem

Yellow ixia Ixia maculata Few small patches

One cape Moraea flaccida Not a serious problem

Oxalis Oxalis spp. Widespread

Baboon flower Babiana disticha Not a serious problem

Cape cowslip Lachenalia aloides Only a couple of patches

137

Common name Scientific name Abundance

Whiteflower fumitory Fumaria capreolata Fairly widespread

Vetch Vinca sativa Fairly widespread now

Stinking roger Osteospermum clandestinum

Flatweeds

Agave americana Agave americana Small area but spreading

Blowfly grass Briza maxima In small patches

Turnip weed Rapistrum rugosum Widespread

Wild radish Raphanus raphanistrum Widespread

Various grasses – Perennial veldt Widespread grass, Wild oats, Annual veldt grass - widespread

Plus all the usual thistles and Bad after reasonable rains. Chickweed

The Council employs a contractor to spray annual and perennial grasses and control bulbs, and undertakes hand weeding of broadleaf weeds such as Geraldton Carnation weed, Wild turnip and Radish, Lupins and seed head removal of bulbous species. The remaining weeds are tackled on working bees, usually weeding around the new plantings and later in the season preparing for next year’s planting.

Bungendore Park Management Committee (WA) Formed 30 years ago by a group of local residents concerned about the damage being done to the area by activities such as dumping of rubbish and clay, removal of gravel and timber and shooting of animals. The Management Committee currently has 10 members who volunteered approximately 100 hours in 2011.

The major weeds being tackled are: • Paterson’s curse (Echium plantagineum) • Cottonbush (Gomphocarpus physocarpus) • Arum lily (Zantedeschia aethiopica) • Genista (Leguminosae agg.) • Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg.) • Bridal creeper (Asparagus asparagoides) • Japanese/Brazilian pepper • Non-WA Acacia species • Periwinkle (Littorina littorea) • Cape tulip (Homeria collina).

138

The Management Committee has links with the City of Armadale’s Bushcare and Environmental Committee, and they are a member of the Urban Bushland Council. A couple of their members are also members of the Wildflower Society of WA, and are supported throughout the year at various events held by the Armadale-Kelmscott Lions Club.

The management committee has received grants from both state government agencies, and occasionally the Australian Government. In 2010-11, they received funding from the City of Armadale, but only a portion of the funding received is allocated to weed control. Other activities the funding supported included faunal surveys, boundary fencing repairs/improvements, installation of improved infrastructure, revegetation, dieback control and earthworks.

Armadale Gosnells Landcare Group (WA) The Armadale Gosnells Landcare Group (AGLG) was formed in 1998 by a group of locals concerned about the health of the Canning and Wungong Rivers. AGLG currently has 30 members working on 21 sites across the cities of Armadale and Gosnells. The majority of these sites have a friends group linked to them who do hand weeding at various times of the year.

Weeds being tackled in this area include: • Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg.) • Bridal creeper (Asparagus asparagoides) • Bugle lily (Watsonia spp.) • Arum lily (Zantedeschia aethiopica) • Patersons curse (Echium plantagineum) • annual and perennial grasses • Japanese pepper • Castor oil (Ricinus communis) • Annual broad-leafs (Eleusine indica, Setaria). AGLG works with 13 ‘friends’ groups in the area. The majority of the land AGLG works on is local government managed land, with a small area managed by the WA State Government. Both Councils and WA State Government provide in-kind support by way of rubbish removal and contributions to weed control.

In 2010-11, AGLG received $200,000 in grant funding to restore 21 areas across the cities of Armadale and Gosnells area with 25 hectares under weed management and over 100000 seedlings planted.

A significant drawback during the year was the Roleystone/Kelmscott fires, which destroyed one of the management sites and burnt over 10 years of revegetation works, but the vegetation is returning quickly.

Friends of Dianella Bushland (WA) The Friends of Dianella Bushland was formed in the 1980s to prevent development in the area. The Group was reformed in 1990 to ensure accountability of the managers of the Bushland. It currently has about 10 members seeking to protect the Cottonwood Crescent Bushland Reserve in Dianella, WA. They also monitor other bushland in the area.

139

Weeds being tackled are: Fleabane (Erigeron), Pelargonium, Wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), Lupin (Lupinus), Double gee (Emex australis), Caltrop (Tribulus terrestris), Freesia, Gladioli, Geraldton wax (Chamelaucium uncinatum) and Victorian teatree. It is estimated that the Friends invested 46 hours on weed management in 2010-11, with 16 hours a month over the spring period and 2 hours a month for the remainder of the year.

They are loosely aligned with other local environmental groups, receiving and sending newsletters, information, etc. on an ad hoc basis. They are represented on a City of Stirling environmental working group, however, they have no interaction with the State or Commonwealth Government and received no funding in 2010-11.

Barkly Landcare and Conservation Association (NT) The Barkly Landcare and Conservation Association (BLCA) covers the Barkly Tableland in the Northern Territory, which has approximately 19 million hectares. In this area, pastoral (beef) covers 15.6 million hectares (81 per cent), indigenous people occupy 1.9 million hectares (10 per cent) and Northern Territory Government manages 1.7 million hectares (9 per cent).

The membership of the BLCA comes from the beef production sector with 37 pastoralist members (100% membership), plus a few additional members from related organisations, including a number of NT Government agencies and a private consultant working with one of the members.

As a Landcare group with a strong primary production focus, the BLCA is concentrating on weeds that are extremely invasive and have the potential to severely restrict productive capacity, mostly WoNS.

Interaction in a remote area such as the Barkly Tableland is always difficult. At a local level, because of the remoteness and small population base, there are no other community-based weed groups, although the BLCA does work with the Central Land Council and the Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation on weed projects.

The Prickle Bush WoNS coordinator has been a great support by providing advice, assisting in developing funding applications and being a key resource for workshops.

At the Territory level, there is interaction with the Weeds Branch of the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport (NRETAS), particularly for advice and support, although there is concern that the Department is close to its Barkly office leaving them with no government services in weed management.

The Territory NRM regional body provides the funding for the Landcare facilitator’s position and runs a small grants program that has funded a number of on-ground weeds projects.

Commonwealth project funding has come, directly or indirectly through the Australian Government’s CfoC program.

The group believes they are having a cumulative impact on the weeds they are targeting, and it has been a real advantage to have a pastoral community that is actively engaged with a platform to get things done. To achieve this, they have divided the Barkly Tableland into sub-catchments and have developed projects within each of these catchments which has allowed them to target particular weeds and locations. Doing this has enabled them to clearly demonstrate the outcomes of each project.

Drawbacks included remoteness and the large size of the area being managed, sourcing skilled resources and climate variability. The area experiences a massive wet season, including the impacts of cyclones.

140

The weeds that are being targeted include: • Parkinsonia (Parkinsonia aculeata) is widespread and most commonly found in riparian zones. In some areas, the weeds have been targeted for eradication, while with other infestations the approach has been to reduce and contain. With dense infestations the approach has been to contain and hope that the infestation does not increase. The group hopes that the use of a biological control will slow progress • Mesquite (Prosopis pallida) is isolated and low in density. The aim is to eradicate it by 2024 with present action to ground control all known infestations • Prickly acacia (Acacia nilotica) is also isolated and low in density. The aim is to eradicate all infestations by 2024.

Other weeds that the group is also concerned about: • Athel pine (Tamarix aphylla), while not a major problem, is found around homesteads and watering points, and leaseholders are being encouraged to remove the plants • Rubber bush (Calotropis procera) is a strong emerging threat which has not received adequate attention in the past. As little is known about the species, management strategies have not been developed. As a result of strong lobbying from the BLCA, Meat and Livestock Australia is currently funding research that could lead to better development of management options • Noogoora burr (Xanthium occidentale) occurs in waterways and although the BLCA does have the resources to tackle this weed, the NT Government agencies have recently released a rust fungus biocontrol agent at a couple of sites • Parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus) is not meant to be in the Northern Territory, but a recent outbreak was found at the Tennant Creek cattle yards, where Barkly pastoralists sometimes purchase stock. Work has been done to ensure that it does not establish on the Barkly Tableland and to date there have been no further reports • Rubber vine (Cryptostegis spp.) is also not meant to be in the NT, but a BLCA member reported an infestation on their property, and although it was difficult to make a definitive identification, the area is being treated as a precaution.

141

Figure 57: Athel pine (Tamarix aphylla) in Finke River, South Australia (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

4.13 Weeds of National Significance Arguably, one of the most successful, weed management initiatives in Australia is the Weeds of National Significance (WoNS), which brings together representatives from governments, industry and the community to tackle, in a nationally coordinated way, some of Australia’s worst weeds.

In 1999, Australian governments endorsed the final list of twenty WoNS, following a process that saw jurisdictions nominate 71 weeds species for assessment and ranking. Four major criteria were used in determining WoNS: • the invasiveness of a weed species • a weed's impacts • the potential for spread of a weed • socio-economic and environmental values.

This was the first attempt to prioritise weeds over a range of land uses at the national level. It was not a purely scientific process, but an attempt to draw together meaningful indicators on which to base future weed decision-making. WoNS provides a framework to prioritise weed management at the state, regional and local levels.

Individual landowners and managers are ultimately responsible for managing WONS on the lands that they own or manage. State and territory governments are responsible for overall legislation and administration.

These 20 WoNS weeds are causing significant problems across Australia of such a magnitude that they require coordinated action from all levels of government, industry and the community. To achieve this, a national coordinator is appointed for each weed (the list of National Coordinators is

142

shown in Appendix 4). The National Coordinator is assisted by a National Management Committee, which consists of an independent community-based Chair, representatives from relevant government agencies, industry and community organisations. The National Management Committee is responsible for developing and implementing a national strategic plan that outlines strategies and actions required to control the weed as well as identify responsibilities for each action. These strategic plans are endorsed by the relevant Ministerial Council and the Australian Weeds Committee oversees the implementation.

The Australian Government provides the base funding for the program with the relevant state and territory governments hosting the national coordinators and providing in-kind support to the program.

The WoNS program has resulted in partnerships between governments, industry and the community to tackle each of these species, and has resulted in: • increasing public awareness and understanding of each species, which is essential in preventing new outbreaks and detecting any new infestations • the development of comprehensive distribution maps. These maps have allowed the National Management Committee to categorise infestations as either core infestations, where eradication is not feasible and the protection of assets is the prime target, to non-core infestations where eradication is possible and the prime target • the development of best practice manuals that bring together the best research and practice on how to effectively tackle these species • the release of biological control agents for a number of species and the continued search for other potential agents • better coordination of research that has improved our understanding of how each weed species grows and spreads, which in turn has improved the chemical, biological and physical techniques available to control these species.

A key feature of the WoNS initiative has been the strategic focus of eradicating outlier populations, preventing spread and equipping land managers to manage core infestations.

In 2007, an independent review concluded that the nationally strategic approach had been highly successful in leveraging coordinated actions on high priority species. The Australian Weeds Committee followed this review with detailed reviews of the management of all WoNS species to determine the extent to which all 20 national strategies had been implemented and what future coordination was required. In 2009, the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council endorsed the continuation of the program subject to funding availability. It also agreed to a three-phase approach to national management of the WoNS species to make the most cost-effective use of limited ‘national coordination’ resources available from public funds.

143

Figure 58: Infestation of Parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus), a WoNS (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

144

Case study: Bitou bush

Bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata) is a highly invasive plant from South Africa that has colonised large areas of coastal New South Wales, parts of south-east Queensland and eastern Victoria. It was first recorded in Australia around 1908. From 1945 to 1968, Bitou bush was deliberately planted in large parts of coastal NSW to stabilise sand dunes and revegetate dunes after sand mining.

Because of concerns about its invasive potential, deliberate planting ceased in 1968. It was listed a noxious weed in NSW and Queensland in 1981 and Victoria in 1997. In 2000, it was listed as one of the original 20 Weeds of National Significance.

In 1995, a northern Bitou bush containment line was established along the Tweed River on the NSW/Queensland border in efforts to prevent further spread to Queensland. Since that time, a collaborative group of land managers has strategically controlled Bitou bush and moved this containment line south to the boundary of the Tweed and Byron Shires, a distance of 35 kilometres. In 2002, the southern containment line was established at Tuross Heads in southern NSW. Control efforts by multiple partners have pushed this line 105 kilometres northward, to a point just south of Sussex Inlet.

Since the establishment of the National Bitou bush and Boneseed Management Group, and the development of the National Bitou bush and Boneseed Strategic Plan, the emphasis has been to maintain and improve the containment lines, eradicate all outlier infestations, reduce the density of infestations, and protect key assets within the core infestations. Because the National Management Group contains representatives from each of the containment areas, as well as weed managers from all states and the community, the Group has assisted containment efforts by providing a forum to address regional containment challenges at a cooperative, national level. In addition, neighbouring states are also able to provide support for containment efforts, reflecting the importance of the containment lines in preventing spread, and thus future impacts, to these states.

A recent study (Hamilton et al., 2012, Changes in the distribution and density of bitou bush in eastern Australia) illustrates the contribution that the national Bitou bush containment lines have made to preventing further spread in Australia. The study found that, in addition to containing spread, the impact of Bitou bush is also being reduced through strategic control. While the total area of Bitou bush infested land increased by 20 per cent since 2001, this spread was within the containment lines and consisted primarily of infestations with less than 10 per cent cover. The study concluded that the increase is due to a combination of increased spread (possibly because better mapping means more is found) and differences in survey methods. This increased spread was offset by substantial decreases in the density of Bitou bush: there was a 43 per cent reduction in dense (i.e. over 40 per cent cover) Bitou bush infestations over the ten years. This is consistent with management goals for widespread weeds and the National Bitou bush and Boneseed Strategic Plan.

This phased approach will allow species that are being effectively managed to be phased out and new species to benefit from the WoNS status. While the inaugural WoNS species have already transitioned to phases 2 and 3, no species have been removed from the WoNS list at this stage. The AWC is developing a protocol to guide decisions about when this should occur for individual species.

In 2010, jurisdictions nominated additional species for the WoNS Program, which were assessed by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics. The AWC endorsed 12 new WoNS

145

species; these additional weeds were selected because of their economic, environmental and social impacts and their potential capacity to spread. In April 2012, the Chair of the AWC announced the new 12 WoNS species: • Lycium ferocissimum (African boxthorn) • Asparagus spp. (Asparagus weeds) • Jatropha gossypiifolia (Bellyache bush) • Cytisus scoparius, Genista monspessulana and G. linifolia (Brooms) • Macfadyena unguis-cati (Cat’s claw creeper) • Senecio madagascariensis (Fireweed) • Andropogon gayanus (Gamba grass) • Anredera cordifolia (Madeira vine) • Opuntia spp. (Opuntioid cacti) • Sagittaria platyplylla (Sagittaria) • Solanum elaeagnifolium (Silverleaf nightshade) • Eichhornia crassipes (Water hyacinth). The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities is funding a project that will analyse the effectiveness of Australian Government sponsored projects to reduce the impact of Weeds of National Significance on biodiversity and natural icons. The project will run from May 2011 to June 2013 and will gather detailed spatial information on ‘Caring for our Country’ projects. The project will develop a method for measuring vegetation condition change and resilience of vegetation that can be used to monitor national efforts to reduce the impact of weeds on biodiversity and productivity assets. The Australian Government aims to use the information to help improve funding prioritisation and effectiveness in future natural resource management programs.

4.14 Biological control of weeds Biological control (biocontrol) is the control of a pest by the introduction of a natural enemy. Biocontrol of weeds can be defined as the reduction of weed populations by natural enemies and typically involves an active human role.

Plants that have become weeds in Australia are rarely invasive and troublesome in their original country. This may be due to different environmental conditions, but is often because plant populations in their native country are regulated by a variety of natural enemies such as insects and pathogens (disease-causing organisms like fungi and bacteria) that attack the seeds, leaves, stems or roots of the plant. If plants are introduced to a new country without these natural enemies and competitors, their populations may grow unchecked if the environment is suitable, to the point where they become so prevalent that they are regarded as weeds.

The biological control approach makes use of the invasive plant's naturally occurring enemies to help reduce its impact on agriculture and the environment. It simply aims to reunite weeds with their natural enemies and achieve sustainable weed control. Biological control is a long-term solution which is most effective as part of an integrated weed management approach.

These natural enemies of weeds are often referred to as biological control agents. Biological control agents of weeds include herbivores and plant pathogens. It is critical that the biological control agents do not become pests themselves. Considerable host-specificity testing is done before the release of biological control agents to ensure they will not pose a threat to non-target species such as native and agricultural plants.

146

Figure 59: Prickly pear (Opuntia cacti) invasion in 1920 (Figure courtesy of NSW Government)

Biological control of weeds has been practised for over 100 years and Australia has been a leader in this weed management technique. The classic example of successful biocontrol is the control of Prickly pear cactus in Australia by the cactus moth caterpillar, Cactoblastis cactorum. The moth was imported from Argentina in 1925 to control the cactus Opuntia cacti, which had invaded huge areas of grazing and bush land (Raghu and Walton, 2007). Since then, there have been many success stories of biocontrol of numerous weed species in Australia without serious negative environmental impacts. Economic assessments have shown that biocontrol of weeds in Australia has provided very high benefit-cost ratios. A recent book reviews biological control of weeds in Australia, covering over 90 weed species and a multitude of biocontrol agents in detail (Julien et al., 2012).

Classic weed biocontrol Classic biological control (the introduction of exotic natural enemies) is often advocated as a tool for managing invasive species. Where it is an appropriate response to an invasive species problem, it can be very effective in the long-term, but requires careful research over many years, continuity of funding and evaluation of progress and success.

Most biological control agents in Australia are imported, often from the country or region of origin of the exotic weed. If native parasites and predators of the exotic weed were effective biocontrol agents, the introduced plants generally would not become weedy and there would be no need for humans to intervene in most cases. Great care must be taken when importing potential biocontrol agents, that they are not potential pests or parasites on non-target plants and that they do not carry or vector other pests or diseases. The Biological Control Act 1984 provides for the approval, importation and release of biological control agents for specific targeted organisms, and the process by which the applications progress. This Act relates to weed management, as many exotic plants become weeds in Australia and importation of biological control agents is an effective method of controlling and suppressing them.

Biocontrol agents can cost over $500,000 per agent to develop, including personnel costs, native range exploration, quarantine host testing, and rearing and redistribution of agents. The time for a biocontrol agent to establish and provide self-perpetuating control of weeds depends on a range of factors, including the funding provided for rearing and distribution of agents. For example, the classic case of

147

the biocontrol of Prickly pear (achieved in about a decade) may not have been possible without the huge investment in the rearing and redistribution of the cactus moth. The expenditure of the Prickly pear biocontrol program was estimated to be the equivalent of $700 million (in 2007 dollars), with the rearing and redistribution effort being a third of this expenditure (about $210 million in 2007 dollars). Even at this level of expenditure, its benefit-cost ratio was an impressive 312:1 (Raghu and Walton, 2007).

A recent review of biocontrol of weeds in Australia identified Bridal creeper (Asparagus asparagoides) and Rubber vine (Cryptostegia grandflora) as outstanding recent successes (Palmer et al., 2010). An earlier paper made the following statement about the costs of the Bridal creeper program: “An estimated investment of approximately $6,000,000 (in 2002 dollars) has been required to cover the cost of the bridal creeper biological control program from the early exploration phases in South Africa (1989-90) to the release of the third agent in 2002. This does not include the extensive and outstanding contribution of volunteer community members to the on-ground implementation of the program” (Morin et al., 2006).

Measuring success of biocontrol There are many ways to determine success, and these are seldom mutually exclusive, but are difficult to measure without research effort (Crawley, 1989). Success or failure of biological control can be measured socially, economically or ecologically. Socially, we can claim to have achieved success if the stakeholders who want the weed managed in the first place feel that biocontrol has contributed to the weed’s management. Economically, if biocontrol reduces the costs incurred in managing a weed (relative to the costs incurred before the use of biocontrol), or causes an increase in the economic value of the land that is impacted by the weed, or reduces health costs associated with a weed’s impact on human health, then it may be deemed a success. Ecologically, if biocontrol suppresses populations of the target weed or facilitates the restoration of native biodiversity, then it may be deemed successful.

Prominent examples of successful biocontrol projects are listed below, (classified in terms of their dominant impacts): • social: Parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus) • economic: Prickly pear (Opuntia stricta), Paterson’s curse (Echium plantagineum) • environmental: Bridal creeper (Asparagus asparagoides), Salvinia (Salvinia molesta).

Salvinia (Salvinia molesta) is a WoNS in Australia because of its severe impacts in freshwater ecosystems. It adversely affects the biodiversity and functioning of freshwater ecosystems, water quality, water storage and distribution infrastructure, recreation and amenity values. It has often been described as one of the world’s worst aquatic weeds. It is a popular aquarium and fish pond plant that rapidly established in rivers, dams and swamps around Australia soon after its importation. It is now naturalised along most of the east coast of Australia from Cairns to Jervis Bay and in all major capital cities and adjacent freshwater ecosystems. It is present in all states and territories and could potentially become naturalised in them all, as they all have favourable climatic conditions and new infestations are continually being found due largely to continuing escapes and dumping from aquaria and fish ponds.

Salvinia is a suitable target for biological control because of its fast growth, rapid spread and continuing widespread reinfestations, frequently in inaccessible habitats. Biocontrol of salvinia has been a success story in Australia, and this method is continuing to be used as a major component of a national integrated management program. The Salvinia weevil (Cyrtobagous salviniae) was first released as a biological control agent in Australia in 1981. The weevil has achieved effective biological control, particularly in tropical to warm temperate regions and significantly reduces the impact of Salvinia. Brisbane City Council maintains pools for production of the Salvinia weevil and

148

reports effective management of Salvinia infestations through multiple releases in an active biocontrol program.

Integrated management includes biocontrol, herbicides, floating booms and mechanical removal. Integrated use of biocontrol and herbicides is successfully used in northern Australia, but there are fewer effective options in riverine and wetland habitats in southern Australia, and control is difficult in high value wetlands which may contain endangered species. Most control efforts involve methods that are time-consuming, intensive and expensive. Herbicide efficacy trials have been conducted to support label registration of products for minor use on Salvinia.

Biological control can fail for many reasons (not mutually exclusive). These include: • poor taxonomic knowledge of the target weed and/or biocontrol organism • poor fit of the biocontrol agent in terms of climate • mismatch between genotypes of the target weed and biocontrol agents (particularly relevant when rust fungi or mites are used as agents) • low release numbers of biocontrol agent • predation (in particular by ants in Australia) and parasitism • difficulties transferring insects with annual lifecycles to southern hemisphere conditions • damage caused by the biocontrol agent not sufficient to meet expectations in terms of impact • lack of integration of biocontrol with other forms of management and restoration practices • lack of availability of adequately specific biocontrol agents.

149

Case study: Salvinia

Salvinia (Salvinia molesta) is a WoNS because of its severe impacts in freshwater ecosystems. The plant was introduced into Australia as an aquarium and fish pond plant in the early 1950’s and soon established in rivers, dams and swamps around the country. Its floating habit and capacity for rapid increase has led to escapes during floods, but invasion of new catchments is directly linked to human activities. Excellent habitat conditions for Salvinia occur across southern and eastern Australia. It is a commonly grown free-floating, sterile aquatic fern that reproduces by vegetative growth and fragmentation. Under ideal growing conditions, it can double its biomass in as little as two days.

Salvinia’s native distribution is tropical Central America to southern Brazil, but it wreaks havoc wherever it naturalises. Salvinia costs Australia many millions of dollars in control, social and environmental losses. Commercial and recreational fishing is inhibited by Salvinia blocking nets and impeding the passage of boats. Salvinia degrades water quality through decomposing plant material and dramatically increases water loss through transpiration, which lead to reduction in water oxygen and consequent fish deaths. Shading and lowered oxygen levels cause loss of aquatic biodiversity by killing submerged vascular plants and aquatic fauna. Salvinia encourages breeding of disease-carrying pests, such as mosquito vectors of serious human diseases, by providing a perfect habitat for larval development. The development of thick floating mats can provide a dangerous platform for children and animals which frequently mistake the dense carpets for firm ground. Swimming is dangerous if not impossible in dense infestastions. Salvinia can also block irrigation channels and pump intakes. Exotic aquatic plants, including Salvinia, threaten extinction of a high number of native species in temperate freshwater ecosystems.

Importation of all species of the genus Salvinia is prohibited under Commonwealth quarantine legislation on the basis of Weed Risk Assessment. Salvinia is a regulated weed in all states and territories, but despite being banned, it is commonly grown in ponds and fish tanks, from where it continually reinfests local waterways. The plant’s popularity as an aquarium plant poses an ongoing threat to wetlands and riparian ecosystems.

The National Aquatic Weeds Management Group oversees the implementation of the National Salvinia Strategic Plan and provides national coordination. The Strategic Plan identifies a range of required tasks to reduce the impact of existing infestations, stop illegal trade, prevent spread and increase coordinated management. Outlying Salvinia infestations are intensively managed and have been eradicated at several sites. Most core infestations are managed through biocontrol and eight biocontrol facilities operate around Australia’s east and north coasts. Other achievements include education and awareness in key target audiences, training in identification, production of a Salvinia Control Manual for Best Practice Management, and incorporation of Salvinia management in regional plans.

Extension and education are areas needing much more work to reduce the illegal trade in aquarium plants and dumping of Salvinia in waterways.

150

Figure 60: Harvesting Salvina (Salvinia molesta) in waterway (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

Current weed biocontrol research in Australia In Australia, the CSIRO, state and territory governments and universities are the major bodies engaged in biological control research.

The Weeds Australia website (http://www.weeds.org.au/management.htm) contains a list of 63 target weed species approved for biological control by the Australian Weeds Committee and the Natural Resource Management Standing Committee (NRMSC) or under the Biological Control Act (see Appendix 2).

The NRMSC approved a procedure in 2003 for determining weed targets and biocontrol agents. This procedure can be downloaded in PDF format: NRMSC Approved Procedure for Determining Candidate Weed Species and/or Control Agents for Biological Control.

In considering possible target weed species, the following characteristics are taken into account: • close relatives in the Australian region • habitat, including distribution • current control methods • importance of plant – detrimental and beneficial aspects. The following information is used in considering potential biological control agents: • biology and ecology, including likely efficacy • host-specificity testing • possible interactions.

151

According to the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, only one weed was listed for biological control in 2010-11, Bryophyllum delagoense (Mother-of-millions) in Queensland. It is possible to estimate expenditure on weed biocontrol for any given year by working out the FTEs (staff full-time equivalents) involved in the different state and Commonwealth agencies directly working on biocontrol research and extension. The following graph illustrates this trend within one of three groups in CSIRO that conducts weed biocontrol, the CSIRO Tropical Weeds group. As evident, the long-term trend has been one of decline. While some of this is a result of staff retirements, a significant causal influence in the declining capability is the reduction in investment in weed biocontrol research by funding agencies.

Figure 61: Trends in staffing levels of the Tropical Weeds biological control group within CSIRO (Source: CSIRO)

Economic benefits of weed biocontrol Estimation of the economic benefits of weed biocontrol in Australia has shown that for every dollar invested in biocontrol, there is a return of $23.10 in terms of benefit. For individual weeds, this return on investment can be substantially higher. The Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management examined the return on investment of the Australian weed biological control effort by analysing 36 biocontrol projects (Page and Lacey, 2006). The aggregate result of the individual cost- benefit analyses implied that for every dollar invested, a benefit of $23.10 was generated. The overall benefit cost-ratio (BCR) of 23.1 comprised BCRs of 17.4 for agriculture (control cost savings and increased production), 3.8 for society (health benefits) and 1.9 for government (control cost savings). Based on this overall ratio, if the investment in weed biocontrol continued at $4.3 million annually, it was expected to provide a net benefit of $95.3 million annually, of which $71.8 million would flow to the agriculture sector. The report also reviewed all past economic analyses of weed biocontrol in Australia and concluded that the benefits far outweighed the total costs of the weed biocontrol effort since the 1900s. Some programs also provided uncosted additional environmental, social and production benefits.

152

Improving weed biocontrol in Australia It is important to evaluate the long-term effects of weed biocontrol, including impacts on ecosystems. Almost every biocontrol scientist wants to ensure that evaluation is conducted on impacts on the target weeds and any positive or negative outcomes for both agriculture and the environment. However, evaluation of the efficacy of biocontrol can require long-term studies; these timeframes can be more than ten years in some instances where pre-release studies on weed impacts are lacking. However, with good baseline data on the weed before the introduction of biological control agents, evaluation of weed management through biocontrol can be conducted in shorter timeframes. For many funding agencies, the release of the biocontrol agent is seen as an end-point, so the adequacy of the evaluation efforts is severely constrained by this.

Adequate evaluation of the long-term efficacy and ecological impacts of weed biocontrol has not always been possible (Thomas and Reid, 2007). Although there have been some successes, biocontrol is generally poorly evaluated and, in many cases, its impact is unknown. In particular, there is limited understanding of the nature of the invasive species problem and no clear targets against which ‘success’ can be gauged. In addition, exotic natural enemies could act as invasive species in their own right. To improve the role of biocontrol in invasive species management, a better ecological understanding of the impacts of both the biocontrol agents and the target invasive species is needed.

153

CHAPTER 5.

What are we doing to enhance our capacity and commitment to solving our weeds problems?

154

5.1 Research and development

Research and development projects Plant Health Australia conducted a survey of Australian agricultural research bodies in 2012 to determine the scope and types of biosecurity research currently being conducted on pests, diseases and weeds. The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) database was also searched for current weeds projects listed in the National Weeds and Productivity Research Program (NWPRP). The aggregated list presented below revealed 115 current weed research and development projects.

Table 21: Weed research and development projects, 2010-11

Project Principal research Funding source organisation

Risk Analysis:

Weed Risk Assessment DPI Vic DPI Vic

Weed Risk Assessment for Australian Nursery Nursery & Garden RIRDC – NWPRP & Garden Industries Industry Australia

Surveillance and Monitoring:

Assessing the invasion and impacts of exotic CSIRO Laure Syndique high-biomass grasses in Brisbane

Hawkweed and Ox-eye daisy infestations in University of Wollongong OEH, University of alpine regions Wollongong

Impact of winter 2009 drawdown on dense DPI Vic Goulburn Murray waterweed in Lake Mulwala Water

Impacts of grass invasion in coastal areas, just University of RIRDC – NWPRP, how bad are coastal weeds: assessing geo-eco- Wollongong, University University of psycho-socio-economic Impacts of Melbourne Wollongong

Monitoring and impact evaluation of invasive DPI Vic DPI Vic plants

Using spatial analysis and robust surveillance DPI Vic DPI Vic strategies to optimise weed management

Spread:

Cabomba ecology and dispersal in Australia DEEDI RIRDC – NWPRP

Climate change and the risks of weed invasions CSIRO RIRDC – NWPRP in the Murray Darling Basin

How do decisions by stakeholders affect weed University of Queensland RIRDC – NWPRP distribution at a landscape scale?

155

Project Principal research Funding source organisation

Genetic, reproductive and demographic CSIRO Ecosystem RIRDC – NWPRP facilitation of Sagittaria invasion Sciences

Invasion and impact of high biomass grasses CSIRO Ecosystem RIRDC – NWPRP (HBG) in Queensland Sciences

Prediction of weed spread under climate Macquarie University OEH, Macquarie change University

Containment and Eradication:

Containment of invasive plants: a basis for CSIRO Ecosystem RIRDC – NWPRP decision making & best practice Sciences

Improving prevention and containment of Roberts Evaluation Pty RIRDC – NWPRP serrated tussock in southwest Victoria Ltd

Seed bank longevity in bitou and boneseed University of Wollongong OEH , University of Wollongong

Weed Eradication tools DPI Vic DPI Vic

Chemical Control:

Alternative approaches to chemical weed New Rural Industries RIRDC – NWPRP control measures Australia

Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative University of Western GRDC (Phase 4) Australia

Chemical control of submerged aquatic weeds DPI Vic Goulburn Murray Water

Development of precision spray technologies National Centre for SRDC, BSES Ltd. for the Australian sugarcane industry Engineering in Agriculture

Differential herbicide tolerance of winter crops NSW DPI GRDC in SE Australia - Stage 3

Diagnostic tools for detection of non-target site University of Western RIRDC – NWPRP herbicide resistance Australia

Does the tolerance of weeds to herbicide University of Canberra RIRDC – NWPRP change with elevated CO2?

Evaluate fitness costs in herbicide resistant University of Western RIRDC – NWPRP annual ryegrass Australia

Expanding the aquatic herbicide list: a DEEDI RIRDC – NWPRP proactive approach

156

Project Principal research Funding source organisation

Herbicide efficacy, crop safety and residues in Crop Protection Research HAL (almond almonds when trifluralin is applied via sub- Pty Ltd industry) surface irrigation systems

Herbicide tolerance screening in northern DEEDI GRDC region (Phase 4)

Management of glyphosate resistant weeds in NSW DPI NSW DPI non-agricultural areas

Management of glyphosate resistant weeds in University of Adelaide RIRDC – NWPRP non-agricultural areas

Managing the risks of trifluralin and Group B University of Adelaide GRDC herbicide resistance in no-till cropping systems

Managing weeds and herbicides in a NSW DPI Cotton Catchment genetically modified cotton farming system Communities - CRC

Minor use of chemicals New Rural Industries RIRDC – NWPRP Australia

Modelling evolution of herbicide resistance University of Western RIRDC, CSIRO Australia, AHRI

Precision spot spraying system: it works in Advanced Burdekin SRDC grains will it work in cane? Collective Research Inc.

Risk assessment and management of paraquat University of Adelaide RIRDC – NWPRP resistance in the pasture seed industry

Risk assessment and preventive strategies for DEEDI GRDC herbicide resistance (Phase 3)

Screening warm-season turfgrass for Group A GeneGro HAL (turf industry) herbicide tolerance

Sustainability of wheat-selective pre-emergent University of Western RIRDC – NWPRP herbicides in a changing climate Australia

The use of weed sensors for variable rate Birchip Cropping Group RIRDC – NWPRP herbicide application: Wimmera

Understanding and management of resistance NSW DPI NSW DPI to Group M, Group L and Group I herbicides - National project

Weed management strategies for farming DEEDI CRDC systems with herbicide tolerant cotton

Weed management under dry seeding and Western Australian No- RIRDC - NWPRP permanent residue farming practices Tillage Farmers Assoc.

157

Project Principal research Funding source organisation

Biological Control:

Assessment of new biocontrol agents of CSIRO Meat and Livestock Parkinsonia Australia

Bio control of prickly acacia: host specificity DEEDI RIRDC – NWPRP testing of new agents from India

Biological control agents of Bellyache bush CSIRO Meat and Livestock and Parkinsonia Australia, US Department of Agriculture

Biological control and ecology of alligator CSIRO RIRDC – NWPRP weed and cabomba

Biological control of Paterson's Curse: NSW DPI Australian Wool Establishing nursery sites in regions with late Innovation and unreliable rainfall and training through the CD

Biological control and ecology of Cabomba CSIRO RIRDC – NWPRP and Alligator weed

Biological control of broom DPI Vic Goulburn Murray Water

Biological control of Crofton weed on Lord CSIRO RIRDC – NWPRP Howe Island

Biological control of "mile-a-minute" (Mikania DEEDI Australian Centre for micrantha) in Papua New Guinea and Fiji International Agricultural Research

Biological control of Hudson Pear in Australia NSW DPI RIRDC - NWPRP

Biological control of Lippia CSIRO US Department of Agriculture

Biological control of serrated tussock DPI Vic Meat and Livestock Australia

Biological control of sea spurge phase 2 CSIRO RIRDC – NWPRP

Biological control of weeds DPI Vic DPI Vic

Biological control of weedy sporobolus grasses NSW DPI RIRDC – NWPRP by the fungus Nigrospora oryzae

Cape tulip biocontrol CSIRO DAFWA

158

Project Principal research Funding source organisation

Community implementation of biological DPI Vic CfoC control of weeds across SE Australia

Field host range of high priority potential CSIRO RIRDC – NWPRP biocontrol agents of Parkinsonia aculeata

NRM biological control support SA Research and PIRSA Development

Paterson's Curse as a model to measure impact Charles Sturt University RIRDC – NWPRP of climate change on biocontrol for weeds

Studies toward the biological control of Murdoch University Dept. of blackberry in the south-west of Western Environment and Australia Conservation, WA

Sudden death syndrome/dieback in weeds CSIRO RIRDC - NWPRP

Surveys - biological control agents for Lippia CSIRO University of Bahia Blanca

Integrated Weed Management:

An integrated approach to nut grass control NSW Farming Systems SRDC Group

Beating environmental weeds II CSIRO AgResearch Limited

Developing whole farm integrated management DPI Vic Meat and Livestock programs for unpalatable grasses Australia

Improving Integrated Weed Management in University of Adelaide GRDC Conservation Farming Systems in the Southern region

Integrated weed management in vegetable Agrisearch HAL (vegetable brassicas industry)

Integrated weed management in vegetable Scholefield Robinson RIRDC – NWPRP crops: gap analysis and development of a Horticultural Services Pty Research, Development and Extension Plan Ltd

Suppressive plants as part of an integrated University of Queensland RIRDC – NWPRP management program for parthenium

Tools for adoption of optimal weed CSIRO RIRDC – NWPRP management strategies in cropping systems

Other Controls:

Advancing site specific management of weed SARDI GRDC and soilborne diseases

159

Project Principal research Funding source organisation

Alligator weed DPI Vic Melbourne Water

A microwave system to kill weed seedlings University of Melbourne RIRDC - NWPRP without herbicide

Best practice mesquite management in the CSIRO Pilbara Mesquite rangelands of WA Management Committee

Biodegradable weed management using CSIRO RIRDC – NWPRP agricultural wastes

Branched broomrape – management and PIRSA DAFF predicting emergence

Control of Cabomba in Australia CSIRO Mary River Catchment Coordination Association

Delivering applied solutions to weed issues in DEEDI GRDC Central Queensland

Desert uplands committee weed research Desert Uplands: Build-Up RIRDC - NWPRP management and Development Strategy Committee

Fireweed control research CSIRO University of New England

Future proofing the National Post Border NSW DPI RIRDC – NWPRP Weed Risk Management Protocol

Harvest weed seed management workshops University of Western RIRDC – NWPRP and evaluation of the Harrington Seed Australia Destructor

Improved management of submerged aquatic DPI Vic RIRDC – NWPRP weeds and alligator weed

Improved options for Fleabane control DEEDI GRDC

Improving regional adoption of weed control a University of New RIRDC – NWPRP case study in the New England England

Invasive Acacia at home and abroad CSIRO CSIRO

Invasive grasses CSIRO CSIRO

Invasive species risks and response in the Wet CSIRO CSIRO Tropics

160

Project Principal research Funding source organisation

Investigations into essential oils and carbon DPI Vic DPI Vic for organic control of unpalatable grasses

Lake Benalla cabomba control DPI Vic Melbourne Water

Managing weeds on native title lands Australian Institute of RIRDC – NWPRP Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies

Management and control of Lippia in CSIRO OEH wetlands and riparian zones

Management of unpalatable grasses: serrated DPI Vic DPI Vic tussock

Manipulating weed successions when Regional Development RIRDC – NWPRP restoring native vegetation communities: Australia-Murray Riverina Murray Area

Molecular control of reproduction in weeds Univ. of Melbourne RIRDC – NWPRP

Scoping study for sustainable broadleaf weed University of New England HAL (vegetable control in cucurbit crops industry)

Tackling Australia's weed seed bank liability University of Western RIRDC – NWPRP with the Seed-Persistence Tool Kit Australia

Techniques to restore riparian and floodplain DPI Vic Melbourne Water biodiversity

Weed control in aerobic rice to increase water Agropraisals Pty. Ltd RIRDC – NWPRP efficiency

Weed seed wizard University of Western GRDC Australia

Weed management on Indigenous lands: CSIRO Ecosystem RIRDC – NWPRP Indigenous values, perceptions and capacity Sciences

Diagnostics – Identification/Detection:

Alligator weed genetic analysis CSIRO NSW DPI

Golden Dodder developing a novel detection SA Research and RIRDC – NWPRP method using DNA and aerial imagery Development Institute

Precision sensing technology for infield University of Southern RIRDC – NWPRP identification of summer weeds Queensland

Use of hyperspectral remote sensing for Charles Sturt University RIRDC – NWPRP enhanced detection of weeds

161

Project Principal research Funding source organisation

Capacity Building:

Collation of information on weeds into the Plant Health Australia RIRDC – NWPRP National Plant Health Status Report

Innovations in institutions to improve weed University of New England RIRDC – NWPRP funding, strategy and outcomes

Systematic review of Weeds Surveys DAFF (ABARES) RIRDC – NWPRP

Weeds Website Chris Auricht and RIRDC – NWPRP Associates

Other:

Climate change impacts on agricultural weeds Curtin University of RIRDC – NWPRP in Western Australia (Phase 2) Technology

The weight of the vine: Impacts of vine University of Wollongong RIRDC – NWPRP infestations on plant health

An analysis of the weeds research and development projects in 2010 - 11 shows that about half (55 projects) were funded under the Australian Government’s National Weeds and Productivity Research Program, which was administered by RIRDC. Other rural research and development organisations funded 24 projects (Grains RDC 10 projects; Horticulture Australia Limited 4; Sugar RDC 3; Meat and Livestock Australia 4; Australian Wool Innovation 1; Cotton RDC 1 and Rural Industries RDC 1). State governments invested in 16 projects (Victoria 7 projects; NSW 6; WA 2 and SA 1), with water companies funding 6 projects, CSIRO 3 projects, international funding for 3 projects; with 7 other projects. State government organisations were the principal researchers in 37 projects with CSIRO undertook 30 projects; universities 28; private companies 10; farming bodies 4 and others 6.

There are about 18 research and development projects in the general area of prevention, but only two on pre-border and border prevention of incursions (weed risk assessments). Of the projects that could loosely be regarded as addressing prevention of spread of new weeds post-border, 7 are about surveillance and monitoring, 6 on spread, 4 on containment and eradication and 4 on diagnostics (identification or detection).

The majority of research and development projects concern weed management, or reducing the impact of existing weeds. There are 26 projects on chemical control or herbicides, 23 on biological control, 8 on Integrated Weed Management (IWM), and 31 on other methods or aspects of weed control. Only four projects relate to capacity building or information gathering.

Twenty-one projects mention Weeds of National Significance in their titles. Approximately 60 R&D projects are clearly concerned with agricultural weeds, and approximately 60 are clearly about environmental weeds, although there is obviously considerable overlap and some project titles are non-specific.

The most common subject is aquatic weeds with 17 projects, and other environmental weed projects focus on rangeland weeds (8), coastal weeds (5) and alpine weeds (1). Of the agricultural weeds

162

projects, 12 concern broadacre farming including grains, 9 concern livestock and pasture industries, 8 are on horticulture industries (including nurseries and turf), 2 are on sugar, 2 on cotton and 1 on rice.

RIRDC National Weeds and Productivity Research Program The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) was appointed as manager of the National Weeds and Productivity Research Program (RIRDC, 2010) by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Australian Government provided up to $12.4 million for 2010-2012. Some projects were commissioned by RIRDC for administration, strategy development and program management (up to $1.98 million). The balance of between $4.8 million and $7.2 million was for projects selected through open call.

Research and development databases A database of Australian research and development projects related to weeds, for the period 2007 to June 2012 is available at http://www.weeds.org.au/training.htm.

For additional searches, see Trove, which covers a wider range of documents than the above database. The single search covers print and online theses as well as journal articles and books, enabling a comprehensive picture of researchers’ public work. Trove can be found at http://trove.nla.gov.au.

Genetic Research Centres around Australia hold vast seed banks of potential pasture and crop plant species and varieties that were imported before the current weed risk assessment processes were implemented. All exotic plants in these collections need to be assessed for potential weediness before they can be released into the environment, particularly given that 60 of the 460 pasture and legume species trialled in northern Australia from 1947-85 became weeds.

The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) conducts some research and development on weeds in overseas countries that can benefit Australia weed management, particularly in the areas of exotic weeds and biological control.

5.2 Education and Training Many formal education and training courses are available in Australia to develop knowledge and skills relevant to prevention, control and management of weeds. Details of the courses and training are available at: http://invasivespecies.org.au.

Tertiary courses University level units with a focus on weeds are offered at eight universities in four states. These modules, ranging from integrated weed management to crop protection and plant biosecurity, can be undertaken as part of an award course or as individual units of interest. There are also weed components in agricultural science, botany and environmental science courses.

Professional development Weeds workshops or courses are available for professionals in the industry to enhance current knowledge or broaden skills. There is an Integrated Weed Management Workshop, and one- or two- day workshops based on the Australian IWM Manual and resistance management tactics developed by the Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative. The latter courses/workshops are directed at agronomists and consultants and are developed and conducted by a consultant.

163

Vocational Education and Training Vocational Education and Training (VET) provides knowledge and training in preparation for a specific occupation in industry or trade. Fourteen VET courses with a weed component are listed on the above website at Certificate to Diploma level, including conservation and land management, weed management, agriculture, horticulture and sustainability. VET is provided through a national training framework that defines the assessment standards and is delivered by Registered Training Organisations (RTO) including public, private and Technical and Further Education (TAFE) providers. Central to the system is "national recognition" whereby the assessments and awards must be recognised by all RTOs and training authorities nationally. This allows national portability of qualifications and units of competency. Industry Skills Councils are responsible for developing and reviewing the vocational qualifications. Courses are available in various study modes: on-campus, external, distance or flexible delivery. The courses are delivered by many RTO and TAFE providers nationally.

Within this vocational education structure, the Industry Skills Councils and Agrifood Skills Australia have released eight competency-based educational units that have particular emphasis on weeds, including assessing, monitoring and managing weeds.

Accredited training Accredited courses address skill requirements for industry, enterprise and the community where these are not covered in nationally endorsed training packages. The short accredited courses are required to apply for a specific certification or license to work in the industry. The courses include safe chemical use, chemical risk management, chemical application, weeds training program, skills assessment for the weed control industry, and water weeds.

Accredited courses are formally recognised in accordance with the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF/AQTF) and delivered by a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) which can issue a nationally recognised qualification or Statement of Attainment following its full or partial completion. Accredited courses are listed on the National Training Information Service (www.ntis.gov.au) by the course accrediting body. All training organisations registered to deliver that course will also be listed on the national system.

Interest/short courses Various short courses on weed identification and control are provided by community groups, consultants and TAFE Colleges. Courses include weed risk management, weed movement, biological control and water weeds. One two-day workshop called ‘Weed Removers, Pasture Improvers’ covers weed management in pastures, focusing on balance to improve animal production. A range of pesticide application courses are also offered by SMARTtrain, ChemCert and other private providers. Details of courses provided by Registered Training Organisations can be found at TAFE and Training Directory. Courses are also advertised in local media, through community groups or online at Learn Local, Adult, Community and Further Education (ACFE) or 2011-weeds-training-calendar.pdf. website found at: http://www.skills.vic.gov.au/learnlocal-acfe.

5.3 Advisory Committees

Sydney Weeds Committee The Sydney Weeds Committee is an association of government and non-government agencies and practitioners working together to promote effective weed management in the Sydney metropolitan and lower Blue Mountains region. They are working to coordinate weed control actions and resources to

164

prevent further spread of weeds and to protect endangered ecosystems, waterways, agricultural lands and critical habitat corridors.

Riverina Noxious Weeds Advisory Groups The Eastern Riverina Noxious Weeds Advisory Group (ERNWAG) and the Western Riverina Noxious Weeds Advisory Group (WRNWAG) are the leading committees for weed management in the Riverina region, including the catchments of the Murray, Murrumbidgee, Lower Murray Darling and Lachlan Rivers.

Macquarie Valley and Lachlan Valley Weeds Advisory Committees The Macquarie Valley Weeds Advisory Committee and the Lachlan Valley Weeds Advisory Committee comprise the Local Control Authorities and Livestock, Health and Pest Authorities weed officers, as well as community groups, Catchment Management Authorities and other weed management professionals. They are dedicated to controlling weeds to maintain agricultural, environmental and community health.

North Coast Weed Advisory Committee The North Coast Weed Advisory Committee is the leading organisation for weeds in the NSW North Coast region, comprising key stakeholders involved in weed management from Nambucca Heads to the Queensland border.

Northern Inland Weeds Advisory Committee The Northern Inland Weeds Advisory Committee promotes a regional approach to management of noxious and other environmental weeds by bringing together all local and state government organisations and other bodies involved in land management throughout the North West and New England Regions of New South Wales. It covers 10 Local Control Authorities (councils and county councils) and 3 Livestock Health and Pest Authorities. It aims to reduce the economic, environmental and social impact of weeds in the North West and New England Regions of NSW.

Southern Tablelands and South Coast Noxious Plants Committee The Southern Tablelands and South Coast Noxious Plants Committee includes key stakeholders involved in weed management from Bega Valley Shire in the south to Wollongong City in the north and west to the Snowy Mountains, including most of the Southern Tablelands and Slopes districts. It is a forum for weed control agencies to exchange ideas and a meeting point where members can share their experiences with colleagues from other sectors of the industry.

Northern Territory Weed Advisory Committee This Committee develops weed management plans in consultation with key stakeholder groups and those people whose land may be affected by a declared weed infestation, and promotes integrated best practice weed control throughout industry and the wider community. To support the activities of the NT Weed Advisory Committee, Regional Reference Groups have been established in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs and comprise a membership representing hands-on land managers, land owners and other stakeholders with interest and experience in local weed management issues.

165

5.4 Weed Awareness

What is happening to promote weed awareness and why is it important? Promoting weed awareness is important to increase public understanding of the economic, environmental and social impacts weeds have on Australia and to support the implementation of integrated weed management. The Australian Weeds Strategy calls for a National Weed Awareness Action Plan to focus on improving awareness as a prerequisite to achieving long-term management of weeds. The goal is a targeted, well-resourced and consistent national weeds awareness program that increases community and whole-of-government understanding of the weed issues.

State and territory governments New South Wales Under the New South Wales Weed Action program funding to local governments, the detection of new and emerging weeds is a top priority. In addition, the “No Space 4 Weeds” (NS4W) program is a state-wide weed awareness program that highlights that weeds are everyone’s problem and provides opportunities to be part of the solutions. The current theme for the program is hygiene, with the new campaign to be promoted under the NS4W banner titled ‘make a difference – at home at work at play’.

The Office of Environment and Heritage works with NSW Departments of Education and Training (DET) and Primary Industries to raise public awareness and help the community to combat the weed problem. For example, the "Community Implementation of Biological Control across SE Australia" program engages community members, local governments and school students in distributing biological control agents for widespread weeds. In NSW, the project targets Bitou bush and Salvinia. In addition, the project supports the Weed Warriors education initiative that educates students on weed issues and empowers them to take action by rearing and releasing biocontrol agents. This joint project is funded by the Australian Government Caring for our Country program.

In addition, the Weeds Attack! Program provides an interactive, computer-based learning resource that teaches students about weeds through exciting games and challenges. This resource is linked to Weed Warriors and provides further classroom support. Students develop increased awareness and capacity to manage the environment. The resource is being used in NSW schools and is freely available online for use in or out of the classroom. The program is available at: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pestsweeds/weeds/schools.

Victoria

The Victorian Department of Primary Industries (Vic DPI) has regular media releases targeting seasonal local issues in specific regions. Vic DPI staff members participate in events such as field days and the Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show. Vic DPI maintained a display of State Prohibited Weeds at Melbourne Zoo in 2010-11. Vic DPI has a number of information notes and other useful documents on its website to assist landowners to understand and meet their responsibilities under the Catchment and Land Protection Act.

Building community and stakeholder awareness is central to invasive species management at the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE). To this end, DSE weed projects include communication and engagement activities to develop awareness and involve communities in weed management (e.g. Otway Eden Weed Management Program). Activities include media releases, radio interviews, signage and brochures, as well as community forums, training and support for community- led complementary works on private land. The program has also funded a series of demonstration projects across Victoria to build support for the Victorian Government’s approach to invasive species

166

with other agencies. Brochures, reports, presentations and a website are also developed to communicate the threat of invasive species, while social research has also been undertaken to better understand the awareness and needs of communities and stakeholders in invasive species management.

Queensland As part of the 2011 Flood Recovery program, a special allocation was made for public awareness of weed issues. $132,000 was used by Biosecurity Queensland to coordinate the overall response until 30 June 2011 and contribute to the rollout of the initial communications and extension program including the generation of communication materials for on-going use over the next 12-18 months as weed and pest animal impacts become more apparent. The funding paid for a project manager, communications officer and extension officer and their operational costs as well as targeted training costs.

Figure 62: Non-flowering infestation of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) (Figure courtesy of M. Kahler, NSW Department of Primary Industries)

Western Australia In order to raise public awareness on weeds and other biosecurity matters, the Department of Agriculture and Forestry WA (DAFWA) generates media releases, produces publications including Farmnotes and Gardennotes, and provides information on weed control methods and other weed- related topics on its website (www.agric.wa.gov.au).

DAFWA staff also participate in various agricultural field days, agricultural shows, garden shows and other events where weed awareness information is included in its display or presentation. DAFWA also collaborates with several WoNS Coordinators in raising awareness.

167

South Australia In South Australia, the regional NRM Boards promote weed awareness within their regions. The NRM Biosecurity Group within the Department of Primary Industries and Resources SA (PIRSA) is currently reviewing declared weeds in South Australia, which will include public consultation on changes to existing declarations. The Weeds Botanist at the SA State Herbarium has conducted workshops (including participation in field days), presentations, media releases and tours of the Herbarium to raise awareness of the importance of collecting accurately located and properly prepared herbarium specimens to provide identification and permanent evidence of weed species and their areas of occurrence in the state.

Tasmania The Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) maintains a Weed Management website that provides management and control advice for weeds declared under the Weed Management Act 1999 as well as a range of environmental weeds. The website has a high rate of usage and has been an effective tool to communicate weed management information to the broader community. The website address is: http://dpiw.tas.gov.au/weeds.

DPIPWE also works in partnership with the NRM regions in the production of fact sheets and other extension material on weed management. This information targets key declared and environmental weeds with each region.

Staff from DPIPWE's Weed Management Section participate in a range of field days and workshops to talk about weed management and weed hygiene. These events involve community groups, land owners, contractors and government staff.

Australian Capital Territory The ACT Government engages with the broader community in terms of education and awareness programs, and regulation of controlled activities. A number of initiatives have been in place for some time, such as the Weedbusters Week, an annual event since 1998 held to promote weed awareness in the local community. Activities resulting from these events have been weed displays at Floriade and an annual Weed Swap program for ACT residents.

The ACT NRM Plan provides a vehicle for establishing partnerships between the ACT and Australian Governments, and community and business groups to achieve the objectives in the plan. Through related national NRM funding programs, targeted projects can be developed that address community participation in on-ground works, including weed control, or related awareness-raising activities.

Regular weed control demonstrations and other information activities are delivered through the Upper Murrumbidgee Catchment Coordinating Committee and/or the ACT NRM Council. These regular events provide an opportunity for leaseholders and others to learn more about weed management.

Local Governments Local governments were asked what they were doing to increase public awareness. In New South Wales, responses included displays at shows, field days, shopping complexes, council offices, saleyards and produce stores; weeds information published in local newspaper and online on council/newspaper website; media publicity through booklets and leaflets on weed management; education workshops; TV and radio advertising campaigns; plant samples kept to aid identification; and signage.

In Victoria, responses included participation in State Government education programs, booklets that focus on weed species that are garden escapees; press releases for the local media; newsletters; community education programs; conducting workshops; attendance at field days; weed information

168

guide for residents at local events and online; provision of temporary/reactive signage; and targeted mailouts.

In Queensland, responses included attendance at field days with static displays; community consultation; media releases; supply of extension material (such as WEEDeck); support for weed educational programs such as Weedbuster Week; provision of Weed of the Week stories for local newspapers; letters; landholder education; provision of information on declared weeds, public washdown facilities and control strategies.

In Western Australia, a number of respondents indicated that nothing was done because of lack of funding. Other responses included weed education websites; weed information brochures; community volunteer weeding days; targeted mailouts; community emails; council workshops for weed issues; stalls at local events; and advertisements and articles in local media.

In South Australia, a number of responses indicated that the NRM Boards were responsible for public awareness. Other councils indicated that they prepared articles for council newsletters, NRM newsletters, local papers particularly when the weed was in season; and mail outs of weed information sheets to local residents. One council indicated that it encourages native and biodiversity gardens and gardening that includes eradication of invasive weed species.

In Tasmania, responses included the provision of weed identification resources to Coastcare groups; flyers and other resources readily available at council chambers; weed identification/control information available on council website; community consultation; signage at weed hotspots educating people about local weeds; and newsletters. One council indicated that it is engaging local schools to undertake weed control activities.

Weedbusters Weedbusters is an Australian-wide program that seeks to raise awareness about the damaging effects of weeds. It aims to:

• raise awareness and increase public understanding about the impacts of weeds

• help people understand how some gardening and agricultural practices can lead to land and environmental degradation

• provide information and opportunities to build skills and knowledge so that people can better manage weeds

• foster community ownership of problems resulting in acceptance and support for weed management projects

• recognise the efforts of volunteers, community groups, and local governments in areas of excellent weed management.

Weedbuster Week highlights these issues and celebrates the contribution of the many individuals and groups of people who dedicate their time helping to control weeds. Individuals and community groups can be involved in Weedbuster Week, a program designed to assist them to increase involvement in managing weeds as part of broader land management. Through Weedbusters, groups and organisations can highlight a weeds issue and generate interest in weeds / land management. Weedbuster Week is held annually in September to increase participation in weeds and land management and raise awareness about weed issues.

In 2011 the theme for Weedbuster Week was Prevent, Restore, Recover, signalling the need to prevent weeds from establishing in new areas and manage existing ones. The need for on-ground action to prevent infestations and help restore the landscape is more important than ever. In 2011, Weedbuster

169

Week also acknowledged the recovery efforts that many groups and individuals made in restoring the landscape following exceptional weather events.

WEEDeck WEEDeck is a standard, custom-made National Pocket Guide for Weed Identification that collates the resources of weed management organisations across Australia. This pooling arrangement enables participating organisations to produce a cost-effective weed identification deck of cards with flexibility to carry their corporate identity and species mix relevant to their jurisdiction, land management objectives, organisation objectives and climate.

Weed websites Sources of information and related tools: • weeds Australia (www.weeds.org.au) • weeds in Australia (Australian Government) (www.weeds.govt.au) • weeds (NSW DPI) (www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pest-weeds/weeds) • weeds (Vic DPI) (www.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/pests-diseases-and-weeds) • weeds (DAFF, WA) (www.agric.wa.gov.au) • weeds (DAFF QLD) (www.daff.qld.gov.au/4790_4823.htm) • weeds (Biosecurity SA) (www.pir.sa.gov.au/biosecuritysa/nrm_biosecurity/weeds) • weeds (DPIWE, Tasmania) (www.dpiw.tas.gov.au) • weeds (NRETAS, NT) (www.nretas.nt.gov.au/natural-resource-management/weeds)

170

CHAPTER 6.

What can we conclude?

171

6.1 Synopsis Unwanted plants, or weeds, appear in all types of landscapes across Australia and affect all land owners and managers, to a greater or lesser extent. Weeds affect productivity, biodiversity, access to, and enjoyment of, reserves and parks. Weedy plants do not respect borders or boundaries and grow wherever and whenever an opportunity presents itself.

Australia is a geographically isolated island continent with unique flora and fauna, long separated from other continents. It has vast areas of native vegetation with sparse human habitation. Australia also has a large dependence on agriculture and over half of the country’s agricultural and forestry produce is exported. For these reasons, there are many plants overseas that do not occur in Australia, but pose serious threats to Australia’s agriculture and environment.

Plants do not respect borders; they will continue to spread, particularly aided by increasing human travel and trade between continents. Since European settlement of Australia, over 28,000 plant species have been introduced, and there are now more foreign plant species in Australia than the 24,000 known native species. Quarantine aims to prevent unwanted incursions, but there is no such thing as zero risk. Even if all international travel and trade ceased, there is still a risk of some weed seeds blowing or floating onto Australia’s shores.

Plants that are benign in their natural environment can become serious invasive weeds when introduced to a new environment, due to lack of pests and diseases, or favourable climate and soils. Australia’s vast tracts of sparsely populated and uncultivated land, often with sparse native vegetation, are susceptible to many invasive weeds, such as Gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus), that can transform the whole landscape and change natural fire regimes. Disturbed ecosystems are particularly susceptible to invasion by invasive plants. Once weeds arrive in Australia, they can be spread by plant propagators (gardeners or farmers), wind or water, or on clothing, equipment, animals, birds, or by dumping of garden or aquarium waste.

A past comprehensive study estimated that weeds cost Australia over $4 billion per annum nearly a decade ago (Sinden et al., 2005). The main economic impacts were on agriculture, but the landmark study was unable to estimate the impacts of weeds on the outputs of natural environments or in urban areas. The figure included research and weed management costs, but was considered to be a conservative estimate and the figure has undoubtedly increased since that time. About 2,300 weed species are considered a problem for natural ecosystems, including national parks, forests and waterways, and approximately another 1000 species adversely impact agriculture. Weeds are therefore an important issue that needs to be managed in a strategic and coordinated manner to reduce the significant negative impacts on agriculture and the environment and make best use of limited resources.

Weed management Weeds need to be managed for economic, environmental and social reasons. Although the weed species differ in the many diverse natural and man-made environments in Australia, and the management strategies required vary widely with the situation, there are four basic approaches in the continuum of weed management:

• prevention • eradication • containment • asset protection.

172

All three levels of government are involved in weed management. The Australian Government has prime responsibility for preventing new weeds from entering Australia through the quarantine and biosecurity activities of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Eradication, containment, surveillance and protection of national public assets are primarily coordinated between the Australian, state and territory governments and involve regional bodies. Local governments, private industry and the community manage existing weeds to protect assets at the local level.

Determining what is actually spent on weed management is very difficult, as it is a part of Australia’s efforts in biosecurity and natural resource management. Furthermore, government agencies and other bodies report in different ways, making comparisons problematic. To achieve the best outcomes in weed management, approaches need to be nationally coordinated, and adequately and consistently resourced. National coordination of weed management effort in Australia has improved over the past four decades with the establishment of the Australian Weeds Committee, the Australian Weeds Strategy, the National Weeds Management Facilitator position, the Weeds Australia website and the Weeds of National Significance initiative. Over the past decade, Australia’s weed management has been guided by the Australian Weeds Strategy, and its predecessor, the National Weeds Strategy.

A number of national governmental consultative committees have been established to facilitate consultation, coordination, cooperation and guidance of policy development between the many stakeholders.

The Australian Government and state and territory governments have a range of legislation setting out roles, responsibilities and powers to manage weeds on both public and private lands. The legislation, definitions, classifications and division of responsibilities for weed management differ widely between jurisdictions.

Preventing new weeds Pre-border The Australian Government is responsible for maintaining the biosecurity of Australia’s borders and for preventing new weeds from entering Australia. It is also involved in agricultural and environmental weed policy issues.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry develops quarantine policy, notably regarding plant imports. It assesses all applications to import plants and conducts Weed Risk Assessments on all exotic plant species before importation. The Department also administers the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy (NAQS), which conducts surveys for exotic weeds in neighbouring countries to Australia’s north.

Some contemporary examples of policy improvements to prevent potential weed incursions include the introduction of mandatory Weed Risk Assessments in 1997 and the Permitted Seeds List in 1998, which plugged a major loophole that allowed importation of weedy plant species.

Border

The Department’s quarantine officers also conduct border inspections, post-entry quarantine and further evaluation of indeterminate plant species proposed for importation. NAQS conducts surveillance in northern Australia to detect incursions of weeds on the Exotic Weeds Watch List and the Alert List for Environmental Weeds. NAQS has detected four exotic weed species incursions in Queensland that are now under eradication programs (Siam weed, Mile-a-minute, Yellow burrhead and Hairy croton). In 2010-11, the Australian Government spent $444 million on quarantine and export services, but this covered all pests and diseases of plants and animals, not just weeds.

173

Post-border (surveillance, containment and eradication) The Office of the Chief Plant Protection Officer in the Department coordinates surveillance, spread prevention, containment, monitoring and eradication of weeds that are already within Australia’s borders. Several national biosecurity agreements provide emergency response arrangements, but weeds need more specific coverage. In 2010-11, 16 new weed species were confirmed in Australia.

Containment and eradication are more likely to be successful the smaller and earlier the weed infestation. However, even though Bitou bush is well established along over 900 km of the NSW coast from Batemans Bay to the Queensland border, a large coordinated program is successfully containing it, as noted in the case study in Chapter 4. One study of 12 ongoing and completed eradication programs in Australia showed that only one program was successful with the initial infested area greater than 1000 hectares, the eradication of Kochia (Bassia scoparia) from Western Australia (Hester et al., 2004). This program was successful because the weed existed in well-defined locations, was contained by fences to limit its spread, and was declared a weed only one year after introduction to the state.

State and territory governments are involved in plant pest incursion management through cost-shared eradication programs, managed by the national Office of the Chief Plant Protection Officer. New South Wales has a New Weed Incursion Plan that aims to ensure a consistent approach to prevent new weeds and reduce spread of emerging weeds. It introduced new legislation in 2012 that aims to improve its capability to respond to an emergency disease outbreak, including managing movement of plants, additional surveillance, mandatory notification and destruction of suspect plants. Victoria has a list of state-prohibited weeds and runs a Weed Alert program to detect and treat incursions. Queensland has the Queensland Weeds Strategy as a subsidiary document to the Queensland Biosecurity Strategy, as well as the Weed Spread Prevention Strategy. Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania encourage departmental officers and the community to detect, identify and report new weeds.

Each state and territory has a herbarium that conducts weed identifications, collections, surveillance and advice. The herbaria are mostly statutory government bodies, largely funded by the jurisdictional government, and provide a vital service to state agencies and the community in prevention and management of new weeds.

Local governments are required to be on alert for new weeds incursions and to report locations. Most local councils conduct some level of weed surveys in their areas. Under the New South Wales Weed Action Plan, local governments are responsible for detection of new and emerging weeds. In Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania local council staff and community members are encouraged to participate in weed spotting programs.

Agriculture and horticulture industries are crucial in the front line to report new weeds. They can also reduce the risk of introducing and spreading weeds by practising good supply chain hygiene.

Management of existing weeds (containment and asset protection) Management of existing weeds is an issue for all land owners and land managers across governments, industries and the community. Across all sectors, significant resources are being invested to control existing weeds for economic, environmental or social reasons.

As weeds easily reinfest from adjacent areas, usually there is little gained by clearing and removing weeds in a localised area unless land managers in surrounding areas also take action in a coordinated manner. Similarly, weed management needs to be approached on a long-term and on-going basis as the managed weed species, or new weeds, will quickly colonise the recently treated areas.

The Australian Government provides funding through the Caring for our Country program to government and community bodies for natural resource management, including weeds. The Caring for

174

our Country program is administered jointly by the inter-departmental Land and Coasts team in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. In response to a Senate Estimates question on notice, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry indicated that over $200 million was committed between 2008 and 2011 through the Caring for our Country program to reduce the impacts of weeds and pest animals. Of this, over $91 million was base funding for the 56 Natural Resource Management regional bodies in 2010-11, but it is difficult to determine how much was actually spent on weed management alone. In that period, more than $50 million in grants were also distributed for weed management. Over $6 million is also allocated from 2010-2013 to implement the Australian Weeds Strategy and a half share with state and territory governments to support Weeds of National Significance coordinators.

In 2010-11, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s Weeds and Pest Animals Section employed 5 full-time equivalent staff to provide policy advice on weeds and pest animals. The Landcare and Sustainable Agriculture Policy Sections also reside within DAFF as part of the inter- departmental Land and Coasts team that administers the Caring for our Country program.

In addition to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities’ joint role in administering the Caring for our Country program, the Environmental Biosecurity Section weeds team employs 1.8 full-time equivalent staff developing national policies and programs, and spent $226,000 in 2010-11. The Parks Australia section in the Department allocated over $1 million to weed management in a number of parks in 2010-11, and the Department also administers the National Reserve System.

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) regulates pesticides, including herbicides for weed control, to the point of retail sale. Regulation of the use of herbicides after sale is the responsibility of states and territories.

The Department of Defence has responsibility for managing weeds on its land, and has a biosecurity policy and weed management plans to prevent spread of weeds, including wash-down facilities. The Department cooperates with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to prevent weed incursions on military equipment and personnel returning from overseas service.

State and territory government primary industries and environment departments invest significant resources in weed management. In survey responses, respondent states and territories indicated that they spent over $54 million and employed over 600 staff on weed management activities. State and territory governments also allocated over $19 million in grants to local government and community groups for weed management in 2010-11. It is difficult to make comparisons, as individual agencies reported in different ways.

Most states have a weed strategy aligned to the Australian Weeds Strategy, but the responsibilities and implementation differ between jurisdictions. Each state and territory has different definitions, classifications, legislation and management approaches for declared plants and noxious weeds.

All local governments across Australia are required by legislation to control weeds on their lands. Some local councils in New South Wales have collaborated to form county councils to deliver weed management over larger areas with greater regional coordination and resources. Weed management consumes significant resources at the local government level, with the 105 councils that responded to our questionnaire indicating that they spent $28 million on weeds in 2010-11. If we assume that this is a representative sample of the 560 local councils in Australia, then local governments across Australia probably spent approximately $140 million on weed management. Over 75 per cent of the funding came from general rates and environmental levies, but 59 per cent of the respondent councils received some funding from state and Australian governments and/or regional bodies.

175

In most states, many local governments have produced weed management strategies that align with their state’s weed strategy and the Australian Weeds Strategy. In South Australia, many local governments defer strategic decisions on weeds to their regional Natural Resource Management Boards. Most local governments offer green waste collection or disposal, partly to deter illegal dumping that poses a weed risk to bushland and reserves.

Australian, state and territory governments established 56 Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions between 2000 and 2004 for management of natural resources, including weeds, on a catchment basis. The responsibilities, roles and powers of the regional bodies differ greatly between states and territories. In New South Wales and Victoria, the NRM regional boards are called Catchment Management Authorities and each is required to develop a regional invasive species plan. In South Australia, NRM Boards ensure that landholders comply with statutory requirements to manage declared weeds, and provide guidance on implementation of State weed policies. However in Western Australia, the NRM regional groups are incorporated community groups and are non- statutory.

Only ten regional bodies responded to our questionnaire and responses showed that investment in weed management ranged from $170,000 to $3.5 million in 2010-11. Staff involved in weed management ranged from 0.5 to 31 full-time equivalents. Each NRM region has either created a stand- alone weed management strategy or included weeds in a regional natural resource management strategy and the strategies vary in level of detail. All but one of the respondent regional bodies gave grants to the community, but only three gave grants to local governments. Weeds are the most commonly reported natural resource management issue facing agriculture industries, and 73 per cent of farmers considered that weeds were a serious issue in a 2004-05 Australian Bureau of Statistics survey. The most serious impacts of weeds are in the grains, cotton, rice, hay, vegetables and turf industries. There are about 1000 weeds species impacting agriculture. Weeds lower crop yields, increase production costs and contaminate produce. Problem weeds and their management differ greatly between industries and regions, but most production systems require both chemical and non-chemical control methods. In the last quarter of a century, agricultural practices have been revolutionised, as farmers adopted minimum-till production systems, particularly for broad-acre crops. Under minimum- or no-till systems, farmers rely on herbicides, in conjunction with other methods, to control weeds, and these systems reduce costs, save fuel and hence carbon emissions, and conserve soil and soil moisture. The success of some herbicides and their consequent overuse has caused some weeds to develop resistance to certain chemicals. Thus their effectiveness and ultimately their availability are in jeopardy and the sustainability of minimum-till production systems is threatened. Judicious use of herbicides in integrated weed management programs is essential to maintain minimum-till production systems that are cost-effective and environmentally friendly, particularly in the light of food security concerns.

Some agricultural industry peak bodies produce weed management manuals or strategies and conduct extension, and the larger industry organisations conduct weed surveillance and research. The nursery and garden industry is attempting to reduce the sale and growing of potentially weedy plants by educating the public to grow other plants. Contentious plants are still a problem and competing interests have not been resolved for many of them.

In pastoral industries, weeds can reduce the productivity of pastures, produce seeds and thorns that can injure livestock and contaminate fleeces, hides and carcases, and in some cases if consumed can be toxic to horses, sheep and cattle.

Parks and reserves occupy large areas of public or private land that have potential to be a source for weed spread. Weed management in the National Reserve System is guided by management plans and conducted by partnerships between governments, conservation organisations, companies, farmers and the community. Weeds in national parks and state reserves can be managed differently in different states.

176

Roads and railways are potential corridors for weed spread. In different states, various state government agencies, local government and private companies are responsible for managing weeds on their land, and they vary in their level of collaboration and approaches. Some have weed management plans but little information was obtained on resources invested. All electricity and gas network companies have vegetation management policies, including identification of specific weeds. The Energy Networks Association is developing an industry environmental handbook that will cover weed control.

Traditional Aboriginal ecological knowledge emphasises fire management and ecological balance, and does not embrace the concept of weeds. Some introduced species are considered useful plants rather than weeds. Environmental weeds are often not considered a problem unless they impede traditional human activities. Some Aborigines are frontline observers for weed incursions in the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy, while others are involved in natural resource management projects that have a weed management component.

Figure 63: Aborigines play an important role in surveillance for incursions in northern Australia (Figure courtesy of PHA)

The community is a vital participant in weed management, often as a component of natural resource management projects. Most NRM projects begin with the removal of unwanted plants, but it is essential to monitor project sites to ensure that unwanted plants do not reinvade those sites.

177

Community volunteers work through ‘formal’ organisations such as Landcare or Conservation Volunteers Australia and/or informal groups such as local ‘friends of’ groups. The larger, more formal organisations can provide a more strategic or regional perspective and more resources. Landcare is a grass roots movement with over 6000 community Landcare and Coastcare groups across Australia working to improve sustainable land management. Other national community organisations that are involved in weed management are Bush Regenerators, Bushcare, Conservation Volunteers Australia and Greening Australia.

Hundreds of local community groups across Australia are involved in weed management to restore and maintain local bushland. ‘Friends’ type groups can be small with only a handful of active members who have formed to protect a piece of local bushland. These small groups often work closely with their local government and have little or no interaction with state and national governments. Their focus, and motivation, is to protect the native bushland in their area. This may not necessarily be the most important or strategic use of resources, but it is important to those involved and highlights the importance of weeds to the wider community.

Figure 64: Community group clearing invasive weeds from bush (Figure courtesy of D. English)

As groups get bigger, and more formal, there is a greater level of interaction with other levels of governments, with many seeking funding from both state and Commonwealth government sources. To many of these groups, government funding is a motivating factor without which they cannot undertake the range of actions that they wish to complete.

178

The Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) initiative has been a successful partnership between governments, industry and the community to deliver a nationally coordinated approach to the management of 20 designated weeds. The program has delivered significant results, including: • developing and implementing surveillance, spread prevention and awareness initiatives that have increased the ability to successfully prevent the establishment of new infestations • working with partners to identify and eradicate strategic outlier infestations • identifying location of national containment areas and development of cross-regional strategies to reduce or eliminate the risk of spread to new areas • improved capacity to manage weeds by increasing recognition and understanding of the need for a strategic management approach, including the provision of best practice management tools based on good science and practical field experience.

Many of the successes of the program have application, not only for the specific WoNS species, but for the management of all weeds. The successes have resulted in governments agreeing to the addition of 12 species to the WoNS list to benefit from national coordination.

Australian scientists are world leaders in development and implementation of biological control of weeds. The classic success story in biological control is Prickly pear (Opuntia cacti), now under control by the cactus moth caterpillar (Cactoblastis cactorum) since 1925. Since then, there have been many success stories of biological control of numerous weed species in Australia without environmental damage. A recent example of biological control of a highly invasive water weed is Salvinia (Salvinia molesta) controlled by the Salvinia weevil (Cyrtobagous salviniae) in eastern coastal Australia, particularly in warmer regions.

Enhancing capacity and capability About half the weed research and development projects identified were funded by the Australian Government and almost a quarter by rural industry research and development organisations, with state governments funding fewer projects. However, state governments, CSIRO and universities conducted most of the projects.

There was an even split between projects on agricultural and environmental weeds. Most of the projects were about management of existing weeds, with similar numbers for herbicides, biological control and other control methods. Less than 16 per cent were on prevention of new weeds.

Education and training Eight Australian universities offer formal courses on weeds and there are many vocational education and training courses offered by Registered Training Organisations. Accredited training, recognised by the Australian Qualifications Framework, is required for specific certification or licences to work in the industry, particularly for handling chemicals. Various short courses on weed identification and control are provided by community groups, consultants and technical colleges.

Weed awareness Weeds awareness aims to ensure that the public understands the weed problem, and provides suggestions for community involvement in weeds management. Governments, particularly local councils, tend to use low key approaches due to the high cost of mass media.

State and territory governments and local councils in each jurisdiction vary greatly in their approach and level of weed awareness activities. The Australian, state and territory governments all have good weed websites providing valuable information on weeds. At a local level, awareness-raising activities

179

centre on the provision of information through field days and other exhibits, provision of booklets and leaflets and articles in the local press.

6.2 Discussion

Prevention is better than cure Prevention and early intervention are the most cost-effective means to manage weeds, a fact recognised as a key principle in the Australian Weeds Strategy.

Stopping weedy species entering Australia is the first and best strategy, and this involves sound import policies and effective quarantine operations. Once a weedy species is in Australia, preventing its establishment is the next most effective method of weed management available. Early recognition of potential weeds before they naturalise and spread could avoid many problems with management of invasive plants. There are now more introduced plant species in Australia than known native species.

A report in 1998 listed 295 plant taxa that are known to have naturalised (i.e. established and reproduced in the wild) in Australia between 1971 and 1995 (Groves, 1998). The rate of naturalisation increased markedly for the period 1981 - 1995 compared with the earlier part of the century. The majority of recently naturalised taxa were introduced deliberately and usually legally, mostly as ornamentals, although several are known to be major weeds worldwide.

Despite the efforts of quarantine authorities, some weed incursions are inevitable, given the increasing amounts of trade and tourism. From 1992 to 2010, 23 incursions of prohibited or regulated weeds were detected in Australia. In 2011 alone, 11 new or potential weeds were officially recorded in various states. It is therefore important that Australia has the systems and processes in place to eradicate new incursions before they become established. Once established, weeds are very difficult to eradicate. Some gaps in quarantine import policies need to be addressed, e.g. the purchase of aquatic weeds, and other permitted plants that can carry viral crop diseases that can only be detected through active testing. The increase in online advertising and shopping for plants (particularly seeds and aquarium plants) poses a growing challenge for Australia’s quarantine authorities.

Eradication is feasible only for small infestations When prevention fails, eradication is the next desirable step in the weed management continuum. Eradication is a management goal for weeds that is often desirable but rarely achievable. Eradication may be technically feasible for small and large incursions, but is usually economically feasible only for small incursions (Hester et al., 2004). Experience has shown that the success of weed eradication programs depends highly on early detection of incursions and quick response while the infested area is small. For example, in 2012 the national eradication program for Branched broomrape was changed into a “Transition to Management” program because experts no longer considered it technically feasible to eradicate this parasitic plant in Australia.

180

Figure 65: Branched broomrape (Orobanche ramosa) flowering (Figure courtesy of A. Sergeev)

To determine whether an eradication program will be successful, the incursion must be quickly and carefully identified, delimited and assessed for the feasibility and likely costs of eradication. One suggested model for estimating feasibility is based on Groves and Panetta (2002), which has two guiding principles. First, feasible eradications are more likely if the known distribution is less than 100 hectares, in three or fewer sites, and these sites are easily accessible with the weed easily detected. Second, if the period of seed viability is more than five years, or the weed is still being sold commercially, the eradication campaign will need to be longer and more costly.

Twenty weed eradication case studies (15 Australian and five overseas) showed that most of the successful eradications had a net area less than four hectares (Woldendorp and Bomford, 2004). The results support the theory that a small net area of infestation greatly reduces the cost of eradication. Aquatic weeds usually require more effort to eradicate than terrestrial weed species.

Field surveys of ten different agricultural sleeper weeds confirmed their small net areas of infestation, and their eradication costs were estimated using two models. The models predicted that eradication is achievable for many of the sleeper weeds surveyed for costs ranging from $5,300 to $550,000 per weed. The results suggest it should be possible to eradicate weed infestations with a net area less than 4 hectares and a gross area less than 10 hectares. Infestation with a gross area less than 100 hectares may be possible depending on other factors, including spatial distribution, accessibility, land tenure and potential seed longevity.

Given a realistic amount of resources, a typical initial incursion of greater than 1000 hectares is extremely unlikely to be eradicated. Therefore detecting weeds early in their spread can make the critical difference between eradication being feasible and the need to resort to less effective control methods.

181

Figure 66: Mimosa (Mimosa pigra) invasion (Figure courtesy of J. Thorp)

Although DAFF Plant Biosecurity has adopted and validated a robust, reliable Weed Risk Assessment system, other bodies are developing their own systems, which could lead to further inconsistencies.

The Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed and weeds As discussed above, the success of weed eradication programs depends highly on early detection of incursions and quick response while the infested area is small. The response to incursions can be quicker if threat species lists, emergency response plans and cost sharing agreements are in place in advance of any incursion. The current Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed (EPPRD), administered by Plant Health Australia (PHA), provides this support for the management of insect and disease incursions, but does not cover weeds at present.

It is logical to assume that the inclusion of emergency weeds1 in the EPPRD would facilitate a quicker response to incursions and therefore a greater likelihood of successful eradication. The incorporation of weeds into PHA’s remit has been under consideration since the formation of the company in 2001. The inclusion of weeds not currently covered by cost-sharing arrangements is supported by the Biosecurity Advisory Council (Biosecurity Advisory Council Annual Report 2009-2010), which recommends that weed management should be strongly considered for inclusion into the PHA business platform.

182

It is not projected that the inclusion of emergency weeds would add significantly to the number of incursions considered each year. The rate of exotic weed incursions in Australia over the last two decades is less than one twentieth of the rate of incursions of other pests and diseases, so it is unlikely that the EPPRD would have to be activated frequently for weed incursions. The EPPRD would only be activated for new incursions of nationally significant exotic weeds that are technically feasible to eradicate. However, it is possible that for some weeds a large number of stakeholders and affected industries would be required to participate in the response. Some environmental weeds would require action under an agreement that specifically included weeds, such as the National Environmental Biosecurity Response Agreement (NEBRA) or similar new arrangement.

It is thus concluded that a strong case exists for emergency weeds1 to be included in PHA’s business model except where weeds that solely impact on the environment (e.g. Bitou bush) are managed under the NEBRA.

Research and development – Is the investment optimal? There has been a perceived mismatch over the last ten years between weed policies, which focus on early detection and eradication of new species, and weed management programs, which focus on control and research (Downey, 2010). Of 1,348 papers and abstracts published in the proceedings of the Australian Weeds Conferences and the Australian journal, Plant Protection Quarterly, from 1999 to 2008, over 90 per cent covered management, control and/or research of widespread weed species. Only eight per cent of papers covered prevention, eradication or containment of new species. This contention is supported by our survey, which found that approximately 75 per cent (88) of the research and development projects are on control or reducing the impact of existing weeds, but only two are about pre-border prevention of new incursions and 21 address prevention of spread of established weeds. However, the above figures reflect the number of research projects and scientific publications, but not necessarily the total effort or resources expended on weeds. The focus for prevention, early detection and eradication of new weed incursions is on quarantine import policy, border controls, surveillance and emergency response, activities which do not usually involve scientific research or publication, although they are underpinned by science.

As discussed in Chapter 1, prevention and early intervention are the most cost-effective techniques for managing weeds, a fact embedded as a key principle in the Australian Weeds Strategy. Although, plant import policies have been considerably tightened with the implementation of the Weed Risk Assessment system in 1997 and the Permitted Seeds List in 1998, there are still gaps in plant import policies, reflected in the increased number of pest and disease incursions. It can be concluded that a greater proportion of resources should be directed to science-based quarantine policy and operations to prevent weed incursions into Australia.

It has been suggested by some weeds stakeholders and jurisdictions that the focus on Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) since 2000 has directed resources away from other important weeds. However, this is not the case for research and development investment, even if it is true for practical weed management. Our study shows that 96 (81 per cent) of the current research and development projects are not on specific WoNS, although some projects may include WoNS in a broader research topic.

There is an even distribution of projects between agricultural weeds and environmental weeds, although some species can be weeds in both situations. In the agriculture sector, more weed research is conducted relevant to the broad-acre cropping and grazing industries, and this is undoubtedly a reflection of the size and resourcing capacity of the industries. Small agricultural industries do not

1 Emergency weed: An invasive plant species that would meet the Emergency Plant Pest criteria as defined by the EPPRD.

183

have the specialist personnel or matching funds to initiate much research. Horticulture covers a wide range of crops, many too small to attract research funds or projects, and forestry has no current externally funded research and development projects on weeds.

Weed research is a significant and vital component of weed management, with significant Australian Government investment that also attracted investment from others. Nearly half (55) of the research and development projects were funded through the Australian Government’s National Weeds and Productivity Research Program administered by RIRDC, which concluded on the 30th June 2012. No new weeds research and development program has been announced and therefore long-term research planning and resourcing is uncertain. There is concern about future funding for weeds research in Australia.

Since 2008, several other programs and institutions involved in weed research, development and extension have ceased, leaving significant gaps in national weed focus and coordination. Terminations included the Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management, Natural Heritage Trust and National Land & Water Resources Audit in 2008 and Land & Water Australia in 2009, and also significant changes and cuts to Landcare.

Funding uncertainty and lack of continuity of research funding is a source of inefficiency and inadequate planning for researchers. This is especially a problem for long-term research such as biological control. Some survey respondents reported that the decline in dedicated long-term research funding was compromising future research capacity and had led to an 86 per cent decline in staff numbers in their area over the last seven years.

Biological control – Is Australia’s resourcing sustainable? Biological control, or biocontrol, is an important management tool in the battle against weeds because many of these invasive species have been imported into Australia free of the pests and diseases that limit their growth in their original environment. Australia has been successful in carefully introducing biocontrol agents that limit the growth of weedy plants without negatively impacting on the native flora and fauna. To do this takes time and resources, but this investment is essential because chemical, mechanical and other means of weed control have limitations and some disadvantages.

The CSIRO directs considerable effort to biological control, which has a high success rate and high benefit-cost ratios, as discussed in Chapter 4. Eleven of the 24 current biocontrol projects are led by CSIRO, and this represents 40 per cent of CSIRO’s current weed projects. Biocontrol research is necessarily long-term, so continuity of funding is essential for this approach to succeed in minimising future weed problems.

Unfortunately, there appears to be a decline in the scientific resources available to undertake the important research required. This has come about over the past decade with the retirement of many scientists, and limited and short-term funding is being seen as a disincentive to attracting new scientists to this area. Current investment is not supporting the entry of new researchers. Australia has skills and expertise (in the form of experienced scientists in the discipline), infrastructure (in the form of quarantine facilities), and many weeds that could potentially be managed using biological control. However, a lack of funding to maintain existing capability, training and recruitment of the next generation of biocontrol researchers threatens the future availability of this highly successful method of weed management.

It is suggested that management of biocontrol in Australia could be improved by: • dedicated funding for medium- to long-term management options like biological control • defining, at the onset of a biocontrol program, the overall goal to be achieved to attain social, economic and/or environmental success, as this will guide the selection of suitable candidate agents

184

• assessing established biological control successes for their social, economic and environmental impacts • increased efficiency during the exploration phase could be achieved by establishing concurrent projects on a range of weed targets originating from the same native range • concurrent projects on weed targets from the same family could also streamline the host- specificity testing phase, since many of the same non-target plant species would be used in the different projects • sustaining investment in maintaining existing infrastructure such as quarantine facilities, glasshouses and insectaries.

Figure 67: Fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis) was added to the WoNS list in 2012 and is a candidate for biological control (Figure courtesy of B. Sindel)

Other land managers – Are they managing weeds adequately? During the course of the study there were some concerns expressed that the management of pest plants and animals in national parks and reserves and along utilities corridors can be a cause of frustration in some agricultural districts. Responses on behalf of the managers of parks and utilities indicated that they recognised their responsibilities and most have environmental plans and strategies, including weed management. This study considers that these managers recognise their responsibilities, but resource constraints, a lack of community consultation and the timing of their weed management activities may lead to a perception that they are not doing enough.

Indigenous landowners have different views on many weedy species. It is hoped that the research projects funded under the RIRDC National Weeds and Productivity Research Program that have examined weed management from an indigenous perspective, will lead to a better understanding of the issues involved and how best to work effectively with Aborigines on weed management on their land.

185

Community support There is pressure within government to ensure that weed management and NRM projects are more strategic and longer term in nature, with a focus on protecting key assets. This focus on larger priority projects may disenfranchise those interested in protecting the local bush, such as local community volunteers.

There is also a perception that uncertainty and fluctuations in funding for Landcare has been a demotivating factor for community groups involved in weed management.

Weed awareness – Is it adequate? Weeds awareness aims to ensure that the public understands the weed problem, and the importance of what they can do to assist weeds management is not necessarily promoted well. The use of mass media, such as TV, radio and the printed press, is mostly cost prohibitive and benefits are hard to quantify, therefore low key approaches are usually adopted by governments, particularly at the local government level.

The Australian, state and territory governments all have good weed websites providing valuable information on weeds for those who know where to look. At a local level, awareness-raising activities centre on the provision of information through field days and other exhibits, provision of booklets and leaflets and articles in the local press. As one respondent noted on the question of what is being done to increase public awareness, ‘little, everyone knows that there is a growing problem but Council has inadequate resources to tackle the problems on anything other than a land parcel by land parcel basis’. This is an issue faced by all, and it is disappointing when national programs, such as Weedbusters, are not supported, because such programs provide a coordinated focus for weed awareness activities. The Australian Weeds Strategy calls for a National Weed Awareness Action Plan to increase community and whole-of-government understanding of the pathways for weed spread as a prerequisite to achieving long-term management of weeds.

6.3 Conclusions This study of weed management gives an overview of the huge current and potential impacts of weeds in Australia and a snapshot of the large amount of financial and human resources invested in managing them. Considerable progress has been achieved in weed management over the last two decades, particularly in tightening plant import policy, adopting integrated weed management on farms, improving national coordination and engaging the community.

Australia invests large amounts of money and labour in the constant battle against weeds, which affect everyone in some way. There are many diverse players through all levels of society engaged in this battle. Despite many significant successes, the weed problem will never go away and is most likely to worsen, particularly if resources are withdrawn.

All jurisdictions are facing resource constraints, and although weeds will continue to be a significant threat to Australia’s agriculture and environment, there is little likelihood of new resources and a real danger of diminished resources being available. Consequently, best use of resources requires that we must be better organised, coordinated and strategic. As Australia will never be able to tackle all its weed problems, the current approach that focuses on reducing the spread of new weeds, eradicating outlier infestations and protecting key assets within core or major infestation areas is appropriate.

There are increasing threats of new incursions due to human travel and trade, and weeds will continue to spread in the absence of human intervention. Ongoing effort is required, not just to maintain the status quo, but also to protect Australia’s agriculture and environment into the future. However, effort is not enough. To get the best ‘bang for our buck’, that effort also needs to be efficient and effective. This requires optimum prioritisation and coordination across jurisdictions.

186

It is apparent from this study that Australia does have a robust system that is tackling the weed menace at all levels, but the system could be enhanced and improved. There are many different definitions of weeds, legislation and management systems across jurisdictions, which result in some inefficiency. This study notes that there have been attempts to simplify the classification of weeds to accommodate all the different state classifications, but these have yet to deliver a nationally consistent system. Having a harmonised approach is in line with Strategy 1 of the National Plant Biosecurity Strategy which aims to “adopt nationally consistent plant biosecurity legislation, regulations and approaches where possible within each state and territory government’s overarching legislative framework”. This strategy is endorsed by the Australian, state and territory governments, together with most of Australia’s agriculture industries. It is hoped that in the future, Australia will work to have a less confusing approach to our weed legislation and definitions.

The Australian Weeds Committee (AWC) provides some prioritisation and coordination between the Australian, state and territory governments, but the AWC could be more effective if it were given greater opportunity, and possibly funding, to plan, co-ordinate and monitor weed management activities. The Australian Weeds Strategy set 3 broad goals and 45 strategic actions in 2006, and an implementation report on progress is being compiled. Many of the achievements reflect ongoing activities of various stakeholders, and more may be achievable if a more detailed operational plan was developed with clear priorities and directives to jurisdictions and others, and measurable action items. The AWC is currently reviewing the Australian Weeds Strategy. The review of the Australian Weeds Strategy is an opportunity to frame any future plan so that it is relevant to all sectors in Australia. It is important that Australia has a robust national strategy that allows all sectors to see how they can contribute to its implementation.

One of the strategic actions (1.2.1) in the current Australian Weeds Strategy that has not been implemented yet is to “Establish a nationally coordinated weed alert and early warning system that includes effective surveillance mechanisms”. To complement surveillance by governments, a one- stop-shop could be established for the public to identify and report new weeds and weed problems. At the moment, there are many bodies involved in weed management and sometimes the public have difficulty knowing whom to contact to report potential new weed sightings.

Historically in Australia, weed management has been viewed largely as a natural resource management and agricultural issue. Consequently, more research funding has been directed to management of existing weeds rather than prevention of incursions and this is reflected in the predominant number of scientific publications and projects on management and control (and/or research). This may be appropriate because prevention processes are largely established and do not require research or publication in scientific journals. However, since prevention is better than cure and more cost effective in the case of weed management, the proportion of funding and effort devoted to border protection needs to be carefully considered. There is a danger that prevention could be taken for granted and neglected because the outcomes are less tangible. It is beyond the scope of this study to analyse the total amounts spent on prevention versus management of existing weeds, but this balance between biosecurity and NRM is critical to obtain the best use of limited funds and the best outcomes.

Herbaria, education courses and training are vital to effective ongoing weed management, and must continue to be supported and funded adequately.

The revolution in the widespread adoption of no-till farming has led to productivity gains and environmental benefits, but relies on the use of herbicides to control weeds. Unfortunately a number

187

of weed species have developed resistance to some herbicides and loss of the effective use of these chemicals threatens no-till systems. The efforts of the Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, the Grains Research and Development Corporation and CropLife Australia to develop and disseminate herbicide resistance management strategies are crucial to sustainable cropping across Australia. Loss of these herbicides would also limit control options for many environmental weeds.

Difficulties in registration of herbicides for minor uses have restricted the availability of some of these invaluable tools for controlling environmental weeds and managing the herbicide resistance problem. This lack of legal access to some essential herbicides needs to be addressed through a streamlined registration process for minor uses.

Involvement of all sectors is vital if we are to continue to mitigate the negative impacts of weeds. Any diminution of effort or resources by any sector will have a major impact on Australia’s ability to manage weeds. Weed management should not be conducted in isolation. Weeds are part of the natural environment and complex ecosystems and must be managed as part of broader natural resource management and biosecurity. Knowledge gained from strategic investments in research and development have underpinned many of the gains that we have made in weed management and there are concerns that the ending of the Australian Government’s funding for weeds research will lead to a diminution of research in the future. Like other aspects of weed management, there is a need for ongoing certainty of funding and there are calls on governments to develop a program to deliver research results that assist in coordinated, nationally focused weed management.

The WoNS initiative has demonstrated clearly what can be achieved when jurisdictions, industry and the community work together in a nationally coordinated way. The success of the program has led to the selection of 12 new WoNs. This is welcomed, but it is important that the original WoNS continued to be managed in a coordinated fashion to ensure that they do not extend their range. There is also an opportunity for jurisdictions and other stakeholders to learn from the WoNS approach to see how they might work together on other weeds. As weeds do not respect borders it is important for all weed managers to work together.

188

Appendices

Appendix 1. Weed species targeted for biological control in Australia The table below (from the Weeds Australia website: www.weeds.org.au/management/Target Species for Biological Control) lists the target weed species approved for biological control by the Australian Weeds Committee (before February 1983) and subsequently the Natural Resource Management Standing Committee (or its predecessor) (revised process) or under the Biocontrol Act.

Scientific name Common name Under biocontrol or research

Ageratina riparia Mistflower Yes

Andredera cordifolia (Ten.) Steenis Madeira vine Yes

Ambrosia artemisiifolia Annual ragweed Yes

Asparagus asparagoides Bridal creeper Yes

Bryophyllum delagoense Mother-of-millions Yes

Bryophyllum delagoense x B. Hybrid mother-of-millions diagremontianum

Cabomba caroliniana Cabomba Yes

Carduus nutans Nodding or Musk thistle Yes

Carduus pycnocephalus Shore or Slender thistle Yes

Carduus tenuiflorus Shore, Italian, Sheep or Winged Yes slender thistle

Carduus thoermeri Nodding thistle

Chromolaena odorata Siam weed Yes

Chrysanthemoides monilifera spp. Boneseed Yes monilifera

Chrysanthemoides monilifera spp. Bitou bush (NSW) Yes rotundata Boneseed (Qld)

Cirsium arvense (L) Scop. Perennial thistle

Scientific name Common name Under biocontrol or

189

research

Cirsium vulgare (Salvi) Ten. Spear thistle Yes

Cylindropuntia rosea Hudson Pear

Echium plantagineum Paterson's curse, Yes Salvation Jane

Eichhornia crassipes Water hyacinth Yes

Euphorbia paralias Sea spurge Yes

Genista linifolia Flax-leaved broom

Genista monspessulana Cape broom Yes

Genista stenopetala Madeira broom

Heliotropum amplexicaule Blue heliotrope Yes

Homeria flaccida Cape tulip

Homeria miniata Cape tulip

Jatropha curcas Physic-nut

Jatropha gossypifolia Bellyache bush Yes

Macfadyena unguis-cati Cat's claw creeper Yes

Marrubium vulgare Horehound Yes

Mimosa invisa (= M. diplotricha) Giant sensitive plant Yes

Myrsiphyllum asparagoides Bridal creeper

Nassella neesiana Chilean needle grass

Nassella trichotoma Serrated tussock Yes

Onopordum acanthium L. Scotch thistle Yes

Onopordum acaulon L. Stemless thistle

Onopordum illyricum L. Illyrian thistle Yes

Onopordum tauricum Willd. Taurian thistle

Scientific name Common name Under biocontrol or research

190

Opuntia robusta Wheel cactus Yes

Parkinsonia aculeata Parkinsonia Yes

Phyla cansescens Lippia Yes

Prosopis spp. Mesquites Yes

Reseda lutea L. Cutleaf mignonette Yes

Reseda luteola L. Wild mignonette

Reseda phyteuma L. Rampion mignonette

Rubus fruticosus L. Blackberry Yes

Rumex acetosella Sorrel Yes

Rumex conglomeratus Clustered dock Yes

Rumex crispus Curled dock Yes

Rumex obtusifolius Broad leaved dock Yes

Rumex pulcher Fiddle dock Yes

Senecio madagascariensis Fireweed Yes

Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod Yes

Sida acuta Spinyhead sida Yes

Sida cordifolia Flannel weed Yes

Silybum marianum (L) J. Gaertn. Variegated thistle Yes

Solanum elaeagnifolium Silverleaf nightshade Yes

Sporobolus africanus Parramatta grass Yes

Sporobolus fertilis Giant Parramatta grass Yes

Sporobolus jacquemontii American rats tail grass Yes

Sporobolus natalensis Giant rats tail grass Yes

Sporobolus pyramidalis Giant rats tail grass Yes

Scientific name Common name Under biocontrol or research

191

Tribulus terrestris Caltrop Yes

Ulex europaeus L. Gorse, Furze Yes

There are additional weed biological control programs which pre-existed the Australian Weeds Committee approval process and included in this group are Prickly pear and Lantana programs, where agents were first introduced in 1914, and this list is included below (from the Weeds Australia website: www.weeds.org.au/management/Target Species for Biological Control). It is recommended that consideration should be given to formally reviewing these and adding them to the target list above as the public interest in these may have changed over the years.

Scientific name Common name Under biocontrol or research

Acacia nilotica ssp. indica Prickly acacia Yes

Acanthocereus pentagonus Sword pear

Ageratina adenophora Crofton weed Yes

Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligator weed Yes

Baccharis halimifolia Groundsel bush Yes

Cryptostegia grandiflora Rubbervine Yes

Cytisus scoparius Broom, Scotch broom, Yes English broom

Harrisia bonplandii Harrisia cactus No

Harrisia martini Harrisia cactus

Harrisia tortuosus Harrisia cactus

Lantana camara Lantana Yes

Lantana montevidensis Creeping lantana Yes

Mimosa pigra Mimosa Yes

Opuntia aurantiaca Tiger pear Yes?

Opuntia dillenii Spiny pest pear Yes?

Scientific name Common name Under biocontrol or research

192

Opuntia imbricata Rope pear Yes?

Opuntia monocantha Drooping tree pear Yes?

Opuntia streptacantha White spine prickly pear Yes?

Opuntia stricta Common prickly pear Yes

Opuntia tomentosa Velvet tree pear Yes?

Parthenium hysterophorus Parthenium weed Yes

Pistia stratiotes Water lettuce Yes

Salvinia molesta Salvinia Yes

Sida rhombifolia Paddy's lucerne Yes

Xanthium strumarium (= X. pungens, X. Noogoora burr Yes occidentale)

193

Appendix 2. Chronology of major events and policies in weed management in Australia

1966 Standing Committee on Agriculture endorsed the Australian Weeds Committee as a technical subcommittee of Plant Production Committee.

1976 Australian Agricultural Council endorsed water hyacinth as a target for biological control and established a process for establishing biological control targets.

1979 AWC published “Guidelines for Field Evaluation of Herbicides”.

1989 NAQS established.

1989 Landcare Australia Limited formed by the Commonwealth Government as a private non- profit company to manage the national public awareness and sponsorship campaign for the Decade of Landcare.

1995 The Cooperative Research Centre for Weed Management Systems commenced.

1997 The National Weeds Management Facilitator appointed.

1997 National Weeds Strategy released.

1997 DAFF adopted Weed Risk Assessment system.

1997 The Natural Heritage Trust was established by the Australian Government to help restore and conserve Australia's environment and natural resources.

1998 AQIS adopted Permitted List for plant imports.

1998 Weeds Australia website established by Australian Weeds Committee.

2000 The Australian Weeds Committee reformed to include policy makers.

2000 Inaugural WoNS list of 20 species agreed.

2001 The CRC for Weed Management Systems ceased.

2001 The CRC for Australian Weeds Management established.

2002 RTD02 Conservation and Land Management Training Package was endorsed by the National Training Quality Council supporting formal training and qualifications in weed management.

2003 Sleeper weeds list published prioritising species for eradication.

2004 Economic cost of weeds in Australia estimated at about $4 billion.

2004 Defeating the Weed Menace funding program commenced.

2006 Australian Weeds Strategy released.

2006 Biosecurity Australia finalised review of the Permitted Seeds List, replacing genus listings with species.

2008 The CRC for Australian Weeds Management ceased.

194

2008 Defeating the Weed Menace funding program ceased.

2008 The Caring for our Country funding initiative of the Australian Government commenced, replacing the Natural Heritage Trust.

2008 National Land and Water Resources Audit ended.

2008 The National Weeds and Productivity Research Program began.

2009 Land and Water Australia ceased.

2010 States and territories submitted nominations for new WoNS species to Australian Weeds Committee.

2012 12 additional WoNS species announced by AWC.

2012 The National Weeds and Productivity Research Program ceased.

2012 AHC10 – Agriculture, Horticulture and Conservation and Land Management Training Package (includes weed management) released to update RTD02 and broaden content across industry sectors.

195

Appendix 3. Key contacts (as of 2011/12)

Australian Government

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Director Weeds and Pest Animals Section Sustainable Resource Management Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry GPO Box 858 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Phone: 02 6272 4579 www.daff.gov.au/natural-resources/invasive/weeds

Office of the Chief Plant Protection Officer Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry GPO Box 858 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Phone: 02 6272 3933 www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/pests-diseases-weeds/weeds

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Director Environmental Biosecurity Section Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities GPO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Phone: 02 6274 1111 www.environment.gov.au

Department of Defence

The Assistant Secretary Environment and Engineering Branch Department of Defence PO Box 7925 CANBERRA ACT 2610 Phone: 02 6265 9111 www.defence.gov.au

Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority

Chief Executive Officer Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority PO Box 6182 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 6210 4701 www.apvma.gov.au

196

CSIRO

CSIRO Enquiries Locked Bag 10 CLAYTON SOUTH VIC 3169 Phone: 1300 363 400 or 03 9545 2176 www.csiro.au/

CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences Private Bag 5 PO WEMBLEY WA 6913 Phone: 08 9333 6647 www.csiro.au/

State and territory governments

New South Wales

Program Leader – Weeds Pest Management Unit National Parks and Wildlife Service Office of Environment and Heritage Department of Premier and Cabinet PO Box 1967 HURSTVILLE NSW 1481 Phone: 02 9995 5000 www.environment.nsw.gov.au

Director, Invasive Species Invasive Species Unit Biosecurity Branch Department of Primary Industries Locked Bag 21 ORANGE NSW 2800 Phone: 02 6391 3100 www.dpi.nsw.gov.au

Victoria

Director Invasive Plants and Animals Branch Biosecurity Victoria Department of Primary Industries GPO Box 4440 MELBOURNE VIC 3001 Phone: 03 9658 4749 www.dpi.vic.gov.au/

Manager Invasive Species and Conservation Networks Department of Sustainability and Environment PO Box 500 EAST MELBOURNE VIC 8002 Phone: 03 9637 8046

197

www.dse.vic.gov.au/

Queensland

General Manager, Invasive Plants and Animals Department of Primary Industries GPO Box 46 BRISBANE QLD 4001 Phone: 07 3405 5545 www.daff.qld.gov.au

Western Australia

Program Coordinator, Invasive Plants Environmental Management Branch Department of Environment and Conservation Locked Bag 104 BENTLY DELIVERY CENTRE WA 6983 Phone: 08 9334 0312 www.dec.wa.gov.au/

Director, Invasive Species Agricultural Resource Risk Management Department of Agriculture and Food Locked Bag 4 BENTLEY DELIVERY CENTRE WA 6983 Phone: 08 9368 3561 www.agric.wa.gov.au/

Director Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative School of Plant Biology Institute of Agriculture University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway CRAWLEY WA 6009 Phone: 08 6488 7833 www.ahri.uwa.edu.au/

South Australia

Manager, NRM Biosecurity Group Biosecurity SA Primary Industries and Resources South Australia GPO Box 1671 ADELAIDE SA 5001 Phone: 08 8463 3000 www.pir.sa.gov.au/ Chief Executive Department of Environment and Natural Resources GPO Box 1047 ADELAIDE SA 5001 Phone: 08 8204 9323 www.environment.sa.gov.au

198

Tasmania

Section Leader Weed Management Section Resource Management and Conservation Division Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment GPO Box 44 HOBART TAS 7001 Phone: 03 6233 6168 www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au

Northern Territory

Weeds Management Branch Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport PO Box 496 PALMERSTON NT 0831 Phone: 08 8999 5511 www.nretas.nt.gov.au

Australian Capital Territory

Senior Weed Management Officer ACT Parks and Conservation Service Territory and Municipal Services Directorate GPO Box 158 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Phone: 02 6207 2278 www.tams.act.gov.au

Senior Policy Officer Nature Conservation Policy, Environmental & Sustainable Development Directorate GPO Box 158 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Phone: 02 6205 9037 www.environment.act.gov.au/

National Weeds Management Facilitator

John Thorp PO Box 96 NEWSTEAD TAS 7250 Phone: 03 6344 9657 www.weeds.org.au

199

Weeds of National Significance Coordinators

African boxthorn, Gorse

Michael Noble Weeds of National Significance Coordinator Land Conservation Branch Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment PO Box 303 DEVONPORT TAS 7310 Phone: 03 6421 5100 Email: [email protected]

Alligator weed, Cabomba, Sagittaria, Salvinia, Water hyacinth

Andrew Petroeschevsky National Aquatic Weed Coordinator NSW Department of Primary Industries PMB 2 GRAFTON NSW 2460 Phone: 02 6640 1618 Email: [email protected]

Asparagus weeds, Bitou bush/Boneseed

Hillary Cherry Weeds of National Significance Coordinator Pest & Ecological Management Unit Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW) PO Box 1967 HURSTVILLE BC NSW 1481 Phone: 02 9585 6587 Email: [email protected]

Athel pine, Bellyache bush

Kay Bailey National WoNS Coordinator for Athel pine and Bellyache bush Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts & Sport PO Box 1120 ALICE SPRINGS NT 0871 Phone: 08 8951 9213 Email: [email protected]

Blackberry

There is no national coordinator; for management and other information contact the relevant state/territory office.

Brooms

National coordinator appointment pending.

200

Cat’s claw creeper, Lantana, Madeira vine

Kym Johnson Biosecurity Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Qld) PO Box 96 IPSWICH QLD 4305 Phone: 07 3432 7704 Email: [email protected]

Chilean needle grass, Fireweed, Serrated tussock

Bronwen Wicks NSW Department of Primary Industries PO Box 389 GOULBURN NSW 2580 Phone: 02 4828 6632 Email: [email protected]

Gamba grass, Mesquite, Parkinsonia, Prickly acacia

Nathan March Biosecurity Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Qld) PO Box 53 CLONCURRY QLD 4824 Phone: 07 4742 1311 Email: [email protected]

Hymenachne / Pond apple

Craig Magnussen National WoNS Coordinator - Hymenachne/Pond apple Biosecurity Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Qld) LMB 17 WARWICK QLD 4370 Phone: 07 4661 6612 Email: [email protected]

Mimosa

There is no national coordinator; for management and other information contact the relevant state/territory office.

Opuntioid cacti

Shauna Potter Biosecurity SA GPO Box 1671 ADELAIDE SA 5001 Phone: 08 8303 9748 Email: [email protected]

201

Parthenium

There is no national coordinator; for management and other information contact the Customer Service Centre: Telephone: 13 25 23 (Qld calls) or (07) 3001 6359 (outside Qld)

Pond apple (see Hymenachne coordinator)

There is no national coordinator; for management and other information contact the relevant state/territory office.

Silverleaf nightshade

Dr John Heap National WoNS Coordinator for Silverleaf nightshade Biosecurity SA GPO Box 1671 ADELAIDE SA 5001 Phone: 08 8303 9448 Email: [email protected]

Willows

There is no national coordinator; for management and other information contact the relevant state/territory office.

Herbaria

Australian National Herbarium

Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research GPO Box 1600 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Phone: 02 6246 5533 Email: [email protected] www.cpbr.gov.au/cpbr/program/hc/hc-ANH.html

National Herbarium of New South Wales

Botanic Gardens Trust Mrs Macquaries Road SYDNEY NSW 2000 Phone: 02 9231 8111 Email: [email protected] www.rbgsyd.nse.gov.au/science/Herbarium_and_resources/nsw_herbarium/

National Herbarium of Victoria

Identifications and Information Service Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne Birdwood Ave Private Bag 2000 SOUTH YARRA VIC 3141 Phone: 03 9252 2300

202

Email: [email protected] www.rbg.voc.gov.au/science/information-and-resources/national-herbarium-of-victoria

Queensland Herbarium

Environmental Protection Agency Mt Coot-tha Road c/- Brisbane Botanic Gardens TOOWONG QLD 4066 Phone: 07 3896 9326 Email: [email protected] www.derm,qld,gov,au/wildlife-ecosystems/plants/queensland_herbarium

Western Australian Herbarium

Department of Conservation George Street KENSINGTON Locked Bag 104 BENTLEY DC WA 6983 Phone: 08 9334 0500 Email: [email protected] www.dec.wa.gov.au/content/category/41/831/1821/

South Australian Herbarium

The Chief Botanist State Herbarium of South Australia Department for Environment and Heritage PO Box 2732 KENT TOWN SA 5071 Phone: 08 8222 9311 Email: [email protected] www.environment.sa.gov.au/knowledge_Bank/Science_and_research/State_Herbarium/

Tasmanian Herbarium

College Road, SANDY BAY (University of Tasmania Campus) Private Bag 4 University of Tasmania HOBART TAS 7001 Phone: 03 6226 2635 Email: [email protected] www.tmag.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=1273

Northern Territory Herbarium

Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport PO Box 496 PALMERSTON NT 0831 Phone: 08 8999 4516 www.nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/plants_herbarium/

Some Herbaria and other organisations have made online herbaria and interactive plant identification material:

203

http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/herbarium/ http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/science/herbarium/index.htm http://www.iewf.org/weedid/index_by_reserve.htm

Natural Resource Management/Catchment Management Authorities Contacts

New South Wales

General Manager Border Rivers-Gwydir CMA 15 Vivian Street PO Box 411 INVERELL NSW 2360 Phone: 02 6728 8020 www.brg.cma.nsw.gov.au

General Manager Central West CMA PO Box 227 WELLINGTON NSW 2820 Phone: 02 6840 7800 www.cw.cma.nsw.gov.au

General Manager Hawkesbury Nepean CMA 159 Auburn Street Locked Bag 2048 GOULBURN NSW 2580 Phone: 02 48286747 www.hn.cma.nsw.gov.au

General Manager Hunter-Central Rivers CMA 816 Tocal Road Private Bag 2010 PATERSON NSW 2421 Phone: 02 4930 1030 www.hcr.cma.nsw.gov.au

General Manager Lachlan CMA 2 Sherriff St FORBES NSW 2871 Phone: 02 6851 9500 www.lachlan.cma.nsw.gov.au

General Manager Murray CMA PO Box 797 ALBURY NSW 2640 Phone: 02 6051 2200 www.murray.cma.nsw.gov.au

204

General Manager Murrumbidgee CMA 43-45 Johnston Street PO Box 5224 WAGGA WAGGA NSW 2650 Phone: 02 6932 3232 www.murrumbidgee.cma.nsw.gov.au

General Manager Namoi CMA 35-37 Abbott Street PO Box 546 GUNNEDAH NSW 2380 Phone: 02 6742 9220 www.namoi.cma.nsw.gov.au

Manager Northern Rivers CMA Level 4 49 Victoria Street GRAFTON NSW 2460 Phone: 02 6642 0622 www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au

General Manager Southern Rivers CMA PO Box 3095 WOLLONGONG EAST NSW 2500 Phone: 02 4224 9700 www.southern.cma.nsw.gov.au

General Manager Sydney Metropolitan CMA PO Box 3720 PARRAMATTA NSW 2124 Phone: 02 9895 7898 www.sydney.cma.nsw.gov.au

General Manager Western CMA PO Box 1048 DUBBO NSW 2830 Phone: 02 6841 2747 www.western.cma.nsw.gov.au

Victoria

Chief Executive Officer Corangamite CMA 64 Dennis Street PO Box 159 COLAC VIC 3250 Phone: 03 5232 9100 www.ccma.vic.gov.au

205

Chief Executive Officer East Gippsland CMA 574 Main Street PO Box 1012 BAIRNSDALE VIC 3875 Phone 03 5152 0600 www.egcma.vic.gov.au

Chief Executive Officer Glenelg Hopkins CMA 79 French Street HAMILTON VIC 3300 Phone 03 5571 2526 www.ghcma.vic.gov.au

Chief Executive Officer Goulburn Broken CMA 168 Welsford Street PO Box 1752 SHEPPARTON VIC 3630 Phone: 03 5820 1100 www.gbcma.vic.gov.au

Chief Executive Officer Mallee CMA PO Box 5017 MILDURA VIC 3502 Phone: 03 5051 4377 www.malleecma.vic.gov.au

Chief Executive Officer Northern Central CMA 628-634 Midland Highway PO Box 18 HUNTLY VIC 3551 Phone: 03 5448 7124 www.nccma.vic.gov.au

Chief Executive Officer North East CMA 1B Footmark Court PO Box 616 WODONGA VIC 3690 Phone: 02 6043 7600 www.necma.vic.gov.au

Chief Executive Officer Port Phillip Westernport CMA Level 1 Landmark Corporate Centre 454-472 Nepean Highway FRANKSTON VIC 3199 Phone: 03 8781 7900 www.ppwcma.vic.gov.au

206

Chief Executive Officer West Gippsland CMA 16 Hotham Street PO Box 1374 TRARALGON VIC 3844 Phone: 03 5175 7899 www.wgcma.vic.gov.au

Chief Executive Officer Wimmera CMA PO Box 479 HORSHAM VIC 3402 Phone: 03 5382 1544 www.wcma.vic.gov.au

Queensland

Queensland Murray Darling Committee 127b Campbell Street PO Box 6243 TOOWOOMBA WEST QLD 4350 Phone: 07 4637 6200 www.qmdc.org.au

Chief Executive Officer NQ Dry Tropics 2 McIlwraith Street PO Box 1466 TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810 Phone: 07 4724 3544 www.nqdrytropics.com.au

General Manager Burnett Mary Regional Group 193 Bourbong Street PO Box 501 BUNDABERG QLD 4670 Phone: 07 4181 2999 www.bmrg.org.au

Chief Executive Officer Condamine Alliance PO Box 238 DRAYTON NORTH QLD 4350 Phone: 07 4620 0111 www.condaminealliance.com.au

Chief Executive Officer Desert Channels Queensland 92 Galah Street PO Box 601 LONGREACH QLD 4730 Phone: (07) 4658 0600 www.dcq.org.au

207

Chief Executive Fitzroy Basin Association Level 1, 80 East Street Post Central Building PO Box 139 ROCKHAMPTON QLD 4700 Phone: 07 4999 2800 www.fba.org.au

Chief Executive Officer Reef Catchments (Mackay Whitsunday Isaac) Limited 172 Victoria Street PO Box 815 MACKAY QLD 4740 Phone: 07 4968 4200 www.reefcatchments.com.au

Chief Executive Officer Northern Gulf Region Savannah House St George Street PO Box 63 GEORGETOWN QLD 4871 Phone: 07 4062 1330 www.northerngulf.com.au

Chief Executive Officer South East Queensland Catchments PO Box 13204 George Street BRISBANE QLD 4003 Phone: 07 3211 4404 www.seqcatchments.com.au

Torres Strait Regional Authority 56 Douglas Street PO Box 261 THURSDAY ISLAND QLD 4875 Phone: 07 4069 0801 www.tsra.gov.au

Chief Executive Officer Terrain NRM Level 1, 88 Rankin Street PO Box 1756 INNISFAIL QLD 4860 Phone: 07 4043 8000 www.terrain.org.au

Western Australia

Chief Executive Officer Wheatbelt NRM PO Box 311

208

NORTHAM WA 6401 Phone: 08 9690 3100 www.wheatbeltnrm.org.au

Chief Executive Officer Northern Agricultural Catchments Council PO Box 7168 GERALDTON WA 6531 Phone: 08 9938 0102 www.nacc.com.au

Chief Executive Officer Rangelands NRM Oasis Lotteries House Unit 3 37 Hampden Rd NEDLANDS WA 6009 Phone: 08 9485 8930 www.rangelandswa.cm.au

Chief Executive Officer South Coast NRM 39 Mercer Rd ALBANY WA 6330 Phone: 08 9845 8537 www.southcoastnrm.com.au

Chief Executive Officer South West Catchments Council PO Box 5066 BUNBURY DC WA 6231 Phone: 08 9780 6193 www.swccnrm.org.au

Chief Executive Officer Perth Region NRM PO Box 2206 MIDLAND WA 6936 Phone: 08 9374 3305 www.perthregionnrm.com/

South Australia

Regional Manager Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Board 321 Goodwood Road KINGS PARK SA 5034 Phone: 08 8357 3880 www.awnrm.sa.gov.au

Regional Manager Eyre Peninsula NRM Board 23 Napoleon Street PO Box 2916 PORT LINCOLN SA 5606

209

Phone: 08 8682 7555 www.epnrm.com.au

General Manager Kangaroo Island Natural Resource Management Board Natural Resources Centre Kangaroo Island 37 Dauncey Street PO Box 39 KINGSCOTE SA 5223 Phone: 08 8553 4444 www.kinrm.sa.gov.au

Adelaide Mount Lofty NRM Board 205 Greenhill Rd Eastwood SA 5063 Phone: 08 8273 9100 www.amlr.sa.gov.au

Regional Manager South Australian Murray Darling NRM Board Mannum Road PO Box 2343 MURRAY BRIDGE SA 5253 Phone: 08 8532 9100 www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.au

Regional Manager Northern and Yorke NRM Board 41-49 Eyre Road PO Box 175 CRYSTAL BROOK SA 5523 Phone: 08 8636 2361 www.nynrm.sa.gov.au

South Australian Arid Land NRM Board Level 1, 9 Mackay Street PO BOX 78 PORT AUGUSTA SA 5700 Phone: 08 8648 5300 www.saaridlands.sa.gov.au

Regional Manager South East NRM Board 11 Helen Street PO Box 1246 MOUNT GAMBIER SA 5290 Phone: 08 87351177 www.senrm.sa.gov.au

Tasmania

Chief Executive Officer NRM North

210

Level 2, McKenzie Building 63-65 Cameron Street PO Box 1224 LAUNCESTON TAS 7250 Phone: 03 6333 7777 www.nrmnorth.org.au

Executive Officer Cradle Coast NRM 30 Marine Terrace PO Box 338 BURNIE TAS 7320 Phone: 03 6431 6285 www.cradlecoast.com

Chief Executive Officer NRM South 313 Macquarie Street PO Box 425 SOUTH HOBART TAS 7004 Phone: 03 6221 6111 www.nrmsouth.org.au

Northern Territory

Executive Officer Territory Natural Resource Management GPO Box 2775 DARWIN NT 0801 Phone: 08 8999 3783 www.territorynrm.org.au

Australian Capital Territory

Executive Officer ACT Natural Resource Management Council GPO Box 158 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Phone: 02 6207 5584 www.actnrmcouncil.org.au

Agriculture Industries

Executive Director Apple & Pear Australia Ltd 39 O'Connell Street NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051 Phone 03 9329 3511 www.apal.org.au

Chief Executive Officer Australian Banana Growers Council PO Box 309

211

BRISBANE MARKETS QLD 4106 Phone 07 3278 4786 www.abgc.org.au

Chief Executive Officer Australian Dairy Farmers Level 2, 22 William St MELBOURNE VIC 3000 Tel: 03 8621 4200 www.australiandairyfarmers.com.au

Executive Director Australian Honey Bee Industry Council Inc. PO Box R838 Royal Exchange SYDNEY NSW 1225 Phone: 02 9221 0911 www.honeybee.org.au

Executive Director Australian Nut Industry Council 75 Casuarina Drive ELANORA QLD 4221 Phone: 0409 707 806 www.nutindustry.org.au

Chief Executive Officer Australian Olive Association Ltd C/O Post Office COOMANDOOK SA 5253 Phone: 08 8573 6545 www.australianolives.com.au

Chief Executive Officer AUSVEG PO Box 2042 CAMBERWELL WEST VIC 3124 Phone: 03 9822 0388 www.ausveg.com.au

Chief Executive Officer Cherry Growers of Australia Inc. 262 Argyle Street HOBART TAS 7000 Phone: 03 6231 1229 www.cherrygrowers.org.au

212

Chief Executive Officer Citrus Australia Ltd PO Box 10336 MILDURA VIC 3502 Phone: 0. 5023 6333 www.citrusaustralia.com.au

Chief Executive Officer Cotton Australia Suite 1, Level 4 247 Coward Street MASCOT NSW 2020 www.cottonaustralia.com.au Chief Executive Officer Grain Growers PO Box 7 NORTH RYDE NSW 2113 Phone: 02 9888 9600 www.graingrowers.com.au

Chairman Grain Producers of Australia PO Box 3517 MANUKA ACT 2603 Phone: 02 6273 3000 www.grainproducers.com.au

Chief Executive Officer Growcom PO Box 202 FORTITUDE VALLEY QLD 4006 Phone: 07 3620 3844 www.growcom.com.au

Chief Executive Officer Plant Health Australia Level 1/1 Phipps Close DEAKIN ACT 2600 Phone: 02 6215 7700 www.planthealthaustralia.com.au

Rubus Industry Development Officer Raspberries and Blackberries Australia Inc. 25 White Street SILVAN VIC 3795 Phone: 03 5964 3350 www.arga.com.au

Executive Director Ricegrowers' Association of Australia PO Box 706 LEETON NSW 2705 Phone: 02 6953 0433 www.rga.org.au

213

Chief Executive Officer Strawberries Australia Inc. PO Box 178 SANCTUARY COVE QLD 4212 www.strawberriesaustralia.com.au

Chief Executive Officer Summerfruit Australia Ltd 8/452 Swift Street ALBURY NSW 2640 Phone: 02 6041 6641 www.summerfruit.com.au

Chief Executive Officer WoolProducers Australia PO Box E10 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 4836 7369 www.woolproducers.com.au

Community/Volunteer Groups

Greening Australia

National Chief Executive Officer Greening Australia PO Box 885 JAMISON CENTRE ACT 2615 Phone: 1300 886 589 www.greeningaustralia.org.au

Conservation Volunteers Australia

Chief Executive Officer Conservation Volunteers Australia PO Box 423 BALLARAT VIC 3353 Phone: 03 5330 2600 www.conservationvolunteers.com.au

Landcare and Coastcare

Chief Executive Officer Landcare Australia Limited PO Box 5666 WEST CHATSWOOD NSW 1515 Phone: 02 9412 1040 www.landcareaustralia.com.au

214

Appendix 4. Acronyms and abbreviations

Acronym Name

ABARES Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences ACT Australian Capital Territory AGLG Armadale Gosnells Landcare Group AHRI Australian Herbicide Research Institute APLC Australian Plague Locust Commission APVMA Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority AQIS Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (now part of Biosecurity) AWC Australian Weeds Committee AWS Australian Weeds Strategy BLCA Barkly Landcare and Conservation Association BRS Bureau of Rural Sciences CAP Catchment Action Plans CAWS Council of Australasian Weed Societies CfoC Caring for our Country CMA Catchment Management Authority CRC Cooperative Research Centre CRDC Cotton Research and Development Corporation CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation DAFF Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry DAFF (QLD) Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Queensland) DEC (WA) Department of Environment and Conservation (Western Australia) DEEDI (QLD) Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (Queensland) DENR (SA) Department of Environment and Natural Resources (South Australia) DPI (NSW) Department of Primary Industries (New South Wales) DPI (Vic) Department of Primary Industries (Victoria) DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment DSEWPaC Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Community EADRA Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement EPPRD Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed GRDC Grains Research and Development Corporation HAL Horticulture Australia Limited IGAB Inter-Governmental Agreement on Biosecurity IWM Integrated Weed Management KTP Key Threatening Process NAQS Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy NBC National Biosecurity Committee NEBRA National Environmental Biosecurity Response Agreement NGIA Nursery and Garden Industry Australia NRS National Reserve System NPBS National Plant Biosecurity Strategy NRM Natural Resource Management NSW New South Wales NT Northern Territory NWMF National Weeds Management Facilitator OCPPO Office of the Chief Plant Protection Officer OEH Office of Environment and Heritage – NSW

215

PHA Plant Health Australia PHC Plant Health Committee PIRSA Primary Industries and Regions South Australia PISC Primary Industries Standing Committee Qld Queensland R&D Research and development RIRDC Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation RTO Registered Training Organisation SA South Australia SCoPI Standing Council on Primary Industries SNEC Stirling National Environmental Coastcare SRDC Sugar Research and Development Corporation TAP Threat Abatement Plan Tas Tasmania UWA University of Western Australia VET Vocational Education and Training Vic Victoria WA Western Australia WoNS Weeds of National Significance WRA Weed Risk Assessment

216

References Amor, R.L. and Ridge, P.E. (1987). Chemical fallow systems for wheat production in the Victorian Wimmera. Plant Protection Quarterly 2(2): 74-78.

Anon. (2004). Alternatives to invasive garden plants. Greater Adelaide region – 2004. Fact sheet. Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management.

Anon. (2009). Herbicide resistance. Glyphosate and trifluralin – non-selective herbicides losing control. Fact sheet. Grains Research and Development Corporation.

Anon. (2008). Herbicide resistance. Mode of action groups. Grains Research and Development Corporation and CropLife Australia.

Atkinson, I. and Sheppard, A. (2000). Brooms as part of the Australian nursery industry. Plant Protection Quarterly 15(4): 176-178.

Beale, R., Fairbrother, J., Inglis, A. and Trebeck, D. (2008). One Biosecurity: A Working Partnership. The Independent Review of Australia’s Quarantine and Biosecurity Arrangements Report to the Australian Government.

Campbell, M.H. and Vere, D.T. (1995). Nassella trichotoma (Nees) Arech. in The Biology of Australian Weeds, Vol. 1. Melbourne: R.G. and F.J. Richardson.

Crawley M.J. (1989). The successes and failures of weed biological control using insects. Biocontrol News and Information 10: 213–223.

CropLife Australia (2010). Submission in response to discussion paper on a national scheme for assessment, registration and control of use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. 10 February 2010.

Csurhes, S. (2008). Pest plant risk assessment. Mexican feather grass Nassella tenuissima. Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Queensland.

Department of the Environment and Water Resources (2006). Australian Weeds Strategy – A National Strategy for Weed Management in Australia. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.weeds.gov.au/publications/strategies/weed-strategy.html

D'Emden, F.H. and Llewellyn, R.S. (2006). No-till adoption decisions in southern Australian cropping and the role of weed management. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(4): 563-569.

Downey, P.O. (2010). Do the aims of weed management programs align with the objectives of weed policy? Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Weeds Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand (Ed. Zydenbos, S.M.). Pp.85-86. New Zealand Plant Protection Society.

Glanznig, A. and Kessal, O. (2004). Invasive Plants of National Importance and their Legal Status by State and Territory. WWF Australia: Sydney.

Grice, A.C., Clarkson, J.R., Friedel, M.H., Ferdinands, K. and Setterfield, S. (2010). Containment as a strategy for tackling contentious plants. Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Weeds

217

Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand (Ed. Zydenbos, S.M.). Pp. 486-489. New Zealand Plant Protection Society.

Groves, R.H. (1998). Recent incursions of weeds to Australia 1971-1995. Cooperative Research Centre for Weed Management Systems. Technical Series No. 3. (Appendix compiled by Hosking, J.R.)

Groves, R.H. (2001). Can some Australian plants be invasive? Plant Protection Quarterly 16(3):114-117.

Groves, R.H. and Panetta, F.D. (2002). Some general principles for weed eradication programs. Proceedings of the 13th Australian Weeds Conference, eds. H. Spafford-Jacob, J. Dodd and J. H. Moore. Plant Protection Society of Western Australia, Perth. Pp. 307-310.

Hamilton, M.A, Winkler M.A, Cherry H. and Downey P.O. (2012). Changes in the distribution and density of bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata (DC.) T. Norl) in eastern Australia. Plant Protection Quarterly 27(1): 23-30.

Hester, S., Odom, D.I.S., Cacho, O.J. and Sinden, J.A. (2004). Eradication of exotic weeds in Australia: comparing effort and expenditure. University of New England, Armidale.

Julien, M., McFadyen, R. and Cullen, J. (Eds.) (2012). Biological Control of Weeds in Australia. CSIRO Publishing.

Llewellyn, R.S. and D’Emden, F.H. (2010). Adoption of no-till cropping practices in Australian grain growing regions. Grains Research & Development Corporation.

Martin, P. (2003). Killing us softly - Australia's green stalkers. Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management.

Morin, L., Neave, M., Batchelor, K.L. and Reid, A. (2006). Biological control: a promising tool for managing bridal creeper in Australia. Plant Protection Quarterly 21: 69–77.

Morton, J. (2008). National Weed Incursion Plan. Preparedness and response guidelines for weed managers. Biosecurity Queensland.

Page, A.R. and Lacey, K.L. (2006). Economic impact assessment of Australian weed biological control. AEC group. Adelaide (Australia): Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management Technical Series No.10.

Palmer W.A., Heard T.A. and Sheppard A.S. (2010). A review of Australian classical biological control of weeds programs and research activities over the past 12 years. Biological Control 52: 271-287.

Panetta, F.D., Pheloung, P.C., Lonsdale, M., Jacobs, S., Mulvaney, M. and Wright, W. (1994). Screening plants for weediness: a procedure for assessing species proposed for importation into Australia. A report commissioned by the Australian Weeds Committee.

Paynter, Q., Hill, R., Bellgard, S. and Dawson, M. (2009). Improving targeting of weed biological control projects in Australia. A report prepared for Land & Water Australia, by Landcare Research NZ, Auckland.

218

Pheloung, P.C., Williams, P.A. and Halloy, S.R. (1999). A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. Journal of Environmental Management 57: 239- 251.

Pheloung, P.C. (2001). Weed Risk Assessment for Plant Introductions to Australia. Ch. 7, Pp. 83- 92 in Groves, R.H., Panetta, F.D. and Virtue, J.G. (Eds.). Weed Risk Assessment. CSIRO Publishing.

Powles, S.B. and Preston, C. (2006). Evolved glyphosate resistance in plants: Biochemical and genetic basis of resistance. Weed Technology 20: 282-289.

Raghu, S. and Walton, C. (2007). Understanding the ghost of Cactoblastis past: historical clarifications on a poster-child of classical biological control. BioScience 57: 699–705.

RIRDC (2010). National Weeds and Productivity Research Program – R&D Plan 2010 to 2015. November 2010. Publication No. 10/209. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

Sinden, J., Jones, R., Hester, S.M., Odom, D.I.S., Kalisch, C., James, R., Cacho, O.J. and Griffith, G. (2005). The economic impact of weeds in Australia. Plant Protection Quarterly 20 (1): 25-32.

Thomas, M.B. and Reid, A.M. (2007). Are exotic natural enemies an effective way of controlling invasive plants? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22(9): 447-453.

Walton, C.S. (2001). Implementation of a Permitted List Approach to Plant Introductions to Australia. Ch. 8, pp. 93-99 in Groves, R.H., Panetta, F.D. and Virtue, J.G. (Eds.). Weed Risk Assessment. CSIRO Publishing.

Weersink, A., Llewellyn, R.S. and Pannell, D.J. (2005). Economics of pre-emptive management to avoid weed resistance to glyphosate in Australia. Crop Protection 24(7): 659-665.

Woldendorp, G. and Bomford, M. (2004). Weed eradication. Strategies, timeframes and costs. Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

219 Mapping Australia’s Weed Management System By G. Cattanach, A. Harris and J. Horne

March 2013

Pub. No.13/019

Weeds are among the most serious threats to Australia’s natural environment and primary production industries. They displace native species, contribute significantly to land degradation, and reduce farm and forest productivity. Australians spend significant time and money each year combating weed problems and protecting ecosystems and primary production. From 1992 to 2010, there were 23 incursions of prohibited or regulated weeds detected in Australia. In 2011 alone, 11 new or potential weeds were officially recorded in various states.

This study of the status of weed management in Australia aims to ensure that future investment in weed management is strategic, eﬀective and economical. The report identiﬁes key stakeholders’ involvement in weed management, their interactions, and the resources invested (particularly in 2010-11). It analyses future prospects and draws brief conclusions on what is working well and where Australia’s weed management system could be improved.

Phone: 02 6271 4100 Fax: 02 6271 4199 Bookshop: 1300 634 313 Email: [email protected] Postal Address: PO Box 4776, Kingston ACT 2604 Street Address: Level 2, 15 National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600