Margaret Friedel is a rangeland ecology and management researcher based in Alice Springs. Email: mhfriedel@outlook.com
Weeds Australia says “A…pasture grass providing benefits as feed for livestock is not considered a weed. However, the same plant species in a national park can be considered a weed where it outcompetes native plants and requires management.”
If buffel grasses are labelled WoNS, the label will no longer emphasise, to the virtual total exclusion of other possibilities, the costs associated with the plants’ impacts, precluding exploitation, as was previously the case. I discuss the implications of WoNS attribution and what alternative approaches might also help to reduce deleterious effects without diminishing the species’ productive value.
_____________________________________________________________________
The buffel grass group (Cenchrus ciliaris, C. pennisetiformis and C. setiger) was one of 41 species and five groups of weeds nominated for consideration as a nationally significant weed, through a process run by Weeds Australia starting in 2024 National Established Weed Priorities.
Right now, the species and groups are all undergoing detailed assessment to determine whether they will become one of eight new national established weed priorities, to be published by late 2025.
Further steps are still to be considered by governments. This includes deciding whether any of these priorities should be made new Weeds of National Significance (WoNS).
Is this a process that can be trusted to do what it says, or is it ‘the thin edge of the wedge’ that will subsequently impose unwanted restrictions on landholders? First of all, what does Weeds Australia say?
“A plant is considered a weed if it is not valued where it is growing and requires some form of action to reduce its negative effects. Thus, a pasture grass providing benefits as feed for livestock is not considered a weed. However, the same plant species in a national park can be considered a weed (not valued) where it outcompetes native plants and requires management.”
“The WoNS label has no regulatory basis and does not create landholder management obligations or authorise new biocontrol agents or herbicides [my emphasis]. Rather, it raises the profile of the negative impact occurring from an invasive plant species and aims to harness resources to support improved management.”
“States and territories determine the biosecurity requirements for weeds in their jurisdictions, which landholders are required to comply with. Potential regulatory mechanisms for any new priorities will be considered by individual states and territories, based on risk and following their regulatory engagement processes. Unlike the existing WoNS, states and territories may choose not to introduce or amend regulation in response to new WoNS.”
In other words, if a species or group is labelled a WoNS, resources are potentially released to enable better management where the species or group is not wanted. Exactly what that entails is a matter for the states and territories.
Does the decision about identifying species or groups as a nationally significant weed have credibility? I believe it does. Weeds Australia is managed through the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions, an institution funded by its members. Those members are the Australian Government, all State Governments, the ACT Government, CSIRO and MLA, plus four associate members. The state and territory governments are in a position to enact legislation, or not, as well as provide resources.
According to the Guide to nominating a nationally significant weed, evaluation of previous national coordinated action on WoNS found:
Hence a WoNS listing should be useful for managing buffel grass where it’s not wanted.
In the event that buffel grass is labelled a WoNS, this should not impinge on landholders who make beneficial use of buffel grass as a livestock feed (see earlier). As an example, the NT Government declared buffel grass to be a weed under the NT Weeds Management Act 2001 in July 2024 – NT Buffel grass declaration and management strategy.
The declaration was specific that:
“This declaration does not mean that land managers are expected to eradicate buffel grass.
“This buffel declaration will ensure there is a focus on reducing the negative impacts of buffel on the environment and culture.”
Realistically, even if it were desirable to eradicate buffel grass in Australia, the cost would be astronomical and, in my view, would consume financial resources to such an extent as to compromise all other weed management efforts, and still be unlikely to succeed.
In the event that buffel grass isn’t labelled a WoNS, are there options other than the status quo to achieve better management of buffel grass on non-pastoral lands? Here is a summary of an approach, led by the late Tony Grice, that offers some pointers.
Tackling Contentious Invasive Plant Species: A Case Study of Buffel Grass in Australia. Grice, Friedel, Marshall & Van Klinken. Environmental Management (2012) 49:285–294.
In 2012, Grice et al. discussed the possibility of a broad-scale strategic approach to buffel grass that would aim to reduce deleterious effects without severely diminishing the species’ productive value. They were writing at a time when the national strategies for Australia’s existing WoNS “emphasised, to the virtual total exclusion of other possibilities, the costs associated with the plants’ impacts, precluding exploitation“. Not surprisingly, the prospect of listing plants of productive value as WoNS attracted fierce opposition, and still does.
In the intervening years much has changed, so some aspects of Grice et al.’s proposals are now part of current practice but some deserve further consideration. Consultation, the first priority, has led to a more nuanced approach to buffel grass management and declaration. For example, the NT Government’s 2024 strategy, following extensive consultation, tabulates Objectives for managing buffel grass under different land use purposes and Reasonable actions to meet objectives for buffel grass management, so there are no one-size-fits-all objectives and actions for buffel grass management.
For jurisdictions that do not proceed to declaration, “national recognition of the issues should facilitate interstate collaboration and co-ordination, yield economies of scale and improve access to … resources”. It remains important to recognise regional and local differences and the consequent need for different responses.
“Non-legislative measures could play an important role but would require broad stakeholder consultation during both development and implementation. Non-legislative elements could include voluntary codes of practice, insurance mechanisms and certification procedures related to off-site impacts.”
Some practical steps proposed by Grice et al. included:
Some of these are currently widely accepted, others not so much but are worth considering. The first dot point relates to new varieties that might be, for example, more cold-tolerant or capable of growing well on clay soils, and could increase the species’ potential distribution. The last dot point may not be feasible, given the capacity of buffel grass for hybridisation.
This a brief introduction to the paper, and to broader issues, but I hope it might contribute to current efforts to reduce contention around managing buffel grass and help to further development of practical solutions. It seems to me that the key is consultation, leaving the door open for continuing exchange of ideas and acceptance of different perspectives, accompanied by ongoing monitoring of management outcomes.
Submitted: 2 July 2025