Ian Thompson is the Chair of the Invasive Species Council’s Conservation and Science Committee and aformer Chief Environmental Biosecurity Officer. Email: isc@invasives.org.au
Buffel grass presents a complex management challenge as both a valuable pasture for graziers and a ‘transformer weed’ threatening native ecosystems across central and northern Australia. The assessment process for its potential listing as a weed of national significance (WoNS) considers both its adverse impacts and benefits. That process is overseen by a steering group with farming industry representatives and other stakeholders. A WoNS listing would facilitate coordinated national action and resource mobilisation without creating regulatory obligations for landholders. It is time to move beyond the ‘weed or not’ debate towards collaborative, context-sensitive solutions that recognise buffel grass’s dual identity.
____________________________________________________________________
Is buffel grass a weed? It depends on who you ask and where you’re looking.
For graziers across Australia’s rangelands, buffel is an asset. First introduced into Australia in the 1870s, it’s valued for its productivity and drought resistance.
But that hardiness and ability to colonise bare soil also give it the capacity to naturalise, spread and invade natural areas.
Buffel grass is well established across vast areas of central and northern Australia, and its range continues to expand. In 2015, the Commonwealth‘s threat abatement advice identified it as a ‘transformer weed’ – a species capable of fundamentally altering habitats and threatening many native plants and animals. It has been listed as a weed in South Australia and the Northern Territory, a key threatening process in NSW and ‘very high risk’ on Victoria’s advisory list of environmental weeds.
This dual identity as valued pasture grass and transformer weed is now being considered under a process that could lead to it being listed as a weed of national significance (WoNS).
Some say the grazing benefits of buffel grass should automatically rule it out as a WoNS. I invite those concerned about a WoNS listing to consider the assessment process and the potential for both identities to be recognised and sustained.
Australia’s federal, state and territory governments are currently working with stakeholder groups to identify priority weeds under the National Established Weeds Priorities (NEWP) framework. This is one part of a more comprehensive national approach to developing novel solutions for complex weed problems, not just individual weeds.
The NEWP process acknowledges the complexity of managing plants that are beneficial in one context (like a cattle pasture) and harmful in another (like a national park). The guidelines are explicit: a pasture grass is not considered a weed where it is ‘providing benefits as livestock feed’.
After being accepted in April 2025 for detailed assessment, the buffel grass nomination is now one of 29 being assessed, based on:
The assessment process (described here) ensures all stakeholder groups are heard. It is led by a steering group that includes stakeholders from industry (agriculture, forestry) and community (First Nations, natural resource management, conservation) as well as scientists and government representatives.
While the steering group makes recommendations, Australia’s governments – all represented on the National Biosecurity Committee – make the final decisions about which weeds to accept as national priorities and which ones to designate as WoNS. This will depend on their willingness to co-invest in management.
These decisions are informed by the following assessments, which consider both the negative impacts and benefits of the nominated weeds:
Invasiveness: The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences will assess the invasive characteristics of each weed and model their potential distribution, including under climate change.
Impacts: Panels of experts, including from stakeholder groups and First Nations people, will assess the current and potential economic, environmental, social and cultural impacts of each weed.
Feasibility of management: State and territory government representatives, with support from the CSIRO, will assess current management gaps for each weed and whether there are feasible and socially acceptable management solutions. This will include consideration of any benefits of the weed.
Benefits of national coordination: State and territory government representatives, with CSIRO support, will also assess whether there would be a demonstrable benefit from a nationally coordinated approach or plan.
If buffel grass is ultimately one of a handful of weeds newly listed as a WoNS, it will create a clearer mandate for harnessing resources to enable more effective management.
Previous WONS listings have led to national coordinators, best-practice handbooks, training programs, awareness raising and research. While listing doesn’t guarantee funding, it does create a platform for co-investment by governments and non-government parties and a pathway for co-developing national action plans.
A WoNS listing has no regulatory basis and does not create landholder management obligations. It is up to each state and territory government whether to declare the WONS species as weeds.
Nor does a WoNS listing authorise new biocontrol agents or herbicides. These are handled through separate assessment processes.
Buffel grass is not the first invasive plant to divide opinion – and it won’t be the last. But if we want to make progress, we need to move past the ‘is it a weed or not?’ debate and focus on finding solutions.
The NEWP process gives us the structure and the opportunity to do exactly that. The involvement of all stakeholders in a detailed transparent assessment of both costs and benefits offers the best potential for developing more effective and targeted management approaches that work for all parties.
Submitted: 3 July 2025