natural resources, australia’s natural resources weed... · minimum of $6,000,000 per annum...

NSW Weeds Officers Association

President: David Pomery Illawarra District Weeds Authority Ph: 02 42 33 11 29 Fax: 02 42 32 36 65 [email protected]

Secretary: Matthew Bailey Parkes Shire Council Ph: 02 68 61 23 51 [email protected]

Treasurer: Andrew Cosier Wellington Council Ph: 04 29 20 77 91 [email protected]

NSW WEED MANAGEMENT REVIEW 2013

SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO REVIEW ISSUES PAPER

Contact Phone: 02 42 331129

Contact Email: [email protected]

Submission By: NSW Weeds Officers Association

Date: 4th December 2013





Introduction On behalf of the NSW Weeds Officers Association (NSW WOA) we thank you for the opportunity to provide our feedback on the Issues Paper: Review of weed management in NSW. The NSW WOA is the peak body representing the interests of over 100 Noxious Weeds Officers throughout NSW. Local government weeds officers are responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Noxious Weeds Act in NSW. The aims of the Association are:

to provide a collective voice and united approach for all professional Weeds Officers and related staff in NSW;

to be proactive within the Weeds Industry and raise the profile and status of both Weeds Officers and the NSW Weeds Officers Association Inc;

to provide members with opportunities and information on Training, Education and Recruitment;

to meet community expectations in weed management; to cooperate with other organisations involved in weed management and in so doing develop

and improve networking opportunities for the benefit of all members; to assist in the coordination of weed management with associated stakeholders, and to produce and publish a periodical newsletter and establish a website.

This response has been prepared by the NSW Weeds Officers Association on behalf of feedback received from members throughout the State. Whilst we acknowledge a number of identified concerns and have provided feedback further within this submission, we would like to highlight the following as areas of good Weed Management practices under the current system:

The NSW WOA is strongly supportive of the responsibility for weed management remaining with Local Government (LG) as the democratically elected representative of the people. LG has a long association with noxious weed management dating to the Local Government Extension Act (1906). Over this time LG has provided consistency and stability and built up a strong rapport with its local constituency that could not be achieved by any other organisation.





The Local Government system has an established and adequate long term funding

arrangement, with Local Control Authorities (LCA's) contributing over 3 times the amount of state government funding for weed management in NSW. Ultimately any recommendations to change the delivery structure will have to take this into account as no other model comes close with regards to financial contributions. Landholders are also concerned they will be incurring another financial burden if weed management is merged with another organisation/s. Many local councils also have well developed bush care networks that support the broader weed management activities of local residents and volunteer groups. Estimated at a minimum of $6,000,000 per annum (2012) in the Sydney region alone, any new structure

.

Local Councils are community oriented organisations that interlinks across Departments such as planning, staff development and IT. In this respect local government is held accountable to the local community and they are a local body which is easily accessed. They also have all the necessary support systems in place to deliver effective weed management programs. Eg G.I.S. systems, rates and property information, depot (plant and equipment) services, accounting, financial and reporting systems.

Fourteen Regional Weeds Advisory Committees (RWAC) are established throughout NSW to oversee and coordinate management of (noxious) weeds across a region. These committees are a dynamic forum through which more strategic approaches are developed, skills are imparted and resource use is maximised. This sort of alliance is an appropriate advisory model for steering the activities of any regional organisation that may be being considered to implement weed control at the regional level with the responsibilities this entails. (refer to Figure 1).





4.1 Community ownership General comments:

The NSW WOA acknowledges that effective weed control programs involve a combination of trust, acknowledgement of the problem and a willingness to participate. This is aided by the accessibility of local Weeds Officers and the sound knowledge they have of their local areas. Unfortunately weed control is all too often judged on its inability to effectively manage certain widespread weed species, but by thinking and acting more strategically and focussing limited resources to where benefits will be greatest as per NSW Invasive Species Plan (ISP) Goals, deliverable outcomes can be achieved on new, emerging and widespread weed species. This situation will not be resolved by simply changing the delivery structure however. What is needed is changes in State and community attitudes to support the most cost effective way to deliver the objectives of the NSW ISP.

In this respect the following improvements are recommended: 1. Appointment of a Statewide Education/extension coordinator (refer Figure 1). Whilst current education/awareness programs have been effective to some extent particularly at the local level, overall there has been little shift overtime in community attitudes and behaviour when dealing with ownership of weed management. What is needed is cooperation supported by coordination. This would have to be done in conjunction with state and cross regional- as well as local government- work and include everyone from the local to the state level (similar to the WoNS model that did this from local to national level) so that all goals/actions are aligned. The role of the NSW Education/extension coordinator would be to garner support from local communities and engage them in weed management, align local/regional and state priorities, and work across agencies to ensure resources are appropriately directed to deliver the greatest benefits. They would also play an important role in aligning research/development activities to on ground requirements, and ensuring that research outcomes are available to and adopted by the community and weed managers.. The challenge for the coordinator would be to ensure priorities are recognised and investment is balanced and that the knowledge, skills, resources and systems are in place to address the impacts of invasive weed species.





Current education programs such as ' NSW No Space 4 weeds' are good concepts but with LCAs having to purchase advertising material and essentially fund the programs themselves, scarce resources are often being directed to other (priority) areas, resulting in the message not being promoted effectively in the public domain. Development and /or implementation of extensive education programs supported by incentive funding, which Local Control Authorities could access would do much to promote effective weed management practices and potentially change community attitudes. Weed management also needs to be looked at holistically as part of Sustainable Agricultural and Natural Resource Management practices and not as a standalone issue. Weeds are often the symptom of a far greater problem and replacing one weed with another does little to solve the overall weed problem if the causal factors are not addressed. Engaging and educating the community on this "whole of landscape" approach has the potential to create a cultural shift across an entire group or geographical location and in so doing promote community ownership and improve weed management practices. This approach could be effectively facilitated by a Statewide Weed education/extension coordinator in cooperation with Local Land Service Community Support Officers. 2. Notification of noxious weed matters on sale of land: Currently there are no mandatory requirements on vendors to notify prospective purchasers of land of the presence of noxious weeds, any Weed Control Orders or Weed Control Notices applying to the land, charges against the land or of noxious weed obligations relating to the land. This could be changed however with mandatory weed inspection reports of all land sales. In this regard two options are proposed that potentially could enhance community ownership of the weed problem:

(1) Amendment of Schedule 4 to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, which sets out those matters to be included in a s149 planning certificate, which must be provided to a prospective purchaser with a contract for sale under s4 of the Conveyancing (Sale of Land) Regulation 2010.





(2) Amendment of Schedule 3 of the Conveyancing (Sale of Land) Regulation 2010, which sets out a number of matters required to be provided with a contract of sale.

3. Private Vs Public land There is a further disconnect in achieving collaborative action on weeds due to the inequity of enforcement applied to landholders under current arrangements. Private landholders often feel that they are held more accountable than State Government Agencies for the control of noxious weeds on land they occupy. Noxious weeds however are a shared responsibility and unless this burden is shared equally, sections of the community can become disheartened, reducing interest in collective action and jeopardising what could otherwise be an effective weed control program, as they see weeds spreading on lands where enforcement is less vigorous. The NSW WOA whilst acknowledging the budgetary constraints on agencies, does not accept that there are funding limitations with respect to any agency meeting its minimum obligations for weed management. Private landholders and LCAs all work within budgets when it comes to managing their lands for noxious weeds and most do so without incidence. Weeds Officers are there to assist land managers and work within any constraints. Weeds and areas requiring control can be prioritised and works undertaken in a strategic and coordinated approach delivering effective on ground outcomes that meet community expectations and are within land manager capabilities. In this respect The NSW WOA recommends:

That the Act be amended to give public authorities the same noxious weed control responsibilities as private land owners or occupiers.

The ability of local councils to issue legal Notices on state agencies should be streamlined from the current Ministerial approach which is bureaucratic and time consuming. This current arrangement does not bode well for local councils rapid response plans for high priority alert weeds growing on government land.





What do you consider good practice for encouraging community-based weed management and changing landholder practices?

1. Being proactive (leading by example) and engaging with landholders is essential. Local councils as the first point of contact for the community are readily accessible and willing to support the community. This would need to be replicated in any other delivery model that is being considered.

2. The well established council run bush care program/network has delivered in excess of $6m in kind control on weed related activities in the Sydney area alone. Such volunteer community based groups are an example of what can be done at the local level when actively supported and encouraged.

3. School based weed awareness programs such as "NSW No Space 4 Weeds" programs are a good concept but need refining and need to be applied more consistently and in a coordinated manner across all regions

Do you feel that the current education/awareness programs are working? Why? Why not? 1. When dealing with specific weeds, education/awareness programs work well particularly at

the local level. Community feedback after regional field days/shows/ media releases is generally positive. Education/awareness programs falter at both local/regional and state level however when one considers overall community attitudes toward weed management. There is still confusion over roles and responsibilities and much community focus/concern is still on "impact" ( widespread) weeds. The community needs to be better educated on the benefits of strategic control and directing resources to where benefits will be greatest. A State wide education/extension officer could help deliver these messages in a consistent manner and ensure the message is appropriate for each region (given that different weeds needs to be

. What are possible means for improving incentives for collaborative actions or penalising noninvolvement/ requiring involvement?

1. Appointment of a State-wide Education/extension coordinator (see comments above). 2. Increase penalty fines so as to provide an incentive to do the work.(penalty should be worth more than the cost of control). 3. Make provision for the mandatory inspection of all land sales and the requirements on vendors to notify prospective purchasers of the presence of noxious weeds. 4. Local control obligations for Class 4 weeds. 5. Equity in land tenure such that all landholders are legally obliged to control noxious weeds to the same level.





How can we improve community ownership of weed management? 1. Implement national, state and local weed campaigns tailored to target audiences and aligned to national, state and local priorities. 2. Adopt a holistic approach to weed management - "Whole of landscape approach". Linking

weed species to issues involving animal, human and landscape health. 3. Encourage targeted research to improve our understanding of community perceptions and

needs with respect to weed management so that we can better target awareness and engagement campaigns.

At what scale (local, regional, state) are awareness-raising programs most effective? 1. Local and regional focused programs are often the most effective as they are often more relevant to the community of that area. 2. State wide programs aimed at delineating stakeholder roles and responsibilities as well as explaining the need for strategic approaches to weed management as outlined in the NSW ISP could also be very effective.

4.2 Policy and Framework General comments:

The NSW WOA acknowledges the need to better align weed management policies and regulations with a consistent and coordinated management approach. To this end the NSW WOA supports the creation of three State weed coordinator positions that would allow for the development of better communication channels between the Local and State Government Level (refer Figure 1) and ensure cooperative interactions between organisations, agencies and the community in relation to weed management and response activities. These three coordinator position would directly link to the four main goals of the NSW ISP which aim to exclude, eradicate or contain, (new and emerging coordinator) effectively manage (widespread weed coordinator) and build capacity (education/extension coordinator). Whilst current regulations are effective for managing emerging weeds, the role of LCAs in effectively managing widespread weeds is somewhat less clear. ead species is not enforceable and consideration to this category of weed control needs to be given and possibly returned back to the Local Control Authority (LCA) to manage appropriately within their boundaries. Under Section 8 of the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 Class 4 weeds are "locally controlled weeds" yet current control requirements are regionally based- ie " The growth of the plant must be managed in a manner that continuously inhibits the ability of the plant to spread and the plant must not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed" . (proposed Weed Control Order 2013).





This regional approach for locally controlled weed is not working with many LCAs finding it difficult to understand and difficult to enforce. It requires interpretation and revision to ensure it is enforceable and effective to strategically manage widespread weeds To enable this amendment the NSW WOA proposes that the Minister delegate the power under the Act, to allow the LCA to make management plans specifying the measures to be used in the specific circumstances and meeting community requirements. The Order would include a delegation to local control authorities (pursuant to Section 66) of the

are to be, or may be, used to control the plant; with the delegation being subject to conditions requiring public consultation prior to the making of the plan (similar to the Ministers

obligations under s. 9) and specifying the minimum contents of the plan.

The suggested control measure would read: the growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management

plan published by the LCA pursuant to Section 7(2)(d) of the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 With State priorities for noxious weeds focused on new and emerging weed species there has been much discussion given to consolidating noxious weed lists (declarations) and focussing limited resources to achieving Goals 1 and 2 of the NSW ISP (Exclude, eradicate or contain). Little consideration has been given by the State to "effectively manage" widespread weeds (Goal 3) giving impetus to remove certain widespread weeds from the noxious weed list. Whilst delisting some widespread weeds may help free resources for tackling emerging weeds that can be managed effectively, unfortunately once delisted weeds go under the radar and escape the

to allow the weeds to proliferate, with no formal comeback to help protect the wider community or the environment in general. In this respect consideration needs to be given to the State funding widespread weeds where control objectives align to the NSW ISP. (ie asset protection). Under current arrangements LCA's are expected to fully fund the control of any widespread weed even though that control may be directly linked to the objectives of the NSW ISP. Under NSW WAP guidelines for applying for funds (pg 12) costs of treating widespread weeds are not eligible (for State funding). Given that the NSW WAP is a NSW Government initiative to reduce the impact of weeds under the NSW ISP it is imperative that appropriate levels of State funding be directed toward strategic widespread weed management where those weeds are causing significant impact.





Unfortunately weed control is all too often judged on its inability to effectively manage certain widespread weed species, but by thinking and acting more strategically and focussing limited resources to where benefits will be greatest as per NSW ISP Goals, deliverable outcomes can be achieved on new, emerging and widespread weed species. Weeds Officers also need to be allowed to contain or eradicate new emerging weeds on private land

Section 18A (Show Cause) Notices should be removed from the regulatory framework as they are ineffectual and simply give recalcitrant landowners more time to do nothing, which can have major implications for effective weed management when dealing with fast growing weeds such as aquatics or notifiable species. Penalties for those landholders who fail to abide by the regulations should also be reviewed and

of noxious weeds implemented with the base Penalty infringement increased significantly (to at least $1,000.00) from its current base of $200.00 so as to create an incentive for weed control work to be done. The current $200.00 fine is often less than it would cost to do the work. A cheaper option for some! Further to this statement we consider that de-criminalisation of weed offences needs to occur, as often persecuted cases are not recorded due to the impact of criminal offences on individuals. As noted in Section 4.1 above (private Vs public land) the NSW WOA cannot emphasise enough the importance of alignment of all Landholders responsibility in the control of Noxious Weeds. This is a key requirement to enable the eradication of Class 1 and 2 weeds. While private landholders work hard to control noxious species, if neighbours fail to meet or are not accountable to the same level the presence and potential spread of these weeds will continue and the Goals of the NSW ISP will not be met. All plants for commercial trade need to be cleared for weed potential rather than just imports. The concept of burden of responsibility to the commercial sector needs to be strengthened. A list of plants permissible for commercial trading needs to be established based on the current NSW Weed Risk Assessment system (ie a permitted list). Those wishing to trade in plants not on the permitted list need to fund independent risk assessment undertaken by a government approved body. This

and works very effectively.





What works well with the current policy and regulatory arrangements? 1. The accumulated knowledge and skills of dedicated and trained staff carrying out weed control activities. 2. The fourteen regional weed networks have well established collaborative arrangements in place that provide a coordinated approach at the regional level.

Are current regulations appropriate and effective for managing emerging and widespread weeds? Generally speaking no they are not.

1. The current declaration process is not effective for managing emerging weed species. It is a cumbersome and time consuming process.

1. The widespread weeds (Class 4 )declarations and control requirements are too open to interpretation and do not reflect the Objectives of the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for class 4 weeds.

2. There is too much conflict/ambiguity between the Noxious Weeds Act and other legislation ie. Threatened Species Act, Native Vegetation Act.

3. Inequity in land tenure requirements under the Act means the State cannot meet its own Goals under the NSW ISP , particularly with respect to eradicating new invasive species.

4. There is also some degree of variance across the State as to how the Noxious Weeds Act is enforced and as to what level. NSW DPI need to be adequately resourced to ensure weed management actions are consistent state wide in accordance with the Objectives of the Act.

5. Penalty fines are inadequate and administrative burdens such as the requirement to issue Section 18A Notices do nothing more than delay the implementation of weed control programs.

What are the opportunities for greater alignment of regulation and policy?

1. Refer to proposed NSW Weed Management Model (figure 1 ) as supported by the NSW WOA.

What are your views on the appropriateness of current compliance and enforcement arrangements? How can compliance and enforcement be more effective?

1. Current compliance should stay with LCAs. Local Government Weeds Officers are trained and experienced and connected directly to land managers/community.

2. There is some degree of variance across the State as to how LCAs implement compliance and enforcement. NSW DPI need to take the lead to ensure weed management activities and protocols are consistent state wide in accordance with the Objectives of the Act.

3. Cost of enforcement is borne by LCAs and finances are not always available. 4. All LCAs should be required to employ at least one part time (preferably 1 FTE) weeds

inspector. Some LCAs have large areas with only one weed inspector who is often multi-role. This is insufficient to be effective.

5. Penalties for non-compliance are token and insufficient





Should public land managers be held accountable to the same extent as private landholders? If so, how? 1. Yes. Make necessary changes in legislation that require public land managers to control all

Classes of noxious weeds to the extent as defined by the Class of weed. 2. Point above must be complemented by ability to do regional weed management plans to

ensure compliance is achievable

What would be a more appropriate and effective weed listing approach? 1. Weed control Class distinctions can be confusing and misleading to the general public

however they do allow for management actions based on the individual Class ( ie eradicate, contain, manage etc). Any changes would need to recognise that different management options apply according to the occurrence of the weed ( ie new/emerging or common and widespread) - control actions should be applicable at appropriate scales.

2. Having state-wide declarations does not allow for local issues to be adequately addressed. (that is, it does not allow weeds to be managed at an appropriate regional or local scale)

3. Provision needs to be made for the ability to require control of high priority new and emerging weed species not declared when found on private land..

4.3 Institutional arrangements General comments:

NSW WAP Don McKenzie WO Bourke

achievin Bruce Christie Exec Director Biosecurity NSW

adaptively managed widespread weeds, whilst fostering NSW Minister for Primary Industries The above comments highlight that current institutional arrangements are working well in delivering the objectives of the NSW ISP through the NSW Weeds Action Program. As is the case within all organisations however, a periodic review is essential to determine what is working well and what needs to be improved.





The Local Government system has an established and adequate long term funding arrangement, with Local Control Authorities (LCA's) contributing over 3 times the amount of state government funding dedicated to weed management in NSW. Further to this the knowledge and accessibility of local government weeds officers is unprecedented and would be difficult to be replicated by any other "regional" organisation. As managers of public land and land use planners, Local Government (LG) is responsible for policy development and implementation of land use planning as well as a wide range of activities that impact upon natural resource management. Noxious weed control is one of these responsibilities. LG also has a key role in ensuring Federal and State policies are translated into on-ground projects. Local governance is a practical concept based on effective partnerships by which investment dollar can be driven further. The establishment of Fourteen Regional Weeds Advisory Committees (RWAC) throughout NSW to oversee the activities and coordinated approach to the management of (noxious) weeds across a region has also allowed resource use to be maximised, skills to be imparted and strategic approaches to be developed. This sort of alliance should therefore be considered as an appropriate advisory model for steering the activities of any regional organisation that may be being considered to implement weed control at the regional level with the responsibilities this entails. Whilst the current Local Government Model works well, the NSW WOA acknowledges there are gaps between Local and State weed management activities and therefore suggests the following NSW Weed Management Model (see Figure 1). The creation of three State weed coordinator positions is fundamental in the development of this framework and would allow for the development of better communication channels between the Local and State Government Level and ensure cooperative interactions between organisations, agencies and the community in relation to weed management and response activities. These three coordinator positions would directly link to the four main goals of the NSW ISP which aim to exclude, eradicate or contain, (new and emerging coordinator) effectively manage (widespread weed coordinator) and build capacity (education/extension coordinator). The statewide coordinators would provide a link between state, regional and local weed managers and ensure objective and actions are aligned (and, importantly, break down any overlap and allow more effective resource allocation. Implementation of this Model would allow continuity of current programs and development of clear lines of communication between weeds officers on the ground and the state wide /regional coordinating committee. The weed management model utilises the existing Regional Weeds Advisory Committees, (RWACs) that would be strengthened by being formalised under the Biosecurity Act, to facilitate cooperative interactions between organisations, agencies and the





community in relation to weed management and response activities. They would provide a forum for cooperative and coordinated weed management across a regional area. They would be responsible for preparing, coordinating, reviewing and monitoring the implementation of the NSW WAP and other programs/plans in their area. They would assist in weed detection, prevention, control and management. A range of stakeholders would sit on this committee in order to ensure the whole community has a say on weed management activities appropriate to their region. This will also ensure these groups are more engaged in weed management. Oversight of these committees is by the State wide Coordinating Committee (which would include the respective State Weed coordinators) which advises the Minister for Department of Primary industries on state-wide weed planning and policy matters. The State wide Coordinating Committee would provide a forum through which a broad cross-section of Government and non-Government organisations with an interest in the management of weeds can come together to develop and progress policies and procedures aimed at ensuring a coordinated, agreed approach to major weed issues. A benefit of this committee would be that it develops an understanding between the various member organisations of the various roles and concerns held, while taking a state-wide view of issues. Local Land Services would take on a community support role, which would fit well within their current support and community engagement role which commences in 2014. The Local Government funding will remain unchanged and there will be greater co-ordination of the Committees and coordination of weed management. In formalising RWACs, such formalisation should NOT detract from the current arrangements which are coordinated and administered by local councils. The key is cooperation supported by levels of coordination that include everyone from the local to the state level . This would have to be done in conjunction with state and cross regional- as well as local government- work and include everyone from the local to the state level so that all goals/actions are aligned. The role of the respective coordinators would be to garner support from local communities, align local/regional and state priorities (as well as prevent overlap), and ensure resources are appropriately directed to deliver the greatest benefits. The challenge for the coordinators would be to ensure local to state-level priorities are recognised and investment is balanced and that the knowledge, skills resources and systems are in place to address the impacts of invasive weed species.





Figure 1

Statewide Weeds Coordinating Committee

State Coordinator New and Emerging weeds

State Coordinator Impact/Widespread

weeds

Education Coordinator

Regional Weeds Advisory Committees

Local Weeds Officers

Community/ Landholder

Local Land Services

(community Support Officers

Information

sharing

Strategic Planning

Coordination

Tools

Resources Support

Weed

Control





Local Councils are for the most part coordinating and managing weed management activities well. We believe that messages are getting out to the Local Communities. This communication is free flowing between our Local and Regional Committees but this is where it appears to be reach a blockage and where communications channels could be improved. There is a lot of information collated by Local Government and Regional Committees but this information stops at the regional level and is not shared across regions or at the state level. Because weeds do not respect regional boundaries, statewide and cross regional communication and information sharing is necessary. The appointment of three State wide weed coordinators would do much to improve the sharing of information and ensure that strategic planning at the state level is coordinated with the tools, support and resources to deliver effective weed control at the local level. Hawkesbury River County Council have also proposed - LLS "Local Government" a local government (as County Councils) arrangement, which functions under an inter-governmental

weed control services on-the-ground. This system has been designed for the Sydney metropolitan area and could be delivered in Sydney via fo (similar in jurisdiction to the current Sydney Weeds Committees boundaries) established under the Local Government Act 1993. Refer to attachment 1 for further information on this model. Alternatively, the NSW WOA would not generally support any new institutional arrangements which impose a further tax collection role on local government, or ones which impose direct contributions from LGAs to a new State-wide organisation. Member council staff have seen little accountability and very large cost escalations in a number of services which State Government has taken over, in the name of centralisation efficiencies, such as local government election processes and bushfire management. With consideration to funding, there is unfortunately no correlation between the magnitude of the weed problem and the resources available to deal with the problem. Local Control Authorities are doing a very good job with the resources available to them, however community expectations remain high. The resources base should be made proportional to the magnitude of the weed problem. As proposed by the NSW North Coast Weeds Advisory Committee Position Paper (2009), the

h the required levels of funding necessary to deliver effective weed management across NSW. Such funding options should include a % rate levy for all properties based on unimproved capital value. Weed management activities funded by the Australian and NSW governments also need to be aligned to State (Invasive Species Plan) objectives and regional priorities (WAP) to ensure consistency in the delivery of agreed outcomes. Political decision making should be discouraged where it does not align with state ( and regional ) priorities as detailed in the NSW ISP.





What works well with the current institutional arrangements? 1. Funding from LCAs is long-term and exceeds funding from State government sources by at

least three fold. 2. The accessibility, knowledge and experience of local council weeds staff is excellent and

should not be overlooked. 3. Capabilities of LCAs to respond to localised outbreaks of high risk invasive species. All LCAs

have Rapid Response Plans in place to deal with notifiable weed outbreaks. 4. Current RWAC approach to weed management as showcased by WAP comments above

indicates what works well with current institutional arrangements.

What do you believe is the appropriate scale (state, regional, local) for delivery of key weed management activities, including strategic planning, enforcement, education and extension services?

1. Local / Regional would be the most appropriate level for the delivery of operational activities and enforcement, however strategic planning, education and extension would need to be coordinated at all levels . All activities (operational, educational, etc) should also be coordinated across local, regional and state levels to ensure efficiencies and avoid overlap.

What changes to current institutional arrangements would you propose?

1. Regional arrangements based on local government alliances are currently working well throughout most parts of NSW, however it is acknowledged there are gaps between local and state controls in a number of areas. The NSW WOA supports the proposed changes to institutional arrangements as detailed in the general comments section above ( refer to figure 1).

How can strategic and coordinated planning for weed management be improved? 1. There needs to be more interaction between State and Regional organisations with respect to

weed management. DPI Staff numbers have been decimated to the point that they can no longer cover the state adequately. The appointment of three State wide coordinators aligned to the Goals of the NSW ISP as detailed in figure 1 should hopefully address these shortcomings. These coordinators should work across all agencies and regions (ie not limited only to NSW DPI) and should be as independent and unbiased as possible. As in the WoNS model, the coordinators should not be management across all weed managers/agencies. To that end, consideration should be given to coordinators being

2. The role of NSW Dept of Primary Industries (DPI) in administering the NWAct needs to be strengthened and reinforced such that they use their enforceable authority where local control authorities fail to meet their obligations under the NWAct. In this respect all LCA's in NSW should be required to employ at least one part time (preferably 1 FTE) noxious weeds officer to meet their obligations under the NWAct.

3. Reduce the red tape associated with many weed related funding programs.





4. Ensure State, national and local weed programs are aligned to the NSW ISP. Funding for noxious weeds under other programs beside the NSW WAP should be made available if those projects deliver on all the Goals of the NSW ISP.

5. Weeds management should be included in the broader "whole of landscape" approach covering sustainable agriculture and natural resource management and biosecurity planning.

6. Planning processes should be based on State policies and strategies such as the NSW ISP, providing the framework for lower level regional strategies and local management plans with committed funding

and resourcing from State, regional and local levels.

How can accountability and performance within the management system be improved? 1. Meaningful feedback from the State to all RWACs regarding performance of regional programs as

based on WAP milestones. 2. More interaction and information sharing between RWACs. (what's working and what isn't) ). This

cross regional approach can be facilitated through statewide coordination. 3. Improved monitoring and reporting as part of standard 'state of the environment' activities, and by

emphasising outcomes rather than outputs. 4.4 Evidence- based decision making

General comments: The NSW WOA supports in theory the determination that Mapping and Reporting systems be standardised across NSW. The Association also recognises that in practice this may not be possible given that the individual requirements of each LCA does not necessarily conform to that required at higher (State) levels. Many Councils have their own mapping and reporting systems in place; whilst others have purchased commercially available software. To impose a standardised system would be costly and time consuming and would need to meet all levels of reporting from to local to national to be truly beneficial. Caution would also have to be exercised so as to ensure any recommendations did not breach national competition policy principles. Alternatively the State or NSW DPI could establish their own on-line mapping program which LCAs could provide data for as part of their WAP progress reporting requirements.





As per the Southern Tablelands and South Coast Noxious Plants Committee recommendations this system should capture information which is useful and can be used for better program management. Consideration for reporting could include but not be limited to:

New and emerging species. (Class 1, 2 and 3 weeds) Class 4 weeds where aligned to the NSW ISP ( asset protection - site specific). Management programs, identifying where successful management is being achieved and areas

where management is not as successful. Impacts of species and effective control measures Clearly defined state wide performance measures, such as areas inspected, local engagement

and training (this is already being done, performance measures should be set and clearly defined to drive a whole of state collaborative approach).

It is suggested that we report as accurately as possible on Class 1 to 3 noxious weeds and report Class 4 noxious weeds where presence/control is aligned to the NSW ISP- ie asset protection....(would be site specific reporting as to whole of shire). The NSW WOA firmly believes that LCAs are best placed to make the evidence-based decisions regarding the management approach, as long as the appropriate support is available from the Regional Committees and State Government Agencies. LCAs are able to identify if and when management is not working or if a weed species is spreading. There is a need for Federal, State and Regional Funding to support on-ground research into tackling and eradicating noxious weeds. What are examples of effective weed management information and mapping systems?

1. NSW DPI Website and Extranet 2. Weedmap Pro and Tracer@ mapping programs 3. Individual Councils in-house registers, mapping programs and websites 4. Atlas of Living Australia (a limited number for weeds but several good examples for

biodiversity related issues, e.g. bird counts, etc) Are you aware of any examples of standardised monitoring, evaluation and reporting processes that may also be effective for weed management?

1. Bitou TAP monitoring systems 2. BRIMS (Bushfire Risk Information Management System) 3. MERV (Monitoring and Evaluation of the Restoration of Vegetation) 4. Atlas of Living Australia (with further





What tools are you aware of that should be considered for state-wide weed monitoring? 1. Weed Spotters Program 2. Bionet 3. Plantnet 4. Bitou TAP monitoring information 5. Atlas of Living Australia

Do you feel that management decisions (i.e. which actions to take and where) are currently evidence based?

1. In most instances yes. All management decisions with respect to declared noxious weeds and emerging high priority undeclared species are based on the Weed Risk Assessment process. Decisions made are evidence based with due consideration to local knowledge and experience. In some circumstances however, particularly when dealing with more widespread weeds decisions may be based on visual aesthetic outcomes, safety concerns or community expectations/complaints.

Who is best placed to make evidence-based decisions regarding the management approach for weeds (i.e. eradicate, contain, do nothing)?

1. Local council Weeds Officers and related staff dealing with vegetation /weed matters on a daily basis. These Officers have been trained and have the skills, knowledge, experience and ability to make evidence-based decisions. The weed risk assessment process is the management tool used to assist them in making the right management choice.





4.5 Research and development

General comments: The NSW WOA accepts that funding for weed research is insecure and too short term to be fully effective. Association members have identified that we have limited access and knowledge of current research and development currently being undertaken and that some of the research is often not aligned to on ground requirements. Based on member feedback it appears that little information on current research is being disseminated and communicated throughout the State. The NSW WOA therefore recommends the following improvements :

Appointment of a Statewide Education/extension coordinator (refer Figure 1). Part of the role

of this coordinator would be to identify gaps in research and ensure investment is balanced so as to link research activities with on ground requirements. The coordinator would then be required to disseminate and communicate these findings throughout the state. This could be done by reporting back through the RWACs and/or by establishing a state coordinated internet database system which details current research in progress, listing contacts, milestones and status reports to enable better communication and information sharing. The coordinator would also liaise with national and international researchers and universities to communicate research needs, encourage needed research, and link researchers with weed managers where appropriate.

Implementation of Expressions of Interest (EOIs) for research. This would allow LCAs the ability to identify the areas which have a need for research into better management practices. (this could be run through the State coordinator).

Have research/development updates as a compulsory session at the NSW Biennial weeds Conference.

Is the current investment in research sufficient (e.g. amount of funding, time scale of funding)? No. In fact, it is in serious decline.





How can available research dollars be used more effectively, better prioritised and coordinated and/or better leverage additional investment?

1. By aligning research activities to local and regional priorities. All parties then have an interest in success and will contribute financially and physically to the project.

2. Promotion of successful research programmes. 3. Adequately resource the research and development division of the weed management

branch within the NSW DPI. The constant restructuring of this division has effectively stopped the advancement in new weed management practices. Resourcing will assist in re-establishing best practice in weed management for the state.

4. Appointment of an Education/extension coordinator could help align research activities with regional priorities and ensure resources are properly allocated. They could also act as a lobby for attracting investment and engaging industry bodies, NGOs and other entities in funding and undertaking weed research.

Are you are aware of any additional barriers to effective implementation of weed research outcomes?

1. Long term funding is not available. 2. There is no interaction between the state, the different research bodies and local

practitioners as to what needs to be delivered on the ground. There is a disconnect between what research scientists undertake and what is needed in the field.

3. Weed are an issue but not a priority. 4. Lack of publicity (see point 2 above). 5. that

from researchers to the community and weed managers. This was previously done through WoNS coordinators and some state agencies, however these roles no longer exist and there is limited scope for communication between researchers and weed managers.

How can the dissemination of research results and the adoption of new controls and technologies be improved?

1. Appointment of a state wide coordinator to identify priorities, coordinate activities and promote/extend/encourage adoption of research outcomes.

2. Resource the research and development division of the weed management branch within the NSW DPI.

3. Include local and regional weeds staff in the research where possible for trials and publicise widely as part of a community education program.





What roles and responsibilities should research and development corporations have with respect to weeds?

1. All R&D corporations have a responsibility to invest in weeds where there is clear community benefit in doing so. The disconnect often lies in that private corporations tend to invest on the basis of production losses and ultimately profits that can be returned by investing in mitigating these losses. They need to have a return on their investment. Government sponsored R&D is sometimes driven by political decisions rather than state or national policy and strategic plans. R&D needs to be a joint Commonwealth-State-Territory activity that ensures all R&D is aligned as much as possible to national and state/territory priorities.





Recommendations In summary the NSW WOA submits the following as the key points for improved weed management in NSW. 1. The NSW WOA is strongly supportive of the responsibility for weed management remaining with local government. In evaluating the effectiveness of existing arrangements and the ability of these arrangements to meet the four (4) goals of the NSW Invasive Species Plan, the NSW WOA firmly believe that the NSW Government should adopt a model based upon local government alliances. Cooperation in the control of noxious weeds needs to remain with one coordinating authority. This

to fulfil this requirement and one with which the community are familiar and in which they have faith. To this end the NSW WOA suggests consideration be given to the proposed NSW Weed Management model as detailed in Figure 1. This model is based on the highly successful Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) program and would allow coordination from local to state level to improve weed management outcomes in NSW 2. Align weed management policies and regulations with a consistent and coordinated management approach. 3. Integration of weed management into a holistic- whole of landscape approach so as to encourage changes in community attitudes. 4. Existing resources need to be valued and complimented by longer-term dedicated public investment in weed planning, management, monitoring and research. The NSW Weeds Officers Association thanks the NRC for allowing us the opportunity to comment on this important reform. We look forward to the recommendations in the Draft report. Please feel free to contact me for further information or if the WOA can be of any further assistance in the Review. Yours sincerely David Pomery President NSW Weeds Officers Association Inc





Attachment 1 ey Chris Dewhurst, GM, HRCC, 9 September 2013, [email protected], @HawkesburyRCC The Concept: and remain key planning / strategic / policy development agencies creating a mix of legislative and incentive frameworks to deliver on their plans at their respective levels. Under this proposed model, is local government (as County Councils), who function under an inter- et al, 2012) to engage and deliver the services on-the-

Committees boundaries (see Fig 2 below) and established under the Local Government Act 1993 (S383) . A council driven LLS delivery model will have the following advantages:

variety of landscapes and tenures.

ale benefits especially in plant

doing this effectively, ie: WSROC, SWC, HRCC) further evidence in Dollery et al (2012)

Employing more people (long term) under the Local Government (State) Award (lower cost than state public service) = more people on-the-ground where the community want them (cognitive of current Award arrangements).

State government employees focus on strategy, policy, support material and legislation.

Local government employees focus on operational works, community engagement, network development and education.

The Landcarer and/or Farmer only needs to establish a relationship with one government agency - - for all of their biosecurity and NRM services. Whilst being employed by

logo.

Can easily expand to include current Weed Control (LCA) and/or other roles.





In conclusion we believe we have a rare opportunity to coordinate the delivery of biosecurity and NRM roles in a greatly simplified model. A model the community is more likely to understand and therefore engage with and support. It would eliminate duplication (especially in the strategic areas) and foster cost effective use of public funding leading to more operational jobs in the sector. It will produce a bottom line result of engaged land managers, more on-ground results, enhanced biosecurity and a productive and healthier environment. Ref: Dollery B, Grant B, Kortt M (2012) Councils in Cooperation Shared Services and Australian Local Government. The Federation Press. http://www.federationpress.com.au/ Comments gratefully accepted via: [email protected] or Twitter @HawkesburyRCC Online version here: http://hrcc.nsw.gov.au/latest-news/





Figure 2: The Current Council Clusters that could form the LLS County Councils

natural resources, australia’s natural resources weed... · minimum of $6,000,000 per annum...

Documents