A new Northern Territory government-commissioned economic assessment has found the costs of allowing buffel grass to spread are around 60 times greater than the benefits, adding further weight to calls for a strong, nationally coordinated response to one of Australia’s most damaging invasive species.
The Charles Darwin University assessment found each additional hectare of buffel grass-dominated landscape imposes an estimated $6,216 a year in net external costs, once impacts including biodiversity loss, damage to cultural sites, more severe fire regimes, management costs and loss of scenic amenity are taken into account.
The report found the benefits of additional buffel grass spread from forage and erosion control were estimated at $112.30 per hectare each year, compared with $6,328 per hectare in broader costs to the community. It also found those benefits largely flow to private pastoral operators, while the costs are disproportionately borne by Traditional Owners, governments, conservation organisations and the wider community.
The Invasive Species Council said the findings strengthen the case for buffel grass to be recognised as a Weed of National Significance and for governments to urgently develop a coordinated national approach to prevent its spread and protect Country.
‘For every $1 of benefit buffel grass creates it costs the community $56 in impacts,’ Invasive Species Council Voice of Country Lead Taigen Ryan said.
‘For years Traditional Owners have been warning that buffel grass is destroying Country. Now we have a dollar figure showing just how costly it is to keep letting it spread.
‘This report blows apart the argument that the economic benefits of buffel grass justify allowing it to keep spreading.
‘For every dollar of benefit from further buffel grass spread, the costs to the rest of the community are around 60 times greater.
‘Traditional Owners and the wider community are being left to carry those costs – through hotter and more dangerous fires, damaged cultural sites, declining native wildlife and the enormous task of trying to protect Country from this invasive grass.
‘Buffel grass can have value as cattle feed in existing pastoral systems. Nobody is pretending otherwise. But this report makes an important distinction: allowing it to spread further creates enormous costs that far outweigh those benefits.
‘That is exactly why we need a national approach that focuses on stopping further spread and protecting the places where buffel grass does the greatest damage – including Indigenous Protected Areas, national parks, culturally significant places and other high-value Country.
‘Earlier this month, the National Biosecurity Committee delayed a decision on whether buffel grass should become a Weed of National Significance to undertake further work.
‘The economic evidence is now sitting alongside the environmental and cultural evidence. Governments cannot keep kicking this problem down the road.
‘The Committee’s own assessment has already confirmed buffel grass is causing nationally significant environmental and cultural harm and that stronger national coordination would improve its management.
‘This new report makes the cost of delay even clearer. It concludes that prevention and containment make economic sense, that early intervention delivers far greater returns than delayed action, and that continued spread risks creating persistent and partly irreversible costs.
‘Australia needs a national buffel grass response that respects its use in pastoral systems while stopping it from continuing to invade and transform Country.
‘Traditional Owners, scientists and land managers have been raising the alarm for years. The evidence for national action is getting stronger, not weaker. Governments now need to act on it.’
Media Contact: (02) 8006 5004
Background:
- The report concludes that further buffel grass expansion would generate large net economic losses even under favourable assumptions, and says prevention, containment and targeted control should be prioritised, particularly in areas with high cultural and ecological values. It notes that its estimates are likely conservative because some health, social and community costs have not been fully quantified.
Image credit: Stephen Csurhes
Related Content
