Would the development of a threat abatement plan be a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the process? What other measures could be undertaken?
The nominators and all those consulted through the development of this nomination strongly support the development of a national threat abatement plan for buffel grass, in order to increase our ability to strategically manage buffel grass beyond the boundaries of individual parks or NRM regions. This is best summarised by Grice et al. (2011), who suggested “national recognition of the issues should facilitate interstate collaboration and co-ordination, yield economies of scale and improve access to Commonwealth resources (e.g., to support research)”. A national approach and strategy is the only way forward in tackling the deleterious impacts that buffel grass will have on EPBC listed species.
Other measures which will also progress the management of buffel grass and should be considered include
-
A feasibility study to determine the possibility of localised biological control in Australia
-
An awareness raising campaign which highlights to community and landholders the deleterious impacts that buffel grass can have not only on biodiversity, but also the high risk to life, property and indigenous culture (see below).
-
A nation-wide landholder survey to rigorously assess the attitudes towards buffel grass.
-
Support for action in determining the impact that buffel grass has on carbon storage across Australia.
|
If the threatening process is recommended for listing under the EPBC Act, what elements could a threat abatement plan include?
|
A Threat Abatement Plan for Buffel Grass should include
- A prioritisation of areas for exclusion, elimination and control of buffel grass across Australia.
- Guidelines and stipulations on limiting the spread of buffel grass adjacent to areas of high conservation value
- An outline for support of research into optimal techniques of limiting or removing buffel grass from high value conservation areas
- Quarantine and Biosecurity measures to ensure that no new varieties/strains of buffel grass are imported into Australia
- Recommendation for the formation of a National Taskforce
| 15.ADDITIONAL THREAT ABATEMENT INFORMATION
Is there other information that relates to threat abatement that you would like to provide?
|
|
Indigenous Values | | | 16.INDIGENOUS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
Is the key threatening process known to have an impact on species or country culturally significant to Indigenous groups within Australia? If so, to which groups? Provide information on the nature of this significance if publicly available.
|
Because of its distributional overlap with much of central Australia, buffel grass is now distributed across much of the western desert aboriginal lands of central Australia, including:
-
Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands (South Australia)
-
Maralinga Tjarutja Lands (South Australia)
-
Mamungari Conservation Park (Co-managed with SA DENR)
-
Nyaanyatjarra Lands (Western Australia)
-
Central Land Council (Northern Territory)
-
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park
In the APY Lands, buffel grass was deliberately introduced in the 1980’s into Kalka community in order to suppress dust, which was causing health issues. With the benefit of hindsight, the proponents of this strategy now recognise that the costs of buffel grass introduction (considerably increased fire risk within settlements, obstruction of clear ground used for hunting, sitting, camping) outweigh the health benefits that could have also been achieved with native, or less invasive plant species (M. Last pers. comm.). Anecdotal evidence and personal communications in the APY Lands has indicated that buffel grass is currently, and will also in the future, have a significant impact on a number of traditional cultural activities, including:
-
hunting for malu (red kangaroos. as the dense monocultures prevent ease of access and clear spaces for hunting)
-
threats and access to mulga woodlands where tjala (honeyants) are gathered
-
threats and access to ilykuwara (Acacia kempeana) woodlands where maku (witchetty grubs) are gathered
-
threats to communities and homelands posed by the wildfire risk.
Within UKTNP, buffel grass is recognised as a threat to both the natural and cultural values (UKTNP 2009). Sacred sites and other significant cultural areas are at risk due to the grasses ability to increase fire intensity and frequency, damaging rock art and other less tangible cultural assets. Qualitative evidence suggests that this increase in fire intensity and frequency also poses significant threats to native communities, many of which are fire sensitive. Further, buffel grass’s ability to out-compete native grasses and form monocultures in the understorey is thought to destroy habitat for many species of vertebrates and invertebrates within the park (UKTNP 2009).
| |
Yüklə 319.5 Kb.