You are here: Agriculture » Pests, Diseases and Weeds » Weeds » Roadside Weeds and Pests Report

Roadside weeds and pests –Recommended responsibilities for action

Report for the Victorian Minister for Agriculture and Food Security from the Roadside Weeds & Pests Working Party

The Hon Peter Walsh MP
Minister for Agriculture and Food Security
Level 20, 1 Spring Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
30 June 2011

Dear Minister

We are pleased to provide you with the Report of the Roadside Weeds & Pests Working Party.

In June 2010, the former Minister for Agriculture established the Working Party to examine responsibilities for operational management of invasive plants and animals on roadsides and for funding such activities.

Roadsides provide a ready means for invasive plants and rabbits to spread throughout Victoria and threaten Victorian parks, forests and rural land asset values, and are a major concern for government and private land managers. They have serious impacts on agricultural production and hinder the long-term sustainability of the environment and rural communities.

The issue of managing invasive plants (weeds) and animals (pest animals) on roadsides is principally regulated by the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act). However, responsibility for controlling these pests is affected also by other legislation, including the Road Management Act 2004 and the Local Government Act 1989. Since 2005, the Department of Primary Industries (DPI), the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) have been examining the relevant legislation with a view to identifying who is best placed to deliver control operations for weeds and pest animals, and where responsibility resides for funding such activity.

The legal advice received by different organizations is not consistent and thus attempting to use legal advice to resolve this issue is not likely to prove effective. However, what is apparent from the legal advice is that responsibility currently may vary depending on the category of pest and the status of the road. Thus in some situations the Victorian Government may be responsible, while municipal councils may have responsibilities in other situations and some of these may be shared with adjoining landowners. From an operational perspective, the Working Party was concerned that this may not inspire confidence that the existing arrangements will provide for effective control of the spread of roadside weeds and pest animals in Victoria.

In addressing the issue of Roadside Weeds and Pests, the Working Party believed it was important that it should be considered in the context of the Invasive Plants and Animals

Policy Framework (IPAPF), which represents the overarching Victorian Government approach to managing existing and potential invasive species across the whole of Victoria. It incorporates new approaches for managing threats from invasive species and it further recognizes the cost-effectiveness of preventing entry and establishment as well as early intervention.

The Working Party’s Report identifies proposed responsibilities for overall program management, on-site management and funding for different categories of weeds and rabbits on various types of roadsides. It also suggests how local government could meet their responsibilities for control of roadside weeds and rabbits.

As has been previously noted, the CaLP Act (and other legislation) influences the management of invasive plants and animals on roadsides. Unintended complexity has been generated by 15 years of incremental statutory amendments combined with a diversity of road ownership and management. The Report suggests further legislative change that would assist in implementing the proposed responsibilities that the Working Party has recommended.

Yours sincerely,

Peter J. Bailey

On behalf of the members of the Roadside Weeds & Pests Working Party:

Peter J. Bailey (Chair)
John Burley
Jack Green
Gerald Leach
Bill McArthur
John McLinden
Kate Nelson
Simon Smith

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Working Party on Roadside Weeds & Pests was formed by the then Minister for Agriculture in June 2010 and given the task of providing advice on who should be responsible for the control of noxious weeds and pest animals on roadsides.

The Working Party was fortunate to have access to a Report prepared for the Victorian Department of Primary Industries by BDA Group “The management of declared noxious weeds and rabbits on roadsides in Victoria” 11 April 2011. The Working Party relied extensively on the analysis of this issue by BDA Group and the contents of BDA Group’s Report. However, the Working Party’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of BDA Group or those of the Victorian Government.

The Working Party wishes to acknowledge the able assistance provided to its members by staff from the Department of Primary Industries, the Municipal Association of Victoria, and the Victorian Farmers Federation.

Finally, the Working Party wishes to thank its Secretary, Dr Nigel Ainsworth, for his diligent work throughout the Working Party’s deliberations regarding the issue of control of roadside weeds and pest animals. While responsibility for the Report and its recommendations rests with the Working Party, the Secretary willingly contributed to all the Working Party’s tasks.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this report are those of the Working Party, and its members do not guarantee that the Report is without flaw of any kind or that it is wholly appropriate for the particular purposes for which individuals may wish to use it. Therefore, all persons associated with it exclude all liability (including liability for negligence) in relation to any opinion, advice or information contained in this publication or for any consequences arising from the use of such opinion, advice or information.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

BDA Group – Economics and environment consultant commissioned by DPI to undertake a benefit-cost analysis of the management of declared noxious weeds and rabbits currently on roadsides in Victoria, and to develop options that outline how future management could be coordinated, delivered and funded.

CaLP Act - Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994.

CEO – Chief Executive Officer.

CMA - Catchment Management Authority.

DPI - Department of Primary Industries.

DSE - Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Established pest animals - Animals in the wild in Victoria that pose a serious threat to primary production, Crown land, the environment or community health. They should be eradicated or controlled, or their spread in the wild should be prevented.

INFFER – Investment framework for environmental resources, developed by Professor David Pannell and colleagues at the University of Western Australia, which assists decision makers to assess and rank natural resource projects.

Invasive Species – An invasive species is a plant or pest animal occurring, as a result of human activities, beyond its accepted normal distribution and which threatens valued environmental, agricultural or other social resources by the damage it causes.

IPA - Invasive Plants and Animals.

IPAPF - Invasive Plants and Animals Policy Framework.

MAV - Municipal Association of Victoria.

Municipal roads - Roads listed on a municipality’s ‘Road Register’.

Noxious weed – A species declared as ‘noxious’ in schedules under the CaLP Act.

Other roads - Roads that are neither State Roads nor Municipal Roads.

PPBF - public : private benefits investment framework embedded within the 'INFFER' decision-making tool. The PPBF provides a simple means for selecting the most appropriate class of policy tool where management actions by individuals can have broader impacts on others in the community.

Regionally controlled weeds –Widespread invasive plants that pose risks for a particular region. To prevent their spread, continuing control measures are required to contain them. These weeds represent most of the operational cost of roadside weed control.

Regionally prohibited weeds – Invasive plants that pose a serious threat at a regional level but can’t be eradicated from the State. However, as they are not widely distributed it is reasonable to expect that they can be eradicated from a particular region. Very few Regionally Prohibited weed species are found on roadsides.

Restricted weeds – Include plants that pose an unacceptable risk of spreading in the State or to other parts of Australia. Trade in these weeds and their propagates, is prohibited. There is no requirement on a landholder to treat such weeds. Landholders are obliged not to spread via moving hay, turf, etc. that contains weeds, off the property.

Roadside Weed and Rabbit Control Plan - Each Plan would identify, within the constraints of available resources provided by the State Government and the local Council, those noxious weeds and their location as well as the location of rabbit warrens that would be subject to control activity within the municipality during a designated period of time.

State prohibited weeds – Invasive plants that pose a serious threat and if present, infestations are usually relatively small and it is reasonable to expect that they can be eradicated from the State.

State roads – Roads that are the responsibility of the State government to maintain.

VicRoads – State Government agency responsible for maintaining State roads in Victoria.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The issue of managing invasive plants (weeds) and animals (pest animals) on roadsides is principally regulated by the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act). However, responsibility for controlling these pests is affected also by other legislation, including the Road Management Act 2004 and the Local Government Act 1989. Since 2005, the Department of Primary Industries (DPI), the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) have been examining the relevant legislation with a view to identifying who is best placed to deliver control operations for declared weeds and pest animals, and where responsibility resides for funding such activity.

The legal advice received by different organizations is not consistent and thus attempting to use legal advice to resolve this issue is not likely to prove effective. However, what is apparent from the legal advice is that responsibility currently may vary depending on the category of pest and the status of the road. Thus, in some situations the Victorian Government may be responsible, while municipal councils may have responsibilities in other situations and some of these may be shared with adjoining landowners. From an operational perspective, this does not inspire confidence that the existing framework will provide for effective control of the spread of roadside weeds and pest animals in Victoria.

Given the complexity that has been generated by 15 years of incremental statutory amendments together with the release in 2010 of the Victorian Invasive Plants and Animal Policy Framework, it was recognized that it was timely to review the current situation regarding responsibility for controlling weeds and pest animals on roadsides.

In June 2010, the former Minister for Agriculture established a Working Party to examine responsibilities for operational management of invasive plants and animals on roadsides and for funding such activities.

In addressing the issue of roadside weeds and pests, the Working Party believed it was important that it should be considered in the context of the Invasive Plants and Animals Policy Framework (IPAPF), which represents the overarching Victorian Government approach to managing existing and potential invasive species across the whole of Victoria. It incorporates new approaches for managing threats from invasive species and it further recognizes the cost-effectiveness of preventing entry and establishment as well as early intervention.

Thus, the Victorian Government’s focus will be on preventing the entry into Victoria of new high risk invasive plants and animals (IPA), eradicating those that are at an early stage of establishment, contain where possible those species that are beyond eradication, and if widespread, utilise an assets-based approach towards their management. Achieving this goal will be greatly assisted by working in partnership with industry and communities.

In order to achieve maximum public benefit, the Victorian Government’s investment in prevention, eradication and containment needs to be based on a statewide perspective, which means the allocation of any government resources for roadside control programs will need to be considered in the context of what programs are occurring on adjacent private and public lands. There should not be a different standard of control for roadsides compared to that required to be implemented by adjoining landowners. Controlling weeds and rabbits on roadsides should be seen as an integral part of the broader control program, not to be considered in isolation.

To assist the working party, the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) sought, via a tender process, a consultant to analyse from a policy perspective, the various management options for weeds and rabbits on roadsides that would be consistent with the principles of the IPAPF.

BDA Group was commissioned by DPI to undertake a benefit-cost analysis of the management of declared noxious weeds and rabbits currently on roadsides in Victoria, and to develop options that outline how future management could be coordinated, delivered and funded. Importantly, the study did not seek to question the efficacy of the State's noxious weed and animal species declaration process, or broader land use and environmental policies. Rather it took the institutional setting as a given, and considered specific options for assigning roles and responsibilities for the management of these invasive pests on roadsides within the declaration categories established under the CaLP Act.

The CaLP Act defines four categories of noxious weeds as well as established pest animals:

State prohibited weeds;

Regionally prohibited weeds;

Regionally controlled weeds;

Restricted weeds; and

Established pest animals.

The BDA Group focused on the roadside management of three categories of noxious weeds (State prohibited; regionally prohibited; and regionally controlled, as there are no legal requirements to eradicate or control restricted weeds growing on land) and rabbits as an established pest species.

The BDA Group’s analysis indicated that the benefits from the control of weeds where the management strategy is 'eradicate' (i.e. State prohibited; regionally prohibited) can vary significantly, however, the control costs are very small due to the small areas currently infested on roadsides. The benefit-cost analysis demonstrated that the current control of noxious weeds and rabbits on roadsides is consistent with the broader management of these pests. That is, the incidence and hence control cost of regionally prohibited weeds is small and thus eradication is a viable control strategy despite significant variation in control benefits.

The control benefits for regionally controlled weeds where the management strategy is 'contain' rather than ‘eradicate’, were also found to vary significantly. Roadside control costs for these species, however, can be much more significant as infested areas can be large. Nevertheless, for all but one 'contain' weed, public benefits were estimated to exceed the private control cost on roadsides. The size of net benefits for some weeds were, however, very small, and approaching zero.

The BDA Group provided valuable guidance to the working party and raised some alternative policy options regarding the responsibility for management of different categories of weeds and rabbits on roadsides, as well as canvassing various funding options to meet the costs of those who might be given such management responsibilities.

The Working Party has considered BDA Group’s recommendations in the context of the IPAPF, which identifies that while considerable success has been achieved in the past in controlling IPAs, it “is not feasible or cost-effective for government to enforce or fund the control of all currently declared noxious invasive plant and animal species in the state, …”.

The Working Party’s Report identifies proposed responsibilities for overall program management, on-site management and funding for different categories of weeds and rabbits on various types of roadsides. It also suggests how local government would meet their responsibilities for control of roadside weeds and rabbits.

The proposed weed and rabbit control responsibilities for different categories of roads are outlined below:

State prohibited weeds

Responsible for overall management of response:

State Government (DPI)

Responsible for on-site management:

State roads – DPI

Municipal roads* – DPI

Other roads^# - DPI

* Municipal roads - Roads listed on a municipality’s ‘Road Register’.

^# Other roads - Roads that are neither State roads nor Municipal roads.

Funding of response:

State roads – State Government (100%)

Municipal roads – State Government (100%)

Other roads - State Government (100%)

Regionally prohibited weeds

Responsible for overall management of response:

State Government (DPI)

Responsible for on-site management:

State roads – VicRoads

Municipal roads – Local government

Other roads – Land manager

Funding of response:

State roads – State Government [VicRoads] (100%)

Municipal roads – State Government (100%)

Other roads – Land manager (100%)

Regionally controlled weeds & rabbits

Responsible for overall management of response:

State Government (DPI)

Responsible for on-site management:

State roads – VicRoads

Municipal roads – Local government

Other roads – Land manager

Funding of response:

State roads – State Government [VicRoads] (100%)

Municipal roads – cost shared between State Gov’t/Local gov’t *

Other roads – Land manager (100%)

* see comments below regarding funding options.

For State prohibited weeds, the aim is to eradicate them from the State, if they are present. The Government should be responsible for eradication operations and funding of those operations on roadsides, in a similar manner to its responsibilities for exotic animal and plant biosecurity threats. It is envisaged that DPI would directly engage contractors to carry out the required eradication activities. DPI would need to liaise with VicRoads, local government and other land managers to eradicate such weeds on the roadsides for which they have responsibility for road management objectives.

It is envisaged that there would be a uniform statewide regulatory instrument giving the State Government power to eradicate State prohibited weeds when identified on roadsides.

In the case of regionally prohibited weeds on roadsides, the preferred policy solution would be a uniform statewide regulation requiring the eradication of regionally prohibited weeds on roadsides with the responsibility for complying with the regulation falling on road managers. However, because of the small areas involved, and the need to be confident that a high level of compliance would be achieved, it is suggested that the State Government be responsible for funding any control activities for regionally prohibited weeds on municipal roads. It will be important that only weeds that are capable of eradication from a catchment area are included in this category for a particular CMA.

For regionally controlled weeds and rabbits, appropriate management action can vary depending upon the circumstances at a particular site, thus reinforcing the need for site-specific decisions regarding the extent and nature of any control effort. Policy settings need to allow for local decision-making and differential control actions.

Placing responsibility on road managers for implementing arrangements for effective on-site management of weeds (other than State prohibited) and rabbits was chosen as road managers generally have access to weed management capabilities and some control might already be occurring as part of broader weed, vegetation and rabbit control to promote road management objectives (such as vehicle safety, fire hazard reduction, maintenance of roadside amenity, etc). The Working Party agreed with the BDA Group that placing on-site management responsibility for the control of roadside weeds and rabbits on adjacent landholders was not a satisfactory option due to the wide variation in circumstances, capabilities and lack of private incentives for such action by these stakeholders.

Cost sharing between the State Government and local councils has been proposed for activities to manage regionally controlled weeds and rabbits on municipal roads, i.e. roads listed on a municipality’s ‘Road Register’.

The Working Party considered that local government’s responsibilities for controlling these categories of pests need to be separated from those of other land managers and defined in terms of planning and delivering on agreed priorities, rather than meeting defined responsibilities for long lists of weeds declared under the CaLP Act.

Local government’s obligation for managing regionally controlled weeds and rabbits in relation to municipal roadsides needs to be limited to managing these pests where the following criteria are met:

sustained community led action, by an appropriately recognised group (e.g. Landcare, a statewide or regionally based community led group), is making progress in managing targeted regionally controlled weeds or rabbits in a defined geographic location;
weed management on municipal roadsides is needed to meet the objectives of this community led group and/or municipal roadsides represent a significant pathway of spread for the targeted regionally controlled weeds or rabbits;
State and regional (CMA) priorities are being appropriately addressed, including the need to contain priority species and to protect key assets both on the municipal roadsides and in the surrounding private and public land; and
Community led action is clearly producing public benefit.

Although, their role may be extended to other conditions and species if a local government body so desires and if it is prepared to fully fund such extra activity.

The provisions in Division 5 (s 50) of the Road Management Act 2004 for the development of a council road management plan, could be a useful model for Councils to adopt regarding controlling weeds and rabbits on municipal roads within their jurisdiction.

Thus, local government would have its role defined for regionally controlled weeds and rabbits as preparing and implementing an agreed ‘Roadside Weed and Rabbit Control Plan’ that would include measures to minimise municipal roadsides as a source of weed and rabbit problems for others. Implementation of the Plan would be cost shared with the State Government. However, weed hygiene measures, such as minimising the risk of seed spread on machinery used on municipal roadsides, would need to be met by local government funding.

In preparing the plan the municipality would be required to consult with its community on a range of matters, including priority species of weeds to control, method of treatment, level of resources available. The responsibility to consult could be extended to other stakeholders, e.g., CMA, DSE, DPI. This may assist the Plan to be integrated with the wider plan(s) for the catchment(s) in which the municipality was located.

Each council would have the flexibility to determine the methods of delivering the Plan.

To assist a council to prepare its Plan, the arrangements for State Government co-funding of implementation of the Plan would need to be communicated to each council prior to commencement of the development of its Plan.

The Working Party recognised that DPI may need to support some councils with the development of an initial Plan.

Also, the Working Party considered a possible funding model that could be used to allocate State Government funds to each council to assist with implementation of its Plan. The funding model allows for different levels of funding being provided to a council based on its level of ‘financial stress’, i.e. size of a council’s road network (and therefore assumed size of weed and rabbit control issues) relative to its capacity to raise funds from municipal rates.

A description of a possible cost-sharing funding model for councils with a rural road network, is in Appendix 2.

The key elements in the proposed model are:

Each council would receive the same quantum of annual funding from the State Government for administration of its Plan;
Each council would be eligible to receive the same maximum quantum of annual funding (not cost shared) from the State Government for implementation of its Plan. Actual amount received determined by operational costs in Plan;
The actual quantum of funding for administration and for ‘not cost shared’ operations (see previous two dot points) would need to be determined by the State Government in consultation with MAV.
Each council would be eligible to apply for a further quantum of annual funding for operational aspects of its Plan from the State Government, which would be matched by the council with the ratio for cost sharing being based on ‘the level of stress’ of each council;
The ratios to be used would need to be determined by the State Government in consultation with MAV;
The total amount of State Government funds available for each council would be influenced by the total amount of State Government funds available for management of noxious weeds and rabbits on roadsides;
The maximum amount of State Government funds available to any council would be capped at amount determined by the State Government in consultation with MAV; and
Any expenditure by a council above the maximum funding level agreed with the State Government would be fully funded by a council.

It could be legislated that a Plan must include a number of matters so that it can be considered “reasonable” and enable a council adopting this methodology to discharge its responsibilities regarding regionally controlled weeds and rabbits, to be deemed to comply with its legislative obligations. DPI would audit Plans and it would be expected that Plans would be reviewed every 4 years.

Such an approach to managing regionally controlled weeds and rabbits on roadsides adopts the suasive policy instrument identified in the consultant’s report. It allows local government to engage the community in identifying local priorities for weed and rabbit control and develop acceptable response strategies whilst maintaining control of resource commitments. It imposes a responsibility of leadership on local government but allows each council to manage the burden of weed and rabbit control in such a manner that it remains affordable both to it and the State Government.

As has been previously noted, the CaLP Act (and other legislation) influences the management of invasive plants and animals on roadsides. Unintended complexity has been generated by 15 years of incremental statutory amendments combined with a diversity of road ownership and management. Further change as recommended in this Report, without clarifying duties in the legislation, may provide little benefit.

The State Government needs to be empowered to eradicate State prohibited weeds when identified on roadsides, while for regionally prohibited weeds on roadsides the legislation needs to identify that on-site operational responsibility falls on road managers.

In regards to regionally controlled weeds and rabbits there would need to be a change in legislation to require councils to prepare and implement a Roadside Weed and Rabbit Control Plan, which is consistent with broader catchment and state strategies, policies and priorities. The legislation would need to acknowledge that this would be the mechanism for councils to meet their responsibilities in regards to controlling regionally controlled weeds and rabbits on municipal roads.

Amending the relevant legislation will clarify responsibilities for roadside weed and pest management and may allow DPI to more effectively enforce implementation of appropriate control strategies across a broad area of land, including use of Priority Area Notices to achieve coordinated action on a particular weed or pest by all landowners in an area.

However, it should be noted that BDA Group advised that ‘there were many Regionally Controlled weeds present on roadsides which were not currently being managed. While there were a range of reasons for this (including ……; lack of resources;….)’. Implementing the approach recommended by the Working Party will not, by itself, necessarily provide the desired level of control for all roadside weeds and rabbits. For the proposed approach to be successful, adequate State Government resources must be made available to facilitate and encourage active participation by local government in the management of roadside weeds and pests.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommended actions have been proposed to enable the Working Party’s proposals for control of noxious weeds and rabbits on roadsides to be implemented:

That the Victorian Government continue to be responsible for overall co-ordination and management of the control of noxious weeds and rabbits on all Victorian roadsides;
That the Victorian Government continue to be responsible for on-site management and funding of the control of State Prohibited weeds on all Victorian roadsides;
That road managers be responsible for on-site management of regionally prohibited weeds and regionally controlled weeds and rabbits on all Victorian roadsides;
That the Victorian Government, through VicRoads, be responsible for funding the control of regionally prohibited weeds and regionally controlled weeds and rabbits on all Victorian State roads;
That the Victorian Government be responsible for funding the control of regionally prohibited weeds on all Victorian municipal roads;
That the Victorian Government and a council be responsible for sharing the funding of the control of regionally controlled weeds and rabbits on municipal roads in a municipality. Such control to be described in a municipality’s Roadside Weed and Rabbit Control Plan;
That it should be noted that a cost-sharing funding model has been proposed;
That managers of Other Roads (i.e. not State or municipal roads), be responsible for funding the control of regionally prohibited weeds on the roads that they manage;
That managers of Other Roads (i.e. not State or municipal roads), be responsible for funding the implementation of all reasonable steps to prevent the growth and spread of regionally controlled weeds and prevent the spread of, and as far as possible, eradicate, rabbits on the roads that they manage;
That all relevant legislation relating to management of weeds and pest animals on roadsides be reviewed and amended, where necessary, to clarify responsibilities;
That a uniform statewide regulatory instrument be developed giving the State Government power to eradicate State prohibited weeds when identified on roadsides;
That a uniform statewide regulation be developed that required the eradication of regionally prohibited weeds on roadsides with the responsibility for complying with the regulation falling on road managers;
That there would need to be legislation introduced to require councils to prepare and implement a Roadside Weed and Rabbit Control Plan, which was consistent with broader catchment and state strategies, policies and priorities. This would be the mechanism for councils to meet their responsibilities in regards to managing regionally controlled weeds and rabbits on municipal roads;
That it should be noted that the development and implementation of Roadside Weed and Rabbit Control Plans by councils will be dependent on the amount of funds provided under cost sharing arrangements;
That DPI should have power to audit that each council had prepared an appropriate Plan.

INTRODUCTION

Setting the Scene

The legal advice received by different organizations is not consistent and thus attempting to use legal advice to resolve this issue is not likely to prove effective. However, what is apparent from the legal advice is that current responsibility may vary depending on the category of pest and the status of the road. Thus, in some situations the Victorian Government may be responsible, while municipal councils may have responsibilities in other situations and some of these may be shared with adjoining landowners. From an operational perspective, this does not inspire confidence that the existing framework will provide for effective control of the spread of roadside weeds and pest animals in Victoria.

In June 2010, the former Minister for Agriculture established a Working Party comprised of representatives of Government Departments, local government and primary producers, and independently chaired by Peter J Bailey (Special Adviser on Biosecurity) to examine responsibilities for operational management of invasive plants and animals on roadsides and for funding such activities.

Terms of Reference

The Working Party on Management of Weeds and Pest Animals on Roadsides is responsible for collectively advising the Minister for Agriculture on future management of invasive plants and animals on roadsides in Victoria, within the context of the Invasive Plants and Animals Policy Framework.

The role of the Working Group is to:

Commission an independent review to identify the costs, benefits and beneficiaries of invasive plant and animal management on roadsides and identify options for funding;
Develop an approach to overall accountability, operational responsibility and funding based on the findings of the review, together with any other proposals from members; and
Recommend to the Minister for Agriculture a consensus position that will provide for effective and efficient future management of invasive plants and animals on roadsides.

Pest animals that are of concern in this task are ‘rabbits’.

Membership of Working Party

Mr Peter Bailey (Chair); Mr John Burley, Director Invasive Plants and Animals, Department of Primary Industries; Mr Gerald Leach, Land Management Committee Chair, Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF); Cr Bill McArthur, President, Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), Mr. John McLinden, CEO, Loddon Shire Council; Ms Kate Nelson, Director, Planning & Community, East Gippsland Shire; Mr. Brett Stonestreet, CEO, Moyne Shire Council (until 17 January 2011)*; Mr Jack Green, General Manager Sustainable Planning and Development, Colac Otway Shire (from 17 January 2011); Mr Simon Smith, Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE).

* Mr Brett Stonestreet withdrew from the Working Party on conclusion of his employment at Moyne Shire and was replaced by Mr Jack Green on the recommendation of the MAV with the unanimous agreement of other members.

Secretariat services were provided by Dr Nigel Ainsworth from Biosecurity Victoria’s Invasive Plants and Animals Branch.

The Working Party reported through its Chair directly to the Minister for Agriculture.

Invasive Plants and Animal Policy Framework

The Invasive Plants and Animals Policy Framework (IPAPF) represents the overarching Victorian Government approach to managing existing and potential invasive species across the whole of Victoria. It is aligned with the high-level approach specified in the Biosecurity Strategy for Victoria.

This 2010 Framework has been updated from the Victorian Pest Management – A Framework for Action, 2002 policy. It incorporates new approaches for managing threats from invasive species and it further recognizes the cost-effectiveness of preventing entry and establishment as well as early intervention.

The Victorian Government’s focus will be on preventing the entry into Victoria of new high risk Invasive Plants and Animals (IPA), eradicating those that are at an early stage of establishment, contain where possible those species that are beyond eradication, and if widespread, utilise an assets-based approach towards their management. Achieving this goal will be greatly assisted by working in partnership with industry and communities.

The IPAPF highlights that the general principle of government involvement in invasive species management will be that government invests to maximize public benefit. This investment may be necessary due to market failure or to the role of government as manager of public land and waters. Intervention will only occur where the benefits outweigh the costs.

The Framework identifies that while considerable success has been achieved in the past in controlling IPAs, it “is not feasible or cost-effective for government to enforce or fund the control of all currently declared noxious invasive plant and animal species in the state, …”.

A strategic biosecurity approach is to be used, which will involve “risk management to identify threats and then assess their relative risk to determine the most appropriate intervention to maximize public benefit.” Operationally, the approach needs to be based on four key elements or intermediate outcomes: prevention, eradication, containment and asset-based protection.

Prevention & preparedness

Preventing high-risk invasive species from establishing is the most cost-effective approach to managing the threat they pose. Yet considerable resources and planning are required to maintain prevention of a large number of species.

‘Preparedness’ encompasses all the activities and resources necessary to successfully manage new incursions.

Eradication

Eradication is generally only possible in the early stages of establishment when distribution and abundance of an invasive species is low. It is expected to increase in relative importance within government’s overall level of investment.

Containment

‘Containment’ involves measures to eradicate outlying (satellite) infestations and prevent spread beyond the boundaries of core infestations (those that are too large and well established to eradicate).

Given the large number of potential target species for containment, it is vital that a rigorous risk assessment, and feasibility and cost-benefit analyses are applied to select species for containment.

Obtaining a high degree of community support is a prerequisite for any long-term containment program.

Asset-based protection

When an invasive species has become very widespread, an assets-based approach is used to manage the species only where reducing its adverse effects provides the greatest benefits by achieving protection and restoration outcomes for specific, highly valued assets.

Analyses of biosecurity programs generally show that prevention provides a higher return on investment than eradication, eradication is better than containment and containment is better than managing impacts of widespread invasive species. This general trend will inform government on where to invest, regardless of whether the returns derive from protecting primary production, protecting the environment or a combination of the two.

ROADSIDE WEEDS AND PESTS AND THE IPAPF

In addressing the issue of Roadside Weeds and Pests, it is important that it be considered in the context of the IPAPF.

Roadsides provide a ready means for invasive plants and rabbits, to spread throughout Victoria and threaten Victorian parks, forests and rural land asset values, and are a major concern for government and private land managers. They have serious impacts on agricultural production and hinder the long-term sustainability of the environment and rural communities.

Since European settlement in Australia, selected weeds and rabbits have been the subject of government action and legislation. This has included control strategies for these species on roadsides. While success has been achieved in the past in limiting spread through roadside control programs, it should not be assumed that it is feasible or cost-effective to continue with such programs.

In dealing with roadside weeds and rabbits, it is important that a strategic biosecurity approach is used that ensures decisions regarding weed and rabbit management are risk-based, leading to greater attention to new and emerging high-risk, invasive species that might establish along roadsides. Adopting a strategic biosecurity approach will increase the rate of return on investment by minimizing the spread of new species while providing the required levels of protection that are needed to safeguard Victoria’s highest-value assets from established invasive species.

There needs to be a clear rationale for the allocation of government investment in management of invasive species on roadsides. The general principle needs to be recognized that governments invest to maximize public benefit. This investment may be necessary due to market failure or to the role of government as the manager of the roadside. Intervention by government should only occur when the benefits outweigh the costs.

In order to achieve maximum public benefit, the Victorian Government’s investment in prevention, eradication and containment will be based on a statewide perspective, which means the allocation of any government resources for roadside control programs will need to be considered in the context of what programs are occurring on adjacent private and public lands. There shouldn’t be a different standard of control for roadsides compared to that required to be implemented by adjoining landowners. Controlling weeds and rabbits on roadsides should be seen as an integral part of the broader control program, not to be considered in isolation.

The roles and responsibilities of major stakeholders and the community in general need to be clearly set out and communicated. Government partnerships with community, industry and key stakeholder groups are essential to maximize the benefits of government intervention.

EXISTING CATEGORIES OF WEEDS AND PEST ANIMALS

TheCaLP Act defines four categories of noxious weeds as well as established pest animals:

State prohibited weeds – Areinvasive plants that pose a serious threat and if present, infestations are usually relatively small and it is reasonable to expect that they can be eradicated from the State.

Regionally prohibited weeds – Areinvasive plants that pose a serious threat at a regional level but can’t be eradicated from the State. However, as they are not widely distributed it is reasonable to expect that they can be eradicated from a particular region. Very few Regionally Prohibited Weed species are found on roadsides.

Regionally controlled weeds – Areusually more widespread invasive plants that pose risks for a particular region. To prevent their spread, continuing control measures are required to contain them. These weeds represent most of the operational cost of Roadside Weed control. There is a long list of Regionally Controlled weeds but only a few significant species in each Council area. Government only expects action on roadsides where there is a Regional Program to control a species on adjoining paddocks.

Established pest animals - Are animals in the wild in Victoria that pose a serious threat to primary production, Crown land, the environment or community health. They should be eradicated or controlled, or their spread in the wild should be prevented.

CONSULTANCY TO ASSIST WORKING PARTY

To assist the working party, the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) sought, via a tender process, a consultant to analyse the various management options for weeds and rabbits on roadsides that would be consistent with the principles of the Invasive Plants and Animals Policy Framework.

BDA Group is recognised as amongst Australia’s leading economic and environmental economists, having supported many Commonwealth, State and private sector clients explore and evaluate agricultural, natural resource and environmental policy reforms.

Terms of Reference for Consultant

BDA Group will provide a benefit-cost analysis of management of declared noxious weeds and rabbits on roadsides in the State of Victoria and develop options that outline how future management could be coordinated, delivered and funded consistent with the principles of the Invasive Plants and Animals Policy Framework.

A complete analysis of all roadsides is recognised to be impractical and it is therefore expected that the analysis will be limited to a sample of about eight to 10 municipal council areas* that are agreed by the Steering Committee to adequately represent the whole of the State of Victoria.

The proposed analysis will assess:

Private costs of roadside weeds and rabbits in Victoria.
Public costs – direct costs incurred by Victorian and/or local government in controlling roadside weeds and rabbits in Victoria.
Private and public economic benefits stemming from the management of roadside weeds and rabbits.
Social impacts.
Environmental impacts.

The project will involve:

Consulting municipal councils directly and the Municipal Association of Victoria, relevant industry bodies, relevant Victorian Government agencies, departments and divisions and Catchment Management Authorities to ensure a robust benefit-cost analysis is prepared; and
Reporting as per Department of Primary Industries (DPI) requirements, including producing options outlining how an appropriate level of roadside weed and rabbit management could be identified, how management efficiency might be improved, and how the delivery of it could be coordinated, delivered and funded, including the role of different agencies.

The project excludes the preparation of recommendations on legislation to achieve proposed arrangements.

*The initial intent was to assess roadside control in each of the 8 - 10 case study council areas. However, the project Steering Group agreed in December 2010, that the evaluation of roadside weed or rabbit control should be considered from a broader catchment perspective, as the noxious weed legislation, and categorisation of particular weed species, was focused at this level rather than at an individual council level.

Role of Steering Committee

It was agreed that a Steering Committee should be formed to oversight the work of the BDA Group and to assist in expeditiously providing background information that it required to complete the task in a timely manner. The Working Party members agreed to also be the members of the Steering Committee.

BDA GROUP’S ADVICE ABOUT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ROADSIDE WEEDS AND PESTS

Study Approach

The BDA Group recognised that a benefit-cost analysis of every roadside pest plant and animal infestation across the State of Victoria would be impractical in terms of time and usefulness in informing future policy development. In total there are nearly 11,000 ha of roadside infestations across Victoria, which include 57 different species. For the same reasons, the BDA Group deemed a case study approach was more appropriate, rather than seeking to investigate noxious weed and rabbit management in each of the 79 council areas across Victoria. The study objective was, therefore, to include a range of weed species and rabbits across a range of council areas that collectively would provide insights into roadside management approaches as well as differences in the incentives for local government and landowners to control these pests.

A breakdown of roadside weed infestations included in the BDA Group’s study, is shown in Appendix A.

The study approach adopted by the BDA Group comprised:

selecting the pest species in each Catchment Management Authority region (CMA) for inclusion in the benefit-cost analysis;
interviewing officers from 8 council areas across Victoria regarding current management of roadside noxious weeds and rabbits, as well as collecting data and perspectives as to future management options and issues;
undertaking benefit-cost assessments of each pest species and CMA combination chosen, identifying on-site (i.e., the specific roadside areas infested) and off-site costs and benefits, as well as the overall payoff to the State from control of the roadside noxious pest species;
drawing on the benefit-cost results to apply the public : private benefits investment framework (PPBF) embedded within the 'INFFER' decision-making tool. The PPBF provides a simple means for selecting the most appropriate class of policy tool where management actions by individuals can have broader impacts on others in the community;
canvassing issues pertinent to the design of specific policy instruments, namely their compatibility with existing institutional settings, the design of performance based metrics, issues affecting the economic efficiency of policy alternatives and equity; and
drawing on the preceding analyses to canvass options for the management of noxious weeds and rabbits on roadsides.

Key Assumptions used in BDA Group’s Analysis

The BDA Group provided comment on two key assumptions that were used to estimate the benefits of roadside noxious weed and animal control.

Firstly, assessing the likely spread of a pest plant or animal through time if not managed, is fundamental to examining control benefits. Current assessments undertaken by DPI identify a noxious plant or animal's potential spread based on climatic and agronomic factors, and assuming no action is taken to limit its spread. However in practice, public and private landholders, in the absence of a coordinated control program, would still seek to protect their assets where economic.

If these management responses were not taken into account, the use of the DPI assessments would lead to benefits being significantly overstated. Therefore, BDA Group has estimated and included an appropriate adjustment factor to the DPI spread assessments for each individual pest plant and animal species based on an investigation of implied adjustment factors for species that have reached their full potential.

Secondly, the benefits of controlling a pest plant or animal had to be valued. Benefits arise through mitigating pest impacts on agricultural, environmental or amenity assets. Estimating the physical productivity impacts across a range of asset types and conditions presents a challenge, particularly for environmental assets. Placing a monetary value on these physical impacts would also be contentious. To overcome this problem the consultant has used the 'preventative expenditures' or replacement cost technique, which involves the estimation of how much it would cost to provide actions that prevented, offset or replaced the impacts. This approach was considered by the consultant to be highly applicable here because, as noted above, landholders will seek to protect their assets in the absence of a government control program.

Therefore, BDA Group has used the increased cost of controlling a pest plant or animal species to value the economic cost of allowing a species to spread from roadside areas, or conversely, it provides a measure of economic benefit of not allowing spread from the roadside.

Overview of BDA Group’s Report

The BDA Group presents a brief summary of the noxious weed and rabbit management policy framework in Victoria, an overview of how the pest species and CMAs for inclusion in the case study analyses were selected (See Appendix A for details of species selected), as well as presenting feedback from interviews with council officers in relation to the current management of roadside noxious weeds and rabbits.

The methodology and results of the case study economic assessments are presented, as well as a summary of each of the 32 individual weed assessments. The benefit-cost analysis approach taken by BDA Group was to compare the difference in benefits and costs through time, 'with' and 'without' roadside control for each selected pest species. The difference between the ‘with’ and ‘without’ roadside control provides a measure of the avoided impacts that can be attributed to the roadside control effort. The BDA Group considered that in the situation where a pest is not being managed on roadsides (‘without’), the effectiveness of the broader management strategy being pursued in the region for that pest would be compromised, as spread of the pest from the roadside area would undermine the broader control action and anticipated benefits from that action. This lack of control action on the roadside would result in higher and ongoing pest control costs on non-roadside areas and/or larger pest impacts on those areas. However, landholders will generally undertake additional control expenditure when it is economic to do so to protect agricultural, environmental or amenity assets. The BDA Group used the increased cost of controlling a pest plant or animal species in a region to value the economic cost of allowing a species to spread from roadside areas.

The BDA Group then considered a range of policy design issues, as well as the application of the public : private benefits policy framework, drawing on the outcomes of the 32 case study assessments.

An assessment of policy options for the management of noxious weeds and rabbits was provided, based on the design insights from the above analysis. These options have been considered under the noxious weed and pest animal declaration categories in the CaLP Act. For the categories that represent the most common noxious weeds found on roadsides, regionally prohibited and regionally controlled weeds, alternative policy options were provided for the consideration of the Working Party on the Management of Weeds and Pest Animals on Roadsides.

Policy Options provided by BDA Group

BDA Group focused on the roadside management of three categories of noxious weeds (State prohibited; regionally prohibited; and regionally controlled, as there are no legal requirements to eradicate or control restricted weeds growing on land) and rabbits as an established pest species.

The consultant’s analysis indicated that the benefits from the control of weeds where the management strategy is 'eradicate' (i.e. State prohibited; regionally prohibited) can vary significantly, however, the control costs are very small due to the small areas currently infested on roadsides.

The control benefits for weeds where the management strategy is 'contain' (i.e. regionally controlled) were also found to vary significantly. Roadside control costs for these species, however, can be much more significant as infested areas can be large. Nevertheless, for all but one 'contain' weed, public benefits were estimated to exceed the private control cost on roadsides. The size of net benefits for some weeds were, however, very small, and approaching zero.

The benefit-cost analysis demonstrated that the current control of noxious weeds and rabbits on roadsides is consistent with the broader management of these pests. That is, the incidence and hence control cost of regionally prohibited weeds is small and thus eradication is a viable control strategy despite significant variation in control benefits.

However, BDA Group identified that for those weeds being actively managed where the management strategy is ‘contain’, there was significant variation in net control benefits. In addition, interviews with council officers in the case study regions indicated that there were many regionally controlled weeds present on roadsides that were not currently being managed. BDA Group identified a range of reasons for this, including the current confusion as to liability; lack of resources; the weed not being judged a significant threat; etc., however, in many cases it was because the net benefits of control were expected to be negative.

State prohibited weeds

These weeds either do not occur in Victoria, or are present in very small areas. No State prohibited weeds are currently being controlled on roadside areas.

Drawing on the case study assessments, BDA Group canvassed a range of policy design considerations. The consultant’s key conclusion from the policy investigations was the relative desirability of public decision making at the state or catchment level compared to local decision making by parties more actively engaged in on-ground invasive pest control. Due to the high net benefits that the eradication of State prohibited weeds, and to a slightly lower extent, regionally prohibited weeds can deliver to the protection of agricultural, environmental and amenity assets across the landscape, local decision making is not required on whether the control of individual roadside infestations of these categories of weeds is desirable (from a whole of community perspective). The imperative is to ensure high levels of control are achieved. Accordingly, BDA Group has argued that a uniform statewide regulation requiring the State Government to eradicate State prohibited weeds when identified on roadsides would be the most effective and efficient policy instrument. As the Victorian Government is responsible for the eradication of State prohibited weeds when infestations are detected on landholdings other than roadsides, the inclusion of roadsides within the responsibilities of the State Government would require minimal operational changes (as the State Government already has in place established weed monitoring, control and review procedures).

Regionally prohibited weeds

In the case of regionally prohibited weeds on roadsides, BDA Group suggested the above approach may also be the best policy option for similar reasons. Currently there are only some 144 ha of these weeds identified on roadsides, with an estimated control cost in the order of $300,000 compared to the estimated control benefits of around $10m. Again the imperative would be simply ensuring the eradication of these infestations. However, roadside infestations of these weeds will re-occur (until seed banks are exhausted) as well as new invasions occurring over time, and an alternative policy option would be in placing the liability for the control of regionally prohibited weeds on roadsides, with local stakeholders involved in on-site management of weeds and vegetation on a regular basis.

This option of placing responsibility for control with local stakeholders, may be feasible if those stakeholders were also made accountable for regionally controlled weeds, and accompanying governance, cost sharing and enforcement regimes applicable to regionally prohibited weeds were considered sufficient to provide a very high level of compliance for eradication of these weeds on roadsides.

Regionally controlled weeds and rabbits

The management of regionally controlled weeds and of rabbits was the most vexing for BDA Group from a policy perspective. The benefits and costs of controlling roadside infestations of these pests are highly variable. For those that have started to become established but still pose risks to broader catchment assets, a local decision is required to ascertain whether each infestation should be eradicated, reduced, contained or left untreated.

BDA Group considered that to assist in identifying the most appropriate policy settings regarding the management of weeds and rabbits in this category, the weed or rabbits in the case studies should be assessed on a site by site basis and classified as either to prevent further spread (regionally controlled (contain) weeds) or to focus on protecting roadside assets (regionally controlled (asset protect) weeds).

Regionally controlled (contain) weeds and rabbits

The policy options for these weeds and pest animals were based on consideration of the merits of providing incentives to either road managers or landholders adjacent to roadside infestations. BDA Group concluded that placing the liability for the control of roadside regionally controlled (contain) weeds on adjacent landholders was found to be the least workable option due to the wide variation in circumstances, capabilities and lack of private incentives. These circumstances would lead to poor judgments on appropriate control measures, poor compliance or require a large and ongoing investment in awareness raising, skills development, compliance monitoring and enforcement. In all but two case studies, the cost of controlling each pest on roadsides in the relevant CMA would significantly exceed the benefit to adjacent landholders. Therefore, as a group, adjacent landholders have no private economic incentive to contain roadside noxious weeds. Even in the case of African Love Grass where roadside control would deliver a net benefit to adjacent landholders, the position of individual landholders would vary considerably, such that many would have little incentive to control the roadside pest.

BDA Group’s preferred regulatory option was to place the responsibility for the control of roadside regionally controlled (contain) weeds on road managers. They are well placed to deliver roadside control measures in terms of their capacity, skills and cost-effectiveness and they are also best placed to undertake local decision-making regarding an efficient control effort. The major challenges with this option were considered to be ensuring their decisions align with the broader catchment and state interest and they have the necessary resources to undertake the identified control measures.

The two workable policy alternatives identified by BDA Group to manage regionally controlled weeds and rabbits on roadsides, where the objective is to contain their spread rather than focus on the protection of roadside assets, were to make (local) roadside managers responsible for their control and to either:

do nothing else, effectively imposing on road managers the same requirements as placed on private landholders (under the CaLP Act) to contain the spread of these weeds and rabbits; or
establish cost-sharing arrangements that allow road managers (local government and state agencies where applicable) to recoup from the state government 'some' of their costs in containing the spread of the weeds and rabbits on roadsides - with the exact cost-sharing to reflect relative priorities, ensure appropriate resourcing and given equity considerations.

It was noted that providing regulatory oversight of council decision-making would present significant cost and governance difficulties for the State Government where there was significant opposition from local government due to the cost implications faced under the first alternative. The dual problems of oversight and resourcing could, however, be addressed through complementary cost-sharing arrangements (second alternative).

Regionally controlled (asset protect) weeds and rabbits

There will be other instances where the primary policy goal for regionally controlled weeds or rabbits will focus on protecting the economic, environmental and social assets on roadsides, rather than contain their spread from the roadside.

This is because for these pests, off-site benefits from their control on roadsides will be minimal, as these pests are already widely spread and controlled by landholders where they present a material risk, be it to agricultural, environmental or amenity assets. Roadside control of these pests is directed solely at realising on-site benefits. BDA Group, therefore, considered that from a policy perspective there was a weaker rationale on both efficiency and equity grounds to place the responsibility for roadside control of these pests on off-site landholders, adjacent or otherwise.

While there is some opportunistic use of roadside areas for cropping and grazing, the primary focus of roadside asset protection will relate to protecting native vegetation and threatened species. The environmental benefits arising from such protection, whether on roadsides or more broadly, will accrue to wider local, regional and state communities, and in some instances, to national and international communities. BDA Group argued that it is impractical and governments would face enormous transaction costs to make these beneficiaries responsible, or to even collect financial contributions from them, reflective of the benefits they enjoy. Therefore, promoting environmental asset protection generally relies on local, state and national governments, on behalf of broader beneficiaries, variously employing regulatory and incentive instruments to promote desired environmental outcomes.

In these circumstances, BDA Group considered the management objective should be to empower local asset managers to determine efficient levels of control given the costs and benefits involved and risks to the assets. The consultant considered that it could be argued that the circumstances of roadside managers are no different to that of asset managers on other landholdings, and hence no specific duty may be needed to manage these pests on roadsides.

However, given the significance of environmental assets on roadsides in some catchments, an alternative approach would be to include the management of regionally controlled weeds and rabbits, where the management objective is asset protection, with those considered above where the objective is containment. In this way, cost-sharing arrangements with the State Government could be used as incentive funding to compensate for any deficiencies in its broader remnant vegetation and environmental policy framework. Under this option, the management of all regionally controlled weeds and rabbits on roadsides would face the same policy settings, with incentives offered through cost-sharing arrangements used to signal broader catchment and state priorities for containing these pests and protecting roadside assets.

WORKING PARTY’S RECOMMENDED APPROACH BASED ON BDA GROUP’S REPORT

BDA Group has provided valuable guidance to the working party and has raised some alternative policy options regarding the responsibility for management of different categories of weeds and of rabbits on roadsides, as well as canvassing various funding options to meet the costs of those who might be given such management responsibilities.

The Working Party has considered the consultant’s recommendations in the context of the Invasive Plants and Animals Policy Framework. This indicates that the Victorian Government’s focus will be on preventing the entry into Victoria of new high risk Invasive Plants and Animals, eradicating those that are at an early stage of establishment, contain where possible those species that are beyond eradication, and if widespread, utilise an assets-based approach towards their management. The IPAPF also indicates that achieving this goal will be greatly assisted by working in partnership with industry and communities.

The IPAPF identifies that while considerable success has been achieved in the past in controlling IPAs, it “is not feasible or cost-effective for government to enforce or fund the control of all currently declared noxious invasive plant and animal species in the state, …”.

Range of available Policy Instruments

BDA Group identified four main categories of government intervention (policy approaches) to achieve effective control of roadside weeds and pest animals: suasive instruments, regulatory instruments, market based instruments, and public provision of services and infrastructure.

Suasive approaches

Suasive approaches are policy tools that encourage changes in behaviour through the provision of information. They can also include broader approaches such as capacity building and community engagement. Suasive instruments can be successful if they can persuade people it is in their private interest to change their behaviour or practices and there is sufficient information and advice to help make the changes. In general, the changes need to have a private benefit for these approaches to be successful. Some changes to promote largely public benefits may be possible if the costs of changing behaviour are small.

Types of suasive instruments include general education programs, guidelines and codes of practice, training and extension programs, and research to develop more cost-effective technologies.

Regulation

Regulatory approaches require changes in behaviour by introducing penalties for parties who don’t comply with the regulatory provisions. Regulatory approaches can be very effective where a high level of certainty of the environmental outcome is required, the link between the threat and environmental outcome is clear and regulations can target known low cost abatement practices.

However, prescriptive regulations that do not provide flexibility to affected parties can impose significant costs. Types of regulatory instruments include standards (including planning instruments), licensing and mandatory management plans and covenants.

Market based instruments

Market based instruments are policy tools that encourage certain behaviours through market signals rather than through explicit directives. In this way, governments do not require detailed information on who is best placed to make changes and how, rather this information can be ‘revealed’ by the market. By ‘harnessing market forces’, market based instruments can reduce overall environmental compliance costs by encouraging the firms that face the lowest costs to make the greatest improvements.

Accordingly, market based instruments are best used when there are a range of agents who can make changes, where there is diversity in the means of achieving the environmental outcome, and importantly, where there are significant cost differences between these ways and agents. Market based instruments generally operate as either a price or quantity based instrument.

Price based instruments assign a price to environmental impacts within existing markets through the imposition of charges, taxes or subsidies. While these instruments cannot guarantee the extent of changes, they act to cap the costs incurred under the instrument.

Quantity based or ‘tradeable rights’ instruments create a market in the rights to engage in an activity associated with specified resource uses or environmental damage, by restricting the total level of activity and allocating rights to participate in that activity. Tradeable rights instruments tend to be used when it is important to get a certain environmental outcome.

Public provision

The provision of a good or service directly by government is often used where the good displays the characteristics of public goods. That is, the good or service is “non-rival” and “non-exclusive”. Examples include the provision of salt interception schemes, stormwater infrastructure and ecological services (such as public reserves).

The Working Party has focused on regulatory instruments and public provision of services as the appropriate policy instruments for achieving the goals of roadside weed and pest control.

Proposed Responsibilities for Roadside Weed and Pest Control

State prohibited weeds

Responsible for overall management of response:

State Government (DPI)

Responsible for on-site management:

State roads (mainly freeways and arterial roads outside urban areas) – DPI

Municipal roads* – DPI

Other roads^# - DPI

* Municipal roads - Roads listed on a municipality’s ‘Road Register’.

^# Other roads - Roads that are neither State roads nor Municipal roads.

Funding of response:

State roads – State Government (100%)

Municipal roads – State Government (100%)

Other roads - State Government (100%)

Regionally prohibited weeds

Responsible for overall management of response:

State Government (DPI)

Responsible for on-site management:

State roads – VicRoads

Municipal roads – Local government

Other roads – Land manager

Funding of response:

State roads – State Government [VicRoads] (100%)

Municipal roads – State Government (100%)

Other roads – Land manager (100%)

Regionally controlled weeds & rabbits

Responsible for overall management of response:

State Government (DPI)

Responsible for on-site management:

State roads – VicRoads

Municipal roads – Local government

Other roads – Land manager

Funding of response:

State roads – State Government [VicRoads] (100%)

Municipal roads – cost shared between State Gov’t/local gov’t *

Other roads – Land manager (100%)

* see comments below regarding funding options.

Comments on Proposed Arrangements

For State prohibited weeds, the aim is to eradicate them from the State, if they are present. The Government should be responsible for eradication operations and funding of those operations on roadsides, in a similar manner to its responsibilities for exotic animal and plant biosecurity threats. It is envisaged that DPI would directly engage contractors to carry out the required eradication activities. DPI would need to liaise with VicRoads, local Councils and other land managers to eradicate such weeds on the roadsides for which they have responsibility for road management objectives.

It is envisaged that there would be a uniform statewide regulatory instrument giving the State Government power to eradicate State prohibited weeds when identified on roadsides.

In the case of regionally prohibited weeds on roadsides, the preferred policy solution would be a uniform statewide regulation requiring the eradication of regionally prohibited weeds on roadsides with the responsibility for complying with the regulation falling on road managers. However, because of the small areas involved, and the need to be confident that a high level of compliance would be achieved, it is suggested that the State Government be responsible for funding any control activities for regionally prohibited weeds on municipal roads. It will be important that only weeds that are capable of eradication from a catchment area are included in this category for a particular CMA.

For regionally controlled weeds and rabbits, appropriate management action can vary depending upon the circumstances at a particular site, thus reinforcing the need for site-specific decisions regarding the extent and nature of any control effort. Policy settings need to allow for local decision-making and differential control actions.

Placing responsibility on road managers for implementing arrangements for effective on-site management of regionally prohibited weeds, regionally controlled weeds andrabbits was chosen as road managers generally have access to weed management capabilities and some control might already be occurring as part of broader weed, vegetation and rabbit control to promote road management objectives (such as vehicle safety, fire hazard reduction, maintenance of roadside amenity, etc). The Working Party agreed with the BDA Group that placing on-site management responsibility for the control of roadside weeds and rabbits on adjacent landholders was not a satisfactory option due to the wide variation in circumstances, capabilities and lack of private incentives for such action by these stakeholders.

Cost-sharing between State Government and councils regarding regionally controlled weeds and rabbits

Cost-sharing between the State Government and councils has been proposed for activities to manage regionally controlled weeds and rabbits on municipal roads.

Two types of cost-sharing to support the efficient management of such activities were identified by the consultant:

funding for capacity building by councils to manage regionally controlled weeds on roadsides, which could include development of weed and rabbit management plans, training, weed mapping, skills development and equipment. This type of capital funding support lends itself to a grants program; and/or
funding to meet incident response costs which are not known in advance although councils would be seeking certainty in the funding support available. This suits formulae based funding support (e.g.: dollar for dollar cost-sharing).

In both cases appropriate cost-sharing governance processes would be needed to ensure council decision-making did align with broader state interests, that full compliance was being achieved, and cost shifting in relation to the management of other weeds species did not occur. Importantly, the administrative and governance processes would not need to be established on a ‘weed by weed’ basis. Rather annual reporting on the implementation of a Council’s Roadside Weed and Rabbit management plan should suffice, subject to the State Government having access to independent and robust advice on whether the treatment of regionally controlled weeds and rabbits aligned with catchment objectives.

Methodology for councils to discharge their responsibilities regarding regionally controlled weeds and rabbits

Local government’s obligation to manage regionally controlled weeds and rabbits in relation to municipal roadsides, needs to be limited to where the following criteria are met:

sustained community led action, by an appropriately recognised group (e.g. Landcare, a statewide or regionally based community led group), is making progress in managing target regionally controlled weeds or rabbits in a defined geographic location;
roadside weed management is needed to meet the objectives of this community led group and/or roadsides represent a significant pathway of spread for the targeted regionally controlled weeds or rabbits;
State and regional (CMA) priorities are being appropriately addressed, including the need to contain priority species and to protect key assets both on the roadsides and in the surrounding private and public land; and
Community led action is clearly producing public benefit.

Although, their role may be extended to other conditions and species if a local government body so desires and if it is prepared to fully fund such extra activity.

The provisions in Division 5 (s 50) of the Road Management Act 2004 for the development of a council road management plan, could be a useful model for councils to adopt regarding controlling weeds and rabbits on municipal roads within their jurisdiction.

The Act (S.50) defines the purposes of a road management plan as follows:

The purposes of a road management plan are having regard to the principal

object of road management and the works and infrastructure management

principles-

(a) to establish a management system for the road management functions of a road authority which is based on policy and operational objectives and available resources; and

(b) to set the relevant standard in relation to the discharge of duties in the performance of those road management functions.

Thus, local government would have its role defined as preparing and implementing an agreed ‘Roadside Weed and Rabbit Control Plan’ that would include measures to minimise roadsides as a source of weed and rabbit problems for others. Implementation of the Plan would be cost shared with the State Government. However, weed hygiene measures, such as minimising the risk of seed spread on machinery used on roadsides, would need to be met by local government funding.

In preparing the plan the municipality will be required to consult with its community on a range of matters. These could include:

Philosophical approach to weed and rabbit control
Level of resources available to devote to weed and rabbit control
Priority species of weeds for control
Method of treatment
Other local issues relating to weeds and rabbits on roads.

The responsibility to consult could be extended to other stakeholders, e.g., CMA, DSE, DPI and others regional/state organisations. This may assist the Plan to be integrated with the wider plan(s) for the catchment(s) in which the municipality was located.

Each council would have the flexibility to determine the methods of delivering the Plan.

The Working Party recognised that DPI may need to support some councils with the development of an initial Plan.

A description of a possible cost-sharing funding model for councils with a rural road network, is in Appendix 2.

The key elements in the proposed model are:

Each council would receive the same quantum of annual funding from the State Government for administration of its Plan;
Each council would be eligible to receive the same maximum quantum of annual funding (not cost shared) from the State Government for implementation of its Plan. Actual amount received determined by operational costs in Plan;
The actual quantum of funding for administration and for ‘non cost shared’ operations (see previous two dot points) would need to be determined by the State Government in consultation with MAV.
Each council would be eligible to apply for a further quantum of annual funding for operational aspects of its Plan from the State Government, which would be matched by the council with the ratio for cost sharing being based on ‘the level of stress’ of each council;
The method for determining the ratios to be used would need to be developed by the State Government in consultation with MAV;
The total amount of State Government funds available for each council would be influenced by the total amount of State Government funds available for management of noxious weeds and rabbits on roadsides;
The maximum amount of State Government funds available to any council would be capped at the amount determined by the State Government in consultation with MAV; and
Any expenditure by a council above the maximum funding level agreed with the State Government would be fully funded by a council.
It could be legislated that a Plan must include a number of matters so that it can be considered “reasonable”, for example:
Priority weeds for control during the period of the Plan would be listed;
A list of principles (if and when defined) to be met so that a council adopting this methodology for discharging its responsibilities regarding Regionally Controlled weeds and rabbits, is deemed to comply with its legislative obligations;
Response of a council if principles are met;
DPI auditing of Plans to ensure that they comply with any legislated principles;
Plans should be reviewed every 4 years.

Such an approach to managing regionally controlled weeds and rabbits on roadsides adopts the suasive policy instrument identified in the BDA Group’s report. It allows local government to engage the community in identifying local priorities for weed and rabbit control and develop acceptable response strategies whilst maintaining control of resource commitments. It imposes a responsibility of leadership on local government but allows each council to manage the burden of weed and rabbit control in such a manner that it remains affordable both to it and the State Government.

Legislative Issues

As has been previously noted, the CaLP Act (and other legislation) influences the management of invasive plants and animals on roadsides. Unintended complexity has been generated by 15 years of incremental statutory amendments combined with a diversity of road ownership and management. Further change as recommended in this Report, without clarifying duties in the legislation, may provide little benefit.

To implement the proposed arrangement for State prohibited weeds, there would need to be a uniform statewide regulatory instrument giving the State Government power to eradicate State prohibited weeds when identified on roadsides.

In the case of regionally prohibited weeds on roadsides, to effectively implement the preferred policy solution, a uniform statewide regulation would be needed that required the eradication of regionally prohibited weeds on roadsides with responsibility for complying with the regulation falling on road managers.

In regards to regionally controlled weeds and rabbits there would need to be a change in legislation to require councils to prepare and implement a Roadside Weed and Rabbit Control Plan, which was consistent with broader catchment and state interests. The legislation would need to acknowledge that this would be the mechanism for councils to meet their responsibilities in regards to controlling regionally controlled weeds and rabbits on municipal roads.

Also, DPI should have power to audit that each Council had prepared an appropriate Plan by the due date.

Amending the relevant legislation will clarify responsibilities for roadside weed and pest management and may allow DPI to more effectively enforce implementation of appropriate control strategies across a broad area of land, including use of Priority Area Notices, to achieve coordinated action on a particular weed or pest by all landowners in an area.

APPENDIX A

Weed infestations on roadsides across Victoria

In the following Table, a breakdown of each noxious pest plant species included in the study, is provided by each Catchment Management Authority (CMA). Total roadside area of all Regionally Prohibited weeds in Victoria was 144 ha and the total roadside area of Regionally Controlled weeds was 10,692 ha. For each species included in the study their noxious weed classification (prohibited or controlled) is also shown for each CMA. The highlighted cells indicate species and CMAs included in the case studies.

Table A1: Noxious weed species included in the study

Species	Mallee	North Central	Wimmera	Glenelg-Hopkins	Coran-gamite	Port Phillip	Goulburn Broken	North East	West Gippsland	East Gippsland
Table 1: Noxious weed species included in the study (ha)

Prohibited	4	7	10	7	7	21	9	16	13	13
Controlled	14	30	31	29	30	50	46	54	38	28
Number recorded on roadsides	5	28	28	21	13	27	7	20	6	20
Roadside area (ha)
Prohibited	0	32	14	19	0	17	0	13	0	49
Controlled	225	344	1705	865	737	3491	28	345	578	2373

Total in study	2	5	2	3	2	3	2	2	2	6


African boxthorn	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C
African love grass	R	C	R	R	C	C	C	C	C	C
Bathurst burr	R	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C
Blackberry	R	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C
Boneseed	C	P	C	C	C	C	C	P	C	P
Californian thistle	R	P	C	C	C	C	C	P	C	C
Cape tulip (2 leaf)	P	C	P	C	P	C	P	C	P	P
English broom	R	R	P	R	C	C	C	C	C	P
Flax-leaved broom	R	R	C	R	C	C	R	P	C	P
Gorse	R	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	P
Hardheads	C	C	C	P	P	P	C	P	R	R
Hoary cress	C	R	R	R	C	C	C	P	C	R
Horehound	R	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C
Pampas lily of the valley	R	R	R	R	R	C	R	C	R	P
Paterson's curse	R	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C
Ragwort	R	R	R	C	C	C	P	P	C	C
Scotch thistle	R	P	R	C	C	P	C	C	C	C
Serrated tussock	P	P	P	P	C	C	P	P	C	P
Spiny rush	R	C	C	C	R	C	C	C	C	C
Stinkwort	R	R	R	R	R	C	R	C	R	R
Sweet briar	R	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C

Note: C = Regionally Controlled; P = Regionally Prohibited: and R = Regionally Restricted. Data sourced from DPI on 2nd February 2011.

APPENDIX B

Potential cost sharing model

The following model is proposed to apply only to the costs of managing regionally controlled weeds and rabbits on municipal roads. Costs of treating regionally prohibited weeds (which are of very limited occurrence on roadsides) would be dealt with separately with 100% funding to councils from DPI.

The model below deals with the annual costs of administering and implementing a multi-year plan for management of regionally controlled weeds and rabbits. There may be a need for additional arrangements to address the costs to prepare the initial plan.

The dollar figures and ratios below are for the purposes of illustrating a possible cost sharing approach; the actual values would need to be determined by the State Government in consultation with MAV.

Key features (all figures are annual)

Each council would be provided with $3000 from the State Government for administration of its Plan, to cover activities such as contractor management, reporting and public consultation.
Each council would be eligible to receive up to $40,000 from the State Government for operations to implement its Plan. No council contribution is required to match this amount. The actual amount provided for some councils may be less than this maximum if the Plan developed by the council has lower implementation costs.
Each council would be eligible for further funding from the State Government for operational aspects of its Plan, which would matched by the council, at a ratio based on ‘the level of stress’ of each council, i.e. 1:3 for ‘highly stressed’ councils, 1:2 for ‘stressed’ councils and 1:1 for all others;
The total amount of State Government funds available for the cost shared component of the model would be determined by the total amount of State Government funds available for management of noxious weeds and rabbits on roadsides, such that not all proposed cost shared amounts might be available in full; and
• The maximum amount of State Government funds (including all elements above) provided to any individual council is capped at $100,000. Any expenditure in a council’s plan above this would be fully funded by a Council.

The table below presents outcomes for ‘highly stressed’, ‘stressed’ and ‘non-stressed’ councils proposing plans of different scales (minimum, medium, large).

	Operational cost of plan	DPI payment*	Council cost

Highly Stressed council, small minimum	$47,000	$45,250	$1,750
Highly Stressed council, medium plan	$82,000	$71,500	$10,500
Highly Stressed council, large plan	$124,000	$97,000	$27,000

Stressed council, small minimum	$47,000	$44,666	$2,334
Stressed council, medium plan	$82,000	$68,000	$14,000
Stressed council, large plan	$124,000	$96,000	$28,000

Non-stressed council, small minimum	$47,000	$43,500	$3,500
Non-stressed council, medium plan	$82,000	$61,000	$21,000
Non-stressed council, large plan	$124,000	$82,000	$42,000

* DPI payment for operational costs. An additional $3000 administration fee will also be paid to all councils.