Transforming Regional Biosecurity Response Research Collaboration

Invasive Animals CRC and Department of Agriculture and Food WA

Biosecurity group case study 2017

Peel Harvey Biosecurity Group

2

Prepared by Dr Tanya M Howard, Dr Andrew Lawson and Michael Coleman (University of New England) in collaboration with DAFWA staff and PHBG members and staff. This report was produced as part of the Invasive Animals CRC project ‘Increasing Stakeholder Participation in Biosecurity Management’ and was funded by Western Australian Royalties for Regions. June 2017.

Contact: Tanya Howard, Post-doctoral research fellow Invasive Animals CRC Australian Centre for Agriculture and Law University of New England, NSW 2350 email: thoward9@une.edu.au phone: 0417 002 084

3

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4

The context .................................................................................................................... 5

Geography ................................................................................................................................. 5

Agriculture and industry ............................................................................................................. 7

Demographics ...........................................................................................................................10

Legal and policy settings: Biosecurity group development ........................................................12

The development of a biosecurity group: Peel Harvey BG ..................................... 13

The trigger for group development: cotton bush ........................................................................14

Group governance ....................................................................................................................15

Group structure and participation ..............................................................................................17

Funding .....................................................................................................................................19

Group activity: narrow leaf cotton bush .....................................................................................20

Beyond a single species: expanding the focus of PHBG ...........................................................21

Lessons for Biosecurity Group Development ................................................................ 21

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix A: context of the study ......................................................................................... 25

Appendix B: Methodology ................................................................................................... 27

Appendix C .......................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix D ......................................................................................................................... 31

References .......................................................................................................................... 35

4

Introduction This case study describes how a local community of landholders has organised as a

biosecurity group to support invasive species management in the South-West of

Western Australia. The Peel Harvey Biosecurity Group (PHBG) formed in 2014 in

response to public concern about the widespread impact of pests, particularly the

invasive weed known as cotton bush.

Until March 2017, the PHBG operated under the auspices of Landcare Serpentine

Jarrahdale. The Group is now an incorporated body under the WA Associations

Incorporation Act 2015. Funding from Department of Agriculture and Food Western

Australia (DAFWA) and five local Shire Councils has supported the group since 2014.

Royalties for Regions funding from the DAFWA Transforming Regional Biosecurity

Response project was awarded to support group formation and official recognition

under the Biosecurity Agriculture Management Act 2007.1 The PHBG is planning to

apply for recognition by the Minister for Agriculture in 2017.

This case study charts the development of the group and provides insights about the

process of becoming a Recognised Biosecurity Group. It was collected in 2016/17 as

part of a collaboration between the DAFWA 'Transforming Regional Biosecurity

Response' project and the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. It combines

written evidence from a desktop review with participant questionnaires and interviews.

The purpose was to present a readable account of how a community group has

responded to the challenge of invasive species management and biosecurity group

development.

This resource may be helpful to communities who are thinking of forming a biosecurity

group and want to know what other groups have experienced during this process. It will

also be helpful for government staff working with community members and those

interested in understanding more about ‘community-led’ models of biosecurity

Details of the 'Transforming Regional Biosecurity Response' project and the case study methodology are attached in Appendix A.

5

management.

NB: The case study presents a snapshot in time and will need to be regularly updated due to

the rapidly changing context of biosecurity management in Western Australia.

The context

This section provides a brief overview of the geographic, economic and

demographic context that the Peel Harvey Biosecurity Group operates in. This data

has been collected from publicly available resources in a desk-top study. There is

some discrepancy between the boundaries of the Peel Economic Development

Region and the boundaries of the PHBG; however, this information provides a useful

indication of key land uses in the region.

Geography The Peel Harvey Biosecurity Group (PHBG) is located in south-western Western

Australia.2 At this point in time, its operational area includes the Shires of Serpentine

Jarrahdale, Murray, Waroona and Harvey, as well as the City of Mandurah. This area

incorporates the Swan Coastal Plain and foothill sections of the Peel Harvey

Catchment.

6

Figure 1: the Peel Harvey BG operational area as of June 2017

7

European settlement of the district first occurred in the 1840s, due to an abundance of

freshwater streams and rich soils. By the turn of the 20th century the Harvey River area

had become renowned for its orchards, mixed farming, dairying, and timber getting. To

this day, agricultural production is supported by an extensive dairying system.

A range of national parks and state forests fall within the PHBG operational area,

generally to the east but with some presence near the coast. These include Jarrahdale

State Forest; Serpentine National Park; Dwellingup State Forest; Myalup State Forest;

Lane Poole Reserve; and Harris River State Forest.3 The region has a geographically

diverse landscape, featuring urban, agricultural and horticultural land, a forested

escarpment, and approximately 50km of coastline. It is a popular day trip destination for

Perth residents, both for its beach and coastal attractions as well as attractions in

Dwellingup (bush trails, camping, natural areas, wineries) and the Serpentine Valley

(historical attractions, wineries and cheese, markets, bush walking, cycling and horse

riding).4

Agriculture and industry

The Peel Economic Development Region (the Peel Region) comprises the PHBG-

affiliated shires of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, Mandurah, Murray, and Waroona. The Peel

Region also comprises of the Shire of Boddington, which at this present time, is not

affiliated with the PHBG.

8

Figure 2: map illustrating the Peel region

Western Australia's first mining operation was established in the Peel Region, and today

mining and mineral processing are the most important sector to the local economy, with

mineral production including bauxite, gold, mineral sands, and aluminium (including two

aluminium refineries).5 Mining and industrial booms in the region from the 1960s

contributed to the rapid growth of the regional population, particularly in Mandurah.6

Mandurah is not a mining community; however, there are a number of nearby mines

which provide employment for the town's residents.7

Although the district economy is dominated by mining, the agricultural economy makes

up a large proportion of the region, and was estimated at $125 million in 2011-12. Areas

9

of agricultural production include livestock (including significant pork and poultry

sectors), flower crops, livestock feed crops (e.g. hay), vegetables (particularly melons),

and livestock by-products such as milk, wool and eggs.8 Further south, Harvey is

considered the centre of the South West Region's dairy industry, however horticulture is

dominant in the South West, with fruit and vegetable production comprising some 40%

of the region's agricultural production in 2008-09. Total crop production (all crops) was

valued at $348.5 million.9

Timber production has historically been important in the region; however, recently the

industry has entered a period of decline.10 Combined data on the production of

agricultural commodities in 2010-11 shows that there were some 798 agricultural

businesses, with a total holding of just under 165,000 hectares.11 Total grazing area

across the region was just over 130,000 hectares, of which over 110,000 was improved

pasture. Approximately 7,500 hectares was dedicated to crop production, while hay and

silage was grown on over 18,000 hectares of land. The Peel Region is home to a

diverse livestock production base, including some 88,000 head of meat cattle, 31,000

head of dairy cattle, 41,000 head of sheep, 51,000 pigs, and 15,000 laying hens.

Broad acre cropping is minimal in this region, with crop production heavily reliant on

irrigation. The Harvey Water Irrigation Area makes the extensive dairy and horticulture

industries in the region possible. Approximately 10,000 hectares of land are under

permanent irrigation, with a total irrigable area of around 30,000 hectares. Irrigated

cropping involves cut flowers and cultivated turf, and approximately 2,000 hectares of

vegetable crop production (with key varieties including broccoli, capsicums, lettuce,

melons, onions, potatoes, and beans). Orchard-based horticulture is also very

significant, with around 190,000 trees planted across the region. Major fruit and nut

varieties include citrus (particularly oranges and mandarins, but also lemons and limes),

stone fruit (including nectarines, plums, olives, peaches, nectarines), apples and pears,

macadamia nuts, and avocadoes.

10

Demographics

A recent survey of local residents rated the most positive aspects of life in the region as

its lifestyle benefits, happiness, health and general well-being, safety, and sense of

community.12

Approximately two-thirds of the Peel population lives in the city of Mandurah. At the time

of the 2011 Census, the PHBG shires had a combined population of 128,616, with the

majority of these residents (69,903) residing in the Shire of Mandurah. Mandurah

(originally settled in 1829) is a popular lifestyle destination for retirees from Perth, and is

closely connected to the Perth CBD courtesy of a recently opened railway line and

freeway. In recent decades it has grown rapidly from a series of isolated holiday

communities along the shores of the Peel-Harvey Estuary, to become Western

Australia's second-largest city.13

Demographic data on each of the Local Government Areas (LGA) of Serpentine-

Jarrahdale, Mandurah, Murray, Waroona, and Harvey are available from the 2011

Census Basic Community Profiles.14 Some comparison is made in Table 1 below

between the sum data from these five LGAs and data for the Shire of Mandurah, given

that this is a largely urban shire in contrast to the others, which include a mix of rural

and urban residents.

Prominent sectors of employment in the region include construction (13.8%),

manufacturing (13.3 per cent), and retail trade (11.5 per cent). Despite the stated

importance of mining to the region, this sector only employed 6.6 per cent of residents

directly in 2011, though it is likely that many of the manufacturing and construction

sector workers work in support of the mining industry. Agriculture only employed 2.6 per

cent of the PHBG workforce in 2011, though this number varied greatly from 0.7 per

cent in the Shire of Mandurah, to 6.2 per cent of residents in the Shire of Waroona. In

the shires of Murray and Harvey, agriculture accounts for 4.5 per cent and 4.9 per cent

of the workforce respectively, but overall it does not appear to be a major source of

employment and growth in this economically diverse region.

11

Table 1 Selected socio-economic data for the PHBG Local Government Areas (LGAs), and Australia. NB: 2016 Census data is not available at time of report.

Serp

entin

e- Jarrah

dale LG

A

Waro

on

a LG

A

Man

du

rah

LGA

M

urray LG

A

Harvey LG

A

Au

stralia

2

00

1 2

00

6 2

01

1 2

00

1 2

00

6 2

01

1 2

00

1 2

00

6 2

01

1 2

00

1 2

00

6 2

01

1 2

00

1 2

00

6 2

01

1 2

01

1

Po

pu

lation

1

11

20

12

89

0 1

7,7

46

32

76

33

10

3,5

82

45

02

0 5

37

79

69

,90

3 1

00

61

11

45

1 1

4,1

49

17

27

2 1

89

26

23

,23

6 2

1,5

07,7

19

Pro

po

rtion

of

residen

ts aged 5

5

or o

lder (%

)

16

.7 2

1

20

.5 2

1.3

25

.9 3

0.3

28

.7 3

3.3

33

.4 2

8.3

31

.9 3

3.5

16

.9 2

0.7

23

.2 2

5.6

Med

ian age o

f resid

ents (years)

35

3

7

35

3

6

39

4

2

39

4

2

41

4

0

42

4

3

33

3

6

37

3

7

Pro

po

rtion

of

residen

ts female

(%)

49

4

8.6

49

.2 5

0.6

50

.4 5

0.5

51

.4 5

1.7

51

.2 4

9.3

49

.8 4

9.3

49

.5 4

9.6

49

.8 5

0.6

Pro

po

rtion

of

residen

ts male

(%)

50

.9 5

1.3

50

.8 4

9.9

49

.5 4

9.5

48

.5 4

8.2

48

.8 4

9.8

50

.1 5

0.7

50

.4 5

0.3

50

.2 4

9.4

Med

ian w

eekly h

ou

seho

ld in

com

e ($

)

92

1 1

23

3 1

,63

8 7

19

95

7 1

,10

7 5

86

81

2 9

84

63

4 8

72

1,0

69

85

3 1

14

7 1

,46

4 1

,23

4

Med

ian m

on

thly

mo

rtgage p

aymen

ts ($)

91

4 1

35

4 2

,16

7 7

00

10

83

1,5

17

78

1 1

20

0 1

,95

0 7

37

11

48

1,9

50

86

7 1

13

8 1

,84

2 1

,80

0

Med

ian w

eekly ren

t ($)

12

0 1

53

30

9 1

00

13

0 2

00

12

5 1

70

27

0 1

00

14

0 2

45

12

2 1

60

26

0 2

85

Pro

po

rtion

of

occu

pied

d

wellin

gs ow

ned

o

utrigh

t (%)*

37

.1 3

3.5

27

.6 4

4.2

37

.7 3

6.5

39

.3 3

3.6

31

.1 4

2.8

38

.2 3

5.6

36

.5 3

1.4

30

.6 3

2.1

Pro

po

rtion

of

occu

pied

d

wellin

gs ow

ned

w

ith a m

ortgage

(%)*

44

.6 5

0.6

55

.3 4

4.9

35

.4 3

6.6

30

.3 2

9.8

31

.9 2

9.4

33

3

6.9

35

.9 3

9.2

42

.1 3

4.9

Pro

po

rtion

of

residen

ts aged 1

5

or o

lder w

ith a

no

n-sch

oo

l, u

niversity o

r certificate-level q

ualificatio

n (%

)

32

.9 3

7.4

41

.7 4

8.6

49

.3 3

5.4

31

.4 3

8.7

38

.3 2

9.9

40

.7 3

5.1

29

.9 3

6.2

41

.5 4

4.9

12

Legal and policy settings: Biosecurity group development

Landholders and land occupiers are responsible for declared pest species control on

their own properties under the Western Australian Biosecurity and Agriculture

Management Act 2007 (the BAM Act).15

Through the Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFWA), the Western Australian

State Government currently offers some financial and organisational support for private

landholders to control declared pest species via regional, community-based Biosecurity

Groups (BGs). The purpose of these groups is to facilitate coordinated cross-tenure

management of declared pests, in support of (rather than as a replacement for) the

responsibility of the individual landholder to manage declared pests on their land.16

Any group whose purpose includes the control of a declared pest can apply to the

Minister for Agriculture to become a Recognised Biosecurity Group (RBG) under the

BAM Act. The recognition process was first established in the pastoral rangelands of

WA and has been subsequently rolled out in the South-West region of the state. The

process requires community members to organise and incorporate as a group under the

WA Associations Incorporation Act 2015. The group must demonstrate evidence of

strategic direction, community acceptance and on ground biosecurity activities in order

to receive recognition.17

Once groups have been recognised, they become eligible for financial support through

a Declared Pest Rate, which all landholders within the prescribed area are required to

pay. The Biosecurity Group develops an operational plan, which details on ground

biosecurity activities and determines the amount to be raised through a rate approved

by the Minister, which is then collected by the Commissioner of Taxation through the

Office of State Revenue. Rates are to be matched dollar for dollar with State

Government funds, and returned to the RBG to fund their activities. If a group decides

not to have a declared pest rate determined in their area, they are not eligible for the

government matched funding.

13

The recognition process is evolving in response to community needs, policy reform and

funding changes. A contraction of DAFWA services in the areas of compliance and

invasive species management has emphasised the need for community-led action.

However, this change in historic patterns of service delivery and support has created

tension that has influenced the recognition process. DAFWA has flagged the intention to

support biosecurity group activities by providing advice on governance, operational

planning, and assistance with community consultation, technical advice, and operational

support.18

The development of a biosecurity group: Peel Harvey BG

This section draws on survey responses from PHBG staff, members and DAFWA

staff and describes the evolution and key activities of Peel Harvey BG.

The Peel Harvey Biosecurity Group emerged from a period of public pressure on local

government to control cotton bush more effectively. A reduction in DAFWA services had

created a vacuum in compliance enforcement for those landholders who were not

meeting their responsibility under the BAM Act. The Shire of Murray convened an initial

community meeting in February 2013 where DAFWA representatives presented

information about the new funding arrangement that was linked to the RBG model. The

suitability of this model was discussed at this meeting. A lack of viable alternatives led

local government to support the establishment of a Biosecurity Group in the hope that a

community-led coordinated approach might reduce community concerns. Five shires

came together to offer financial support to this emerging group and this provided a

substantial funding base to get the group up and running.

Initially the group focused their efforts on identifying non-compliant landholders and

bringing them to the attention of DAFWA. However, the high visibility of committee

members in their local community left them vulnerable to criticism and resentment about

their role in supporting the government compliance regime. Committee members

became increasingly concerned that this approach would make it impossible to gain

community trust and support for the biosecurity group. In 2015 a number of community

14

members holding executive positions on the committee resigned, citing frustration with

DAFWA and a lack of clarity about the role of biosecurity groups in a ‘community-led’

model of biosecurity management.

The remaining committee members continued despite their misgivings and in 2016 the

group employed a part-time Executive Officer. This resulted in a change of focus for the

group, away from compliance to community engagement. The PHBG has since

renewed efforts to raise awareness of biosecurity impacts and the role of the community

in addressing these impacts. Gaining the support of the broader community for a

‘community-led’ approach is a key strategy for the group and they have minimised

discussion about a Declared Pest Rate in order to diffuse the tension around this

controversial levy. Since then, the PHBG has focused on strategic planning to show the

value of the group to the broader community in dealing with their biosecurity issues. The

objective is to gain legitimacy and acceptance from their landholders.

The trigger for group development: cotton bush

Narrow leaf cotton bush was the invasive species that triggered community action and

started the group development process in this case.

Narrow leaf cotton bush is currently listed as a declared pest species for some 57 shires

in the South West Land Division of Western Australia. It is most likely to be present

along the Darling Scarp from Perth in the north to Bunbury and Collie in the south, with

heavy impact in the PHBG operational area.19

Cotton bush was originally introduced as a garden species from southern Africa. Its

impact is greatest in run-down or low-fertility pastures, where it is able to displace

beneficial grass and clover species. It is toxic to livestock and humans, and therefore

has a competitive advantage in pasture situations, as stock tend to avoid grazing on it.

Cotton bush is a perennial shrub that grows up to two metres in height, and can form

dense thickets to out-compete pastures. Likewise, it is capable of competing effectively

with native plants in riparian areas, and therefore has an environmental as well as

agricultural impact.20

15

Group governance

The governance structure includes a chairperson, treasurer and secretary. Two part-

time staff support the PHBG. Landcare Serpentine Jarrahdale provides an office space

for the PHBG staff. Formal committee meeting procedures are used.

A strategic planning process funded by DAFWA in 2015 saw consultants produce a plan

with specific control and reduction goals, however there was no baseline data gathered

to support measurement and evaluation against these goals. As a result, a new

strategic planning process has been initiated by the PHBG in 2017 to ensure that goals

are supported by realistic and meaningful data. This new strategic framework will guide

group action between 2017-20 and will be driven by community consultation and built

on identified key result areas.

These include:

Priority pest management

Landholder participation

Communication and consultation

Education and knowledge exchange

Governance, partnerships and funding.21

16

Figure 3: Illustrates the Peel Harvey BG key delivery areas

According to the 2015/16 Annual Report the PHBG's Vision is that:

The impact of priority pests has been reduced to an acceptable level within the

operational area of the Peel-Harvey Biosecurity Group.

The Group’s mission statement is:

To have the management of priority pests on the day-to-day agenda of all individuals,

businesses, industry groups, community organisations and government departments

who either reside, work or function within the operational area of the Peel-Harvey

Biosecurity Group.

The Group has clearly defined its role:

To implement management and activity plans for priority pests that encourage

landholder participation, foster education and knowledge exchange, support stakeholder

communication and consultation, facilitate effective partnerships, build good governance

structures and long-term funding mechanisms.

17

In order to ensure the group is sustainable in the longer term, it is seeking to build the

capacity of committee members and staff; establish sound budgeting, planning and

governance procedures; seek additional funding opportunities and work with

complementary invasive species programs (including species other than cotton bush);

boost community engagement; and seek formal recognition as an RBG.

Internal communications protocols are governed by the Constitution or formal

committee meeting procedures. External communications require approval of the

chairperson. Stakeholder identification and mapping are informal.

Group structure and participation

The management committee is made up of one local government representative and

two community representatives from each of the five local government areas that

comprise the PHBG operating area.

PHBG has an active social media presence,22 and a web site with considerable

information about the Group's vision, goals, and activities.23 Maintaining this public

profile can be challenging as the staff are contending with many competing demands in

their (part time) workloads. The staff seeks opportunities to share relevant information

and resources from other trusted sources.

Committee members are generally diligent in their intentions to participate in the group's

activities, such as committee meetings, pest control activities and public forums such as

workshops. On average, committee members have lived a long time in the district and

enjoy interacting with other members. Committee members trust each other and believe

that their activities will have a significant impact on invasive species in the region.

Parties with an interest in invasive species management in the PHBG operational area

include:

Local landholders;

The five shires comprising the group's region;

18

Peel-Harvey Catchment Council;

South West Catchments Council;

Landcare Serpentine-Jarrahdale;

Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia;

Department of Agriculture and Food;

Department of Environment and Conservation; and

Department of Parks and Wildlife.

Committee members are aware of other local and regional groups in their area with an

interest in pest management, including the Murray Districts Aboriginal Association

(MDAA), Greening Australia, Harvey River Restoration Group, and the Leschenault

Biosecurity Group. Some committee members are involved in these other groups and

the PHBG actively engages with this wider range of stakeholders when opportunities

arise.

Membership is free for all landholders in the group area. General membership of the

group is approximately 150 members. The area has over 10,000 landholders with

holdings greater than two hectares, suggesting that the PHBG has a significant

challenge to face in growing the membership base.

Some strategies to increase landholder participation in pest species control and raise

awareness of the PHBG include:

Involving landholders in active control (mapping; education; support of

landholders and local groups; targeting absentee landholders).

Building institutional support (developing links with all institutional stakeholders;

leveraging support from institutional partners).

Building capacity for on-ground compliance (encouraging DAFWA to build

capacity in its staff; identifying high priority areas for compliance; promoting

compliance achievements to the community). 24

Focusing efforts on raising the group’s profile across the geographic spread of

the region, through information stalls and events, representations on committees,

media coverage and meetings with key individuals.

19

The use of surveys to raise awareness and collect important first-hand data

about the community knowledge and prioritisation of pests. This will help the

PHBG to target communication and engagement strategies more effectively.

Funding

Funding sources include seed funds from DAFWA and the potential for matched funding

from the WA State government if a Declared Pest Rate is raised; support from

Serpentine-Jarrahdale Landcare (formalised through a MOU); and significant funding

from the five LGAs, each of whom is committed to supporting the PHBG. The group has

also been active in applying for other sources of funding, as illustrated in the figure

below.25

Figure 4: Illustrates the different sources of possible funding for PHBG

There is some resistance amongst members in implementing the Declared Pest Rate

due to concerns about landholder opposition and reduced community support for the

PHBG. This may affect the future viability of the group as the rate is the main source of

government support for community-led biosecurity action under the BAM Act. However,

the group is strongly supported by the local Shires and is seeking to negotiate

alternative matching funds models from DAFWA.

20

Group activity: narrow leaf cotton bush

Since being established in 2013, the PHBG has sought to identify priority target areas

for cotton bush control, based on proximity to source areas (hillsides); areas where the

weed has an existing impact; areas where zero control efforts are currently undertaken,

and areas where strategic control (e.g. addressing sources and pathways of spread) are

possible. 'Control' is defined as eradication on small holdings, management plan

establishment on large holdings, and involvement of public land managers.26

The group has published an integrated weed management (IWM) plan for cotton bush,27

specifying different control tactics, timing, and an overall strategy for reduction of this

species' impact. This document indicates the suitable range of control activities for

cotton bush in different seasons and diverse production contexts, including hand

removal of germinating seedlings, digging and cultivation, herbicide control using

Glyphosate for spot spraying as well as broadleaf-selective herbicides in pastures, and

slashing or mowing. The document also provides general weed control strategies, and

identifies other common weed species of the Peel-Harvey regions.

Through a period of community consultation and assessment of cotton bush infestation

in 2015, the PHBG identified several priority ‘Target Areas’ for cotton bush control.

These were identified on the basis of level of infestation, and community concern over

the threat of further spread.28 Other activities around this species have included

awareness raising at community events and schools, use of road signage to raise

awareness, and farmer workshops on management techniques.29 Workshops have also

been held on other weed and animal invasive species.30

Recent anecdotal evidence suggested that cotton bush might not remain a declared

weed species in Western Australia, making it necessary for the PHBG to expand their

focus to include other invasive species and biosecurity issues.31 With this in mind, the

PHBG web pages mention specific invasive species such as foxes, rabbits, feral cats,

and insect pests of crops.32 This uncertainty about the status of cotton bush resulted in

the Shire of Murray withholding funds from the PHBG until DAFWA confirmed that the

21

species would remain on the Declared Pest list.

Beyond a single species: expanding the focus of PHBG

In 2016 the group conducted a survey to better understand community attitudes and

beliefs about pest problems in the region.33 This revealed that while cotton bush

remained the main concern, other pests including foxes, rabbits and fruit fly were also

identified as having a major impact in the region.

Lessons for Biosecurity Group Development

PHBG staff, members and DAFWA staff have identified these lessons. Additional

lessons have been distilled by the research team from the collected data and

associated literature.

PHBG went through major internal upheaval in 2015, but came back better and

stronger. An early focus on driving compliance action became problematic for the first

committee as they experienced community backlash, which fed mistrust about the role

of the Biosecurity Group. Additional pressure came from establishment of goals

regarding cotton bush control that are not measurable because there is no established

baseline. The group has lobbied for support to establish such a baseline. In 2015

PHBG, in partnership with a research institution, submitted a funding application to the

State NRM Council to develop a methodology utilising imagery to map cotton bush

infestations. Unfortunately the application was rejected making it harder for the group to

demonstrate success in cotton bush reduction over time.

DAFWA’s focus on getting the group to raise a Declared Pest rate created frustration

amongst the committee. The uncertainty about the declared status of cotton bush, and

the limited capacity of a volunteer committee to meet the needs of the group recognition

process, were significant factors in this period of change and upheaval.

This experience offers useful lessons for other communities who may be interested in

becoming a RBG for invasive species management. Suggestions are drawn from

participants in the PHBG case study and the group’s 2016-2017 Annual Report.

22

Level the playing field: Ensure that important policy information is made

available and is clearly understood by participants and other stakeholders.

This includes detail about DAFWA’s processes for reviewing declared pests

under the BAM Act; the requirements to become a Recognised Biosecurity

Group and the responsibilities this brings for committee members and staff.

Ask questions: Be prepared to actively seek out answers. There is a lot of rapid

change in this policy space and this requires group members and staff to be pro-

active in looking for information that will help them make well informed decisions.

Get organised: New groups should appoint an Executive Officer as soon as

possible to provide structure and stability. Setting up governance structures,

engaging community, and managing public expectations can be overwhelming

for a group of volunteers.

Seek logistical support from partners: Being hosted by the Landcare group

has been good for the PHBG as it provides a publicly accessible office for the

group. Although PHBG staff are part-time, Landcare staff are able to take

messages or answer queries, making this a highly beneficial arrangement that

other groups might try to replicate.

Know your community: Be aware of the geographic and demographic features

of the region. For example, the changing demographics and increasing peri-

urban nature of the Peel Harvey operational area is a challenge for community

engagement. There are on-going concerns about non-participation by public land

managers, non-resident landholders and developers.

Don’t assume knowledge: Your community may have many different ideas

about what ‘biosecurity’ is and their role in managing it. It is important to build a

common understanding so the group can make plans in collaboration with the

community.

23

Plan your committee membership: The committee needs to be made up of a

well-balanced and skilled group of people. Importantly, this should include local

landowners, as they understand the problems that uncontrolled pest species can

cause.

Use your networks to optimise efforts: Organising information events on

specific topics can be a good tactic, but is disappointing if the turnout is low. In

2014-2015 the PHBG had a bad run with low turnout at events, some of which

had to be cancelled. For this reason, the group now looks for opportunities to join

with organisations that have a larger outreach and audience.

o For example, a recent field day on cotton bush and Apple of Sodum

recorded high registrations, largely due to the committee spreading the

word amongst landholders and key stakeholders. Additional support from

DAFWA and local rural suppliers and pest contractors was a critical factor

in determining the success of this event.

Find the balance: between high level policy work involved in running an

incorporated group, and maintaining on-ground works that inspires volunteers to

get involved. This is a hard balancing act when staff resources are limited and

the committee may need to help out.

Persevere: The PHBG has persevered and advises other communities not be

disappointed with slow progress initially, as it takes time to establish an effective

committee, employ good staff and develop strategies for biosecurity

management.

24

Conclusion

Biosecurity groups need to develop their own identity if they are to succeed in gaining

community trust and acceptance. The reduced role of government in biosecurity

management has created an opportunity for local communities to take leadership on

these issues. As this case study has revealed, there are challenges to be faced and

community members and government staff must be prepared to learn from previous

experience.

Community-led efforts can complement the compliance and regulatory functions of

government. They can also develop local skills and capacity to address biosecurity

problems, assisting landholders to meet their obligations under the BAM Act 2007.

However, these community efforts need to be underpinned by good governance, strong

planning and financial stability, if they are to gain the support and acceptance of their

community members.

Government has an important role to play in enabling the community-led effort to

succeed. Beyond financial support, community groups need access to high quality

information about biosecurity threats and management options. Linking groups to

existing community engagement resources or campaigns (such as the Backyard

Buddies project) can increase the impact of these government initiatives and reduce the

workload for the community group.

Although the Declared Pest Rate is an obvious incentive for groups to apply for

recognition through the Minister, there are other considerations such as landholder

willingness to pay, that groups must deal with before raising a rate. The PHBG case

study shows the importance of slowing down and thinking through the implications of

both recognition and the rate. In the end, groups need to make their own decisions

about the value of applying for recognition, and when to do it.

Concluding comments are taken from the 2016/17 Annual Report:

The PHBG supports becoming a Recognised Biosecurity Group in principle. However,

the PHBG is mindful of managing public perceptions around this collaborative

governance arrangement. The PHBG will seek recognition in 2016-17, but it has no

intention of negotiating a Declared Pest rate unless there is community interest and

support to do so.

25

Appendix A: context of the study

Western Australia is currently undergoing a transformation in biosecurity

management for invasive species management. The Department of Agriculture and

Food, Western Australia (DAFWA) is implementing a shift from a government-led to an

industry and community-led approach. Under the Biosecurity and Agriculture

Management Act 2007 (BAM Act), establishment of Recognised Biosecurity Groups

(RBGs) provides a secure funding mechanism for a community coordinated approach to

pest management. In some areas, biosecurity groups are operating but these groups

require further development to become formally recognised as RBGs. In other regions,

landholder capacity to lead biosecurity management needs to be built in collaboration

with industry and community organisations. The Royalties for Regions 'Transforming

Regional Biosecurity Response' project [the Transformation project] has been funded to

provide support to a range of identified pilot groups that are currently working towards

recognition over a two-year period.

Figure 5: map of actual and potential biosecurity groups as of April 2017. This map is regularly updated to reflect changes, please contact DAFWA for an updated map.

26

The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre (IA-CRC) and the DAFWA

have embarked on an action research partnership. This partnership is focused on

working together to support the changes underway in Western Australian biosecurity

management, through capacity building and knowledge sharing. Working with the

Transforming Regional Biosecurity Response project (referred to throughout as the

'Transformation project') researchers from the University of New England (UNE) have

contributed to a range of project activities, such as:

Formation of the Biosecurity staff Community of Interest;

Mentoring support for the Community Engagement Manager;

Providing access to learning networks, research papers and professional

contacts;

Presentation of current research from the IACRC program 4 through video

conferencing and YouTube;

Assistance with the development of the 2015 needs analysis;

Randomised survey of landholders across WA exploring motivations and

barriers to participation in group development and collective action;

Attendance at Biosecurity forums and presentation of behavioural science

research to biosecurity groups and DAFWA staff.

Program 4 of the IACRC is about increasing community action in invasive

species management. The research program wants to understand the human

dimensions of pest management and improve community action to address this

problem. This is an action research project using social science methods.

An important feature of the collaboration is providing DAFWA staff and

community members with information that is specific to the WA context. This information

is valuable because it brings the world of research to the doorstep of the Transformation

project. This enables us to make sense of what we are experiencing, learn from

previous experiences and improve our current practice. This report shares the results of

documentary evidence, questionnaires and interviews and makes another contribution

to the collaboration.

27

Appendix B: Methodology

Case selection:

The 3 case study sites were nominated by DAFWA

Northern Mallee Biosecurity Group

Blackwoods Biosecurity Incorporated

Peel Harvey Biosecurity Group

Each nominated biosecurity group were at different stages of development. The result is

3 case studies that chart progress over time and provide insight to the challenges,

strategies and key learning from these groups.

Data collection: (all data was collected in compliance with UNE human ethics protocols

HE15-250)

1. Desktop review of publicly available documentary evidence – collected in

2016 and updated in 2017.

2. Two written questionnaires developed by IACRC researcher and

administered by DAFWA staff:

o Questionnaire 1 – Open ended questions for DAFWA staff who have been involved in the support of the grop development (attached in Appendix C)

o Questionnaire 2 – Open ended questions for biosecurity group committee members and staff (attached in Appendix D)

Analysis: Questionnaire data compiled and analysed using qualitative policy research

methods that interrogate data within a framework of political, social and economic

dynamics.

References:

Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing Policy: What's the problem represented to be? : Pearson Australia.

Majchrzak, A. (1984). Methods for Policy Research: Sage.

Case study development:

1. Draft case study circulated for review and comment to DAFWA staff;

biosecurity group staff and committee members.

2. Review comments incorporated into final case study.

28

Appendix C

Part A: Details about the way the group started:

1) What is their main pest species? (can list more than one)

___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 2) How would you describe the ‘trigger’ that got this group started? A trigger might be a species,

a change in funding or a local community dynamic.

___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 3) When did they become a biosecurity group?

___________________________________________________________

4) How long have you worked with this group?

Part B: A brief history of the group: 5) What other groups in the area fed into this Biosecurity group?

o For example: Landcare group, or a DSG? (please include any others that you can think of)

___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

6) What kind of ‘ups and downs’ have they had since becoming a biosecurity group? (e.g.

committee conflict; public response; confusion, etc.)

___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

7) Are they implementing invasive species control activities?

a) If YES, please provide a brief description (what species/ what activities):

___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

Case Study BACKGROUND information questionnaire These questions are to be filled out by the DAFWA staff who work with the group. This provides

core background information for the case study. This case study is for the period from July 2015-June 2016.

NB: If you don’t know the answer, please ask your group. A lot of this information should be in their annual report.

.

29

b) If NO, please explain why (in your own words):

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Part C: Governance details (for the current financial year 2015/16): 8) Please fill in this table about the group’s Committee membership (add more rows if

necessary).

Role on the committee (please add other roles eg general committee member; industry rep etc.)

Name Date commenced

Other roles they hold in the community – either employed or voluntary

Chairperson

Treasurer

Secretary

9) How many members are there currently in this group?

___________________________________________________________ 10) What are the requirements to become a member?

___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

11) Does the group have any external secretariat support?

If YES a) Who provides this support? (eg local government/DAFWA biosecurity officer, etc)

___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

b) Who pays for this support?

___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

12) Does the group have any paid staff?

If YES: a) What is their role?

___________________________________________________________ b) When did this paid staff begin working for the group?

30

___________________________________________________________ c) How do they fund this paid staff?

___________________________________________________________

Part D: Details about the group operations: 13) Does the group have any procedures or protocols about how they communicate within the

group? Eg: between committee members; committee and general membership.

Please provide details: ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 14) Does the group have any procedures or protocols about how they communicate to those

outside the group? Eg. Media communications; a communication strategy?

Please provide details: ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 15) Does the group identify different stakeholders? Eg: Industry, community and government

networks (land councils, NRM groups, LGA, etc).

Please list these stakeholders or provide any documents the group has produced: ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 16) What planning processes has the group put in place? Tick the box – please provide copies of

any of these documents:

An invasive species plan;

A community engagement plan;

A communication plan etc.

Other (internal code of conduct etc). Please provide detail:

17) This space is for you to include any other relevant information – the more detail you provide,

the more complete the case study will be.

___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!

Please return this completed questionnaire to Tanya Howard: thoward9@une.edu.au Feel free to email or call me: 0417 002 084 if you have any questions or need assistance with the

case study data collection.

31

Appendix D Case study Biosecurity Group Questionnaire

The Invasive Animals CRC and the University of New England are partnering with DAFWA to understand the factors that influence landholder involvement and action in biosecurity groups in Western Australia. Your group has been selected as a case study for this project. This case study will provide useful information for other communities that may want to start a biosecurity group. Your answers will remain anonymous. Please complete the following questionnaire. You can do this by yourself or in conversation with your DAFWA biosecurity officer. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Have you signed the ‘Participant consent form’? (please circle) If YES please proceed; if NO, please explain why not:

_____________

START

1. Do you own or reside on a block of land more than 10 ha (25 acres)? Yes /

No (if no, move to question 6)

The next questions are about your property.

2. What size is your property? ______________________________ (ha / acres)

3. What is the main enterprise on your property?

Cattle production Mixed farming Lifestyle

Dairy Dryland cropping Residential

Sheep production Irrigated cropping Other:

Other livestock: Boutique

enterprise:

Specify___________

Specify___________ Specify___________

4. Is your property your main source of income? Yes No

5. How long have you owned / lived on your property? _____________ years

The next questions are about your participation in the regional biosecurity

group.

6. What is the name of your regional biosecurity group? ______________

7. What is your role in the regional biosecurity group? (please circle)

Committee member

Group member

Employee

Other (Specify): ______________

8. How long have you been involved in the group?

32

Less than 12 mths less than 24 mths 3-5 yrs 5-7 yrs 8-10 yrs

10+ yrs

9. Why did you get involved in the group? (please circle the answer)

Pest species impact (specify) ____________________________________

Compliance action from DAFWA

Biosecurity information from DAFWA

Access to seed funding

Friends and family expectations

Other (specify) ________________________________________________

10. In the next 12 months, how

often do you intend to…

neve

r

rare

ly

sometim

es

frequen

tly

very

frequen

tly

a. attend meetings run by the

group? 1 2 3 4 5

b. participate in any education

activities (e.g. field days)

organised by these group?

1 2 3 4 5

c. participate in pest control

activities (e.g. group baiting)

organised by these group?

1 2 3 4 5

d. be involved in the organisation

of the group (e.g. member of the

committee)

1 2 3 4 5

11. People give many reasons why they do or do not become involved in the

leading and administrating of local and regional pest animal management

groups. Here is a list of reasons. Please indicate to what extent you agree

or disagree with each statement (1=strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

disagree agree

a. I find it easy to work with other

group members 1 2 3 4 5

b. I do have the skills to be a committee

member 1 2 3 4 5

c. I do have the time to commit to be

involved the group’s organisation 1 2 3 4 5

d. I can afford the time away from work 1 2 3 4 5

e. I believe the groups programs will

reduce the impact of pest animals in my

area

1 2 3 4 5

f. Committee membership is valued in our

community 1 2 3 4 5

g. I believe my involvement will assist

with pest animal management in my area 1 2 3 4 5

h. I do trust the other members on the

committee 1 2 3 4 5

i. I enjoy interacting with the other

members of the group 1 2 3 4 5

33

j. Being involved with the group is a way

I feel I can help my community 1 2 3 4 5

k. My family and friends expect me to be

involved with the group 1 2 3 4 5

l. I am involved for the recognition I

receive from others 1 2 3 4 5

m. I would feel guilty if I did not

donate my time to help my community 1 2 3 4 5

12. People have identified that access to good quality information is

important for biosecurity group development and community engagement. Please

tell me to what extent to you agree or disagree with each statement

(1=strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree)

disagree agree

a. I find it easy to access good quality

information about invasive species in my

area

1 2 3 4 5

b. I find it easy to access good quality

information about biosecurity group

development in my area

1 2 3 4 5

c. I know where to look for information

about invasive species in my area 1 2 3 4 5

d. I know where to look for information

about biosecurity group development in my

area

1 2 3 4 5

13. Are you aware of any other local or regional based groups with an

interest in pest management in your area? Eg NRM bodies; Landcare groups;

Aboriginal Land Councils etc.

Yes Specify:___________________________________ No

14. Are you a member of any of these groups?

Yes Specify:___________________________________ No

15. Does your biosecurity group have a strategy for working with these other

groups?

Yes Specify:___________________________________ No

16. We are interested in what you have learned so far from your experience in

the biosecurity group. The next questions are open-ended so please respond in

your own words:

a. What challenges have you encountered in your biosecurity group

development?

b. What benefits you have experienced in your biosecurity group development?

34

c. What advice would you give to other communities thinking about starting a

biosecurity group?

And just to finish off…

17. What year were you born? __________________

18. Gender Male Female

19. What is the highest level of education you have achieved?

Year 10 or less College Certificate or

Diploma

Year 11 Undergraduate Degree

Year 12 Post Graduate Degree

Trade

qualification/Apprenticeship

Other

____________________

That completes the survey. Please return it to your biosecurity officer or by email to: thoward9@une.edu.au

Thank you for your time and help today. Details of the research project, including contact details, are

on the Information Sheet.

35

References

References 1. DAFWA. 2016. Transforming Regional Biosecurity Response: Funding opportunity for biosecurity groups. https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/invasive-species/transforming-regional-biosecurity-response?page=0%2C2, accessed 18/7/16. 2. Peel-Harvey Biosecurity Group. n.d. Projects. http://peelharveybiosecurity.info/about/projects/, accessed 27/7/16. 3. Google Maps. 2016. https://www.google.com.au/maps/, accessed 27/7/16. 4. Department of Regional Development. 2014. Peel: a region in profile 2014. http://www.peel.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Peel-Region-in-Profile-2014.pdf, accessed 27/7/16. 5. Department of Regional Development. 2014. Peel: a region in profile 2014. http://www.peel.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Peel-Region-in-Profile-2014.pdf, accessed 27/7/16. 6. Wikipedia. 2016. Mandurah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandurah, accessed 27/7/16. 7. Wikipedia. 2016. Mandurah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandurah, accessed 27/7/16. 8. Department of Regional Development. 2014. Peel: a region in profile 2014. http://www.peel.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Peel-Region-in-Profile-2014.pdf, accessed 27/7/16. 9. Department of Regional Development and Lands. 2011. South West: a region in profile 2011. http://www.swdc.wa.gov.au/media/100177/south%20west%20profile%20a4.pdf, accessed 28/7/16. 10. Wikipedia. 2015. Peel (Western Australia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_(Western_Australia), accessed 27/7/16. 11. Cat. No. 7121.0 – Agricultural Commodities, Australia, 2010-11. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. 12. Department of Regional Development. 2014. Peel: a region in profile 2014. http://www.peel.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Peel-Region-in-Profile-2014.pdf, accessed 27/7/16. 13. Wikipedia. 2016. Mandurah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandurah, accessed 27/7/16. 14. Cat. No. 2001.0 – 2011 Census of Population and Housing, Basic Community Profile. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. 15 'Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007, Western Australian Government. 16. Department of Agriculture and Food. 2015. Recognised Biosecurity Groups (RBGs). https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/bam/recognised-biosecurity-groups-rbgs, accessed 22/2/16. 17. Department of Agriculture and Food. 2015. Recognised Biosecurity Groups

(RBGs). https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/bam/recognised-biosecurity-groups-rbgs,

accessed 22/2/16.

18. Department of Agriculture and Food. 2015. Recognised Biosecurity Groups (RBGs). https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/bam/recognised-biosecurity-groups-rbgs, accessed 22/2/16. 19. DAFWA. 2016. Narrow leaf cotton bush: declared pest. https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/declared-plants/narrow-leaf-cotton-bush-declared-pest, accessed 28/7/16. 20. DAFWA. 2016. Narrow leaf cotton bush: declared pest. https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/declared-plants/narrow-leaf-cotton-bush-declared-pest, accessed 28/7/16. DAFWA. 2016. Narrow leaf cotton bush: what you should know. https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/declared-plants/narrow-leaf-cotton-bush-what-you-should-know?nopaging=1, accessed 28/7/16. 21 2017-2017 Peel Harvey Biosecurity Group Annual Report. 22. Peel Harvey Biosecurity Group. 2016. https://www.facebook.com/Peel-Harvey-Biosecurity-Group-381162082032011/, accessed 28/7/16. 23. Peel-Harvey Biosecurity Group. n.d. http://peelharveybiosecurity.info, accessed 28/7/26. 24. Peel-Harvey Biosecurity Group. 2015. Strategy. http://peelharveybiosecurity.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/compiled-peel-harvey-bg-strategy-2015-2018-compressed.pdf, accessed 28/7/16. 25. Peel-Harvey Biosecurity Group. 2015. Annual Report 2015. http://peelharveybiosecurity.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Annual-Report-2015.pdf, accessed 28/7/16.

36

26. Peel-Harvey Biosecurity Group. 2015. Strategy. http://peelharveybiosecurity.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/compiled-peel-harvey-bg-strategy-2015-2018-compressed.pdf, accessed 28/7/16. 27. Peel-Harvey Biosecurity Group. n.d. Cotton Bush Management Plan For your Property. http://peelharveybiosecurity.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Weed-Management-Plan-2015.pdf, accessed 28/7/16. 28. Peel-Harvey Biosecurity Group. 2015. Projects. http://peelharveybiosecurity.info/about/projects/, accessed 28/7/16. 29. Peel-Harvey Biosecurity Group. n.d. Tag Archives: cotton bush. http://peelharveybiosecurity.info/tag/cotton-bush/, accessed 28/7/16.. 30. Peel-Harvey Biosecurity Group. 2015. Annual Report 2015. http://peelharveybiosecurity.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Annual-Report-2015.pdf, accessed 28/7/16. 31. Bruno Rikli pers. comm.

32. Peel-Harvey Biosecurity Group. n.d. Pests.

http://peelharveybiosecurity.info/pests/, accessed 28/7/16. 33

2017-2017 Peel Harvey Biosecurity Group Annual Report.