Remote Australia Online

We begin this evaluation with a brief history of buffel grass in Australia, followed by an examination of the advantages and disadvantages of buffel grass to the pastoral industry. We consider other benefits, such as rehabilitation of degraded land and dust control. Negative outcomes in relation to conservation values, non-pastoral industries, Indigenous community values, increased fire hazard and health impacts are outlined. It is clear from benefit-cost analyses, undertaken by others and summarised here, that it is easier to assess the economic benefits and costs of buffel grass to production, than to other land uses, particularly conservation. It is more difficult still to assess environmental, social and cultural benefits and costs. This does not imply that economic benefits of buffel grass to production outweigh other considerations but rather that we lack the tools to adequately assess other aspects.

Buffel grass is an introduced perennial tussock grass, which has improved rangeland pastoral production and helped land rehabilitation. More recently, its invasive capacity has been of concern and modelling suggests that it has the capacity to expand across a large area of northern Australia. Our scoping study showed that: aerial survey was a valuable tool for mapping presence of buffel on conservation areas; hybridisation amongst cultivars is likely to be occurring, leading to local adaptation; and buffel grass on rocky hillslopes did not have much effect on species composition of vegetation, birds or ants, under poor seasonal conditions.

We report a case study of community involvement in industry and regional development which took a whole-system approach to growing the tourist industry in central Australia. All stages of the study are presented beginning with the initial creation of a systems model of the industry in collaboration with the tourism industry, government agencies and the wider community in Stage 1. The process of engaging support for Stage 2 is described and attempts to refine the components of the model and develop an information system in the second stage are outlined. Neither a refinement of the tourism simulator model nor a functional information system were achieved, although extensive information was gathered and interpreted as part of the process. The outcomes were constrained by institutional difficulties despite clear goodwill among the participants. Contrary to expectations, data that would help build the sub-models were not found. An events and attractions investment sub-model was developed as fully as possible to explore data constraints. Information provided by interviewees was synthesised as far as possible to develop relationships describing economic impacts, but different ways of estimating outcomes were not compatible, even within a single sub-model. A review of recent literature showed that effective modelling required much more sophisticated data gathering than was possible within this study to indicate sustainable yield from different investment strategies. The study provided a practical demonstration of the challenges involved in genuinely engaging a regional rangeland community in industry and regional development, and the limited benefits of systems dynamics modelling, especially where resources and data are constrained. A useful outcome was the identification of the particular activities which elicited the greatest response from participants – the systems workshops, trialling the demonstration tourism simulator and one-on-one sharing of information. These should form the basis of future community involvement in regional development rather than any attempt to refine modelling tools.

This project is a case study of community involvement in industry and regional development through a whole-system approach to growing the tourist industry in central Australia. The report covers all stages of the project beginning with Stage 1, which deals with the initial creation of a systems model of the industry in collaboration with the tourism industry, government agencies, and the wider community. It summarises the process of engaging support for Stage 2 and details attempts to refine the components of the model and develop an information system in Stage 2. Neither a refinement of the tourism simulator model nor a functional information system were achieved, although extensive information was gathered and interpreted as part of the process. The outcomes were constrained by institutional difficulties despite clear goodwill among the participants. Contrary to expectations, data that would help build the sub-models were not found. An events and attractions investment sub-model was developed as fully as possible to explore data constraints. Information provided by informants was synthesised as far as possible to develop relationships describing economic impacts, but different ways of estimating outcomes were not compatible, even within a single sub-model. A review of recent literature showed that effective modelling required much more sophisticated data gathering than was possible within this project to indicate sustainable yield from different investment strategies. A benefit of this project has been the practical demonstration of the challenges involved in genuinely engaging the community in industry and regional development. A further benefit has been the identification of the particular activities in the project that elicited the greatest response from participants: the systems workshops, trialling the demonstration tourism simulator and one-on-one sharing of information. These should form the basis of future community involvement in regional development rather than any attempt to refine the modelling tools that might be used.

This project comes from a concern that Tangentyere Council had with the ABS census count of people living in town camps: 973 in August 2001 (ABS 2002). The council had long believed that the census counts were extremely low. The use of this ‘official’ population has affected the level of services for people in town camps, resources for Tangentyere Council, the ability to lobby for services and continues to deny the existence of the town camps and their residents. This concern, and issues associated with visitors to town camps, had been discussed by the Tangentyere Council executive for some time and a submission was developed in conjunction with the Centre for Remote Health (CRH) to conduct research into population and mobility. The proposal was put to the Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre (DK-CRC) and funded in May 2004. The research model used was a development from previous research undertaken by Tangentyere Council. The aim of Tangentyere Council has been to develop a research model that ensures Aboriginal direction, ownership, participation and accountability back to Aboriginal people.

The Central Australian Grazing Strategies Partnership is a collaboration between the CLMA, NT DPIFM, Desert Knowledge CRC, CSIRO and the pastoral industry, to promote research into rangeland spell grazing strategies. The Partnership has initiated a three year research program encompassing three commercial, on- ground spell grazing trials and a series of case studies in central Australia. Mt Riddock Station is trialling an eight paddock rotation aiming to maximise feed potential and productivity of a mixed buffel and native grass pasture. Idracowra Station is trialling an alternative approach to rotation by moving a mobile water trough along 30km of pipeline. The aim is to use pasture more evenly, reducing the impact and extent of the grazing gradient, and consequently come out of dry periods with heavier cattle and better land condition. The third trial is being undertaken on the NT Government Old Man Plains Research Station. This involves a four paddock rotation that spells pastures during the summer growing season. The Partnership will seek additional funding in 2007 to secure the long term focus of this project as we are well aware that it takes a long time to realise change resulting from new grazing strategies! Early results and observations from the spell grazing trials will be discussed.

This paper is a summary of the report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Environment and Water Resources by the Desert Knowledge CRC, Alice Springs. Fisher A, Hunt L, Kutt A, Mazzer T. 2006. Biodiversity monitoring in the rangelands: A way forward. Volume 2: Case studies. Desert Knowledge CRC, Alice Springs. The paper looks at biodiversity monitoring in the rangelands, and includes both regional and enterprise-level examples. Rangelands are a major contributor to the biodiversity of Australia. To maintain and enhance biodiversity, land managers need to be informed of appropriate monitoring practices and have the tools to implement such practices. Monitoring biodiversity in the rangelands is complex and difficult to achieve. Despite increasing interest and attention given to maintaining biodiversity values, few biodiversity monitoring programs are actually implemented. While there is broad support for biodiversity monitoring programs among land managers and natural resource management groups, numerous constraints limit program implementation.

Desert Australia may be dry but, per head of population, it is the nation’s richest region. Desert people generate billions of dollars of export income and run 39,000 small businesses. They cradle the world’s oldest living human culture and generate a creative explosion in art, music, desert culture, food and design. The DKCRC has succeeded in realising some of this potential and a consortium of partners want to improve on those successes. The principles of how research is conducted are as important as what is done. Examples of success and indications to future research topics will be given.

This paper describes a research project to enhance the viability of remote Indigenous communitiesthrough culturally-appropriate use of information and communications technologies (ICT). Theproject investigated the use of community rebroadcast TV infrastructure for new low costcommunications services. A key part of the project was establishment of trusting relationshipswith the Ngaanyatjaara Lands communities of Irrunytju and Kanpa. Community members,administrative staff, and external service providers were involved in investigations into currentcommunication problems and potential solutions. A working prototype of a messaging systemusing satellite broadcasting infrastructure to send multimedia messages to TV sets within remotecommunities was developed and evaluated. Such a system could be used by government agenciesor remote communities themselves to deliver messages about visitors to the community (e.g.health workers), emergencies (e.g. bushfire); cultural business, sporting events, etc. The expectedoutcomes of such a system are increased social capital within the region, developed through moreefficient and effective communication, leading to enhanced viability and sustainability of remotecommunities.

Intellectual property rights (IPR) to traditional knowledge (TK) about Australian native plants could justifiably be described as a birthright of Australian Aboriginal people. However, as is generally the case throughout the world, this right is currently not protected under Australian law. A case study is presented describing the approach that was taken to protecting the plant knowledge rights of traditional knowledge (TK) holders who participated in research at Titjikala, central Australia. From a review of international efforts aimed at developing a legal regime for protection of traditional knowledge (TK) intellectual property rights (IPR), we found that protecting traditional knowledge (TK) of plants and their uses is most likely to be achieved through the development of effective protocols for preserving and recording traditional knowledge (TK) and the use of contract law in commercial applications of that knowledge. The process of negotiating a research agreement between the research organisations and the community is described. Relationship building and a partnership approach based on trust and mutual respect were found to be of fundamental importance. The negotiated agreement ensures that the community has an equal share to research partners in any benefits that might arise from commercialisation of research findings. The approach to benefit sharing developed in this project has application in other research projects in which the sharing of traditional knowledge (TK) is a fundamental and essential component of the research process.

There are numerous examples worldwide of instances where bioprospecting for plant products of commercial potential through the support of local knowledge has led to significant financial gains for the bioprospecting company but little or no economic return for the knowledge holders (GRAIN & Kalpavriksh 2002; Bodeker 2003). Disquiet, concern and, more often, outrage at the inequity of these events led scientists working in the field of ethnobotany to join with progressive and determined Indigenous groups in the development of international protocols aimed at more equitably distributing economic returns accruing from commercial applications of traditional plant knowledge.

The Plants for People project originated from discussions with Aboriginal elders from the Titjikala community, 130 kilometres south of Alice Springs. The elders observed low intergenerational transference of knowledge of traditional Aboriginal bush craft, plant and animal uses, and dreaming stories. This knowledge was remaining privy to the older generation, not as a matter of cultural protocol, but because the interests of the prospective students were prioritised towards Western media and entertainment. This traditional knowledge was seen by the elders as being important to retain the community’s cultural identity and to develop enterprise opportunities of benefit to the community through tourism, horticulture and education. The project focused on identifying ways in which plant use can advance livelihoods, cultural integrity, self-esteem, health and wellbeing within such Aboriginal communities. It involved Aboriginal communities at three case study sites in arid Australia. The major thrust of the project was to develop best practice approaches for documenting and ensuring the survival of traditional knowledge about plants of cultural significance and to use that knowledge to advance the livelihoods of Aboriginal people.

A workshop to review methods currently being applied to record traditional knowledge on electronic databases and discuss issues relating to intellectual property protection, multi-media applications, and recording methods.

Opportunities, impediments and capacity building for enterprise development by Australian Aboriginal communities

The restructure of local government in the Northern Territory was carried out in less than two years, from announcement in October 2006 to implementation on 1 July 2008, with elections for the shire councils on 25 October 2008. The primary feature of the restructure was the amalgamation of nearly 60 Aboriginal community councils of small communities into eight shire councils. The restructure occurred at the same time as a study of service delivery to Aboriginal communities was being undertaken and, further, was overlaid from July 2007 by the Northern Territory Emergency Response (the ‘Intervention’). This paper explores the transition process as it occurred in the Barkly region of the NT, and the governance issues that emerged that may have a long-term impact on service delivery to the communities of the Barkly.

Because they are established and widespread, feral camels are one of the 73 or so species of introduced vertebrates occurring on mainland Australia that do not meet the criteria to justify eradication effort. For such species, the management options are containment, control, or no management (Australian Pest Animal Strategy 2007). We need to manage feral camels in Australia because the deleterious impacts of the species on pastoral production, the environment, and on social and cultural values are evident at current population densities over many parts of the camel’s range (see Edwards et al. 2008). Furthermore, the current estimated population of about one million feral camels is doubling every 8–10 years (Edwards et al. 2004, Saalfeld & Edwards 2008) and it is presumed that impacts will increase along with the population (Edwards et al. 2008). Management of the impacts of pest animals should be informed by a risk management approach and be strategic in determining where management should occur, at what time, and what techniques should be used (Australian Pest Animal Strategy 2007). It requires coordination at the appropriate scale among all levels of government in partnership with industry, land managers, and the community (Australian Pest Animal Strategy 2007).

In this chapter we provide an assessment of the positive and negative impacts of feral camels. The impacts of pest animals typically fall into three main categories: economic, environmental, and social/ cultural. The negative impacts of feral camels are manifested in all three areas, whereas positive impacts are largely confined to the economic arena. In this chapter we also provide an assessment of the disease risk posed by feral camels. In most instances we were able to estimate the fiscal magnitude of negative economic impacts but not of positive impacts. We were unable to estimate the monetary value of environmental or social/cultural impacts. Negative economic impacts of feral camels mainly include direct control and management costs, impacts on livestock production through camels competing with stock for food and other resources, damage of infrastructure, and damage to people and vehicles due to collisions. The annualised monetary value of direct control and management costs (including government in-kind management costs, research costs, and landholder management costs) was estimated to be $2.36 million. The annualised monetary value of costs associated with damage to infrastructure on pastoral leases, Aboriginal settlements and conservation lands, damage to the dog fence, production losses, and road accidents was estimated to be $8.93 million. The annualised benefit that accrues to landholders mainly through the selling and eating of feral camels was estimated to be $0.62 million. This equates to an annual net economic loss of $10.67 million due to feral camels. We were unable to obtain reliable estimates of the economic value of damage to remote airstrips or of camels mustered and sold by Aboriginal people. Negative environmental impacts of feral camels include damage to vegetation through feeding behaviour and trampling; suppression of recruitment in some plant species; damage to wetlands through fouling, trampling, and sedimentation; and competition with native animals for food and shelter. Feral camels have significant negative impacts on the social/cultural values of Aboriginal people. Camels damage sites, such as waterholes, that have cultural significance to Aboriginal people; they destroy bush tucker resources, reduce people’s enjoyment of natural areas, create dangerous driving conditions, and cause a general nuisance in residential areas.

The management of feral camels in Australia presents many challenges. Camels are widely distributed across the rangelands of Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland and currently occupy a total area of about 3 million square kilometres. Many of the areas inhabited by camels are remote and hard to access by vehicle. The current population is estimated to be more than one million and the number of camels is doubling every eight years (Edwards et al. 2004). Camels are very mobile animals and can move hundreds of kilometres over just a few days. At current densities camels have demonstrable impacts on production, environmental and cultural values in many parts of their range. Current management approaches are largely small scale and ad hoc and do little to reduce populations or mitigate impacts. The Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre through the Natural Heritage Trust is developing a cross-jurisdictional approach to the management of feral camels. The project is examining stakeholder attitudes to feral camels, collating information on the impacts of feral camels, examining the legislative framework governing the ownership, use and management of feral camels and exploring options for cross-border management of feral camels, including existing and potential methods of population control. In this paper we outline the structure of the research project and some of the approaches being taken in developing the national approach.

This report provides an overview of the project ‘Cross-jurisdictional management of feral camels to protect NRM and cultural values’. The final report for this project (Edwards, Zeng, Saalfeld et al. 2008) provides a much higher level of detail in relation to the work undertaken for the project, including additional recommendations pertaining to individual research components.

Feral camels are well adapted to the conditions found in desert Australia and have now occupied 3.3 million km2. Feral camels are one of the 73 or so species of introduced vertebrates occurring on mainland Australia that do not meet the criteria to justify eradication effort. For such species, the management options are containment, control, or no management (Australian Pest Animal Strategy 2007). Because they occur in sparsely populated areas, feral camels are only noticed when their activities intersect with remote Aboriginal people, pastoralists, and the tourism and mining industries. The significant damage that camels have done, and are currently doing, to the fragile ecosystems, cultural sites, isolated communities, and pastoral enterprises of desert Australia has gone largely unnoticed by the bulk of Australia’s population. The current estimated population of about one million feral camels is doubling approximately every nine years (Saalfeld & Edwards 2008) and there is evidence that impacts will increase along with the population (Edwards et al. 2008). If we do not act now to mitigate the damage being caused by feral camels, irreparable damage may be done, particularly to environmental and cultural values, across much of desert Australia. The longer we take to act, the more it will cost to manage and repair the negative impacts of feral camels. Management of the impacts of pest animals should be informed by a risk management approach and be strategic in determining where management should occur, at what time, and what techniques should be used (Australian Pest Animal Strategy 2007). It requires coordination at the appropriate scale among all levels of government in partnership with industry, land managers, and the community (Australian Pest Animal Strategy 2007). The current management of feral camels, being largely ad hoc (Edwards et al. 2004), fails to adequately meet any of these criteria.

Fire is a regular and widespread feature across many Australian landscapes, including the vast desert regions. Its occurrence and impact within the desert regions is as variable as the region itself and attitudes towards fire vary both locally and regionally, between and within community groups. During the three-year period 2000–02, fires were common in the central and northern regions of Australia’s desert lands, following a period of above-average rainfall that created exceptional grass growth and fuel production. This raised the awareness of fire but has also led to conflicts among sectors of the rural community. The Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre (DKCRC) attempted to address some of the key issues in managing fire in desert Australia through an initiative called ‘Desert Fire’. Desert Fire was a collaborative project. It involved key partners of the DKCRC, including the Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment and The Arts (NRETA; participating divisions included Bushfires Council NT, Biodiversity Conservation Division and Parks Division), the Central Land Council (CLC), Charles Darwin University (CDU) and Adelaide University, as well as key stakeholder groups and collaboration with the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre (Project B2.1) and the Australian National University (ANU). Desert Fire was made up of 10 projects under three subproject headings. These subprojects were linked together to meet the common goal (developed at the Arid Zone Fire Research & Management Workshop held at the DKCRC on 28 August 2003) to ‘adapt and maintain appropriate fire regimes and their management based on robust research, planning, review and communication to support the diverse users and managers of desert lands to achieve a balance of their ecological, social and economic priorities’.

Over the last 130 years, patterns of land use in central Australia have altered dramatically, and so too have fire regimes and fire management objectives. Although Aboriginal people still have tenure over large parts of the landscape, their lifestyles have changed. Most Aboriginal people now live in towns and settlements and, although fire management is still culturally important, the opportunities for getting out on country to burn are constrained. Large parts of the landscape are now used for pastoral production. Under this land use the management objective is often one of fire exclusion. The other large-scale land use is for conservation. Here, fire management has a greater focus on conserving biodiversity using various burning strategies. In this paper we explore contemporary fire regimes in central Australia. Widespread fire events are found to be associated with two or more consecutive years of above-average rainfall. Although most of the fires linked with these high rainfall periods occur during the warmer months, in recent times these fires have exhibited increased activity during the cooler months. There has been a concomitant increase in the number and size of these fires and in the number of fires associated with roads. We also explored current fire management issues on Aboriginal, pastoral and conservation lands. Current fire management goals are not being wholly met on any of these land tenures in central Australia and social conflict sometimes emerges as a result. There are overlaps in management aims, issues and the under-achievement of desired outcomes across the land tenures which lead us to five key recommendations for improving fire management outcomes in central Australia. We finish with some comments on associated opportunities for livelihood enhancement based on the management of fire.

Fire is a regular and widespread feature across many Australian landscapes, including the vast desert regions. Its occurrence and impact in desert regions is as variable as the region itself, and attitudes towards fire vary both locally and regionally, between and within community groups. During the three-year period 2000–2002, fires were common in the central and northern regions of Australia’s desert lands, following a period of above average rainfall that created exceptional grass growth and fuel production. This raised the awareness of fire but has also led to conflicts among sectors of the rural community. The Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre (DKCRC) attempted to address some of the key issues in managing fire in desert Australia through an initiative called ‘Desert Fire’. Desert Fire was a collaborative project. It involved key partners of the DKCRC, including the Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport (Bushfires NT, Biodiversity Conservation Division, Parks Division); the Central Land Council; Charles Darwin University; Adelaide University; key stakeholder groups and collaboration with the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre; and the Australian National University. Desert Fire was made up of ten subprojects, linked together to meet the common goal to ‘adapt and maintain appropriate fire regimes and their management based on robust research, planning, review and communication to support the diverse users and managers of desert lands to achieve a balance of their ecological, social and economic priorities’. This report is the main technical scientific report of Desert Fire. The report chapters each form standalone final accounts of aspects of an individual subproject of Desert Fire.

This report is the main technical scientific report of Desert Fire. Fire is a regular and widespread feature across many Australian landscapes, including the vast desert regions, the northern tropical savannas and the southern coastal forests and heathlands. Its occurrence and impact in the desert regions is as variable as the region itself. Fire can be an annual feature of the northern desert regions fringing the tropical savannas, less regular in central and southern Australia but closely linked to the variable rainfall, or virtually absent in intensively managed grazing lands in the eastern desert region. Attitudes vary towards fire, both its value as a management tool and the threats and impacts of wildfires to infrastructure, productivity and biodiversity. These attitudes seem to vary locally and regionally, between and within community groups. During the three-year period 2000–2002, fires were common in the central and northern regions of Australia’s desert lands, following a period of above average rainfall that created exceptional grass growth and fuel production. This raised the awareness of fire but has also led to conflicts among sectors of the rural community. The Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre (DKCRC) attempted to address some of the key issues in managing fire in desert Australia through an initiative called ‘Desert Fire’.

One-humped dromedary camels (Camelus dromedarius) were first introduced to Australia in 1840 and played a key role in opening up the arid interior for European settlement. It is thought that over a 27 year period between 1880 and 1907 approximately 20 000 camels were imported. The replacement of the camel by the motor vehicle and the establishment of a rail connection to Alice Springs in the early twentieth century resulted in large numbers of camels being released into the wild and the subsequent establishment of a feral population. Survey work undertaken in the Northern Territory in 2001 indicated that there were possibly as many as 300 000 feral camels in Australia spread across Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland, and that the population was doubling about every eight years. For the best part of 75 years, the significant damage that feral camels were doing to the fragile ecosystems, cultural sites, isolated communities, and pastoral enterprises of desert Australia were largely out of sight and out of mind for most Australians because it occurred in sparsely populated areas a long way from the coast. In June 2005, the Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre (DKCRC) obtained funding to develop a national management framework that would lead to a reduction in camel numbers to a level that reversed their population growth trajectory and reduced their impacts on natural resource management (NRM), economic, and social-cultural values. A key starting point for the development of a national management framework was the recognition that the management of the impacts of pest animals should be informed by a risk management approach and be strategic in determining where management should occur, at what time, and what techniques should be used. To reduce camel impacts, either camel numbers need to be reduced or camels need to be kept away from key assets. Camel numbers (impacts) can be reduced by humane destruction (culling), commercial harvest or exclusion. Codes of practice and standard operating procedures are currently being developed for both aerial and ground culling of camels. Fencing to protect assets from camels is expensive and has application only at the local scale. Animal welfare must be considered when fencing is used especially where this denies the animals’ scarce water. In June 2009, the Australian Government announced that it would support a DKCRC funding proposal to manage the impacts of feral camels across Australia over a four year period under the Caring for Our Country programme. Shortly thereafter, the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council called for development of a National Feral Camel Action Plan to guide the management of feral camels and their impacts now and into the future. Animal welfare issues are central to the Action Plan.