SEEING RED OVER FIRE ANTS

Sustainability & Environment
MICK QUIRK

The fight against fire ants in Australia is in trouble. While this is obvious to growers in the Rocky Point district, who have lived with the pest for many years, it has been formally documented in a 2021 review of the national eradication program. But it’s a great shame that this review has only recently seen the light of day.

The review found that the program, underway since 2001, is not adequately resourced to even contain the spread of fire ants, let alone eradicate them. While eradication of any pest is a long-term, expensive, and challenging process, the review found that eradication was still reasonably likely if urgent action was taken now (i.e., in 2021).

Such findings should have triggered the urgent development of a new national response plan which reflects the recommendations of the review. This, in turn, should have been carefully considered by the Australian, State and Territory governments and funding commitments secured.

But, two years on, the report suddenly appears, with no evidence of any actions by government and no communication from them about an ongoing commitment to eradication.

Announcements that do not actually provide additional funding, as in the recent Queensland budget, do nothing about the urgent increases in funding recommended in the review.

For anyone who has experienced the impact of fire ants first-hand, eradication is a no-brainer. Should fire ants spread to even a portion of its potential range in Australia, agriculture will suffer significantly, the environmental impacts will be huge, and outdoor activities, from sports to festivals to picnics, will be disrupted. They are not called ‘fire’ ants for nothing.

If you have any doubts about the urgency of doing something, talk to one of our Rocky Point growers. I suggest you contact your local Federal and State Government reps and make sure they are suitably motivated on this issue. Lack of urgency, combined with a lack of transparency, is not a recipe for either good government or effective eradication programs.

Being blue over the health of rivers

Growers often mention the chronic lack of investment for maintaining healthy flows in rivers, which is critical for minimising erosion and reducing the impact of flood waters. In the ‘old’ days, 1940 to be precise, a Queensland Act of Parliament provided for the establishment of River Improvements Trusts (RITS) as statutory bodies.

These RITS had authority to raise funds, enter land, and contract necessary works. Various amendments to the Act have been passed, including in 2013 when RITS were deemed “responsible for restoring natural resilience for flooding and cyclones in rivers and their catchment”.

It was up to a local government, or multiple local governments, to apply to the Minister to form a Trust and a river improvement area over which it would have jurisdiction. Local government was also seen as the primary source of funds to undertake works, although this was often supplemented by grants and landholder contributions.

While the RIT model has worked in the past, and several are still active, the flow of grant funding for river health has dried up over time. Catchment management was once a real buzz word (at least for older folk like me), but funding for managing natural resources in recent decades has targeted ‘headline’ issues such as Reef water quality or carbon farming. A focus on catchment and river management has gone down the drain, so to speak. ►

The Queensland Government did initiate a review of RITS in 2021, and many of our districts provided input. But no report has appeared as yet. I have recently been advised that the report will be finalised in the next few months and that it has recommendations relating to both funding and to simpler administrative arrangements. However, I suspect the funding and focus will be limited and piecemeal, and government funding for natural resource management will continue to be rained down on topical issues, especially carbon farming.

There must surely be scope for a coalition of agricultural, regional NRM, environmental and community organisations to lobby for a return to a primary focus on catchment management. This would ensure a whole range of desirable catchment outcomes are considered and resourced in an integrated manner, including improved water quality, healthy soils, reduced erosion, riparian condition, targeted revegetation, and reduced impacts of flooding.

I suspect regional NRM bodies have solid, ready-to-go catchment plans sitting on their web sites, but have been hamstrung by the narrow focus of available funding sources. 