Lantana (Lantana camara L.) strategic plan

Transcription

1 WEEDS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE Lantana (Lantana camara L.) strategic plan i

2 This publication is produced as part of the Weeds of National Significance initiative, a joint initiative between the Commonwealth of Australia and each of the Australian states and territories. Commonwealth of Australia 2012 ISBN (online) This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit Published by the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra. The Australian Government and the Australian Weeds Committee (AWC) support and encourage the dissemination and exchange of publicly funded information. The Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence applies to all material in this publication save for the content supplied by third parties, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry logo, the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and any material protected by trademark. Where the material in the publication is owned by a third party, you should contact the copyright owner before making any use of that material outside what is permitted under the Copyright Act While every care has been taken in preparing this publication, the AWC accepts no responsibility for decisions or actions taken as a result of any data, information, statement or advice, expressed or implied, contained in this report. An unpublished draft of the revised strategic plan has guided national coordination of this Weed of National Significance for the past two years. Before publishing the revised plan, the Australian Weeds Committee altered it because some actions had been completed, and then agreed to include a uniform monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) template for all phase-3 Weeds of National Significance. Supporting information about the Australian Weeds Strategy, Weeds of National Significance and progress to date may be found at where links and downloads provide contact details for all species and copies of the strategy. Comments and constructive criticism are welcome as an aid to improving the process and future revisions of this strategy. This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: Australian Weeds Committee 2012, Lantana (Lantana camara L.) strategic plan , Weeds of National Significance, Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra. Inquiries should be addressed to: Secretariat Australian Weeds Committee GPO Box 858 CANBERRA ACT awc@daff.gov.au Web: Copies of this publication are available from the Secretariat or at ii

3 Contents Acknowledgements... v Summary Introduction Background The biology of lantana Origins and varieties Physical description Life cycle Environmental drivers of growth and invasion Sterile forms of lantana Lantana spread and potential distribution Lantana impacts Control methods Biological control Socioeconomic factors affecting management Research requirements Legislative controls Principles underpinning the plan The national program progress to date Process followed development of the revised strategic plan Indigenous engagement and land management Relevance to other strategies Strategic goals Goal 1: Prevent new infestations from establishing Goal 2: Strategically manage existing infestations Goal 3: Increase capability and willingness to manage lantana iii

4 4 Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement framework Stakeholder responsibilities Appendix 1 The Weeds of National Significance initiative and its phases Appendix 2 National lantana distribution and management zone map, Appendix 3 Program logic model for the lantana strategic plan References iv

5 Acknowledgements Thanks go to members of the National Lantana Management Group for their support in the development and assessment of the strategic plan; and to the state agencies, local governments, natural resource management groups, industry representatives and individuals who provided valuable feedback on the original drafts. The author would also like to thank the Australian and Queensland governments for their continued financial and administrative support of the Lantana Weeds of National Significance Coordinator role support that enabled the redevelopment of this strategic plan to occur. v

6 Summary Lantana camara (lantana) is a multibranched, thicket-forming shrub originating from the tropics and subtropics of America. Since its introduction to Australia in the 1840s, lantana has invaded environments within a five million hectare range. As a result, whole ecosystems and populations of more than 1400 native species are threatened, and the economic impacts to the grazing sector now exceed $121 million annually. Despite extensive control efforts, anecdotal evidence suggests that lantana is continuing to invade habitats and increase its density in many areas. Consequently, ongoing strategic and coordinated management is required to ensure further spread is restricted and to reduce the impacts within its current distribution. Lantana was declared a Weed of National Significance (WoNS) in The first strategic plan was published in 2001 and reviewed in In developing the Lantana Strategic Plan , previous achievements and advances in technology have been considered. The strategic plan includes updated targets and strategic linkages ensuring that the WoNS initiative remains in-step with the contemporary weed management environment and that it provides a clear framework for the coordinated management of lantana throughout Australia. The strategic plan has been developed in consultation with representatives from local and state governments, industry bodies, conservation agencies, natural resource management groups and community groups, and documents the commitments of these stakeholders to ongoing and strategic lantana management in Australia. The plan highlights the major gaps and challenges that still face Australia in the battle to protect our primary industries and natural assets from the worst effects of this weed. However, it also provides hope and a clear forward direction for all those involved. The plan has three closely linked goals, each with a series of underlying objectives: 1 Prevent new infestations from establishing Enforce relevant national and state legislation. Maintain containment lines and zones. Maintain knowledge of level and extent of all current infestations. Investigate the dynamics of spread. 2 Strategically manage existing infestations Adopt best-practice management techniques. Implement strategic management to protect priority assets. Implement best-practice biological control programs. Investigate the ecology of lantana to determine better control options. Manage ornamental plantings of lantana. 3 Increase the capability and willingness to manage lantana 1

7 Develop cooperative management frameworks to deliver the objectives of the strategic plan. Engage and support the community. Maintain the effectiveness and relevance of the strategic plan. Seek ongoing allocation of resources for delivery of the strategic plan. Lantana has invaded so many of Australia s ecosystems that its management must be integrated with other natural resource management goals to achieve landscape-scale change. Approaches to management must also anticipate and provide security against a changing climate. Strategic decision support tools such as regional-scale remote sensing mapping, a prioritisation system for managing environmental assets and best-practice integrated control guidelines developed under the previous strategic plan provide the basis for this to occur. However, greater adoption and commitment is required to ensure longterm goals are achieved. Vision Australians working together to contain the range and minimise the impacts of lantana as an essential component of landscape-scale weed management. 2

8 1 Introduction Lantana (Lantana camara) is one of Australia s most damaging weeds. Its invasion of natural ecosystems and production areas has a serious negative impact on the environment, economy and society. Potential distribution mapping and climate change models suggest that lantana has the capacity to spread beyond its current range and to increase in density within its existing distribution. Consequently, without sustained commitment to its management, the cost to the Australian community is expected to increase significantly. Widespread weeds like lantana offer a range of challenges to land managers due to the cost of control and logistics associated with their management. Based on current technologies and resources, it is unrealistic to expect that lantana can be completely controlled across its entire range. However, experience has shown that effective strategic management can ensure the impacts are reduced and our most valued environmental, economic and social assets are protected. There are numerous industry, government, and community groups; as well as a large number of private individuals actively working to control the spread or reduce the impact of lantana. The challenges faced by these groups are significant; however, the crossjurisdictional partnerships and vital support mechanisms developed through the delivery of this strategic plan can enable more strategic and coordinated management. 1

9 2 Background 2.1 The biology of lantana Origins and varieties Lantana is a member of the Verbenaceae family. The genus consists of more than 160 species, of which only two have been recorded as naturalised in Australia: L. camara and L. montevidensis or creeping lantana, which is an increasing weed problem in coastal Queensland and northern New South Wales. Lantana has been an important part of the international horticultural industry since it was introduced to Europe from Brazil around 1636 (Howard 1969). Multiple subsequent introductions to Europe resulted in the creation of aggregate species of mixed parentage. As a result, the weed now known as L. camara is a highly variable hybrid plant. Worldwide there are several hundred wild and cultivated forms or varieties (Day et al. 2003). At least 29 varieties have become naturalised in Australia. Despite this, recent research indicates that only shallow genetic variation exists among Australian L. camara varieties, and it is proposed that they originated from a single phenotypically diverse species from the plant s native range (Watts et al. 2009). This view conflicts with the previous hybrid-swarm model (Sanders 2006) but supports the view that Australian weedy L. camara varieties should be considered one species. Nevertheless, varietal differences can be quite significant from a management perspective. Morphological traits like leaf size, hairiness and plant structure can influence the effectiveness of herbicide control methods, and some lantana biological control agents are host specific to one or a small number of lantana varieties. In addition, management priorities may be determined on the basis of differences in levels of invasiveness and toxicity. Varieties are identified based on morphological characteristics such as flower colour, structure of leaf hairs, and thorniness and length of bracts, however, in many instances, specialised expertise is required to reliably separate forms. To simplify the taxonomy for general use, weedy lantana varieties in Australia have been classified into five main groups based on flower colour: white, pink, pink-edged red, red and orange Physical description Lantana is a multibranched shrub that, under good growing conditions, forms thickets 2 4 m high. It is capable of climbing up to 15 m with the support of vegetation (Swarbrick et al.1998). Lantana has a shallow root system consisting of a short taproot with lateral roots branching out to form a root mat. It has square-shaped stems covered in short, recurved prickles. The leaves are opposite, 2 10 cm long, ovate to lanceolate, with toothed margins. They are generally bright green on the upper surface, and pale and hairy on the underside; however, leaf colour, size and shape are dependent on the variety of lantana and the availability of moisture and light (van Oosterhout 2004). The leaves and stems have a strong aromatic odour when crushed (Swarbrick et al. 1998). 2

10 An inflorescence consists of dense clusters of flowers. Pairs of inflorescences form in the axils of opposite leaves. Tightly packed, angular flower buds open from the outside towards the centre of the inflorescence as they mature (van Oosterhout 2004). Flowers vary in colour from red yellow, orange pink and white depending on the lantana variety and maturity of the inflorescence Life cycle Under good conditions, lantana plants can be sexually mature within 12 months (Figure 1). Flowering occurs when there is available soil moisture, high air humidity and moderate to high temperatures. This allows almost year-round flowering and fruit production in many areas. (Swarbrick et al. 1998). Flowering will also generally occur 4 6 weeks after a 25 mm rainfall event, and rain-dependent flushes are particularly evident in drier areas (Swarbrick et al. 1998). Lantana flowers are pollinated by a range of insect species including butterflies, bees and thrips (Clemson 1985; Dronamraju, 1958; Goulon & Derwent 2004; Mathur & Mohan Ram 1986; Schemske 1976; Swarbrick et al. 1998). Cross-fertilisation is most common; however, some self-pollination may also occur (Day et al. 2003). About half of the flowers will develop a single-seeded, fleshy berry. Berries are borne in clusters and ripen to shiny purple black (Swarbrick et al. 1998). A single plant can produce up to fruit per year (van Oosterhout 2004), although seed bank densities can average from (Gentle & Duggin 1997, 1998) to seeds/m 2 (Vivian-Smith et al. 2006). Germination rates are generally low and have been recorded between 6 per cent and 16 per cent (Vivian-Smith et al. 2006). Seeds normally germinate during the warmer months but will germinate throughout the year if sufficient soil moisture is available and temperatures are high enough. Lantana seeds are mostly distributed by fruit-eating birds, but kangaroos, bearded dragons, sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, foxes, and possibly rodents also spread seed in their droppings (Day et al. 2003; Swarbrick et al. 1995). Lantana seeds have been dispersed up to 1400 m from the ingestion source by birds in the tropical rainforest environments of north Queensland (Westcott 2009), but seed is likely to be spread further in more open environments where birds travel further between roosts. The passage of seeds through the gut of animals is believed to improve germination rates, as there is some evidence that seed pulp delays or inhibits germination (Graaf 1987; Swarbrick et al. 1998). Greenhouse-based trials indicate lantana seed survival of approximately 21.3 per cent after 36 months under natural rainfall conditions, and 27.2 per cent after 24 months when irrigated (Vivian-Smith & Panetta 2009). Computer modelling of seed survival projections suggest that a small percentage of buried seed may survive up to 11 years (Vivian-Smith & Panetta 2009). Lantana plants can also reproduce vegetatively, sprouting from stems that take root, by layering, or through the planting of woody cuttings into moist soil. 3

11 Figure 1 Life cycle of Lantana camara Environmental drivers of growth and invasion Under suitable conditions of warm temperatures and high rainfall, lantana is long-lived, with constantly renewed growth at the base of the stems. Rich volcanic and well-drained clays are ideal soils for lantana but it will grow in sandy soils if there is adequate moisture. Lantana does not grow well if it is waterlogged or shaded, in saline conditions or under prolonged drought (Thaman 1974; Winder 1980). Growth is also restricted in shallow soils with limited water-holding capacity, and in the hard, phosphate-deficient soils of open eucalypt forests (Swarbrick et al. 1998). The upper temperature limits of lantana are unknown, but the shoots are frost sensitive and plants do not tolerate consistent temperatures below 5 C (Thaman 1974; Winder 1980). After becoming dominant in small gaps or edges, lantana may gradually spread if the area experiences increased frequency and intensity of fires, which may kill understorey species (Swarbrick et al. 1995), or because of its climbing and strangling growth habit that causes further damage and reduction of the canopy (Alcova 1987). Lantana often dominates secondary succession, and allelopathic chemicals released into the soil prevent germination and competition from some other plant species (Gentle & Duggin 1997a, 1997b). Activities that increase light intensity and soil temperature stimulate the germination of lantana seed. Consequently, lantana distribution and spread is closely linked to disturbance activities such as clearing, cultivation or road construction, inappropriate burning regimes, overgrazing or livestock trampling; and feral animal activity such as rabbit burrowing and pig rooting (van Oosterhout 2004). 4

12 2.1.5 Sterile forms of lantana Due to both natural and horticultural hybridisation, there are now reputedly more than 650 forms or varieties of L. camara worldwide (Day et al. 2003). Horticulturists have developed ornamental varieties that have been promoted as sterile ; however, many still produce viable pollen, occasionally set seeds and are capable of spreading vegetatively. Research indicates that some of these ornamental varieties are also capable of hybridising with weedy forms to produce viable offspring with increased genetic variability (Sples & du Plessis 1987). This could lead to the introduction of traits for increased flowering ability and drought and frost tolerance into the weedy population. It also has the potential to compromise lantana biological control programs by altering host susceptibility or recognition, and increasing the weed s adaptability to new environments. In most instances, the introduction of L camara varieties through the nursery trade has been successfully stopped. A 2009 Nursery and Garden Industry Australia survey found no species that are Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) on any of the 328 production/availability lists nationwide (Thomas & Kachenko 2009). In addition, records of illegal sale are rare and when identified local authorities deal with them rapidly. Despite Australia-wide legislative restrictions on the sale and distribution of L. camara, removal of existing plantings is not enforced in most areas, and garden plantings continue to pose a risk to achieving long-term management outcomes. 2.2 Lantana spread and potential distribution Lantana is native to the tropical and subtropical regions of Central and South America, but was introduced to Australia and many other countries as a garden ornamental. Lantana was first recorded in Australia in 1841 at the Adelaide Botanic Gardens. By the 1860s there are records of it having naturalised in Brisbane and Sydney (Swarbrick et al. 1998) and in the Big Scrub area in New South Wales (Byron Shire Council, pers. comm.). In 1897, the Queensland Colonial Botanist, FM Bailey, reported that lantana had become a most troublesome weed that had spread to form impenetrable thickets on the banks of streams, deserted farms and the edges of scrubs around Brisbane. He went on to say that it was equally abundant about Port Jackson [in Sydney] and that its abundance of showy flowers all the year round is a poor compensation for the good land it encroaches upon (Bailey 1897). These words are as relevant today as they were in the late 1800s, and lantana has now invaded more than five million hectares of eastern Australia (DERM 2010). It is widely distributed throughout coastal and subcoastal areas from Mount Dromedery in southern New South Wales to Cape Melville in north Queensland, and on many of the Torres Strait Islands. In recent times, the weed has also been found in association with riparian systems in central west Queensland outside what, until recently, was believed to be the plant s potential distribution. Isolated infestations also occur (or have occurred) in Cape York; around Katherine and Darwin in the Northern Territory; and in the vicinity of Broome and Kununurra in the Kimberley, as well as Geraldton, Perth and Albany in Western Australia. 5

13 Lantana is present in all states and territories as a garden ornamental, but has not become naturalised to any great extent in Victoria, South Australia or Tasmania. In the south-west regions of Western Australia, the Mediterranean climate and the prevalence of poor or sandy soils are considered the major constraints on spread. However, even in these regions, lantana has demonstrated a capacity to invade sensitive riparian systems and other environments where soil moisture is available year round. By contrast, the Kimberley in the north of the state has a tropical environment. Current distributions are limited; however, this region is likely to be much more prone to invasion than other areas of the state. If lantana becomes established along watercourses and around watering points, it may have serious economic implications for the Kimberley pastoral industry. Lantana was previously believed to have reached its potential range but recent detections and climatic modelling provide evidence to the contrary. In recent years, the potential distribution of lantana has been mapped using a range of modelling systems, and most show a similar potential pattern of invasion (Figure 2). Figure 2a was produced using the MaxEnt model and represents modelled climate suitability (NSW DECC & Macquarie University 2011). The model was designed using worldwide distribution data for L. camara and bioclimate variables including annual mean temperature, maximum and minimum monthly temperatures, isothermality, precipitation in the driest and wettest month, and precipitation seasonality. These variables capture information about extremes of temperature and precipitation, as well as seasonal patterns. The model confirms that excellent habitat conditions occur along the east coast of Australia and across Cape York, with suitable areas in the northern Top End of the Northern Territory; the Kimberley and southern coasts of Western Australia; and some of the coastal regions of Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. Currently, potential distribution modelling does not include management regimes such as use of fire. It is possible that the extreme dry season, and/or the annual burning regime, may have prevented the more extensive spread of lantana across Cape York and into the open savanna woodlands of the Top End. However, in eastern Indonesia where lantana is a serious invader, there are areas as dry or drier than the Top End that also experience annual fires. This suggests that lantana may be a sleeper weed rather than simply unsuited to this area. 6

14 a Potential distribution in 2010 b Potential distribution in 2020 c Potential distribution in 2050 d Potential distribution in 2080 Predicted probability of presence Source: NSW DECCW & Macquarie University (2011). Figure 2 Potential distribution of Lantana camara under current and predicted climate change conditions Another consideration is that the ecological limits of lantana are not clearly defined and it may be more appropriate to model distribution based on soil temperature and soil moisture. For example, when small volumes of irrigation (simulating flooding) were applied to the original CLIMEX 1 model, the distribution boundaries were pushed westward into the floodplains and drainage channels of western Queensland (ARMCANZ et al. 2001). The implications are that given adequate rainfall or flood events, lantana could spread significantly further west of its current east coast range. This supposition has been supported by recent discoveries of lantana on catchments west of Emerald and near Barcaldine in central west Queensland. 1 Simulation modelling system developed by CSIRO 7

15 Anecdotal evidence suggests that lantana significantly increased its westward range in south-east Queensland as a response to a series of wet years in the early 1970s. It is also thought that a series of very wet years through the late 1990s in the Northern Territory led to a rapid expansion of lantana (within its range) along the coastal dune systems and into the vine thickets around suburban Darwin. Increased lantana spread has also been observed in rainforest environments where the resilience of natural ecosystems has been degraded by extended drought periods (Sutherst 1995). If, as this suggests, extreme climatic events are a key driver of distribution, then protocols must be put in place to respond to range expansion caused by the increase in these extreme events predicted under climate change conditions. In addition, lantana in Australia is rarely found growing beyond 1000 m above sea level, because of the decrease in sustained warm temperatures above this elevation. Consequently, it is also predicted that increases in average temperature will allow lantana to invade higher altitude areas and further south (McFadyen 2007; Sharma et al. 2005). On a broader scale, the MaxEnt climate change modelling suggests that L. camara will experience a strong decline in overall climate suitability between now and 2080 (Figure 2b 2c) (ARMCANZ et al. 2001). However, this decrease is based on distribution potential, not current distribution, so there is still a large potential for range expansion. The most significant point to note from this research is the shift in spatial distribution of climate suitability, which indicates coastal regions throughout Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and southern Western Australia will be prone to invasion in future years. 2.3 Lantana impacts Lantana is classed as a weed in more than 60 countries (Swarbrick et al. 1995) and is considered to be one of the ten worst weeds worldwide (Sharma et al. 2005). It infests millions of hectares of grazing land globally and is of serious concern in 14 major crops including coffee, tea, rice, cotton and sugarcane. It was declared a Weed of National Significance in Australia because of its widespread distribution and impact on agricultural industries and biodiversity. Lantana costs the Australian grazing industry more than $104 million in lost production and $17 million in management efforts every year ( values) (AECGroup 2007). The majority of these costs are associated with reduced livestock-carrying capacity, increased property maintenance expenditure and stock poisoning. In commercial forests, lantana raises production expense, increases the risk of damage by fire and impedes access. For example, it is estimated that lantana accounts for 30 per cent of the establishment costs and up to 50 per cent of harvesting costs of hoop pine plantations in south-east Queensland (Wells 1984). In addition, the invasion of natural ecosystems by lantana puts at risk populations of more than 1400 native species, including 279 plant and 93 animal species listed as rare and/or threatened under state and federal legislation (NLMG 2010). In Queensland alone, approximately hectares of endangered regional ecosystems contain lantana (DERM 2010). Where infestations are dense, lantana excludes native species through smothering and allelopathic effects (Gentle & Duggin 1997b). It dominates understoreys, prolongs succession and reduces biodiversity (Fensham et al. 1994; Gentle & Duggin 1997a; Lamb 1982; Stock & Wild 2006; Swarbrick et al. 1995). 8

16 Not all the impacts of lantana are negative. It provides a substitute habitat and food source in highly disturbed environments for some fauna, and despite Australia-wide restrictions on sale and distribution, lantana still has limited social value as an ornamental plant. These positives must be recognised so that management and education programs can be adapted to avoid further damage. However, on balance, the impacts of lantana are overwhelmingly negative. To encourage a change in attitudes and commitment to lantana management and control, it is important that the public are made aware of this fact and inspired through evidence that action does achieve positive and measurable outcomes. 2.4 Control methods There are a range of control methods suggested for lantana, including manual, mechanical and chemical removal; as well as land management techniques that promote competition. However, the validity of each technique and the manner in which they should be integrated is determined by site-specific circumstances. Consequently, it is recommended that land managers refer to the Lantana best practice management and decision support tool (Stock et al. 2009) for more detailed information. Although there are now management techniques available for the majority of circumstances, options are still limited for hard-to-access areas and for the control of stressed plants. There are also major gaps in knowledge about implementation of fire management across the range of environments in which lantana grows. In addition, there are gaps in our knowledge of lantana s ecology and biology, and current long-term research of population dynamics aims to determine the most vulnerable points of the life cycle to target with traditional and biological control methods Biological control Lantana was the first weed in the world to be the target of a comprehensive biological control program, when 23 insect species collected from Mexico were introduced to Hawaii in 1902 (Walton 2005). It was also the focus of Australia s first biological control program, with the introduction of four insects to Australia in 1914 (Walton 2005). To date, 18 of the 31 biological control agents that have been introduced to Australia have established successfully. These agents have varying impacts on the growth and fecundity of lantana populations, but as yet none have provided effective control (Zalucki et al. 2007). Horticultural hybridisation has produced an estimated 650 phenotypes of lantana throughout the world (Day et al. 2003). Observations of differing host specificity between varieties of L. camara suggest that the collection of new biological control agents from plants of genetically similar origin may increase the success rate of control programs. Unfortunately, due to hybridisation, there are no naturally occurring species of lantana that genetically match Australian varieties. However, recent research has indicated that Australian L. camara populations have their genetic origins in the Caribbean and Venezuela (Watts et al. 2009); consequently, these countries could be targeted for collecting biological control agents. It has also been recommended that future biological control research programs may be improved by targeting insects that feed on stems and roots, in addition to the existing leaf and flower feeders (Zalucki et al. 2007). 9

17 2.5 Socioeconomic factors affecting management Widespread weeds such as lantana pose significant barriers to effective management because of the cost and time associated with control. Together with the serious impacts caused to economic and environmental systems, management can seem an insurmountable challenge causing flow-on social and psychological effects to individuals and communities. Surveys of production land managers in 2003 and 2006 indicated that the major limiting factors to the adoption of control are time (74.3 per cent of respondents in 2003 and 74.5 per cent in 2006), cost of control (49.0 per cent in 2003 and 34.1 per cent in 2006) and difficulties due to terrain or accessibility (39.8 per cent in 2003 and 47.5 per cent in 2006) (AECGroup 2007b). Although these surveys represent only a portion of the groups involved in managing this weed, barriers to control are likely to be similar across groups. In environmental systems, lantana performs a limited number of ecosystem functions through the provision of food and habitat to fauna in disturbed environments. Although it is recognised that the negative impacts of this weed far outweigh the positives, further research and extension in this area is vital to give conservation land managers the confidence to manage this weed without causing further ecosystem damage. Finally, there is a section of the population that remains either ignorant or unconcerned about the impacts of lantana. If livelihoods and lifestyles are not directly impacted, competing priorities usually hold sway. This trend is causing increasing issues in peri-urban areas where weed infestations on lifestyle blocks can impact adjacent farming communities and environmental systems. Clark et al. (2004) identified four needs to ensure that increased management occurred: A re-evaluation of attitudes to Lantana species to ensure renewed diligence. Improved awareness and exchange of information. Integration of control methods and prioritisation of actions to achieve better control results. Strategically coordinated management to secure on-ground results. The lantana WoNS initiative has been working toward these goals, but will require sustained focus from stakeholders to achieve long-term attitudinal and behavioural change. 2.6 Research requirements For a weed that has achieved such worldwide notoriety, there are still a remarkable number of knowledge gaps. The following list has been compiled from reviews of the existing literature, with reference to a similar list provided by Johnson (2007) and from discussions with experts and on-ground managers: Further research into the ecology and population dynamics of lantana varieties is vital to identify vulnerable aspects of the life history and to establish effective management and monitoring strategies. Monitoring the effectiveness of existing biological control agents so that future release programs can be justified and better targeted. 10

18 Investigations into the ecological limitations of lantana varieties to improve assessments of potential spread under current and climate change scenarios. Focus should be on the relative importance of temperature, number of frost days and soil moisture content. Further research into fire management and its integration with other control techniques to achieve management outcomes suitable to a range of environments. Assessment of the rate and nature of genetic flow from existing ornamental varieties into weedy populations. Continued assessment of potential biological control agents with a focus on species from the Caribbean and Venezuelan regions, which have been identified as the most likely points of genetic origin of lantana in Australia. Monitoring and quantification of the factors affecting natural ecosystem recovery following lantana removal. Predictive modelling of high-risk spread pathways and regions under current and climate change conditions. Research into appropriate native replacement species and control techniques (e.g. mosaic control and appropriate patch-management size) to ensure ongoing food and habitat options for native species in disturbed environments. Research into better integration of biological control and other management techniques. Research to identify or confirm a relationship between lantana infestations and bell minor associated dieback. 2.7 Legislative controls From late 2006, all lantana species and material including nursery stock, plant parts and seeds were prohibited entry to Australia under the Quarantine Proclamation Table 1 summarises the current state and territory declarations as at December

19 Table 1 Legislation related to Lantana camara Jurisdiction Legislation Declaration Action Australian Capital Territory Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005 Lantana camara is included on the declared pest plant list New South Wales Noxious Weeds Act 1993 All lantana species are declared as Class 4 plants statewide Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria Western Australia Weeds Management Act 2001 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 Natural Resource Management Act 2004 Weed Management Act 1999 Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007 Lantana camara is declared a Class 3 Regionally Controlled Weed in the Bega Valley, Eurobodalla and Lord Howe Island Shires All lantana species are Schedule Class B/C plants statewide All lantana species are Class 3 plants statewide L. camara is a Class 11 category 3 plant statewide Legal responsibilities are laid out in the Lantana Statutory Weed Management Plan (Lantana camara) L. camara is a Restricted plant in all regions L. camara is declared C3 (management) whole of state Supply and propagation is prohibited Growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority, and the plant may not be sold or knowingly distributed The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed, and the plant may not be sold or knowingly distributed Growth and spread to be controlled; not to be introduced to the Territory Supply or sale prohibited May require removal from environmentally significant areas Sale is prohibited Import, sale and supply is prohibited. Land holders may be required to control the species on their property Trade and distribution of the species is restricted Sale and trade is prohibited. Weed-specific management plans may be developed in the future 2.8 Principles underpinning the plan This strategic plan is based on the seven principles outlined in the Australian Weeds Strategy (NRMMC 2007): Weed management is an essential and integral part of the sustainable management of natural resources for the benefit of the economy, environment, human health and amenity. Combating weed problems is a shared responsibility that requires all parties to have a clear understanding of their roles. Good science underpins the effective development, monitoring and review of weed management strategies. Prioritisation of, and investment in, weed management must be informed by a risk management approach. Prevention and early detection are the most cost-effective techniques for managing weeds. 12

20 Weed management requires coordination among all levels of government in partnerships with industry, land and water managements, and the community, regardless of tenure. Building capacity across government, industry, land and water managers, and the community is fundamental to effective weed management. The WoNS initiative establishes national priorities and facilitates action where there is a significant national or cross-jurisdictional benefit to be gained. These strategic plans do not specifically address resourcing; however, they aim to identify efficiencies and ensure existing resources can be allocated to achieve the most strategic management outcomes. Effective widespread weed management, requires an approach that spans the biosecurity continuum. This includes prevention and eradication programs, establishment and defence of containment lines, and the protection of key environmental, social and economic assets in areas where the weeds are already widespread (Figure 3). Source: Modified from Hobbs & Humphries (1995) and DPI (2010). Figure 3 Stages of weed invasion with corresponding goals, management objectives and actions at each stage 13

21 2.8.1 The national program progress to date The first WoNS strategic plan for lantana was published in October 2001, and a coordinator was appointed in The Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (Resolution 15.7, 21 May 2009) endorsed a three-phased approach to national management of WoNS species (Appendix 1). The lantana program was reviewed against the strategic plan s objectives in September 2009 and the following key achievements were identified: establishment and maintenance of an independent advisory group the National Lantana Management Group (NLMG) declaration of L. camara in all states and territories of Australia inclusion of all species of Lantana on the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Services (now Biosecurity Australia) prohibited import list development of field-tested, best-practice guidelines and decision-support information, enabling a cost-effective, multi-year integrated weed management approach (Stock et al. 2009) development of regional-scale remote sensing mapping of lantana distribution (100 m 100 m scale) (DERM 2010) identification and prioritisation of the native species and ecosystems threatened by L. camara and publication of the Plan to protect environmental assets from lantana (NLMG 2010) development and extension of a comprehensive range of information and awareness products establishment of the Southern and Northern Lantana Containment Lines instigation of control programs for an estimated 75 per cent of outlier infestations support for the lantana biological control program by releasing and establishing two new biocontrol agents increase the range of control techniques available. Key barriers to performance have been: a lack of multispecies monitoring of the impacts of biocontrol agents difficulties in engaging state, regional and local stakeholders to enforce compliance with legislation and policies to establish long-term coordinated control programs at strategic sites (southern New South Wales excepted) lack of a national system to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and current status of control programs. The review recognised that there is a need for ongoing national coordination of lantana control programs, with a particular focus on: ensuring strategic management of outliers across Australia engaging all stakeholders in a landscape approach to reduce biodiversity impacts and further spread within priority localities 14

22 development and distribution of new biological control agents from the revised genetic centre of origin of Australian lantana establishment and maintenance of a monitoring system to demonstrate the effectiveness of control programs and for early warning of any varieties that are not being effectively controlled with existing technologies enabling the best-practice extension message to reach the diversity of people in the peri-urban and rural regions ensuring governance that includes capacity for the NLMG to provide input into the nationally strategic value of funding applications that include management of lantana Process followed development of the revised strategic plan Stakeholder participation and consultation is paramount for the development of a successful strategy. The Lantana Strategic Plan is a product of more than six months of planning and public consultation. Representatives from the NLMG participated in a facilitated program logic workshop to develop the basic structure of the strategic plan. This process ensured that all assumptions were carefully considered and that there were logical linkages between objectives, strategic actions and desired intermediate to long-term program outcomes. From this base document, a draft strategic plan was developed and distributed for public consultation. All comments received were supportive of the direction and content of the plan, and in most cases, only minor corrections of the plan were required. The only significant comment that could not be addressed related to the need for additional resources to fund the plan s delivery. This strategic plan does not specifically address resourcing; however, it aims to identify efficiencies and ensure existing resources can be allocated to achieve the most strategic management outcomes. The plan provides general direction for the management of lantana in Australia; however, funding priorities will be assessed on merit and relative to other local priorities. The Australian Weeds Committee, with the support of key stakeholders, will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the management of the WoNS initiative. Further information on suggested monitoring and evaluation questions is included in Section Indigenous engagement and land management Indigenous engagement and land management are dealt with as a separate section under this strategic plan because communication and coordination with these groups is frequently overlooked, or dealt with in a substandard manner. Large areas of land that are either prone to invasion by lantana or have existing infestations are managed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island groups. Therefore, effective engagement and coordination practices must be used to promote strategic management of lantana in these regions in a culturally sensitive manner. In addition, it is vital to ensure that Indigenous cultural heritage values are maintained on country managed by non-indigenous land managers. All states and territories have legislation in place to protect areas and objects of significance to Indigenous people. Duty- 15

23 of-care provisions require that people conducting activities in areas of significance must take all reasonable and practical measures to avoid harming cultural heritage. As highlighted in the draft document Principles for engaging Indigenous peoples in managing pest and disease incursions produced by the National Biosecurity Committee, Indigenous communities have both an interest and contribution to make in managing pest incursions on Country, and this should be recognised and respected. Further detail is provided in the document, but the overarching principles are: relevant parties and their rights should be identified mechanisms should be established to engage Indigenous peoples values of all parties should be addressed governments should promote an understanding of incursion management capacity to manage disease and pest incursions needs to be considered Indigenous peoples should be involved in preparedness, planning and response activities Relevance to other strategies The WoNS Lantana Strategic Plan has been developed to provide a framework for coordinated management of lantana across the country. Complementary links can be found in a range of existing resource management initiatives at all jurisdictional levels, as shown in Table 2. 16

24 Table 2 Strategies and plans for the management of lantana Scale Natural resource management Pest management Weed species management National State Regional Catchment Local Property Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia s Biological Diversity 2010 Native Vegetation Policy 2001 National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development 1992 State biodiversity and natural resource management strategies Forest policies Regional natural resource management plans Catchment management strategies Landcare plans Conservation corridor plans Riparian vegetation management plans Bushcare plans Property management plans National parks management plans (Northern Territory) The Australian Weeds Strategy 2007 Weeds of National Significance Biological Control Act 1984 Caring for our Country Business Plan State agency pest management plans Regional pest management strategies Integrated crop management pest management strategies Local government pest management plans (Queensland) Property pest management plans National park weed management strategies Weeds of National Significance strategic plan New South Wales Lantana Biological Control Task Force Specific weed control plans (New South Wales) Local weed control plans (New South Wales) Property weed management plans 17

25 3 Strategic goals The strategic goals and objectives in this revised plan build on those of the original plan. These objectives include actions to maintain ongoing strategic programs and address critical management and research needs for the future. Appropriate actions to achieve these goals and objectives are outlined in Sections Many of the actions will enable progress towards multiple objectives. Thus, all activities should be undertaken in light of the overall program and should address all relevant goals when possible. Containment lines and management priorities are illustrated on the National Lantana Management Map (Appendix 2). A program logic diagram (see Section 5) was developed by the NLMG to show the relationship between the strategic actions and the objectives and goals they achieve. A phase three monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) table has been included (Section 5). This level of reporting will be required by the Australian Weeds Committee (AWC) to monitor the ongoing delivery of the plan. 3.1 Goal 1: Prevent new infestations from establishing Desired long-term outcome: All areas outside the core distribution are maintained lantana-free. The objectives and strategic actions to achieve this, and the action level and responsible partners for each action, are shown in Table 3. Table 3 Objectives and strategic actions to achieve goal 1 of the Lantana Strategic Plan Objectives Strategic actions Action level a 1.1 Enforce relevant national and state legislation 1.2 Maintain containment lines and zones Enforce importation restrictions for all lantana species Enforce a ban on the sale and distribution of Lantana camara Explore opportunities for legislative and policy support to maintain lantana containment lines and asset protection objectives Refine or review priority strategic management zones based on region-specific classifications of prevention, eradication, containment and asset protection Establish and/or maintain cooperative agreements to defend containment lines Priority management of new and outlying 1 Responsibility 1 Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (now Biosecurity Australia) 1 State and territory agencies, local 1 government 2 State and territory agencies, local government, conservation and NRM groups 2 State and territory agencies, local government, conservation and 18

26 Objectives Strategic actions Action level a 1.3 Maintain knowledge of level and extent of all current infestations infestations Implement consistent weed management and site recovery monitoring protocols to ensure management actions are achieving the desired outcome of long-term asset protection Establish and/or maintain centralised state and national databases for storing weeds mapping information Responsibility NRM groups, land managers 2 State and territory agencies, local government, conservation and NRM groups 1 Australian Government, state and territory agencies 1.4 investigate the dynamics of spread Identify high-risk pathways of spread (specifically west of core infestations) 2 State and territory agencies, research groups NRM = natural resource management a The Australian Weeds Committee (AWC) applied three action levels that reflect jurisdictional commitment to implementing actions: Level 1 = Highly beneficial as a national action that is critical to success of the WoNS revised strategic plan and all relevant AWC jurisdictions have committed resources to implementing this action. OR Highly beneficial to a particular jurisdiction and the responsible party/ies have committed resources to implement this action. Level 2 = Highly beneficial at national and/or jurisdictional level, but implementation will be subject to resource availability and investment priorities. Level 3 = Desirable and still beneficial to improving uptake and efficiency of on-ground action, but not critical to success. 3.2 Goal 2: Strategically manage existing infestations Desired long-term outcome: Demonstrated and ongoing decline in the adverse impacts of lantana on productivity and high priority natural assets. The strategic actions to achieve this, and the action level and responsible partners for each action, are shown in Table 4 19

27 Table 4 Objectives and strategic actions to achieve goal 2 of the Lantana Strategic Plan Objectives Strategic actions Action level a 2.1 Adopt bestpractice management techniques 2.2 Implement strategic management to protect priority assets 2.3 Implement best-practice biological control programs Facilitate delivery and adoption of best-practice management information Identify and coordinate a response to critical information gaps: specifically address research requirements identified in Section 2.6 of this plan Promote new lantana control techniques (where efficacy data is documented and comparable) Identify and manage high priority areas at local, regional and state levels, based on the protection of values and assets (Australian Weed Strategy): Support the implementation of the Plan to Protect Environmental Assets from Lantana (NLMG 2010) (or similar prioritisation processes) Promote the use of strategic management tools at regional levels for the protection of social and economic values and the defence of lantana-free areas within the current distribution Implement consistent weed management and site-recovery monitoring protocols to ensure management actions are achieving the desired outcome of long-term asset protection Maintain efforts to research and distribute biological control agents, including possible native agents Develop and implement biological control impact monitoring Responsibility 1 State and territory agencies, Industry bodies,local government, conservation and NRM groups, land managers 2 State and territory agencies, Industry bodies 3 State and territory agencies, industry bodies, local government, conservation and NRM groups 2 State and territory agencies, local government, conservation and NRM groups, land managers 2 State and territory agencies, local government, conservation and NRM groups, land managers 2 State and territory agencies, local government, conservation and NRM groups, land managers 2 State and territory agencies, research groups 2.4 Investigate the ecology of lantana to determine better control options Investigate biological control agents from genetic centres of origin (based on genetic relatedness of Australian and native-range lantana) Develop a better understanding of the ecological and biological parameters that affect management success 2 State and territory agencies, research groups 3 State and territory agencies, research institutions 20

28 Objectives Strategic actions Action level a 2.5 Manage ornamental plantings of lantana Promote and support the removal of ornamental plantings of lantana from government and commercial properties Increase public awareness of the impacts of ornamental lantana and encourage replacement plantings Provide alternative plant species lists for both ornamental and native regeneration, and revegetation situations Responsibility 3 State and territory agencies, local government, Industry groups 3 State and territory agencies, local government, industry groups, media organisations, education institutions, conservation and NRM groups 3 State and territory agencies, local government, Industry groups NRM = natural resource management a The Australian Weeds Committee (AWC) applied three action levels that reflect jurisdictional commitment to implementing actions: Level 1 = Highly beneficial as a national action that is critical to success of the WoNS revised strategic plan and all relevant AWC jurisdictions have committed resources to implementing this action. OR Highly beneficial to a particular jurisdiction and the responsible party/ies have committed resources to implement this action. Level 2 = Highly beneficial at national and/or jurisdictional level, but implementation will be subject to resource availability and investment priorities. Level 3 = Desirable and still beneficial to improving uptake and efficiency of on-ground action, but not critical to success. 3.3 Goal 3: Increase capability and willingness to manage lantana Desired long-term outcome: Capability and willingness to ongoing coordinated management of lantana exists. The strategic actions to achieve this, and the action level and responsible partners for each action, are shown in Table 5 21

29 Table 5 Objectives and strategic actions to achieve goal 3 of the Lantana Strategic Plan Objectives Strategic actions Action level a 3.1 Develop cooperative management frameworks to deliver the objectives of the strategic plan 3.2 Engage and support the community 3.3 Maintain the effectiveness and relevance of the strategic plan 3.4 Seek ongoing allocation of resources for delivery of the strategic plan Incorporate strategic plan priorities into state, territory, regional, catchment and local-level management plans Encourage consistency of objectives at each planning level by using: regulatory and planning instruments incentives to encourage participation links to catchment and local vegetation management plans Incorporate the actions from catchment and local lantana management plans into individual property management plans Build community capability by providing best-practice management information Involve the community, including Indigenous groups, in the implementation of management strategies at all levels Facilitate monitoring, evaluation and review of national strategic plan as required by current AWC policy Implement (as a minimum) a phase 3- level monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) strategy Communicate the Lantana Strategic Plan goals and objectives to all stakeholder groups and their members Use strategic decision-support tools to ensure existing resources are allocated to areas of highest priority Responsibility 2 State and territory agencies, local government, conservation and NRM groups, land managers 2 Local government, land managers 2 State and territory agencies, local government, 1 conservation and NRM groups 2 AWC 1 State and territory agencies 1 State and territory agencies, local government, 2 conservation and NRM groups AWC = Australian Weeds Committee; NRM = natural resource management a The Australian Weeds Committee (AWC) applied three action levels that reflect jurisdictional commitment to implementing actions: Level 1 = Highly beneficial as a national action that is critical to success of the WoNS revised strategic plan and all relevant AWC jurisdictions have committed resources to implementing this action. OR Highly beneficial to a particular jurisdiction and the responsible party/ies have committed resources to implement this action. Level 2 = Highly beneficial at national and/or jurisdictional level, but implementation will be subject to resource availability and investment priorities. Level 3 = Desirable and still beneficial to improving uptake and efficiency of on-ground action, but not critical to success. 22

30 4 Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement framework The Australian Weeds Strategy (NRMMC 2007) gives the Australian Weeds Committee (AWC) responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the management of national priority weeds, including WoNS. The AWC is therefore responsible for monitoring and reporting on progress under this strategic plan. This strategic plan is subject to a five-year review; however, mechanisms must also be put in place to allow the goals and actions to be evaluated throughout this period. This enables ongoing assessment of progress towards intermediate and long-term outcomes, and, ultimately, helps to determine the effectiveness of individual actions. It also helps to identify program improvements, and provides evidence to stakeholders and funding bodies that they are getting value from their investment. Individual jurisdictions and/or organisations responsible for weed management and conservation will need to develop their own monitoring strategies. They should, where possible, coordinate actions to implement this plan, and monitor and evaluate progress towards its goals in conjunction with existing state, regional or local plans. While individual actions should be monitored at the jurisdictional level, data or evidence collected as a part of state, regional and local activities or plans should be provided to the AWC and collated so that it can be assessed each year within the national context. This will help to build a comprehensive overview of the plan s delivery. Table 6 lists key evaluation questions that should be assessed by the AWC each year at the national level to ensure progress against strategy goals, and which should be used to provide the basis for an annual report to the AWC. This monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) framework lists the basic reporting information that should be collected for the life of the strategic plan including during phase 3 delivery (see Appendix 1). This will ensure that sufficient data is collected to identify successes and failures, and provide the opportunity for improvement where outcomes are not being achieved. Annual MERI plans may be developed to follow activities in more detail. Although performance indicators or other ways of measuring progress are not provided in this strategic plan, a scoring system could be appropriate. A generic program logic model (Appendix 3) was developed by WoNS coordinators in This shows the relationship between strategic actions and the objectives and goals they achieve. The program logic is one way to communicate the links between activities, their intermediate and long-term outcomes, and the vision of the strategic plan. 23

31 Table 6 Suggested monitoring and evaluation questions to measure progress under the phase 3 WoNS Lantana Strategic Plan WoNS: Jurisdiction: Date: Goal 1 Prevent new infestations from establishing Key evaluation questions To what extent have new infestations been prevented from establishing? Data or evidence required 1.1 National distribution data: Has the national distribution map been reviewed and/or updated? Has the Priority Management Action spreadsheet been updated? 1.2 New infestations: Number of new infestations recorded Percentage of known infestations actively controlled 1.3 Eradication and containment programs: Percentage of eradication and/or containment programs being maintained 1.4 Legislation: Legislation or policy changes for this species Legislative change has been identified by stakeholders Consider Are these documents publicly available? Have stakeholders been advised of any changes? Where is this data or information stored? Does this information capture national priorities? Are any new infestations occurring in areas identified as a high priority in the national strategy? How were infestations detected (passive or active surveillance, community reporting etc.)? Have high-risk pathways been adequately identified? Have threats been minimised? What percentage of programs identified in the national strategy are being actively managed? Is there a plan in place for ongoing management? How is progress being monitored and reported to stakeholders? (Examples using case studies can be included) What legislative changes have been made? Are minimum requirements being maintained (e.g. ban on sale, trade, movement? Is control required throughout or in part of the jurisdiction? Is compliance actively enforced? Score: 24

32 Table 6 continued WoNS: Jurisdiction: Date: Goal 2 Strategically manage existing infestations 3 Increase capability and commitment to manage WoNS Key evaluation questions To what extent is integrated weed management effectively managing core infestations? To what extent are assets being protected through strategic management? To what extent has the capability and commitment to manage WoNS increased? Data or evidence required 2.1 Integrated weed management: Effectiveness of integrated weed management programs 2.2 Asset protection: Number of priority assets identified as at risk from WoNS Percentage of priority assets being protected (e.g. assessed against relevant threat abatement plans) Percentage of state and regional invasive species plans that identify priority assets at risk from WoNS 3.1 Community engagement and awareness: What is the status of best-practice information? Are partnerships being maintained to ensure collaboration on WoNS? Number and type of media activities Consider Are existing tools providing adequate control of WoNS? Have new advances or technologies been developed and are they incorporated into bestpractice management information? Are there barriers to adoption of best-practice management? Are research programs addressing any observed gaps (e.g. herbicide trials, biocontrol, restoration requirements postcontrol)? Methods by which assets are being protected (e.g. targeted annual spray programs, high-risk pathway surveillance, strategic plans) Are long-term monitoring programs in place to detect change? To what extent is management leading to an improvement in asset condition? (Response should include status report on progress towards asset-protection programs) Score: Is best-practice information up to date and readily available? Is this information and/or advice being targeted to priority regions? Is training being delivered to meet the needs of weed managers (including the community)? Are networks and groups being supported (e.g. through dissemination of research outcomes, funding opportunities, control 25

33 Table 6 continued WoNS: Jurisdiction: Date: Goal Continuous improvement Key evaluation questions Are there any unexpected outcomes that have been identified through implementation of strategy? WoNS = Weeds of National Significance Scoring: 1: Insufficient evidence to score 2: No progress has been made against this goal 3: Limited progress is being made against this goal 4: Reasonable progress is being made against this goal 5: Excellent progress is being made against this goal Data or evidence required 3.2 Resourcing: From what sources are programs being funded? 3.3 Policy and planning: Are the objectives of the strategy being integrated into Australian Government/state/regional plans, policies and programs? Has cross-border collaboration occurred? Barriers: Have any other management issues or impediments been identified? Consider options etc.)? Has awareness and engagement in WoNS management been raised effectively? Number of projects funded by Australian Government, jurisdictions, industry, etc. How are priorities reflected in planning and policy approaches (e.g. weed risk assessments, invasive species plans, assetprotection plans, district plans, weed spread prevention activities, management programs, incentive programs, state working groups)? How are national priorities being maintained (e.g. containment lines, eradication targets, training and awareness raising, research projects)? Score: 26

34 5 Stakeholder responsibilities Although landowners and managers have primary responsibility for the control of lantana on their land, relevant agencies share responsibility for the actions listed in Sections 3 and 4. The effective implementation of this strategy requires the involvement of a range of stakeholders. Stakeholders responsibilities may vary between jurisdictions: some actions may be optional while others are prescribed by legislation. The successful achievement of strategic actions relies on the development and maintenance of partnerships between community, industry and government, and recognition of the roles of each stakeholder. In particular, while the National Lantana Management Group provided oversight for the original strategy, future coordination arrangements will evolve to maintain and build on past achievements. The Australian Weeds Committee, at a national level, and various agencies at the state and territory level will continue to provide a leadership role. Suggested responsibilities for each group are listed below. Australian Government Ensure strategic lantana control is undertaken on all Commonwealth-owned and managed lands. Prevent further imports of Lantana spp. through the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (now Biosecurity Australia). Provide research support through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Commonwealth Weeds Research Group. Administer the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act Promote the status of lantana as a WoNS, its impacts and the importance of management. Australian Weeds Committee Provide a mechanism for identifying and resolving weed issues at a national level. Provide advice to the National Biosecurity Committee on weeds issues. Provide planning, coordination and monitoring of the implementation of the Australian Weeds Strategy. Facilitate coordination between the Australian Government and state and territory governments on weed management policy and programs. Provide governance processes for the effective delivery of the WoNS initiative. Oversee the implementation of the activities described in the WoNS strategies. Promote the importance and benefits of the WoNS initiative to all levels of government. Collect and report the achievements of the WoNS initiative and recommended improvements to upper level government at state, territory and national levels. State and territory agencies Maintain appropriate legislation and policies to achieve state and territory-based objectives for managing lantana (e.g. a national ban on the sale of the plant). 27

35 Administer and enforce legislation where applicable. Coordinate lantana control and management at a jurisdictional level to complement the management and delivery of the Lantana National Strategic Plan. Undertake lantana management on state lands in line with agreed national priorities. Work with natural resource management groups, local governments, communities and other stakeholders to prevent and minimise the impacts of lantana. Identify strategic management areas and associated objectives. Promote consistency with this strategy in jurisdictional pest management plans. Facilitate the inclusion of strategic lantana management in pest management planning processes. Contribute to priority weed research initiatives. Source funding for strategic management programs and research. Implement monitoring and reporting protocols in line with the monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement plan and provide relevant information the Australian Weeds Committee. Develop and implement communication and extension tools, where appropriate. Undertake any necessary planning and mapping, and contribute to national mapping initiatives. Ensure, where appropriate, participation on the National Lantana Management Group or similar national WoNS taskforce. Improve knowledge of the identification, impacts and best-practice management of lantana. Identify lantana and other weeds threatening public lands. Implement weed hygiene and other best-practice management to minimise spread of lantana. Research institutions (e.g. CSIRO, universities, government agencies) Undertake appropriate research to address priority national strategic requirements. Identify research gaps and seek innovative solutions for the management of lantana. Seek new and ongoing funding and support for research requirements. Local governments Incorporate Lantana Strategic Plan objectives in relevant pest management plans and monitor implementation. Administer and enforce legislation where applicable. Undertake surveying and mapping, particularly in relation to outlying lantana infestations. Establish local management policies to contribute to strategic control, containment and/or asset protection objectives. Improve community awareness of impacts and identification, and promote early detection. 28

36 Strategically control lantana on local government-managed or owned land Facilitate the removal of urban plantings of lantana in strategically important areas. Source funding and/or contribute to strategic control programs. Natural resource management groups and catchment management authorities Administer and enforce legislation where applicable (e.g. in South Australia). Source funding and/or contribute to strategic control programs. Improve regional awareness of impacts and identification, and promote early detection. Contribute local and regional perspectives to lantana management. Contribute to the development, implementation and/or review of local and regional pest management plans. Incorporate lantana actions in relevant pest management plans and monitor implementation. Promote and contribute to local and regional containment and/or management programs in partnership with relevant stakeholders. Support and/or develop lantana projects consistent with national priorities and seek funding to implement projects. Participate in local and regional mapping initiatives and contribute to state, territory and national map production. Promote awareness and best-practice management through event coordination and product distribution. Community, conservation and other interest groups Industry Contribute local and regional perspectives to lantana management, including community perspectives. Contribute to the development, implementation and/or review of local and regional pest management plans. Support and/or develop lantana projects consistent with national priorities and seek funding to implement projects. Participate in local and regional mapping initiatives, and contribute to state, territory and national map production. Promote and adopt best-practice management of lantana. Contribute to research and development of management practices to support industry members. Ensure awareness of sale and movement restrictions (this may differ between states) of lantana by industry members. Improve community awareness of impacts and identification, promote early detection and hygiene protocols, and discourage use of lantana. 29

37 Private land owners Manage and control lantana on private lands in accordance with state, territory or local government legislation and policy. Improve knowledge of the identification, impacts and best-practice impacts of lantana. Identify lantana and other weeds threatening the property. Undertake any necessary planning and mapping. Implement best-practice management. Implement weed hygiene and other management practices to minimise spread of lantana. 30

38 Appendix 1 The Weeds of National Significance initiative and its phases 1 In 2007, an independent review of the WoNS initiative concluded that the nationally strategic approach of WoNS was highly successful in leveraging consistent multijurisdictional activity on high-priority weed species. This initial review was followed by a detailed review of the inaugural WoNS species by the Australian Weeds Committee (AWC) in The AWC reviewed the implementation of the 20 WoNS national strategies and, in light of achievements for these 20 species, considered the capacity for national coordination of additional WoNS species. Following the reviews, the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (Resolution 15.7, 21 May 2009) endorsed a three-phased approach to national management of WoNS species (Figure 4). This phased approach aims to provide the most cost-effective use of limited national coordination resources. Figure 4 Australian Weed Committee diagrammatic representation of coordinator effort and resource use when implementing a Weeds of National Significance strategy The phased approach recognises the need for reduced national coordination ( phasing down ) of WoNS species that are under effective national management, and allows for further weed species to be nominated for consideration as additional WoNS. The AWC is implementing these reforms, and national coordination of the inaugural 20 WoNS species has already transitioned to phase 2 or 3, depending on the species. No species have yet been 1 Adapted from Thorp 2012, Additional list of Weeds of National Significance, < 31

39 removed from the WoNS list. The AWC is developing a protocol to guide future decisions about when this should occur on a case-by-case basis. In 2010, jurisdictions nominated additional candidate WoNS species. These species were independently assessed, and the AWC endorsed 12 additional species to be listed as WoNS. The AWC Chairman, Dr Jim Thompson, announced these additional plant species as WoNS on 20 April Additional information on the selection of these species and the phased approach is available on 32

40 Appendix 2 National lantana distribution and management zone map, 2011 The priority management actions for lantana outlined in goals 1 3 of the strategic plan are reflected in the national weed spread and management map below. 33

41 Appendix 3 plan Program logic model for the lantana strategic 34