Buffel: Burgoyne puts cart before the cow
By ERWIN CHLANDA
The incremental buffel grass expansion is expected to result in large net economic losses for the NT, with costs about sixty times greater than benefits, according to a CDU report.
Yet Minister for Environment Joshua Burgoyne (pictured with buffel) gave pastoralists in effect carte blanche to buy, propagate and use the weed before the report, which he had commissioned, had been released.
The report says: "The benefits of forage provision [fodder] and erosion-control are estimated at just $112.3/ha/year, whereas the corresponding per-hectare external costs are at $6,328/ha/year.
"They are driven predominantly by biodiversity loss, cultural-site degradation, fire-regime intensification, buffel grass management burdens, and scenic amenity decline.
"Thereby, each additional hectare of buffel grass-dominated landscape imposes close to $6,216/ha/year in external costs.
"These findings are consistent across all scenarios, time horizons, and discount rates."
Meanwhile Mr Burgoyne announced "action through a $750,000 annual commitment and delivering the Buffel Grass Weed Management Plan 2026-36.
"This plan highlights the need for further investment – which is why I have written to the Federal Government seeking additional investment from the Commonwealth to support buffel grass management across the Northern Territory.
“This report reinforces the need for the Federal Government and Alice Springs Town Council to work together with our Government to manage buffel grass into the future.”
Mr Burgoyne said the assessment recognised the economic importance of existing buffel grass pastures, with grazing on these pastures remaining an important land use across many NT pastoral regions.
UPDATE September 1, 2026
The NT Cattlemen’s Association has announced that it had identified "serious concerns with the methodology, calculations, assumptions, stakeholder balance and quality-assurance processes" underpinning the CDU report.
CEO Romy Carey says in its current form it should not be relied upon to direct government policy or regulatory decisions.
“The fundamental concern is that the assessment appears to apply different standards to each side of the ledger.
"Pastoral benefits are treated narrowly, while environmental, cultural, fire-management and other costs are considered much more broadly.
"The pastoral contribution of buffel grass is largely reduced to an annual production value, despite the report acknowledging other material benefits including drought resilience, standing feed security, reduced reliance on supplementary feeding, enterprise stability and increased productive capacity of pastoral land."