Conclusion

State government entities have not effectively addressed all findings from our 2013 audit report, though they have made some progress on 5 of the 8 recommendations. They have established a framework for collaborating on pest management and released a Statewide plan that defines roles and responsibilities. Policies and criteria to declare pests have been approved and the declared pest list reviewed. They are still to fully implement or evaluate key aspects of the framework and plan, improve transparency of the process for declaring pests, and create a program to periodically review the threat of potential and declared pests.

Information on the spread, abundance and impact of high priority pests is still not comprehensive or shared amongst stakeholders, and efforts to manage pests are still not based on a systematic assessment of the risks they pose. These shortcomings make it hard to manage Statewide pest risks, effectively allocate operational resources and enforce legislation.

Key findings

A Statewide collaborative framework, strategy and plan for pests have been established but gaps remain

Since our 2013 audit, DPIRD has established a framework for the collaborative management of pests across WA. Entities have developed formal arrangements to collaborate across entity and land boundaries but these are not always effective. Stakeholders remain functionally separate bodies with differing priorities whose pest management efforts do not always align.

The Plan has not been fully implemented and so does not address the threat posed by pests

We found that the Plan is comprehensive but only 13 of its 38 actions have been completed. Entities do not clearly prioritise and periodically review threats according to risk to ensure efficient use of resources. Crucially, DPIRD has not ranked the highest risk pests nor created emergency plans, generic or specific, to deal with prohibited species.

The process for declaring pests is still not transparent to stakeholders despite this being identified as a priority in our 2013 audit. Since then, DPIRD has reduced regulatory activity in favour of voluntary compliance and community engagement. While this shift aligns with the national approach, it carries risks that pest management is not consistently carried out or enforced for all landholders.

Consistent with the shift in approach, there has been an increase in the number and funding for RBGs which has increased their capacity to assist landholders to manage established pests. However, DPIRD does not know if they are effective substitutes for enforcement by entities.

Information on the spread, abundance and impact of pests is still fragmented and inadequate

DPIRD cannot demonstrate that information on the spread, abundance and impact of high priority pests is accurate and current. Information on individual pests is still fragmented and inadequate to plan effective management programs and measure their success. This means entities do not have an overview of pest populations and their impact to provide a sound basis for resourcing decisions.