The Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association has identified serious concerns with the methodology, calculations, assumptions, stakeholder balance and quality-assurance processes underpinning the recently released Economic Impact Assessment of Buffel Grass.

NTCA Chief Executive Officer Romy Carey said the concerns were significant enough that the report, in its current form, should not be relied upon to direct government policy or regulatory decisions. 

“This assessment reaches significant conclusions about the economic value and cost of buffel grass to the Northern Territory. Those conclusions must be supported by transparent, balanced and reliable analysis,” Mrs Carey said. 

“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. 

“You cannot credibly present an economic assessment as balanced while materially narrowing or excluding benefits on one side and adopting a broader approach to costs on the other,” Mrs Carey said. 

“The issue is not whether every benefit or every cost can be assigned a dollar value. The issue is whether the same evidentiary standard is being applied consistently and transparently.” 

Mrs Carey said the economic contribution of pastoral production also extended well beyond an individual leaseholder.

“The cattle industry supports regional employment, contractors, livestock transport, exporters, local businesses, infrastructure investment and government revenue. If an assessment is intended to inform economic policy, those broader regional and supply-chain impacts cannot simply be omitted from one side of the equation.” 

NTCA has arranged a meeting with Charles Darwin University to seek clarification on the methodology and calculations and to provide the University with an appropriate opportunity to respond to the concerns identified. 

“NTCA recognises that buffel grass presents complex environmental, cultural and land-management challenges. Acknowledging those challenges does not remove the obligation to assess the pastoral, economic and regional consequences accurately and fairly.” 

“Government must be able to have confidence that scarce public funding is being directed by sound evidence. Poor analysis risks producing poor policy, misdirecting limited funding and diverting effort from practical management measures capable of delivering genuine outcomes.” 

“Until the significant methodological and analytical concerns identified by NTCA are satisfactorily addressed, this report should not be relied upon to direct government policy or regulatory decisions.”