- The prolific gums that make this region of Australia so ecologically unique. Photo: Barbara Madden
Much of the southern edge of the Great Western Woodlands borders the West Australian Wheatbelt. In and area where we are promoting restoration and connectivity, a proposed new barrier fence threatens further habitat fragmentation and destruction.
The proposal is driven by farmers who have problems with emus and dogs threatening their crops and livestock. A range of different options of control for these animals were costed by reports commissioned by the Department of Agriculture and Food WA.
The farmers preferred option is to build an extension to the existing State Barrier Fence from Ravensthorpe to Cape Arid, cutting through the bush. This scenario would see a swathe 120m wide cut through the Unallocated Crown Land of the Great Western Woodlands. This would mean at least 6000ha of clearing and chaining, and leave 300,000 ha of bush currently continuous with the Great Western Woodlands languishing as Wheatbelt remnant bush, isolated by the proposed fence.
The proposed route that the farmers of Esperance have been asked to approve also goes through or annexes a number of conservation reserves, nature reserves and national parks, such as the Cape Arid National Park.
Other options considered were a fence line following the actual edge of the farmland (300km longer, so considered too high a cost) or a “virtual fence” where the barrier is maintained by doggers, considered inefficient and expensive by the proponents.
Habitat fragmentation
This amount of land clearing and habitat fragmentation is unacceptable in the Great Western Woodlands, internationally significant and recognised for its intactness and connectivity.
Poor consultation is the hallmark of this process, with the government committing funds on the basis of selective agricultural economics alone. There has been no independent environmental assessment into the ecological consequences or consideration of any other views. The perspective of Traditional Owners, and others in the community who may have an opinion on a 490km barrier fence cutting through the bush have not been heard.
The financial costings of the project made available to the public to date are misleading, with a raft of expenses externalised or omitted. Ongoing maintenance of the fence, control of weeds, dieback and other diseases, and erosion have been ignored. The work of agencies like the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Agriculture and Food WA are hidden, and will fall to the taxpayer.
South Coast Natural Resource Management, positioning themselves for a project management role, need to tread carefully, have a considerable conflict of interest with their biodiversity protection responsibilities. The bush itself, the value of connectivity, and the impact of a barrier on resource nomadic native animals like emus has not been considered. The real cost of this fence is huge.
Like many other areas in the WA Wheatbelt farms along this boundary have questionable long term viability. The extent that the state should continue to subsidise marginal farming, at the expense of the environment needs to be challenged.
Conservation concerns
Fundamental to the Wilderness Society’s concern is the impact this proposed fence will have on conservation of The Great Western Woodlands.
This proposal is at odds with the State Governments own strategy for the region "A “Biodiversity and Cultural Conservation strategy for the Great Western Woodlands” which lists as its first priority objective: “A net improvement in Native vegetation condition and connectedness”.
The strategy commits the government to consulting all stakeholders, not just selected interest groups.
The strategy includes actions such as: “ Assisting land managers in minimising the impact of their activities”, and “Restore and maintain physical connections with native vegetation elsewhere in the south-west of WA” and “re-establish connections with surrounding natural areas through programs such as Gondwana Link”.
With the fence as proposed we are losing the opportunity for a dialogue about how to better manage the interface between agriculture and the bush, one that involves adequately funded active management techniques, without destructive barrier fences.
At the very least there needs to be an independent environmental assessment that actually looks at the ecological implications of the fence proposal. Such an inquiry would explore why hard barriers between wildlife and farming systems have fallen from favour elsewhere in the world.
