Cost of Control

Managing Invasive Alien Plants (IAP) and any other vegetation is a costly affair. It is most often seen as a grudge purchase so the result is the cheapest way is the one most often taken. Unfortunately this is usually the most expensive proposition in the end. Fires in December 2025 have again highlighted the cost of not managing your vegeation.

Managment plans for IAP's is the place to start and will most often save money. The attched article is self explanatory. The disturbing fact is that it is a re-write of one I wrote in 2005. This one was updated in 2012 and all the points are still valid.

=============================================================

Why is Vegetation Management (clearing) costing more than it should?

Cost of Control: A revisit of an on-going issue.

By DR Graham Harding

In 2005 I wrote an article for this publication covering many issues of what I felt were factors affecting the cost of controlling invasive vegetation and vegetation in general.  The article addressed the Cost of Control; highlighting many of the upfront issues.  These included the grey or neglected factors, such as the capability of the person doing the work, correct choice and use of herbicides and the efficiency of operations.  This article will re-look at some issues, attempting to gauge our progress in costing vegetation management into our operations.

When operations don’t work or the plants do not die it is always the herbicide that is the first to be blamed for the poor results.  The climatic effects, application, ability of operators or the choice of herbicides is seldom questioned.  Errors in application are widespread and found in all markets of vegetation management.  It is the prerogative of management to ensure that they (or their staff) have the knowledge to correctly describe and then monitor work being done.  The starting point is making sure you have supplied the correct Terms of Reference for the job – do not presume that all contractors know what is best.  There are good, well qualified contractors in the market but equally there are some chancers.

Over the past few months I have seen a wealth of poor management of contract clearing that highlights both poor contracting and poor management expertise.

One contractor told me that when they get a clearing contract with a particular large national corporation they do not use herbicide as this would result in the trees dying, meaning that they would not get more work the following year.  They were quite open with the fact that management of the corporation did not know the difference.  Another confided that they only use one herbicide despite there being numerous different species present since using more than one herbicide complicates their task.  Their solution is to use one product at a high rate, killing some trees, leaving some alive and doing environmental damage at the same time – but the task is simplified and again management does not query the practise as the expertise to assess the task is either lacking or not willing.

A more recent example concerned the clear fell clearing of an area of about 9ha.  Terms of Reference, if supplied were incomplete, plants were incorrectly identified and then either the incorrect herbicide or no herbicide was applied.  After I audited the area, the contractor could not identify the active ingredients of some of the products applied, used unregistered products, applied in the rain and in most cases did not apply any herbicide.  When these errors were pointed out to the site owner, little concern was shown as the contractor promised a follow-up.  Remember, a follow-up is meant as that, not trying to fix poor work in the first place.  Why was this contractor chosen?  On upfront price, not ability!  But what will the actual cost be?

Municipalities are also at fault as noted with two alien clearing projects seen on my travels.  The first was for felled Eucalyptus trees along a national highway.  Herbicide was applied sparingly to the xylem using a paint brush and a cold drink can. No herbicide was applied to the phloem!  When asked, the contract team stated that this was what was expected.  Another example in the arid Karoo had applicators applying herbicide with a sponge as a blob to the middle of the xylem. Every stem was religiously treated even if the fell was made 2m above the ground.  Needless to say, in both cases regrowth occurred within 10 months.  Another example of ineffective clearing was where a company used the same herbicide three years in a row with the same unsuccessful result.  The attitude seemed to be that if it did not work the first time then surely it should work on the second or third attempt.  The problem was the herbicide and the application.

In KwaZulu-Natal a landowner stripped the bark off mature Eucalyptus trees alongside a gravel road leading to the N3.  Trees were treated, but in such a way as to cause significant grass kill.  Now there are dying trees threatening to demolish a fence, telecom line, power line and fall across the road.  The trees will have to be felled at some stage, a task much more difficult than felling and logging live plants.

Another point of concern is that contracts for vegetation management are routinely given out on a once off basis.  This means that the contractor gets paid on application and not for results.  If the plants do not die, then the norm is to get another contractor in to do another application.  This is nonsensical and does nothing to build good business ethics.

What is the point of the above examples?  In South Africa we have the expertise and knowledge of how to manage our vegetation in any field (forestry, industrial and power utilities) but we seem to have a serious lack of willingness to use it.  Is it due to the economic downturn or is it inbred in businesses that the cheapest price must be the best.  My opinion is that it is in human nature to take the cheapest upfront cost.  However, management should be looking at the overall cost to company and therefore taking the final result and cost into account.

By selecting the cheapest and using teams that are poorly trained and under-qualified, the industry of vegetation management is just perpetuating the problem.  This is due to the fact that the contract team presumes that they are doing the job well and therefore the methodology must be correct.  Management it turn loses sight of the total cost of the operation as it is often seen as more important to “tick the box” than to do the job properly.  Furthermore, any re-treatments are likely to fall into another financial year.  This often means that excessive costs are not recorded.  There is also a strong belief that plants are difficult to kill therefore management often sympathises with the contractor, - and is not aware that the problem is technique and not the plant. 

The solution is a multi-faceted management approach:

·        Ensure your Terms of Reference are accurate and meet your requirements,

·        Ensure that you know what is needed and that the best methods and herbicides (where needed) are used (is your staff correctly trained?),

·        Ensure correct auditing of the task,

·        Ensure the area to be cleared is budgeted over a period of 3 to 5 years,

·        Enter into contracts over a 3 – 5 year period with the same team,

·        If necessary include training in the project,

·        Hire correctly trained and qualified teams that meet the requirements of the Fertilizer, Farm feeds, Agricultural and Stock Remedies Act (36 of 1947), with a registered Pest Control Operator (PCO) on site, and

·        If in doubt, hire a consultant to help.

To generalise is wrong but it is my opinion that we still pay too much for vegetation management, not in the cost of clearing but due to the fact that we do not manage the operations efficiently.

DR Graham Harding is a registered PCO, professional scientist and MD of Invader Plant Specialists.  He can be contacted on invaderplantis@gmail.com.