Is this Bass Coast Landcare Network and Bunurong Land Council mangrove project at Queensferry the answer? Started in January 2025, brushwood structures are being used to increase sediment retention and provide shelter for the mangrove seeds. Photo: Landcare
By Neil Daly
IN MY article Measure of success, I referred to the Accounting for Nature Framework which states “You can’t manage what you haven’t measured”.
In relation to mangrove projects along Western Port's eastern foreshore arm, I raised the issue with the Allan Labor Government, the Opposition, the Victorian Greens and the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA).
IN MY article Measure of success, I referred to the Accounting for Nature Framework which states “You can’t manage what you haven’t measured”.
In relation to mangrove projects along Western Port's eastern foreshore arm, I raised the issue with the Allan Labor Government, the Opposition, the Victorian Greens and the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA).
Ellen Sandell, Leader of The Victorian Greens, asked a Question on Notice last September. In response, then Environment Minister Steve Dimopoulos stated that DEECA had recently funded two mangrove restoration projects along the eastern shore of Western Port. “All mangrove restoration projects funded by DEECA are required to submit progress and completion reports as a condition of funding.”
The Opposition said, “The Victorian Liberals support responsible environmental stewardship, but that must be matched with accountability and evidence-based decision making ... Taxpayers deserve to know whether programs are working, and if they are not, why they continue to be funded.”
Those who have followed my “mangrove articles” in the Bass Coast Post would be aware that various stakeholders have been planting mangroves along Western Port’s intertidal zone for the past 25 years or so. I have queried the outcome of these activities and suggested there should be a central clearing house to monitor, assess and report on these projects.
However, given that each stakeholder tends to go it alone and, in many cases, is funded by various non-DEECA grants, it would be fair to say that successive governments don’t know:
1. How many mangroves have been planted in Western Port over the last 25 years?
“Short answer: Based on all publicly available, searchable records, Western Port has had at least ~45,000–50,000 mangroves planted in the past 25 years, but no source provides a complete cumulative total, and the true number is almost certainly higher.”
While I cannot verify my calculation, from what I know of the situation, I would suggest that at least 200,000 mangroves have been planted (seeds and seedlings) in this period. At around a 2% survival rate, it is questionable what the remaining 4,000 mangroves have achieved.
2. How much money has been spent on planting mangroves in Western Port over the last twenty-five years?
“Short answer: There is no publicly available figure that totals all mangrove‑planting expenditure in Western Port over the past 25 years. However, based on the best documented projects, the verifiable minimum is a little over $900,000, and the true total is certainly higher, likely in the low millions, because many government and community projects did not publish cost data.”
AI goes on to say the $900,000 quoted only relates to “a three‑year wetlands restoration project launched in 2025 – focused on mangroves, saltmarsh, and seagrass – that received $900,000 in philanthropic funding from the Ian Potter Foundation, with additional (unspecified) contributions from RMIT and other partners.” This funding has been granted to the Western Port Biosphere Reserve Foundation.
Again, from my past research and independently of the Ian Potter Foundation grant, it is likely that over the past 25 years, an additional one million dollars has been spent on mangrove projects in Western Port.
If so, the 4000 surviving mangroves have cost $250 each. It brings into question whether this represents value for money and if it has made any difference to erosion along Western Port’s foreshore.
If nothing else, AI has revealed that little track has been kept of the mangrove works that have taken place since 2001.
So far my call for an audit has gone unheeded, but now it seems I have an ally. When questioned, AI says:
“Yes – the evidence strongly supports conducting an independent audit of Western Port’s mangrove‑planting projects from the past 25 years. The available reporting shows repeated project failures, inconsistent methods, fragmented governance, and no comprehensive evaluation of outcomes – all classic indicators that an audit is overdue.”
The Opposition said, “The Victorian Liberals support responsible environmental stewardship, but that must be matched with accountability and evidence-based decision making ... Taxpayers deserve to know whether programs are working, and if they are not, why they continue to be funded.”
Those who have followed my “mangrove articles” in the Bass Coast Post would be aware that various stakeholders have been planting mangroves along Western Port’s intertidal zone for the past 25 years or so. I have queried the outcome of these activities and suggested there should be a central clearing house to monitor, assess and report on these projects.
However, given that each stakeholder tends to go it alone and, in many cases, is funded by various non-DEECA grants, it would be fair to say that successive governments don’t know:
- how much money, time and effort have gone into this activity;
- how many mangroves have been planted;
- if the success rate of around 2% represents value for money; and
- if it’s curbing erosion where it’s needed.
1. How many mangroves have been planted in Western Port over the last 25 years?
“Short answer: Based on all publicly available, searchable records, Western Port has had at least ~45,000–50,000 mangroves planted in the past 25 years, but no source provides a complete cumulative total, and the true number is almost certainly higher.”
While I cannot verify my calculation, from what I know of the situation, I would suggest that at least 200,000 mangroves have been planted (seeds and seedlings) in this period. At around a 2% survival rate, it is questionable what the remaining 4,000 mangroves have achieved.
2. How much money has been spent on planting mangroves in Western Port over the last twenty-five years?
“Short answer: There is no publicly available figure that totals all mangrove‑planting expenditure in Western Port over the past 25 years. However, based on the best documented projects, the verifiable minimum is a little over $900,000, and the true total is certainly higher, likely in the low millions, because many government and community projects did not publish cost data.”
AI goes on to say the $900,000 quoted only relates to “a three‑year wetlands restoration project launched in 2025 – focused on mangroves, saltmarsh, and seagrass – that received $900,000 in philanthropic funding from the Ian Potter Foundation, with additional (unspecified) contributions from RMIT and other partners.” This funding has been granted to the Western Port Biosphere Reserve Foundation.
Again, from my past research and independently of the Ian Potter Foundation grant, it is likely that over the past 25 years, an additional one million dollars has been spent on mangrove projects in Western Port.
If so, the 4000 surviving mangroves have cost $250 each. It brings into question whether this represents value for money and if it has made any difference to erosion along Western Port’s foreshore.
If nothing else, AI has revealed that little track has been kept of the mangrove works that have taken place since 2001.
So far my call for an audit has gone unheeded, but now it seems I have an ally. When questioned, AI says:
“Yes – the evidence strongly supports conducting an independent audit of Western Port’s mangrove‑planting projects from the past 25 years. The available reporting shows repeated project failures, inconsistent methods, fragmented governance, and no comprehensive evaluation of outcomes – all classic indicators that an audit is overdue.”