be an improved level of practice. Following Pannell( 2008) the guiding principles were applied to scope out some first principles when it comes to the use of incentives in BBB( Table 5).
Conclusions of the public: private benefits analysis
� Incentive payments to landholders appear sound to consider for practices that have sufficiently high public benefits, are technically feasible, and have a threshold of estimated sediment load reduction per public cost.
� Other things being equal, practices having small or moderate upfront costs and where landholders can be reasonably expected to maintain the benefits are the practices where direct financial incentives to landholders will work well.
� Where significant levels of incentives are granted, binding responsibilities should extend in time, ideally beyond the current ownership or leasehold arrangements. Landholder obligations should be clearly documented, and compliance monitoring and inspections agreed.
� Where landholders cannot be reasonably expected to maintain benefits after an initial incentive, alternative mechanisms should be considered, including assigning property rights to the investor, or acceptance that the issue cannot be effectively managed.
� Given the large variations in benefits and costs associated with erosion management, a metric that is based on benefits, costs and other relevant factors( time-period, time-lags, landscape factors etc) would improve the effectiveness of public investment.
To improve the understanding of public and private benefits and aid in the future selection of incentives, it is recommended that the LDC:
� collect / consolidate information on land condition, land management, effectiveness of gully remediation activities; � modify the existing grants scheme; and � investigate institutional arrangements to support catchment restoration activities such as remediation of major gullies
SEE RECOMMENDATIONS 2, 3C and 5 in Section 4.
28 | Landholders driving change: Exploring new incentives