LDC New Incentives Report | Page 31

Table 5 Considering incentives from first principles
Practice
Min std
for
incentive
Current average practice
Best practical practice
Private benefit( H, M, L, 0 or negative)
Public benefit( H, M, L, 0)
Technical feasibility( H, M, L, 0)
Adoptability( H, M, L, 0, negative)
Nonprofit related barriers
Upfront cost
($/ unit)
On-going maintenance costs needed?($/ unit)
Should incentives to landholders be considered?
Grazing
Stocking rates consistent with long-term benchmarks
C
C
B
L-M
M
H
M
H
0 on farm, only training workshop( Park and Dickson, 2015)
Only 3 days($ 720) labour / year
No
Fencing to land type and provision of water points to ensure achieve endof- dry season ground cover targets
C
C
B
L
M
M-H
M
L
$ 200- 500,000 / farm( Park and Dickson, 2015) – suspected to be over-estimates as RCS suggest electric fencing is effective and much cheaper.
No assume landholder maintains or consider small payment for maintenance. Could build in as part of compliance assessment
Yes
Hillslope gullies
Erosion prevention( fencing to achieve reduced / controlled livestock access and linear features management
C
C
B
Not covered in grazing workshop – assume 0
M( 30 % effectiveness, Wilkinson et al. 2015)
H
Zero to L
L
Hard to assess on a
farm basis as one-off
figure.
$ 9,200 / km( Skull et al., 2016).
As for grazing fencing
Yes
$ 5,000 / km( Wilkinso n et al., 2015).
$ 2,000 / km, lower cost option for B has promise but is untested in wide application( Park and Dickson, 2015)
Remediation of active gullies – reveg and stabilisation
D
D
B
Zero to
negative
M-H( 50 % effectiveness, Wilkinson et al. 2015)
M
Zero to negative
L
Andrew Brooks assumption $ 350,000 / farm
Probably no, if gullies are remediated and stock excluded, otherwise may be required
Maybe
Landholders driving change: Exploring new incentives | 29