LDC New Incentives Report | Page 33

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?
Remediation of active gullies- major works including reshaping
D
B
B
Negative
H( 70 % effectiveness, Wilkinson et al. 2015)
M but less well established than for hillslope gullies
Zero to negative
N / A
$ 18 million($ 60,000 / ha and 300 ha gullies on a 20,000 ha farm( Brooks, pers. comm.)
Probably yes
Probably no
Streambank erosion
Management of stock on frontage country to achieve end of dry season ground cover targets
C
C-D( Park and Dickson, 2015)
C- B( Waterhouse et al., 2017)
B
L
H
M
M
L
$ 15,980 / km for fencing, off-stream water and natural regeneration( Bartley et al., 2015)
No or small – landholders should maintain fences
Yes
Regeneration of riparian frontage( large waterways)
N / A D B Assume tied to stock management 0 0 No
Engineered stream bank toe protection or bed protection
Engineering success will be highly dependent on upstream measures – best decided by NQDT or DNRME and not landholders
$ 143,880 / km for battering and up to over $ 5 million / km if major rock structures are needed( Bartley et al., 2015)
Probably yes
No
Landholders driving change: Exploring new incentives | 31