when selecting incentives that an incentive scheme does not send the signal that it is thought that good land management is not profitable.
Incentives that‘ crowd in’ good behaviour tend to be those focussed on encouraging and motivating early adopters. Incentives used tend to be those that publicly recognise achievements.( Rode, Gómez-Baggethun, & Krause, 2015) note that this is most effective when the recognition is considered to be credible, revered and unexpected. An Australian example of this is the sugarcane industries‘ Canechanger’ program. The objective of Canechanger is to recognise the hard work that leading canegrowers are putting in to make positive environmental changes, to foster innovation and positive change.
To crowd in good land management, it is recommended that the LDC:
� Investigate the‘ best’ way to reward those land managers who are leaders in good land management or gully remediation and / or have made the greatest positive changes towards good land management. This may be an awards night( perhaps linked to Reef Champions), access to‘ invitation only’ special learning activities or field trips or trials.
See RECOMMENDATION 3D in section 4.
3.2.6 Focussing on outputs, inputs or outcomes
The incentive scheme should ultimately be tailored to achieve the targeted outcome( e. g. number of species, number of bird breeding pairs, units of sediment removed from the watercourse etc.). Purely outcome-focussed schemes tend to be costly to monitor due to the significant time lags that often occur between actions and outcomes. The long time-lags associated with sediment reduction may also mean that a policy purely focussed on outcomes places the risk of action failure on the landholder( works done up front but not paid for straight away), this could be a major deterrent to participation. If it is considered that the cost of a pure outcome focussed policy outweighs the benefits, an incentive scheme targeted towards rewarding inputs to the outcome( such as fencing) or processes( having a covenant in place), or a mix of these, as a surrogate measure for outcome may be more practicable.
Given the time lags that occur between land management change and outcomes, it is recommended that the LDC incentives programs are designed rewarding on a mix of inputs and outcomes( usually outcomes are a proxy for sediment reduction). The level of payment could be gradated based on the potential to generate a positive change. In addition, the timing of the payment could influence adoption. For inputs that have a high up-front cost, payments could be staged to cover some up-front cost and reward for completion of the input. Incentives could target inputs such as:
� Fencing( perhaps paid half up front and half on completion of fencing); � Beginning the BMP accreditation process;
Landholders driving change: Exploring new incentives | 37