classification system http:// nesptropical. edu. au / index. php / round-3-projects / project-4-9 /. The approaches for assessing and monitoring gullies, particularly the range of alluvial gullies are not yet reflected in the Toolbox. Given this development, it was agreed that the practice list developed for this project should be kept relatively simple and sufficiently flexible to enable more comprehensive gully classification types to be better incorporated in future.
The suggested erosion practice list is shown in Table 1 in column 2.
Define current average practice, minimum acceptable standard and improved practice
Whether a financial incentive mechanism or other approach is warranted to encourage land management practice change depends on the level of public net benefits and private net benefits associated with the change. The logic behind the policy tool options( financial incentives, extension, technology development such as R & D, regulations or informed no action) have been well articulated through the work of( Pannell, 2008) through description of the public: private benefits framework.
An important( often overlooked or not understood by non-economists) element of economic thinking is that to create an incentive for land-use change, landholders could be offered payment out of public funds( beneficiary-pays in the sense that the public benefits from the anticipated environmental improvements), or could potentially be charged a tax for the pollution that they generate as a result of not changing land use( polluter-pays). The choice between beneficiary-pays and polluter-pays depends on who is considered to have the property rights, which is essentially a political decision. In practice, it often seems to be the case in Australia that the beneficiary-pays approach is used to encourage landholders to change their current land management in environmentally beneficial ways.
To assess both public and private net benefits requires an understanding of the current average practice. The benefits of management practice change are assessed relative to those of the current practice; implicit in this thinking is also consideration of what would have happened‘ without’ the project.
Current average practice
The current average practices have been assumed and data sources are indicated where available. The Reef Water Quality Risk Framework( informally known as the ABCD management practices framework)( Anon., no date) was largely used as the basis of assessing current practices being at A, B, C or D management practice level, with current practices assessed through data mostly previously sourced from the Water Quality Improvement Plan grazing management workshop held in 2015( Park and Dickson, 2015). In the absence of a sufficiently robust gully classification system and acknowledged inadequacies of the Reef Water Quality Risk Framework for gullies( Andrew Brooks, personal communication), the gully practices in particular are acknowledged as an inadequately represented:
Grazing management �
Stocking rates consistent with long-term benchmarks: These are assumed as C class( Park and Dickson, 2015), which is that‘ stocking rate estimates tend to be above district benchmarks for some or all land types.’
Landholders driving change: Exploring new incentives | 55