�
�
�
Management of stock on frontage country: ≈ $ 16,000 / km for fencing, off-stream water and natural regeneration( Bartley et al., 2015).
There is assumed to be no regeneration of riparian frontage( large waterways) unless the waterway is fully fenced and with stock exclusion for the vast majority of time. Occasional crash grazing for weed and pest control might be considered.
Engineered stream bank toe protection or bed protection: $ 143,880 / km for battering and up to over $ 5 million / km if major rock structures are needed( Bartley et al., 2015).
A. 2.3
Criteria for considering financial incentives to landholders
Whether financial incentives should be considered was assessed on the basis of practice characteristics( Table 1) and an assessment of the sediment load reduction in relation to public costs.
The practice characteristics and principles used were based on factors considered in the public: private benefits framework( Pannell, 2008):
�
�
�
�
�
�
Practices that had private net benefits( ranging from small positive to negative) were considered as potential for incentive payments as long as there are sufficiently high public benefits
Practices had to have at least medium public net benefits( all were deemed to meet this criterion). Note that, in practice, public net benefits need to consider proximity to the stream network – gullies in closer proximity to waterways will have higher sediment delivery ratios than those less well connected.
High technical feasibility was preferred over medium technical feasibility, but medium technical feasibility was not ruled out.
Practices needed to have only moderate adoptability( all met this criteria). High adoptability practices would be expected to be adopted without financial incentives.
Practices with high non-profit related barriers were excluded from consideration for financial incentives because such barriers are often hard to overcome. The only practice that was ruled out on this basis was maintaining stocking rates consistent with long-term benchmarks.
Practices which had lower upfront costs and or limited / no requirement for on-going maintenance payments should be preferenced for financial incentives above practices which had very high upfront costs and / or significant requirement for ongoing maintenance. However, there is a challenge that arises in the case of gullies. Some of the most cost-effective gully remediation can occur for very active large gully remediation( point sources)( Andrew Brooks, personal communication). Technical assessment as to the likely sediment reduction / public cost should drive the decision. Public costs need to include consideration of both upfront and maintenance costs. A threshold level of sediment reduction / public cost should be used to discriminate gullies to be considered for financial incentives. For gullies where this threshold is not met will be more suited to
Landholders driving change: Exploring new incentives | 59