research and development or a deliberate‘ informed no action’ strategy in terms of the public: private benefits framework.
Based on the above criteria, Table 2 was developed and includes an explanation for the rationale about whether direct financial incentive payments to landholders might be considered. Note that these have been developed based on first principles and have not yet been discussed or tested with landholders. Doing so will be critical.
There are four major categories: �
�
�
�
Financial Incentives recommended for landholders: Characteristics of significant financial incentives to be recommended for landholders are that the benefits are able to be maintained in the long term. The landholder being prepared to sign a binding agreement which extends beyond their ownership and agree to compliance being undertaken would provide confidence that public benefits will not be lost. Fencing to land type to maintain groundcover, fencing for gully erosion prevention measures and fencing of waterways generally have characteristics that look well-suited to direct financial incentives. Binding agreement would include that landholders maintain the fence and keep the gate closed( there might be exceptions for occasional crash grazing for weed control, but this needs to be stated and subject to agreed compliance assessment) with the responsibility extending to future landholders( e. g. agreement on title or as part of lease agreement). Without such an agreement, there is no guarantee that the benefits from fencing and stock exclusion will be maintained and the public benefits are at high risk of being lost. Monitoring and compliance assessment measures are likely to be needed to ensure fences are maintained and stock are excluded. Gullies to be considered for financial incentives to landholders need to meet a level of sediment load reduction / cost and landholders need to be prepared to sign binding agreements to maintain the remediation measures.
Financial incentives not recommended for landholders: Where landholders are not prepared to maintain stocking rates consistent with long-term benchmarks, then incentives would not be offered on the basis that non-profit related barriers are unlikely to be overcome. Furthermore, landholders would need to agree to maintain stocking rates at or below long-term benchmarks to be considered for incentives. An exception here might be considered for gullies where it is clear that the erosion processes are operating independent of stocking rate.
Financial incentives might be recommended for landholders: Financial incentives might be considered for gully remediation practices subject to the sediment load reduction per public cost and where the landholder is likely to be able to manage the on-going maintenance requirements. Overall it would need to be demonstrated that the benefits are large and can be maintained for the financial costs( combined upfront and maintenance if required). As outlined for previously, acceptance of a payment from public funds should be tied to a binding agreement that maintain the remediation measures, with the responsibility extending to future landholders.
Possible innovative conservation financing mechanism( incentive is worthwhile based on benefits and costs but is beyond the capacity of the landholder): This category has
60 | Landholders driving change: Exploring new incentives