LDC New Incentives Report | Page 66

Apx Table A. 1 Erosion management practice changes proposed
Practice
Min std for inc entive
Current average practice
Best practi cal practi ce
Private benefit( H, M, L, 0 or negativ e)
Public benefit( H, M, L, 0)
Technic al feasibili ty( H, M, L, 0)
Adoptab ility( H, M, L, 0, negative)
Nonprofit relate d barrie rs
Upfront cost
($/ unit)
On-going maintenance costs needed?($/ unit)
Should incentives to landholder s be considere d?
Grazing
Stocking rates consistent with longterm benchmarks
C
C
B
L-M
M
H
M
H
0 on farm, only training
workshop( Park and
Dickson, 2015)
Only 3 days($ 720) labour / yea r
No
Fencing to land type and provision of water points to ensure achieve endof- dry season ground cover targets
C
C
B
L
M
M-H
M
L
$ 200-500,000 / farm( Park and Dickson, 2015) – suspected to be overestimates as RCS suggest electric fencing is effective and much cheaper.
No assume landholder maintains or consider small payment for main tenance. Could build in as part of compliance assessment
Yes
Hillslope gullies
Erosion prevention( fencing to achieve reduced / contr olled livestock access and linear features management
C
C
B
Not covered in grazing worksho p – assume 0
M( 30 % effective ness, Wilkinson et al. 2015)
H
Zero to L
L
Hard to assess on a farm basis as one-off figure.
$ 9,200 / km( Skull et al., 2016).
$ 5,000 / km( Wilkinson et al., 2015).
As for grazing fencing
Yes
$ 2,000 / km, lower cost option for B has promise but is untested in wide application( Park and Dickson, 2015)
64 | Landholders driving change: Exploring new incentives