Practice |
Do direct financial incentives to landholders seem appropriate? |
Comments |
|
Grazing |
Stocking rates consistent with longterm benchmarks |
No |
No on the basis that the evidence is that running stocking rates consistent with longterm benchmarks is profitable. Subsidies for training workshops could be considered if there is evidence that landholders adopt practices after attending training workshops. Non-profit related barriers appear to be important and if there is no evidence of increased adoption from provision of training workshops then training workshop subsidies would not be recommended. |
Fencing to land type and provision of water points to ensure achieve end-of- dry season ground cover targets |
Yes |
Yes, but these should only consider if stocking rates are consistent with long-term stocking rates. It is recommended that there would also be a requirement to have a binding agreement in place for farmers to maintain the fence, with consequence if not( compliance and if needed some enforcement measures). The rationale is that without the fence being maintained benefits of public investment will be lost and public money will not be well spent. |
|
Hillslope gullies( note that targeting to gullies more connected to waterways is an important part of prioritising for highest public benefits) |
Erosion prevention( fencing to achieve reduced / controlled livestock access and linear features management
Remediation of active gullies – revegetation and stabilisation( includes fencing and destocking)
Remediation of active gullies – includes and major earth works
|
Yes, but only provided there is no potential for a perverse
outcome 5
Maybe or no
Maybe or no-comments for previous, only sometimes harder
|
Yes, and the same rationale as for fencing as for grazing also applicable.
This cannot be answered easily without a site assessment to both assess benefits and costs( which include upfront and maintenance costs) and consideration of whether the landholder can maintain the benefits. Financial incentives to landholders could be recommended if there was confidence regarding high technical feasibility and assessment of sediment reduction benefits in relation to public costs. Maintenance responsibilities also need to be clear and with a binding agreement. For gullies which are intractable from a landholder’ s perspective, some other type of innovative conservation financing mechanism, acceptance of no action or further R & D to find innovative and lower cost ways of gully remediation are needed. Clear property rights and responsibilities would need to be established for any finance mechanism.
|
Alluvial gullies |
Erosion prevention( fencing and reduced / controlled livestock access and linear features management |
Yes, but only provided there is no potential for a perverse outcome |
Yes – same comments apply as to hillslope gully erosion prevention |
Landholders driving change: Exploring new incentives | 67 |