Socio economic impacts were also considered . Social impacts of Reef Rescue included changes in environmental awareness of participants , their families and their social networks . Economic impacts of practice change included indirect transaction costs , unforeseen implementation costs and productivity improvements . In summary :
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Survey data from 97 farmers indicates that Reef Rescue has raised environmental awareness , to the extent that some farmers are significantly investing in specifically environmentally oriented projects .
A CSIRO study of sugarcane growers who received Reef Rescue funding in 2010-11 and 2011-12 found that most growers surveyed had a good understanding about the link between their farm , farm management and the quality of water in the GBR . Reef Rescue funded activities were seen as providing the financial support to improve the environmental management of respondent ’ s properties .
During an evaluation of Reef Rescue undertaken in late 2011 , about one third of growers surveyed who applied for grants indicated that they had been addressing water quality issues for a long time and were always looking for ways to improve . They were waiting for an opportunity to do it and Reef Rescue had made this possible .
In a survey of 67 sugarcane growers it was found that Reef Rescue projects generated interest from other growers or neighbours , and a property visit by other growers followed in 90 per cent of cases in sugarcane . There were several cases where this interaction contributed to the visitor putting in an application , however this influence was impossible to quantify since growers who received interest do not always know if the visitor decided to implement a similar project . In other cases , neighbours asked the project proponent to undertake work under contract on their farm using their funded equipment , which increases the area in which water quality outcomes are achieved .
More than half ( 56 per cent ) of Reef Rescue participants who completed projects said that their project cost them more than what they applied for , due to unforeseen expenses that were not incorporated into total project costs in the application . These unforeseen costs meant that landholders contributed much more than the required minimum 50 per cent contribution towards implementation of sustainable farming practices .
The average transaction cost of participating in Reef Rescue-funded practice change was $ 9,026 per farm . Pesticide practices tended to have the lowest transaction cost whilst soil-related transaction costs tended to be the highest . Transaction costs were found to decrease as the area that the practice change was applied to increased . This indicated that transaction costs were fixed and that larger farms may have a greater capacity to absorb transaction costs than smaller farms . Support in reducing transaction costs ( such as information provision and extension ) may assist in improving future participation of smaller farms .
It was found that farmers with past Reef Rescue applications had larger transaction costs than those who had not applied before . This was because in subsequent rounds of Reef Rescue , these farmers were making bigger changes to their practices , with more information typically required for more complex practices .
Recommendations relevant to this report
� Future grants-based programs should include sufficient funding for extension during the application process and use of best management practice systems , to optimise return of investment of public funds and maximise uptake .
�
�
�
Farmers often spend many times the amount of their grant from their own funds , to make their practice change operational . Surveys conducted 12 months after project finalisation could be used to capture real co-contribution rates and demonstrate the considerably higher , level of leverage of public funds .
Future grants-based programs should include an adequate amount of resources for innovation and the technical support needed to trial innovative practices .
Program design and contract negotiation should account for development of partnerships and establish realistic expectations according to the maturity of relationships and current capacity of partners .
89