school of agricultural & resource economics salinity investment framework 3 david pannell uwa...
TRANSCRIPT
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
Salinity Investment Framework 3
www.sif3.org
David PannellUWA
Anna RidleyDPI Vic
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
The questions
Which projects are worth funding? Which policy tools to use?
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
The problem
It’s important to do well Small budget relative to the issues Big changes required - expensive Economics often adverse
It’s difficult to do well Integrate diverse information Lots of knowledge gaps Spatially variable NRM outcomes vs
community expectations
Lack of capacity
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
SIF3: What is it?
Decision frameworks on paper, not computerised
Participatory process Multi-disciplinary team Quick scan of options
short list detailed feasibility assessment Technical, social and economic
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
SIF3
Public: Private Benefits Framework
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
Public and private benefits
This framework is embedded in SIF3
Relevant to change on private land e.g. Salinity, water quality, clearing
An advance on cost-sharing
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
“Project”
A defined set of changes in a specific location
private net benefits (internal) Economics, risk, complexity
public net benefits (external) Neighbours, downstream water users, city
dwellers interested in biodiverity
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
Pu
blic
ne
t be
ne
fits
0 Private net benefits
Possible projects
Each dot is a set of land-use changes on specific pieces of land = a project.
LucerneFarm A
LucerneFarm B
Current practice
Which tool?• Incentives• Extension• Regulation• New technology• No action
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
Simple public-private framework
Private net benefit
Pu
blic
ne
t b
en
efi
t
0
Positive incentives or technology change
Extension
No action (or flexible negative
incentives)
Negative incentives
No action(or extension or negative incentives)
No action
Technology change (or no action)
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
SIF3
The decision-tree approach
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
SIF3 description
Relate particular situations to the PPF Rules of thumb Benefit:cost analysis mindset
Develop a map of ‘best-practice’ investment response by scenario x 60
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
High value terrestrial
assets
Waterways
Dispersed assets (e.g. agric land)
Saltland
Asset types
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
Waterway
Salt input
HighLow
HighLowGroundwater
response
HighLowFreshrunoff
AdoptabilityExtension+−Incentives−−Technol. Devel.
Positive incentives
Technology development
Private net benefit
No action
Extension
No Action
Negative incentives
Pu
bli
c n
et b
enef
it
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
SIF3
Piloting implementation
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
Piloting implementation
Worked with two CMAs North Central region Victoria South Coast WA
Elements Communication Apply SIF3 decision trees Focus groups to understand capacity issues Interviews with lifestyle landholders Evaluation
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
Results: localised assets
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
Results: dispersed assets
Less use of Extension and small temporary grants (should mainly use where viable options exist)
More use of Technology development
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
Response
NCCMA accepted recommendations Completely rewrote salinity
implementation plan Fast tracked application of the
approach to their entire portfolio South Coast NRM likely to do similar Five regions now signed up
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
National impact
Senate recommendation Standing Committee/Ministerial
Council Meetings with senior policy groups
in each state (with DAFF support) Partnerships with NRM bodies and
state agencies Good links to DAFF & DEWHA
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
SIF3
Lessons and Implications
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
Four essential elements
Asset value Threat/impact (level and
urgency) Technical feasibility of
reducing threat/impact (cause and effect relationships)
Adoptability of the desired practices
Sometimes missed
Often missed
Usually missed
Usually included
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
Choice of mechanism
Choice of mechanism is at least as important as choice of environmental asset
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
“Needs” for better decisions
A re-focus on NRM outcomes A guiding framework (rule things out) Ease and understandability Support for NRM managers Data and analysis, not just judgment Tighter targeting A different mix of policy tools Patience
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
Challenges we faced
The difficulty of the analysis task Program constraints
Insane time lines Requirement for “on-ground” work
Community expectations - fear of backlash Battling vested interests Huge communication costs Low technical/economics capacity
available Agency schizophrenia
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
Questions from organisers
How does approach compare internationally? Seems to be unique
How have we been supported by agencies and research organisations? Funds, in-kind, info, moral support, advocacy, … Ignored, resisted, abused, attacked
How to measure success? Justified expectation that it will actually lead to more
cost-effective NRM outcomes
School of Agricultural& Resource Economics
www.sif3.org
Funding acknowledgements• ARC• CERF• Future Farm Industries CRC• DSE, DPI, DAFWA, DEC, DoW• CMO partners