Search

A number of improved farming activities (IFAs) have been proven to reduce the sediment and nutrient impact of sugarcane farming on the world heritage listed Great Barrier Reef (Australia). Some of ...

A marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) represents a set of options available to an economy to reduce pollution. MACC are valuable tools in that they help not only understand the costs associated with a variety of abatement options but also provide information about the amount of pollutants which can potentially be reduced. MACC have therefore become increasingly popular as instruments to inform policy discussions and to prioritize investment opportunities to reduce pollution. Surprisingly though, there are not many tools available to produce MACCs with the flexibility and functionality as was required in recent research the authors were involved in. This technical paper presents the new tool `ABATE' which arose from assessing options to improve water quality in the Great Barrier Reef.

The direct private cost to landholders of participating in programs that result in improved farming activities (IFAs) is generally well understood. However, the private indirect or transaction costs, such as the cost of a landholder's time and the expense to learn about IFAs and apply for assistance to implement these changes on-farm, are not so well understood. Where these have been studied, they have been shown to be extensive. We assess the extent and causes of private transaction costs incurred by sugarcane growers participating in the Australian Government's Reef Rescue scheme which pays farmers to adopt environmentally beneficial farm management practices. Utilising a mail-out-mail-back survey of 110 growers, we found that the average total transaction cost per farm of participating in the program was AU$8389. The average total transaction costs per farm as a percentage of the average funding provided was 38 per cent. We also assessed which type of improved farming activity (soil, nutrient, pest or water management) generated the greatest transaction costs and how landholder characteristics such as bounded rationality, opportunism and social connection impacted on the extent of transaction costs.

Coastal and marine ecosystems are adversely affected by diffuse source pollution from agricultural activities in coastal river catchments (or watersheds). To address this issue, government policy has been designed to increase adoption of improved land management practices that are known to minimise the runoff of sediments and nutrients into waterways. Government policy can be implemented through a spectrum of approaches ranging from voluntary to regulatory, and often occurs through a mix of approaches. In this paper we argue that it makes economic and ecological sense to focus investments on those parts of the landscape with greatest potential to reduce pollutants at least cost. To examine this, a financial economic analysis is combined with agricultural production analysis and catchment scale hydrological analysis using a Bayesian belief network model. We explore and compare the cost-effectiveness of two homogenous design based approaches, aimed at reducing diffuse source nutrient pollutants exports, between two biophysically and socio-economically heterogeneous catchments in the Great Barrier Reef Catchment Area, Australia. Sugarcane production is regarded as a major source of pollutants with the dominant pollutant being nitrogen. Our results show significant differences between catchments, both in relation to costs and benefits as well as water quality improvement potential, suggesting a spatially targeted approach may lead to more cost efficient pollutant reductions.

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia, is threatened by declining water quality largely derived from agricultural run-off. Water quality planning aims to mitigate pollutant run-off through land management, including riparian and wetland restoration, but no tools exist to assess trade-offs in land use change across the catchment-to-reef continuum. We adapted the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework in the GBR's Tully–Murray catchment to identify trade-offs between linked ecosystem services and stakeholders. Applying four land use scenarios we assessed outcomes for the ecosystem service of water quality regulation, and trade-offs with six floodplain services and four GBR services. Based on statistical correlations between ecosystem services’ status under the scenarios, we identified trade-offs and thresholds between services and associated stakeholders. The most direct trade-off in floodplain services (and primary stakeholders) was food and fibre production (farmers) versus water quality regulation (community, GBR tourists, tour operators and fishermen). There were synergies between water quality regulation (community, GBR tourists, tour operators and fishermen) and floodplain recreational and commercial fisheries (fishermen). Scale mis-matches between water quality management structures and ecosystem service flows were also evident. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this ecosystem services approach, and its potential application in the GBR and other catchment-to-reef social–ecological systems.

Water quality improvements achieved through changes in agricultural land use and management practices can impose a number of trade-offs on communities. Impacts such as reduced regional productivity may, for example, threaten farm profitability as well as the viability of the whole agricultural value chain in the region. This paper expands on existing studies, by quantifying not only the private (farm-scale) but also the likely direct social (regional-scale) impacts of water quality improvement – thus informing policy by identifying potential social consequences of private actions required to achieve sustainable load targets. We use the Environmental Economic Spatial Investment Prioritization model to explore the medium to long term private and social impacts of land use and management practice change for water quality improvement. By incorporating these economic drivers of social change we avoid underestimating the impact to the region, which could have severe consequences for local communities and policy makers. For a case study of the sugarcane industry in the Tully–Murray catchment in the Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia), results show that long term regional productivity losses associated with desired water quality improvement targets increase the risk of sugar mill closure. This impact would likely have severe social and economic flow-on effects, such as decreased regional agricultural income and increased regional underemployment. These detrimental regional economic effects of water quality improvement plans have not been accounted for in previous studies, which have therefore underestimated the potential direct social costs and decrease in community welfare associated with these plans.

Submitted by Patrícia Correia (patriciacorreia@ua.pt) on 2019-02-28T10:19:26Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Bohnet et al. - 2011 - Landscapes Toolkit an integrated modelling framew.pdf: 2136845 bytes, checksum: 2cb788c19dabcd0b6633a8f545882823 (MD5) Approved for entry into archive by Patrícia Correia (patriciacorreia@ua.pt) on 2019-02-28T10:19:42Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Bohnet et al. - 2011 - Landscapes Toolkit an integrated modelling framew.pdf: 2136845 bytes, checksum: 2cb788c19dabcd0b6633a8f545882823 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2019-02-28T10:19:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Bohnet et al. - 2011 - Landscapes Toolkit an integrated modelling framew.pdf: 2136845 bytes, checksum: 2cb788c19dabcd0b6633a8f545882823 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 The authors acknowledge the contributions by Scott Wilkinson, Dan Metcalfe, Andrew Ford, Damon Sydes, Michael Drielsma, Daniel Faith, Jeanette Kemp, Carla Catterall, Peter Thorburn and Tony Webster to the component models and data layers linked in the Landscapes Toolkit. Caroline Bruce provided data management and Adam Fakes programming support. Thanks to the local stakeholders who participated in the project for their time, enthusiasm and valuable feedback. Thanks to Rosemary Hill and Emma Jakku for their interest in the use of decision-support tools and valuable scientific discussions. Mark Smith instigated and supported the early development of the Landscapes Toolkit; thanks for his continued interest and comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. Andre Zerger and three anonymous reviewers also provided valuable comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. CSIRO’s Water for a Healthy Country Flagship funded the development of the Landscapes Toolkit while the Marine and Tropical Science Research Facility contributed towards the development of two component models that are part of the Landscapes Toolkit. published