school of agricultural & resource economics salinity investment framework 3 david pannell uwa...

School of Agricultural& Resource Economics

Salinity Investment Framework 3

www.sif3.org

David PannellUWA

Anna RidleyDPI Vic


The questions

Which projects are worth funding? Which policy tools to use?


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


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


SIF3

Public: Private Benefits Framework


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


“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


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


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)


SIF3

The decision-tree approach


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


High value terrestrial

assets

Waterways

Dispersed assets (e.g. agric land)

Saltland

Asset types


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


SIF3

Piloting implementation


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


Results: localised assets


Results: dispersed assets

Less use of Extension and small temporary grants (should mainly use where viable options exist)

More use of Technology development


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


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


SIF3

Lessons and Implications


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


Choice of mechanism

Choice of mechanism is at least as important as choice of environmental asset


“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


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


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


www.sif3.org

Funding acknowledgements• ARC• CERF• Future Farm Industries CRC• DSE, DPI, DAFWA, DEC, DoW• CMO partners

school of agricultural & resource economics salinity investment framework 3 david pannell uwa...

Documents