IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpur/0410004.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Regulations

Author

Listed:
  • Productivity Commission

Abstract

Australian, state and territory regimes came under review for the Commission’s inquiry into native vegetation and biodiversity regulations. The Commission’s preliminary findings were released for public comment in December 2003. It found that the cost of farm regulations could be reduced if good regulatory practices were followed and fundamental changes were made to the targeting of policies and clarification of responsibilities. The Commission’s final report, Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Regulations, and Government’s response was released in August. In its final assessment, the Commission maintained that state native vegetation and biodiversity regulations were imposing significant and unnecessary costs on landholders, and that more effective and more transparent measures could be used to achieve biodiversity conservation. Its recommendations seek to increase landholder confidence in natural resource planning and regulation, without sacrificing native flora and fauna.

Suggested Citation

  • Productivity Commission, 2004. "Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Regulations," Urban/Regional 0410004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpur:0410004
    Note: Type of Document - pdf
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/urb/papers/0410/0410004.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luca Corato & Michele Moretto & Sergio Vergalli, 2013. "Land conversion pace under uncertainty and irreversibility: too fast or too slow?," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 45-82, September.
    2. Jacqui Dibden & Chris Cocklin, 2009. "‘Multifunctionality’: Trade Protectionism or a New Way Forward?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 163-182, January.
    3. Simmons, B. Alexander & Law, Elizabeth A. & Marcos-Martinez, Raymundo & Bryan, Brett A. & McAlpine, Clive & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2018. "Spatial and temporal patterns of land clearing during policy change," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 399-410.
    4. MacLeod, N.D. & McIvor, J.G., 2008. "Quantifying production-environment tradeoffs for grazing land management -- A case example from the Australian rangelands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 488-497, April.
    5. Gilles Grolleau & Deborah Peterson, 2015. "Biodiversity conservation through private initiative: the case of Earth Sanctuaries Ltd," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 293-312, October.
    6. repec:tsy:journl:journl_tsy_er_2014_2_4 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Wilkinson, Graham R. & Schofield, Mick & Kanowski, Peter, 2014. "Regulating forestry — Experience with compliance and enforcement over the 25years of Tasmania's forest practices system," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-11.
    8. Luca Di Corato & Michele Moretto & Sergio Vergalli, 2010. "An Equilibrium Model of Habitat Conservation under Uncertainty and Irreversibility," Working Papers 2010.160, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    9. David J. Pannell, 2008. "Public Benefits, Private Benefits, and Policy Mechanism Choice for Land-Use Change for Environmental Benefits," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 225-240.
    10. Andrew Macintosh, 2012. "The Australia clause and REDD: a cautionary tale," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 169-188, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agriculture; Biodiversity; Conservation; Environment; Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; Environmental degradation; Farming; Forests; Investment; Land; Landholders; Mineral exploration; Productivity; Property values; Regulation; Sustainability; Sustainable development;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpur:0410004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.