IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Market-Based Instrument approaches to implementing priority revegetation in the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin

  • Ward, John
  • Bryan, Brett
  • Gale, Glenn
  • Hobbs, Trevor
Registered author(s):

    Resource condition targets have been specified for river salinity, biodiversity conservation, and wind erosion mitigation in the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin (SA MDB). The revegetation of cleared, privately owned agricultural land with deep rooted perennials has been widely promoted as one approach to satisfy the resource condition targets. Current estimates indicate the scale of revegetation necessary to meet the targets is extensive and associated with high establishment and opportunity costs, largely borne by private landholders. In this paper we evaluate the potential of three classes of market based instruments (MBI) to motivate private revegetation of deep-rooted perennials. We conclude: that a singular reliance on an auction or tender based instrument without associated commercial opportunities to augment farm incomes, will yield a small contribution to natural resource management targets given current levels of funding. There is limited potential for quantity based cap and trade instruments due to limited differential in the marginal costs of revegetation, and limited numbers of potential traders. Revegetation needs to form the basis of an alternative farming system that is commercially viable. The elimination of institutional barriers to provide better access to existing and newly created markets provides the best opportunity to motivate revegetation-based farming systems. We develop quantitative, spatially explicit models of the economic viability and resource condition contributions of biomass production and carbon trading for the entire SA MDB. Our results demonstrate that both biomass and carbon production are potentially economically viable alternative farming systems and make substantial contributions to regional natural resource management targets. For large scale adoption of these alternative farming systems three actions need to occur. Firstly, a biomass industry needs to be developed in the region. Secondly, institutional barriers to trade in the European carbon market need to be removed (or an Australian Market expanded). Thirdly, widespread uptake of these alternative farming systems by private individuals is required. We recognise that the actual level of adoption is partially contingent on a number of complex, interacting factors. These include individual attributes and behaviours, cultural norms, traditions and conventions, social institutions, the ease and predictability of land use change, and the effectiveness of communicating the economic benefits of new farming systems relative to current agricultural production These are aspects of ongoing and future research.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/139924
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its series 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia with number 139924.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 2006
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:aare06:139924
    Contact details of provider: Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200
    Phone: 0409 032 338
    Web page: http://www.aares.info/
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Dieter Helm, 2005. "Economic Instruments and Environmental Policy," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 36(3), pages 205-228.
    2. Michael A. Taylor & Brent Sohngen & Alan Randall & Helen Pushkarskaya, 2004. "Group Contracts for Voluntary Nonpoint Source Pollution Reductions: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1196-1202.
    3. Hahn, Robert W, 1989. "Economic Prescriptions for Environmental Problems: How the Patient Followed the Doctor's Orders," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 95-114, Spring.
    4. Gary Stoneham & Vivek Chaudhri & Arthur Ha & Loris Strappazzon, 2003. "Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria's BushTender trial," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 477-500, December.
    5. Stoneham, Gary & Chaudhri, Vivek & Ha, Arthur & Strappazzon, Loris, 2003. "Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s BushTender trial," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), December.
    6. M. D. Young & J. C. McColl, 2003. "Robust Reform: The Case for a New Water Entitlement System for Australia," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 36(2), pages 225-234.
    7. Jeffery Connor, 2003. "Reducing the cost of South Australia of achieving agreed salinity targets in the River Murray," Natural Resource Management Economics 03_005, Policy and Economic Research Unit, CSIRO Land and Water, Adelaide, Australia.
    8. Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Carel Van der Hamsvoort, 1997. "Auctioning Conservation Contracts: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(2), pages 407-418.
    9. Kurt Stephenson & Patricia Norris & Leonard Shabman, 1998. "Watershed-Based Effluent Trading: The Nonpoint Source Challenge," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 16(4), pages 412-421, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aare06:139924. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.