IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare13/152173.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Upstream-downstream benefit analysis of policy on water use by upstream tree plantations

Author

Listed:
  • Nordblom, Thomas L.
  • Hume, I.H.
  • Finlayson, J.D.
  • Pannell, David J.
  • Holland, J.

Abstract

This study focuses on the problem of water use by new upstream commercial tree plantations where fully-committed water entitlements are already held and traded among downstream sectors (urban water, wetlands and agricultural industries). High tree product prices strongly incentivise expansion of upstream plantation areas, particularly if there is no accounting for the predictable extra interception and use of water by trees. Planters could benefit greatly at the expense of downstream water users. Plotting this in a public-private benefit framework (PPBF) suggests a policy of “flexible negative incentives” to limit expansion of new trees, rather than ‘across the board’ banning of new plantations. We explore the ‘flexible’ option and the current ‘no control’ option for a case-study area, the Macquarie River catchment in central- west NSW, Australia, using three scenario sets: (1) Policy setting — without or with the requirement for distributions of water use entitlements to be handled by extending the existing downstream market to new upstream plantations (the flexible negative incentive). (2) Expected tree-product values — four exogenous levels ($40, $50, $60 or $70/m3), provide positive incentives for establishing trees. (3) Water quality — FRESH or a hypothetical SALTY scenario where one of six up- stream watersheds seeps so much salt into the river that water for urban use is compromised when new plantations reduce fresh water yields from the other five. We estimate quantitative consequences of all 16 combinations of the above scenarios, and show how an extended water market can deliver “flexible incentives” for efficient water distributions in which all new upstream and old downstream users either benefit by trading or remain unaffected.

Suggested Citation

  • Nordblom, Thomas L. & Hume, I.H. & Finlayson, J.D. & Pannell, David J. & Holland, J., 2013. "Upstream-downstream benefit analysis of policy on water use by upstream tree plantations," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152173, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare13:152173
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.152173
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/152173/files/CP%20Nordblom%20revised.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.152173?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nordblom, Tom & Finlayson, John D. & Hume, Iain H. & Kelly, Jason A., 2009. "Supply and Demand for Water use by New Forest Plantations: a market to balance increasing upstream water use with downstream community, industry and environmental use?," Research Reports 280785, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Research Economists.
    2. Tom Nordblom & Iain Hume & Andrew Bathgate & Michael Reynolds, 2006. "Mathematical optimisation of drainage and economic land use for target water and salt yields ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(3), pages 381-402, September.
    3. Thomas L. Nordblom & John D. Finlayson & Iain H. Hume, 2012. "Upstream demand for water use by new tree plantations imposes externalities on downstream irrigated agriculture and wetlands," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(4), pages 455-474, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Nordblom, Thomas L. & Finlayson, John D. & Hume, Iain H., 2012. "Upstream demand for water use by new tree plantations imposes externalities on downstream irrigated agriculture and wetlands," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(4), pages 1-20, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nordblom, T.L. & Hume, I.H. & Finlayson, J.D. & Pannell, D.J. & Holland, J.E. & McClintock, A.J., 2015. "Distributional consequences of upstream tree plantations on downstream water users in a Public–Private Benefit Framework," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 271-281.
    2. Choi, Pak-Sing & Espínola-Arredondo, Ana & Muñoz-García, Félix, 2018. "Conservation procurement auctions with bidirectional externalities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 559-579.
    3. Moriah B. Bostian & Pierre Dupraz & Jean Minviel, 2015. "Production effects of wetland conservation: evidence from France [Les impacts productifs de la conservation des zones humides : application française]," Working Papers hal-02796850, HAL.
    4. Nordblom, Thomas L. & Finlayson, John D. & Hume, Iain H., 2012. "Upstream demand for water use by new tree plantations imposes externalities on downstream irrigated agriculture and wetlands," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(4), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Finlayson, John & Bathgate, Andrew & Nordblom, Tom & Theiveyanathan, Tivi & Farquharson, Bob & Crosbie, Russell & Mitchell, David & Hoque, Ziaul, 2010. "Balancing land use to manage river volume and salinity: Economic and hydrological consequences for the Little River catchment in Central West, New South Wales, Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 161-170, March.
    6. Ovando, Paola & Brouwer, Roy, 2019. "A review of economic approaches modeling the complex interactions between forest management and watershed services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 164-176.
    7. Emile Noël, 1996. "Quelques réflexions sur les perspectives politico-institutionnelles de l'intégration européenne en 2000 et au-delà," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 39, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    8. Nordblom, Thomas L. & Finlayson, John D. & Hume, Iain H., 2011. "Disposition of precipitation: Supply and Demand for Water Use by New Tree Plantations," 2011 Conference (55th), February 8-11, 2011, Melbourne, Australia 101225, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    10. Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia & Rick Llewellyn, 2020. "The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 80-91, March.
    11. Pogue, Sarah J. & Kröbel, Roland & Janzen, H. Henry & Alemu, Aklilu W. & Beauchemin, Karen A. & Little, Shannan & Iravani, Majid & de Souza, Danielle Maia & McAllister, Tim A., 2020. "A social-ecological systems approach for the assessment of ecosystem services from beef production in the Canadian prairie," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    12. Brett Bryan & John Kandulu, 2011. "Designing a Policy Mix and Sequence for Mitigating Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution in a Water Supply Catchment," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(3), pages 875-892, February.
    13. David J. Pannell, 2009. "Technology change as a policy response to promote changes in land management for environmental benefits," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(1), pages 95-102, January.
    14. Townsend, K. & Charles, M.B., 2008. "Jarhead and Deskilling in the Military: Potential Implications for the Australian Labour Market," Australian Bulletin of Labour, National Institute of Labour Studies, vol. 34(1), pages 64-78.
    15. Beardmore, Leslie & Heagney, Elizabeth & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2019. "Complementary land use in the Richmond River catchment: Evaluating economic and environmental benefits," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    16. Van Wyngaarden, Sarah & Anders, Sven M., 2021. "Canadian Farmer Policy and Agency Preferences in Agri-Environmental Best Management Practice Adoption," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313851, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Curtis L. Rollins & Stephanie R. Simpson & Peter C. Boxall, 2018. "Evaluating an Agricultural Extension Program Aimed at Improving Biodiversity in Alberta, Canada," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(2), pages 331-353, June.
    18. Coggan, Anthea & Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1777-1784, July.
    19. Roberts, Anna M. & Pannell, David J. & Doole, Graeme & Vigiak, Olga, 2012. "Agricultural land management strategies to reduce phosphorus loads in the Gippsland Lakes, Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 11-22.
    20. Yao, Richard & Harrison, Duncan & Barry, Luke E. & Bradley, Tom, 2013. "Assessing The Viability Of Future And Recently Established Exotic Forests In New Zealand," 2013 Conference, August 28-30, 2013, Christchurch, New Zealand 160564, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries; Demand and Price Analysis; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;
    All these keywords.

    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:ags:aare13:152173. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.