Salinity Investment Framework 3

School of Agricultural & Resource Economics www.sif3.org

David Pannell

UWA

Anna Ridley

DPI Vic

The questions

  Which projects are worth funding?

Which policy tools to use?

School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

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 School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

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

School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

School of Agricultural & Resource Economics 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 School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

“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

School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

Possible projects

Each dot is a set of land-use changes on specific pieces of land = a project.

Which tool?

• Incentives • Extension • Regulation • New technology • No action Lucerne Farm B Current 0 practice Lucerne Farm A Private net benefits School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

Simple public-private framework

Positive incentives or Technology change (or no action) technology change No action 0 Extension No action (or flexible negative incentives) No action (or extension or negative incentives) Negative incentives

Private net benefit

School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

SIF3 The decision-tree approach School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

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 School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

Waterways

Asset types

High value terrestrial assets Dispersed assets (e.g. agric land) Saltland

School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

Waterway Salt input Groundwater response Low High Low High Positive incentives Extension Technology development No action Negative incentives

Private net benefit

No Action Fresh runoff Low High Adoptability −− Technol. Devel.

− Incentives + Extension School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

SIF3 Piloting implementation School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

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

School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

Results: localised assets

School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

Results: dispersed assets

 Less use of 

Extension and small temporary grants



(should mainly use where viable options exist)

 More use of 

Technology development

School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

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 School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

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 School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

SIF3 Lessons and Implications School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

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 Usually included Often missed Usually missed School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

Choice of mechanism

 Choice of mechanism is at least as important as choice of environmental asset School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

“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 School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

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 School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

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

School of Agricultural & Resource Economics

www.sif3.org

Funding acknowledgements • ARC • CERF • Future Farm Industries CRC • DSE, DPI, DAFWA, DEC, DoW • CMO partners School of Agricultural & Resource Economics