Anthea Coggan

Is ecosystem service research used by decision-makers? A case study of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia

This paper investigates the accessibility and usefulness of the Ecosystem Services (ES) framework to policy analysts. Using a mixed methods approach of document analysis and semi-structured interviews we examine how an ES assessment of the benefits of restoring water to the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) in Australia has been used by government agencies in policy and planning. The ES assessment links changes in water management under the Basin Plan with modelled changes in water quality, river flows and inundation patterns and in turn to modelled freshwater and estuarine ecosystem response. These ecological responses were expressed in terms of incremental ES benefits which were valued monetarily using a variety of valuation techniques. To investigate how these pieces of information were used in the policy debate around the re-allocation of water in the MDB, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 Australian, State, and local government officials as well as academics and consultants. The interviews were designed to uncover the complex information dissemination process through networks within and among agencies. The results are mixed as to whether the assessment served to influence public policy. The report has been utilized and cited by Australian federal agencies, the downstream State of South Australia and conservation-based NGOs in their position statements and as such has been used as evidence in support of re-allocation of water in the MDB. A number of interview participants commented that the ES assessment raised awareness and this may lead to broader usage of the information and framework in the implementation phase of MDB water reform.

Transferable Mitigation of Environmental Impacts of Development: Two Cases of Offsets in Australia

Transferable offsets are a means of mitigating the adverse environmental impacts of resource developments. Based on insights from institutional economics, there are three elements that need to be in place for offsets to be effective: (1) property rights over the mitigating good can be defined and assigned; (2) a difference exists between the marginal cost of supplying the mitigating good and the communitys marginal value for it; and (3) the transaction costs of exchanging the mitigating good are less than the trade benefit. We suggest that these elements can be used to evaluate the design and performance of offset schemes and illustrate how this can be done using two Australian environmental offset schemes. Trade-offs between cost and environmental outcomes are apparent in the design and operation of these schemes.

Does asset specificity influence transaction costs and adoption? An analysis of sugarcane farmers in the Great Barrier Reef catchments

ABSTRACT A number of improved farming activities (IFAs) have been proven to reduce the sediment and nutrient impact of sugarcane farming on the world heritage listed Great Barrier Reef (Australia). Some of these also have the potential to improve the profitability of sugarcane farming. Despite this, sugarcane farmers remain reluctant to adopt these practices which suggest that perhaps the transaction costs of adoption are greater than the benefits. In this paper we classify IFAs as requiring investments in assets that are either highly asset-specific or of low asset specificity. Specificity relates to how transferable the investment is to other parts of the farming operation. Following a survey of sugarcane farmers we find that sugarcane farmers adopting IFAs considered to be of low asset specificity have the highest transaction costs. We provide some explanations for this result, some policy recommendations and also highlight some issues relating to the application of a theoretical construct such as asset specificity to real-world problem analysis.

Transaction costs in agri-environment schemes

• Transaction costs of agri-environment schemes include the time, effort and expense of gathering information, identifying projects, negotiating contracts, and monitoring and compliance. • They are incurred by participants, scheme proponents and administrators and can be significant, impacting not only on total scheme costs, but also on efficiency. • Transaction costs are directly related to both scheme design and scheme implementation. • Considering transaction costs does not necessarily mean reducing them — indeed, efficient program design may require increased transaction costs in order to more confidently deliver the desired outcome.