> Introduction. Breath of. Experiences with Alternative Land, Water and Biodiversity Policy Approaches in Australia. David Pannell

Transcription

1 203 Experiences with ternative Land, Water and Biodiversity Poicy pproaches in ustraia David Panne > Introduction Sociay and economicay, ustraia has much in common with Canada. However, there are some considerabe differences between the two countries in terms of their approach to environmenta and natura resource issues. This chapter provides an overview of recent trends in natura resource poicy in ustraia, focusing on poicies for and, water, and biodiversity conservation. The purpose of the chapter is to share the essons from ustraia s experiences in these areas, and to highight some aspects of government behaviour that coud be reevant to many Western countries. n overview of a range of recent poicy programs in ustraia reveas that there are few cear success stories. Successive programs have faied to fix ceary identified probems, due to poitics, community expectations, and impatience. This chapter identifies ways to improve the cost-effectiveness of these programs incuding having a stronger focus on achieving outcomes, rather than just supporting activities; more rigorousy targeting expenditures to high-payoff situations; reying more on scientific and economic information in that targeting; and using a broader range of poicy toos, seected to suit the reevant bio-physica and socio-economic circumstances. > Society and government Most ustraians ive in coasta cities. The popuation density in agricutura areas is, on average, very ow by goba standards. Most agricutura and is not irrigated, and is used for cerea cropping, canoa, egume crops, sheep, and catte. Irrigated and higher rainfa areas support many different industries incuding horticuture, vineyards, dairy, and pantation forestry. ustraia has separate governments for each of its six states and two territories, as we as a nationa government. Consistent with the experience of Canada, reations between state and nationa governments over this area of poicy have sometimes been strained. In ustraia, responsibiity for environmenta and natura resource issues rests primariy with state governments, but in the past two decades, ustraia s nationa government has payed an increasingy infuentia roe. This infuence has been created through the provision of programs that provide arge financia resources to states, but with strings attached; in many cases, state governments must provide matching funds. In this way, the nationa government has strongy infuenced the agenda and argey determined the approach to poicy, to the chagrin of some state governments. Most of the programs isted beow were initiated by the nationa government. cknowedgments Pubishing Information

2 Experiences with Poicy pproaches in ustraia 204 > The environment and natura resources Key environmenta and natura resource probems in rura areas of ustraia incude and degradation (especiay sainization and acidification), oss of biodiversity, and issues with water quaity and quantity. Land degradation In most countries where and sainization is a probem, the cause of that sainity is irrigation. though ustraia does have a significant probem with irrigation sainity, the argest area of sat-affected and is in non-irrigated regions. In these areas, the sub-sois are naturay high in sat. ustraia s native vegetation is we adapted to use a avaiabe rainfa (Panne, 2001a). However, in arge areas the natura vegetation has been repaced by European-stye agricuture based on annua pants such as wheat, which aows some water to move past the root zone. This causes groundwaters to rise and, in paces, bring sats to the surface (Nationa Land and Water Resources udit, 2001a). round two miion hectares of and are aready sat-affected (ustraian Bureau of Statistics, 2002), and another four miion hectares are at risk. One of the key strategies to contain sainity is to reestabish perennia pants (trees, shrubs, and pastures) in order to prevent the rise of saine groundwaters (Panne and Ewing, 2006). Between 12 and 24 miion hectares of agricutura and in ustraia have strongy acidic sois (Nationa Land and Water Resources udit, 2001b), and agricutura activities such as the appication of nitrogen fertiizer make them more so. Pants on acidic sois often suffer from auminium toxicity, and these crops suffer yied osses (Cregan and Scott, 1998). Farmers have increasingy appied ime to counter soi acidity. In the past, wind erosion was a serious probem for ustraian agricuture. very high eve of adoption of minimum tiage systems has resuted in a dramatic reduction in this probem. For exampe, by 2004/2005, an estimated 70 percent of the nation s crop farmers had adopted both direct driing and minimum tiage practices (Hodges and Goesch, 2006), and in the main crop-producing state, Western ustraia, 86 percent of crop farmers were using zero-tiage systems in 2003 (D Emden and Leweyn, 2004). Biodiversity In 2000, Nature pubished an assessment of the word s 25 most important biodiversity hot spots, which were defined as areas with an exceptiona concentration of endemic species undergoing exceptiona oss of habitat (Myers et a., 2000). The agricutura region of southwestern ustraia was incuded in the ist. It is the ony such hot spot in ustraia, one of ony four in deveoped countries, and one of ony five outside the tropics. Protection of biodiversity in this region is of internationa significance. Bioogy in that region, and in ustraia in genera, is highy diverse because of the continent s great age, and because it has had a reativey stabe cimate for a very ong period of time. For exampe, the gaciation that affected Canada in recent ice ages did not affect ustraia. Having especiay rich fora and fauna means that there is potentiay a ot to ose. Furthermore, because of the ong undisturbed evoutionary processes, many cknowedgments Pubishing Information

3 Experiences with Poicy pproaches in ustraia 205 species are endemic to sma areas, and so potentiay susceptibe to extinction. Recent bioogica surveys have found that there are at east 450 pant species and 700 arthropod species in southwestern ustraia that exist ony in those parts of the andscape that are at risk of sainization (Keighery et a., 2004). nother area of concern has been the cearing of native vegetation to increase the area avaiabe for agricuture. This directy removes native pants and reduces habitat for native animas. Water In common with most countries, ustraia faces chaenges with nutrients and sediment entering waterways and water bodies. In addition, sainization of water resources is a major concern in ustraia s major river systems. There has been increasing concern about the aocation of avaiabe water among competing uses: irrigation, domestic use, industry, and the environment. Irrigation is by far the argest water user. In some waterways, the amount of water aocated to irrigators exceeds average annua fows a probem that poicy makers have been addressing in recent years (see discussion of the Nationa Water Initiative beow). > Experiences with different poicy programs and approaches Landcare (1989) The Nationa Landcare Program (NLP) was aunched by the nationa government in 1989 from the foundation of the Nationa Soi Conservation Program. The NLP was based on the premise that and degradation in agricuture coud be soved by awareness-raising, education, and catchment panning processes for groups of farmers (Curtis and De Lacy, 1997; Vancay, 1997). stewardship ethic was to be cutivated among farmers. The primary instruments used within the Landcare program were the provision of paid faciitators and organizers to oca farmer groups, the deveopment of catchment pans, and subsidies for the partia funding of reativey sma-scae on-ground works. Often the faciitators acked strong agricutura or technica backgrounds, but had skis in organization and communication. For over a decade, this paradigm was the dominant force shaping resource management poicies for agricuture. The NLP approach was very successfu at raising awareness of resource conservation issues among farmers, and, in some cases, this awareness ed to changes in farming practices. However, the contributors to Lockie and Vancay (1997) identified a range of probems with the objectives and underying assumptions of the NLP, incuding: differences between the professed ideoogy of the program, and the way it actuay operated; a faiure of the program designers to appreciate the compexity and difficuty of the issues the program was intended to address; and unreaistic expectations regarding how much vountary change in and management coud be prompted through education, training, communication, and awareness raising. cknowedgments Pubishing Information

4 Experiences with Poicy pproaches in ustraia 206 Reinforcing the atter point, Barr notes the inadequacy of reying on vountarism and a stewardship ethic: There is a significant body of research that demonstrates that inks between environmenta beiefs and environmenta behaviour are tenuous (1999: 134). To the above-noted probems, I woud add: a ack of targeted funds to priority areas where intervention coud make a major difference; a negect of technica, scientific, and economic issues; and a focus on a particuar subset of poicy toos, rather than an assessment of which toos woud be best suited for particuar probems in particuar ocations. fter a decade of efforts under the Landcare banner, many farmers became jaded with the Landcare approach, and dismissive of the unreaistic expectations embodied in the program. Overa, the achievements of Landcare were disappointing reative to the hopes initiay had for it. though empowerment and participation (Landcare buzzwords) are important eements of good extension1 practice, they are not sufficient weapons against the more intractabe environmenta probems, such as sainity and vegetation oss (see Panne et a., 2006). Regarding sainity, for exampe, Ridey and Panne (2005) recognize the need for more attention to technoogy deveopment; 1 Extension is a commony used term in agricuture, used to encompass education, communication, persuasion, awareness raising, training, and simiar activities. reguation; direct funding of major engineering works; carefuy targeted grants to support changes in and use; and serious consideration of no action as the most appropriate response in many cases. Natura Heritage Trust (1997) The Natura Heritage Trust (NHT) was intended to address a range of and, water, and biodiversity conservation issues. It was a much arger program than the NLP, perhaps refecting a growing pubic concern for environmenta issues. The Nationa Landcare Program was untargeted; amost any change to and-management practices that were perceived as being more sustainabe coud be encouraged and supported. The NHT was meant to be more discerning and targeted in its support for activities. In practice, however, the degree of rigour used to evauate proposas for funding was often ow. n inquiry by the ustraian Nationa udit Office in 2001 expressed concern that there was insufficient knowedge about what environmenta benefits were being generated by the program. Nevertheess, the identified weaknesses of the program did not seem to be of great concern to the nationa government, which perhaps fet that the poitica benefits of having a high profie environmenta program were sufficient to justify its existence. second phase of the program was announced in 2001, and concuded in Nationa ction Pan for Sainity and Water Quaity (2001) This program was aimed at a subset of issues concerning sainity and water quaity. In response to criticisms cknowedgments Pubishing Information

5 Experiences with Poicy pproaches in ustraia 207 regarding the ack of suitabe targeting of funds in the NHT, the program was another attempt at more targeted funding. s with previous programs, it faied to deiver. One reason why it faied was that the main targeting was done at too arge a scae: the region. Within targeted regions, it was sti possibe to spend program resources unproductivey, and this has happened often. Contributing to this was an ongoing negect of scientific and economic considerations in the panning and accreditation of pans, and the use of inappropriate poicy toos. The document reeased to announce the program, Our Vita Resources Nationa ction Pan for Sainity and Water Quaity, emphasized Integrated Catchment/ Region Management Pans which were to be deveoped by the community (NPSWQ, 2000). In practice, funds have been used mainy to fund extension, or to offer sma, temporary incentive payments (grants) to andhoders. Nove eements of the nationa action pan incuded the setting of targets for sainity, with funding to achieve these targets being given to community-based groups in the regions. Setting targets for a catchment or region raises a number of issues (Panne, 2001a). If they are not based on detaied empirica anayses which account for the physica and economic reaities of the catchment, targets can easiy define outcomes which are inferior to a business as usua approach. If they are based on scientificay credibe anayses, targets for the avaiabe budget wi sometimes be very modest, and may threaten the poitica viabiity of the program. For exampe, in the case of sainity in ustraia, the current nationa program invoves an expenditure of U$1.4 biion over eight years; a prominent estimate of the cost of addressing sainity in a reativey comprehensive way is U$65 biion over 10 years (Watson, 2001) and even that is ikey a substantia underestimate, in my view. Unwiing to face these hard reaities, governments have aowed the avaiabe pubic funds to be spread thiny across many sma projects, with the hope of achieving broader impacts. Instead, this has caused the funds to become diuted and reativey ineffectua. Regiona deivery ustraia s nationa action pan and the second phase of the Natura Heritage Trust were deivered through a set of 56 regiona bodies. It was reasoned that these bodies woud have (or woud be abe to obtain) better knowedge of oca conditions and probems than governments coud access. These bodies vary widey in their expertise and their size (e.g., in terms of number of staff, they range from approximatey 20 to 80). The quaity of the anaysis conducted to support funding aocation decisions varied widey among the regiona bodies. Consistent with the government s expectations, they consuted widey within their communities, but they did not sufficienty consider sound evidence and modeing to ensure that panned interventions woud actuay achieve outcomes. Government funding conditions did not require them to do so. Nationa Water Initiative The Economist (2003, Juy 19: 13) has described ustraia as the country that takes top prize for sensibe water management. This is based primariy on ustraia s estabishment of markets for irrigation water, in cknowedgments Pubishing Information

6 Experiences with Poicy pproaches in ustraia 208 which rights can be freey traded amongst irrigators. Nevertheess, considerabe chaenges remain. There has been great pressure to reaocate water away from irrigators and towards environmenta fows and urban water users. number of ustraian cities are suffering serious shortfas of water due to growing demand and, in recent years, beow-average suppy. There has been poitica resistance to making use of markets to undertake this reaocation, argey because of concerns about any reocation taking pace, rather than concerns about using markets for this purpose. On the other hand, resistance to making use of markets has been evident in the debate about water aocation among urban users (e.g., Crase and Doery, 2006). The Nationa Water Initiative (NWI) is ustraia s current document aying out the agenda for further water reform. ccording to the Nationa Water Commission s web site, the officia objective of the NWI is to achieve a nationay compatibe market, reguatory and panning based system of managing surface and groundwater resources for rura and urban use that optimizes economic, socia and environmenta outcomes (ustraia, Nationa Water Commission, no date). It covers eight areas: water access entitements and panning framework; water markets and trading; water pricing; integrated management of water for environmenta and other pubic-benefit outcomes; water-resource accounting; urban water reform; knowedge and capacity buiding; and community partnerships and adjustment. The eary performance of the initiative has been mixed, due to the poitica resistance noted above. However, given ustraia s good progress in this area in the past, and the imperative to dea with current pressures, one can remain hopefu about medium-term prospects for reform. Contros on cearing of native vegetation In rura areas of ustraia, there are many remnants of the origina native vegetation, a portion of which are of high biodiversity vaue. State governments have increasingy sought to protect remnants on private and from cearing by farmers who wish to expand their productive farm area. More stringent reguatory restrictions on further cearing have been introduced, and in most states it is now difficut for most farmers to undertake any cearing. Two states, Queensand and New South Waes, have the argest areas of unceared native vegetation, and the poitica pressure to aow further cearing is more intense in those states. Nevertheess, even there, pressure from environmenta interests has been increasingy infuentia. This area of poicy is different from the main nationa programs mentioned above in terms of its reiance on reguatory restrictions to infuence andhoder behaviour. s a consequence, it has been a highy contentious area of poicy, prompting, for exampe, a recent nationa review of costs to andhoders resuting from restrictions on the management of native vegetation (Productivity Commission, 2004). The report concuded that existing reguatory approaches are not as effective as they coud be in promoting objectives to retain and rehabiitate native vegetation on private and, and that they impose significant costs. Economic poicy instruments ( market-based instruments ) part from the creation of water markets, there has aso been growing interest in the use of economic poicy instruments, such as conservation tenders (see, for cknowedgments Pubishing Information

7 Experiences with Poicy pproaches in ustraia 209 exampe, Stoneham et a., 2003), tradabe poution permits, and offset schemes. piot program of marketbased instruments was initiated in 2001, and extended in The program has supported a significant number of sma but innovative trias of these instruments. The experience so far has been encouraging, but it has aso reveaed some imitations. In a review of the outcomes of the first phase of the program, Grafton (2005) concuded that cost savings are possibe, reative to traditiona mechanisms. He argued that the mechanism with the greatest potentia for widespread appication is conservation tenders, which invove andhoders submitting bids to undertake works in an auction-ike setting. Environmenta managers seect the bids that offer the best vaue for money. Grafton pointed out that, to effectivey impement these instruments, there needs to be good bio-physica modeing at the farm or paddock eve, and adequate monitoring and enforcement of andhoders actions. Panne (2001b) has argued that there appears to be excessive enthusiasm for market-based instruments in some poicy quarters, and that there needs to be care to ensure that they are appied in situations where there is market faiure. Market faiure describes a situation where a change in the way resources are managed woud increase efficiency. Government intervention may be warranted to achieve that change if it does not arise spontaneousy in the market. though economic poicy instruments may be usefu toos to overcome market faiure, in situations where resource degradation is not a sign of market faiure (e.g., where it is actuay more efficient to aow the degradation to occur because the cost of the degradation is ess than the cost of preventing it), economic instruments usuay cannot ater the equation to make resource protection economicay desirabe, especiay in the short-term. There may be exceptions to this in the medium- to ong-term if the presence of the economic instrument provides sufficient incentive for andhoders to innovate and deveop ess expensive ways to reduce degradation. > Lessons from ustraia The experiences reated here revea that it is difficut to design and impement a poicy program for environmenta and natura resource management that deivers rea outcomes. Despite ong-term efforts using a variety of approaches for many different issues, there are few cear success stories. Each new program has had further experience to buid on, but some of the essons seem to have been hard to earn. For exampe, the need to target natura resource management investments to ikey high-payoff situations has been apparent and reinforced through severa poicy programs, but has yet to be fuy acted on. It appears that various factors get in the way of hardnosed targeting based on ikey outcomes, incuding poitics, community expectations about how funds shoud be spent, and an impatience to undertake on-ground works without waiting for the anaysis that is necessary for effective targeting. When targeting funds, poicy makers shoud consider who wi benefit and who wi bear the cost of abatement. Of the degradation issues discussed earier, some are fuy within the sphere of the affected andhoders who bear a the costs and receive a the benefits (e.g., soi acidity, wind erosion, sometimes sainity). In these cases, economists woud argue that the case for government intervention is cknowedgments Pubishing Information

8 Experiences with Poicy pproaches in ustraia 210 weak, except perhaps for information or education programs to counter information faiures. If they have access to good information, farmers themseves are best paced to judge whether degradation probems that affect ony them warrant the costs of abatement. Other degradation probems have substantia off-site impacts, termed externaities by economists (e.g., sainity affecting waterways, roads, or biodiversity), or have strong pubicgood characteristics (e.g., biodiversity). These exampes constitute much stronger cases for government intervention. s in Canada, poicy programs in ustraia have often negected this important distinction. There has been a tendency for poicy programs to foow what might be caed fashions, as different poicy approaches rise and fa in esteem. We have seen a reiance on vountarism and peer pressure in the Nationa Landcare Program, a reiance on markets for water, and a great interest in market-based instruments for environmenta programs. Overa, there seems to have been a reiance on one or a sma number of poicy mechanisms within each program. Ridey and Panne (2005) have demonstrated that a fuer range of poicy mechanisms needs to be used to effectivey address major environmenta probems across the fu range of circumstances that arise. They integrated bioogica, physica, economic, and socia research regarding the management of sainity to deveop recommendations regarding a range of poicy responses: grants and other economic instruments, command-and-contro reguation, communication or education, engineering works, technoogy deveopment, other research, and no action. Their recommended response depends on oca bio-physica and socioeconomic factors that drive the benefits and costs of taking action to manage sainity. Successfu poicy programs need to be buit on an approach that is more patient than is often the case. Patience is needed to conduct and earn from research and anaysis in order to support the design phase of poicy programs, the panning and prioritization of specific investments, and the impementation of pans. For some probems, there is a need to deveop improved technoogies (e.g., improved farming options), rather than persist with existing technoogies, and this aso requires patience. More often, programs have tended to rush into the impementation of poory conceived pans, based on inadequate technoogies. Most of the programs discussed above have embodied unreaistic expectations regarding the financia and other sacrifices that farmers must be wiing to make on behaf of the broader community, or they have overooked these costs and their consequences for farmer participation. The farm-eve economics of the proposed changes in and management are crucia, but this seems to be under-recognized by poicy makers. Of course, these essons can be difficut to appy in situations where degradation issues have become highy poiticized. The sort of catastrophic forecasts that typify this situation make it extremey difficut for advocates of the pubic interest to make themseves heard in their cas for a baanced poicy approach. > Poicy recommendations In ight of the preceding discussion, I have a number of recommendations for poicy makers with respect to the way in which poicy shoud be designed and impemented. cknowedgments Pubishing Information

9 Experiences with Poicy pproaches in ustraia 211 Focus on the deivery of outcomes, not activity. Ensure that the funded activities are the right activities in the right areas to achieve target outcomes. Recognize that different poicy toos are appropriate for different circumstances even if the environmenta probem is the same. Conduct detaied anaysis and modeing. Consutation with the community is not enough to deveop effective investment pans and targets. Be prepared to target a smaer number of threatened assets if the anaysis shows that this is more cost-effective than spreading resources thiny over many assets. Pay attention to the arge body of existing research on what drives andhoder behaviour (e.g., Panne et a., 2006; Knower and Bradshaw, 2006), and form reaistic expectations with respect to how andhoders wi respond to poicy (i.e., not as we as you might wish). Be patient. Do not rush to spend program doars quicky, before anaysis showing where funds coud have the greatest impact has been done. If devoving decision-making powers over pubic funds to community-based bodies, ensure that there is rigorous accreditation of proposed investments and scrutiny of panning processes to ensure accountabiity. cknowedgments Pubishing Information

10 Experiences with Poicy pproaches in ustraia 212 References ustraia, Nationa ction Pan for Sainity and Water Quaity [NPSWQ] (2000). Our Vita Resources: Nationa ction Pan for Sainity & Water Quaity. ustraian Government. < pubications/poicies/pubs/vita-resources.pdf>, as of Juy 21, ustraia, Nationa Water Commission (no date). Nationa Water Initiative. < NWI/index.cfm>. ustraian Bureau of Statistics (2002). Sainity on ustraian Farms. Report ustraian Bureau of Statistics. Barr, N. (1999). Socia spects of Rura Natura Resource Management. In Outook 99: Proceedings of the Nationa gricutura and Resources Outook Conference, Canberra, March (Vo. 1) (ustraian Bureau of gricutura and Resource Economics): Crase, L., and B. Doery (2006). Water Rights: Comparison of the Impacts of Urban and Irrigation Reforms in ustraia. ustraian Journa of gricutura and Resource Economics 50, 3 (September): Cregan, P., and B. Scott (1998). Soi cidification n gricutura and Environmenta Probem. In J. Pratey and. Robertson (eds.), gricuture and the Environmenta Imperative (CSIRO): Curtis,., and T. De Lacy (1997). Examining the ssumptions Underying Landcare. In S. Lockie and F. Vancay (eds.), Critica Landcare (Centre for Rura Socia Research, Chares Sturt University): D Emden, F.H., and R.S. Leweyn (2004). No-ti doption and Cropping Issues for ustraian Grain Growers. The Regiona Institute. < cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/symposia/6/4/928_ emdenfh.htm>, as of December 21, The Economist (2003, Juy 19). Survey: Liquid ssets. The Economist: Grafton, R. Quentin (2005). Evauation of Round One of the Market Based Instrument Piot Program. ustraian Government, Department of gricuture, Fisheries and Forestry. Hodges, ndrew, and Tim Goesch (2006). ustraian Farms: Natura Resource Management in BRE Research Report Prepared for the ustraian Government, Department of gricuture, Fisheries and Forestry. < com/pubications_htm/crops/crops_06/nrm_ ausfarms.pdf>, as of December 21, Keighery, G.J., S.. Hase, M.S. Harvey, and N.L. McKenzie (eds.) (2004). Biodiversity Survey of the Western ustraian gricutura Zone. Western ustraian Museum. Knower, D., and B. Bradshaw (2006). Farmers doption of Conservation gricuture: Review cknowedgments Pubishing Information

11 Experiences with Poicy pproaches in ustraia 213 and Synthesis of Recent Research. Food Poicy 32, 1 (February): Lockie, S., and F. Vancay (eds.) (1997). Critica Landcare. Key Papers Series No. 5. Centre for Rura Socia Research, Chares Sturt University. Myers, N., R.. Mittermier, C.G. Mittermier, G..B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent (2000). Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities. Nature 403: Nationa Land and Water Resources udit (2001a). ustraian Dryand Sainity ssessment Nationa Land and Water Resources udit. Nationa Land and Water Resources udit (2001b). ustraian gricutura ssessment Nationa Land and Water Resources udit. Panne, D.J. (2001a). Dryand Sainity: Economic, Scientific, Socia and Poicy Dimensions. ustraian Journa of gricutura and Resource Economics 45, 4: Panne, D.J. (2001b). Harry Potter and the Penduums of Perpetua Motion: Economic Poicy Instruments for Environmenta Management. Connections: Farm, Food and Resource Issues 1 (Summer): 3 8. Panne, D.J., and Ewing, M.. (2006). Managing Secondary Dryand Sainity: Options and Chaenges. gricutura Water Management 80, 1/2/3: Panne, D.J., G.R. Marsha, N. Barr,. Curtis, F. Vancay, and R. Wikinson (2006). Understanding and Promoting doption of Conservation Practices by Rura Landhoders. ustraian Journa of Experimenta gricuture 46, 11: Productivity Commission (2004). Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Reguations. Productivity Commission Inquiry Report No. 29. Productivity Commission. Ridey,., and Panne, D.J. (2005). The Roe of Pants and Pant-based R&D in Managing Dryand Sainity in ustraia. ustraian Journa of Experimenta gricuture 45, 11: Stoneham, G., V. Chaudhri,. Ha, and L. Strappazzon (2003). uctions for Conservation Contracts: n Empirica Examination of Victoria s BushTender Tria. ustraian Journa of gricutura and Resource Economics 47, 4 (December): Vancay, F. (1997). The Socia Basis of Environmenta Management in gricuture: Background for Understanding Landcare. In S. Lockie and F. Vancay (eds.), Critica Landcare (Centre for Rura Socia Research, Chares Sturt University): Watson,. (2001). Dear Taxpayer, Send Money. Connections: Farm, Food and Resource Issues 1 (Summer). < summer_2001/watson.htm>, as of December 21, cknowedgments Pubishing Information

12 214 David Panne David Panne is a Professor in the Schoo of gricutura and Resource Economics at the University of Western ustraia, an ustraian Research Counci Federation Feow, and the author of 130 journa artices and book chapters. His research incudes the economics of and and water conservation; farmer adoption of and conservation practices; risk management; poicy evauation; and the economics of farming systems. He was president of the ustraian gricutura and Resource Economics Society in 2000, and a director on the Board of Land and Water ustraia from 2002 to Mr. Panne s research has won awards in the United States, ustraia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. cknowedgments Pubishing Information