Public and private benefits and choice of environmental policy instruments

Context Policy aims to influence the behaviour of people to generate positive externalities or avoid negative externalities For example, changes in land management to increase environmental benefits or decrease environmental costs

Public and private benefits “Private benefits” relate to the landholder making the decisions (internal) “Public benefits” relate to all others (external) neighbours, downstream water users, city dwellers interested in biodiversity

Possible projects Each dot is a set of land-use changes on specific pieces of land = a project. Lucerne Farm B Lucerne Farm A Which tool? Incentives Extension Regulation New technology No action Current practice Forestry in water catchment

Alternative policy mechanisms for seeking changes on private lands Category Specific policy mechanisms included Positive incentives Financial or regulatory instrumentsA to encourage change Negative incentives Financial or regulatory instrumentsA to inhibit change Extension Technology transfer, education, communication, demonstrations, support for community network Technology change Development of improved land management options, e.g. through strategic R&D No action Informed inaction AIncludes polluter-pays mechanisms (command and control, pollution tax, tradable permits, offsets) and beneficiary-pays mechanisms (subsidies, conservation auctions and tenders).

Simple rules for allocating mechanisms to projects 1. No positive incentives for land-use change unless public net benefits of change are positive. 2. No positive incentives if landholders would adopt land-use changes without those incentives. 3. No positive incentives if costs outweigh benefits overall.

Simple rules 4. No extension unless the change being advocated would generate positive private net benefits (the practice is ‘adoptable’). 5. No extension where a change would generate negative net public benefits 6. … 10. see web site

Simple public-private framework

That was based only on simple rules The following slides account for additional complexities Costs of learning/transition Lags to adoption Partial effectiveness of extension Transaction costs

Lag to adoption

Extension Extension has learning costs, and reduces, but doesn’t eliminate, the lag to adoption

Positive incentives can speed adoption that would have occurred eventually Lag is long enough to be worth paying incentive

New map for positive incentives and extension

Technology change can move a project

BCR ≥ 1

BCR ≥ 2 This version is more targeted Even if public benefits are high, incentives or extension are only selected over quite narrow ranges of private benefits.

Implications for public programs Choice of policy tool matters greatly Depends on individual situation of environmental assets Case-by-case Choice of assets to protect and policy tool should be made jointly Best projects have private net benefits close to zero

Implications for public programs Are we getting it roughly right in environmental programs? In many cases, no Over-used policy tools Extension, small temporary grants Under-used policy tools Technology change Tightly targeted larger grants or regulation

Acknowledgements Affiliations of the INFFER team Other key funders University of Western Australia Department of Primary Industries, Victoria North Central Catchment Management Authority Future Farm Industries CRC Other key funders Australian Research Council (Federation Fellow Program) Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (CERF Program) Department of Sustainability and Environment , Victoria