1. Developing Metric Assessments for Biodiversity Tenders John Rolfe

2. Participants Project run by Central Queensland University –John Rolfe and Jill Windle Collaboration with –Kathleen Broderick & Ingrid van Puten (GBRMPA) –Romy Griener & Daniel Gregg (River Cons.) –Roy Brouwer (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) –Jeff Bennett (ANU) –Geoff Kerr (Lincoln NZ)

3. Tender mechanisms Tenders are a form of market based instrument (MBI) –Process for auctioning public funding for biodiversity protection Two major types –Purchasing environmental protection BushTender –Addressing pollution issues Water quality tender

4. Setting metrics Allocations of public funding need to distinguish between different priorities Need to assess the level of environmental improvement and compare to the bid price Metric provides the mechanism to generate an Environmental Benefits Index –Used to rank and select bids

5. Missing Information Most environmental auctions are cost- efficiency exercises –Identifying better ways to allocate public funding and gain biodiversity protection Better to assess the economic benefits that are being generated by public funds –Need to evaluate the metric against some valuation of the environmental benefits

6. An example Large water quality tender run in Burdekin catchment in north Queesland –$600K in on-ground incentives –Lower Burdekin and Haughton River catchments –Cane and grazing industries Tender run from Sept 07 – Jan 08 Nearly 90 bids submitted (for $2.1M) Bids assessed using a metric

8. Key outputs assessed in the metric Nutrient management –such as better nutrient budgeting and lower fertiliser application rates Waste water management –such as recycle pits, sediment traps, drain design Pesticide management –reductions in the application of key herbicides and pesticides Sediment management –improved ground cover, minimum tillage, reduced stocking rates.

9. Cumulative bid curve

10. The metric selected: 33 successful bids for $600,000 –491.8 tons of sediment reduction for $89.22 per ton, –96,207 kg nitrogen reduction for $4.55 per kg, and –55.6 kg Pesticide reduction for $2,221 per kg. Was the $600K of investment appropriate?

11. Proportion of movement 0.04% of annual sediment load in river 1.7% of annual Nitrogen load in river 0.04% of annual Pesticide application in region

12. Compared to other programs

13. The project aim Identify values from NMV experiments that can be used in tenders to evaluate bids Estimate values for agricultural water quality improvements in GBR Repeat the Water Quality metric with those values and compare the resulting allocations

14. Complications Difficult to translate pollutants into impacts on GBR –Sediments, nutrients, pesticides Footprint of impacts often localised –Flood plume of Burdekin River Different pathways involved –Surface runoff versus groundwater movement Events often episodic – major flood events

15. The key task Design CM experiments relating to water quality in relevant area of GBR catchment Translate SS, N and Pesticides into environmental outcomes –+ certainty levels for the outcomes to occur Assess WTP for the benefits of improved water quality Have this in a form suitable for inclusion in a metric –Test against the Burdekin WQ data

16. Other parts to the Study Reviewing scope for CM and benefit transfer to be used in metrics –Reviewing vegetation metrics & benefit transfer (Windle) –Reviewing existing case studies for BT in other areas Meta analysis of values for rivers and wetlands (with Roy Brouwer) Meta analysis of values for recreational fishing (with Geoff Kerr) –Testing in CM how benefit values are influenced by the type of input actions E.g. shipping, green zones, Ag. Water quality