Increasing uptake of improved land management practice to benefit environment and landholders: insights through a transaction cost lens

Figures & data

Figure 1. Influences of transaction costs and impact on gains from trade.

Figure 2. The Great Barrier Reef location and catchments.

Figure 3. A timeline of major policy instruments for water quality improvement in the GBR. Source: Eberhard et al. (2021). 1. Phase is defined by the bilateral water quality plans (State of Queensland and Commonwealth of Australia 2003, 2009, 2013, 2018). 2. Reef regulations under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) were passed in 2009 (Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Act 2009) and enhanced in 2019 (Environmental Protection (Great Barrier Reef Protection Measures) and other legislation Amendment Bill 2019). Note: Suasive and financial instruments were/are voluntary.

Table 1. Description of improved land management practices for grazing in the GBR.

Desirable land management practice	Which means:
The average stocking rate each paddock will likely carry over a number of years is matched to the carrying capacity of that paddock (long-term carrying capacity or LTCC).	Stocking rate matched to carrying capacity.
Balance between stocking rate and pasture quantity in each paddock, and implications for groundcover, are objectively evaluated.	Forage budgets are used for each paddock, cattle numbers adjusted accordingly.
Management is tailored to encourage recovery of land in declining or poor (C) condition and very poor condition (D).	C: Reassessing and adjusting stocking rates in relation to long-term carrying capacity, sub-dividing areas for improved management, and a planned program of wet season spelling.
	D: Review grazing management of whole paddock; fence to control grazing; establish diversion banks upslope; break surface of scalded areas and sow grass seed; allow litter and other organic material to accumulate.
Where there has been, or is, strongly selective grazing of land types within a paddock, management actions are in place to maintain/recover land condition of those land types.	Selectively grazed land types fenced from other country where practical and cost-effective; Elsewhere, use regular wet season spelling, with or without fire, to help preferred areas recover.
Grazing pressure on river frontage country and wetlands can be effectively managed.	Fencing; off-stream water points throughout. Wet season spelling, appropriate fire management.
Where possible, remedial actions are taken to facilitate recovery of gullied areas.	Professional advice informs appropriate mix of actions.
	Roads, tracks and fences managed to minimise soil disturbance.

Source: Australian and Queensland Government (2013).

Table 2. ENI funded activities.

ENI funded activity^1	Function	Potential flow on land condition improvement.
Pregnancy scan technology	Earlier detection of pregnant cows. De-stock empty cows. Better manage calving period. Calves all of similar age can be circulated around paddocks more easily.	Can better match stocking rate to carrying capacity.
Water telemetry	Sensors on troughs and tanks – know trough and tank levels and flow. Facilitates better management of water – can fix a tank, trough or valve as soon as there is a problem.	Potential to move stock by turning water points on and off. Adequate water supply at troughs removes cattle from creeks and riverbeds which has a positive impact on waterway erosion.
Weed wiper	Efficient and effective application of weed poison – wipes on so less collateral kill (benefit of this depends on the make-up of pasture). Can apply even when windy. Works well in a cell grazing regime – cows eat everything, smash down weeds, we apply to residual weeds then rest the pasture.	Less weeds means less exposed soil under weeds and better pasture. Better pasture and matching stocking rate to carrying capacity means less exposed soil and less sediment runoff. Weed wiper means less chemical (cost and environmental benefit).
Overall grazing land management and weed wiper	Weed wiper, lime spreader, fertiliser spreader – management of giant rats tail (GRT) (weed).	Less weeds and management of soil acidity results in better pasture which leads to better rotation and improvement in end of dry season ground cover.
Weed mister	Spray out lantana.	Less lantana, more pasture, less exposed surfaces, less runoff.
Fire management planning	Facilitate better vegetation management though fire – cool and hot depending on what works best for vegetation.	Sustainable vegetation cover. Less exposed soil after wildfire.
Fauna and flora survey	Inform land use and management based on existing flora and fauna and needs of natural as well as grazing. Production of publicly available material on flora and fauna.	Better management of pasture with understanding of needs of natural and grazing species.

Table 3. Questions to and responses of GRASS landholders.

Question asked of GRASS landholders in workshop and one to one farm visit	Landholder responses
What types of groundcover and streambank land management practices are you currently applying?	Riparian fencing Fencing to support rotational grazing Fencing off ‘sweet spots’ to even out grazing pressure within paddocks Systematic waterpoints to reduce cattle travel and ground pressure Feed budgeting and grazing charts Spelling to grow more grass Matching stocking rate to carrying capacity Mechanical intervention to support soil water retention, support seed establishment.
What did you expect (or were concerned about)?	ability to achieve the outcome how changed management would impact on time management impact of ILMP on manual tasks
What did you experience when adopting land management practices?	Variable rate of groundcover recovery related to weather, seasons, and land types Positivity about the groundcover response from matching stocking rate to carrying capacity
What helped adopt these practices?	Targeted training (provided privately) was the turning point to understanding the link between land management and business management Past experiences with programs focussed on regenerative land management assisted in ease of adoption
What made it hard to adopt new practices (or was a barrier to working with programs)?	Variable seasons make reliable cash flow a problem (hard to plan) Funding in general Lack of time Ability to access specific knowledge tailored to paddocks, soil types etc Government jargon Past negative experience with Government (then suspicion that interaction with government will result in more regulation in the future) Concerns about ownership and control of data once handed over
What would landholders like to do in the future and what do they need to support them making changes in the future?	Introduce works to aid in further water retention such as mechanical works, contour banks Improve and maintain grass cover and limit parthenium and weed growth. More people on the ground with specialised skills and knowledge More financial assistance Financial recognition of good works already performed More support to trial new methods without the risk

Table 4. Questions to and responses of ENI landholders.

Question asked of ENI landholders in one-to-one farm visit	Landholder responses
What did the ENI program support you to do on your property?	See Table 2
Is this your first experience with a funded program with NQDT/LDC	Yes in relation to funding. However, many landholders had past interactions with NQDT regional body through NQDT stakeholder engagement activities, etc.
What were your expectations of conducting funded actions	All landholders reported a feeling of positivity about dealing with NQDT through the ENI and had positive expectations about conducting the contracted activities. All landholders interviewed reported a feeling of excitement about being able to trial the funded activity, for many, this was an activity that they had been wanting to trial for a while but until engagement with ENI, did not have the capital and/or the risk appetite. There were some reports about concern about the potential success of the practice, but no concerns about the potential engagement with NQDT.
What makes it easy or hard for you to engage with the NQDT/LDC? What do you think could be improved in the future?	What made it easy: A straightforward process to apply for financial support with detail only around what the landholder wanted to do, how they wanted to do it and what the potential business and water quality impacts could be. Financial support to cover capital expenditure. This enabled landholders to trial the practice/equipment on their property without the personal risk of losing money if the practice/equipment was not suitable to their property or business model in the long run. Having an established and ongoing relationship with the same extension officer helped landholders find out about the ENI program, apply for funding and feel supported as they trialled the new practice/equipment. No landholders reported challenges when engaging with NQDT for the ENI program.
Do you have any plans to continue/expand the funded action on your property in the future? (if yes when and in what ways and what is helping you do this/ if no what barriers or constraints are there?)	All landholders interviewed had plans to either continue or expand investment across their properties. Being able to do this was influenced by the season, time/labour availability and money. Additional funding for trialling with flexible deliverables on contract milestones was noted as facilitating expansion of land management activities.
Do you have any plans to make additional or new changes on your property? (if so what, when and in what ways, what enables and/or makes this a challenge?)	Most landholders expressed a desire to improve stock management across their paddocks through additional and strategic water points (and water telemetry); splitting and fencing for smaller paddocks; better weed management for better pasture. There was also interest in further improving land management through better understanding of flora and fauna on the property and in the region and management to support these (such as use of fire). See above for enablers.
Other	The landholders interviewed were very proud of what they had achieved and were keen to share their experiences with other landholders. Peer-to-peer learning was suggested as a way to capitalise on the investments made by the NQDT and broaden out the learning.

Eberhard, R., A. Coggan, D. Jarvis, E. Hamman, B. Taylor, U. Baresi, K. Vella, et al. 2021. “Understanding the Effectiveness of Policy Instruments to Encourage Adoption of Farming Practices to Improve Water Quality for the Great Barrier Reef.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 172: 112793, November. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112793

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

State of Queensland and Commonwealth of Australia. 2003. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan: For Catchments Adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Brisbane: Queensland and Australian Government. https://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/46120/reefplan-2003.pdf

 Google Scholar

State of Queensland and Commonwealth of Australia. 2009. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan: For the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and Adjacent Catchments. Brisbane: Queensland and Australian Government. https://hdl.handle.net/11017/1125

 Google Scholar

State of Queensland and Commonwealth of Australia. 2013. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 2013. Securing the Health and resilience of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and Adjacent Catchments. Brisbane: Queensland and Australian Government. https://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/46123/reef-plan-2013.pdf

 Google Scholar

State of Queensland and Commonwealth of Australia. 2018. Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan 2017-2022. Brisbane: Queensland and Australian Government.

 Google Scholar

Coggan, A., E. Buitelaar, S.M. Whitten, and J. Bennett. 2013. “Intermediaries in Environmental Offset Markets: Actions and Incentives.” Land Use Policy 32 (1): 145–154. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.10.002

 Google Scholar