Newsletter on bioeconomic and social
research on
Sustainability and Economics in Agriculture
Issue 7, July 2000
|
|
Newsletter on bioeconomic and social
research on |
 |
Editor:
Dave Pannell, University of Western Australia, email David.Pannell@uwa.edu.au SEA Project main funder: Grains Research and Development Corporation Address of the SEA News web site: http://www1.crcsalinity.com.au/newsletter/sea/ |
In This Issue
Editorial
E-letters
In
Brief
Herbicide Resistance Model. Saltland Pastures. Salinity Economics and Policy.
Policy
Forum:
Ethics
and Dryland Salinity
Articles:
Decision Support for
Integrated Weed Management
Adoption of Integrated Weed Management to
Conserve the Herbicide Resource
Economic and Social Factors in Herbicide
Resistance Management
Evaluation of Salinity Policies, Past and
Present
Economics of Deep Rooted Perennials
in Southern Australia
Regular
Bits and Pieces
News and Coming Events -
Overview of the SEA Project - People in the SEA Team -
Publications available
This issue features articles on herbicide resistance and the RIM model. As well as a paper I presented at the Third International Weed Science Congress in June, there are two articles addressing the issue of farmers adopting integrated weed management strategies, either before or after the onset of herbicide resistance. One is by Rick Llewllyn, a PhD student from the Western Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative (another worthy project funded by the Grains Research and Development Corporation).
Another PhD student, Liz Kington, has provided a historical review of salinity policies in Western Australia, complementing a policy forum piece on ethics and dryland salinity, and an article on the economics of perennial plant species being recommended for prevention of dryland salinity.
In response to several suggestions from readers, we have included a letters section. We invite contributions for the next issue.
Thanks Dave.
As usual, a most interesting document.
Peter McKerrow, National Farm Forestry Facilitator
Thanks for
continuing this fine publication.
Dan Carter, Agriculture Western Australia
I enjoyed your
piece on 'salt levies'. Salinity levies could be a bottomless
pit. Not only wasting money in pursuit of an illusory and
impossible objective but also denying more worthwhile programs
public funds.
Alistair Watson
I strongly
agree with you that the ICM fixation has been the cause of much
misdirected effort. The old work of Bettenay et al. (1962), is of
interest in relation to your arguments about the areal extent of
responsibility for recharge. The paper is worth quoting:
"Low permeability of the aquifer, in conjunction with its
topography and thus total head, is such that insignificant
amounts of water are transmitted and salt encroachment can not be
associated with massive movements of water." Jay Matta
showed 37 years later that it takes 3000 years for water to flow
the 11km from the top of the catchment to below Merredin town.
Conclusion, to solve the problem at Merredin you must plant your
trees or install your wells at Merredin. I understand that there
was a similar conclusion from some work at [Lake] Toolibin. How
many times does it have to be proved before we use it as a basis
for action?
Clive Malcolm
I was very
pleased to read your paper on the off-site effects (or otherwise)
of increased recharge occurring on agricultural land. As a land
management planner, I have found myself in conflict with the
"Integrated Catchment Management" approach on numerous
occasions.
Simon Abbott
Herbicide Resistance Model. RIM is a decision support
tool for integrated management of herbicide-resistant annual
ryegrass. For more information about RIM and an order form, see
the RIM web page:
http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/rim.htm
The Saltland Pastures
Association has prepared a Proposal For Revegetation of One Million
Hectares of Wheatbelt Saltland in Western Australia. Read about it at http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/saltland.htm
Salinity Economics and
Policy. Past issues of SEA News have
included a range of articles on economic and policy aspects of
salinity. For a list, see http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/saltpprs.htm
| Ethics in
Dryland Salinity Management and Policy by Dave Pannell
"The current approach to salinity policy also fails this ethical criterion" |
|
What do ethics
mean for dryland salinity? Some people have argued that,
ethically, farmers should be willing to implement salinity
prevention treatments, because their failure to do so will result
in substantial adverse impacts on each other, on the
non-agricultural community and on future generations. The ethics
of salinity are, in reality, more complex than this. In some
situations, hydrological evidence indicates that even major
financial sacrifices by farmers would have little or no off-site
benefits, negating much of that ethical argument. In addition,
ethics can be a two-edged sword: the ethical principle of
avoiding harm to others suggests that the community should not
make excessive demands of sacrifices by farmers for the common
good. Most importantly, I argue that the community has an ethical
imperative to develop policies which address salinity in a
balanced way and which are as effective as possible per dollar
spent in pursuit of salinity reductions. In other words, the
ethical responsibility for managing dryland salinity at the broad
scale rests with governments (on behalf of the whole community
and future generations) rather than with individual farmers.
Regardless of how one feels that farmers should behave,
a key criterion for policy should be that it is effective, which
requires a realistic appreciation of how farmers actually will
behave. A policy that relies on farmers complying
voluntarily with ethical principles that they may or may not
agree with would not be effective.
For the full article, see this web page: http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap0004.htm (19K)
|
|
Decision
Support for Integrated Weed Management by Dave Pannell "Integrated Weed Management seems a topic for which computerised decision support systems could be especially valuable to farmers." |
Integrated Weed
Management (IWM) means using a diverse mixture of chemical and
non-chemical weed management practices. It is a strategy that may
or may not be helpful to farmers, given their particular
individual circumstances and objectives. However, evaluating
possible IWM strategies is complex and difficult for farmers. A
decision support system, such as the Australian package RIM,
eases some of these difficulties. RIM simulates ryegrass (Lolium
rigidum) population dynamics, competition and economic costs
and returns for any user-specified IWM strategy for a period of
up to 20 years. It provides a number of insights about the
economics and biology of IWM, including the following. Even if
herbicides are available for use, the optimal combination of
control practices may include non-chemical methods. If
restrictions are placed on herbicide use (e.g. voluntary
restrictions to delay resistance, legal restrictions to limit
adverse side effects, or biological restrictions due to the onset
of resistance) it is biologically feasible to replace the
herbicides with a suite of non-chemical treatments. Individually
these tend to be less effective than selective herbicides, so a
greater number of treatments must be employed. Overall, the
economic returns to farmers from a low-herbicide system are
likely to be lower than a more herbicide-intensive system. If
herbicide use is limited to low levels, the best available
integrated strategy involves approximately the same average
density of weeds as a herbicide-based system. Thus the economic
losses due to reduced herbicide usage are not primarily due to
differences in weed density, but to differences in total
treatment costs. There appears to be no compelling case for
reducing the reliance on herbicides in order to delay the time
when they will be lost to resistance.
For the full article, see this web page: http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dss4iwm.htm (68K)
 |
Adoption
of integrated weed management to conserve the herbicide
resource: review and framework by Rick
Llewellyn, Bob Lindner, Dave Pannell and Steve Powles "Even if pre-emptive adoption of IWM practices is actually profitable, the adoption scenario is clearly complex and so rapid adoption is difficult to achieve." |
The demonstrated
ability of major cropping weeds to evolve resistance to most
major herbicides threatens the sustainability of
herbicide-dependent weed management systems. Although resistance
to some herbicides is already widespread in Australia, most grain
growers have several herbicide options still available to control
weed infestations in crops. These growers are being encouraged to
adopt integrated weed management practices that place less
reliance on herbicides to delay, if not prevent, the emergence of
further herbicide resistance. A farmer considering adoption of
such practices will have to make a decision similar to the
decision to conserve a natural resource, the resource in this
case being herbicide susceptibility. In attempting to maximise
their long-run economic returns, farmers need to weigh up the use
of herbicide susceptibility and the more costly non-herbicide
practices. In this paper, we integrate concepts of resource
economics and the literature on the adoption of innovations to
develop a framework for considering the adoption of integrated
weed management practices where herbicide resistance is
developing. We discuss implications for achieving rapid and high
level adoption by growers. This will be problematic, given the
requirement for farmers to perceive that change will be
profitable. This perception will be difficult to form in the
complex context of herbicide resistance, where high uncertainty
is expected.
For the full article, see this web page: http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap0006.htm (73K)
|
|
Economic
and Sociological Factors Affecting Growers’ Decision
Making on Herbicide Resistance by Dave Pannell
and David Zilberman "The management of herbicide resistant weeds is complex, involving a greater range of more costly and unfamiliar weed treatments." |
Economic and
sociological aspects have received little attention in the
published literature on herbicide resistance. In this paper we
review the key factors affecting the speed and nature of
farmers’ responses to possible changed management practices
and discuss the implications of this information for adoption of
management practices for herbicide resistance. We examine the
impact of resistance on the profitability of farming in a case
study, and examine the changes in farm management that resistance
requires or encourages. Herbicide resistance, as a farm
management issue is: complex; potentially expensive or difficult
to prevent; a source of considerable uncertainty; and difficult
to observe until herbicide resistance is advanced. It is not
surprising that farmers are initially cautious and limited in
their response. However, once resistance has fully developed,
farmers have no choice but to alter their weed management
systems. Thus, following the onset of resistance, most of the
problems involved in encouraging farmers to change to some
alternative system evaporate. The problem for farmers then
becomes, which of the many possible alternative systems should
best be adopted? The RIM model provides insights into the nature
of these adjustments for Western Australia, which has the most
extreme problem of herbicide resistance in the world. The model
confirms the expectation that, with resistance present, profits
are lower and the optimal weed management system is more
diversified. It includes a greater range of non-chemical
treatments than is the case for farming systems without herbicide
resistance. The best practice will vary from case to case, even
within a region. In some situations, there may be a need for
government responses to resistance to go beyond information
provision, which has been the dominant response so far.
For the full article, see this web page: http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap0007.htm (110K)
 |
Evaluation
Of Policy Approaches To Dryland Salinity Management In
The Kent River Catchment by Elizabeth
Kington and Keith Smettem "Policies are not always chosen because they are the most appropriate for the management problem, but often because they are politically acceptable." |
To date, the
Australian government has attempted to use various legislative
and policy initiatives to manage the spread of dryland salinity
and protect the natural environment. Despite these initiatives,
the area of land affected by dryland salinity continues to
increase and may now be difficult to control using existing
management capabilities. This paper evaluates three quite
different approaches to dryland salinity management that have
been attempted in the Kent River catchment, located in the
southwest of Western Australia. The three approaches are (a)
regulatory, (b) co-operative and (c) market driven. We assess the
implementation and impact of each management approach within
their respective historical, social and environmental contexts.
Existing regulatory and co-operative approaches have not been
implemented well and have not been effective in controlling
dryland salinity at the catchment scale. The market driven
approach, based on development of profitable perennial plants,
was more successful but also has its own problems. This study
combines a number of evaluation approaches in order to gain
insights into the advantages and disadvantages of relying on
economic and/or behavioural incentives to manage salinity
problems.
For the full article, see this web page: http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/spap0001.htm (154K)
| Economics
of Deep Rooted Perennials in Southern Australia by Andrew
Bathgate and Dave Pannell "The benefits of perennials for on-farm salinity prevention are likely to be of secondary importance in determining their economic attractiveness to farmers." |
 |
Much of the
hoped-for success of deep-rooted perennials in reducing the
eventual extent of dryland salinity in Australia will depend on
the farm-level economic performance of the available
perennial-based farming systems. A diverse range of factors
contributes to this economic performance, including short-term
production-related issues, dynamic factors, sustainability
factors, risk factors and whole-farm factors. Although some
examples of profitable perennial-based farming systems can be
identified, they are limited to particular niches in particular
regions, which tend to be higher rainfall regions. For the great
majority of land that is at risk of salinisation, no profitable
perennial plant options are currently available. The benefits of
perennials for on-farm salinity prevention are likely to be of
secondary importance in determining their economic attractiveness
to farmers. A case study is presented for lucerne in the southern
region of Western Australia. Lucerne appears likely to be
profitable in suitable environments, even without considering
salinity-related benefits. However it does not currently appear
likely to be adopted voluntarily on a scale that would address
the bigger, catchment-level problems such as river salinity and
flooding risk.
For the full article, see this web page: http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap0005.htm (91K)
Regular Bits and Pieces
News and Coming Events
"Application of Sustainability Indicators to the Management of Soil and Catchment Health in the Northern Grains Region." Tamworth, NSW, 11-12 July 2000, Contact Jan.Edwards@agric.nsw.gov.au
Overview of the SEA
Project
This project has a strong integrative focus, bringing together several sustainability issues and considering their biological, physical and economic implications at the whole-farm level. The main issues being researched in the project are soil salinisation, soil acidification, management of herbicide-resistant weeds, farmer adoption of sustainable practices and the economics of monitoring sustainability indicators. Main funding: Grains Research & Development Corporation. Commencement: 01-Aug-97 Completion: 30-Jun-02
People in the SEA Team
Publications
available
As
well as the articles summarised in this Newsletter, the SEA
Project has a range of publications available. A list is shown at
the following web page address. You can view and print most of
the papers directly in your browser.
Web page:
http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/seapprs.htm
Papers
that focus on agricultural extension, and adoption and diffusion
of innovations in agriculture:
Web page: http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/adoppprs.htm
Papers
that focus on dryland salinity:
Web page: http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/saltpprs.htm
Other issues of SEA News
Copyright note: Some articles in SEA news have subsequently been submitted for publication in journals or books. SEA News contains pre-publication versions of these articles. They have not been subject to peer review, and copyright rests with the authors. When an article is formally published, the version on the SEA News web site is not updated to the published version, as this would violate copyright. However, the citation shown on the web page is updated to allow readers to identify the published version. Readers are encouraged to make use of the material present on the web site, provided that its source is acknowledged. Readers who wish to make direct quotes from an article in SEA News should not attribute the quote to a more formal (e.g. journal) published version of the paper without checking the published version, since the quote may have been alterred or even omitted from the published version.
If you have any comments about SEA News or wish to make additions to or deletions from our mailing list, contact David.Pannell@uwa.edu.au
|
| Grains
Research and Development Corporation |
