GRDC Project No: UWA 251

Project Title: Sustainability and economics in wheatbelt farming: achieving an integrated balance

Commencement Date: 1/8/1997

Completion Date: 30/9/2002

No of Years: 5.25

Contact Information

Organisation: University of Western Australia

Mailing Address: Stirling Hwy, Crawley WA 6009

Town: Crawley

State: WA

Post Code: 6009

Country: Australia

Administration Contact

First Name: Trudi

Surname: McGlade

Position: Manager, Research Grants Office

Telephone: (08) 6488 1776

Fax: (08) 6488 1075

Email: tmcglade@acs.uwa.edu.au

Project Supervisor Contact

Budget Summary

1997-1998: 74,442

1998-1999: 124,886

1999-2000: 130,210

2000-2001: 135,251

2001-2002: 124,805

Total GRDC $ Agreed (excl GST) 589,594

Overview of Project Achievements

Advice to farmers on sustainability issues has often neglected economic considerations. This project addressed that deficiency for several sustainability issues (soil salinisation, herbicide resistance and soil acidification). A second strand of research focused on the human dimension to sustainable agriculture. It included studies of farmer adoption of sustainable practices, farmers' attitudes, and farmer monitoring of sustainability indicators, such as ground water levels in piezometers. The project included a comprehensive and innovative communication and implementation strategy.

Project aims were:

1. Generate information of value to farmers, research organisations and policy makers regarding: the appropriate role and usage of sustainability indicators on and off-farm; economic values of sustainability-related research; impacts of government policies on agricultural sustainability.

2. Develop simple decision aids for farmers on sustainability-related management problems.

3. Enhance knowledge and understanding of the interaction between sustainability and economics among farmers, extension staff, scientists, science funders and policy makers.

Contracted Outputs

1. Applied knowledge on issues related to sustainability and economics in agriculture. One aspect is R&D aimed at identification and promotion of farming practices that are both economic and sustainable, focusing particularly on dryland salinity, herbicide resistance and soil acidification. The second aspect, building on the foundation of the above practical problems, is work of a more general nature. We addressed relevant aspects of government policy, developing and rationalising research methods and models, helped to prioritise the problems, clarified complex conceptual issues, and studied farmer attitudes and behaviour, including farmer adoption of sustainable farming practices, and farmer monitoring of sustainability indicators.

2. Decision support tools on herbicide resistance and water use and a strong communication strategy to deliver results of the project, including a web-based newsletter produced three times per year.

Outcomes/Benefits: Benefits include improved profitability and sustainability of farms grappling with the sustainability problems we have studied. This occurred directly (e.g. through improved decision making from use of the RIM decision support tool for herbicide resistance), and indirectly (e.g. through our influence on extension agents, other researchers and policy makers). The project has generated community-wide benefits through improved environmental quality and improved cost-effectiveness of public funding, particularly for salinity.

Highlights

(a) [Aim 3, Output 2] Web site: Project outputs have been distributed widely via our web-based newsletter, SEA News. Thirteen issues were distributed throughout the life of the project. In total 58 relevant articles were published along with 5 addition articles relating to policy, 6 identifying ideas and lessons on sustainablity from overseas and 4 focussed on research and methodology (See Attachment Volume II). Over 1100 subscribers have received each issue of SEA News, and there have been tens of thousands of hits on articles in the SEA News web site each year (estimated average of over 50,000 hits per year). Unsolicited emails reveal great satisfaction with SEA News by readers.

"SEA News is arguably the best source of economic information relating to natural resource management in Australia." Mike Young, CSIRO Land and Water.

"Have just read SEA News #5 and really impressed by the links between eco and socio-eco." Peter Stephen, U of Melbourne.

"Thanks for the latest version of SEA News (Issue #10). It's always full of stimulating articles." Graeme Olsen.

"I think your articles and approach are very useful." Daniel Connell, Media Liaison, Murray-Darling Basin Commission.

"Just read your paper 2000/04 [Ethics and Salinity] and was, again, impressed. Congratulations." Neil MacLeod, CSIRO.

"Keep up the stimulating work please!," Phil Price.

"Thanks for another excellent newsletter. It is a valuable resource for me because of its relevance to that strange brew of agronomy, sociology and economics that is the real world [of agricultural sustainability]." Brett Robinson, CSIRO.

"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 find this newsletter particularly useful." Bernie Wonder, Deputy Secretary, AFFA.

"The Grains Corporation should be very appreciative to have their name attached to a project which is producing the type of work you have produced in the newsletter." Jim Lewis, Futureprofit (PMP in Queensland).

(b) [Aim 3, Output 2] Workshops conducted with extension staff in regional centres on salinity, risk and farm management. Workshops with farmers on herbicide resistance using the RIM model.

As evidence of the value of these workshops, we present results from a survey of farmers (49 respondants) who attended recent workshops in the Esperance region (about half of the workshop involved a hands-on session with RIM).

How would you rate the value of attending the workshop? Scale (1: no value at all to 7: extremely valuable) - Average 6 out of 7.

How would you rate the relevance of the workshop to your farm management? Same scale - Average 6 out of 7.

Has the workshop changed any of your perceptions of any aspect of herbicide resistance management? 76% said yes

Do you think that you may change your crop-weed management as a result of attending the workshop? 63% said yes.

Conclusions

1. Salinity.

Among the numerous conclusions, we highlight the following.

* The economic value of off-farm benefits from on-farm salinity management are generally much smaller than previously appreciated. Salinity is often best managed on a local scale, rather than a catchment scale, particularly in WA but also in many areas of other States.

* The role of policy mechanisms to directly influence on-ground salinity management (e.g. market-based instruments, regulation, subsidies) should primarily be limited to selected high priority locations, not the whole landscape.

* The on-farm economic benefits from salinity prevention are low relative to the direct costs and benefits of perennials.

* Protection of most agricultural land (and some dispersed public assets) from salinisation will primarily depend on the development of profitable perennial land use options. This requires R&D as a key element.

2. Herbicide resistance.

* The value of delaying the onset of herbicide resistance by early adoption of integrated weed management strategies is negative in many cases. However once resistance has developed, IWM is essential.

* Selection of IWM strategies is very complex and highly situation specific, and is greatly assisted by using a decision support tool such as RIM.

* Inclusion of an occasional pasture phase in the crop sequence to help manage resistance is more profitable that traditional shorter crop-pasture rotations on soils where cropping is dominant.

3. Adoption of sustainable land uses.

* Lack of awareness of salinity is probably not a major factor in explaining slow and low adoption of the recommended practices. Rather, the major factors relate to the economic costs and benefits of current treatment options, the difficulties of trialling the options, long time scales, externalities, and social issues.

* Moral suasion and peer pressure can be very useful in raising farmer awareness, but should not be relied upon to achieve adoption of innovations that are not clearly beneficial to the individual farmer.

* In some cases, a key problem in achieving adoption is deep uncertainty about the technology caused by not demonstrating its value quickly and/or convincingly enough. This is especially true for slow, indirect effects, such as impacts on the water table.

* In general, farmers have high levels of knowledge about salinity and its treatment, although their perceptions appear to be overly optimistic on a number of aspects of the problem. As a group they are highly uncertain about the extent of, and rate of increase in saline land, and they highlight the complexity, modest effectiveness and relatively poor economic performance of available treatment options.

4. Sustainability indicators

In many cases, the value of continuing to monitor an indicator would fall over time as knowledge and understanding increase. For this reason, even successful programs to promote monitoring by farmers may have a limited life expectancy. If monitoring an indicator is to be valuable to a farmer, the indicator must be related to management options that make a difference in achieving the farmer's objectives. However, if the achievement of objectives is very sensitive to management choices, the optimal choice may be so obvious that there is little value in collecting further information about it. It is not possible to conclude that monitoring indicators is, in general, a beneficial practice.

Recommendations

Again, numerous recommendations (for various stakeholders) emerged, and were widely communicated. Many are directly implied by the conclusions presented above.

Below are a number of other recommendations of a big picture nature. Some are specific to a particular issue, while others arise from a consideration of the project as a whole.

1. Do not have excessive expectations of programs like Landcare and NHT that rely on awareness raising and partial subsidies for on-ground works. What is really needed to deal with the biggest NRM issues is new land use options supporting new industries that are profitable and deliver environmental benefits in a win-win fashion.

2. In designing R&D, be careful to maintain an appropriate balance between research to understand the problem and processes, and research to develop new technologies to manage the problem. There is a tendency in the NRM area to focus on the former to the detriment of the latter.

3. Similarly, maintain an appropriate balance between research and extension. In the NRM area, there is a tendancy to focus on extension at the expense of research, in the mistaken belief that we know the solutions already. Often there is a more pressing need to focus on development of appropriate technologies. If this is not done first, the extension will be of very limited effectiveness.

4. Programs for monitoring of sustainability indicators need to focus on small numbers of indicators that are of direct relevance to real farm management decisions, rather than the sort of long lists of indicators that appear in most discussions of the issue.

5. Economic aspects of resource degradation issues have been shown to be absolutely central to understanding the issues and their management. This particularly includes farm-level economics, which is often mistakenly belittled as somehow inferior to economic analyses at the catchment scale. In reality the two are complementary.

6. Options for making use of salinised resources are very important, particularly in environments where prevention or remediation of salinity is impossible. Returns on RD&E in this area are likely to be high.

7. Effective analysis of most sustainability most certainly requires a multidisciplinary approach. Conclusions from work that does not take such an approach should be treated with considerable caution.

A wide range of additional recommendations are contained in the written papers of the project.

Other R&D Opportunities

"The research on salinity [by the SEA Project] has set the agenda for economic and biophysical research on this issue in Australia." Gary Stoneham, Chief Economist, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria.

Many of the R&D opportunities that have been identified in the project have already been picked up in a variety of ways.

The key one is the existence of the CRC for Plant-Based Management of Dryland Salinity. This CRC has picked up on the pressing need identified in this project to develop profitable perennial land uses to effectively deal with salinity on the required scale. The CRC is addressing a wide range of biological, physical, economic and social issues relevant to salinity. In preparing the proposal for its funding, we were involved in estimating likely benefits from the CRC's planned R&D. Estimated net benefits over 50 years included the equivalent of $34m per year from protection of farm land from salinisation and $46m per year from productive use of saline land.

Beyond this headline item, numerous projects influenced by the SEA Project are planned or under way, including studies of actual or potential new perennial options at the farm level, catchment-level studies of economic impacts from revegetation, policy design and evaluation, market prospects for new products from perennials and social issues related to salinity. Further work on the potential synergies between salinity management and herbicide resistance management will be undertaken in a PhD funded jointly by the Salinity CRC and the Weeds CRC. The SEA project has also strongly influenced the thinking of bio-physical scientists in the plant breeding and farming systems programs of the CRC and of CRC management.

The need identified for high quality information on the farm-level economics of salinity treatments over the widest possible area was recognised by GRDC and funding provided to Ross Kingwell (Department of Agriculture WA) and Andrew Bathgate (NSW Agriculture) for a national project, which is proceeding well.

The high value of the RIM model as a research and extension tool has been recognised by the WA Herbicide Resistance Initiative. It is being used by postgraduate students and scientists to study a range of issues in integrated weed management, and it is being used as a key part of farmer workshops, including now TopCrop workshops. Ongoing support for these activities with RIM is recommended.

A number of other R&D opportunities that have not yet been pursued exist. They include:

* a study of the factors that influence uptake of policy innovations by policy makers.

* investigation of innovative extension methods that help make groundwater impacts and other underground processes more visible to farmers.

* further development and extension of the statistical method developed to analyse groundwater trends from bore data. It has considerable potential as a practical tool for farmer groups. It is much cheaper and more direct than other methods to measure recharge.

* improved methods to efficiently prioritise public investments for environmental protection at a regional or state scale.

* collection of information to progress such prioritisation decisions.

Attachments

Copies of letters from 11 policy makers and policy advisors outlining the impacts of the SEA Project on policy - Volume I.

Detailed list of communication activities and outputs of the project - Volume II.

SEA News: CD and printout of SEA News, containing most papers published by the project - Volume III Nos. 1 to 13.

RIM: CD, RIM User's Manual, RIM Reference Manual - Volume IV.

Expected Outcome (benefits)

The project has had and will continue to have a range of benefits, particularly economic and environmental but also potentially, long run social benefits.

One prominent benefit will be more effective use of public funds spent on salinity. To the extent that the project's findings are acted on, it will result in a substantial reduction in wasteful and ineffective spending that has been typical of salinity policies up to now. There is good reason to expect that the effectiveness of the project in this area will be high, as evidenced by the following quotes from policy makers and policy advisors (full letters are available, Attachment, Volume I).

"Your research provided the sound economic and social principles that underpin the State's Salinity Investment Framework, that has recently been endorsed by Cabinet. ... Your articulate and powerful presentations to the State Salinity Council were instrumental in achieving the necessary shift in policy thinking that will enable more strategic, cost-effective investment." Paul Vogel, A/Director, Environmental Policy Unit, Dept Premier and Cabinet, WA.

"Your wise counsel while participating in innovative policy development committees and inquiries for Government and community action will have a long-term impact on salinity management and Natural Resource Management in Western Australia." Garry English, WA Farmers Federation.

"You provided the committee with a big-picture view of the issues which was challenging but at the same time easily understood. ... Your input will be a significant contribution to the Committee's parliamentary report." Pam Allen, Chairman, NSW Legislative Committee on Salinity.

"The work was influential at the highest levels of policy as well as with natural resource managers in the field. Overall, the SEA Project was one of the most successful that I have ever known." Dr Don McFarlane, Director, Resource Management, Water and Rivers Commission, WA.

"New South Wales Treasury has found the work published under this project, by yourself and others, extremely valuable in developing our thinking on natural resource management issues. The SEA Project has injected much needed objectivity, practicality and realism into the discussion. The project has been particularly successful in conveying the available scientific, economic and social information on these issues together with associated policy implications in a manner that is readily accessible to decision makers." Kevin Cosgriff, Executive Director, Resource Allocation, New South Wales Treasury.

"I think that the project has made a significant contribution to environmental policy in the last 3-4 years. This statement applies at the national level." Alistair Watson, Freelance Economist, Melbourne.

"I have no doubt that your group, through the SEA Project, has influenced not only industry attitudes towards sustainability, but also national policy agendas, particularly in respect to dryland salinity." Richard Price, National Manager, National Dryland Salinity Program.

A second category of benefits will result from our influence on the attention paid to technology development as a better policy approach than Landcare/NHT. The CRC for Plant Based Management of Dryland Salinity provides an example of potential benefits in this category. Estimated net benefits from the CRC over 50 years included the equivalent of $34m per year from protection of farm land from salinisation and $46m per year from productive use of saline land.

In addition, a detailed economic analysis of a bid to extend the CRC via a "supplementary bid" to include animal issues estimated the following additional benefits (over the whole 50 years, not per year):

We assume a discount rate of 8 per cent (in real terms) over a time frame of 50 years. Result are as follows:

Grazing of perennial pastures in recharge areas, $229 million; Grazing of saltland pastures, $53 million; Both (assumed additive), $282 million.

The present values of benefits of salinity prevention attributable to this supplementary bid are as follows: Protect additional 2% of agricultural land, $22 million; Accelerate that protection by 2 years, $30 million; Both (not additive), $55 million.

We clearly do not claim all these benefits as being attributable to this project. However, we do claim that (a) results of the project played a significant role in galvanasing support for the CRC bid, and in making the case for the CRC in the application, and (b) we have influenced the policy environment significantly in Australia, making it much more likely that efforts such as these will be supported in the long run.

A third category of benefits is direct financial benefits to farmers through uptake of tools and recommendations from the project. Most prominent in this regard is the RIM spreadsheet, which has been particularly beneficial to WA growers. There have been 243 copies of the software sold, and 15 workshops held with farmers and agonomists. The number of workshops will soon increase markedly with the inclusion of RIM in TopCrop workshops.

Indicative of the potential benefits from using RIM, we have found that economic returns can be markedly influenced by the type of Integrated Weed Management strategy farmers use. As one example from many, Marta Monjardino in her PhD project (which extended ryegrass RIM to include Wild Radish as an additional weed) found that when costs and benefits of weed control were fully considered within the overall evaluation of crop/pasture sequences, these specified rotations in the eastern wheatbelt of WA would provide the following economic returns (annuity) over a 20 year period: PPWW, $84/ha;

BPWW, $76/ha; BPPWW, $73/ha; BPPPWW, $76/ha; BLWW, $117/ha; BLWW, barley cut for hay1, $108/ha; BLWW, green-manured lupins2, $106/ha; BLWW+ PPP, 113; BLWW+ PPP, barley cut for hay1, $103/ha; BLWW+ PPP, green-manured lupins2, $105/ha.

We stress that these results apply to a particular scenario, and would change for a scenario with, for example, a different herbicide resistance status. This highlights the value of RIM for tailoring treatments to a particular farm situation.

Environmental Outcomes

Environmental benefits will arise from the project in a number of ways:

(a) We have influenced the policy agenda and created a greater awareness that effective protection of assets from salinity requires such a high level of land use change that any funds used to support such change need to be tightly focussed and prioritised onto top priority assets. This will result in more effective protection of these assets.

(b) Our role in facilitating and advocating for technology development (e.g. the CRC) will see environmental benefits as a result of the wide uptake by farmers of new commercial perennial land uses over large areas.

The types of benefits will include:

* protection of biodiversity

* reduction in stream salinity

* reduction in flood risk due to lowering of water tables

* protection of infrastructure assets such as roads

Our role in generating these benefits is somewhat indirect, so estimating their magnitudes is difficult in the extreme. However, we can state with real confidence that the project will have significant ongoing benefits in these areas.

Social Outcomes

One key benefit, which might be considered to be "social", is the support that the project has given to a number of students. In particular, the following research students have been supervised by members of the project:

(a) PhD

Kington, Elizabeth. 1996-2001. Why is Dryland Salinity Still a Problem in W.A. Agriculture?

Monjardino, Marta. 1998-2002. Herbicide Resistance Management with Multiple Resistant Species.

John, Michelle. 1999-. Tactical and Strategic Management of Dryland Salinity Under Risk.

Llewellyn, Rick. 1999-2002. Farmer Adoption of Herbicide Resistance Management Strategies.

Winter, Tennille. 2002- . Economic Policy Instruments for Dryland Salinity

(b) Master of Science

Sounness, Marcus. 2001- Optimal Grazing Management of Lucerne Pastures.

(c) Master of Science in Natural Resource Management

Don Cooper, 1998-1999. Economics of Oil Mallee Industries in Western Australia.

Glenn, Nicole, 1997- . Economics of Lime Application to Manage Soil Acidity.

(d) Undergraduate student projects

Roberts, Simeon. 1997. Managing Herbicide Resistant Ryegrass: The Role and Value of Competitive Wheat Varieties and Seed Catching in Integrated Weed Management.

As well as providing supervision, the project has provided these students with a vital and stimulating work environment as part of a top class team. They have been strongly supported to make presentations of their work at conferences, and their work has been extensively featured within SEA News.

The recommendations of the project should also lead to long term social benefits, particularly as a result of development of new industries to address salinity. The WA Government's Salinity Taskforce, which made extensive use of our analyses, reported to government in 2001 as follows:

"New industries based on perennials will generate social benefits to rural regions, resulting from greater wealth and employment. This includes the potential to introduce new industries such as bio-energy, bio-fuels for transport, aquaculture and wood products, as well as maintaining existing industries such as wool and meat production with the introduction of perennial pastures.

"In all likelihood, the salinity-related benefits from new industries based on perennials will be small relative to the total of other benefits of such industries, which will include profitability, diversification, regional development and broader environmental benefits. Nevertheless, salinity provides an imperative to pursue this approach, since large-scale salinity prevention on farmland is probably not achievable by any other means. Salinity provides the primary impetus to Western Australia to review its agricultural landuse."

Thirdly, social benefits will arise from an enlightened policy approach, by reducing the tendency to support messages that encourage landholders to take up expensive new landuse options that have not been properly evaluated, and may not be in the interests of the individual farmers, or the broader community. Such an outcome is disheartening for the farmers, short sighted from a government perspective since it burns up good will, and ethically highly questionable. This issue was broached in one of our most commented on papers: Pannell, D.J. (2000). Ethics in dryland salinity management and policy, SEA Working Paper 2000/04, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia. (in SEA News issue #7).

Risk Assessment

As already outlined, the majority of the project findings have already been picked up and acted on in one way or another, either by farmers, scientists or policy makers.

There remains a risk that government policy makers will prefer the short-term, politically expedient policy designs that have characterised NRM in Australia to date.

There is also a risk that the recommended R&D to develop improved perennial landuse options will be less successful than we would hope.

Outputs

Reproduce any outputs not previously reported against.

Output Number: 1

Planned Delivery Date: 30/6/2002

Achieved: Yes

Description: Applied knowledge on issues related to sustainability and economics in agriculture (including information for researchers, research managers, government and farmers).

If achieved, clearly indicate the nature of the output and how it has been / will be promoted and adopted leading to the expected outcome (benefits):

The knowledge developed in this project has been of several types, including (but not limited to):

(a) the economic performance of specific management options designed to enhance sustainability in particular farming systems/locations

(b) More general information about sustainable agriculture, including philosophical, ethical and definitional aspects

(c) Analytical methods

(d) Reviews

(e) Analyses of policy approaches and policy options

(f) Surveys of farmers attitudes, perceptions and actions

The outputs have been promoted very effectively throughout the life of the project, by seminars and talks, scientific papers, exension articles, radio and tv. Target audiences have included farmers, scientists, policy makers, landcare officers, and the general public.

If achieved, detail the commercialisation strategy for the delivered output if relevant, including the involvement of all commercial parties:

The RIM model is the only output with a "commercial" component. The model is sold on a cost-recovery basis. The distribution is managed by the Western Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative (WAHRI, also a GRDC project) based at the University of Western Australia. This arrangement was agreed to by the WAHRI board, including GRDC representation.

If the output has not been delivered by the planned delivery date, please specify the reason(s):

Output Number: 2

Planned Delivery Date: 1/4/2001

Achieved: Yes

Description: Decision support tools on herbicide resistance and water use and a strong communication strategy to deliver results of the project, including a web-based newsletter produced three times per year.

If achieved, clearly indicate the nature of the output and how it has been / will be promoted and adopted leading to the expected outcome (benefits):

Most of this output was reported against in the previous Annual Report. The remaining element (water use DSS) is now completed, as reported under Milestone 5 below.

If achieved, detail the commercialisation strategy for the delivered output if relevant, including the involvement of all commercial parties:

Milestones

Reproduce any milestones not previously reported against.

Milestone Number: 3

Planned Achievement Date: 30/6/2002

Achieved: Yes

Description: Circulate findings, publish newsletters and articles in rural press (state & national). Criterion: Three newsletters and at least three articles per year.

Briefly report against the milestone whether achieved or not: The 5 new issues of "SEA News" (issues 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13) published since the last annual report contain 26 full length articles written by members of the project team (Attachment). There are over 1100 subscribers to "SEA News". The attachment also documents numerous articles, talks and media appearances since the last annual report.

Milestone Number: 5

Planned Achievement Date: 30/4/01

Achieved: Yes

Description: Develop a decision support tool for farmers for water use in different farming situations. Criterion: Decision support tool developed and available.

Briefly report against the milestone whether achieved or not:

Water use indicators have been built into the RIM model. We judged that this would be the most effective approach since there are already numerous users of RIM, and they would quickly be able to integrate water use implications into their analyses using RIM. These existing users provide a ready market.

Management of Intellectual Property

Provide a summary of any strategies undertaken or planned to facilitate the protection and / or commercialisation of the project's realised outputs:

Most of the IP of the project is placed in the public domain by the process of publication. The RIM model is protected by copyright and distributed by WAHRI, as outlined above.

Provide a list of all scientific or technical papers published, and any patents filed:

The list of all scientific or technical papers published throughout this project exceeds this space and that permissible in the Attachment. Only those papers published since the previous Annual Report in 2001 are presented in the Attachment following this report. A complete list of all output is provided in the Attachment, Volume II that we have submitted to accompany this Final Report. In total 55 refereed papers have been written, 9 dissertations initiated, 42 unrefereed conference papers and articles completed, 34 conference presentations given, 50 addresses made in the public arena, other extension amounted to 81 media appearances and 8 items of software with relevant manuals have been completed.

Certification

The Project Supervisor and Research Organisation certify that all information contained in, and forming part of, this report is complete, accurate and provided in good faith as at the date given and that any subsequent changes to the information given will be notified promptly. The Project Supervisor and Research Organisation warrant that the report complies with all the relevant guidelines affecting the conduct of research, for example in relation to ethics, genetic engineering, bio-safety, environmental legislation, or National Health and Medical Research Council Codes.

In addition, the Project Supervisor and Research Organisation certify that this report is a true and accurate copy of the electronic copy that has been emailed to the GRDC and are aware that the application is being evaluated based on the data contained in the electronic copy.

Project Supervisor's signature:

Name: Associate Professor David Pannell

Date: 25/9/2002

Additional information

Please use the space below to include any additional information to support your report (eg graphs, tables). Limit additional information to a maximum of 5 x A4 pages. Please do not include images. Any additional information will be viewed as supplementary data. The report will only be evaluated on the previous sections of this document.

Milestone 3: Verbal presentations, written reports, publications and articles completed since the previous report.

SEA News (marked with **), refereed papers, unrefereed conference papers and articles that were written by people directly involved in the SEA project.

1. Abadi Ghadim, A.K., Pannell, D.J. (2002). Risk Attitudes and Risk Perceptions of Crop Producers in Western Australia, in J. Lekakis and R. Fraser (eds), Risk Management and the Environment: Agriculture in Perspective, Kluwer, (in press).

2. **Bathgate, A. and Pannell, D.J. (2002). Economics of deep-rooted perennials in southern Australia, Agricultural Water Management 53(1): 117-132. (SEA Working Paper 2000/05, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia). or Bathgate, A. and Pannell, D.J. (2002). Economics of deep-rooted perennials in southern Australia. Agricultural Water Management 53(1): 117-132.

3. Cooper, D., Bartle, J., Pannell, D. and Schilizzi, S. (2001). Economics of a multi-product industry for oil mallees in Western Australia. Paper presented at 45th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Adelaide, January 23-25 2001.

4. **Cooper, D., Bartle, J., Schilizzi, S., and Pannell, D. (2000). Oil mallee must look to multi-product industries, SEA Working Paper 01/04, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia.

5. **Ferdowsian, R. and Pannell, D.J. (2001). Explaining Trends in Groundwater Depths: Distinguishing Between Atypical Rainfall Events, Time Trends, and the Impacts of Treatments, SEA Working Paper 01/07, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia. or Ferdowsian, R. and Pannell, D.J. (2001). Explaining trends in groundwater depths: Distinguishing between atypical rainfall events, time trends, and the impacts of treatments, MODSIM 2001, International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, Proceedings, Volume 2: Natural Systems (Part Two), Editors: Fereidoun Ghassemi, Peter Whetton, Richard Little and Mark Littleboy, Publisher: Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra, pp. 549-554.

6. **Ferdowsian, R., D.J. Pannell and M. Lloyd (2002). Explaining groundwater depths in saltland: impacts of saltbush, rainfall, and time trends, SEA Working Paper 02/09, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. (Presented at the 8th National Conference and Workshop on the Productive Use and Rehabilitation of Saline Land (PUR$L), Fremantle, 16-20 September 2002).

7. Ferdowsian, R., Pannell, D.J., McCaron, C., Ryder, A. and Crossing, L. (2001). Explaining groundwater hydrographs: Separating atypical rainfall events from time trends, Australian Journal of Soil Research 39: 861-875.

8. **Frost, F.M., Hamilton, B., Lloyd, M. and Pannell, D.J. (2001). Salinity: A New Balance, The report of the Salinity Taskforce established to review salinity management in Western Australia, Perth.

9. **John, M. and Kingwell, R.S. (2002). A review of options for dryland salinity management in low rainfall agricultural environments in Western Australia, SEA Working Paper 02/07, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. (Presented as John, M. and Kingwell, R.S. (2002). A review of options for dryland salinity management in low rainfall agricultural environments in Western Australia, 46th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Canberra, February 13-15 2002).

10. John, M., Bathgate, A., Pannell, D. and Kingwell, R. (2001). Farm-level economics of lucerne in Southern Western Australia, Paper presented at 45th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Adelaide, January 23-25 2001.

11. Kington, E.A. and Pannell, D.J. (2002). Dryland salinity in the upper Kent River catchment of Western Australia: Farmer perceptions and practices, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 42(7): (in press).

12. Llewellyn, R. S. (2001). What causes WA graingrowers to adopt IWM practices. In 'Agribusiness Crop Updates', pp. Weeds, 37-38. Agriculture Western Australia, Perth.

13. Llewellyn, R. S., and Powles, S. B. (2001). High levels of herbicide resistance in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in the wheatbelt of Western Australia. Weed Technology 15, 242-248.

14. Llewellyn, R. S., Lindner, R. K., Pannell, D. J., and Powles, S. B. (2002). Resistance and the herbicide resource: perceptions of Western Australian grain growers. Crop Protection (in press).

15. Llewellyn, R. S., Lindner, R. K., Pannell, D. J., and Powles, S. B. (2001). Herbicide resistance and the decision to conserve the herbicide resource: review and framework. Australian Agribusiness Review 9, Paper 4, http://www.agribusiness.asn.au/review/2001v9/.

16. Llewellyn, R. S., Lindner, R. K., Pannell, D. J., and Powles, S. B. (2001). Perceptions and use of IWM practices: a survey of Australian graingrowers. In 'Weed Science Society of America Meeting' (J. W. Wilcut, ed.), Vol. 41, pp. 135. Weed Science Society of America, Greensboro, USA.

17. Llewellyn, R. S., Lindner, R. K., Pannell, D. J., and Powles, S. B. (2001). Understanding the adoption of integrated weed management: a survey of Western Australian graingrowers. In 'Weed Science Society of America Meeting' (J. W. Wilcut, ed.), Vol. 41, pp. 136. Weed Science Society of America, Greensboro, USA.

18. **Llewellyn, R.S., Lindner, R.K., Pannell D.J. & Powles, S.B. (2002). Farmer perceptions of the herbicide resource, Crop Protection. (in press).

19. **Llewellyn, R.S., Lindner, R.K., Pannell, D.J. and Powles, S.B. (2002). Adoption of herbicide resistance management practices by Australian grain growers, SEA Working Paper 02/06, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. ( Presented as Llewellyn, R.S., Lindner, R.K., Pannell, D.J. and Powles, S.B. (2002). Adoption of herbicide resistance management practices by Australian grain growers, 46th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Canberra, February 13-15 2002).

20. **Llewellyn, R.S., Lindner, R.K., Pannell, D.J. and Powles, S.B. (2001). Farmer perceptions of the herbicide resistance 'wall', SEA Working Paper 01/13, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia.

21. **Marra, M., Pannell, D.J. and Abadi, A. (2001). The Economics of Risk, Uncertainty and Learning in the Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies: Where Are We on the Learning Curve?, SEA Working Paper 01/10, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia. or Marra, M., Pannell, D.J. and Abadi Ghadim, A. (2002). The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: Where are we on the learning curve? In: Advances in Risk Impacting Agriculture and the Environment, Elsevier, (in press).

22. **Marsh, S.P. (2001). Social dimensions of landcare, SEA Working Paper 01/09, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia. (or Marsh, SP. (2001). Social Dimensions of Landcare, State Landcare Conference 2001, 11-14 September 2001, Mandurah Western Australia, pp. 117-128).

23. Marsh, S.P., Burton, M.P. and Pannell,D.J. (2001). Understanding farmer monitoring of a 'sustainability indicator': Depth to saline groundwater in Western Australia. In: A. Conacher (ed.), Land Degradation, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 207-222).

24. Marsh, S.P., Pannell, D.J. and Lindner, R.K.(2002). Does extension pay? A case study for a new crop, lupins, in Western Australia. Agricultural Economics (in press).

25. **Monjardino, M., Pannell, D.J. and Powles, S. (2001). A multi-species bio-economic model for integrated weed management, SEA Working Paper 01/05, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia. or Monjardino, M., Pannell, D. and Powles, S. (2001). A multi-species bio-economic model for integrated weed management, Paper presented at 45th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Adelaide, January 23-25 2001.

26. Monjardino, M., Pannell, D.J. and Powles, S. (2001). A multi-species bio-economic model for the management of Lolium rigidum and Raphanus raphanistrum in Australian dryland agriculture. Proceedings of the Third International Weed Science Congress, 6-11 June 2000, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil, Manuscript number 62, 17 pp., CD-ROM. Available from International Weed Science Congress, Oxford, MS, USA.

27. Monjardino, M., Pannell, D.J., and Powles, S.B. (2002). The value of Roundup-Ready(r) canola in the management of two weeds, 46th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Canberra, February 13-15 2002.

28. **O'Connell, M. (2002). Non-Commercial Trees on Wheatbelt Farms - Impacts on Recharge and Farm Profits, SEA Working Paper 02/03, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.

29. **O'Connell, M. and Young, J. (2002). The role of saltland pastures in the farming system - a whole-farm bio-economic analysis, SEA Working Paper 02/08, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. (Presented at the 8th National Conference and Workshop on the Productive Use and Rehabilitation of Saline Land (PUR$L), Fremantle, 16-20 September 2002).

30. Pannell, D.J. (2001). Avoiding simplistic assumptions commonly made in discounting for private decisions. Preconference Workshop: 'Discounting and Discount Rates in Theory and Practice', 45th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Adelaide, January 22 2001.

31. **Pannell, D.J. (2001). Counting the Costs: Economic Aspects of Salinity in Wheatbelt Valleys of Western Australia, SEA Working Paper 01/06, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia. (or Pannell, D.J. (2001). Counting the Costs: Economic Aspects of Salinity in Wheatbelt Valleys of Western Australia, Proceedings, Dealing with Salinity in Wheatbelt Valleys: Processes, Prospects and Practical Options, Merredin, Western Australia, 30 July-1 August).

32. Pannell, D.J. (2001). Dryland Salinity: Economic, Scientific, Social and Policy Dimensions, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 45(4): 517-546.

33. Pannell, D.J. (2001). Dryland Salinity: Inevitable, Inequitable, Intractable? Presidential Address, 45th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Adelaide, January 23-25 2001.

34. **Pannell, D.J. (2001). Economic Dimensions of Landcare, SEA Working Paper 01/08, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia. (or Pannell, D.J. (2001). Economic Dimensions of Landcare, State Landcare Conference 2001, 11-14 September 2001, Mandurah Western Australia, pp. 131-144).

35. Pannell, D.J. (2001). Economic tools to tackle dryland salinity in Western Australia, Western Australian Economic Summary, September Quarter 2001, pp. 41-45. or Pannell, D.J. (2001). 'Economic Tools to Tackle Dryland Salinity in Western Australia', Report for WA State Treasury, Perth.

36. Pannell, D.J. (2001). Harry Potter and the pendulums of perpetual motion: Economic policy instruments for environmental management, Connections: Farm, Food and Resource Issues 1: 3-8.  http://www.agrifood.info/connections/summer_2001/Pannell.html (39K)

37. **Pannell, D.J. (2001). Public Funding for Environmental Issues: Where to Now?, SEA Working Paper 01/12, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia. (or Pannell, D.J. (2001). Public Funding for Environmental Issues: Where to Now?, Paper presented at Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, 4th Annual Symposium, Rialto, Le Meridian, Melbourne, October 5 2001).

38. Pannell, D.J. (2001). Salinity policy: A tale of fallacies, misconceptions and hidden assumptions, Agricultural Science 14(1): 35-37.

39. **Pannell, D.J. (2001). Salinity policy: Inevitable, Inequitable, Intractable? Presidential Address, 45th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Adelaide, 23-25 January 2001. (SEA Working Paper 2001/01, Agricultural and Resource Economics, The University of Western Australia) (Later revised version: Pannell, D.J. (2001). Dryland Salinity: Economic, Scientific, Social and Policy Dimensions, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 45(4): 517-546).

40. **Pannell, D.J. (2001). What is the Value of a Sustainability Indicator? Economic and Social Issues in Monitoring and Management for Sustainability, SEA Working Paper 01/11, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia. (or Pannell, D.J. (2002). What is the Value of a Sustainability Indicator? Economic and Social Issues in Monitoring and Management for Sustainability, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture (in press).

41. Pannell,D.J. (2001). Explaining non-adoption of practices to prevent dryland salinity in Western Australia: Implications for policy. In: A. Conacher (ed.), Land Degradation, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 335-346.

42. Pannell, D.J. (2002). Economics of Salinity in Wheatbelt Valleys of Western Australia, in T. Hatton, C. Clark and D. Pannell (2002). Salinity in Wheatbelt Valleys of Western Australia. (in press).

43. **Pannell, D.J. (2002). The Human Dimensions of Integrated Weed Management, SEA Working Paper 02/04, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. or Pannell, D.J. (2002). Human dimensions of integrated weed management, In: H. Spafford Jacob, J. Dodd and J.H. Moore, 13th Australian Weeds Conference, Papers and Proceedings, 8-13 September 2002, Perth, Western Australia, pp. 8-15.

44. **Pannell, D.J. (2002). Including land values in analysis of land conservation investments, SEA Working Paper 02/02, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia.

45. **Pannell, D.J. (2002). Loving, losing and living with our environment, 'Getting it Right' conference, Adelaide, 11-12 March 2002. or Pannell, D.J. (2002). Loving, losing and living with the environment, Connections: Farm, Food and Resource Issues 2: 25-36.

46. **Pannell, D.J. (2002). Managing salinity with markets, plants and engineering: How do we move policy forward? Transcript of presentation to Select Committee on Salinity Seminar: 'Investing in Solutions to Salinity' at Parliament House, Sydney, Monday 8 April 2002, SEA Working Paper 02/01, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia.

47. **Pannell, D.J. (2002). National Economic and Policy Issues in the Productive Use of Salinised Resources, SEA Working Paper 02/05, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. (Presented at the 8th National Conference and Workshop on the Productive Use and Rehabilitation of Saline Land (PUR$L), Fremantle, 16-20 September 2002).

48. **Pannell, D.J. (2002). Prose, psychopaths and persistence: Personal perspectives on publishing, Paper presented at the 46th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Canberra, Feb 13-15 http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/prose.htm. or Pannell, D.J. (2002). Prose, psychopaths and persistence: Personal perspectives on publishing, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, (in press).

49. Pannell, D.J. (2002). Uncertainty and Adoption of Sustainable Farming Systems. in J. Lekakis and R. Fraser (eds), Risk Management and the Environment: Agriculture in Perspective, Kluwer, (in press).

50. Pannell, D.J. and Schilizzi (2001). Discounting: What are the issues? Preconference Workshop: 'Discounting and Discount Rates in Theory and Practice', 45th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Adelaide, January 22 2001.

51. Pannell, D.J. and Zilberman, D. (2001). Economic and sociological factors affecting growers' decision making on herbicide resistance. In: D.L. Shaner and S.B. Powles (eds.) Herbicide Resistance and World Grains, CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 251-277.

52. Pannell, D.J., McFarlane, D.J. and Ferdowsian, R. (2001). Rethinking the Externality Issue for Dryland Salinity in Western Australia, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (in press).

53. **Petersen, E., Schilizzi, S. and Bennett, D. (2001). An economic assessment of the role of commercial tree crops to achieve greenhouse gas neutrality in predominantly grazing systems of south-western Australia. SEA Working Paper 01/03, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia.

54. Petersen, E.H., Pannell, D.J., Nordblom T.L. and Shomo, F. (2002). Potential benefits from alternative areas of agricultural research for dryland farming in northern Syria, Agricultural Systems 72(2): 93-108.

55. Read, M., Watson, A., Sturgess, N. and Pannell, D. (2001). 'Capacity to change - case studies of dryland salinity and watertable control', National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra. http://audit.ea.gov.au/ANRA/people/docs/national/Theme6_33.pdf and Stewart, Vanessa and David Pannell (2000). Farmer workshops on herbicide resistance, Poster presented at III International Weed Science Congress, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil, 6-11 June 2000.

56. **Schilizzi, S. (2002). Triple Bottom Line Accounting: How Serious Is It?, SEA Working Paper 02/10, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.

57. Schilizzi, S. and Pannell, D.J. (2001). The economics of nitrogen fixation, Agronomie 21(6/7): 527-538.

58. **Weersink, A., Jeffrey, S. and Pannell, D.J. (2002). Farm-Level Modelling For Bigger Issues. Review of Agricultural Economics 24(1): 123-140.