Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The Productivity Commission has valued trees over lost farm incomes

By Ben Rees - posted Monday, 26 January 2004


  1. Allocation of property rights tradable under zero transaction costs;
  2. Allocation of property rights tradable under non-zero transaction costs;
  3. Delimitation of property rights by government through regulation or legislation.

In the first two theorems, trading of property rights is demonstrated to move the economy to a more efficient allocation and use of resources by correcting the original allocation of property rights. Different outcomes emerge under zero transaction costs than under non-zero transaction costs. The difference being determined by how much transaction costs influence choice relative to a non-zero transaction costs situation.

The third Coase theorem, whereby government delimits property rights and no opportunity exists for market correction of the initial allocation, has two underlying assumptions:

Advertisement
  1. Governments can approximate and compare the welfare effects of alternative delimitations of rights at relatively low cost; and
  2. Governments act in a way that approximates fairness and impartiality.

A correctly structured graphical model of the problem will demonstrate theoretically that the optimal outcome between vegetation management and community environmental values is not zero land clearing. The Draft Report’s conclusions and recommendation are consistent with this theoretical analysis. Thus the underlying assumptions of fairness and impartiality are breached in Australian vegetation management legislation. It can be inferred therefore that the proposed current policy direction of zero land clearing in Queensland is more about politics than overall economic welfare of the community.

Delimitation of property rights prohibiting clearing of remnant vegetation will deny the community its right to the optimal solution between vegetation clearing and environmental values. Unless some common sense prevails, the proposed policy direction will be very costly in social welfare terms to the wider community. Delimitation of rights to include some form of property rights trading would solve this problem of excessive social welfare diminution. The question now becomes: how might this be structured?

Possible solutions

A possible solution lies in the second Coase theorem. Government delimits property rights that structure a framework under which environmental groups and rural producers could trade property rights. This would become possible if the proposed compensation package was made available to active environmental groups for the purpose of purchasing rural property rights directly from producers. Market forces would structure suitable and attractive financial contract conditions necessary to entice producers to forego proposed land clearing. In this way a market assessment of the community’s willingness to pay would be identified. Budgetary costs would be clearly identifiable in budget papers. Costs to the community would be measurable in terms of foregone provision of health, education, law enforcement and infrastructure expenditure. Accountability and transparency of the environmental problem would be established and might optimistically reduce the political agenda-driven solutions now on offer.

At the coalface, scientific identification of environmental issues would still be required. Local government would be ideally positioned to zone regional levels of risk according to scientific analysis and local knowledge. The environmental movement, armed with compensation monies, would be in a position to approach landowners in a risk situation with a desire to negotiate a suitable contract. Alternatively, at-risk landowners would be free to approach the environmental movement once their risk levels were known.

It would be sensible to require environmental contracts to comply with WTO Agreement on Agriculture exempt-payments provisions. As public monies would flow to the rural sector, WTO regulations would require this to be accounted for either as an exempt payment or included in Australia’s Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) for agriculture. An awareness of this would avoid future problems with WTO regulations as AMS are reduced over time.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

Article edited by Betsy Fysh.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.

This is an edited version of Ben Rees's reponse to the Productivity Commission, Submission DR227.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Ben Rees is both a farmer and a research economist. He has been a contributor to QUT research projects such as Rebuilding Rural Australia. Over the years he has been keynote and guest speaker at national and local rural meetings and conferences. Ben also participated in a 2004 Monash Farm Forum.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Ben Rees
Related Links
Productivity Commission's draft report
Photo of Ben Rees
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy