Should rangeland rehabilitation be paid for from the public purse?

Abstract

The issue addressed in this paper is the appropriate source of funding for rangeland rehabilitation. Two subsidmy questions are pertinent to this policy issue. Is it profitable for private managers of pastoral properties to rehabilitate rangeland? If not, then on what grounds might it be in the public interest to do so? Evidence is presented that it is privately profitable to rehabilitate slightly to moderately degraded range, by destocking during seasons when there are good prospects for seedlings to become established, but otherwise matching the stocking rate to feed availability. Conversely, it is unprofitable to rehabilitate severely degraded range unless the cost of reseeding is subsidized by at least $5/ha. The relevance of various market failure arguments to the case for public fun- of rangeland rehabilitation to the extent of $100million is discussed, and the need to estimate the existence value of rangelands vis a vis other conservation goals is identified.