USING CONSERVATION TENDERS FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BURDEKIN RESEARCH REPORTS Tender results and feedback from ex-post participant survey

These reports represent the provisional findings of a research project titled 'Optimising the efficacy of conservation tenders under varying degrees of heterogeneity: Achieving water quality improvements in the Burdekin Dry Tropics across different management actions in different agricultural production systems and different parts of a river basin'. The views and interpretations expressed in these reports are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the organisations associated with the project. Because these reports present the results of work in progress, they should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the written authorisation of the Project 3 Tender results and sensitivity to scale and scope parameters 11 3.1 Tender participation and submissions 11 3.2 Tender results: successful bids and environmental benefits 12 3.3 Sensitivity Testing: Large-scale v's two smaller-scale tenders 13 3.4 Sensitivity testing: aspects of scope 16 3.4.1 One-industry v's two-industry participation 16 3.4.2 Contribution of groundwater to end-of-catchment discharge of pollutants 18 3.4.3 Accounting for implementation risk 21 3.5 Transaction costs 23 4 Results of the ex-post participant survey 25 5 Conclusions 34 6 References 36 iv Tables Table 1: Summary of research in relation to lag times in Lower Burdekin groundwater system 7 Table 2: Ranking of selected submissions under different scenarios of accounting for groundwater pollution 20 Table 3: Criteria to assess implementation risk and proposed implementation 22 Figures Figure 1: Geographical stratification of Tender area 5 Figure 2: Bid values and self-funding components 12 Figure 3: Bid curve showing Tender results 13 Figure 4: Cumulative bid curves for sub-regional tender stratification 16 Figure 5: Cumulative bid curves by industry 17 Figure 6: Bid curve without considering reduced diffuse pollution of groundwater 19 Figure 7: Rank differences from varying influence of farming systems score 21 Figure 8: Sources of knowledge about the Tender 25 Figure 9: Frequency distribution for level of agreements with statements about water quality values 26 Figure 10: Frequency distribution of importance of considerations for participating in the Tender 27 Figure 12: Frequency distribution of importance of considerations for the decision to develop a submission 27 Figure 11: Frequency distribution for relevance of information sources in developing submissions 28 Figure 13: Frequency distribution of level of agreement with various considerations in deriving the bid price for a submission 29 Figure 14: Frequency distribution of attractiveness of various aspects of the Tender 30 v Figure 15: Frequency distribution of performance scores …