Estimating the duration and cost of weed eradication programmes

Two prerequisites for realistically embarking upon an eradication programme are that cost-benefit analysis favours this strategy over other management options and that sufficient resources are available to carry the programme through to completion. These are not independent criteria, but it is our view that too little attention has been paid to estimating the investment required to complete weed eradication programmes. We deal with this problem by using a two-pronged approach: 1) developing a stochastic dynamic model that provides an estimation of programme duration; and 2) estimating the inputs required to delimit a weed incursion and to prevent weed reproduction over a sufficiently long period to allow extirpation of all infestations. The model is built upon relationships that capture the time-related detection of new infested areas, rates of progression of infestations from the active to the monitoring stage, rates of reversion of infestations from the monitoring to active stage, and the frequency distribution of time since last detection for all infestations. This approach is applied to the branched broomrape (Orobanche ramosa) eradication programme currently underway in South Australia. This programme commenced in 1999 and currently 7450 ha are known to be infested with the weed. To date none of the infestations have been eradicated. Given recent (2008) levels of investment and current eradication methods, model predictions are that it would take, on average, an additional 73 years to eradicate this weed at an average additional cost (NPV) of $AU67.9m. When the model was run for circumstances in 2003 and 2006, the average programme duration and total cost (NPV) were predicted to be 159 and 94 years, and $AU91.3m and $AU72.3m, respectively. The reduction in estimated programme length and cost may represent progress towards the eradication objective, although eradication of this species still remains a long term prospect.

Reconfiguring agriculture through the relocation of production systems for water, environment and food security under climate change

The prospect of climate change has revived both fears of food insecurity and its corollary, market opportunities for agricultural production. In Australia, with its long history of state-sponsored agricultural development, there is renewed interest in the agricultural development of tropical and sub-tropical northern regions. Climate projections suggest that there will be less water available to the main irrigation systems of the eastern central and southern regions of Australia, while net rainfall could be sustained or even increase in the northern areas. Hence, there could be more intensive use of northern agricultural areas, with the relocation of some production of economically important commodities such as vegetables, rice and cotton. The problem is that the expansion of cropping in northern Australia has been constrained by agronomic and economic considerations. The present paper examines the economics, at both farm and regional level, of relocating some cotton production from the east-central irrigation areas to the north where there is an existing irrigation scheme together with some industry and individual interest in such relocation. Integrated modelling and expert knowledge are used to examine this example of prospective climate change adaptation. Farm-level simulations show that without adaptation, overall gross margins will decrease under a combination of climate change and reduction in water availability. A dynamic regional Computable General Equilibrium model is used to explore two scenarios of relocating cotton production from south east Queensland, to sugar-dominated areas in northern Queensland. Overall, an increase in real economic output and real income was realized when some cotton production was relocated to sugar cane fallow land/new land. There were, however, large negative effects on regional economies where cotton production displaced sugar cane. It is concluded that even excluding the agronomic uncertainties, which are not examined here, there is unlikely to be significant market-driven relocation of cotton production.