Many parts of the world rely on nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus to improve farming production and increase yields. There are significant food security as well as socio-economic issues at stake. However, it is also clear that fertilizer loads are particularly damaging to aquatic environments, including lakes, rivers, coral reefs, and wetlands. This article explores governance approaches to fertilizer practices that impact on aquatic environments (eutrophication) by examining a case study of the Great Barrier Reef. Governance involves any and all forms of state and non-state control over a given set of issues. It can include, but is not limited to, rule-based approaches like regulation, although it can also involve market-driven measures like nutrient trading schemes, government grants and other financial incentives. So, which approach to governance works best to combat this particular policy question? What other insights into the design of effective regulation and governance can be gathered? In this article, the authors make three broad arguments for change: firstly, it is crucial that regulation features within government strategies; secondly, there must be a rigorous systematic evaluation of the strategies to ensure that the desired behavioural change is achieved along with the desired outcomes; thirdly, and most importantly, the strategies and the evaluation methods must be appropriate for the culture of the industry they are designed to regulate.

No abstract

The regulation of environmental impacts from agriculture can take place at various scales. In some nations, with federal systems of government, the multiscale nature of regulatory interventions can be confusing for farmers, not to mention costly and time-consuming to navigate. Regulatory overlap contributes to inefficiency and wastage in governance efforts, reduced trust in government action and can preclude positive environmental outcomes across the landscape. In this article, we explore how Australia’s national-level law has been applied to agricultural land use. We canvas the concepts of regulatory complexity and ambiguity, and argue for a more integrated and flexible policy mix that rewards positive behaviour and stewardship of natural capital. This model would provide financial and other personal gains for those who can demonstrate objectives are being met. Further empirical research on fine-tuning that policy mix, again across scale, is warranted.

No abstract

No abstract