Why still grazing? Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:E:Ecological Economics:Vol33.Issue1.Apr2000:

question and for this reason the graziers came to view the licence as private property; details can be found in the 1975 National Parks Act, Grazing Licence in the Alpine National Park, Section 32D, amended by the National Parks Alpine National Park Act of 1989. The licence details the number of cattle, the access dates December to April, who is entitled to operate a licence, the cost of operation and the restrictions placed upon the exchange and future entitlement. At present graziers pay a fee of 4.00 per cow each season. To be eligible to own and operate a licence, a grazier needs to be deemed an approved person by the Victorian Government who takes advice from the Alpine Advisory Committee. 2 Historically gra- ziers belonged to the Mountain Cattlemen Associ- ation MCA and as such were automatically considered approved persons. In addition during the period over which a licence operates, ‘‘the licensee may apply to transfer or assign to a member of a family of Mountain Cattleman or any other approved person’’ Clause 18, Grazing Li- cence. Transfer within the family can be defended on the basis of farming skills that are necessary to operate a grazing licence. 2 . 2 . En6ironmental impact of grazing 3 Scientific investigation of the alpine region began in the 1850s. However, the work of Carr in the 1940s and subsequent research forms the basis of scientific evidence about the impact of cattle graz- ing today. Wahren et al. 1994 used 50 years of survey data to argue that cattle do have a substan- tial and lasting impact, with grazing altering the structure and composition of sub-alpine grassland and heathland vegetation, as well as significantly influencing the natural regeneration of the ecosys- tems. An example of the effects of grazing identified by Wahren et al. 1994 is the impact on the frequency of wildflowers in Pretty Valley grassland plots. Between 1947 and 1994, the frequency of Celmisia and Craspedia increased substantially on ungrazed plots. These findings were contrasted with grazed plots on which there was no change to the existing cover. Leptorhynchos, is abundant on grazed plots as it vigorously colonises bare, inter-tussock spaces that result from grazing, giving it an advantage over other species. If there were no grazing Celmisia would replace Leptorhynchos. Ground cover is much poorer on grazed plots compared to ungrazed areas. Wahren et al. also found that cattle prefer to graze where herbaceous plants predominate, in mossbeds along drainage lines and these areas subsequently become trampled and badly dam- aged. Apart from their ecological significance, mossbeds are important in catchment hydrology because of their retarding effect on the release of water to streams this helps to prolong the spring and summer flowers, their promotion of early snow melt, and their action in filtering silt. Another biophysical hot spot is the snow patch herbfields, again prone to grazing-related damage such as bare ground and poor quality cover. In the areas where snow patches remain for long periods of the year, the soils remain moist, the flora that grow are palatable and as a result favoured by the cattle. Wahren et al. 1994 also found that grazing does not reduce the likelihood of upland bush fires. Cattle mostly eat snowgrass and other herbs. Shrub cover has increased as a result, which does not reduce fire risk, but instead is more likely to enhance it. Fire prevention is spurious as a claim for the continuation of grazing. Also, by producing bare ground, which provides an opportunity for weeds to establish and spread, grazing has also been partly responsible for spreading exotic weeds. 3. Why still grazing? 3 . 1 . Culture and politics Given the extensive scientific evidence about the impact of cattle grazing on the alpine environ- ment, it is necessary that we examine why grazing 2 The importance of the phrase, ‘or any other approved person’, will be considered in detail subsequently. 3 We only cite Wahren et al. 1994 in this section for the sake of brevity. For more extensive evidence relating to the environmental impact of the cattle readers are directed to, for example, Land Conservation Council 1979, Mosley 1988, Kirkpatrick 1994, Bennett 1995, Williams et al. 1997. still continues. This is an important part of our analysis as it will be fundamental in relation to the form of the potential resolution conflict strate- gies proposed. The first important feature of alpine grazing is that it is a long and well-established part of the Australian rural tradition. The alpine grazing lifestyle acts to bind together the community an- nual get-togethers, racing carnivals and it gives the graziers a unique position in the alpine cultural mosaic. Allied to this, the histori- cal significance and general lifestyle of the cattle- men has been celebrated and made famous in poems and songs by Banjo Paterson, and in films like ‘The Man from Snowy River’, all con- tributing to the creation of a tradition. An excerpt from Pioneers by Paterson provides a nice exam- ple; They came of bold and roving stock that would not fixed abide; They were the sons of field and flock since e’er they learned to ride, We may not hope to see such men in these degenerate years As those explorers of the bush — the brave old pioneers. ‘Twas they who rode the trackless bush in heat and storm and drought; ‘Twas they that heard the master — word that called them further out; ‘Twas they that followed up the trail the moun- tain cattle made, And pressed across the mountain range where now their bones are laid. The importance of cultural and heritage values from grazing cattle on the high country has been identified by several authors. For example, Taylor 1992 argues that, ‘‘without tradition, cultural artefacts become curios, static remains without meaning.’’ p. 58. As an example, Taylor analyses the withdrawal of cattle from the mountain valley of Gudgenby in the Namadgi National Park in 1990. Taylor observes, ‘‘The result is a cultural landscape separated from its historic traditions and from its cultural and intellectual back- ground.’’ p. 63. The cultural and heritage benefits referred to in this context are non-indigenous European. In relation to Aboriginal occupation prior to Eu- ropean settlement, there are art sites at least 21 000 years old. However, the lifestyle of Abo- rigines in the alpine areas meant that they lived at lower elevations during most of the year, only venturing onto the high alpine plains for a few weeks each year to meet and feast on Bogong moths — land use was communal. Interestingly, given the relatively minimal impact of Aborigines in the Alps, this area represents a unique land type in Australia. Even before European settle- ment Aborigines had significantly altered the landscape throughout Australia. An exception to this is the high country, which places the AANP in another category of significance not previously noted. Bound up with the cultural and heritage aspects of alpine grazing are the political realities of the situation. In creating the VANP a political deal was necessary and it was this that allowed for the continuation of cattle grazing in the VANP. In 1989 the then Labor Victorian Government passed the Alpine National Parks Bill introducing the VANP, but only with the support of the Liberals. The Liberals have strong political ties with the MCA. These ties have been publicly demonstrated. In 1984 some 300 graziers rode their horses onto the steps of Parliament House in Melbourne to gain support for the Liberal Party in the Nunawading bye-election. Politics may also explain the attitude of the Victorian Government to continued grazing in the VANP given the possible World Heritage nomi- nation. The States frequently have diverging opin- ions compared to the Commonwealth Government. This has been clearly illustrated in relation to previous World Heritage listings. For example, the Northern Territory Government contested the listing of Kakadu National Park, the planned Franklin Dam in Tasmania, and the Queensland Government legally challenged the right of the Commonwealth to nominate the rain- forests of North Queensland as this would prevent logging. The possible nomination of the VANP as part of the AANP may therefore be being resisted by the Victorian Government as it might result in a major redistribution of resource management powers away from the State. Although this line of reasoning is to a certain extent speculative, the continuation of grazing is a means by which the Victorian Government can diminish the likelihood of a nomination being forthcoming. 3 . 2 . Economic uncertainty : to graze or not to graze ? Given the scientific evidence it is reasonable to argue that cattle grazing on the alpine environ- ment yields negative externality cost. This exter- nality exists because graziers, as private economic agents, do not take account of all of the social costs of production, such as, for example, the loss of floral diversity, which is valued by society. Although the loss of floral diversity does not affect the private costs of graziers it does impose a cost on society. Other impacts of over-grazing have been the exposure of fragile soils leading to severe erosion and subsequent downstream silta- tion, the impact of the changing floral composi- tion on the timing of release of water from the high country for hydro-electricity power genera- tion and the introduction of aggressive weeds by the cattle Wahren et al., 1994. 4 If the external effects of cattle grazing on the environment are not fully internalised by the gra- ziers then marginal social costs MSC will be greater than marginal private costs MPC. How- ever, there are significant non-market benefits use and non-use from cattle grazing as a result of culture and heritage. We assume that marginal social benefits MSB of grazing are greater than marginal private benefits MPB of grazing because the cultural and heritage values derived by society from continued grazing are higher than the private benefits derived by the graziers. The way in which we characterise benefits and costs here means that MSB measures gross cul- tural and heritage benefits, and MSC measures gross ecologicalenvironmental damages. The rea- son for describing the benefits and costs associ- ated with cattle grazing in this way is that if we employed a simple net benefit rule; as long as MSB \ MSC we would keep cattle in the Alps. There is a problem here, however; we have no clear guide as to the relative size of the costs and benefits. Despite all of the available scientific evidence, which is far greater than for most natural resource problems, the true position of the cost and benefit functions is uncer- tain. There have been efforts to evaluate the costs and benefits for the alpine grazing question. Lock- wood et al. 1996 employed a Contingent Valua- tion survey to evaluate the non-market benefits that accrue from either continued cattle grazing and the associated cultural and heritage values, or the environmental benefits from the termination of cattle so as to preserve the flora and fauna. They split their sample and used two surveys, one in favour of continued grazing, and the other in favour of the removal of the cattle. In general Lockwood et al. found that ‘‘respondents gener- ally approve of High Plains grazing’’ p. 365. They estimated that willingness to pay each year for each household for five years for cultural and heritage preservation ranged between 81 and 106, whereas for stopping grazing estimates of willingness to pay ranged between 33 and 37. 5 As Lockwood et al. 1996 note, the willingness to pay estimates for the two scenarios con- sidered provide a benefit cost framework with which to judge the continuation of grazing or not p. 364. By comparing the benefit estimates to see which is larger it would appear that Lockwood et al. are justified in arriving at the following conclu- sion. 4 Although most of the external effects of grazing can be reversed, as Williams et al. 1997 note, degraded flora has taken decades to recover and frequently requires active restoration that is time consuming and expensive. 5 All monetary values are in terms of Australian dollars. ‘‘These results provide support for the Victo- rian Government’s management policies for grazing on the Bogong High Plains.’’ p. 370 However, these estimates are suspect; some fraction of the heritage value identified and asso- ciated with grazing and the mountain cattlemen could exist even if grazing was to stop. It is not obvious that cattle need to be grazed in the VANP for many practices and traditions associ- ated with grazing to continue. If it is the accom- panying activities e.g. the annual horse race and carnival that generate most of the non-market value derived, then it is not possible to argue in favour of the continuation of grazing. Until we are clear about the relationship between the num- ber of cattle grazing and the resulting cultural and heritage values the optimal land use solution will remain unclear — we cannot be certain whether or not the cattle should remain or be removed from the alps.

4. Resolving the conflict