• Is there sound biophysical information? Important information includes the degree to which dose-response relationships exist and are known, whether the impact of a management action on off-site environmental goods is known, and how management actions will contribute to a biophysical target.

• Can efficient performance-based management metrics be developed? Metrics need to be established that are measurable and cost-effective and include all sources. Consideration needs to be given to whether feasible metrics can be performance-based (i.e. an environmental outcome can be directly measured) or whether indirect metrics (such as estimated environmental outcomes being linked to inputs, processes or outputs) need to be used.

• Are there environmental thresholds or correlations— are environmental outcomes sensitive to the mix of changes, in terms of type, location, extent, etc., that may lead to irreversible or unacceptable impacts?

• Does environmental condition need to be maintained or (significantly) improved — and what urgency is there for improvements?

• Are the most effective and efficient management solutions known — or is scope for innovation and flexible responses important?

• Is there an ability to cost-effectively identify those firms and land managers who need to make management changes?

• Is there an ability to cost-effectively identify those firms and land managers who need to make management changes?

• Are there a large number of firms and land managers that will need to adopt the management changes? Is everyone in the catchment required to change, or is it a small targeted group? Generally speaking, the costs of administering a targeted instrument are greater than one that is broadly applied, but a targeted approach may deliver greater environmental outcomes.

• Are management changes required over localised or widespread areas? This will depend on the underlying biophysical nature of the problem and the spatial influence of management changes. As the spatial extent of necessary changes increases, the cost of implementing and enforcing policy instruments can also increase significantly.

• Will the cost of management changes (significantly) differ between firms and land managers and/or sites? Are there different types of NRM users in the catchment (e.g. lifestyle farmers) who will have different skills, time available and resources? Are sites significantly different in terms of their biophysical characteristics (e.g. soil type) which will influence the costs of management actions?

• Will the adoption of the management changes by firms or land managers be sensitive to the price of the changes? If the cost of the pertinent management practices is small relative to the enterprise being conducted, or if alternative management practices are considerably more expensive, small incentives may be insufficient to prompt changes.

• Can short-run management changes deliver the required (longer-term) resource target, or do we need to lock in changes that are permanent?

• Do the firms and land managers have the awareness, capacity and willingness to make the changes?

• Will the management changes create or contribute to other environmental issues? Positive or negative impacts on other NRM and environmental amenities may warrant the design of an instrument that can deliver multiple outcomes or be integrated with other instruments.

• Are there existing statutes that can (readily) be extended to promote the adoption of the management changes (e.g. extension of an existing pollution tax regime to new pollutants or parties that fall within the scope of existing statutes)? If not, quantity-based instruments may require significant funding, administrative and political support.

• Are there statutory powers to support the definition of new rights? Similarly, where the regional NRM group (such as a Catchment Management Authority) does not have regulatory powers, the use of quantity-based instruments would require legislative support from the appropriate level of government.

• Is there a clear cost-sharing principle or duty of care? Even though statutory rights in relation to resource or environmental amenities may not exist, there may be common law or community aspirations as to acceptable management practices and land stewardship.

• Would funds be available to provide sufficient incentives to promote the management changes over the necessary timeframes?

• Is it more important to cap financial impost or environmental damage? In the case of nationally significant and threatened environmental goods or resources, urgency in ensuring their conservation may outweigh concerns about cost imposts. In other circumstances, the reverse may be true.

• Is there (or could there be) an effective administrative platform to oversee new environmental liabilities? This includes consideration of agency skills, capacity, funding, and so on.

• Is there potential for cost-effective monitoring and enforcement?

As has been mentioned earlier, a range of quantity-based instruments can’t be readily implemented by regional NRM managers under existing institutional and legal frameworks. The following table indicates with a tick whether current legislative regimes are likely to be suitable for a particular MBI or with a cross if legislative environments would probably need to be changed.

The table is presented as a broad guide only. Regional bodies would need to check with their relevant State or Territory agency to confirm legislative regimes in their area.