Carbon farming co-benefits: a review of concepts, policy and potential in Australian landscapes

IF 1.2 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q4 ECOLOGY
Rangeland Journal Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI:10.1071/rj24015
Sarah Milne, Sam Beaver, Caitlyn Baljak, Alex Cox, Mark Howden
{"title":"Carbon farming co-benefits: a review of concepts, policy and potential in Australian landscapes","authors":"Sarah Milne, Sam Beaver, Caitlyn Baljak, Alex Cox, Mark Howden","doi":"10.1071/rj24015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Land-use changes through carbon farming in Australia have the potential to deliver significant environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits to regional areas, especially in the rangelands. For this reason, policymakers and carbon market proponents have articulated the notion of ‘co-benefits’, to refer to the desirable impacts of carbon farming beyond emissions abatement. Aboriginal leaders similarly refer to crucial ‘core benefits’ like First Nations’ custodianship of land or Country. In this article, we navigate the complex conceptual and policy terrain that now surrounds carbon farming co-benefits in Australia through a comprehensive review. This is a vital undertaking because carbon farming to date has been dominated by the federal government’s purchasing of Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) in accordance with a mandate that seeks lowest cost emissions abatement, with no formal recognition or valuation of co-benefits. This has produced an <i>ad hoc</i> policy environment in which some co-benefits are recognised and valued, often with significant price premiums, through a range of federal and state government, nongovernment and private schemes. To interpret this policy domain, we first argue for greater conceptual clarity through using the notion of ‘co-impacts’, which conveys how carbon farming produces an array of potential benefits, costs and risks across space and time, with differential impacts for diverse actors. Second, we review current initiatives related to carbon co-benefits in Australia, identifying over 20 separate schemes with distinct governance arrangements. Our findings point to the significant potential and value of carbon co-benefits in Australia. To achieve this potential, we argue that nationwide policy frameworks must now <i>harmonise</i> approaches, <i>standardise</i> units and measures where possible, and <i>localise</i> carbon farming implementation strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":20810,"journal":{"name":"Rangeland Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rangeland Journal","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/rj24015","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Land-use changes through carbon farming in Australia have the potential to deliver significant environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits to regional areas, especially in the rangelands. For this reason, policymakers and carbon market proponents have articulated the notion of ‘co-benefits’, to refer to the desirable impacts of carbon farming beyond emissions abatement. Aboriginal leaders similarly refer to crucial ‘core benefits’ like First Nations’ custodianship of land or Country. In this article, we navigate the complex conceptual and policy terrain that now surrounds carbon farming co-benefits in Australia through a comprehensive review. This is a vital undertaking because carbon farming to date has been dominated by the federal government’s purchasing of Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) in accordance with a mandate that seeks lowest cost emissions abatement, with no formal recognition or valuation of co-benefits. This has produced an ad hoc policy environment in which some co-benefits are recognised and valued, often with significant price premiums, through a range of federal and state government, nongovernment and private schemes. To interpret this policy domain, we first argue for greater conceptual clarity through using the notion of ‘co-impacts’, which conveys how carbon farming produces an array of potential benefits, costs and risks across space and time, with differential impacts for diverse actors. Second, we review current initiatives related to carbon co-benefits in Australia, identifying over 20 separate schemes with distinct governance arrangements. Our findings point to the significant potential and value of carbon co-benefits in Australia. To achieve this potential, we argue that nationwide policy frameworks must now harmonise approaches, standardise units and measures where possible, and localise carbon farming implementation strategies.

碳农业的共同效益:澳大利亚景观的概念、政策和潜力综述
在澳大利亚,通过碳耕改变土地利用方式有可能为地区,尤其是牧场带来巨大的环境、经济、社会和文化效益。因此,政策制定者和碳市场支持者提出了 "共同利益 "的概念,指的是碳耕作在减排之外的理想影响。原住民领袖也同样提到了至关重要的 "核心利益",如原住民对土地或国家的监护权。在这篇文章中,我们将通过全面回顾,探索目前围绕澳大利亚碳农业共同效益的复杂概念和政策领域。这是一项至关重要的工作,因为迄今为止,碳农业一直由联邦政府根据寻求最低减排成本的授权购买澳大利亚碳信用单位(ACCUs)所主导,没有正式承认或评估共同效益。这就产生了一种特殊的政策环境,在这种环境中,通过一系列联邦和州政府、非政府和私人计划,一些共同效益得到了认可和评估,而且往往具有显著的价格溢价。为了解释这一政策领域,我们首先主张通过使用 "共同影响 "这一概念来提高概念的清晰度,这一概念表达了碳耕作如何在空间和时间上产生一系列潜在的收益、成本和风险,并对不同的参与者产生不同的影响。其次,我们回顾了澳大利亚当前与碳共同利益相关的倡议,确定了 20 多个具有不同治理安排的独立计划。我们的研究结果表明了澳大利亚碳共同利益的巨大潜力和价值。为了实现这一潜力,我们认为全国性的政策框架现在必须协调各种方法,在可能的情况下实现单位和措施的标准化,并将碳耕作实施战略地方化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Rangeland Journal
Rangeland Journal 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
14
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Rangeland Journal publishes original work that makes a significant contribution to understanding the biophysical, social, cultural, economic, and policy influences affecting rangeland use and management throughout the world. Rangelands are defined broadly and include all those environments where natural ecological processes predominate, and where values and benefits are based primarily on natural resources. Articles may present the results of original research, contributions to theory or new conclusions reached from the review of a topic. Their structure need not conform to that of standard scientific articles but writing style must be clear and concise. All material presented must be well documented, critically analysed and objectively presented. All papers are peer-reviewed. The Rangeland Journal is published on behalf of the Australian Rangeland Society.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信