Carbon and ecosystem service markets in rangelands and grazing systems are a wicked problem: multi-stakeholder partnership or roundtable as a vehicle forward?

Although the concepts of carbon and ecosystem service markets gained traction in the literature in the early 1990s, they have only recently (since the early 2000s) become a reality in Australia. The past decade has seen the appearance of markets for carbon sequestration (and avoiding land-clearing), most of which have occurred in rangeland environments. There has been research in recent decades focusing on the barriers and opportunities for the uptake of such carbon and ecosystem service markets at the landholder level. However, there is limited research into how the policy, institutional and governance arrangements may be affecting the effective and efficient development of cohesive carbon and ecosystem service markets in the Australian rangelands that could result in genuine and enduring environmental, social and community outcomes. Using in-depth interviews with 34 diverse stakeholders, we identified many inter-related themes that provided clear insight into aspects of these markets in Australia. Complexity was the most prominent and overarching theme. The markets operate on multiple levels across state, national and international jurisdictions, leading to confusion for landholders and other stakeholders. The type and number of groups and stakeholders in these systems add to the perceived complexity, with convoluted lines of responsibility, jurisdictional appropriateness, regulation, financial investment, and oversight. There is currently a lack of transparency within these markets, resulting in reduced trust and engagement. We deduce that carbon and ecosystem services markets are, in fact, a wicked policy problem, but have not yet been framed as such. We suggest a multi-stakeholder partnership or roundtable approach be used to tackle the symptoms of the wicked problem associated with carbon and eco-system service markets, which may help in reducing some of the complexities, perverse outcomes and stakeholder trust issues identified in this research.