Sarah Milne, Sam Beaver, Caitlyn Baljak, Alex Cox, Mark Howden
{"title":"碳农业的共同效益:澳大利亚景观的概念、政策和潜力综述","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":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}","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}
Carbon farming co-benefits: a review of concepts, policy and potential in Australian landscapes
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.
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.