IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v39y2019ics2212041619302396.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Promoting co-benefits of carbon farming in Oceania: Applying and adapting approaches and metrics from existing market-based schemes

Author

Listed:
  • Baumber, Alex
  • Metternicht, Graciela
  • Cross, Rebecca
  • Ruoso, Laure-Elise
  • Cowie, Annette L.
  • Waters, Cathleen

Abstract

Carbon farming in its various forms has the potential to deliver a range of ecosystem services in addition to climate regulation. In Australia, the main public ‘co-benefits’ that could result from carbon farming are conservation of biodiversity, increases in soil and water quality, productivity increases, and economic and cultural services for Indigenous communities. While there is a lack of empirical evidence that carbon farming is delivering these ecosystem services to date, various metrics have been developed by researchers and through other payment for ecosystem services schemes that may enable effective targeting of these co-benefits. In this article, we review previous studies and schemes and identify four main approaches for metrics that could be applied to carbon farming in Australia: (1) spatial modelling, (2) benchmarks; (3) environmental benefit indices; and (4) indicators. The relative value of each of these approaches varies, depending on the objectives of policy-makers. Spatial modelling and benchmarks can play a key role in decision support systems for landholders who may be interested in carbon farming. Indices are valuable for the development of new or modified market-based schemes that weigh up different co-benefits. Indicators are critical for outcome-based payment schemes and for verifying the effectiveness of co-benefit policies overall.

Suggested Citation

  • Baumber, Alex & Metternicht, Graciela & Cross, Rebecca & Ruoso, Laure-Elise & Cowie, Annette L. & Waters, Cathleen, 2019. "Promoting co-benefits of carbon farming in Oceania: Applying and adapting approaches and metrics from existing market-based schemes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:39:y:2019:i:c:s2212041619302396
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100982
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041619302396
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100982?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baylis, Kathy & Peplow, Stephen & Rausser, Gordon & Simon, Leo, 2008. "Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 753-764, May.
    2. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    3. Robinson, Catherine J. & Renwick, Anna R. & May, Tracey & Gerrard, Emily & Foley, Rowan & Battaglia, Michael & Possingham, Hugh & Griggs, David & Walker, Daniel, 2016. "Indigenous benefits and carbon offset schemes: An Australian case study," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 129-134.
    4. Kragt, M.E. & Gibson, F.L. & Maseyk, F. & Wilson, K.A., 2016. "Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 125-131.
    5. Kragt, Marit E. & Dumbrell, Nikki P. & Blackmore, Louise, 2017. "Motivations and barriers for Western Australian broad-acre farmers to adopt carbon farming," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 115-123.
    6. Paul J. Burke, 2016. "Undermined by Adverse Selection: Australia's Direct Action Abatement Subsidies," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 35(3), pages 216-229, September.
    7. Torabi, Nooshin & Bekessy, Sarah A., 2015. "Bundling and stacking in bio-sequestration schemes: Opportunities and risks identified by Australian stakeholders," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 84-92.
    8. Baumber, Alex, 2017. "Enhancing ecosystem services through targeted bioenergy support policies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 98-110.
    9. Annette Cowie & Uwe A. Schneider & Luca Montanarella, 2007. "Potential synergies between existing multilateral environmental agreements in the implementation of Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry activities," Working Papers FNU-123, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Jan 2007.
    10. Elizondo Azuela, Gabriela & Barroso, Luiz & Khanna, Ashish & Wang, Xiaodong & Wu, Yun & Cunha, Gabriel, 2014. "Performance of renewable energy auctions : experience in Brazil, China and India," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7062, The World Bank.
    11. Mayrhofer, Jan P. & Gupta, Joyeeta, 2016. "The science and politics of co-benefits in climate policy," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 22-30.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Meenakshi Sharma & Rajesh Kaushal & Prashant Kaushik & Seeram Ramakrishna, 2021. "Carbon Farming: Prospects and Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-15, October.
    2. Sangha, Kamaljit K & Ahammad, Ronju & Russell-Smith, Jeremy & Costanza, Robert, 2024. "Payments for Ecosystem Services opportunities for emerging Nature-based Solutions: Integrating Indigenous perspectives from Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    3. Ethan Gordon & Federico Davila & Chris Riedy, 2022. "Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 809-826, June.
    4. Alex Baumber & Rebecca Cross & Cathy Waters & Graciela Metternicht & Hermann Kam, 2021. "Understanding the Social Licence of Carbon Farming in the Australian Rangelands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Regan, Courtney M. & Connor, Jeffery D. & Summers, David M. & Settre, Claire & O’Connor, Patrick J. & Cavagnaro, Timothy R., 2020. "The influence of crediting and permanence periods on Australian forest-based carbon offset supply," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    2. Ito, Junichi & Feuer, Hart N. & Kitano, Shinichi & Asahi, Haruka, 2019. "Assessing the effectiveness of Japan's community-based direct payment scheme for hilly and mountainous areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 62-75.
    3. Keenan, Rodney J. & Pozza, Greg & Fitzsimons, James A., 2019. "Ecosystem services in environmental policy: Barriers and opportunities for increased adoption," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Erin C. Pischke & Adam M. Wellstead, 2020. "Reimagining instrument constituencies: the case of conservation policy in Mexico," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 371-388, June.
    5. Wolfgang Buchholz & Dirk Rübbelke, 2020. "Overstraining International Climate Finance: When Conflicts of Objectives Threaten Its Succes," Working Papers 2020.17, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    6. Dobšinská, Zuzana & Báliková, Klára & Jarský, Vilém & Hríb, Michal & Štifil, Roman & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2024. "Evaluation analysis of the compensation payments schemes for ecosystem services: The case of Czech and Slovak Republic," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    7. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    8. Rohan Best & Paul J. Burke, 2020. "Energy mix persistence and the effect of carbon pricing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), pages 555-574, July.
    9. repec:hal:journl:hal-04670841 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Ouellet, F. & Mundler, P. & Dupras, J. & Ruiz, J., 2020. "“Community developed and farmer delivered.” An analysis of the spatial and relational proximities of the Alternative Land Use Services program in Ontario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    11. Mayer, Alex & Jones, Kelly & Hunt, David & Manson, Robert & Carter Berry, Z. & Asbjornsen, Heidi & Wright, Timothy Max & Salcone, Jacob & Lopez Ramirez, Sergio & Ávila-Foucat, Sophie & Von Thaden Ugal, 2022. "Assessing ecosystem service outcomes from payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz, Mexico: Future deforestation threats and spatial targeting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    12. Yang, Jin & Song, Dan & Wu, Feng, 2017. "Regional variations of environmental co-benefits of wind power generation in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 1267-1281.
    13. Martínez-Martínez, Yenisleidy & Dewulf, Jo & Casas-Ledón, Yannay, 2022. "GIS-based site suitability analysis and ecosystem services approach for supporting renewable energy development in south-central Chile," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 363-376.
    14. Michaela Perunová & Jarmila Zimmermannová & Tereza Schovánková, 2024. "Forest carbon and a regional perspective on the effectiveness of financial instruments within the forest bioeconomy," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 70(6), pages 317-334.
    15. Garrett, R.D. & Grabs, J. & Cammelli, F. & Gollnow, F. & Levy, S.A., 2022. "Should payments for environmental services be used to implement zero-deforestation supply chain policies? The case of soy in the Brazilian Cerrado," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    16. Ina, Porras & Bruce, Alyward & Jeff, Dengel, 2013. "Monitoring payments for watershed services schemes in developing countries," MPRA Paper 47185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Walter Falcon & Gracia Hadiwidjaja & Ryan Edwards & Matthew Higgins & Rosamond Naylor & Sudarno Sumarto, 2022. "Using Conditional Cash Payments to Prevent Land-Clearing Fires: Cautionary Findings from Indonesia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, July.
    18. Jones, Kelly W. & Muñoz Brenes, Carlos L. & Shinbrot, Xoco A. & López-Báez, Walter & Rivera-Castañeda, Andrómeda, 2018. "The influence of cash and technical assistance on household-level outcomes in payments for hydrological services programs in Chiapas, Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 208-218.
    19. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    20. Pandey, Rita & Mehra, Meeta Keswani, 2015. "Role of Fiscal Instruments in Promoting Low-carbon Technology Innovation," Working Papers 15/147, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy.
    21. Juan Miguel Benito-Ostolaza & Nuria Osés-Eraso, 2013. "Incentives to give up resource extraction and avoid the tragedy of the commons," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 1305, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:39:y:2019:i:c:s2212041619302396. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.