No abstract

No 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, 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 outcomebased payment schemes and for verifying the effectiveness of co-benefit policies overall.

Carbon farming is a new land use option over extensive areas of the Australian rangelands. This land use change has been promoted by government incentives to mitigate climate change, with the vast majority of Australia's land sector abatement to date being delivered in rangelands. Aside from these mitigation benefits, carbon farming has also demonstrated potential co-benefits that enhance socio-ecological resilience by diversifying land uses and Accepted version-final version at: https://www.publish.csiro.au/rj/RJ20034 income streams, providing opportunities for sustainable land management to enhance soil and vegetation and creating opportunities for self-organisation and collaboration. However, factors such as policy uncertainty, perceived loss of future land use flexibility and the potential for carbon farming eligibility to create social divisions have the potential to negatively impact on resilience. In this paper, we weigh up these risks, opportunities and cobenefits and propose indicators for measuring the impact of carbon farming on the resilience of rangeland systems. A set of land policy principles for enhancing resilience through carbon farming are also identified. Summary text for the Table of Contents online Carbon farming is expanding in Australia's rangelands, driven by government incentives aimed at managing land to promote the regeneration or maintenance of tree cover. While carbon sequestration is the primary objective, other co-benefits for biodiversity, soils and landholder income may enhance socio-ecological resilience of rangeland Australia. This paper analyses these opportunities along with potential risks to resilience that could arise from policy uncertainty, social divisions and perceived loss of future land use flexibility.

No abstract