Softening the agricultural matrix: a novel agri‐environment scheme that balances habitat restoration and livestock grazing

Abstract

The loss and degradation of woody vegetation in the agricultural matrix represents a key threat to biodiversity. Strategies for habitat restoration in these landscapes should maximize the biodiversity benefit for each dollar spent in order to achieve the greatest conservation outcomes with scarce funding. To be effective at scale, such strategies also need to account for the opportunity cost of restoration to the farmer. Here, we critique the Whole‐of‐Paddock Rehabilitation program, a novel agri‐environment scheme which seeks to provide a cost‐effective strategy for balancing habitat restoration and livestock grazing. The scheme involves the revegetation of large (minimum 10 ha) fields, designed to maximize biodiversity benefits and minimize costs while allowing for continued agricultural production. The objectives and design of the scheme are outlined, biodiversity and production benefits are discussed, and we contrast its cost‐effectiveness with alternative habitat restoration strategies. Our analysis indicates that this scheme achieves greater restoration outcomes at approximately half the cost of windbreak‐style plantings, the prevailing planting configuration in southeastern Australia, largely due to a focus on larger fields, and the avoidance of fencing costs through the use of existing farm configuration and infrastructure. This emphasis on cost‐effectiveness, the offsetting of opportunity costs through incentive payments, and the use of a planting design that seeks to maximize biodiversity benefits while achieving production benefits to the farmer, has the potential to achieve conservation in productive parts of the agricultural landscape that have traditionally been “off limits” to conservation.

Patch‐scale culls of an overabundant bird defeated by immediate recolonization

“…It is difficult to provide globally applicable costs of revegetation, but in the agricultural landscapes of this study, total public costs for whole‐of‐paddock restoration for a 20‐ha project over 10 years have been estimated at AU$2,580/ha (Ansell et al. ). While this is almost 18 times the per‐hectare cost of our (largely ineffective) culling, the likelihood of successful ecological outcomes may be much greater as Noisy Miners have been shown to avoid restoration plantings (Lindenmayer et al.…”

“…The cost of this kind of program suggests that it would be wise to properly assess and compare (e.g., using ROI) the benefits and costs of alternative management programs such as appropriate revegetation, which is known to deter Noisy Miner colonization (Grey et al 2011, Lindenmayer et al 2018). It is difficult to provide globally applicable costs of revegetation, but in the agricultural landscapes of this study, total public costs for whole-of-paddock restoration for a 20-ha project over 10 years have been estimated at AU$2,580/ha (Ansell et al 2016). While this is almost 18 times the per-hectare cost of our (largely ineffective) culling, the likelihood of successful ecological outcomes may be much greater as Noisy Miners have been shown to avoid restoration plantings .…”

Matching effort to threat: Strategies to increase the scale and effectiveness of revegetation in southern Australia

“…Their Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation (WOPR) in the Canberra region has been establishing, through direct seeding, belts of locally native woody vegetation across paddocks at least 10 ha in size and up to 100 ha for the largest single planting (Ansell et al . ; Adams‐Schimminger et al . ).…”

“…I see WOPR (Ansell et al . ) as the kind of native revegetation that provides a wide range of commercially attractive ecosystem services for farmers, if markets for food and fibre increasingly demand less stressful production systems. The remarkable rise in the demand for ‘free‐range’ poultry products (eggs and meat; Miele ) may expand to other livestock.…”

“…The 40% target of Smith et al (2013) for moderate-intensity agricultural land use could be achieved by increasing the demand and price for nature-friendly agricultural produce. I see WOPR (Ansell et al 2016) as the kind of native revegetation that provides a wide range of commercially attractive ecosystem services for farmers, if markets for food and fibre increasingly demand less stressful production systems. The remarkable rise in the demand for 'free-range' poultry products (eggs and meat; Miele 2011) may expand to other livestock.…”