Post on 12-Jan-2016
transcript
Tree planting for carbon sequestration:
Are landholders interested?
Dr Jacki Schirmer and Dr Lyndall Bull
2
Aims of the study
Understand factors that influence landholder adoption of tree planting for carbon
sequestration
Background
Study funded by:
• Forest and Wood Products Australia as part of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s innovation awards for young people
• Cooperative Research Centre for Forestry
Area of focus
Low rainfall, little history of forestry region
High rainfall, forestry region
MethodsQualitative:
– Seven focus groups July 2010 with landholders across the study region; 32 participants
Quantitative:– Survey distributed to 880 people Sep 2010– 40% response rate– Some response bias to older, more educated,
male respondents
Proportion of respondents who had planted trees for different purposes
96.5% of respondents had tree planting experience:• 84% planted trees for stock shade/shelter• 70% to improve how the property looks• 58% to increase birds/animals• 43% to rehabilitate degraded land• 21% to reduce salinity• 4% to produce commercial timber• 5% to sequester carbon (no payment)• 1% to sequester carbon (payment)
Trees and land management
Trees and land management
• Prefer to plant and manage trees themselves (76%)
• Majority want to plant more trees on their property (80%)
• Majority think trees can be easily grown and managed (83%)
• >80% of respondents believe trees are environmentally beneficial
• Strong preference for native tree species (78%)
Landholders views about tree planting
Landholder views about impacts of trees on the farm enterprise
Trees and land management
• 87% believe planting trees has benefits for stock
• 25-40% think that trees have a negative impact on water, weeds, pest animals and fire risk on their property
Landholder adoption/planned adoption of tree planting for carbon sequestration
Willingness to adopt
18.6
67.2
10.1 3.5 .6.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
I haven't planted trees for cs & no
interest in doing it in the future
I haven't planted trees for cs but might
consider it in the future
I haven't planted trees for cs but am actively considering
it for the future
I have planted trees for cs & would like to
plant more
I have planted trees for cs in the past but wouldn't do it again
Agricultural land, trees and climate change
Carbon and climate change
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Good agricultural land should grow food, not trees (n=346)
It is acceptable to grow trees on good farm land (n=350)
I am concerned that if I plant trees, future governments might prevent
me using that land (n=351)
Human use of fossil fuels is changing the climate (n=346)
Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Don't know
11
• No significant relationship between beliefs about climate change and willingness to adopt
• BUT those who think good land should grow food, not trees significantly less willing to adopt (p<0.001)
Carbon and climate change
Markets and financial returns
Carbon and climate change
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I feel confident there will be a long term market for carbon stored in trees (n=347)
As long as returns from carbon covered my costs, I would consider planting trees for
carbon sequestration (n=347)
Current carbon tree planting programs don’t offer enough money to be worth
taking up (n=348)
Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Don't know
Legislation
Carbon and climate change
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I am confident that governments will support long term commercial markets for
carbon sequestered in trees (n=349)
Carbon markets are currently too uncertain to consider planting trees for commercial
carbon sequestration (n=349)
Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Don't know
Neighbours and community
Beliefs and values
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Planting trees for carbon sequestration would increase the value of my property
(n=346)
My neighbours would disapprove if I planted trees for carbon sequestration
(n=346)
Planting trees for carbon sequestration is viewed positively by people in my
community (n=345)
Farmers shouldn’t be asked to plant trees to fix the climate problems caused by
other people (n=344)
Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Don't know
Property management
Beliefs and values
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
More local trials are needed before I would feel confident planting trees for carbon
sequestration (n=346)
It is better to sequester carbon in soil than in trees (n=343)
I would only plant trees for carbon sequestration if local native species were
used (n=345)
It is better to sequester carbon in pasture than in trees (n=345)
Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Don't know
Property management
Beliefs and values
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Planting trees for carbon sequestration would benefit me by providing a
diversified income stream (n=343)
Planting trees for carbon sequestration would make my farm management more
complicated (n=345)
Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Don't know
Barriers to adoption
• <20% respondents believed that views of other landholders was a moderate – large barrier
• 20-40% respondents believed that • Trees not growing successfully• Potential for trees to provide habitat for feral or
pest animals• Knowledge about planting and managing trees
were moderate to large barriers
Barriers to adoption
• 40 – 60% respondents believed that:• Water use• Risk of trees dying due to drought or fire• Long term nature of planting trees for carbon
sequestration• Reduction in flexibility of land management• Level of knowledge about planting trees for
carbon sequestration• Price paid for carbon sequestered in trees
were moderate – large barriers
Barriers to adoption
• >60% of respondents believed that • Amount of time required to plant and manage
trees• Restrictions on how the land planted to trees
can be used for the next 100+ years• Lack of information about programs for planting
trees for carbon sequestration• Uncertainty of carbon markets• Risk that future governments will change their
minds about climate change policy• Costs of planting and managing trees
were moderate – large barriers
Incentives to adoption
• <20% respondents believed that • What other landholders in my community will
think
were moderate – large incentives
Incentives to adoption
• 20-40% of respondents believed that:• The long term nature of planting trees for
carbon sequestration• Amount of water trees would use
were moderate – large incentives
Incentives to adoption
• 40-60% of respondents believed that:• An outside organisation doing all the work for
me while paying for the use of the land• Provision of insurance to cover the risk of trees
dying in drought or fire• Having an expert come and give me advice
about growing trees on my property• Access to more information on programs for
planting trees for carbon sequestration• Access to free training in growing trees
were moderate – large incentives
Incentives to adoption
• >60% of respondents believed that • Provision of funds to cover the costs of
establishing trees• Potential for trees to provide habitat for native
birds and animals• If trees addressed land degradation problems
on my property• If the trees also provided shelter for stock• Having a regulated carbon market approved by
the government• Availability of clear and stable markets• Being paid a guaranteed and indexed annual
payment were moderate – large incentives
Preferred scenarios
• Use of marginal land (barrier for 21%) preferred to productive land (79%)
• A small proportion of the property is planted (50ha barrier for 82%; 5ha for 37%)
• Divided on whether prefer others to plant and manage trees: 34% less likely to adopt; 36% more likely; 30% neither
Preferred scenarios
• More willing to plant trees for carbon sequestration if:
– only have to grow trees for 30-40 years rather than 100 years (59%)
– trees also provide other benefits such as commercial timber (63%), stock shade/shelter (81%), environmental benefits (75%)
– plant locally growing native species, not non-native species (67%)
Awareness and knowledge
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Current programs that pay landholders to grow trees on their land for cs (n=347)
Government rules and regulations regarding planting trees for cs (n=347)
Results of scientific studies into carbon sequestration by different types of …
Carbon prices and markets (n=345)
Where I can find more information on planting trees for cs (n=343)
Poor Neither poor nor good Good Don't know
Sources of information
Information and extension
Usefulness
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Scientific papers and reports (n=343)
Newspaper and radio articles (n=343)
Websites(n=335)
Training courses (n=338)
Short brochures or information sheet …
Presentations/seminars (n=342)
Detailed brochures and books (n=342)
Field days (n=341)
One-on-one discussions with an …
Not useful at all A little useful Moderately - Highly useful Don’t know
Information and extension
Trust
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Federal government (n=346)
For-profit organisations planting trees for cs (n=343)
Media outlets eg newspapers, radio (n=340)
State government agency (eg DPI) (n=347)
Not-for-profit organisations planting trees for cs (n=344)
Friends and family (n=345)
Other farmers in my area (n=346)
Local Landcare groups (n=344)
Low Neither low nor high High Don't know
What does this mean?
• Landholders are not against adopting
• The model that they prefer if they adopt is the higher cost:
• Lots of small areas
• Native species
• On marginal land
• Trees able to offer co-benefits
What does this mean?
• This potentially brings a tension between landholder uptake and optimum carbon sequestration
• If we want to use trees more extensively for greenhouse gas abatement, investment is required in extension activities
Thank you