Missed opportunity? Framing actions around co-benefits for carbon mitigation in Australian agriculture

Fleming, Aysha; Stitzlein, Cara; Jakku, Emma; Fielke, Simon

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.050

Cited by 34 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 3 shows how these two rounds of interviews fit within the context of our broader project activities, along Digiscape's timelines (for more information on these other project activities, see Fielke et al, 2019Fielke et al, , 2020Fielke et al, , 2021Fleming et al, 2019Fleming et al, , 2021Stitzlein et al, 2020).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflecting on opportunities and challenges regarding implementation of responsible digital agri‐technology innovation

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital transformation within agriculture involves advances in information and communication technologies that promise a 'next generation' of agricultural technologies that will drive improvements in productivity and efficiency while reducing risks and negative impacts. Here, we discuss the Digiscape Future Science Platform, a program that seeks to facilitate the digital transformation of Australia's agricultural industries and land sector. Digiscape is one example of significant efforts internationally to realise the transformative potential of digital agriculture. However, there are significant socio-ethical challenges associated with digital agriculture. Responsible innovation (RI) provides one conceptual lens to address such challenges, acknowledging the power of research and innovation to create the future and posing questions about the types of futures that societies want to encourage or avoid. This article uses insights from rural sociology and innovation studies, which can complement RI dimensions-anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity and responsiveness-to reflect on how RI can be This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflecting on opportunities and challenges regarding implementation of responsible digital agri‐technology innovation

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most coherent of the findings across the studies was that co-benefits, such as soil fertility, reduced erosion risk, or water holding capacity, were often more important than compensation; financial incentives may be a low driver (Cook and Ma 2014;Mattila et al 2022;Kragt et al 2017;Dumbrell et al 2016;Gosnell et al 2020;Fleming et al 2019;Andrews et al 2013;Page and Bellotti 2015). It is possible that financial incentives could be a driver of adoption under a stronger policy environment (e.g.…”

Section: Co-benefits Drive Adoptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, focusing on and incorporating co-benefits may be in tension with new platforms and policies for monitoring carbon, which need rigorous and cheap quantification of carbon storage to succeed. The case for recognizing co-benefits include social consequences (improved farmer livelihoods, new markets that tap into consumer values), financial consequences, environmental outcomes, and the potential to revitalize carbon trading and benefit farmers by driving a premium price for credits that demonstrate environmental and social co-benefits (Fleming et al 2019).…”

Section: Recommendations In the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil carbon sequestration as a climate strategy: what do farmers think?

Buck

Palumbo-Compton

2022

Biogeochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Countries and companies with net-zero emissions targets are considering carbon removal strategies to compensate for remaining greenhouse gas emissions. Soil carbon sequestration is one such carbon removal strategy, and policy and corporate interest is growing in figuring out how to motivate farmers to sequester more carbon. But how do farmers in various cultural and geographic contexts view soil carbon sequestration as a climate mitigation or carbon removal strategy? This article systematically reviews the empirical social science literature on farmer adoption of soil carbon sequestration practices and participation in carbon markets or programs. The article finds thirty-seven studies over the past decade that involve empirical research with soil carbon sequestering practices in a climate context, with just over a quarter of those focusing on the Global South. A central finding is co-benefits are a strong motivator for adoption, especially given minimal carbon policies and low carbon prices. Other themes in the literature include educational and cultural barriers to adoption, the difference between developing and developed world contexts, and policy preferences among farmers for soil carbon sequestration incentives. However, we argue that given the rising profile of technical potentials and carbon credits, this peer-reviewed literature on the social aspects of scaling soil carbon sequestration is quite limited. We discuss why the social science literature is so small, and what this research gap means for efforts to achieve higher levels of soil carbon sequestration. We conclude with a ten-point social science research agenda for social science on soil carbon—and some cautions about centering carbon too strongly in research and policy.

show abstract

“…Potential economic benefits identified by previous studies include increases in landholder income, diversification of income sources, increased availability of capital to invest in farm infrastructure and improvement, ability to hire labour, and flow-on effects for surrounding towns and communities (Crossman et al 2011, Evans et al 2015, Salas Castelo 2017, Jassim 2018, Cowie et al 2019. Potential social benefits include improved mental health and community resilience (Cowie et al 2019), innovative community initiatives and networks (Fleming et al 2019), enhanced community development and cultural connection to land for Indigenous communities (Jackson et al 2017) and enhanced potential for inter-generational farm management and succession on agricultural properties (Cross et al 2019). Potential ecological benefits of carbon farming include increased biodiversity, increased habitat provision, improved soil health, structure and water holding capacity, management of erosion and salinity and improved water quality (Baumber et al 2019;Cross et al 2019).…”

Section: Benefits and Disbenefits Of Carbon Farming For Rangelands: Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Australia's comparative advantage in land sector emissions reductions and sequestration has also been recognised globally (Lin et al 2013) and within Australia (Dean et al 2015;Fleming et al 2019) as a means to support multi-use landscapes which co-deliver climate mitigation, production and biodiversity benefits (Cunningham et al 2015). In addition, Australia also has a competitive advantage in carbon offsets as it features a policy environment where a combination of market rigour and integrity is supported through eligibility rules, method development, auditing standards and ERF purchasing of ACCUs (CMI 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon farming for resilient rangelands: people, paddocks and policy

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Missed opportunity? Framing actions around co-benefits for carbon mitigation in Australian agriculture

Cited by 34 publications

References 54 publications

Reflecting on opportunities and challenges regarding implementation of responsible digital agri‐technology innovation

Reflecting on opportunities and challenges regarding implementation of responsible digital agri‐technology innovation

Soil carbon sequestration as a climate strategy: what do farmers think?

Carbon farming for resilient rangelands: people, paddocks and policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About