Transcript Using common property resource approaches to achieve

Policy Choices for Salinity Mitigation: Bridging the
Disciplinary Divides
1-2 February 2007 Coogee Surf Club
Systematic landscape change
through agri-forestry: a
collaborative approach
Peter Ampt, Program Manager
Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program
University of NSW, Sydney
With assistance from Alex Baumber, Claire Carlton, Kate Norris*
and Rachael Stewart-Rattray*
*work completed for Masters of Environmental Management, Institute of Environmental
Studies, UNSW
Collaborative approach?
To properly consider and evaluate
collaboration we must ask the question,
'As compared to what?'
So the question is not
'Can this be accomplished without flaw?’
but rather
'Is this better than our alternatives,
and can we make it better?'
(Bryan, 2004, pp893-894 quoted in Marshall 2005).
Systematic landscape change through
agri-forestry: a collaborative approach
1.
2.
3.
4.
The case for systematic landscape change
Emerging environmental markets
Agri-forestry opportunities
Landscape planning based on landscape
ecology
5. Using common property approaches
6. Blue Mountains World Heritage Research
Institute – Western edge native agri-forestry
project
1. The case for systematic landscape
change
a. The problem:
•
•
•
Habitat fragmentation and loss
Impact of modification
Climate change impacts
Comparison of highly modified landscapes
(Hobbs, R.J. 2005 Wildlife Research 32, 389–398)
Impact of modification
• Changed hydrological regimes – increased
salinity, declining water quantity and
quality
• Loss of biodiversity and reduced resilience
• Soil erosion and declining fertility and
productivity
Percentage native vegetation by IBRA bioregion.
Interim National Action Plan
for Salinity and Water Quality Regions (NAP)
(July 2002)
Small mammals such as the Burrowing Bilby (Macrotis
lagotis) were once relatively common across large
areas and are now severely endangered. They were
very effective ecosystem engineers.
1. The case for
systematic landscape change
Systematically incorporate more biodiverse
vegetation in the landscape mosaic and/or
improve its condition.
1. The case for systematic landscape
change: The conventional solutions
•
•
•
•
Protecting what is left
Philanthropy – individual and by NGOs
Make existing production systems more
sustainable – new technologies
Incentives to adopt sustainable practices:
MBIs, stewardship payments, CMA
programs.
1. The case for systematic landscape
change
c. Issues
•
•
•
•
Preservationism and/or sustainable use?
Fragmentation of effort and achieving
connectivity
Native vegetation – property or
landscape scale?
Property rights – individual and common
pool
2. Agri-forestry opportunities
a.
b.
c.
Traditional forestry Timber/Wood Products –
timber required for building materials, furniture,
wood craft and wood chips for paper pulp
Emerging biomass-based possibilities to produce
products from plant biomass including fuels from
dry organic matter or combustible plant oils,
composite building materials, extractable oils,
charcoal, activated carbon and mulch material for
nursery industry.
Regional industry – creation of a new industry that
is derived from farm forestry and may result in
processing plants being established.
3. Emerging environmental markets
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Carbon that has been biosequestered which can then be traded
on the emerging carbon market either as part of the NSW scheme
of internationally.
Biodiversity Use of Biodiversity Banking will also be possible to
generate offsets for development nearby.
Salinity trading possible if revegetation occurs in recharge area
known to contribute to salinity lower down the catchment.
Water – in catchments that contribute to an urban water supply
impacted on by land-use, water authorities may benefit from
riparian repair and thus help pay for it.
Regional Tourism and Eco Tourism – within the areas being
revegetated there is a range of possibilities such as horse riding,
bush camping, bird watching, outdoor pursuits and holiday
accommodation.
4. Landscape planning based on
landscape ecology
a.
Identify key factors in sub-catchment and zone land for:
•
•
•
b.
c.
Conventional production
Preservation of key environmental assets
Revegetation
Identify or design agri-forestry system most appropriate for area
Map sub-catchment revegetation to optimise provision of full range of ecosystem
services such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Salinity mitigation/adaptation
Biodiversity connectivity and complementarity
Riparian repair and water quality
carbon sequestration
Biomass harvest
Fire management
This approach is strongly endorsed by Australia 21: building a better future
www.australia21.org.au
3. Achieving systematical landscape change
Typical, highly modified landscape, WA
Lefroy EC, Hobbs RJ, Scheltema M (1993)
Same landscape after strategic revegetation
Lefroy EC, Hobbs RJ, Scheltema M (1993)
5. Using common property
approaches
Why common property?
• Coordination across property boundaries will be
essential to achieving systematic landscape change in
agricultural areas.
• Present efforts are fragmentary, insignificant in scale and
dramatically under-funded. They depend on voluntary
adoption by landholders, many of whom have low onfarm incomes and are living in areas where services are
declining.
• Regulatory efforts, such as native vegetation legislation,
are politically unpopular, and based on a single property
plan.
• Individual landholders are unlikely to be in a position to
benefit from future environmental markets or
conservation through sustainable use (CSU) initiatives.
Common property regimes
• Regulate the use of common pool
resources
• Use accepted framework but develop
locally appropriate institutional rules
• Create a framework that formalises
collaboration and regulates access to
common pool resources while retaining
individual control of private resources.
Characteristics of workable
common-pool resources
(Dolšak and Ostrom 2003)
Application to an collaborative agri-forestry system
Small size
Size determined by the nature of the industries/enterprises
proposed, the participation of landholders and the scale of
the sub-catchments in the target area.
Stable and well delineated
resource boundaries
This would have to be negotiated with landholders and
controlled by contracts – need not be covenanted
Relatively small externalities
resulting from resource use –
moderated by the institution.
Key initial common pool resource is the land targetted for
revegetation which ranges across properties. Key process is
to negotiate the institutional rules.
Ability of users to monitor
resource stocks and flows
Revegetation, management actions and harvest managed by
institution according to accepted rules. Landscape function
recorded directly on web-based GIS management and
recording system. Landscape function measured against
area benchmarks. Transparent process.
Moderate level of resource
use
Biomass harvest balanced against other investment
conditions to maintain critical ecosystem services. Other
resources self-regulated.
resource dynamics wellunderstood by users
Monitoring system will provide the information from which this
understanding can develop.
A Conservation Commons?
• Generate a sub-regional landscape plan across property
boundaries that utilises all local land tenures (private,
reserve, national park, indigenous protected areas,
travelling stock routes etc) and identifies land for which
land-use needs to change to achieve NRM outcomes.
• Set up a common property regime that that equitably
distributes costs & returns between members.
• Develop a conservation through sustainable use (CSU)
strategy for generating income from the commons.
• Develop a monitoring strategy that provides evidence for
stewardship and improved environmental performance.
• Seek investment through emerging environmental
markets for the ecosystem services provided by the
commons.
Monitoring and assessment of
landscape impact
• Use of Landscape Function Analysis.
• Benchmarking representative land types.
• Landholder access via web-linked
Geographic Information System
• Landholders trained in LFA and undertaking
self-monitoring against benchmarks.
Potential benefits of a
‘conservation commons’
•
Sufficient economies of scale to consider conservation compatible commercial activity
on native vegetation and revegetation sites within the sub-region such as:
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
•
•
forestry,
recreational and tourist enterprises,
wild harvest of native plant products,
multi-species native plantations with potential commercial harvest possibilities and
participation in future environmental markets such as carbon, salinity and biodiversity trading.
Structural arrangements that could position the sub-regional community to take
advantage of potential payments for ecosystem services in the future.
Increased ability to bid for incentive funding.
The potential to attract green investment in a sub-catchment ‘corporation’ or ‘cooperative’ engaged in the above conservation compatible commercial activities.
The income generated from these activities could support the ongoing management
of the conservation areas and ultimately provide some returns to landholders.
Increased investment in conventional agricultural activities within the sub-catchment
driven by the landholders’ pro-active response to the management of long term
environment risk.
Marketing of sub-catchment products as having land-stewardship attributes which
provide greater access to specific markets.
6.BMWHI – Western
edge native agriforestry project
• The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area was
inscribed onto the World Heritage List in 2000 primarily
for the extent and diversity of its temperate eucalypt
forests.
• 8 protected areas and significant urban, peri-urban,
industrial and rural areas. An area of more than a million
hectares
• The region also provides ecosystem services including
clean water, air and recreation to Sydney
• Its World Heritage values and its ability to provide
ecosystem services are coming under increasing threat
due to the combined pressures of population growth and
urbanization, variations in rural land-use and climate
change.
Objectives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Develop a systematic plan to strategically revegetate areas of land to
achieve catchment natural resource management targets.
Identify a suite of species for revegetation that optimises carbon capture,
biomass harvest and achievement of natural resource management targets,
including water management.
Generate interest among land holders to develop farm forestry on their land.
Generate interest among possible investors and buyers of farm forestry
products and services, and secure industry support.
Carry out biophysical, social and economic analyses to assess costs and
probable returns from the range of farm forestry options.
Carry out GIS analysis of land use capability and landscape planning to
design a mosaic that optimizes environmental and economic outcomes.
Develop a management regime that optimises economic, social and
ecological objectives at a landscape scale.
Develop an institutional framework to establish a common property regime
at a landscape scale that will provide economies of scale, attract
participation from landholders and generate investment confidence.
Translate options into a commercial prospectus and recruit industry drivers,
investors and landholder participants.
Project deliverables are:
•
•
•
•
a landscape plan for strategic
revegetation;
an incorporated body for multi-farm
collaboration and management;
a detailed development plan and
prospectus to facilitate investment and
landholder participation;
development of a model for use in other
areas.
Carbon sequestration projections
National Carbon Accounting Toolbox to mixed environmental plantings on
Kyoto-compliant lands in the Lithgow region
• Approximately 40 tonnes of carbon dioxide will be sequested per
hectare within 10 years and 60 tonnes per hectare within 20 years.
• These figures compare to a steady 20t/ha for grazing or cropping for
the same area.
• The additional carbon sequestered as a result of the revegetation
will be 20 t/ha within 10 years and 40t/ha within 20 years.
• For every 1000 hectares that are revegetated, an additional 20,000 t
of carbon will be sequestered within ten years and 40,000 t within 20
years.
• There is potential for an area greater than 1000 ha if uptake is high,
and a bias towards revegetating riparian zones would see higher
soil moisture and fertility levels leading to higher rates of C
sequestration due to higher growth rates.
Biomass projections
•
Regular biomass harvest (analogous to thinning or controlled burning) will
probably start after 10 years and continue indefinitely. Growth, and thus
carbon sequestration, will continue after harvest. Using the 3-PG forest
model, (Eucalyptus grandis sp. in the Lithgow region):
– 60 tonnes of stem dry mass per hectare at 20 years and
– 96 tonnes per hectare at 30 years.
– Accumulation occurs at a rate of 3.5 t of biomass/ha/year between 20 and 30
years after establishment. A biomass harvest of at least that should be possible
after 20 years without significantly reducing carbon sequestration as most of the
plant biomass will remain intact.
•
Emissions associated with the biomass harvest or the ultimate use of the
biomass?
– If the biomass is burnt as fuel, some of the carbon it contains may be emitted so
cannot be counted as positive gain.
– If the biomass is used to produce hardboard for building, the carbon it contains
will remain locked up indefinitely.
•
The project will also manage fuel loads using biomass harvest and
controlled burning which will reduce the risk of large losses of carbon to the
atmosphere through uncontrolled wild fires.
Expert Group
• Dr John Merson – Blue Mountains World Heritage
Institute (BMWHI)
• Dr Joe Landsberg – BMWHI
• Peter Ampt – Future of Australia’s Threatened
Ecosystems Program (FATE)
• Alex Baumber – FATE
• Dr Jim Shields – DPI State Forests Biodiversity Manager
• Mike Waller – Principal and Consultant Heuris Partners
• Dr Mehreen Faruqi – Lecturer, Institute of Environmental
Studies, UNSW
• Claire Carlton – Director and Consultant Ecochange
• Dr Sandy Booth – Total Catchment Management
Services P/L
• Dr Peter Rogers – Biotechnology & Biomolecular
Sciences, UNSW
Future of Australia’s Threatened
Ecosystems (FATE) Program
A UNSW and RIRDC sponsored program driven by Prof. Mike Archer:
• Conservation through sustainable use initiatives centered on
Australian native species.
• Adaptive management.
• Coordinated, locally driven landscape-scale approaches exploring
common pool resources.
Peter Ampt – Manager
Alex Baumber – Project Officer
www.fate.unsw.edu.au
[email protected]