Centre for Markets, Values and inclusion, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
The Waite Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Glob Chang Biol. 2021 Jun;27(12):2744-2762. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15613. Epub 2021 Apr 12.
Biological sources of carbon sequestration such as revegetation have been highlighted as important avenues to combat climate change and meet global targets by the global community including the Paris Climate Agreement. However, current and projected carbon prices present a considerable barrier to broad-scale adoption of tree planting as a key mitigation strategy. One avenue to provide additional economic and environmental incentives to encourage wider adoption of revegetation is the bundling or stacking of additional co-beneficial ecosystem services that can be realized from tree planting. Using the World's largest land-based carbon credit trading scheme, the Australian Emissions Reduction Scheme (ERF), we examine the potential for three pairs of ecosystem services, where the carbon sequestration value of land use change is paired with an additional co-benefit with strong prospects for local tangible benefits to land owners/providers. Two cases consider agricultural provisioning values that can be realized by the landowners in higher returns: increased pollination services and reduced lamb mortality. The third case examined payments for tree plantings along riparian buffers, with payments to farmers by a water utility who realizes the benefit from reduced treatment cost due to water quality improvements. Economic incentives from these co-benefit case studies were found to be mixed, with avoided treatment costs from water quality paired with carbon payments the most promising, while pollination and reduced lamb mortality paired with carbon payments were unable to bridge the economic gap except under the most optimistic assumptions. We conclude that the economics case for significant land use change are likely to be geographically dispersed and only viable in relatively niche landscape positions in high establishment, high opportunity cost areas even when carbon payments are augmented with the value of co-benefits classified as providing direct and local benefits.
生物固碳源，如植被恢复，已被全球社会（包括《巴黎气候协定》）强调为应对气候变化和实现全球目标的重要途径。然而，当前和预计的碳价格对大规模采用植树作为主要缓解策略构成了相当大的障碍。为了提供额外的经济和环境激励，鼓励更广泛地采用植被恢复，可以将植树可以实现的其他额外的有益生态系统服务进行捆绑或组合。我们利用世界上最大的基于陆地的碳信用交易计划——澳大利亚减排计划（ERF），研究了三对生态系统服务的潜力，其中土地利用变化的碳固存价值与土地所有者/提供者可能获得的额外、具有明显地方有形效益的共同效益相匹配。两种情况考虑了土地所有者可以实现的农业供应价值：增加授粉服务和减少羔羊死亡率。第三种情况研究了沿河岸缓冲区的植树支付，由一家水务公司向农民支付，水务公司因水质改善而减少处理成本，从而获得收益。这些共同效益案例研究的经济激励措施参差不齐，水质改善与碳支付配对的避免处理成本最有希望，而授粉和减少羔羊死亡率与碳支付配对除了在最乐观的假设下，都无法弥补经济差距。我们的结论是，大规模土地利用变化的经济效益可能在地理上分散，只有在高建立、高机会成本地区的相对利基景观位置才可行，即使碳支付加上被归类为提供直接和地方效益的共同效益的价值也无济于事。
