Carbon farming co-benefits optimization in south-eastern Australian rangeland

Global efforts to combat climate change have motivated the adoption of carbon farming as one strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon farming has gained traction in southeast Australian pastoral areas, largely driven by an Australian Commonwealth payment for carbon abatement scheme known as the Emission Reduction Fund (ERF). However, the ERF focuses solely on carbon storage and overlooks the additional co-benefits from carbon farming. This study explores the potential for optimizing land use in carbon farming to maximize co-benefits while maintaining financial returns and carbon storage benefits. Four different scenarios were analysed for our Western Division, New South Wales (NSW) study area. A baseline least-cost scenario that maximizes total economic return, and two co-benefit scenarios that examine the potential impacts of prioritizing biodiversity or land degradation resistance. A final balanced co-benefit scenario explored the trade-offs between land degradation resistance and biodiversity co-benefits. All three co-benefit scenarios impose constraints requiring financial returns and carbon storage to be above baseline scenario levels and allow a 10 % increase in budget consistent with a premium for co-benefit outcomes. The headline results show a fourfold increase in biodiversity priority score and a 230 % increase in land degradation resistance score without reducing landholder returns. The total economic return remained at similar values since the constraints were set to zero sacrifices, while the carbon abatement showed a 10 % increase in three co-benefit scenarios. This increase in total carbon abatement was achieved across the greater land area due to a nearly two-fold higher abatement potential of selected cells in the least cost scenario compared with the other co-benefit scenarios. Overall, the results illustrate the considerable potential to improve co-beneficial outcomes without losses in carbon storage or landowner returns and lay the groundwork for including such benefits in carbon markets. This emphasizes the necessity of strategic resource allocation and mindful consideration of objectives and constraints for better carbon farming outcomes. The research highlights how better co-benefits from carbon farming can be aligned with global efforts to address climate change while promoting additional ecosystem services as carbon farming co-benefits.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Environmental Management
Published
2025-04-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.125315
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Bioenergy crop production and management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.71
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Carbon farming co-benefits optimization in south-eastern Australian rangeland

Jeffery D. Connor, Cathy Waters, Annette Cowie, Yuan Gao et al.
3 citations
Journal of Environmental Management
Bioenergy crop production and management
5.71
article

Carbon farming co-benefits optimization in south-eastern Australian rangeland

Jeffery D. Connor, Cathy Waters, Annette Cowie, Yuan Gao, Li Jun Luo, David A. Summers
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Global efforts to combat climate change have motivated the adoption of carbon farming as one strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon farming has gained traction in southeast Australian pastoral areas, largely driven by an Australian Commonwealth payment for carbon abatement scheme known as the Emission Reduction Fund (ERF). However, the ERF focuses solely on carbon storage and overlooks the additional co-benefits from carbon farming. This study explores the potential for optimizing land use in carbon farming to maximize co-benefits while maintaining financial returns and carbon storage benefits. Four different scenarios were analysed for our Western Division, New South Wales (NSW) study area. A baseline least-cost scenario that maximizes total economic return, and two co-benefit scenarios that examine the potential impacts of prioritizing biodiversity or land degradation resistance. A final balanced co-benefit scenario explored the trade-offs between land degradation resistance and biodiversity co-benefits. All three co-benefit scenarios impose constraints requiring financial returns and carbon storage to be above baseline scenario levels and allow a 10 % increase in budget consistent with a premium for co-benefit outcomes. The headline results show a fourfold increase in biodiversity priority score and a 230 % increase in land degradation resistance score without reducing landholder returns. The total economic return remained at similar values since the constraints were set to zero sacrifices, while the carbon abatement showed a 10 % increase in three co-benefit scenarios. This increase in total carbon abatement was achieved across the greater land area due to a nearly two-fold higher abatement potential of selected cells in the least cost scenario compared with the other co-benefit scenarios. Overall, the results illustrate the considerable potential to improve co-beneficial outcomes without losses in carbon storage or landowner returns and lay the groundwork for including such benefits in carbon markets. This emphasizes the necessity of strategic resource allocation and mindful consideration of objectives and constraints for better carbon farming outcomes. The research highlights how better co-benefits from carbon farming can be aligned with global efforts to address climate change while promoting additional ecosystem services as carbon farming co-benefits.

Journal of Environmental ManagementVol. 382
University of South Australia (AU), New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (AU), The University of Adelaide (AU), University of New England (AU)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Bioenergy crop production and management
5.71
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.