Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

36
Policy Choices for Salinity Mitigation: Bridging the Disciplinary Divides 1-2 February 2007 Coogee Surf Club 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 Systematic landscape change through agri-forestry: a collaborative approach

description

P olicy 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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

Page 1: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

Policy Choices for Salinity Mitigation: Bridging the Disciplinary Divides

1-2 February 2007 Coogee Surf Club

Peter Ampt, Program ManagerFuture of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) ProgramUniversity 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

Systematic landscape change through agri-forestry: a collaborative approach

Page 2: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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).

Page 3: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

Systematic landscape change through agri-forestry: a collaborative approach

1. The case for systematic landscape change2. Emerging environmental markets3. Agri-forestry opportunities4. Landscape planning based on landscape

ecology5. Using common property approaches6. Blue Mountains World Heritage Research

Institute – Western edge native agri-forestry project

Page 4: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

1. The case for systematic landscape change

a. The problem:• Habitat fragmentation and loss• Impact of modification• Climate change impacts

Page 5: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

Comparison of highly modified landscapes (Hobbs, R.J. 2005 Wildlife Research 32, 389–398)

Page 6: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program
Page 7: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program
Page 8: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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

Page 9: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

Percentage native vegetation by IBRA bioregion.

Page 10: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

Interim National Action Planfor Salinity and Water Quality Regions (NAP)

(July 2002)

Page 11: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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.

Page 12: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

1. The case for systematic landscape change

Systematically incorporate more biodiverse vegetation in the landscape mosaic and/or

improve its condition.

Page 13: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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.

Page 14: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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

Page 15: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

2. Agri-forestry opportunitiesa. Traditional forestry Timber/Wood Products –

timber required for building materials, furniture, wood craft and wood chips for paper pulp

b. 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.

c. Regional industry – creation of a new industry that is derived from farm forestry and may result in processing plants being established.

Page 16: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

3. Emerging environmental markets

a. Carbon that has been biosequestered which can then be traded on the emerging carbon market either as part of the NSW scheme of internationally.

b. Biodiversity Use of Biodiversity Banking will also be possible to generate offsets for development nearby.

c. Salinity trading possible if revegetation occurs in recharge area known to contribute to salinity lower down the catchment.

d. 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.

e. 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.

Page 17: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

4. Landscape planning based on landscape ecology

a. Identify key factors in sub-catchment and zone land for:• Conventional production• Preservation of key environmental assets• Revegetation

b. Identify or design agri-forestry system most appropriate for areac. 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 futurewww.australia21.org.au

Page 18: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

3. Achieving systematical landscape change

Typical, highly modified landscape, WALefroy EC, Hobbs RJ, Scheltema M (1993)

Page 19: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

Same landscape after strategic revegetationLefroy EC, Hobbs RJ, Scheltema M (1993)

Page 20: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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 on-farm 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.

Page 21: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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.

Page 22: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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 well-understood by users

Monitoring system will provide the information from which this understanding can develop.

Page 23: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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.

Page 24: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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.

Page 25: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program
Page 26: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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 ‘co-

operative’ 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.

Page 27: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

6.BMWHI – Western edge native agri-forestry 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.

Page 28: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program
Page 29: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program
Page 30: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program
Page 31: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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.

Page 32: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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.

Page 33: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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.

Page 34: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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.

Page 35: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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

Page 36: Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

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 – ManagerAlex Baumber – Project Officer

[email protected]