Tree planting for carbon sequestration: Are landholders interested? Dr Jacki Schirmer and Dr Lyndall...

Tree planting for carbon sequestration:

Are landholders interested?

Dr Jacki Schirmer and Dr Lyndall Bull

2

Aims of the study

Understand factors that influence landholder adoption of tree planting for carbon

sequestration

Background

Study funded by:

• Forest and Wood Products Australia as part of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s innovation awards for young people

• Cooperative Research Centre for Forestry

Area of focus

Low rainfall, little history of forestry region

High rainfall, forestry region

MethodsQualitative:

– Seven focus groups July 2010 with landholders across the study region; 32 participants

Quantitative:– Survey distributed to 880 people Sep 2010– 40% response rate– Some response bias to older, more educated,

male respondents

Proportion of respondents who had planted trees for different purposes

96.5% of respondents had tree planting experience:• 84% planted trees for stock shade/shelter• 70% to improve how the property looks• 58% to increase birds/animals• 43% to rehabilitate degraded land• 21% to reduce salinity• 4% to produce commercial timber• 5% to sequester carbon (no payment)• 1% to sequester carbon (payment)

Trees and land management


• Prefer to plant and manage trees themselves (76%)

• Majority want to plant more trees on their property (80%)

• Majority think trees can be easily grown and managed (83%)

• >80% of respondents believe trees are environmentally beneficial

• Strong preference for native tree species (78%)

Landholders views about tree planting

Landholder views about impacts of trees on the farm enterprise


• 87% believe planting trees has benefits for stock

• 25-40% think that trees have a negative impact on water, weeds, pest animals and fire risk on their property

Landholder adoption/planned adoption of tree planting for carbon sequestration

Willingness to adopt

18.6

67.2

10.1 3.5 .6.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

I haven't planted trees for cs & no

interest in doing it in the future

I haven't planted trees for cs but might

consider it in the future

I haven't planted trees for cs but am actively considering

it for the future

I have planted trees for cs & would like to

plant more

I have planted trees for cs in the past but wouldn't do it again

Agricultural land, trees and climate change

Carbon and climate change

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Good agricultural land should grow food, not trees (n=346)

It is acceptable to grow trees on good farm land (n=350)

I am concerned that if I plant trees, future governments might prevent

me using that land (n=351)

Human use of fossil fuels is changing the climate (n=346)

Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Don't know

11

• No significant relationship between beliefs about climate change and willingness to adopt

• BUT those who think good land should grow food, not trees significantly less willing to adopt (p<0.001)


Markets and financial returns


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I feel confident there will be a long term market for carbon stored in trees (n=347)

As long as returns from carbon covered my costs, I would consider planting trees for

carbon sequestration (n=347)

Current carbon tree planting programs don’t offer enough money to be worth

taking up (n=348)


Legislation


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I am confident that governments will support long term commercial markets for

carbon sequestered in trees (n=349)

Carbon markets are currently too uncertain to consider planting trees for commercial

carbon sequestration (n=349)


Neighbours and community

Beliefs and values

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Planting trees for carbon sequestration would increase the value of my property

(n=346)

My neighbours would disapprove if I planted trees for carbon sequestration

(n=346)

Planting trees for carbon sequestration is viewed positively by people in my

community (n=345)

Farmers shouldn’t be asked to plant trees to fix the climate problems caused by

other people (n=344)


Property management

Beliefs and values

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

More local trials are needed before I would feel confident planting trees for carbon

sequestration (n=346)

It is better to sequester carbon in soil than in trees (n=343)

I would only plant trees for carbon sequestration if local native species were

used (n=345)

It is better to sequester carbon in pasture than in trees (n=345)


Property management

Beliefs and values

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Planting trees for carbon sequestration would benefit me by providing a

diversified income stream (n=343)

Planting trees for carbon sequestration would make my farm management more

complicated (n=345)


Barriers to adoption

• <20% respondents believed that views of other landholders was a moderate – large barrier

• 20-40% respondents believed that • Trees not growing successfully• Potential for trees to provide habitat for feral or

pest animals• Knowledge about planting and managing trees

were moderate to large barriers


• 40 – 60% respondents believed that:• Water use• Risk of trees dying due to drought or fire• Long term nature of planting trees for carbon

sequestration• Reduction in flexibility of land management• Level of knowledge about planting trees for

carbon sequestration• Price paid for carbon sequestered in trees

were moderate – large barriers


• >60% of respondents believed that • Amount of time required to plant and manage

trees• Restrictions on how the land planted to trees

can be used for the next 100+ years• Lack of information about programs for planting

trees for carbon sequestration• Uncertainty of carbon markets• Risk that future governments will change their

minds about climate change policy• Costs of planting and managing trees

were moderate – large barriers

Incentives to adoption

• <20% respondents believed that • What other landholders in my community will

think

were moderate – large incentives


• 20-40% of respondents believed that:• The long term nature of planting trees for

carbon sequestration• Amount of water trees would use



• 40-60% of respondents believed that:• An outside organisation doing all the work for

me while paying for the use of the land• Provision of insurance to cover the risk of trees

dying in drought or fire• Having an expert come and give me advice

about growing trees on my property• Access to more information on programs for

planting trees for carbon sequestration• Access to free training in growing trees



• >60% of respondents believed that • Provision of funds to cover the costs of

establishing trees• Potential for trees to provide habitat for native

birds and animals• If trees addressed land degradation problems

on my property• If the trees also provided shelter for stock• Having a regulated carbon market approved by

the government• Availability of clear and stable markets• Being paid a guaranteed and indexed annual

payment were moderate – large incentives

Preferred scenarios

• Use of marginal land (barrier for 21%) preferred to productive land (79%)

• A small proportion of the property is planted (50ha barrier for 82%; 5ha for 37%)

• Divided on whether prefer others to plant and manage trees: 34% less likely to adopt; 36% more likely; 30% neither

Preferred scenarios

• More willing to plant trees for carbon sequestration if:

– only have to grow trees for 30-40 years rather than 100 years (59%)

– trees also provide other benefits such as commercial timber (63%), stock shade/shelter (81%), environmental benefits (75%)

– plant locally growing native species, not non-native species (67%)

Awareness and knowledge

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Current programs that pay landholders to grow trees on their land for cs (n=347)

Government rules and regulations regarding planting trees for cs (n=347)

Results of scientific studies into carbon sequestration by different types of …

Carbon prices and markets (n=345)

Where I can find more information on planting trees for cs (n=343)

Poor Neither poor nor good Good Don't know

Sources of information

Information and extension

Usefulness

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Scientific papers and reports (n=343)

Newspaper and radio articles (n=343)

Websites(n=335)

Training courses (n=338)

Short brochures or information sheet …

Presentations/seminars (n=342)

Detailed brochures and books (n=342)

Field days (n=341)

One-on-one discussions with an …

Not useful at all A little useful Moderately - Highly useful Don’t know

Information and extension

Trust

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Federal government (n=346)

For-profit organisations planting trees for cs (n=343)

Media outlets eg newspapers, radio (n=340)

State government agency (eg DPI) (n=347)

Not-for-profit organisations planting trees for cs (n=344)

Friends and family (n=345)

Other farmers in my area (n=346)

Local Landcare groups (n=344)

Low Neither low nor high High Don't know

What does this mean?

• Landholders are not against adopting

• The model that they prefer if they adopt is the higher cost:

• Lots of small areas

• Native species

• On marginal land

• Trees able to offer co-benefits

What does this mean?

• This potentially brings a tension between landholder uptake and optimum carbon sequestration

• If we want to use trees more extensively for greenhouse gas abatement, investment is required in extension activities

Thank you

Tree planting for carbon sequestration: Are landholders interested? Dr Jacki Schirmer and Dr Lyndall...

Documents

Transcript of Tree planting for carbon sequestration: Are landholders interested? Dr Jacki Schirmer and Dr Lyndall...