Andrew and list:
1. Thanks again. The article itself is available (no-fee, perhaps for
short time only?) at
http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/Lin.pdf
Not possible to copy the abstract - a stripe across each page. Here is the
journal's summary, a little different than that given below by Andrew:
Carbon markets and related international schemes that allow payments to
landholders for planting trees, sometimes called carbon farming, are intended
to support sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere. But they will have
harmful effects, such as degrading ecosystems and causing food supply problems,
if other benefits and disbenefits from revegetating agricultural landscapes are
not also taken into account in land-use decisions, according to an article
published in the October issue of BioScience.
Brenda B. Lin of the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organization and her colleagues assessed a variety of ways that people have
attempted carbon farming. Simple maximization of profit can lead landholders
accessing carbon markets to create monoculture plantations, which do not
support biodiversity and provide few environmental benefits to local
inhabitants. But alternatives such as planting strips of trees on farms,
agroforestry—integrating trees into cropping systems—and revegetation of
marginal or crop land can sequester carbon while also yielding a broad spectrum
of environmental benefits.
These benefits may include, for example, reduced pollution outflow and erosion,
and better wind protection, pest control, and pollination. What is more,
schemes that have local participation and buy-in are more likely to be
successful over the long term because they can draw on local knowledge about
trees likely to thrive and, therefore, will remain popular. Lin and her
colleagues urge organizers of carbon farming schemes to move beyond a
carbon-only focus and consider cobenefits of revegetation, while involving
local inhabitants, not just private landowners, in policy decisions.
2. The term carbon farming (in the article title: "Maximizing the
Environmental Benefits of Carbon Farming through Ecosystem Service Delivery")
is one that the CDR group should hear more often - Lin says it is equivalent
to "tree-planting" - but it would seem from the article to have a broader
meaning - and I think that the case in Australia. The article itself is much
more about forestry (trees) than farming. It is all about how to make CDR be
more successful, but that term is not used.
So this article should be of interest to all of the bio-oriented CDR
approaches. It is trying to get away from a plantations-only approach to
sequestration through emphasis on co-benefits. The emphasis is certainly on
CDR, not forestry or farming.
3. This article is of special interest as the authors are Australian, and
Australia already has a carbon credit program at about Aus$24/tonne CO2 (
about 6% less in US $) - appreciably higher than most other carbon markets. I
think is still going well, after change of governments??
4. Lin etal list (Table1) a half dozen approaches from plantations to
environmental plantings. The message I got was that the world can do better
than plantations , although they might seem to have the best near-term
economics. There are no cost estimates here.
Some of the co-benefits listed (summarized in Table 1 - were differing for
the 6 approaches) are:
private: reduced soil erosion, wind breaks, pest control, pollination,
livestock shelter and salinity control and
public: reduced pollution, runoff, and evaporation, improved connectivity,
increased habitat area,species conservation
but possible disbenefits: reduced land for cropping, invasive taxia,
competition for water resources, biodiversity loss, altered fire regime
5. I think the authors are providing a valuable critique of any comparison
between different SRM and CDR techniques that ONLY focuses on sequestration.
This was their main message I believe.
6. I followed a few cites that were behind paywalls, finding one book that
is relatively new, lengthy, free and looks valuable - on agroforestry (NOT
listed in Lin):
http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Permaculture/Agroforestry/Carbon_Sequestration_Potential_of_Agroforestry_Systems-Opportunities_and_Challenges.pdf
Ron
On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:28 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/carbon-farmings-added-benefits/2673768.aspx?storypage=0
>
> Carbon farming's added benefits
>
> 07 Oct, 2013 04:00 AM
> 'BEST practice' carbon farming that considers more than just the carbon in
> trees is vital for farmers, landholders, and the community, according to
> CSIRO research.
>
> CSIRO-led research confirms that tree plantings in rural lands can provide a
> stream of other benefits to farmers, local communities and the environment as
> well as having significant potential to remove carbon dioxide from the
> atmosphere.
>
> Schemes which offer economic incentives for growing trees for carbon also
> present an opportunity to restore ecosystem services - such as pest control,
> pollination, soil and water conservation - providing important benefits to
> farmers, said CSIRO's Dr Brenda Lin.
>
> "Land-use models show that policies aimed solely at maximising carbon storage
> may not produce additional agricultural and environmental benefits and may
> even produce unwanted outcomes for farmers and landowners,” Dr Lin said.
>
> Tree removal can disrupt refuges for native insects that control pests and
> provide pollination. Restoring trees can also provide carbon sequestration,
> organic matter accumulation and water and soil conservation which are
> important for sustainable farming and the environment.
>
> "The ability of carbon tree plantings to restore some of these other benefits
> that support agricultural production may be a key factor in encouraging
> farmers and landholders to take up this type of carbon farming," Dr Lin said.
>
> Dr Lin said studies of past revegetation in agricultural landscapes show
> intensive single-species (or monoculture) plantations can affect water flows
> in some locations, as well as increasing invasive pests. Monocultures also
> lead to biodiversity loss, can be fire prone and have poor growth rates.
>
> "Poorly located vegetation could reduce the availability of land for food
> production," Dr Lin said.
>
> Alternatively, there are many opportunities for tree plantings, if planned
> and implemented properly, to provide additional benefits to the farmer beyond
> just carbon.
>
> "By revegetating unused, marginal or degraded cropping land, using multiple
> species of trees and shrubs, we could see improvements to pest control,
> pollination and water quality, increased wind protection and reduced soil
> erosion and salinity," she said.
>
> "For example, we know that remnant native vegetation patches that currently
> persist in agricultural landscapes, if they are well managed and contain few
> weed species, support a range of insect and spider predators and parasitic
> wasps that can attack pests of grain crops."
>
> The benefits for local communities and the public could include increased
> water quality, reduced pesticide use, more habitat for species such as birds,
> and other cultural benefits.
>
> The research, published in the American BioScience journal, highlights the
> need to better understand these private, public and shared benefits and
> tradeoffs so that future policies and initiatives encourage 'best practice'
> tree plantings that maximize the positives while also storing carbon.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
