Land Use Policy 85 (2019) 230–238

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Missed opportunity? Framing actions around co-benefits for carbon mitigation in Australian T ⁎ Aysha Fleminga, , Cara Stitzleinb, Emma Jakkua, Simon Fielkea a CSIRO Land and Water, Adaptive Urban and Social Systems, b CSIRO Data 61, Hobart, Tasmania, 7005, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Agriculture around the world is one of the industries most affected by, and faced with responsibility to mitigate, Carbon sequestration climate change. Through improvements in technology and efficiency as well as changes to land use management, Carbon farming agriculture can make an important contribution to meeting global commitments such as the Paris agreement or fi Co-bene ts the Sustainable Development Goals. Yet international carbon markets have not resulted in sufficiently high values financial returns to motivate the full potential of land sector changes in Australia and globally. Through analysis Farmer motivations of 110 interviews with 55 , 43 advisors and 12 stakeholders in the land sector we identify that the framing of ‘carbon-farming’ in agriculture as a financial opportunity creates a barrier to how farmers perceive participation in carbon markets. As a result of this finding, this paper argues that framing the opportunities with increased attention to co-benefits and broader economic incentives in addition to potential financial opportu- nities could re-invigorate how carbon farming is perceived and adopted.

1. Introduction have chosen to encourage carbon sequestration primarily through fi- nancial motivations. The Australian Carbon Farming Initiative Agriculture is the third highest greenhouse gas emitter in Australia (2011–2015) which became the Emissions Reduction Fund (2015-cur- and is responsible for approximately a quarter of greenhouse gas rent) has seen some financial rewards returned to larger scale projects emissions globally (Smith, 2018; Bustamante et al., 2014). At the same established predominantly in avoided deforestation, reforestation and time, agriculture has more potential for greenhouse gas mitigation than savanna burning methodologies. Smaller scale projects are less likely to other sectors, primarily through landscape management (Smith, 2018), see worthwhile financial return from participating in emissions reduc- and improving on- practices, such as through innovations in tion, possibly due to the significant administrative (auditing) costs and technology and production strategies (Maraseni et al., 2018; Herrero project restrictions. et al., 2016). Australia is a signatory to the Sustainable Development Expectations that market demand would be sufficient to drive an Goals (SDGs) and to the Paris Agreement, which both require sig- increasing price for carbon and catalyse further participation by the nificant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. The SDGs also require land sector in carbon programmes have so far not been realised, with more general and wide-ranging improvements and broader interpreta- the price currently fluctuating around $13 per Australian Carbon Credit tions of sustainability (Stafford-Smith et al., 2017) which will mean the Unit (http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Auctions-results/ agriculture sector cannot avoid making significant changes. june-2018). The high transaction costs of administration to participate Financial arguments are often seen as compelling ways to motivate in carbon farming programmes may be a significant barrier for mid- change and perceptions persist that ‘it is hard to be green when you are range and smaller land owners (Sanderson and Reeson, 2019). Simi- in the red’, or that financial stability comes first, rather than in tandem larly, revegetation schemes in Australia have to date had little impact, with, or driven by, environmental or social considerations (i.e. broader partly because the financial incentives are too low (Maraseni and economic incentives). Natural disasters and drought are examples Cockfield, 2015). Government extension and outreach programs de- where environmental and social considerations become the priority signed to raise awareness about the potential and importance of carbon issue, but these events are often regarded as temporary and so do not farming have largely resulted in farmers deciding it is not financially create permanent shifts in behaviour. In line with the financial ap- viable (McKenzie 2018). Due to generally weak (and lack of bipartisan) proach, government led schemes in Australia and around the world political support (Maraseni and Reardon-Smith, 2019), and the low

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: aysha.fl[email protected] (A. Fleming). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.050 Received 23 January 2019; Received in revised form 13 March 2019; Accepted 29 March 2019 0264-8377/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/). A. Fleming, et al. Land Use Policy 85 (2019) 230–238 price of carbon there has been a visible loss in momentum of carbon carbon and farming (Ojha et al., 2019; Fleming and Vanclay, 2010). To farming as a priority issue for industries, evidenced by the lack of better align with the framing used by farmers’ in their decision making, carbon farming on industry conference agendas. With many of the the carbon farming narrative needs to shift to a wider interpretation of projects with lower transaction costs already registered, the subsequent responsible farming and the range of co-benefits available. Further- reductions in carbon emissions required to achieve Australia’s part of more, this may be a useful way for policy to recognise and value international agreements need a significant increase in the number of farmers for the multiple services they offer (or could offer) through farmers participating in carbon sequestration (Lamb et al., 2016). It their management of the land. appears that conventional financial arguments are inadequate to mo- Social learning is a particularly successful way to encourage uptake tivate sufficient interest or participation. In this paper we understand of change, by seeing what others are doing and what is working well financial arguments to include the dollar figure that may directly result (Gray et al., 2009). If farmer talk is that those farmers ‘at the top’ aren’t from an activity whereas economic return includes more indirect fi- seeing the reward for carbon sequestration (financially), or that it re- nancial returns, such as productivity benefits, or environmental bene- quires a large scale operation, then others may be less motivated to fits. participate. In addition, the gap in methodologies tailored to smaller This paper aims to examine how action for climate mitigation on scale farmers has created some groups, perceived as ‘fringe’ or ‘green’ might be facilitated outside of financial arguments and promote farmers which potentially further reduces the salience and credibility of ‘more resilient, economically viable and sustainable land use practices the message of carbon farming for the more mainstream. Against the on a landscape level’ (Maraseni and Mitchell 2016 p.139). There is background of competing legitimacy claims it may be difficult to en- evidence of farms responding to the broader economic returns and re- gage farmers in the narrative of co-benefits first, financial return later. duced carbon footprints outside of the national programme (Torabi Nevertheless, to not engage farmers in discussion of co-benefits accrues et al., 2016). Globally, changes to routine fertiliser application (Zhu an opportunity cost for individual farmers, as well as the agricultural et al., 2018), converting traditional cropping regimes (Cai et al., 2018), sector combined and even the nation as a whole, which will only in- manure processing (Purdy et al., 2018), and including traditional crop crease further the longer action is delayed (Garnaut, 2011). Carbon varieties (Carranza-Gallego et al., 2018) are some of the changes being credits are generated over time - and over the course of many growing made in the absence of official project participation. In Australia, there seasons - so efforts need to be planned and implemented in advance and have also been some positive responses to biodiverse carbon plantings require a long(er) term commitment than most other on-farm produc- driven by the value of co-benefits. These trends suggest that producers tion methods. The long term commitment also reduces farmer flexibility are capable of, and interested in, implementing the same sort of prac- and freedom but can motivate beneficial longer term whole of farm tices as methods advertised by the national programme and there is planning including succession planning. some motivation by broader economic incentives. This paper argues that co-benefits promote desirable on-farm be- The co-benefits – defined as the positive benefits related to the re- haviours, and should be formally integrated into opportunities for duction of greenhouse gases (IPCC, 2007) – of improving and main- carbon market participation. More consideration of co-benefits is useful taining carbon in farms are well documented in the agricultural lit- for both sides of the market: supply (providing more motivation to erature, both in agronomic terms (Stokes and Howden, 2010) and from produce carbon and participate in the market) and demand (requires system-wide and policy perspectives (Bustamante et al., 2014; Griggs higher quality or more highly valued credits). If carbon trading pro- et al., 2013). Examples include improved soil health and productivity, grammes included the broader economic narrative of co-benefits within improved water holding capacity and management of erosion and carbon sequestration projects, it could revitalise the conversation salinity as well as positive biodiversity (beneficial flora and fauna). around farm productivity and sustainability. Achieving greater re- Understanding the complete range of co-benefits is a new area of cognition of this ‘transformation’ in agriculture towards achieving and scholarship, of particular interest to emerging and often transdisci- being valued for a greater range of benefits – social, environmental and plinary fields of research, such as agroecology (e.g. Gliessman, 2015). economic – is a key issue for agriculture and communities around the However, the lack of a significant co-benefit narrative around carbon world to address in order to achieve more general sustainability, ‘social farming is surprising, given the extent of possible co-benefits and the license’ and ongoing support. We identify the key policy and industry ‘no regrets’ scenarios on offer, which we examine below. Co-benefits initiatives required to facilitate this reframing. further offer the potential to match the diversity in all farmers and farm systems by being more applicable to different contexts and individual 2. Methods goals and values. The carbon farming story has been overwhelmingly framed in fi- This is a synthesis perspective paper based on conceptually related nancial terms in recent decades, with the monetary gain as the primary research projects in 2017 and 2018, in which perceptions of sustain- narrative. This narrative has limited power to persuade in the land ability and land management behaviours were investigated through sector, where farmers’ decision making is framed by different values interviews with 110 participants, including 55 farmers: 43 farm ad- and objectives and is very diverse (Vanclay, 2004; Pannell et al., 2006). visors (some participants identified as both, in which case we used their Frames are often unconscious but influential “interpretive overlays” primary source of income), and 12 other types of agricultural stake- that work to “guide communal interpretation and definition of parti- holders (others directly working in the sector, such as carbon ag- cular issues’’ (Miller, 2000, pp. 211–212). Framing often involves au- gregators, or industry representatives or policy advisors) From this tomatic decisions about what aspects of an issue are considered im- dataset, overarching findings are drawn out about the role and im- portant, who is involved, and what options for action are feasible or portance of co-benefits as part of farming. The results of content ana- desirable. While framing can be understood as an individual-level lysis provide high level findings that 1) extend our understanding of co- mental process (Lakoff, 2010), its communal and social aspects are benefits as part of how farmers currently frame their business, 2) drawn upon in this paper (Cook et al., 2013; Miller, 2000). When identify ways to incorporate these values into the programmes where framing is taken into account it is much more apparent how decisions their participation is sorely needed; and 3) triangulate results across need to fit with farmers’ objectives and farming styles, as well as their sectors. access to resources and financial returns may represent only one com- Table 1 provides an overview of the case studies and information ponent of what farmers value and base decisions on (Vanclay, 2004; about the cohort interviewed. Interview questions were related to un- Pannell et al., 2006). Previous studies show how attention to framing derstanding processes of decision making, information sources and can result in tailored pathways for change (Vanclay and Enticott, 2011; networks, actions taken on farm and perceptions of carbon farming and Fleming et al., 2014; Fleming et al. 2018), including in relation to the carbon market (although questions were worded differently in each

231 A. Fleming, et al. Land Use Policy 85 (2019) 230–238

Table 1 Case study details.

Case study 1 Summary Participants High level research interests

‘Trees on farms’ (Led by first This case study looks at how the number of trees on Phase 1: 2017 — face to face and over the phone Perception and belief: Benefits author) farms might be increased in agriculture. It aims to interviews with 31 farmers and 13 farm advisors and barriers to tree planting document the range of benefits of trees and establish in Tasmania predominantly in cropping and Decision making methods to better estimate, plan for and recognise the . Values: World views and value of trees on farms. objectives Phase 2: 2018 — face-to-face and phone Networks: Formal and informal interviews with 22 farmers and 4 farm advisors in information and knowledge Victoria, predominantly in dairy. pathways Case study 2 ‘Carbon farming’ This case study looks at the current state of carbon Phase 1: 2018 — phone interviews with 2 farmers, Perception & belief: Benefits (Phase 1 led by second farming and perceptions of if and how digital tools 6 farm advisors and 12 stakeholders in the carbon and barriers to carbon farming author. Phase 2 led by first may, or may not, be useful to support increased sector. Decision making author) participation in carbon farming. Values: World views and objectives Phase 2: 2018 — phone interviews with 20 farm Technology: Adoption and use advisors around Australia, with interest or of digital tools and potential experience in carbon advice. role of technology. Networks: Formal and informal information and knowledge pathways study). The extensive effort involved in conducting such large scale 3. Analysis qualitative research projects with similar themes justified synthesising the results in order to maximise research output and impact, namely The interviews were audio recorded, reviewed and analysed reporting on the overarching findings (Binder et al., 2015). through content analysis. High level themes were identified and used to During the data collection and analysis phases, critical review and provide insight into the cohort and inform recommendations for each comparisons of findings were enhanced through ongoing discussions project. This paper provides a synthesis across the entire dataset in a (first and second authors). Thus, the motivation for combining data way that allows additional insights around co-benefits to emerge and as from the related projects is to: a means to extend our understanding of how a co-benefit frame can be operationalised and developed as an external motivator of behavioural • Allow for a more robust analysis of co-benefits relevant to carbon change. Specific detail about the individual case studies, including the farming (triangulation) themes derived in each separate analysis are not reported here but will • Include more perspectives related to agricultural decision making be documented in separate publications (e.g. Fleming et al., 2019). In and land care values, so that these speak to a broader base describing and discussing our results we use the term ‘carbon pro- • Avoid duplication (different interviewees were targeted in each case gramme’ to include activities that relate to carbon trading markets, study). greenhouse gas mitigation and/or carbon reduction programmes, re- cognising that these may also be combined. Combining data from the related projects also allows for an op- portunity to reflect on the overarching barriers to carbon programme participation at multiple scales: policy / industry / individual, and 4. Results where the similarities and synergies occur across sectors. fi Drawing on the pragmatic benefits of agricultural innovation 4.1. Participants did not currently perceive any nancial incentive to (Berthet et al., 2018; Pant and Odame, 2017) and systemic research participate in the national carbon programmes methodologies (Thompson et al., 2017), the synthesis of qualitative research project findings allow for a more robust analysis of co-benefits Across all of the interviews conducted, it was apparent that al- relevant to carbon farming. For example, as utilised in previous work, though there may have been interest to participate in trading carbon in fi the increased diversity of stakeholder opinions that could be captured the past, when the Carbon Farming Initiative was rst introduced, the fi within the agricultural sector leads to more systemically relevant actual nancial incentive was not seen to be worth pursuing and was fi findings (Nettle et al., 2013). Farmer respondents came from diverse perceived as risky. The perceived nancial and operational costs (time ff agricultural sub-sectors including cropping, livestock, mixed en- and e ort) to participate outweighed any (uncertain, potentially low) terprises and dairy, with some farm foresters, to maximise the in- gain delivered by the market price. Individual farmers are required to clusivity of subsequent recommendations (Cheyns and Riisgaard, 2014; input resources (time, money, energy) to learn about and initiate fi Fielke and Bardsley, 2015). Similarly, farm advisors were included, carbon farming projects, the nancial returns of which are (as currently predominantly extensionists, agronomists and consultants, with some perceived) not worth the cost. Therefore, implementing projects for carbon project developers and aggregators, to further increase the carbon sequestration in order to trade credits was not considered as a systemic validity of the findings (Timotijevic et al., 2011). Contacts worthwhile or viable business opportunity. “ were sourced from a combination of referrals from industry experts and I don't think that there are any methodologies that make economic ” industry networks, attendance at industry events and conferences, and sense for people in our farming system to look to adopt (Int 1, Case internet searches. Interviews were generally 40–60 min in duration and study 2). “ – were conducted either face to face or using telephone or videoconfer- The barrier is this the scale and complexity required, and the ” encing, depending on the location of the researcher and participant. long-term nature of the contracts and the low carbon price (Int 2, Case Ethics approval was received for both case studies. study 2). “I think the [farmers] have a lot of potential to grow carbon, but I think the rules and regulations around it, I haven't seen too many of the promises of maybe 10 to five years ago come through” (Int 23, Case study 1).

232 .Feig tal. et Fleming, A.

Table 2 List of activities currently described in interviews across both case studies with thematic categorisation (environmental, social, institutional, economic, technology) of the motivations, possible barriers for implementing these changes and a relevant literature example.

Type of on-farm activity Thematic category Motivation driving change (from Additional benefits not driving change (noted in Possible barriers to Literature (examples) interviews) interviews and/or literature) implementation

Environmental Environmental improvement (e.g. Landscape level sustainability Schirmer and Bull soil, water, biodiversity) Carbon sequestration (2014) Social Animal welfare Community wellbeing Adoption far below potential Baker et al. (2018) (individually driven) Aesthetics and well-being Potential income Capability/skill development Tree planting and regrowth (shelterbelts and Social acceptability/social license windbreaks/riperian planting/amenity planting) Legacy Institutional Policy does not recognise/ Torabi et al. (2016) incentivise change Economic Product use (wood) Time and money to plant Fleming et al. (2019) Investment Land availabilityXXXXXXXXXXXX Technology Environmental Reduce emissions Waheed et al. (2018) Social Energy independence Objective/world view Vanclay (2004) Social acceptability/social license Premium branding Institutional Renewable and alternate energy sources (solar and Economic Lower long term energy costs Financial outlay Evans et al., (2009) wind power/biofuel) Technology 233 Environmental Carbon sequestration Herrero et al. (2016) Social Objectives/ world view Vanclay (2004) Institutional Capability/skill development Economic Reduce costs Access to technology Stokes and Howden Improve productivity (2010) Increase revenue ffi Improve production e ciency (reduce inputs e.g. Technology fertiliser, fuel/change feed regimes/utilise waste) Environmental Carbon sequestration Agrawal (1995) Social Preserving cultural practices Benefit sharing Access to knowledge Berkes et al. (2000) Social/community vitality Objectives/world views McMurray et al. Social acceptability/social license Capability/skill development (2019) Employment Training Premium branding Institutional Participatory mechanisms Institutional support Agrawal (1995) Use traditional or historic knowledge (savannah Economic burning, carbon ‘custodians’) Technology (continued on next page) Land UsePolicy85(2019)230–238 A. Fleming, et al. Land Use Policy 85 (2019) 230–238

“The financial rewards for individuals to actually participate in carbon farming as a money making venture are really marginal” (Int 3, Case study 2). “Given the politics of carbon farming in Australia and given the current price of carbon, given the uncertainty about the marketplace, it comes as no surprise to me whatsoever that farmers are just viewing Stokes and Howden (2010) Torabi et al. (2016) Jakku and Thorburn (2010) Carolan,(2016) Wolfert et al. (2017) Literature (examples) this sceptical[ly]” (Int 6, Case study 2).

4.2. Co-benefits already motivate proactive on-farm changes but are not resulting in subsequent participation in national carbon programmes, yet

Examples of activities which create co-benefits alongside carbon mitigation that were actively being pursued by interviewees (no regrets scenarios motivated by a diverse range of farmer objectives) are shown in Table 2. These activities are occurring in a wide range of contexts, for a wide range of reasons, but are not primarily motivated by carbon Access to technology Objectives/world views Capability/skill development Possible barriers to implementation sequestration. The most prominent of these are activities which im- prove on-farm productivity, efficiency and social license through re- newable energy, tree planting, fertiliser reduction or other means. In- terviews revealed that carbon is rarely part of the conversation between farm advisors and their clients, and other objectives are the central discussion, despite often achieving the same ends. This means that discussion of co-benefits being actively pursued could also raise awareness of the benefits of carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. “A lot of the practice issues relate back to carbon farming, but they're not talked about in that context. They're more talked about in ts not driving change (noted in

fi the context of, like I said, climate forecasting and making better deci- sions on what forecasts and impacts of climate, change in climate and managing soil carbon of course” (Int 6, Case study 2). “The thing that I find with planting out shelter belts is you win on safety, you win on productivity, and you win on sort of farm appeal, so Reduce costs Cost outlay Carbon sequestration Additional bene interviews and/or literature) this, even though you're taking up some of the land you're actually increasing your productivity so there’s kind of no downside (Int 9, Case study 1). “I guess, if we look at the broader climate change, there are other things that affect us more directly and immediately. Things like dealing with extreme weather events and they’re the kinds of things that our industry is most worried about” (Int 15, Case study 2). The interviews identified that although the co-benefits are desir- able, there are nonetheless a range of barriers to farmers taking up activities to achieve co-benefits. These barriers span across social, in- Better decision support Innovation interviews) stitutional and economic factors (Table 2). “Too much other stuff on my hands to be planting trees un- fortunately” (Int 7, Case study 1). “I don't get involved in outside funding [programs]. Somewhere down the line they say, oh we paid so then they can determine what actually happens on our farm” (Int 4, Case study 1). Thematic category Motivation driving change (from Social Institutional Economic Technology Environmental 4.3. Technology could be utilised more effectively to promote carbon programme participation, or at least activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and/or sequester carbon

Technology (including innovations in digital services and decision support) was seen as an enabler for improving the application of carbon sequestration methods to farms of all sizes and types of production. Technology could open the door to new players entering the market, allowing greater participation from a wider number of participants and allow for more flexibility, especially from those currently restricted from participating due to scale limitations. In particular, soil carbon ) and ways to combine farmers in collaborative projects were seen as promising opportunities for technology to connect and inform. Virtual

continued fencing, satellite data, blockchain and soil sensors were all given as ( examples of how technology could improve how farmers might be able Use technology (satellite imagery,automation, big assessment data, and GPS, decisioncarbon) support e.g. to gain new entry points into carbon programmes, and reduce the cost Type of on-farm activity

Table 2 of participation. Technology was also seen as an aid to decision making

234 A. Fleming, et al. Land Use Policy 85 (2019) 230–238 and as a tool to raise awareness about possibilities of reducing carbon welfare accusations in the farming community, you would say that you footprints. are creating a better environment for your animals and it’s really a “We need to have remote sensors. We need the internet of things to positive thing that you are looking after your animals” (Int 7, Case connect all the sensors. We need machine language processing to maybe study 2). even interpret emails for farmers into plain language” (Int 11, Case “If we get the feed efficiency right- say a steer is on the earth for half study 2). as long but reaches the same potential, our GHG emissions are cut in “We are on the cusp of enormous technological changes in terms of half” (Int 6, Case study 2). animal management” (Int 14, Case study 2). “The only way the industry will move forward is through colla- 5. Discussion and recommendations boration: if we don't share information than we don't learn” (Int 7, Case study 2). The case studies demonstrate that broader economic incentives (e.g. co-benefits) are motivating changes in some farmers’ land management 4.4. Carbon programmes were viewed more favourably when they included behaviours. These incentives send a powerful signal: that if in- additional project methods and offered additional ways of generating corporated into carbon programmes could lead to increased participa- revenue associated with current production– farmers want to participate in tion. Re-framing the opportunity of receiving broader economic bene- markets if the return is there and they are eligible fits through carbon programme participation could support the framing used by land managers to decide how to integrate the project and as- The interviewees reported the potential for ‘carbon neutral’ or sociated risks into their existing enterprise. ‘carbon friendly’ labelling to provide a marketing edge. They were in- Achieving co-benefits as a direct consequence of carbon farming terested in how participation in carbon programmes might be useful to activities could help farmers recognise that carbon programme parti- market their product or otherwise provide a source of public recogni- cipation can align with (rather than take away from) their personal tion or accreditation. Furthermore there was interest in branding op- values and the objectives of their farm. There is widespread academic portunities that related to carbon sequestration more broadly, for ex- recognition of the multiple dimensions of agricultural land use, and the ample carbon credits that receive a higher price because they also importance of valuing such diversity in different ways and different contribute to positive social or environmental outcomes that customer’s contexts highlight different values (Argent et al., 2007; Bjorkhaug and value. Table 2 presents an account of which co-benefits can drive dif- Richards, 2008 ; Cocklin et al., 2006; Klerkx and Proctor, 2013; Pant, ferent types of changes summarised from the interviews and linked to 2014; Westley et al., 2013). For example, multifunctional agricultural relevant literature. development provides a conceptual framework that allows for ap- “There’s certainly a lot of keenness in farmers; there’s certainly an proaches to evaluate and include monetary and non-monetary values in audience there and people are keen to participate” (Int 8, Case study 2). decision making (Fielke and Wilson, 2017; Wilson, 2007). As such, the “One of the owners of that's gone carbon neutral totally and he's co-benefits of more considerate agricultural decision-making have quite keen to try and encourage other farmers to look at carbon neu- broadened farmers’ and agricultural stakeholders’ worldviews to more trality, focusing more on the soil side of things, the trees are important intangible socio-environmental benefits (Fielke et al., 2018). In New aspects of them, and certainly in marketing our brand […] we would Zealand, work revegetating riparian margins resulted in farmers per- try to promote - it's like a green brand and trees are a very important ceiving a variety of social, environment and practical farm management part of the story and our land care ethic” (Int 6, Case study 1). benefits, along with the obvious resourcing costs involved with such “I do think it's starting to softly emerge, and starting to see a little activities, however, farmers who did not participate were only able to bit of differentiation in market price if the project has particularly imagine the costs involved with such an exercise and none of the co- Indigenous community benefits, not to some extent biodiversity bene- benefits (Maseyk et al., 2017). These findings suggest that perhaps it is fits as well, but projects with Indigenous flow on benefit through get- only through this broader recognition and wider framing regarding ting valued a bit different already than a standard project” (Int 20, Case multiple routes to, and values based views of, carbon farming activities study 2). that resulting co-benefits will emerge in the outlook of the farmers in- “If a farmer could be 'carbon neutral' approved - he could brand his volved, creating the momentum to increase positive socio-environ- product like that” (Int 5, Case study 2). mental outcomes. Recognition of co-benefits in carbon programmes could have im- 4.5. Co-benefits were described in different ways and therein lies part of the mediate and long term positive consequences. These include: opportunity • Socially - improved farmer livelihoods; innovative community in- Terminology around carbon farming and co-benefits was diverse. itiatives and networks; new markets for products which tap into Carbon footprint, carbon efficiency, carbon intensity, promoting vi- particular consumer values brant communities, social benefits, environmental stewards were all • Financially - more monetary return to farmers and communities and terms used, but in essence are about the wider value of farming, and more opportunities for climate traders and aggregators; and being recognised for these contributions in multiple ways (not only fi- • Environmentally - improved landscape conditions; improved biodi- nancial). Directly recognising and valuing co-benefits was acknowl- versity and restoration; reduced emissions. edged by interviewees as a potential opportunity to innovate the con- cept of carbon farming. When considering co-benefits, carbon farming Carbon trading could be revitalised immediately by the recognition is not just about carbon sequestration, but also about other issues as that co-benefits have economic value to both the farming enterprise and well (social, environmental, economic). the general public: this could drive a premium price for carbon credits “Shelterbelts are part of animal welfare. I hadn’t thought of that, but that demonstrate environmental and social benefits. that’s probably something in the future that they will be ticking on and In the longer term, a number of recommendations need to be ac- off the boxes for audits and stuff […] (Int 17, Case study 1). tioned by areas of policy, industry and research to further improve “It’s not only by encouraging farmers to do that sort of thing carbon programme participation, with overarching lessons relevant to [planting], not only are you addressing the carbon emission issue, all countries. Current policy mechanisms need to evolve from rigid one you’re also addressing the bio-diversity issue. You’re providing habitats size fits all scenarios (as currently presented by the ERF in Australia) to for bees, et cetera, for honey production. You’re providing shade and more flexible and layered approaches. Approaches must also be in- shelter for animals, and in this day and age of pretty serious animal tegrated to avoid conflicts, such as between policies for adaptation and

235 A. Fleming, et al. Land Use Policy 85 (2019) 230–238 for mitigation (Mushtaq et al., 2013), which a co-benefits perspective combine, ‘stack’ or ‘bundle’ benefits. Research is required to produce can help to achieve. This work points to the need to more explicitly methods to better evaluate, compare and combine co-benefits, not in include a wide range of co-benefits in mechanisms that encourage and terms of reducing everything to a dollar value, but in terms of ac- support farmers to participate in national carbon programmes. New counting for diversity and complexity in policy and decision making. initiatives and levers also need to be employed by policymakers to re- Whether or not particular combinations of co-benefits result in in- ward farmers that pursue carbon sequestration through the co-benefit creased carbon sequestration or other particularly beneficial outcomes, route. Certification schemes are an example where broader considera- or alternatively negative trade-offs – needs to be examined. As an ex- tion of sustainability (including socially and ecologically through co- ample, the IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on benefits) could have immediate impact (Dargusch et al., 2010). New Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) is attempting to make decisions policy levers could counter the administrative burden imposed by using this broader definition of ‘value’. Another example is looking to governance scales which limit the progress of climate policy (Jakob and traditional indigenous methods to inform (and create new) certification Steckel, 2016). Current barriers to participation could be addressed pathways (McMurray et al., 2019). Understanding how to fully max- through a combination of changes at the institutional level, primarily imise the value co-benefits is needed as the scale of desired change is through policy to increase and incentivise co-benefits. Institutions could large (and growing) and so ways to optimise carbon abatement will be also support capability development of staff within industry to provide required. support and advice on achieving co-benefits, especially in ways that are tailored to individual contexts and take into account individual objec- 6. Conclusion tives. Furthermore, government initiatives can help farmers by im- proving information about their options, helping farmers to measure Framing matters in how decisions are made on farm. The carbon and verify their carbon and setting up transparent ways for carbon farming story has been overwhelmingly framed in financial terms both buyers to engage with carbon sellers, as was demonstrated in New in Australia and around the world. Shifting this framing to include Zealand (Maraseni et al., 2018). wider interpretations of responsible farming and the co-benefits avail- Mechanisms for sharing the costs of programme participation are able in addition to financial returns may be a useful way to encourage essential as current programmes do not offer an equitable way of bal- and value farmers for the multiple services they offer (or could offer) ancing implementation costs, market risks, and financial returns. For through their management of the land. It also means that farmers would example, the resources required to obtain financial benefits can differ be better positioned to be rewarded financially when/if the price of significantly if comparing payments for choosing not to clear land for carbon became favourable, and through new market opportunities the duration of an agreement (even if it was never going to be cleared) based on different product offerings related to carbon credits, such as compared to actively investing in altered capital infrastructure and those that explicitly target co-benefits to the environment or to society. changes in practice (such as planting and accounting for trees on farms, Around the world, citizens (farmers included) are currently missing out or bio-energy altering livestock enterprises). The barriers reported in on the benefits that could arise from a carbon market. Putting co-ben- this paper support arguments that carbon farming is not as simple as efits at the heart of driving change to policy and research focussed on individual farm-based transactions when the multiple levels of stake- maximising and accounting for co-benefits could transform how carbon holders in carbon sequestration are considered (Kongsager, 2017). is considered and how behaviours occur on farm and in the market One area not explored in the paper which may be relevant to on- place in relation to carbon. Australia has a particular opportunity, with going discussion of carbon farming opportunities are co-costs or unin- such a large area of land, to lead the world in making the change to- tended costs arising from co-benefits, such as the need for specific skills wards recognition and application of agriculture to harness multiple co- (and thus training) or specific management techniques (thus a time and benefits and global impact. labour cost). Another gap in the interview reports was very little mention of land and sea connections despite some potential break- Acknowledgements throughs coming from and/or algae in feed mitigating emissions (CSIRO, 2018; Herrero et al., 2016), and develop- Many thanks to all of the participants interviewed. Thanks to ments in Reef Credits as potential offset opportunities (Green Collar, broader project teams. Projects reported on here were either funded by 2017). The connection between land and sea is often overlooked (by CSIRO’s Agriculture and Food or the Commonwealth Government’s both agriculture and marine industries) but collaboration across this Rural Research and Development for Profit grant entitled ‘Lifting farm divide could be of potential significance in the future (Cottrell et al., gate profit through high value modular ’. Ethics approval 2017). Another limitation is a full understanding of co-benefits across numbers CSIRO Human Research Ethics Case study 1: 103/16; Case scales and who pays or who benefits (Lee, 2017). study 2: 152-17 (phase 1) and 106/17 (phase 2). The social acceptability of production on farms may become in- creasingly important in economic terms. As methods for capturing Appendix A. Supplementary data ‘whole of life’ costs and services are increasingly demanded by con- sumers, for example natural capital accounting – calculating the total Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the stocks and flows of natural resources and services (Monfreda et al., online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03. 2004), or true cost accounting – capturing the full cost and benefitof 050. food production to more accurately inform price (Bebbington, 2007), or life-cycle assessment – accounting for the environmental impact of all References stages of production (Roy et al., 2009). Forecasting that carbon neu- trality is likely to become a ‘gate-keeper’ for access to certain markets, Agrawal, A., 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. for example selling meat to China and charging a premium price, some Dev. Change 26 (3), 413–439. Argent, N., Smailes, P., Griffin, T., 2007. The amenity complex: towards a framework for industries, such as Meat and Livestock Australia have already com- analysing and predicting the emergence of a multifunctional countryside in Australia. mitted to carbon neutrality by 2030 (Meat and Livestock Australia Geogr. Res. 45 (3), 217–232. (MLA, 2017). Another example is Qantas’‘Future planet’ (https://www. Baker, T.P., Moroni, M.T., Mendham, D.S., Smith, R., Hunt, M.A., 2018. Impacts of windbreak shelter on crop and livestock production. Crop Pasture Sci. 69, 785–796. qantasfutureplanet.com.au), which could set a benchmark for others to Bebbington, J., 2007. Accounting for Sustainable Development Performance. CIMA, follow in terms of emissions offset targets. Oxford. Finally, research into carbon farming co-benefits is lacking, espe- Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as – cially in terms of evaluation (methods for valuing) and ways to adaptive management. Ecol. Appl. 10 (5), 1251 1262.

236 A. Fleming, et al. Land Use Policy 85 (2019) 230–238

Berthet, E.T., Hickey, G.M., Klerkx, L., 2018. Opening design and innovation processes in Kongsager, R., 2017. Barriers to the adoption of alley cropping as a climate-smart agri- agriculture: insights from design and management sciences and future directions. culture practice: lessons from maize cultivation among the Maya in southern Belize. Agric. Syst. 165, 111–115. Forests 8 (7). Binder, C.R., Absenger-Helmli, I., Schilling, T., 2015. The reality of transdisciplinarity: a Lakoff, G., 2010. Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environ. Commun.: J. framework-based self-reflection from science and practice leaders. Sustain. Sci. 10 Nat. Cult. 4, 70–81. (4), 545–562. Lamb, A., Green, R., Bateman, I., Broadmeadow, M., Bruce, T., Burney, J., Carey, P., Bjorkhaug, H., Richards, C., 2008. Multifunctional agriculture in policy and practice? A Chadwick, D., Crane, E., Field, R., Goulding, K., Griffiths, H., Hastings, A., Kasoar, T., comparitive analysis of Norway and Australia. J. Rural Stud. 24 (1), 98–111. Kindred, D., Phalan, B., Pickett, J., Smith, P., Wall, E., zu Ermgassen, E., Balmform, Bustamante, M., Robledo-Abad, C., Harper, R., Mbow, C., Ravindranat, N.H., Sperling, F., A., 2016. Land sparing could help eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions from Haberl, H., Pinto Ade, S., Smith, P., 2014. Co-benefits, trade-offs, barriers and policies farming and land-use change. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 488–492. https://doi.org/10. for greenhouse gas mitigation in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) 1038/nclimate2910. sector. Glob. Change Biol. 20 (10), 3270–3290. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12591. Lee, J., 2017. Farmer participation in a climate-smart future: evidence from the Kenya Cai, S., Pittelkow, C.M., Zhao, X., Wang, S., 2018. Winter legume-rice rotations can re- agricultural carbon market project. Land Use Policy 68, 72–79. duce nitrogen pollution and carbon footprint while maintaining net ecosystem eco- Maraseni, T.N., Cockfield, G., 2015. The financial implications of converting farmland to nomic benefits. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 289–300. state-supported environmental plantings in the Darling Downs region, Queensland. Carranza-Gallego, G., Guzmán, G.I., García-Ruíz, R., González de Molina, M., Aguilera, E., Agric. Syst. 135, 57–65. 2018. Contribution of old wheat varieties to climate change mitigation under con- Maraseni, T.N., Mitchell, K., 2016. An assessment of carbon sequestration potential of trasting managements and rainfed Mediterranean conditions. J. Clean. Prod. 195, riparian zone of Condamine Catchment, Queensland, Australia. Land Use Policy 54, 111–121. 139–146. Carolan, M., 2016. Agro-digital governance and life itself: food politicsat the intersection Maraseni, T.N., Reardon-Smith, K., 2019. Meeting national emissions reduction obliga- of code and affect. Sociol Rural 57, 816–835. tions: a case study of Australia. Energies 12 (438). https://doi.org/10.3390/ Cheyns, E., Riisgaard, L., 2014. Introduction to the symposium: the exercise of power en12030438. PP1-13. through multi-stakeholder initiatives for and its inclusion and Maraseni, T.N., Deo, R.C., Qu, J., Gentle, P., Neupane, P.R., 2018. An international exclusion outcomes. Agric. Human Values 31 (3), 409–423. comparison of rice consumption behaviours and greenhouse gas emissions from rice Cocklin, C., Dibden, J., Mautner, N., 2006. From market to multifunctionality? Land production. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 2288–2300. stewardship in Australia. Geogr. J. 172 (3), 197–205. Maseyk, F.J., Dominati, E.J., White, T., Mackay, A.D., 2017. Farmer perspectives of the Cook, B., Kesby, M., Fazey, I., Spray, C., 2013. The persistence of ‘normal’ catchment on-farm and off-farm pros and cons of planted multifunctional riparian margins. Land management despite the participatory turn: exploring the power effects of competing Use Policy 61, 160–170. frames of reference. Soc. Stud. Sci. 43 (5), 754–779. McMurray, L., Foley, R., O’Sullivan, C., 2019. ‘An indigenouus ‘right way’ environmental, Cottrell, R., Fleming, A., Fulton, B., Nash, K., Watson, R., Blanchard, J., 2017. Considering social and cultural core-benefits verification standard’. In: Filho, W.L. (Ed.), Social land-sea interactions and trade-offs for food and biodiversity. Glob. Change Biol. Responsibility and Sustainability: How Businesses and Organisations can Operate in a https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13873. Sustainable and Socially Responsible Way. Springer International Publishing, pp. CSIRO, 2018. FutureFeed. https://research.csiro.au/futurefeed/. 139–158. https://www.ebooks.com/en-au/209632829/social-responsibility-and- Dargusch, P., Maraseni, T.N., Schmidt, P., 2010. A review of research on forest-related sustainability/lealfilho-walter/. environmental markets (including certification schemes, bioenergy, carbon markets Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA), 2017. Red Meat Industry Can Be Carbon Neutral by and other ecosystem services). Cab Rev. Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour. 5 2030. https://www.mla.com.au/news-and-events/industry-news/red-meat- (no 022), 12. industry-can-be-carbon-neutral-by-2030/. Evans, A., Stresov, V., Evans, T.J., 2009. Assessment of sustainability indicators for re- Miller, C.A., 2000. The dynamics of framing environmental values and policy: four newable energy technologies. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 13, 1082–1088. models of societal processes. Environ. Values 9, 211–233. Fielke, S., Bardsley, D., 2015. Regional agricultural governance in peri-urban and rural Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., Deumling, D., 2004. Establishing national natural capital South Australia. Sustain. Sci. 10 (2), 231–243. accounts based on detailed Ecological Footprint and biological capacity assessments. Fielke, S., Wilson, G., 2017. Multifunctional intervention and market rationality in Land Use Policy 21, 231–246. agricultural governance: a comparative study of England and South Australia. Mushtaq, S., Maraseni, T.N., Reardon-Smith, K., 2013. Climate change and water security: GeoJournal 82 (5), 1067–1083. estimating the greenhouse gas costs of achieving water security through investments Fielke, S., Kaye-Blake, W., Mackay, A., Smith, W., Rendel, J., Dominati, E., 2018. Learning in modern irrigation technology. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 117, 78–89. from resilience research: findings from four projects in New Zealand. Land Use Policy Nettle, R., Brightling, P., Hope, A., 2013. How programme teams progress agricultural 70, 322–333. innovation in the Australian dairy industry. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 19 (3), 271–290. Fleming, A., Vanclay, F., 2010. Farmer responses to climate change and sustainable Ojha, H., Maraseni, T.N., Nightingale, A., Bhattarai, B., Khatri, D., 2019. Rescuing forests agriculture. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 30 (1), 11–19. from the carbon trap. For. Policy Econ. 15–18. Fleming, A., Vanclay, F., Hiller, C., Wilson, S., 2014. Challenging conflicting discourses of Pannell, D., Marshall, G., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F., Wilkinson, R., 2006. climate change. Clim. Change 127 (3–4), 407–418. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation technologies by rural land- Fleming, A., Jakku, E., Lim-Camacho, L., Taylor, B., Thorburn, P., 2018. Is big data for big holders. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 46, 1407–1424. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA05037. farming or for everyone? Perceptions in the Australian grains industry. Agron. Pant, L.P., 2014. Critical systems of learning and innovation competence for addressing Sustain. Dev. 38 (24), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0501-y. complexity in transformations to agricultural sustainability. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Fleming, A., O’Grady, A.P., Mendham, D., England, J., Mitchell, P., Moroni, M., Lyons, A., Syst. 38 (3), 336–365. 2019. Understanding the values behind farmer perceptions of trees on farms to in- Pant, L.P., Odame, H., 2017. Broadband for a sustainable digital future of rural com- crease adoption of agroforestry in Australia. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 39 (9). https://doi. munities: a reflexive interactive assessment. J. Rural Stud. 54, 435–450. org/10.1007/s13593-019-0555-5. Purdy, A., Pathare, P.B., Wang, Y., Roskilly, A.P., Huang, Y., 2018. Towards sustainable Garnaut, R., 2011. The Garnaut Review: Australia in the Global Response to Climate farming: feasibility study into energy recovery from bio-waste on a small-scale dairy Change. Cambridge University Press, New York. http://www.garnautreview.org.au/ farm. J. Clean. Prod. 174, 899–904. update-2011/garnaut-review-2011.html. Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, Ta, Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Shina, T., 2009. ‘A Gliessman, S.R., 2015. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems, 3rd ed. review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J. Food Eng. 90 (1) CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group, Florida. 1:10. Gray, I., Lawrence, G., Sinclair, P., 2009. The sociology of climate change for regional Sanderson, T., Reeson, A., 2019. Why renting, rather than buying, carbon might help Australia: considering farmer capacity for change. In: Martin, J., Rogers, M., Winter, mitigate climate change. ECOS 252 viewed 19.2.2019. https://blogs.csiro.au/ecos/ C. (Eds.), Climate Change in Regional Australia: Social Learning and Adaptation. renting-carbon/. VURRN Press, Melbourne, Australia. Schirmer, J., Bull, L., 2014. Assessing the likelihood of widespread landholder adoption of Green Collar, 2017. Reef Credits. Viewed 26.6.18. https://greencollar.com.au/reef- afforestation and reforestation projects. Glob. Environ. Change: Part A – Hum. Policy credits/. Dimensions 24 (1), 306–320. Griggs, D., Stafford‐Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M.C., Shyamsundar, Smith, P., 2018. Managing the global land resource. Proc. R. Soc. Biol. Sci. 14; 285 P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G., Kanie, N., Noble, I., 2013. Policy: Sustainable development (1874), 20172798. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2798. goals for people and planet. Nature 495 (7441), 305–307. Stafford-Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O., Ullah, F., Reyers, B., Kanie, N., Stigson, B., Herrero, M., Henderson, B., Havlik, P., Thornton, P.K., Conant, R.T., Smith, P., Wirsenius, Shrivastava, P., Leach, M., O’Connell, D., 2017. Integration: the key to implementing S., Hristov, A.N., Gerber, P., Gill, M., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Valin, H., Garnett, T., the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustain. Sci. 12, 911. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Stehfest, E., 2016. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. s11625-016-0383-3. Clim. Change 6, 452–461. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2925. Stokes, C., Howden, M. (Eds.), 2010. Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change. CSIRO IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4): Climate Change. viewed 1.8.2018. https://www. Publishing, Melbourne, Australia. ipcc.ch/report/ar4/. Thompson, M.A., Owen, S., Lindsay, J.M., Leonard, G.S., Cronin, S.J., 2017. Scientist and Jakku, E., Thorburn, P.J., 2010. A conceptual framework for guiding the participatory stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: early attitudes, expectations, development of agricultural decision support systems. Agric. Syst. 103, 675–682. and tensions. Environ. Sci. Policy 74, 30–39. Jakob, M., Steckel, J.C., 2016. Implications of climate change mitigation for sustainable Timotijevic, L., Barnett, J., Raats, M.M., 2011. Engagement, representativeness and le- development. Environ. Res. Lett. 11 (10). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748‐9326/11/ gitimacy in the development of food and nutrition policy. Food Policy 36 (4), 10/104010. 104,010. 490–498. Klerkx, L., Proctor, A., 2013. Beyond fragmentation and disconnect: networks for Torabi, N., Mata, L., Gordon, A., Garrard, G., Wescott, W., Dettmann, P., Bekessy, S.A., knowledge exchange in the English land management advisory system. Land Use 2016. The money or the trees: what drives landholders’ participation in biodiverse Policy 30 (1), 13–24. carbon plantings? Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 7, 1–11.

237 A. Fleming, et al. Land Use Policy 85 (2019) 230–238

Vanclay, F., 2004. Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 18 (3). natural resource management. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 44, 213–222. https://doi.org/10. Wilson, G., 2007. Multifunctional Agriculture: A Transition Theory Perspective. CABI, 1071/EA02139. Cambridge. Vanclay, F., Enticott, G., 2011. The role and functioning of cultural scripts in farming and Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C., Bogaardt, M.J., 2017. Big data in smart farming – a agriculture. Sociol. Ruralis 51 (3), 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523. review. Agric. Syst. 153, 69–80. 2011.00537.x. Zhu, Y., Waqas, M.A., Li, Ye., Zou, X., Jiang, D., Wilkes, A., Qin, X., Gao, Q., Wan, Y., Waheed, R., Chang, D., Sarwar, S., Chen, W., 2018. Forest, agriculture, renewable energy, Hasbagan, G., 2018. Large-scale farming operations are win-win for grain production, and CO2 emission. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 4231–4238. soil carbon storage and mitigation of greenhouse gases. J. Clean. Prod. 172 2143-2. Westley, F.R., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Crona, B., Bodin, O., 2013. A

238