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

Methods Qualitative: –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 Trees and land management 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

Agricultural land, trees and climate change Carbon and climate change

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) Carbon and climate change

Markets and financial returns Carbon and climate change

Legislation Carbon and climate change

Neighbours and community Beliefs and values

Property management Beliefs and values

Property management Beliefs and values

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

Barriers to adoption 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

Barriers to adoption >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

Incentives to adoption 20-40% of respondents believed that: The long term nature of planting trees for carbon sequestration Amount of water trees would use were moderate – large incentives

Incentives to adoption 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 were moderate – large incentives

Incentives to adoption >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 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 Sources of information

Information and extension Usefulness

Information and extension Trust

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