Carbon and ecosystem service markets in rangelands and grazing systems are a wicked problem: multi-stakeholder partnership or roundtable as a vehicle forward?
Rebecca Cotton
A * and Bradd Witt A B
A
B
Abstract
Although the concepts of carbon and ecosystem service markets gained traction in the literature in the early 1990s, they have only recently (since the early 2000s) become a reality in Australia. The past decade has seen the appearance of markets for carbon sequestration (and avoiding land-clearing), most of which have occurred in rangeland environments. There has been research in recent decades focusing on the barriers and opportunities for the uptake of such carbon and ecosystem service markets at the landholder level. However, there is limited research into how the policy, institutional and governance arrangements may be affecting the effective and efficient development of cohesive carbon and ecosystem service markets in the Australian rangelands that could result in genuine and enduring environmental, social and community outcomes. Using in-depth interviews with 34 diverse stakeholders, we identified many inter-related themes that provided clear insight into aspects of these markets in Australia. Complexity was the most prominent and overarching theme. The markets operate on multiple levels across state, national and international jurisdictions, leading to confusion for landholders and other stakeholders. The type and number of groups and stakeholders in these systems add to the perceived complexity, with convoluted lines of responsibility, jurisdictional appropriateness, regulation, financial investment, and oversight. There is currently a lack of transparency within these markets, resulting in reduced trust and engagement. We deduce that carbon and ecosystem services markets are, in fact, a wicked policy problem, but have not yet been framed as such. We suggest a multi-stakeholder partnership or roundtable approach be used to tackle the symptoms of the wicked problem associated with carbon and eco-system service markets, which may help in reducing some of the complexities, perverse outcomes and stakeholder trust issues identified in this research.
Keywords: biodiversity, carbon farming, climate change, environmental policy, land use policy, rangelands management, sequestration, soil carbon.
References
Agee J (2009) Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 22, 431-447.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Baldwin C, Marshall G, Ross H, Cavaye J, Stephenson J, Carter L, Freeman C, Curtis A, Syme G (2019) Hybrid neoliberalism: implications for sustainable development. Society & Natural Resources 32(5), 566-587.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Baumber A, Waters C, Cross R, Metternicht G, Simpson M (2020) Carbon farming for resilient rangelands: people, paddocks and policy. The Rangeland Journal 42(5), 293-307.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Baumber A, Cross R, Waters C, Metternicht G, Kam H (2022) Understanding the social licence of carbon farming in the Australian rangelands. Sustainability 14(1), 174.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Biernacki P, Waldorf D (1981) Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research 10(2), 141-163.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Carmagnac L, Touboulic A, Carbone V (2022) A wolf in sheep’s clothing: the ambiguous role of multistakeholder meta-organisations in sustainable supply chains. M@n@gement 25, 45-63.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Cheshire L, Lawrence G (2005) Neoliberalism, individualisation and community: regional restructuring in Australia. Social Identities 11(5), 435-445.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Chubb I, Bennett G, Hatfield-Dodds S (2022) ‘Independent Review of ACCUs.’ December. CC BY 4.0. (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water: Canberra, ACT) Available at https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/independent‐review‐accu‐final‐report.pdf
Colvin RM, Witt GB, Lacey J (2016) Approaches to identifying stakeholders in environmental management: insights from practitioners to go beyond the ‘usual suspects’. Land Use Policy 52, 266-276.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630), 253-260.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Daily GC, Söderqvist T, Aniyar S, Arrow K, Dasgupta P, Ehrlich PR, Folke C, Jansson A, Jansson B-O, Kautsky N, Levin S, Lubchenco J, Mäler K-G, Simpson D, Starrett D, Tilman D, Walker B (2000) The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 289(5478), 395-396.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Dare ML, Vanclay F, Schirmer J (2012) Public participation in commercial environments: critical reflections on community engagement methods used in the Australian plantation forestry industry. Australian Forestry 75, 180-191.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Dentoni D, Bitzer V, Schouten G (2018) Harnessing wicked problems in multi-stakeholder partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics 150(2), 333-356.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Dhanda KK, Murphy PJ (2011) The new wild west is green: carbon offset markets, transactions, and providers. Academy of Management Perspectives 25(4), 37-49.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Engel S (2016) The devil in the detail: a practical guide on designing payments for environmental services. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 9, 131-177.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Evans MC (2018) Effective incentives for reforestation: lessons from Australia’s carbon farming policies. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 32, 38-45.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Fairbrother P (2017) When politics meets economic complexity: doing things differently in the Gippsland region, Australia. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies 23(3), 400-420 Available at https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85057137605&partnerID=40&md5=3d9324e175a06026f723daaacad744c5.
| Google Scholar |
Fleming A, Stitzlein C, Jakku E, Fielke S (2019) Missed opportunity? Framing actions around co-benefits for carbon mitigation in Australian agriculture. Land Use Policy 85, 230-238.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Gerowitt B, Isselstein J, Marggraf R (2003) Rewards for ecological goods: requirements and perspectives for agricultural land use. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 98(1), 541-547.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Gómez-Baggethun E, Muradian R (2015) In markets we trust? Setting the boundaries of market-based instruments in ecosystem services governance. Ecological Economics 117, 217-224.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Gordon A, Bull JW, Wilcox C, Maron M (2015) FORUM: perverse incentives risk undermining biodiversity offset policies. Journal of Applied Ecology 52(2), 532-537.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hartmann S, Thomas S (2020) Applying blockchain to the Australian carbon market. Economic Papers 39(2), 133-151.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Head B (2008) ‘Wicked Problems in Public Policy. Vol. 3’. Public Policy. ISSN: 1833‐2110 (Curtin University of Technology, John Curtin Institute of Puy: WA, Australia) Available at https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:167582
Head BW, Alford J (2015) Wicked problems: implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society 47(6), 711-739.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC (2017) Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research 27(4), 591-608.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Higgins V, Dibden J, Cocklin C (2012) Market instruments and the neoliberalisation of land management in rural Australia. Geoforum 43(3), 377-386.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Jack BK, Kousky C, Sims KR (2008) Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(28), 9465-9470.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Jassim D, Witt B, Evans MC (2022) Community perceptions of carbon farming: a case study of the semi-arid Mulga Lands in Queensland, Australia. Journal of Rural Studies 96, 78-88.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Karsenty A, Aubert S, Brimont L, Dutilly C, Desbureaux S, Ezzine de Blas D, Le Velly G (2017) The economic and legal sides of additionality in payments for environmental services. Environmental Policy and Governance 27(5), 422-435.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kedward K, Ermgassen S, Ryan-Collins J, Wunder S (2023) Heavy reliance on private finance alone will not deliver conservation goals. Nature Ecology & Evolution 7,.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Keenan RJ, Pozza G, Fitzsimons JA (2019) Ecosystem services in environmental policy: barriers and opportunities for increased adoption. Ecosystem Services 38, 100943.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Knight E, Knox-Hayes J (2015) Creating legitimate authority for environmental governance and new market creation: a case study from Australia. Competition & Change 19(1), 36-55.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kosoy N, Corbera E (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics 69(6), 1228-1236.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Laufer WS (2003) Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics 43(3), 253-261.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Lockie S (2013) Market instruments, ecosystem services, and property rights: assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits. Land Use Policy 31, 90-98.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Lumivero (2017) NVivo (Version 12, 2017), www.lumivero.com
Macintosh A, Waugh L (2012) An introduction to the carbon farming initiative: key principles and concepts. Environmental and Planning Law Journal 29, 1-37.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Maron M, Ives CD, Kujala H, Bull JW, Maseyk FJF, Bekessy S, Gordon A, Watson JEM, Lentini PE, Gibbons P, Possingham HP, Hobbs RJ, Keith DA, Wintle BA, Evans MC (2016) Taming a wicked problem: resolving controversies in biodiversity offsetting. BioScience 66(6), 489-498.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Moon K, Brewer TD, Januchowski-Hartley SR, Adams VM, Blackman DA (2016) A guideline to improve qualitative social science publishing in ecology and conservation journals. Ecology and Society 21, 210317.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Moser RL, Windmuller-Campione MA, Russell MB (2022) Natural resource manager perceptions of forest carbon management and carbon market participation in Minnesota. Forests 13(11), 1949.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Nerlich B, Koteyko N (2010) Carbon gold rush and carbon cowboys: a new chapter in green mythology? Environmental Communication 4(1), 37-53.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ (2017) Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16(1), 1609406917733847.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
NSW Government (2019) ‘Managing invasive native scrub.’ (State of New South Wales through Local Land Services) Retrieved from https://www.lls.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/1137175/WLLS-INS-Management-Guide-W.pdf
Owen R, Brennan G, Lyon F (2018) Enabling investment for the transition to a low carbon economy: government policy to finance early stage green innovation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 31, 137-145.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Ramseur JL (2010) Voluntary carbon offsets: overview and assessment. In ‘Carbon Dioxide Emissions’. ISBN: 9781611223422. (Ed. JP Mulligan) pp. 83–98. (Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) Available at https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85061732569&partnerID=40&md5=552be22bec4ab242414a2a401ac5b531
Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5), 1933-1949.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Reed MS, Curtis T, Gosal A, Kendall H, Andersen SP, Ziv G, Attlee A, Fitton RG, Hay M, Gibson AC, Hume AC, Hill D, Mansfield JL, Martino S, Olesen AS, Prior S, Rodgers C, Rudman H, Tanneberger F (2022) Integrating ecosystem markets to co-ordinate landscape-scale public benefits from nature. PLoS One 17(1), e0258334.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4(2), 155-169.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Roche LM, Saitone TL, Tate KW (2021) Rangeland Ecosystem Service Markets: Panacea or Wicked Problem? Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5, 554373.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
van Oosterzee P (2012) The integration of biodiversity and climate change: a contextual assessment of the carbon farming initiative [Note]. Ecological Management and Restoration 13(3), 238-244.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wegner GI (2016) Payments for ecosystem services (PES): a flexible, participatory, and integrated approach for improved conservation and equity outcomes. Environment, Development and Sustainability 18(3), 617-644.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Witt G, Venter M, Bird M, Menzies N (2011) Carbon sequestration and biodiversity restoration potential of semi-arid mulga lands of Australia interpreted from long-term grazing exclosures. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 141, 108-118.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wunder S (2015) Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 117, 234-243.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Zakari A, Khan I, Alvarado R (2023) The impact of environmental technology innovation and energy credit rebate on carbon emissions: a comparative analysis. Journal of International Development 35, 2609-2625.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Zoom Communication Inc. (2016) version 5.16.26186. Available at www.zoom.com
