Introduction to the Special Collection of The Rangeland Journal on carbon and environmental service markets in rangelands

Concern for environmental decline towards the end of the 20th century led to an emergence of the concepts of ecosystem services and the need to better understand their value in supporting life support systems. After a long period of academic and research interest, these concepts began to be taken up in a range of policy measures internationally and in Australia. Concern for anthropogenic climate change over this period raised interest in the ability of ecosystems to sequester carbon from the atmosphere and store it in soils and vegetation. This increasing interest, particularly after 2005 with the publication of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005), is reflected in the rapid growth in research and academic writing about environmental and ecosystem service markets (Fig. 1). It should be noted that there are a myriad of terms used interchangeably and sometimes inconsistently in this area. Terminology includes: payment for ecosystem services, environmental markets, or environmental service payments.

Fig. 1.

The number of articles identified from the Scopus® database (as of 4 October 2024) for a range of terms related to payments for ecosystem services (dark grey), and literature that includes the terms carbon sequestration and rangelands (light grey). Specific search terms for payment for ecosystem services were ‘ecosystem service payment*’ OR ‘environmental market*’ OR ‘environmental service market’ OR ‘environmental payment*’ OR ‘ecosystem payment*’ OR ‘carbon farm*’.

Although interest in carbon sequestration and environmental service markets has often been focused on areas of higher rainfall, productivity and environmental stability, rangelands were identified some time ago for their potential ability to sequester carbon. Although rangelands have relatively low levels of carbon storage in vegetation and soils per unit area, their vast extent and lesser competition for land use has encouraged researchers, policy makers and carbon intensive industries to explore the potential for significant carbon sequestration in these areas (Witt et al. 2011; Jassim et al. 2022).

Climate and carbon mitigation policy in the Australian context was subject to considerable political conflict and policy volatility through the 1990s and first two decades of the 21st century (Colvin et al. 2024). However, mechanisms and legislation were passed at the national and State and Territory levels to allow for formal markets for the capture of carbon in soil and vegetation under a range of methods. This policy and regulatory change triggered a rapid emergence of markets and uptake of what can be loosely referred to as ‘carbon farming’ in Australia. Most of this occurred in the rangelands (Jassim et al. 2022).

The concept of creating a market that pays land holders to modify their land use practices (termed ‘additionality’) to allow carbon to be retained in vegetation and soil appears at first glance relatively uncontroversial. The assumption is that the government created a market to meet the demand for offsetting emissions, and benefits will flow onto land holders sequestering carbon, improving their financial viability while also stimulating other co-benefits. It was with these intentions that the markets were created in a range of countries including Australia (Roche et al. 2021; Baumber et al. 2024). It should be noted that a focus on sequestration is important due to the difficulty of rapidly reducing emissions. Therefore, sequestration and associated market mechanisms have become an important component in Australia’s demonstration of its commitment to managing climate change and for this reason much is riding on the integrity of such a policy approach.

However, there has been considerable critique, concern and conflicting views in academic and other public circles about the effectiveness, legitimacy and transparency of these markets and their ability to reliably store the quantity of carbon, over the long term, that was anticipated (Background Briefing 2021; McCosker 2021; McIntosh et al. 2024). Given the levels of uncertainty and potential for conflict, it is surprising that there has been relatively little formal evaluation and scrutiny of carbon and environmental service markets in rangelands until very recently.

Members of the Publications Committee for the Australian Rangeland Society (https://austrangesoc.com.au/) identified this as a significant gap in the literature and this led to the creation of this Collection of papers (Special Issue) providing a wide variety of views about the validity of carbon sequestration in the rangelands as a bio-physical and managerial contribution to Australia’s approach. The aim of this Collection is to bring together academic critiques of recent developments in carbon and environmental service markets in rangelands to:

This collection includes a diversity of contributions. Concerns are raised regarding the integrity of carbon markets related to human induced regeneration methods (Macintosh et al. 2024). A review (Henry et al. 2024) and empirical study (Reinhart et al. 2024) of carbon sequestration efficacy in rangelands based on grazing management indicates limited capacity for grazing management to affect carbon storage. A contribution by Salley and Brown explores an inventory system using climatic and edaphic qualities, with State and Transition Models, to estimate soil carbon concentrations. Bowman et al. (2024) provide a critical insight into the human health implications of changes to fire management across the ‘top end’ of Australia, which is a topic rarely explored in relation to carbon sequestration methods. Jeremy Russell-Smith et al. (2024) explore emerging opportunities and challenges for Indigenous communities to engage with nature-based solutions and other ecosystem service markets. Two papers by Milne et al. (2024) and Dumbrell et al. (2024) explore concepts of co-benefit of these markets and the importance of harmonised policies and incorporating local and regional aspirations. Finally, Cotton and Witt (2024) look more broadly at the policy context of carbon and environmental service markets and suggest a fresh approach to overcome some of the key challenges of trust and integrity of these systems.