Toward land restoration transitions: elevating regional voices and the provenance of co-benefits in Queensland rangelands

Co-benefits, impacts and transitions of land management changes

Co-benefits are the positive effects that a policy or measure aimed at one objective might have on other objectives, irrespective of the overall impact on social welfare (IPCC 2014). In climate policy, the notion of co-benefits has been expanded over the past two decades to consider the existence of a range of benefits that emerge from specific interventions (IPCC 2014; Pörtner et al. 2021). Assessments of carbon abatement strategies show that co-benefits are often conceived and assessed on the basis of global and national priorities (Deng et al. 2017) and in the instance of land sector carbon abatement, at the farm-scale. For example, co-benefits associated with land sector carbon abatement have been closely examined as incentives for landholders to adopt land management changes (Kragt et al. 2017). Evidence from maturing public and private markets for land sector carbon abatement in Australia also shows that despite financial returns being heterogeneous across landscapes (Paul et al. 2013; Dumbrell et al. 2017), land managers can access improved agricultural production and other co-benefits from land sector carbon abatement projects (e.g. Summers et al. 2021).

However, co-benefit delivery is not always perfectly synergistic with the core component of interventions (e.g. carbon abatement) and trade-offs typically have to be made (Onaindia et al. 2013). Different co-benefits and incentives to deliver them also appeal across communities and sectors (Feng and Kling 2005). The delivery of different co-benefits is also not perfectly synergistic, and trade-offs can be required among environmental co-benefits or between environmental and social co-benefits, for example. Although there is evidence that the public is willing to pay for co-benefits from land restoration (Kragt et al. 2016) and financial mechanisms can be designed to encourage participation in co-benefit projects (Bottazzi et al. 2013), there are limitations to placing market values or creating financial mechanisms for broader culturally and socially relevant co-benefits associated with land management change (Robinson et al. 2016a, 2016b). To overcome these challenges, it is critical to understand the socio-economic and cultural context within which land management changes are or are proposed to be implemented (Jackson et al. 2017; Baumber et al. 2020).

The socio-economic contexts of regions where land sector carbon abatement projects are proposed or implemented and the co-benefits that may be generated at this scale have not attracted the same attention as the context and potential impacts of land management changes at the farm-scale. This is despite these broader conditions and community agency also driving the adoption and acceptance of carbon abatement activities (Baumber et al. 2022). In other words, the regional provenance of carbon abatement projects is important to adoption and the forms of mobilising co-benefit delivery at the community level.

Provenance captures components of the origin of a good or service with elements of where, who, and how it was produced, traded, and held (Oxford Dictionary 2022). Here, we consider the regional provenance of land restoration activities and co-benefits covers where, who and how activities are implemented and propose that these attributes carry inherent value. This formulation reflects the inextricable links between co-benefits and provenance; co-benefits often depend on local circumstances and implementation practice to materialise (IPCC 2014), and valuing, certifying, and protecting provenance has also been a critical input into regional economic development strategies (Morgan et al. 2008; Gangjee 2017; Reisman 2022).

In this paper, we focus on the regional provenance of carbon abatement and co-benefits to analyse how contexts and communities are considered when designing and evaluating the impacts of land restoration transitions. Indeed, the regional provenance of carbon co-benefits is especially important in rangeland regions, where co-benefits can fill gaps in service delivery, and support economic or social outcomes. For example, research in Australian rangelands shows that financial, job, community, and infrastructure co-benefits of public and private investments are an important pathway to accessing basic services and attracting and retaining a population to support further investment and growth in remote regions (Pittock 2011). Studies suggest that carbon abatement projects can offer multiple benefits, including offering socio-ecological resilience by diversifying land uses and income streams, and enabling interactions with lands to support well-being (Robinson et al. 2016a; Baumber et al. 2020). However, the challenge is to ensure that regional voices can inform whether and how carbon abatement projects and co-benefits are designed, implemented, and evaluated. In remote rangeland regions, it can be difficult to capture these voices. For example, rangeland populations can be highly mobile, which makes participatory research less predictable and/or resource intensive (Ochieng et al. 2018) and those that can be reached for surveys tend to reject substantial numbers of requests (ABS 2015). Obtaining quality secondary data and information about the views and priorities of people in remote rangelands can also be a challenge (Le Tourneau 2020). This paper addresses this challenge to critically reflect on how socio-economic data and regional plans can provide investors and communities with the information needed to negotiate regional provenance and co-create just land restoration activities in the rangelands.

Southern Queensland Landscapes natural resource management region

Land restoration transitions are taking place in Queensland rangelands, with a high concentration of ACCU Scheme projects and emerging LRF investments. The Southern Queensland Landscapes natural resource management (NRM) region was selected as a case study area on the basis of several regional characteristics, including the intersection of rangeland environments and investments in land restoration and carbon abatement. The Southern Queensland Landscapes is 1 of 56 NRM regions in Australia (NRM Regions Australia 2023), with actions in each region reflecting the emphasis of NRM planning and decision-making on landholders and community actions to meet sustainability goals at local and regional scales (Lane et al. 2009).

The Southern Queensland Landscapes NRM region is 314 398 km² (Fig. 2). The region covers approximately 18% of Queensland and spans six bioregions and four climate zones (DES 2013). Approximately 8% of the region is in national parks, nature refuges, and state forests, with the remaining land use being dominated by grazing at 83% (Southern Queensland Landscapes 2022). Particularly in the west of the region, the grazing industry has a history of managing woody vegetation, e.g. clearing regrowth (Witt 2013). The profitability of the grazing industry is tied to climate conditions, with droughts not infrequent, the capacity to control pests (e.g. wild dogs are a substantial challenge to sheep and wool production) and costs, particularly labour and transport costs to remote locations (Southern Queensland Landscapes 2022). Mining, construction and the agriculture, forestry and fisheries industries dominate the regional economy (Southern Queensland Landscapes 2022).

Fig. 2.

Map of the case study area and local government areas with substantial area in the Southern Queensland Landscapes natural resource management region.

The region hosts the most registered land sector carbon abatement projects under the ACCU Scheme of any NRM region in Australia (132 as of 2021; Curry et al. 2022) and hosts five LRF projects (as of May 2023; DES 2023b). With the accumulation of land sector carbon abatement projects in the region, there is growing evidence that investments in these projects are creating both opportunities and tensions where carbon abatement project objectives do and do not align with regional objectives for sustainable development. For example, the region is home to innovative place-based groups of landholders exploring and mobilising investment in economically and socially sustainable environmental outcomes in response to public and private environmental policies and market signals (e.g. Ward and Clarke 2023). At the same time, with the growth of land sector carbon abatement projects in parts of the case study region, concerns regarding perverse outcomes such as land absenteeism and rural decline, are coming to the fore (e.g. Curry et al. 2022; Jassim et al. 2022; Queensland Reconstruction Authority 2022).

Socio-economic analysis of regional context for land sector carbon abatement investments

The economic geography of the case study region was analysed to contextualise results and show the potential impact of prioritising co-benefits and regional provenance alongside the carbon outcomes of land sector carbon abatement projects. The detailed regional analysis was conducted using data for local government areas in the Southern Queensland Landscapes NRM region. Local government areas provide a good spatial representation of local communities and economies because they generally encompass at least one major town and represent the scale at which much regional and community planning is conducted. To make comparisons, and highlight regional specifics for the case study region, an analysis was also conducted for Queensland.

We sourced population, employment and occupation data from the 2021 Census conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2022a) and from the Regional Development Australia regional economic profile for the region (Informed Decisions and Regional Development Australia 2023) and business data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Business Register (ABS 2022b). The Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries division of the Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification was a focus industry in this analysis because this is the industry most engaged in land sector carbon abatement activities. This classification includes businesses and employees engaged in production (e.g. growing crops, raising animals, growing, and harvesting timber), and support services to production (ABS 2013). Collectively, these data show the area’s role within the broader Queensland economy, regional strengths and specialisations and opportunities and constraints for future development pathways, including through land sector carbon abatement projects.

An analysis of investments in land sector carbon abatement projects in the case study region was also conducted on the basis of publicly available information in the ACCU Scheme and LRF project registers (Clean Energy Regulator 2023b; DES 2023b) and ACCU Scheme auction results (Clean Energy Regulator 2023a). These registers also include information on the local government area(s) that projects are based in.

Review of regional benefit aspirations and drivers of change

Regional plans set strategic directions for communities to grow and respond to change over time. Beyond the Queensland context, the Australian Government is also embarking on regional planning as a mechanism to guide sustainable transition pathways aligned with a wide range of environmental, economic, and social outcomes that are driven by the needs of communities and their environment (DCCEEW 2022). Regional plans developed in consultation with communities and stakeholders assemble multiple perspectives of challenges and benefit aspirations, reflecting interests, values, and realities, and outline key actions to achieve goals or deliver regional economic, social, and environmental outcomes.

Three types of regional plans that articulate public values were selected for content analysis to understand the aspirations of communities, drivers of change and sustainable transitions pathways available in the case study region. The three types of plans each represent diverse communities and detail choices and actions of and for organisations that have a role in regional governance for land restoration transitions (Agrawal et al. 2022). The three plan types reviewed include the following: (1) local government community or corporate plans, economic development plans, annual reports and regional resilience strategies produced by the 10 local governments in the Southern Queensland Landscapes NRM region (Fig. 2); (2) the Southern Queensland Landscapes NRM plan and annual report; and (3) plans and strategy documents produced by three First Nations Native Title Prescribed Body Corporates and cultural services organisations active in the region. A list of the documents reviewed in each category is included in Table S1 in the Supplementary materials. Each plan included in the analysis had a time horizon of 5–10 years, and only current versions of these plans were considered in scope. Where annual reports were included (local governments and NRM organisation) the document for the 2021–22 financial year was analysed.

Local government corporate plans are a statutory obligation that speak to the six roles of local governments, including the following: (1) provide services to the community; (2) fund community services; (3) regulate activities; (4) partner with other parties to deliver outcomes in the interests of the community; (5) facilitate groups to come together to deliver outcomes in the interests of the community; and (6) advocate for community outcomes to other decision-makers or influencers. As part of the regional NRM model, NRM organisations in Queensland are governed by community-appointed boards charged with representing the perspectives and priorities of their regional community. Regional plans identify priorities, align with policy and legislative requirements, and outline adaptive partnership and knowledge-based approaches to landscape-scale social-environmental system management to support the achievement of national priorities at the landscape scale. First Nations-driven co-governance regimes created within government legislative structures, such as Native Title Claims or Indigenous Protected Areas, enable and require First Nations-led decision-making and planning for landscapes and communities. The purposeful selection of plans representative of these organisations for this analysis reflects their crucial role in regional planning and governance for priority outcomes across environmental, economic, social and cultural domains (Duncan et al. 2018).

We undertook a critical review of the plans to evaluate narratives that shape the transition practices and perspectives at the regional level (Grant and Booth 2009). By using Atlas.ti Web (version 5.8.0, https://atlasti.com/atlas‐ti‐web) software, we conducted a qualitative analysis of the selected regional plans to identify both benefit aspirations and drivers of change in the region. A codebook was developed through a combination of inductive and deductive analyses of the plans. This process resulted in the establishment of a set of codes (Table 1). Coding was performed to identify the content, patterns, and frequency of specific forms of benefit aspirations and drivers of change across different plan types. The benefit codes reflected the priority socio-economic and First Nations co-benefits outlined in the LRF Priority Investment Plan and Co-benefit Standard (DES 2021, 2023a). Specifically, our focus was on Priority 3 of the LRF Priority Investment Plan, ‘land restoration for social and economic sustainability’, which prioritises carbon abatement projects that can generate new income streams for regional communities, deliver economic opportunities for First Nations peoples, and engage key regional industries. The Co-benefit Standard details how priority benefits can be generated. Of specific interest to this study, the Co-benefit Standard refers to the following: (1) employment and skills benefits delivered through projects employing regional workers and or delivering skills training in regional Queensland; (2) local-community benefits derived by projects taking place in relatively disadvantaged areas, using local businesses and suppliers, and other local community engagement in projects; and (3) First Nations benefits as a consequence of carbon abatement projects taking place on First Nations land and or through the involvement of First Nations people. The remaining two priorities in the Priority Investment Plan were of less focus in this study and relate to environmental outcomes, namely land restoration to improve the health of wetlands, including the Great Barrier Reef and for threatened species and ecosystems. The codes for drivers of change were initially derived from major regional and landscape transitions in the existing literature (Bryan et al. 2013; Dewi et al. 2017; Everingham et al. 2022) and adapted to include additional themes emerging from the regional plans.

Understanding regional context for land sector carbon abatement investments

The economic and demographic profile of the case study region indicates a specialisation in and reliance on certain industries. In particular, the region is highly specialised (location quotient >2; Table 2) in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing industry (including in primary production and service roles). A high location quotient is a product of the relative contribution the industry makes to the local economy and the proportion of people employed in the industry in this region relative to the rest of Queensland. Data from 2022 also showed as many workers as jobs available across all industries in the case study region, but more jobs than workers in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing industry (Table 2). These statistics are likely to reflect both the agriculture, forestry and fishing industry specialisation of the region, and the macroeconomic conditions in Australia more broadly at the time (e.g. low unemployment). The residents of the region also tend to work locally, including living and working in the same local government area and within the case study region (Table 2).

Collectively, the investment in carbon abatement and priority environmental, social and First Nations co-benefits across five LRF projects in the Southern Queensland Landscapes NRM region is A$24.95 million (DES 2023b). As of 2021, 132 ACCU Scheme land sector carbon abatement projects were also located in the region (Curry et al. 2022). This is approximately one-third of all projects in Queensland (Clean Energy Regulator 2023b). Using average reverse-auction prices released publicly by the Clean Energy Regulator, the entity responsible for administering the ACCU Scheme, and the amount of carbon abatement reported and credited by these projects, A$261.6 million of revenue has been generated in the Southern Queensland Landscapes NRM region in the 10 years since the first project reported abatement (Clean Energy Regulator 2023a, 2023b). Despite the relative concentration of land sector carbon abatement projects in the region, the economic contribution of the land sector carbon abatement industry pales in comparison to the agriculture, forestry, and fishing industry in the region (Table 2). This analysis, therefore, suggests that the co-benefits of land restoration for carbon abatement may be much more valuable to regional communities.

Regional plan articulations of co-benefit aspirations and transition pathways

Communities in the Southern Queensland Landscapes NRM region are aspiring to secure the priority socio-economic and cultural co-benefits that are valued by the LRF program (outlined in DES 2023a). Sought-after benefits include economic benefits, benefits for First Nations communities and lands, skills development benefits and social and community benefits (as defined in Table 1) in addition to environmental benefits (Fig. 3a). The most commonly sought-after benefit was regional economic improvement associated with business and government investment in the region, creating and maintaining local and diverse employment opportunities, buying local, and resourcing public goods. This was followed by social benefits, First Nations participation and land benefits, and skills benefits. Although the alignment between priorities in the LRF Priority Investment Plan and regional plans was clear, the scope of benefits in the regional plans did extend beyond the carbon abatement focus of the LRF documents. For example, while regional plans could be agnostic to the industry that job opportunities or skill development may be associated with, the LRF Priority Investment Plan and Co-benefit Standard outline how these could be achieved through investment in land sector carbon abatement projects.

Fig. 3.

(a) Relative frequency with which three types of plans (First Nations, NRM and local government plans) mentioned four focus benefits. (b) Relative frequency with which three types of plans mentioned seven different drivers of change. Note: in each graph, the relative frequency is calculated for each plan type, not for each benefit or driver of change. Benefit aspirations and drivers of change are described in Table 1.

Across plan types, the First Nations Native Title and Cultural Services plans focussed mostly on the benefits of First Nations participation and lands. Local jobs for First Nations peoples were also of high priority (more than half of all economic benefits coded in the First Nations plans; Fig. 3a). For example, one plan prioritised accessing ‘opportunities for economic development and employment’, and maximising ‘economic participation for our people by ensuring access to quality vocational training and the pursuit of real jobs and business opportunities from all project developments’ (Bigambul Native Title Aboriginal Corporation 2018, pp. 8–9). Likewise, the NRM plan for the region recognises and seeks to support First Nations’ ongoing custodianship and participation in environmental planning and investment decisions. Another key aspiration of the NRM plan was maintaining and building social capital in the communities that care for and value the landscape (Fig. 3a); this included building connections between people and the environment, and between community networks and volunteer groups to support community well-being and a sense of belonging. Likewise, the local government plans aspire towards community social benefits in the form of inclusion and belonging (Fig. 3a).

Local government plans also frequently referred to economic benefits such as increasing local business and industry activity and diversity to support economic resilience. Employment opportunities and building local skills were also seen to deliver economic benefits by increasing local expenditure and providing opportunities for younger people to stay in the region to contribute to vibrant communities. This was particularly pertinent in the most remote western rangelands of the region where rural decline and outmigration were noted as a concern in plans. The land sector was also noted as a source of economic benefits for the region. However, within this, there were conflicting views on how this could be sustained with the introduction of land sector carbon abatement projects. For example, one local government economic plan from the east of the case study region considered the possibility of exploring ‘emerging environmental stewardship opportunities’ (Southern Downs Regional Council 2022, p. 21). Whereas another from the rangelands in the west of the region viewed land sector carbon abatement as having ‘adverse impacts on the area’s productive agricultural land’ (Quilpie Shire Council 2020, p. 8).

The frequently mentioned aspirations were also highly interconnected; for example, initiatives to support economic development related to agriculture, tourism and other activities were also referred to in the context of supporting the attraction and retention of skilled workers and therefore new residents to communities to, in turn, create additional social and community liveability benefits. Most notably for a program such as the LRF that is seeking to invest in environmental and social benefits, the plans all referred to inherent links between the environment and communities. For example, the environment was commonly referred to as providing communities with things they need and want, such as, for example, inputs for agricultural production, recreation, and tourism opportunities (local government plans), agricultural production, recreation, and connections to place and nature (NRM plans) and cultural connections and livelihood opportunities (First Nations plans). However, in the most part, plans were agnostic about the source of local employment opportunities, for example, being indifferent to whether employment is associated with carbon abatement projects relative to conservation or ranger programs, agriculture, tourism, renewable energy, or other industries.

The aspirations described by each of the plans also correlated to the levers available to initiate change towards achieving these aspirations. For example, the First Nations plans highlighted the need to recognise and include First Nations values and principles of valuing nature, diverse knowledge systems, and culture in decision-making to achieve aspirations for First Nations peoples and lands (Fig. 3b). Likewise, local government community and economic plans emphasise economic levers as critical. This is likely to reflect that local governments are reliant on the Queensland State Government for funding for basic services and are able to direct funding to priority issues or opportunities.

Across all plan types, and especially for the local government plans, economic factors were the most substantial driver of change (Fig. 3b). Economic drivers capture the intersection of the region’s industries and businesses with changing market conditions (e.g. increasing demand for sustainably produced outputs), broader macroeconomic trends, and funding available for investment in local communities, including via the organisations writing the analysed plans. Population changes were also key economic drivers noted in the local government plans. In the east of the case study region, population growth is raising questions about the capacity of the region to invest in and support the infrastructure (e.g. affordable housing) needed and, in the rangelands in the remote west of the region, attracting and retaining skilled workers to maintain or grow the population is critical to maintaining basic services such as health and education. Environmental changes, such as climate change, were also identified as demanding the reallocation of resources from productive uses towards other uses, such as, for example, maintaining or repairing damaged infrastructure following repeated flooding (local governments) and redesigning the priorities and ways of working for organisations in the region. The NRM plan also highlighted the intersection of environmental changes and economic drivers with ‘pressures of drought and fluctuations in population, volunteers are stretched and worn out. This creates a large hole in the capacity of these communities to invest in thriving landscapes’ (Southern Queensland Landscapes 2022, p. 33). The extent to which land sector carbon abatement activities can be designed to align with and support the regional benefit aspirations and drivers of change identified will influence the role that land restoration can play in supporting just transitions to a low-carbon future in the region.