Soil-based carbon farming

Opportunities for collaboration

Bibliographic Data

ID12089451
AuthorsAlex Baumber (0000-0001-8560-8661, University of Technology Sydney, corresponding author), Rebecca Cross (0000-0003-3582-5996, The University of Sydney), Peter Ampt, Cathy Waters (0000-0003-1020-5248), Jennifer Ringbauer (University of Technology Sydney), Isabella Bowdler (University of Technology Sydney), Amanda Scott (0000-0002-1848-2154, Southern Cross University), Lorraine Gordon (Southern Cross University), Andres Sutton (0000-0001-9356-9623, UNSW Sydney), Graciela Metternicht (0000-0002-6168-5387, Western Sydney University)
Year2024
Volume108
Pages103268-103268
Publication date2024-04-16
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Rural Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0743-0167 • E-ISSN: 1873-1392
PublisherElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103268
OpenAlexW4394866269
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited52

Soil-based carbon farming has been identified in previous research as a win-win for farm productivity and the mitigation of climate change through carbon sequestration. However, it faces numerous barriers to adoption, including low carbon prices, high transaction costs, information barriers and high uncertainty around future outcomes, markets and policy conditions. Collaboration between landholders and other stakeholders has been proposed as a potential means of overcoming some of these barriers, while maximising the benefits of soil-based carbon farming. In this article, we present the results of a two-stage process investigating collaborative soil-based carbon farming in Australia, involving national-scale key informant interviews and a regional-scale Participatory Rural Appraisal. Fifty-three interviews were undertaken with key carbon farming stakeholders, including landholders, landholder groups, carbon service providers, government, researchers and the financial sector. Collaboration was seen to offer the greatest advantages in relation to knowledge-sharing and social support, followed by its potential to increase carbon income through enhanced bargaining power and the optimisation of co-benefits. The advantages of collaboration were less clear in relation to reducing costs or maximising farm productivity and collaboration also presents new challenges around risk and complexity. Under current conditions, informal collaboration models were seen to offer the best balance between the benefits and risks, with existing cooperatives also well-placed to diversify into carbon. Alternative conditions in the future or in other locations would be needed to facilitate models involving joint projects, pooled credits, shared land management and/or the creation of new carbon-specific cooperatives

Agriculture · Business · Economic growth · Economics · Environmental economics · Environmental resource management · Government (linguistics · Natural resource economics · Productivity · Soil carbon · Transaction cost · Bioenergy crop production and management · Cooperative Studies and Economics · Environmental Science · Rural development and sustainability · Finance

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access