Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program

1. Policy Choices for Salinity Mitigation: Bridging the Disciplinary Divides 1-2 February 2007 Coogee Surf Club Systematic landscape change through agri-forestry: a collaborative approach Peter Ampt, Program Manager Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program University of NSW, Sydney With assistance from Alex Baumber, Claire Carlton, Kate Norris* and Rachael Stewart-Rattray* *work completed for Masters of Environmental Management, Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW

2. Collaborative approach? To properly consider and evaluate collaboration we must ask the question, 'As compared to what?' So the question is not 'Can this be accomplished without flaw?’ but rather 'Is this better than our alternatives, and can we make it better?' (Bryan, 2004, pp893-894 quoted in Marshall 2005).

3. Systematic landscape change through agri-forestry: a collaborative approach • The case for systematic landscape change • Emerging environmental markets • Agri-forestry opportunities • Landscape planning based on landscape ecology • Using common property approaches • Blue Mountains World Heritage Research Institute – Western edge native agri-forestry project

4. 1. The case for systematic landscape change • The problem: • Habitat fragmentation and loss • Impact of modification • Climate change impacts

5. Comparison of highly modified landscapes (Hobbs, R.J. 2005 Wildlife Research32, 389–398)

8. Impact of modification • Changed hydrological regimes – increased salinity, declining water quantity and quality • Loss of biodiversity and reduced resilience • Soil erosion and declining fertility and productivity

9. Percentage native vegetation by IBRA bioregion.

10. Interim National Action Planfor Salinity and Water Quality Regions (NAP)(July 2002)

11. Small mammals such as the Burrowing Bilby (Macrotis lagotis) were once relatively common across large areas and are now severely endangered. They were very effective ecosystem engineers.

12. 1. The case for systematic landscape change Systematically incorporate more biodiverse vegetation in the landscape mosaic and/or improve its condition.

13. 1. The case for systematic landscape change: The conventional solutions • Protecting what is left • Philanthropy – individual and by NGOs • Make existing production systems more sustainable – new technologies • Incentives to adopt sustainable practices: MBIs, stewardship payments, CMA programs.

14. The case for systematic landscape change c. Issues • Preservationism and/or sustainable use? • Fragmentation of effort and achieving connectivity • Native vegetation – property or landscape scale? • Property rights – individual and common pool

15. 2. Agri-forestry opportunities • Traditional forestry Timber/Wood Products – timber required for building materials, furniture, wood craft and wood chips for paper pulp • Emerging biomass-based possibilities to produce products from plant biomass including fuels from dry organic matter or combustible plant oils, composite building materials, extractable oils, charcoal, activated carbon and mulch material for nursery industry. • Regional industry – creation of a new industry that is derived from farm forestry and may result in processing plants being established.

16. 3. Emerging environmental markets • Carbon that has been biosequestered which can then be traded on the emerging carbon market either as part of the NSW scheme of internationally. • Biodiversity Use of Biodiversity Banking will also be possible to generate offsets for development nearby. • Salinity trading possible if revegetation occurs in recharge area known to contribute to salinity lower down the catchment. • Water – in catchments that contribute to an urban water supply impacted on by land-use, water authorities may benefit from riparian repair and thus help pay for it. • Regional Tourism and Eco Tourism – within the areas being revegetated there is a range of possibilities such as horse riding, bush camping, bird watching, outdoor pursuits and holiday accommodation.

17. 4. Landscape planning based on landscape ecology • Identify key factors in sub-catchment and zone land for: • Conventional production • Preservation of key environmental assets • Revegetation • Identify or design agri-forestry system most appropriate for area • Map sub-catchment revegetation to optimise provision of full range of ecosystem services such as: • Salinity mitigation/adaptation • Biodiversity connectivity and complementarity • Riparian repair and water quality • carbon sequestration • Biomass harvest • Fire management This approach is strongly endorsed by Australia 21: building a better future www.australia21.org.au

18. 3. Achieving systematical landscape change Typical, highly modified landscape, WA Lefroy EC, Hobbs RJ, Scheltema M (1993)

19. Same landscape after strategic revegetation Lefroy EC, Hobbs RJ, Scheltema M (1993)

20. 5. Using common property approaches Why common property? • Coordination across property boundaries will be essential to achieving systematic landscape change in agricultural areas. • Present efforts are fragmentary, insignificant in scale and dramatically under-funded. They depend on voluntary adoption by landholders, many of whom have low on-farm incomes and are living in areas where services are declining. • Regulatory efforts, such as native vegetation legislation, are politically unpopular, and based on a single property plan. • Individual landholders are unlikely to be in a position to benefit from future environmental markets or conservation through sustainable use (CSU) initiatives.

21. Common property regimes • Regulate the use of common pool resources • Use accepted framework but develop locally appropriate institutional rules • Create a framework that formalises collaboration and regulates access to common pool resources while retaining individual control of private resources.

23. A Conservation Commons? • Generate a sub-regional landscape plan across property boundaries that utilises all local land tenures (private, reserve, national park, indigenous protected areas, travelling stock routes etc) and identifies land for which land-use needs to change to achieve NRM outcomes. • Set up a common property regime that that equitably distributes costs & returns between members. • Develop a conservation through sustainable use (CSU) strategy for generating income from the commons. • Develop a monitoring strategy that provides evidence for stewardship and improved environmental performance. • Seek investment through emerging environmental markets for the ecosystem services provided by the commons.

24. Monitoring and assessment of landscape impact • Use of Landscape Function Analysis. • Benchmarking representative land types. • Landholder access via web-linked Geographic Information System • Landholders trained in LFA and undertaking self-monitoring against benchmarks.

26. Potential benefits of a ‘conservation commons’ • Sufficient economies of scale to consider conservation compatible commercial activity on native vegetation and revegetation sites within the sub-region such as: • forestry, • recreational and tourist enterprises, • wild harvest of native plant products, • multi-species native plantations with potential commercial harvest possibilities and • participation in future environmental markets such as carbon, salinity and biodiversity trading. • Structural arrangements that could position the sub-regional community to take advantage of potential payments for ecosystem services in the future. • Increased ability to bid for incentive funding. • The potential to attract green investment in a sub-catchment ‘corporation’ or ‘co-operative’ engaged in the above conservation compatible commercial activities. • The income generated from these activities could support the ongoing management of the conservation areas and ultimately provide some returns to landholders. • Increased investment in conventional agricultural activities within the sub-catchment driven by the landholders’ pro-active response to the management of long term environment risk. • Marketing of sub-catchment products as having land-stewardship attributes which provide greater access to specific markets.

27. 6.BMWHI – Western edge native agri-forestry project • The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area was inscribed onto the World Heritage List in 2000 primarily for the extent and diversity of its temperate eucalypt forests. • 8 protected areas and significant urban, peri-urban, industrial and rural areas. An area of more than a million hectares • The region also provides ecosystem services including clean water, air and recreation to Sydney • Its World Heritage values and its ability to provide ecosystem services are coming under increasing threat due to the combined pressures of population growth and urbanization, variations in rural land-use and climate change.

31. Objectives • Develop a systematic plan to strategically revegetate areas of land to achieve catchment natural resource management targets. • Identify a suite of species for revegetation that optimises carbon capture, biomass harvest and achievement of natural resource management targets, including water management. • Generate interest among land holders to develop farm forestry on their land. • Generate interest among possible investors and buyers of farm forestry products and services, and secure industry support. • Carry out biophysical, social and economic analyses to assess costs and probable returns from the range of farm forestry options. • Carry out GIS analysis of land use capability and landscape planning to design a mosaic that optimizes environmental and economic outcomes. • Develop a management regime that optimises economic, social and ecological objectives at a landscape scale. • Develop an institutional framework to establish a common property regime at a landscape scale that will provide economies of scale, attract participation from landholders and generate investment confidence. • Translate options into a commercial prospectus and recruit industry drivers, investors and landholder participants.

32. Project deliverables are: • a landscape plan for strategic revegetation; • an incorporated body for multi-farm collaboration and management; • a detailed development plan and prospectus to facilitate investment and landholder participation; • development of a model for use in other areas.

33. Carbon sequestration projections National Carbon Accounting Toolbox to mixed environmental plantings on Kyoto-compliant lands in the Lithgow region • Approximately 40 tonnes of carbon dioxide will be sequested per hectare within 10 years and 60 tonnes per hectare within 20 years. • These figures compare to a steady 20t/ha for grazing or cropping for the same area. • The additional carbon sequestered as a result of the revegetation will be 20 t/ha within 10 years and 40t/ha within 20 years. • For every 1000 hectares that are revegetated, an additional 20,000 t of carbon will be sequestered within ten years and 40,000 t within 20 years. • There is potential for an area greater than 1000 ha if uptake is high, and a bias towards revegetating riparian zones would see higher soil moisture and fertility levels leading to higher rates of C sequestration due to higher growth rates.

34. Biomass projections • Regular biomass harvest (analogous to thinning or controlled burning) will probably start after 10 years and continue indefinitely. Growth, and thus carbon sequestration, will continue after harvest. Using the 3-PG forest model, (Eucalyptus grandis sp. in the Lithgow region): • 60 tonnes of stem dry mass per hectare at 20 years and • 96 tonnes per hectare at 30 years. • Accumulation occurs at a rate of 3.5 t of biomass/ha/year between 20 and 30 years after establishment. A biomass harvest of at least that should be possible after 20 years without significantly reducing carbon sequestration as most of the plant biomass will remain intact. • Emissions associated with the biomass harvest or the ultimate use of the biomass? • If the biomass is burnt as fuel, some of the carbon it contains may be emitted so cannot be counted as positive gain. • If the biomass is used to produce hardboard for building, the carbon it contains will remain locked up indefinitely. • The project will also manage fuel loads using biomass harvest and controlled burning which will reduce the risk of large losses of carbon to the atmosphere through uncontrolled wild fires.

35. Expert Group • Dr John Merson – Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute (BMWHI) • Dr Joe Landsberg – BMWHI • Peter Ampt – Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems Program (FATE) • Alex Baumber – FATE • Dr Jim Shields – DPI State Forests Biodiversity Manager • Mike Waller – Principal and Consultant Heuris Partners • Dr Mehreen Faruqi – Lecturer, Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW • Claire Carlton – Director and Consultant Ecochange • Dr Sandy Booth – Total Catchment Management Services P/L • Dr Peter Rogers – Biotechnology & Biomolecular Sciences, UNSW

36. Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) Program A UNSW and RIRDC sponsored program driven by Prof. Mike Archer: • Conservation through sustainable use initiatives centered on Australian native species. • Adaptive management. • Coordinated, locally driven landscape-scale approaches exploring common pool resources. Peter Ampt – Manager Alex Baumber – Project Officer www.fate.unsw.edu.au p.ampt@unsw.edu.au