Understanding the Role of the Social-Ecological System Framework for Examining Australian Farmers’ Capacity to Manage Soil Carbon

Abstract

<p>Soil carbon is the largest terrestrial carbon pool, which is three times larger than atmospheric carbon storage. Soil carbon sequestration is considered to be one of the major means for climate change mitigation, and can ensure soil fertility, habitat conservation and reduced soil erosion. Grazing enterprises cover over 50% of Australia’s land area (around 336 million hectares), and research evidence has shown a greater potential for being able to offset greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on grazing lands, particularly in higher rainfall zones with greater vegetation retention. Thus, Australian grazing regimes could be a productive area for achieving Australia’s carbon emission reduction targets. In Australia, a credit offset scheme (i.e. carbon trading with an authorised carbon price) was designed under the Emission Reduction Fund (ERF), and was the world’s first national initiative to regulate the emission of carbon to the atmosphere from the agriculture and forestry sectors. The environmental conditions, land use and farming practices that improve carbon storage are considered to be known, in part from a series of government-funded programs in Australia during the late 2000s and early 2010s. However, the mismatch in priorities and knowledge expectations between farmers and scientists appears to be on how much and how quickly carbon can be built up in the soil profile. This knowledge gap has led to confusion as to what soil carbon management (SCM) approaches are best in Australian conditions. Carbon markets and SOC abatement potential fail to recognise that additional co-benefits of on-farm SCM because they are only rewarding the quantum of abatement. Irrespective of newly emerged carbon markets farmers have long recognised these co-benefits and managed for these (despite government investment in incentives, R&D). However, R and D effort from the review of literature showed a disproportionate emphasis on SOC for climate mitigation to inform government policy. In addition, the bulk of the past literature on SCM deals with the biophysical aspects of SCM rather than a holistic (socio-ecological) view. This study examined the SCM of long-term SCM practitioners in the grazing regimes of the Northern Tablelands and Upper Hunter regions of NSW using the novel approach of Ostrom’s social-ecological system (SES) framework. The higher-level tiers of this framework were adapted to determine the particular features that are important for farmers’ SCM practice.</p> <p>The first part of the research was a two-stage systematic review of SCM in Australia. The first stage examined the progress made in SCM research in Australia, and the second stage focused on the use of the SES framework in SCM in both the global and Australian contexts. The study then used both quantitative and qualitative assessment of articles to identify and synthesise research trends, challenges and opportunities for improved SCM (Chapter 2). The results provide a valuable insight into the SES components that have been examined, the methodological challenges experienced in the research into SCM that has been conducted over the last two decades and the research gaps. The review revealed that research has predominately focused on the ecological component of SCM in agricultural practices and has been conducted from a scientist’s perspective. However, the sustainability of carbon-building soil management practices will require integration of the social components into future research, particularly from a farmer perspective. This research made the first attempt to develop a conceptual SES framework for SCM that can be used to identify and investigate the SES components in SCM in order to increase the process of offsetting GHG emissions as required by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2, 13 and 15.</p> <p>The second step (Chapter 3) of this study focused on understanding experienced farmers’ current SES for SCM of grazing lands to identify the areas that affect their potential engagement in such policy initiatives. The mixed method approach used in this study included a network analysis that examined the connectivity of the SES features in SCM and estimated the strength of the connectivity among the SES features in the network. The network connectivity identified from the quantitative data was then validated by separately arranged farmer (n=2) and service provider workshops (n=2). The outcome was a consolidated SES causal loop map, which was produced by the system dynamic (SD) modelling platform STELLA. To understand the complex SES features in SCM, the farmer interviews were based on Ostrom’s high-level categories of resource system, resource units, governance, actors (users) and interaction-output (interactions-outcomes). Interviews were conducted with experienced graziers (n=25) who were purposively selected. The selection criteria aimed to capture the perspectives of highly experienced graziers who had been undertaking two to three SCM practices for at least a decade, and represented both low-fertility and moderate-fertility farming cohorts. Utilising the categories of Ostrom’s SES framework, 51 SES features of SCM were identified by the farm-level interviews. In the current SES of SCM, the connectivity among the SES features was 30%, which is relatively low compared with an ideal, fully connected social network. In stakeholder workshops, consensus was reached on the causal relationships (e.g. interactions, feedback loops) between the specific SES features that were considered to influence SCM. The SES had 10 critical feedback loops, with policy settings and instruments not positively affecting SCM practice.</p> <p>In the third step (Chapter 4) of the research, grazing farmers in low-fertility and moderate fertility soils were interviewed about their SCM and how they have persisted with their grazing regime despite obstacles such as drought. Both farming cohorts have shown resolve to continue their grazing regime because the benefits are manifold and affect whole-farm sustainability. Farmers were not familiar with the government initiatives for SCM under the ERF and the relevance to them and their SCM. As the studied farmers were focused on the broad agrienvironmental benefits of SCM practices in a holistic manner, these long-term practitioners were unlikely to engage with soil carbon projects given their current structure and eligibility criteria. Farmers were focused on a number of benefits that accrue from their grazing regimes, including improvements in production, soil moisture retention and soil health. Farmers in more “stressed” environments also emphasised mental health and landscape aesthetics as outcomes of SCM. These features of the farmers’ SCM present tangible benefits that are not easily quantified but were identified as important for farmers in managing their soil.</p> <p>This study developed the SES for SCM based on farmers’ practices in the Northern Tablelands and Upper Hunter of NSW, and explored the social-ecological relationships for SCM in order to improve farmers’ capacity to engage with existing or future policy mechanisms in Australia. This study used a novel approach by operationalising Ostrom’s SES framework to provide a tool for unpacking the SES relationships and exploring feedback loops in the grazing regimes. This approach can be applied to similar data-poor regions of the world. Unpacking the SES relationships in SCM can identify the gaps, challenges and needs of stakeholders, particularly farmers, and this information can be used to develop approaches that can help to achieve local, national and international objectives, such as SCM co-benefits, GHG emission offsetting, carbon sequestration targets and SDGs. The SES for SCM of long-term practitioners in rotational grazing needs to be considered in order to formulate more targeted, customised and nuanced government policy. Also the experience of farmers who have managed to sustain their SCM through challenging times needs to be communicated to younger and less experienced farmers, so that the broader system dynamics that sustain farming and contribute to improvements in soil carbon sequestration can be addressed</p>