Current carbon prices do not stack up to much land use change, despite bundled ecosystem service co-benefits.

Biological sources of carbon sequestration such as revegetation have been highlighted as important avenues to combat climate change and meet global targets by the global community including the Paris Climate Agreement. However, current and projected carbon prices present a considerable barrier to broad-scale adoption of tree planting as a key mitigation strategy. One avenue to provide additional economic and environmental incentives to encourage wider adoption of revegetation is the bundling or stacking of additional co-beneficial ecosystem services that can be realized from tree planting. Using the World's largest land-based carbon credit trading scheme, the Australian Emissions Reduction Scheme (ERF), we examine the potential for three pairs of ecosystem services, where the carbon sequestration value of land use change is paired with an additional co-benefit with strong prospects for local tangible benefits to land owners/providers. Two cases consider agricultural provisioning values that can be realized by the landowners in higher returns: increased pollination services and reduced lamb mortality. The third case examined payments for tree plantings along riparian buffers, with payments to farmers by a water utility who realizes the benefit from reduced treatment cost due to water quality improvements. Economic incentives from these co-benefit case studies were found to be mixed, with avoided treatment costs from water quality paired with carbon payments the most promising, while pollination and reduced lamb mortality paired with carbon payments were unable to bridge the economic gap except under the most optimistic assumptions. We conclude that the economics case for significant land use change are likely to be geographically dispersed and only viable in relatively niche landscape positions in high establishment, high opportunity cost areas even when carbon payments are augmented with the value of co-benefits classified as providing direct and local benefits.

Climate change and the economics of biomass energy feedstocks in semi-arid agricultural landscapes: A spatially explicit real options analysis.

The economics of establishing perennial species as renewable energy feedstocks has been widely investigated as a climate change adapted diversification option for landholders, primarily using net present value (NPV) analysis. NPV does not account for key uncertainties likely to influence relevant landholder decision making. While real options analysis (ROA) is an alternative method that accounts for the uncertainty over future conditions and the large upfront irreversible investment involved in establishing perennials, there have been limited applications of ROA to evaluating land use change decision economics and even fewer applications considering climate change risks. Further, while the influence of spatially varying climate risk on biomass conversion economic has been widely evaluated using NPV methods, effects of spatial variability and climate on land use change have been scarcely assessed with ROA. In this study we applied a simulation-based ROA model to evaluate a landholder's decision to convert land from agriculture to biomass. This spatially explicit model considers price and yield risks under baseline climate and two climate change scenarios over a geographically diverse farming region. We found that underlying variability in primary productivity across the study area had a substantial effect on conversion thresholds required to trigger land use change when compared to results from NPV analysis. Areas traditionally thought of as being quite similar in average productive capacity can display large differences in response to the inclusion of production and price risks. The effects of climate change, broadly reduced returns required for land use change to biomass in low and medium rainfall zones and increased them in higher rainfall areas. Additionally, the risks posed by climate change can further exacerbate the tendency for NPV methods to underestimate true conversion thresholds. Our results show that even under severe drying and warming where crop yield variability is more affected than perennial biomass plantings, comparatively little of the study area is economically viable for conversion to biomass under $200/DM t, and it is not until prices exceed $200/DM t that significant areas become profitable for biomass plantings. We conclude that for biomass to become a valuable diversification option the synchronisation of products and services derived from biomass and the development of markets is vital.

Real options analysis for land use management: Methods, application, and implications for policy.

Discounted cash flow analysis, including net present value is an established way to value land use and management investments which accounts for the time-value of money. However, it provides a static view and assumes passive commitment to an investment strategy when real world land use and management investment decisions are characterised by uncertainty, irreversibility, change, and adaptation. Real options analysis has been proposed as a better valuation method under uncertainty and where the opportunity exists to delay investment decisions, pending more information. We briefly review the use of discounted cash flow methods in land use and management and discuss their benefits and limitations. We then provide an overview of real options analysis, describe the main analytical methods, and summarize its application to land use investment decisions. Real options analysis is largely underutilized in evaluating land use decisions, despite uncertainty in policy and economic drivers, the irreversibility and sunk costs involved. New simulation methods offer the potential for overcoming current technical challenges to implementation as demonstrated with a real options simulation model used to evaluate an agricultural land use decision in South Australia. We conclude that considering option values in future policy design will provide a more realistic assessment of landholder investment decision making and provide insights for improved policy performance.