Would you like to share your insights about monitoring the environment using digital technologies such as smartphones?
You can now contribute to a research project at the University of Melbourne that studies participants’ experiences and practices in biodiversity monitoring with digital technologies. The research team seeks participants over 18 years old who are involved in one of the following biodiversity monitoring platforms:
Your participation in the research project will help better design citizen science programs, improving production of knowledge, connection with nature and social interactions.
This study involves two parts. First, you will have an interview with a researcher, that will take close to 60 minutes. The interview can be done via the phone or a computer (using Zoom or similar video chat technologies). The time of the interview will be coordinated with the researcher, with the objective of finding what is more convenient for you (as a study participant). The researcher will audio-record the interview.
At a later stage, as long as social distancing measures permit monitoring activities in groups, you may allow the researcher to come along with you in one of your expeditions to collect biodiversity data (such as frog calls or birds’ surveys). Alternatively, you may be invited to share further insights with the researcher right after you collected data on your own.
To request further information or participate, please send an email to gonzalezd [at] student.unimelb.edu.au with the subject line “Digital Citizen Science study” or complete the following form:
Australia’s catastrophic bushfires earlier this year may seem like a long time ago now as focus has shifted to the COVID-19 pandemic, but their impact continues.
The fires, which devastated the country’s east, had a major impact on timber resources in both plantations and native forests.
The Australian bushfires had a major impact on timber resources in both plantations and native forests. Picture: Getty Images
Local and export demand for hardwood timber has also continued to grow. However, a lack of recent investment in plantations could see Australia relying more on timber imports in future.
And this is where Australia’s farmers have an opportunity. One way to produce more local wood is by planting trees and forests on Australian farmland.
This has multiple benefits as it would generate timber, improve our wood security, and, in the process, farmers could diversify their incomes, improve farming productivity and wildlife habitat as well as generate many social and environmental benefits for rural Australia.
Our team has been working on new business models for commercial trees on farms, that we believe will be attractive to investors seeking wider beneficial impacts from their capital investments.
A way to produce more local wood is by planting trees and forests on Australian farmland. Picture: Supplied
The project, which was funded by forest industries and the Australian Government and managed by the not-for-profit industry services company, Forest and Wood Products Australia, involves a multi-disciplinary team of forestry experts, spatial analysts, social and finance researchers, and designers.
To understand the big picture, the research team analysed landowner needs and past experiences with tree investment in different regions and then designed business models in collaboration with industry and rural landowners.
It’s important to understand that Australia’s farmers differ in their income needs, business interests and attitudes towards trees. For example, one farmer we spoke to said that if the economics were “good enough” he might even consider buying land to grow trees for timber.
While another farmer said that converting large tracts of good grazing land to trees for forestry was “not for him”. However, the same farmer noted that it would be a “win-win situation” if the trees could be positioned to provide protection for stock, enhance biodiversity and provide habitat corridors, as well as providing timber.
Those developing tree investment options need to recognise these differences and vary timing of payments, planting configurations, and species choices to accommodate these different interests.
Flexible approaches can inspire and enable new partnerships with tree and forest growers working alongside the agricultural sector to generate investment in trees on farms at the scale needed to make a difference to regional industries.
And it’s a system that’s already working in practice. The Yan Yan Gurt West property in the Otway region of Victoria is just one example.
The research team analysed landowner needs and past experiences with tree investment. Picture: Supplied
MUTUALS BENEFITS
Back in 1993, Timber company Midway Ltd began a working partnership with the Stewart family farm in rural Victoria to plant blue gum trees for future harvest under a tree farming agreement.
Eight hectares were planted in belts ten rows wide through the property. This provided shelter for their sheep and soil protection while the trees were growing. After 14 years, the trees were harvested and the Stewarts received a share of the final income.
The net profit (after accounting for fencing and lost grazing opportunity) of $A1,668 per hectare in today’s money was higher than the farming income would have been from this land over the same period.
But even after the trees were harvested the benefits continued. The tree stumps left after harvesting re-sprouted, rapidly providing new shade and shelter. The regrown trees could also be harvested again to generate future income.
These types of partnerships were common in the 1990s but were overtaken by companies promoting the now infamous Managed Investment Schemes. These schemes established around one million hectares of tree plantations, with the companies generally buying whole farms and planting them with trees.
This caused concern among neighbouring farmers and others in local communities and, ultimately, the investment model, which was built on borrowing capital, wasn’t financially or socially sustainable.
New models need to be built on trust between landowners, the timber industry and other stakeholders. Picture: Getty Images
Our research found that tree investment needs to be based on sound regional planning to ensure that the right tree species are planted in the right places to generate desired benefits. Industry also needs to provide a clear commitment to buy wood at suitable prices.
Payments for carbon storage or other environmental services can supplement timber income and provide short-term cash flow.
Most importantly, an investment vehicle is needed to attract the right scale of investment, build investor confidence by spreading risks and underwrite returns.
These new models need to be built on mutual understanding, trust and long-term commitment among landowners, the timber industry and other stakeholders.
This kind of flexible model that meets different needs will be of more interest to a wider group of landowners and see more take-up. But there’s also the need for additional flexibility in payment arrangements, landowner co-investment, tree location and the design on farms, like planning plantings for permanent shade, shelter, aesthetics or biodiversity.
COMMON GOALS
It’s not just farmers who see the potential of these kinds of investment opportunities, our industry partners also see the benefits.
Scaling-up these investment models will see benefits across rural communities and the timber industry. Picture: Getty Images
The industry recognises that creating opportunities from more commercial trees on rural land will require them to change the way they interact with rural landowners.
Tony Price, CEO of Midway Ltd, one of the industry partners in the project, told us that by working together, the sector can promote a consistent message that producing timber is a farm activity that complements other forms of agriculture, and that the industry is willing to work with farmers to achieve common goals.
It’s time to scale-up these investment models so we can start seeing the benefits for rural communities and the timber industry, and secure the future of Australia’s timber resources.
How people can maintain physical and emotional relationships with the natural world despite social-distancing measures?
The People and Nature Alliance (PANA) would like to host some online presentations based on this topic with a particular focus on talks that might suggest pathways for how people can connect with nature during the ongoing pandemic. Additionally, we (PANA) would like to take the key messages from these presentations and our group discussion, and produce a simple advice document. This document would be targeted at local government, health practitioners, and e-NGO’s, and would aim to provide a consistent set of messages and advice for how people can build and maintain relationships with nature when movement is constrained. The knowledge and authority of the many experts in our group will ensure the advice is sound and gives people confidence in their messaging to the broader public.
Confirmed Program
Opening talk
Communicating about nature during COVID – Emily Gregg
Experiencing nature
Re-Imagining Nature – Georgina Reid
Mindful engagement with nearby nature: staying connected with nature during a pandemic – Rose Macaulay
Technology and nature
Nature connection and digital technologies? Insights from citizen science literature – Debbie Gonzalez Canada
Using Virtual Nature to Cope with Social Distancing – Tristan Snell & Navjot Bhullar
Social Media and Animal Photos- The Internet Connection – Meghan Shaw
Programs and initiatives
Lonely Conservationists- Isolated beyond the pandemic – Jessie Panazzolo
Virtual Seminar: Connecting with nature during COVID-19 Thursday, June 11th 2020, from 3:30 to 5:00 pm
To register as an official PANA member and participate from the Seminar, please go to pana.org.au, click “Join” or “Sign up”, and complete the PANA membership application form.
Business leaders, politicians and policymakers have spent years asking if we were to cut emissions, how much would it cost in lost income or Gross National Product (GDP) in Australia? How much worse off would we be?
If countries around the globe also cut emissions how badly would Australia’s exports of coal and natural gas suffer?
While once framed purely as an environmental issue, the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia Guy Debelle noted earlier this year that the risks that climate change poses to the Australian economy are ” first order” and have knock-on implications for macroeconomic policy.
The cost of emissions can be hard to measure in dollar terms, given our complex and uncertain future. Picture: Getty Images
So using recent work by Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (MSSI) at the University of Melbourne, we have compared the cost of damages from climate change, with the cost of reducing emissions from the recent Climate Council Report for economic damages under current or continued increases in emissions.
COST OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION IS NEGLIGIBLE
We know that climate change can have potentially disastrous effects, and the list is long; pollution, heat stress and its impact on human health, falls in agricultural productivity and permanent losses in biodiversity.
As well as damage to environmental assets such as the Great Barrier Reef, sea level rise and resulting infrastructure damage, the increased likelihood of floods and bushfires, possible increased frequency and severity of tropical storms, and severe migration pressure from countries most affected by climate change are only part of the list.
But the relative costs of emissions reduction to avoid these damages, can be hard to measure in dollar terms, given our complex and uncertain future.
As a first step, we use a large dimensional global trade and climate model, an extension of other recent work, to determine the cost of meeting Australia’s minimum target of a 26 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, compared to 2005.
Extreme weather displaced thousands of New Orleans’ residents. Picture: Getty Images
We also assume that all other countries do reduce their emissions by more than double the current unconditional ‘Nationally Determined Contribution’ in the Paris Accord, or a 12 per cent reduction in emissions on average.
There are two major cost effects for Australia here; the cost of transition from fossil fuels to renewables, resulting in relative and variable price changes for energy, across all sectors, and the effect of falls in net exports of fossil fuels on national income.
For the 26 per cent target, we find only negligible effects on national income.
The total cost is only $A35.5 billion in the cumulative fall in GDP from now until 2030 in Australia – a measure much lower than previous other estimates, which range from more than $A82 billion to nearly $A300 billion, using the exact same target.
Why the difference?
One good reason, among many in our modelling, is that we use the most recent estimates on the cost of energy, what is termed the LCOE or the Levelised Cost of Energy.
The LCOE allows for a clear comparison across different technologies (solar, wind, gas, thermal coal etc), allowing for the effects of different project lifespans, capital costs, risk levels, expected rates of return and the ability to generate capacity.
The cost of renewables is falling rapidly around the world. Picture: zstock | Shutterstock
COST OF RENEWABLES IS FALLING
The story here is nothing but positive.
The cost of renewables is falling very rapidly around the world and the LCOE of renewables, also falling rapidly, is already less than the cost of fossil fuels in Australia.
There will still be costs of transition to renewables, of course, especially in the transport sector, along with losses in net exports.
But projected increases in resource efficiency, an efficient emissions trading scheme and the fall in the price of renewables act much like technological change in Australia they give added output from a different energy mix of inputs, generating very little net fall in GDP over the coming decade.
What about damages from climate change under current policy and ‘business as usual’ globally?
These are estimated at $A584.5 billion in 2030 for Australia and blow out to over $A5 trillion in 2100 in the Climate Council Report.
Although not large amounts in terms of the percentage of GDP (roughly 2.5 to 4 per cent in 2100 depending on assumptions on GDP growth going forward), someone has to pay the cost.
That cost is roughly $A14,000 for every Australian in 2100, each year and every year after, or $A61,000 in the cumulative cost per person from now until 2100.
The longer we wait to act and bear any of the costs, or the more we pass on to the future, the larger this per person cost becomes.
The younger generation is right to be protesting.
However, the striking point here is that these damage measures are very limited in scope. They cover only infrastructure damage, some human health effects and losses in agricultural and labour productivity in Australia.
A great deal indeed is missing.
The longer we wait to act and bear any of the costs, the more we pass on to the future. Picture: Getty Images
THE BOTTOM LINE
Do the costs of emissions reduction to 2030, the $A35.5 billion, compare to the losses in 2030 in Australia of $A584.5 billion?
Not exactly, since a 26 per cent target in Australia and the 12 per cent reduction globally will clearly miss the “less than 2 degrees warming by 2100” target, meaning there will still be profound damages from climate change.
Only part of the damages from climate change, in other words, are avoided with such a relatively mild target.
But it does give us a good idea of the order of magnitude.
The 26 per cent reduction in emissions should be relatively easy for Australia to achieve, with very little cost.
It follows that we can and should do even much better. Indeed, our preliminary modelling shows that the costs of emissions reduction are far less than the damages of inaction in all scenarios that we have examined.
Even the case of a net zero emissions target by 2050 is not only possible but desirable – the costs of emissions reduction are also far less than the avoided damages from climate change, even under this more aggressive target.
This, without even acknowledging that our measure of damages from climate change is vastly underestimated, shows that transition from fossil fuels to renewables makes sound economic sense.
_______________________________
This article has been originally published in Pursuit and it is republished here with Professor Tom Kompas’ permission.
