沙漠研究 21-2, 57 -61 (2011) “ICAL 1/DT X”

Journal of Arid Land Studies -Refereed Article-

Using Carbon Reforestation for Water and Environmental Restoration

Richard HARPER*1), Keith SMETTEM2), Stanley SOCHACKI1), Yasuhide NAKAGAMI3), Shinichiro HONDA3),
Fumio TAKAHASHI4), Kunio KAWAMOTO4) and James BULINSKI5)

Abstract: A range of environmental problems including loss of biodiversity, desertification, and compromised water quality persist
across many arid and semi-arid environments despite a good technical understanding of both the processes involved and likely
solutions. Reforestation is an emerging method of carbon mitigation and this carbon investment may thus provide a means of
addressing these environmental problems and achieving landscape scale changes. A possible negative outcome of large scale
land-use change may be depletion of food production. In south-western Australia several approaches have been used to integrate
carbon mitigation with food production and to value the various environmental services (e.g. water quality and yield, carbon
mitigation) produced from reforestation. This paper describes three case studies: (1) a large-scale commercial carbon reforestation
scheme project which integrates strips of eucalypts with cereal farming, (2) reforestation of salinized and abandoned farmland and (3)
watershed scale modeling that uses an existing hydrologic model to predict water yield and quality impacts of reforestation.
Although reforestation is also likely to result in other environmental benefits these are often not valued. In contrast, where hydrologic
models exist, these allow the valuation of water benefits. In the latter example, the value of several products of reforestation (wood,
carbon, water) were assessed and compared to the value of products from the existing farming system.

Key Words: Biodiversity, Carbon mitigation, Payments for environmental services (PES), Salinity, Watershed management

control soil erosion, and plantings to enhance biodiversity

1. Introduction and provide habitat for local fauna.
Two emerging issues however require specific
Several approaches can be taken to reduce overall carbon consideration. The first is the potential for negative aspects
emissions, including increasing energy efficiency, of large-scale carbon reforestation, including the competition
replacement of fuel sources, renewable energy and land-use for farmland and thus food production. This replays some
change (Pacala and Socolow, 2004). One form of land-use of the debates which have occurred in the past with
change is reforestation of farmland, and this can be used to reforestation and the reduction of water yields from
achieve carbon mitigation, via either sequestration or the watersheds (Calder, 2005). This discussion has been
replacement of fossil fuels. Sequestration is encompassed particularly strong in Australia (Mitchell and Harper 2011).
in Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol (Schlamadinger and One approach is to consider integrating trees into farming
Karjalainen 2000) and features as a activity in several systems (Harper et al., In Press) so as to maintain both food
national and voluntary emissions trading schemes. production and achieve carbon mitigation, or to use
There are several intractable environmental problems in abandoned or low value land (Sochacki et al., In Press).
semi-arid areas that can be managed through reforestation, A second issue is of valuing the co-benefits and
including hydrologic imbalances resulting in salinization, drawbacks from reforestation. If reforestation achieves a
soil erosion, biodiversity loss from overgrazing and range of outcomes, it can be argued that it is inequitable that
deterioration of water quality. In many jurisdictions, there only the carbon should be valued, and that the other benefits
is insufficient capital to implement the changes that are are not valued. Similarly, the costs of not undertaking
necessary. The scale of future carbon mitigation restorative action can also be valued. An economic
investment may be large, and herein lies an opportunity to framework should provide a basis for rational decision
use carbon reforestation to tackle water and environmental making and payments for environmental services (PES) is a
problems at a landscape or regional scale (Harper et al. rapidly evolving area (Costanza et al., 1997; Barbier, 2007).
2007). This analysis evaluated the economics of carbon In this study we describe the approaches to these
sequestration and suggested it could take the form of forests problems – optimizing and valuing carbon mitigation, food
established to restore landscape hydrology, windbreaks to production and water and environmental co-benefits – that
* Corresponding Author: r.harper@murdoch.edu.au (Received June 2nd, 2011; Accepted October 10th, 2011)

Alcoa Chair of Sustainable Water Management, Env. Science, Murdoch University, WA, Australia 6150. have been developed in Western Australia
1) Murdoch University 3) Kansai Electric Power Company (WA). This region is characterized by
2) The University of WA 4) KANSO Technos
 region of WA (Fig. 1). This project has involved the
establishment of 10-20 m wide strips of mallee eucalypts
interspersed with cereal cropping of varying widths in an
area with around 300 mm/year annual rainfall. The aims of
the reforestation have been to abate greenhouse gas
emissions through sequestering carbon in long-term (>30
years) environmental plantings.
Three species of mallee eucalypts (E. kochii spp.
plenissima, E. loxophleba spp. lissolphloia, E. horistes) were
established in June 2003 across 30 discrete farms, with 893
ha in total. Trees were measured in June 2010 using
permanent forest sampling plots. Tree attributes measured
included height and diameter of stems. Biomass and
sequestered carbon were estimated from proprietary
Fig. 1. Location of the three case study sites (1-3) across the allometric equations.
south-west of Western Australia.

2.2. Case study 2 - Carbon mitigation and repair of

infertile soils, a Mediterranean climate and the accumulation abandoned land.
of salts within deep regolithic profiles. In this region, Large areas (potentially over one million hectares) of
extensive development of land occurred in the period land have become salinized across the region, and the land is
1950-1980, with this involving the removal of natural no longer used for agricultural purposes. This project
eucalypt dominated vegetation and its replacement with involved the establishment of several salt-tolerant species on
dryland farming systems. These involve cereal cropping a salinized area near Wickepin (Fig. 1). The aims of this
(wheat, barley) usually in rotation with grazing systems of reforestation have again been to achieve carbon mitigation
annual legume based pastures (Burvill, 1979). An via either carbon sequestration or the production of biomass
extensive range of land degradation problems have for co-firing for electricity production, and the stabilization
developed, including salinization as a result of an induced of soils and hydrology in the salinized area (Sochacki et al.,
hydrologic imbalance (Peck and Hatton 2002), wind erosion In Press). However, it is considered unlikely that such
(Harper et al., 2010), and biodiversity loss (Myers et al., reforestation will restore hydrology (George et al., 1999).
2000). The approaches developed here are applicable to
other semi-arid areas in the world. 2.3. Case study 3 - Carbon mitigation combined with
improved water quality.
2. Methods The impact of reforestation on water supplies is often
considered in terms of impacts on water yield. In specific
Three case studies are examined. These occur within circumstances, such as the restoration of salinity,
three distinct areas of the agricultural zone of WA (Fig. 1). reforestation will improve water quality to the extent that
previously unusable water can be utilized.
2.1. Case study 1 - Carbon mitigation using agroforestry The study (Townsend et al., In Press) used as an
strips. example the Warren-Tone, a large (408 000 ha) agricultural
One approach to achieving both hydrological benefits watershed with between 500 to 700 mm/year annual rainfall.
and carbon sequestration is to establish strips of trees across Around a quarter of this catchment (105 000 ha) had been
the landscape, with the continuation of food production, in previously cleared, with 25 000 ha subsequently reforested
this case cropping, between the tree strips. Several short with pulpwood (Eucalyptus globulus) plantations. Water
stature eucalyptus species, termed mallees, are used in a yield and quality outcomes of various reforestation scenarios
system that was initially developed to provide a means for were estimated using LUCICAT a calibrated hydrological
the hydrological management of salinity (Robinson et al., model (Bari and Smettem, 2006). A hydrological-land
2006). -use-economic model was constructed, and as described in
Kansai Electric Power Company engaged KANSO Townsend et al. (In Press), this allows the costs and benefits
Technos to undertake a reforestation project through the Oil of different land-uses to be examined at a whole watershed
Mallee Company of Australia as an agent in the Kalannie level. This bundled payments for various environmental
 C sequestration (t CO2-e/ha)
75 100

75

Survival (%)
50
50
25
25

0 0
4 5 6 7 8
Age (years)

Fig. 3. Mean carbon sequestration (t CO2-e/ha) of Eucalyptus

occidentalis planted at 2,000 trees/ha at Wickepin (Case
study 2).
Fig. 2. Mean carbon sequestration (t CO2-e/ha) of the three
eucalypt mallee species after 7 years of growth at
Kalannie (Case study 1)
species, planting density and age of the planting. High
services (PES), and externalities, following reforestation. density (2,000 trees/ha) plantings of Eucalyptus occidentalis
These included estimates of returns from water, wood and produced a mean of 37 t/ha of dry biomass (equivalent to 68
carbon and comparisons with the existing agricultural t CO2-e/ha), eight years after planting (Fig. 3). Continued
production. mitigation is expected as the stands mature, assuming that
growth is not affected by the accumulation of salt in the soil
3. Results and Discussion profile (Archibald et al., 2006).
The same principle of using reforestation to both achieve
3.1. Case study 1 - Carbon mitigation using agroforestry carbon mitigation and land repair also applies to lands that
strips. have been damaged by erosion, over-irrigation or
The mean tree height at seven years across all plots was contaminated by pesticides; utilization of such land could
2.06 m, this exceeding the forest eligibility requirement of thus represent a major contribution to global carbon
Kyoto compliant forests. The average current stocking was mitigation without competing with food production.
1709 trees/ha, down from the mean original stocking of
2 378 trees/ha. Mean biomass across all sites was 14.9 dry 3.3 Case study 3 - Carbon mitigation combined with
t/ha, and estimated carbon sequestration 27.3 t CO2-e/ha. improved water quality.
There was marked variation in the mean performance of A hydrological model (LUCICAT) was used to define
the different eucalypt species, with E. loxophleba spp. the relationships between reforestation/deforestation and
lissolphloia having a mean yield across all sites of 42.4 ± 0.7 water yield and quality, thus providing a basis for valuing the
t CO2-e/ha, compared to values of 23.6 ± 0.7 t CO2-e/ha and hydrological benefits of reforestation. Various land-use
23.0 ± 0.3 t CO2-e/ha for E. kochii spp. plenissima and E. change scenarios were examined, with these suggesting that
horistes, respectively (Fig. 2). There were also marked 70% reforestation was required to restore stream salinity to a
differences in both biomass accumulation (0.1 - 42.9 dry potable threshold of 500 mg/L total dissolved salts (TDS)
t/ha) and carbon sequestration across sites (range 0.1 - 78.7 t (Townsend et al., In press). Although it was estimated that
CO2-e/ha). This style of reforestation is relatively new and this would reduce annual water yields from 260 GL/year to
these results suggest that further exploration of the different 237 GL/year, a response reported in other watersheds, the
rates of sequestration between species and with site important distinction here is that water would be restored to a
conditions will be profitable, particularly as these aspects can potable condition and thus have value. Economic
be managed. modeling suggested that the sale of 100 GL/year of water at
AUD$150,000/GL would result in a net water value of
3.2. Case study 2 - Carbon mitigation and repair of $285/ha/year.
abandoned land. Reforestation was unprofitable when only wood
A range of factors significantly affected both carbon revenues from reforestation were considered, with a discount
sequestration and biomass production on the salinized site rate of 9.5% but was profitable at lower discount rates and
(Sochacki et al., In Press). These include hydrological with carbon prices of at least $26 t CO2-e. Additional
conditions such as salinity, site factors such as slope position income would come from the sale of timber and carbon, and
and soil properties and a range of silvicultural factors such as the bundled return from timber, carbon and water is more
 in three dryland Australian plantations. Agrofor. Syst., 66:
Table 1. Agricultural returns and externalities and forestry
191-204.
returns from both timber and carbon (AUD$/ha/year)
in the Warren Tone watershed (Case study 3). Net Barbier E.B. (2007): Valuing ecosystem services as
Present Values were calculated with a discount rate of 7%. productive inputs. Econ. Pol., 22: 177-229.
Bari M.A., Smettem K.R.J. (2006): A conceptual model of
Returns ($/ha/year) Annual rainfall (mm/year)
daily water balance following partial clearing from forest
500 700 to pasture, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sc., 10: 321-337.
Agricultural returns 150 190 Burvill G.H. (1979): The development of light lands. In
Burvill G.H. eds., Agriculture in Western Australia.
Externality (salinity) costs of agriculture -50 -30
University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands, 157-172.
Net value of agriculture 100 160
Calder I.R. (2005): Blue Revolution: Integrated Land and
Timber return -200 -113 Water Resource Management. Earthscan, London.
Carbon return 354 357 Costanza R., D'Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M.,
Water return 285 285 Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O'Neill R.V., Paruelo
J., Raskin R.G., Sutton P., van den Belt M. (1997): The
Timber + carbon + water 439 529
value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital.
Net benefit of forestry over agriculture 339 369
Nature, 387: 253-260.
George R.J., Nulsen R.A., Ferdowsian R., Raper G.P. (1999):
profitable than the existing agricultural system (Table 1). Interactions between trees and groundwaters in recharge
The sale of potable water following reforestation could and discharge areas - a survey of Western Australian sites.
provide a new source of income for landholders, on the Agric. Water Manag., 39: 91-113.
proviso that there is enough reforestation across the Harper R.J., Beck A.C., Ritson P., Hill M.J., Mitchell C.D.,
watershed to reach the potable threshold. Barrett D.J., Smettem K.R.J., Mann S.S. (2007): The
potential of greenhouse sinks to underwrite improved land
4. Conclusions management. Ecol. Eng., 29: 329-341.
Harper R.J., Gilkes R.J., Hill M.J., Carter D.J. (2010): Wind
Whereas carbon reforestation can provide carbon erosion and soil carbon dynamics in south-western
mitigation, different approaches such as using strips of trees Australia. Aeol. Res., 1: 129-141.
or abandoned land, may allow integration with existing Harper R.J., Smettem K.R.J., Townsend P.V., Bartle J.R.,
agriculture. This reforestation is also likely to result in McGrath J.F. (in press): Broad-scale restoration of
other environmental benefits. There also appears to be landscape function with timber, carbon and water
considerable potential to increase the efficiency of mitigation investment. In Stanturf J.A., Lamb D. Madsen P. eds.,
via species and site selection and silvicultural practices. Forest Landscape Restoration: Integrating Social and
Environmental benefits are often not brought to account, Natural Sciences. Springer, New York.
mainly because of difficulties of valuing land repair and Mitchell C.D., Harper R.J. (2011): Status and prospects of
biodiversity restoration. Both represent a future challenge. carbon forestry in Australia. ABARES Outlook Conference,
In contrast, where hydrological models exist, these provide a Canberra.
means of valuing potable water benefits both within specific Myers N., Mittermeier R.A., Mittermeier C.G., da Fonseca
watersheds but also as a tool to evaluate different policy G.A.B., Kent J. (2000): Biodiversity hotspots for
options. conservation priorities. Nature, 403: 853-858.
Bundling of the multiple environmental outcomes of Pacala S., Socolow R. (2004): Stabilization wedges: Solving
reforestation also appears promising; in this case markets are the climate problem for the next 50 years with current
required for each of the bundled components. Importantly, technologies. Science, 305: 968-972.
the carbon mitigation debate is often framed in terms of Peck A.J., Hatton T.J. (2002): Salinity and the discharge of
impacts on food production, whereas water and fiber are also salts from catchments in Australia. J. Hydrol., 272:
essential commodities that are produced from the land. 191-202.
Robinson N., Harper R.J., Smettem K.R.J. (2006): Soil
References water depletion by Eucalyptus spp. integrated into dryland
Archibald R.D., Harper R.J., Fox J.E.D. Silberstein R.P. agricultural systems. Plant Soil, 286: 141-151.
(2006): Tree performance and root-zone salt accumulation Schlamadinger B, Karjalainen T. (2000): Afforestation,
 reforestation, and deforestation (ARD) activities. In Bio-mitigation of carbon from reforestation of abandoned
Watson R.T., Noble I.R., Bolin B., Ravindranath N.H., farmland. Global Change Biology Bioenergy.
Verardo D.J. Dokken D.J. eds., Land Use, Land–Use Townsend P.V., Harper R.J., Brennan P.D., Dean C., Wu S.,
Change, and Forestry. Cambridge University Press, Smettem K.R.J., Cook S.E. (In Press): Multiple
Cambridge, pp 127-179. environmental services as an opportunity for watershed
Sochacki S.J., Harper R.J., Smettem K.R.J. (In Press): restoration. For. Policy Econ.