碳市場和相關(guān)國際方案允許向土地所有者付款用于植樹,，有時(shí)候這被稱為碳農(nóng)業(yè),，它們的目的是支持從大氣中截存碳,。但是，發(fā)表在10月號的《生物科學(xué)》（BioScience）的一篇論文說,，如果在土地使用的決策中不考慮到讓農(nóng)業(yè)土地恢復(fù)植被的其他協(xié)同收益和負(fù)收益,，它們將會產(chǎn)生有害效應(yīng)，諸如讓生態(tài)系統(tǒng)退化和導(dǎo)致食品供應(yīng)問題,。
澳大利亞聯(lián)邦科學(xué)與工業(yè)研究組織的Brenda B. Lin和她的同事評估了人們嘗試進(jìn)行碳農(nóng)業(yè)的各種方式。簡單的利益最大化可能導(dǎo)致進(jìn)入碳市場的土地所有者建立單一作物種植園,，這不能支持生物多樣性并且為當(dāng)?shù)鼐用裉峁┉h(huán)境收益,。但是諸如在農(nóng)場種植林帶、農(nóng)林業(yè)——把樹木整合到農(nóng)作物系統(tǒng)中——以及把邊緣或農(nóng)作物用地恢復(fù)植被可能在截存碳的同時(shí)產(chǎn)生廣泛的環(huán)境收益,。
例如,，這些收益可能包括減少污染外溢和侵蝕，以及更好的防風(fēng),、害蟲控制和授粉,。此外，有當(dāng)?shù)貐⑴c和買進(jìn)的方案更可能在長期時(shí)間里成功,，因?yàn)樗鼈兡軌蚶卯?dāng)?shù)氐年P(guān)于樹木如何能夠茁壯生長的知識,，因此也就會一直受歡迎。Lin和她的同事敦促碳農(nóng)業(yè)方案的組織者超越僅僅把焦點(diǎn)放在碳上,，考慮恢復(fù)植被的協(xié)同收益,，同時(shí)讓當(dāng)?shù)鼐用駞⑴c政策決策，而不僅僅是讓私人土地?fù)碛姓邊⑴c,。（生物谷Bioon.com）
生物谷推薦的英文報(bào)道
Carbon farming schemes should consider multiple cobenefits
Encouraging locals' participation is more likely to lead to success
Carbon markets and related international schemes that allow payments to landholders for planting trees, sometimes called carbon farming, are intended to support sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere. But they will have harmful effects, such as degrading ecosystems and causing food supply problems, if other benefits and disbenefits from revegetating agricultural landscapes are not also taken into account in land-use decisions, according to an article published in the October issue of BioScience.
Brenda B. Lin of the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and her colleagues assessed a variety of ways that people have attempted carbon farming. Simple maximization of profit can lead landholders accessing carbon markets to create monoculture plantations, which do not support biodiversity and provide few environmental benefits to local inhabitants. But alternatives such as planting strips of trees on farms, agroforestry—integrating trees into cropping systems—and revegetation of marginal or crop land can sequester carbon while also yielding a broad spectrum of environmental benefits.
These benefits may include, for example, reduced pollution outflow and erosion, and better wind protection, pest control, and pollination. What is more, schemes that have local participation and buy-in are more likely to be successful over the long term, because they can draw on local knowledge about trees likely to thrive and will remain popular. Lin and her colleagues urge organizers of carbon farming schemes to move beyond a carbon-only focus and consider cobenefits of revegetation, while involving local inhabitants, not just private landowners, in policy decisions.
