1. Sandra
J.
Velarde
ANU
Crawford
School
of
Public
Policy
and
CSIRO
Energy
Transformed
Flagship
Supervisory
Panel:
A/Professor
Luca
Tacconi
(ANU)
Luis
Rodriguez
(CSIRO)
Deborah
O’Connell
(CSIRO)
27th
November
2012
Growing
trees
as
bioenergy
crops
needs
more
than
economic
incen4ves

2. What
incenSves
could
moSvate
landholders
to
set
up
the
criScal
mass
of
tree
planSngs
required
for
developing
a
bioenergy
industry?

3. Tullamore

4. 1.
What
factors
underlie
landholders’
willingness
to
adopt
tree
bioenergy
crops?
2.
What
are
landholders’
preferences
on
the
incenSves
offered
to
moSvate
them
to
set
up
new
tree
biomass
planSngs?
3.
What
are
influencing
factors
for
building
a
criScal
mass
of
producers
to
start
a
new
biomass
for
energy
industry?

5. 1. Preliminary
survey:
several
iteraSons

12
expert
interviews
and
group
feedback
while
waiSng
for
ethics
clearance
2. Pilot
surveys:
+40
surveys
at
3
agricultural
shows:
Canowindra,
Morongla
and
Bribaree
3. Final
survey:
-­‐ Stage
1:
NaSonal
Agricultural
Field
Days:
16-­‐18th
October,
Orange:
162
surveys
-­‐ Stage
2:
NaSonal
Cherry
FesSval,
30th
–
2nd
December,
Young

6. 1.
Farming
data
(5
q.)
2.
Trees
in
your
property
(5-­‐8
q.)
3.
Demographic
data
(6
q.)
4.
Final
comments
or
quesSons
(1
q.)
Total:
21
quesSons

8. Typical
property:
588
acres
(238
has)
Orange,

10. 1.
Farming
data
(5)
2.
Trees
in
your
property
(5-­‐8)
3.
Demographic
data
(6)
4.
Final
comments
or
quesSons
(1)

11. A
B
C
Length
of
contract
(years)
25
15
Neither
A
nor
B
=
No
addiSonal
income
($0)
Annual
return
($/acre)
76.00
53.00
Flexibility
to
choose
harvesSng
company
No
Yes
I
would
prefer
this
opSon
[
]
[
]
[
]

13. n=162

survey
respondents
49%
would
NOT
plant
trees
as
energy
crops
51%
would
plant
trees
as
energy
crops
48%
choose
opSon
A
or
B
(n=38)
52%
choose
opSon
C
(n=41)

14. n=41
those
who
chose
all
opSon
C
26
other
reason
5
interested
but
opSons
not
alracSve
3
need
real
life
examples/market
3
more
info
risk/
returns
4
a
mix
of
the
above

15. n=39
those
who
chose
all
opSon
C
12
nothing
5
interested
if
I
had
financial
need
4
-­‐
200%
higher
financial
returns
3
-­‐
100%
financial
returns
2
-­‐
50%
higher
returns
11
other

16. n=162

survey
respondents
79
would
NOT
plant
trees
as
energy
crops
83
would
plant
trees
as
energy
crops
50
provided
comments
29
no
comments

18. IncenSve
design:
ImplicaSons
• No
trust:
companies/government
(7)
• bad
past
experiences
(4)
• Not
suitable
land
(6)
• NegaSve
views
about
trees:
no
value,
unproducSve
land,
fire
hazard
(4)
• PercepSons
about
landholders
themselves:
resistance
to
change
(2)
• PosiSve
percepSons
about
trees:
Providers
of
environmental
services
but
not
to
be
harvested
(5)
• Insufficient
financial
incenSve
(8)
• Species:
Not
pine,
yes
naSves
(7)
• Control
over
land
(5)

19. Thank
you
Research
supported
by:
CSIRO
Energy
Transformed
Flagship
Scholarship
Crawford
School
Tui<on
Scholarship