Correction CarbonLink

This item was jumbled: A prominent big city climate change lawyer told me his firm was helping 2 or 3 different clients put together soil carbon operations. So we can be sure there are many more rushing to complete measurement systems and get them approved while sweating over clauses in contracts for farmers to sign. The most prominent of those jostling for position on the grid would be Terry McCosker's CarbonLink. When Terry predicted there would be ‘rivers of cash’ flowing from soil carbon he may have been anticipating some of the flow coming his way. We said this because we believed that the CarbonLink model required the landholder be an RCS member who has been practicing “Grazing For Profit” techniques. WE went on to say: "Fenceline comparisions, the methodology RCS is using, works on the assumption that the next door neighbour won’t be an RCS member. This might not be the case for long as membership of RCS is the ticket to the dance for CarbonLink. In other words, Terry has engineered his soil carbon operation to act as a funnel for his RCS consultancy. Clever." CarbonLink CEO Rod Rush denies the RCS precondition and says: "By the way, anyone can participate in the Carbon Link model including holistic management and carbon coalition devotees." We stand corrected.

Christine Jones update: is Roth C up to it?

Dr Christine Jones recently questioned the value of conventional soil carbon measurement models such as Roth C, the model of choice of Australian soil science. Conventional models are useful for describing soil carbon loss, but they are inadequate for determining soil carbon gain. They don’t take into account humification of root exudates or contributions from mycorrhizal fungi. ‘Sequestration rates under regenerative agricultural regimes may be quite a bit higher than estimated by current models,’ she says in a recent CSIRO magazine article (ECOS). She reports on progress with her Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme (ASCAS). ASCAS is the culmination of her 10-year crusade to raise soil carbon to its rightful place in agriculture. She hopes to demonstrate through farm trials that increases in soil carbon can be achieved quickly when biological farming techniques are combined with deep-rooted perennial pastures and annual crops. “Through photosynthesis plants convert CO2 to sugars to power growth, releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. The activities of symbiotic bacteria and fungi, associated with roots and fed by the sugars, enable the exuded carbon to be combined with soil minerals and made into stable humus which locks the carbon away,” says ECOS. ‘This can’t happen where farm chemicals kill the essential soil microbes,’ says Dr Jones. ‘When chemical use is added to intensive cultivation, which exposes and oxidises the humus already in soil, it is easy to see why soil has become a huge net source rather than a net “sink” for atmospheric CO2 under current farming practices.’
Tim Wiley, Development Officer with Western Australia’s Department of Agriculture and Food, says: ‘The trend is clear – perennial pastures sequester 5 to 10 tonnes of CO2 per hectare annually.’ But he says there are data deficiencies: ‘We don’t know enough about carbon under different farming systems. We have data from farmer samplingbefore and after perennials were plantedand over-the-fence comparisons, but it is not rigorous enough. To trade carbon we need a working model such as Roth C for estimating changes in carbon. The model results would be verified by occasional soil sampling of farmers’ paddocks. Roth C needs to be validated with data from long-term trials in the regions that accurately measure carbon.’ Results from the first 12 months of ASCAS field trials will be known later this year. ‘One of the broadacre cropping properties north-east of Clermont in Queensland that is participating in the ASCAS project has more than three times the amount of carbon in the farmed soil than there is under the surrounding native vegetation (149 tonnes of carbon/ha under native vegetation versus 516 tonnes of carbon/ha under the crop). As a result, the wheat crop yielded 4 tonnes per hectare of grain with 13.5 per cent protein this year – well above the district average. The afrmer used no-till and microbial stimulants. ECOS reports: “Under the Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme, participating farmers will receive Soil Carbon Incentive Payments (SCIPS) calculated at one-hundredth the 100-year rate ($25 per tonne CO2 sequestered). The incentive payments made to farmers are a private donation from Rhonda Willson, Executive Chairman, John While Springs (S) Pte Ltd and Director, Gilgai Australia. Receipt of Soil Carbon Incentive Payments will be similar to being paid ‘on delivery’ for livestock or grain…” Rio Tinto Coal Australia is currently funding research into soil carbon’s potential for a future carbon trading scheme under ASCAS. Incitec Pivot Ltd is also supporting the Queensland field trials. The ECOS article was written by James Porteous and Frank Smith.

Soil gets a seat at the table

The Coalition was represented recently at public hearings of submissions to a NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Climate Change, Emissions Trading Schemes and Natural Resource Management. Three of the six members of the Committee attended. The three attending were dumbfounded upon hearing the Soil Carbon story. We were dumbfounded as well, because we had made a 20-page submission on the subject to the Committee in December, 2007, before it widened its terms of reference to include trading.
(Note to those making submissions to Government Inquiries: If you can't get in front of the Inquiry to present your case, a document is almost worthless.) The Chair, Karyn Paluzzano MP, asked what the Coalition wanted. We replied: "Permission to start trading tomorrow on a no-Carbon sequestered, no-credits earned" basis. (See: New Manifesto Launched..)

Also visiting Soil Carbon HQ this week was Keith Emery, a senior soil and landscape specialist from the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change. He has a theory that his colleagues could do with some exposure to "Carbon Farmers" who he describes as 'observational scientists' (as opposed to 'experimental scientists'). He is a mapping specialist and is interested in building a database of live farm information that can feed into the scientists' processes. The magic word: "Collaboration."

Behind the scenes… Before the Goldrush

JOSTLING: A prominent big city climate change lawyer told me his firm was helping 2 or 3 different clients put together soil carbon operations. So we can be sure there are many more rushing to complete measurement systems and get them approved while sweating over clauses in contracts for farmers to sign. The most prominent of those jostling for position on the grid would be Terry McCosker's CarbonLink. When Terry predicted there would be ‘rivers of cash’ flowing from soil carbon he may have been anticipating the flow coming his way. We say this because the CarbonLink model requires the landholder be an RCS member who has been practicing “Grazing For Profit” techniques. Fenceline comparisions, the methodology RCS is using, works on the assumption that the next door neighbour won’t be an RCS member. This might not be the case for long as membership of RCS is the ticket to the dance for CarbonLink. In other words, Terry has engineered his soil carbon operation to act as a funnel for his RCS consultancy. Clever. [Correction: CarbonLink CEO Rod Rush denies the RCS precondition and says: "By the way, anyone can participate in the Carbon Link model including holistic management and carbon coalition devotees."]

CMA TAKES CREDITS: One CMA wants to cash in on carbon credits that is ‘clients’ might earn. The agreement landholders are signing has the following words: “any carbon credits generated through activities of this project / bid will become the property of the (name withheld) CMA, and net returns from their sale shared with the landholder.” Now there is a certain logic to this. If the CMA contributes 100% of the funds for the tree planting, for instance, you might say it is reasonable that they share in the spoils. But is it in a CMA’s brief to collect carbon credits earned on its clients’ properties? Is it time the role of the CMA was considered in light of the coming carbon market? Soil carbon trading would create a demand for CMA services and support for such things as wire and water.


CMA SYNERGY WITH SOIL CARBON: . If the price of carbon goes high enough, landholders may not need the incentive of CMA funding to make the changes to land management sought by the Government. And if a steadily-rising soil carbon level in the landscape brings with it all the associated benefits: better soil structure, improved hydrology, reduced salination, increased biodiversity, etc. the CMAs should find their jobs getting easier and easier. Reading the Central West Catchment Management Authority’s Catchment Action Plan 2006-2016, we were struck by the number of Catchment and Management Targets across the basic themes of Salinity, Water, Vegetation, Biodiversity, and Soil that the widespread use of carbon farming techniques will address. The synergies are uncanny. For instance, assume a take-up rate of carbon farming of 85%. (This figure can be reached within the first 5 years over the next period of the Catchment Action Plan.) We were able to put a star – which means Carbon Farming can help by providing a polluter-funded, private enterprise solution for achieving CMA targets – on 5/5 Management Targets for Soils, 4/4 for Biodiversity, 9/9 for Salinity, 6/7 for water, and 6/9 for Vegetation. Even if you cut it in half, it is still a major contribution to the CMA’s efforts. The CMA concept always included the community and the farm sector. With the formal recognition of Carbon Farming and Soils recently, there will be a higher percentage of farmer input, which will please many in the CMA.

Soil C Ignorance in NZ Government dangerous

The NZ Government clearly does not understand the soil carbon issue at all levels and the gravity of its apparent decision on leaving soil carbon out of its ETS gives this ignorance the force of a national scandal.

First it dismisses soil carbon as having any potential to sequester carbon: In New Zealand, pasture is carbon neutral “and worse” says a memo from a senior departmental officer. A slide from a Government presentation has no sequestration in the plant photosynthetic process at all. The plant takes in 20 tonnes of Carbon per year and respires 10 tonnes to the atmosphere. The balance (10tC) is respired by plant roots (5tC) or turned into plant shoots where it neatly divides itself into the following emissions: faeces - 1400kgC, urine – 100kgC, respiration – 2840kgC, milk/meat 500kgC, and Methane 160kgC as CH4.

Having dismissed the possibility that grazed pasture can sequester any Carbon, the NZ Government points to the Voluntary Market as having “potential” for soil carbon credits. “This may be where the call for ‘offsets’ can be met,” says a senior official.

This wasn’t a slip of the tongue: the NZ Government called a tender for the development of a Voluntary Market mechanism for the country’s sequestered soil carbon to be traded. (MAF-POL/CP04 CARB-MARKETS-01 VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET OPPORTUNITIES – SOIL CARBON MANAGEMENT IN NEW ZEALAND) One tenderer was the research company which proclaimed that New Zealand’s soils could not sequester carbon. It appears that it did not let its conviction that there would be no soil carbon sequestered that could be traded on this new Voluntary Carbon Market stop it from accepting a Government contract to provide these non-existent tonnes of soil carbon with a mechanism to be sold.



The levels of understanding within the Ministry and Cabinet, indicated by this single fact, are dangerously low given the disruption their decisions will make to the lives of NZ farmers.

More Kiwis come to OZ to learn soil carbon war dance

A steady stream of farmers are arriving in Australia wondering what hit them after the NZ Government apparently decided to leave Agriculture out of its Emissions Trading Scheme for soil carbon and in for its emissions (Methane and Nitrous Oxide). The latest was Graham Clarke, Otago-based organic beef and sheep grower who came to OZ to join the audiences at Young and Condobolin last week at the "Practical Carbon Farming" One Day Seminar, now being conducted by the Carbon Coalition's Convenors Michael & Louisa Kiely. Despite the chilly weather, Graham wore stubbies and (formal) thongs throughout his visit. Graham is Chairman of the Southern Beef Council, among other roles. Kiwi farmers are in despair, if the deflated tone of their Federated Farmers chairman Charlie Pedersen is a guide. He simply waved a white flag in response to a damning report on the NZETS, when he presented to the Farm Institute conference.

It might help to have a fact or two up your sleeve when the doomsayers are writing Agriculture off. WHile they recite those tired old stats: the agricultural sector contributes around 16% of national greenhouse gas emissions and accounts for 60% and 85% of total methane and nitrous oxide emissions, you can tell them this:

Research in New Zealand has revealed that breeding for more efficient animals may result in 10 to 20% less methane. Similarly, research in Australia demonstrated that animals on high quality spring pasture producing up to 37% less methane than those on poor quality summer pasture. Still more research shows that dietary oils (eg. whole cotton seed) fed to
dairy cattle on summer pastures can reduce methane emissions by 12% and feeding tannin extracts from the black wattle to
dairy cows on lush spring pasture was shown to reduce methane emissions by up to 29%. These figures come from the nation's foremost expert on emissions from agriculture, Dr Richard Eckard, Greenhouse in Agriculture,The University of Melbourne and Department of Primary Industries, Victoria.

Furphies lead Emissions Trading debate astray

Ministers Wong and Burke and agriculture industry association leaders are being led down the garden path by ‘expert’ advisors. This is clear from the furphies being accepted as facts in the debate.

The biggest furphy of them all is that emissions trading is going to be difficult for the farm sector because of the sheer number of farms which would need to be individually measured. No one is proposing that we measure every cow’s belch and fart, or every paddock’s fertiliser load, or every hectare for soil carbon. All measurement of emissions across both greenhouse gas inventories and in emissions trading schemes around the world use estimates rather than direct measurement. Even with direct measurement, you take a sampling approach then extrapolate up to the total amount of emission.

The Australian Greenhouse Office was well aware that measurement of emissions from individual farms was not the issue. It reported in 2005 that: “uncertainty about activity levels rather than the complex and variable biological processes that
generate greenhouse gases” was the big problem. It said: ‘…uncertainty in the reported cattle numbers was the most significant contributor to the overall uncertainty’. (National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2003, AGO 2005, p.121.) Have things changed so much since then?

Graziers are already required to report their stock numbers for different functions and these systems can be easily tightened. One consultant economist told a gathering of farmers at Yass last month that they would simply include their stock numbers with their BAS statement.

The language coming out of the consultation process indicates that the Ministers and industry association leaders are being guided Sir Humphrey-like by advisors. ("Ministers will generally accept proposals which contain the words simple, quick, popular and cheap. 

Ministers will generally throw out proposals which contain the words complicated, lengthy, expensive and controversial.”)

The Land reports the meeting as follows: “The complexities of trying to fit the farm sector into the scheme were obvious… Agricultural emissions from livestock and cropping inputs in particular are hard to measure, while abatement opportunities in soil sequestration are equally difficult and not currently recognised under the Kyoto protocol… agriculture will have significant cost increases to contend with….”

It is reported that there are 4 options:

1. Agriculture “in” from day 1, paying its way with emissions and trading the offsets it is allowed to trade.
2. Agriculture “out” for purposes of paying its way, but “in” for selling offsets (forests, soil “if the science allows”)
3. Agriculture “out” for emissions and “out” for offset trading.
4. Agriculture “out” for emissions and “out” for offset trading. Regulations force changes on land and stock management.

Naturally everyone would like No. 2, but there is a sting in the tail. When you don’t stand on your own two feet – when you’re beholden to Government, you are not free to control your own destiny. We believe that “waiting for the science” could blow out into a permanent state of being controlled.

The Coalition believes the science will never be ready, that more scientific exactitude will even deepen the bog we are in, and that practical solutions must be developed.

The Government must sweep the debate free of furphies and red herrings, or risk being “Sir Humpreyed” by well-intentioned but misguided advisors.