Australian Climate Exchange supports soil carbon

Tim Hanlon, ceo of the Australian Climate Exchange, made these recommendations to the Garnaut Inquiry:

‘ACX notes with interest that special mention was made of the potential contribution, as a “carbon sink”, that agricultural top-soils could make to the national inventory through changes in farm practices and land management. ACX strongly advocates that the Australian government allocates significant resources to an independent group tasked with coordinating and consolidating the past and current efforts of researchers and practitioners in this country in developing national standards for measurement and verification of soil carbon. Further this group should lead international discussions on reaching consensus
on the treatment of soil carbon within the UNFCCC framework.
Indeed this is an area that we have watched closely, due to the magnitude of CO2 that some experts claim that the soil could sequester over fairly short time frames. We would certainly endorse any and all measures that contribute to unlocking the potential of this sink capacity. ACX does not employ technical experts in this field so we will limit our comments to what we see as some of the structural barriers that currently exist that make the trading in soil carbon unfeasible at this time. These
barriers include:
• An apparent lack of consensus amongst scientists and practitioners as to emissions factors and above-soil indicators, rates of sequestration, weather and climate effects on carbon levels etc.
• There is no national standard or clear protocol for the measurement and verification of soil carbon that is consistent with UNFCCC national inventory reporting requirements, particularly the treatment of LULUCF under the Kyoto Protocol and Marakesh Accord.
• In the absence of the two points above it is impossible to design a cost effective sampling, measurement and verification regime suitable for the creation of a tradeable instrument under existing accreditation schemes.
• There remains considerable uncertainty and disagreement surrounding the treatment of carbon levels in terrestrial ecosystems and how human activity impacts on these levels at the international level. We acknowledge the “experiment” that the Chicago Climate Exchange have carried out in attempting to commoditise soil carbon produced from switching to no-till cropping techniques. This style of approach, while arguably appropriate for their internal voluntary trading program, is clearly inadequate for a compliance scheme designed to achieve real reductions to the national GHG inventory. The other major barrier is a framework for managing the liability for “releases” of soil carbon if permits are allocated for sequestered carbon under a trading scheme, similar to the treatment suggested by ACX for Forestry. (Obviously this could only occur once the National protocol for measurement is in place.) ACX further recommends that a “pool” or “carbon bank” approach to securitising the carbon sequestered in soil be developed, with the early stages underwritten by a government or Public Private Partnership entity. Registering the carbon on the title of the land and leaving the liability for “release” with the land owner is likely to be a major barrier to the take-up of such a scheme.”