Wednesday, August 29, 2012
WHo is saying "No!" to 100 Years?
Will farmers join the CFI? You don’t have to look far to find people giving the 100 Years Rule the thumbs down:
“Even a generous interpretation of the treatment of permanence in this document [the CFI consultation paper] seems very likely to exclude all sequestration practices."
- Dr Richard Conant, Smart Futures Fellow at Queensland University of Technology and Ecosystem ecologist at the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory at Colorado State University.
“A feature of the CFI is the requirement for participating farmers to maintain any credited sequestration for 100 years beyond the last date for which they receive payments under the scheme. This creates considerable costs and uncertainties for farmers.”
- Dr David J Pannell, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia,
“The current CDM permanence requirement of 100 years is too long for most people to enter into a realistic contract. The idea of contracts to guaranty activities for longer than most people’s lives is unrealistic.”
- Andre Leu, Chairman, Organic Federation of Australia
“From experience, and from comprehensive research including global best-practice approaches, we believe that, as currently proposed, the Carbon Farming Initiative will result in little uptake by
- Degree Celsius (Joint Venture model based on the 56 Regional NRM networks of Australia, enabling NRM activities of Australia to be aggregated for both regional and larger scale delivery of climate mitigation and abatement.)
“The 100-year permanence rule is not grounded in any biological reality, and simly sets a barrier too high for most… We believe that the current framework could potentially result in little uptake.”
- Natural Resource Management Regional Leaders Group (WA)
“We are particularly concerned by the treatment of permanence as a 100-year commitment. Indigenous landholders will be reluctant to take decisions that determine the economic futures of several generations of descendants, as well as their ongoing relationships with ancestral lands. This provision alone will deter many Indigenous and non-Indigenous land owners from considering participation.”
- North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (Carpentaria Land Council Aboriginal Corporation, Northern Land Council and Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation.)
The Wool Industry
“It is impossible in practice to guarantee permanence of land sector bio-sequestration offsets.”
- Australian Wool Innovation
“No farmer would be silly enough to agree to 100 years for soil carbon or 100 years for anything. A finance lender would want to know seriously the impact on the value of the property of agreeing to such a thing.”
- Carbon Farming & Trading Association’
Posted by Michael Kiely at 2:50 AM