"There's been a lot of irresponsible speculation about the pot of gold which sits for agriculture at the end of the offsets rainbow." This was the Farm Institute's Mick Keogh on ABC Radio late last year. NSW Farmers - once strong supporters of the soil carbon solution (or at least Jock Laurie was) - have a new position: "Farmers should be extremely cautious about pinning their hopes on sales of soil carbon as a new farm enterprise," writes the Chairman of NSW Farmers Climate Change Working Group, Richard Clark. His letter to the editor in this week's Land is as confused and contradictory as the climate change sceptics who fill the columns of Rural Press publications and dominate the debate at NSW Farmers' meetings. Both Mick and Richard would agree that soil carbon credits are important for meeting our methane and other greenhouse emissions bills. Yet they are trying to scare farmers off, by bringing out all the old boogeymen and some new ones.
"In times of drought, carbon levels run down and carbon credits may have to be bought by cash-strapped farmers in a market where their neighbours are also trying to buy out their obligations." But then he makes a plea for the inclusion of soil carbon as an offset to a farmers' methane bill.
Here is the text of our letter to the editor of The Land. As they rarely publish our material, we send it to you directly.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Thanks to the Land for giving soil carbon so much coverage over the past two years. The Carbon Coalition truly appreciates it, although it is surprising, given the coverage, that so much of what is being said in your pages by ‘experts’ lately is so wrong. For instance, the claim soil carbon trading is dangerous because farmers will be forced to buy carbon credits when they lose soil carbon in a drought or simply to pay for methane and nitrous oxide emissions from stock and fertiliser betrays a need to do some homework.
Here are the facts: Farmers trading soil carbon will be protected by a “buffer pool” of ‘credits’ that can be dipped into whenever they go backwards due to drought or natural disaster. Soil Carbon Trading is not conducted between individual farmers and buyers. Large numbers of farmers are pooled or aggregated in the same way wool is sold. The aggregator holds a percentage of all units submitted for sale in a “buffer pool” which is released for sale at various points in the time period covered by the contract. There is also a system of insurances that can be used. The system has been working for American farmers on the Chicago Climate Exchange for 4 years and our trading arm, Carbon Farmers of Australia offers the same protection. It works for forests, which are in greater danger of destruction than soil carbon.
Methane and nitrous oxide: If you made no changes to the way you manage your animals and to the way you applied fertiliser and to the way you manage your land, then yes, you could end up paying for carbon credits. But this is a distant possibility. There are many alternatives that can reduce your total “Carbon Footprint”. You can reduce methane emissions in many ways: grazing management, rumen inoculants, and genetics. Nitrous oxide can be reduced by targeted fertiliser application, a range of new biological fertilisers, and simply the introduction of dung beetles. Soon the marketplace will be flooded with alternatives. Early indications are that soil carbon increases could easily account for the methane and nitrous oxide liability in the short term while we shift to a new way of farming.
No one is forcing your readers to consider soil carbon (the only revenue positive aspect of the carbon equation for farmers.). But the Government will force everyone to confront their emissions from farming activities. Those who would deter farmers from engaging in soil carbon trading could find themselves in a tricky legal position should the day arrive when farmers who, following their advice, ignored the soil carbon opportunity and find themselves clearly disadvantaged.
I should declare an interest here: We have campaigned for two years to see the day farmers would be paid for the soil carbon they grow. There will be billions sloshing around when carbon becomes the world’s largest commodity market, and unless we fight for it, farmers will see none of it. We formed a non-profit trading arm called Carbon Farmers of Australia to start the market in Australia.
If the naysayers had spent as much energy trying to find ways to make the soil carbon market opportunity happen as they have spent trying to find reasons not to do it, we would be trading now.
Put this question to the next expert you hear listing all the reasons why soil carbon trading is impossible/bad/dangerous/etc.: “Why do you want us to face a carbon bill without any carbon currency to pay it?”
Michael Kiely
“Uamby”
Goolma
Convenor
Carbon Coalition
Friday, April 11, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Removing Barriers to Soil Carbon Offsets Trading
The value to Australia and the world that could arise from widespread adoption of farming techniques that sequester carbon is so great that removing the barriers to market for soil carbon offsets is worth considerable effort. This paper suggests a new line of enquiry for those working on this opportunity.
Unique substance
Soil carbon is a unique substance. It has many benefits for soils, including:
• increasing productivity
• reducing salt infestation
• improving water-holding ability
• building soil structure
• reducing erosion
• building soil microbe activity
• improving soil nutrients
It also has a positive impact on biodiversity. Landscapes which increasing soil carbon levels also experience a significant expansion of species numbers, both above and below ground.
The most important benefit of the soil’s ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere by photosynthesis is the impact on the Carbon overload in the atmosphere which is commonly believed to be causing global warming and climate change.
Of all solutions suggested for reducing emissions in future (such as solar, wind, nuclear power, clean coal or forests), none has the capacity, capability, or critical mass to start sequesting the large amounts of CO2e already loose and wreaking havoc in the atmosphere. Only soil can play the critical role of a secure bridge to the future for the next 30 years while other technologies grow to critical mass.
The ability to trade the soil carbon they grow would also provide farmers and graziers with a new income stream, a welcome change of fortune in a sector of the economy that has been suffering from declining terms of trade and severe drought.
In light of these benefits, soil carbon deserves to be treated as a special case when being considered for admission to the global trading system.
Barrier to trading soil carbon
The lack of a system of Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV) that satisfies the accounting principles of the Kyoto Protocols has been the major barrier to trade in soil carbon for more than 15 years. Despite millions of dollars in research grants, books, papers, conferences, and government enquiries, we are no closer to a solution. Although we know more about soil carbon, the “practical difficulties” remain unresolved.
The Garnaut Enquiry Issues Paper identified two major barriers to trade:
1. “A difficulty in the development of any offset project is the transaction costs in baseline setting, accreditation, monitoring, measurement and reporting, ensuring additionality, and preventing ‘double counting’ with actions covered by the scheme”.
2. “While significant at the national scale, agriculture and forestry emissions sources and sinks are often small, diffuse and difficult to measure and verify at the individual entity level. Sources and sinks are frequently small relative to the measurement effort required.”
The Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading Report agreed:‘factors that suggest initial exclusion of the agricultural sector from an emissions trading scheme ... that is, the lack of reliable measurement methodologies at the farm level and the complexity and cost of verifying emissions.’
CRC for Greenhouse Accounting’s John Carter, (program leader on soil carbon) was even more definitive: “Soil carbon is more difficult and expensive to measure and verify than carbon in tree plantations. …. These types of measurements require expensive mechanical sampling and laboratory measurements. Soil carbon is spatially variable, even at quite fine scales… High spatial variability increases the amount of sampling (and, hence, analysis costs) required to precisely estimate soil carbon stocks. ’ (Australian Farm Institute, Strategic Roundtable Conference, Future Agriculture, 2–3 November 2006, Sydney)
This mercurial nature of soil carbon is at the heart of the problem.
Soil carbon challenges Kyoto system
The conclusion that soil carbon has attributes which make it unsuitable for inclusion in an accounting scheme would indicate that the accounting scheme was the problem, given the potential benefits of soil carbon. The accounting scheme was established to facilitate a market only because the global community wanted to encourage widespread adoption of desirable practices.
The design of the Kyoto accounting system was based on application to less complex sources and sinks. It was originally devised to manage the sulphur dioxide/acid rain emissions reduction program. History guided the hands of those who migrated the SO2 model to CO2e.
However, the IPCC must be brought to understand that its purpose is not to produce a perfect accounting model. It’s purpose is to deploy the resources of its member nations to urgently remove CO2e from the atmosphere.
If the world’s 5.5billion hectares of agricultural soil were able to sequester 0.5 tonne of Carbon/hectare/year, it would remove 20billion tonnes of CO2e. Half that or half that again, and again, and there remains a significant contribution to restoring balance in the atmosphere. Only an IPCC that has forgotten its raison d’etre could allow worship of rules to blind them to their duty.
An approach for soil carbon trading
“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you always got.” The path to a soil carbon trading system does not appear to lie in the direction of more scientific knowledge alone. Other disciplines must be engaged, as Dr Rattan Lal declared . Integrated teams of economists, scientists, traders and agronomists must contribute to a solution that meets the needs of the market.
The solution could lie in reframing the question. Instead of asking:
“How can we measure soil carbon more accurately to meet the needs of the Kyoto accounting system?”,
...we could ask:
“How can we measure soil carbon to assure a buyer of offsets that they
have received what they wanted?”
Study the buyer. What are they buying? A tonne of CO2e removed from the atmosphere and stored.
Are they buying a particular tonne? Or a non-specific tonne?
Why are they buying it? To use it to offset an emission? To know that it is disabled as a gas.
Does it matter to them that they are buying an ‘aggregated tonne’ from a large ‘aggregated pool’ of tonnes that have been ‘equalised’ ie., flux is statistically ‘compressed’ (peaks and troughs equalised)? The buyer buys from an aggregated pool of tonnes as part of an aggregated pool of buyers. The significant variations at individual tonne level are eliminated by statistical smoothing.
This is not an original idea:
• This approach was first noted by Sandor and Skees who say that we need not worry about how much carbon is sequestered on an individual paddock, because, while estimates at an individual level may be flawed, the error has ‘typical statistical properties’ and that estimating many individual parcels and aggregating them into a single parcel will improve the estimate significantly. (Sandor, R. L. & Skees, J. 1999. Creating a market for carbon emissions. Choices 3rd Quarter, pp 13-17.)
• A similar note was sounded by the Australian Farm Institute: “if measurement or estimation systems are robust and unbiased… the aggregate result for the combined scheme will be relatively accurate due to the effect of combining many estimates together.” (The New Challenge for Australian Agriculture: How do you muster a paddock of carbon?)
• Wholesale aggregators are already commonly used in carbon markets and the system for aggregation exists. The Australian Greenhouse office already recognizes the benefits of aggregation in forest sinks, called ‘carbon pooling’. Dr Lal also sees the way forward in pooling: “[A protocol to trade C credits] will require development of routinely usable techniques to measure change in soil C pool at landscape level over a time span of 1 to 2 yr.”
• The concept is in tune with the call by Dr John Kimble for a ‘real world’ approach to soil carbon measurement, based on what is known about the behaviour of soil carbon.
Therefore we need to know how far such a solution can take us and where are its flaws.
Reducing the cost of MMV
There are several options for removing the barrier of cost of measurement:
1. Aggregated Sampling & Analysis: The current price of sampling is high on a per unit basis. But in the real world each landholder is not likely to be negotiating with a laboratory for sampling services. They will form buyer groups. Aggregators will negotiate on behalf of large numbers of landholders. The Government could play a role in tendering the entire Australian sampling opportunity to get the lowest per unit cost.(See point 7 below.) What price for core sampling 130,000 properties in Australia?
2. Predictive Ratios: Exploit the statistical properties of soil carbon flux to build predictive ratios. Baseline with 100cm cores, calculate the ratio of soil carbon in top 30cm over the total sample, and all monitoring samples thereafter need only be 30cm to measure total 100cm. Similarly, reduce the number of samples required by building predictive ratios between initial 200 samples and 20 samples per unit. Further, the statistical relationship between the individual samples and a single ‘bulked up” sample may enable the sampling to be dramatically reduced. The questions arise: what degree of uncertainty is acceptable to the Kyoto accountants? What tolerances will they allow soil carbon given the extraordinary uncertainty factors they allow other sources and sinks? What degree of accuracy (individual unit vs aggregated) would satisfy a buyer?
3. Simplified System: By stripping unnecessary elements from the testing regime and retaining only those needed to achieve our purpose (carbon sequestered), we can further reduce costs. Do we need to map soil types? Do we need to measure anything other than total carbon? How often do we need to measure bulk density?
4. Hybrid MMV system: The number of core samples could be reduced if a combination of visual audit and/or remote sensing were incorporated. An annual visual aduit could cover the following “Indicators” or proxies: • increased groundcover and therefore biomass • increased perenniality & therefore produce more biomass • increased biodiversity of plants species and wildlife in and on the soil • reduced soil disturbance and compaction.
5. Advance on Sales: Aggregators can advance the farmer the cost of measurement against future sales.
6. Revenue Context: Any cost for sampling should be considered against the price of carbon. This has ranged from $1 to $40 and some estimate it will reach $100 when the big 3 emitters (USA, China, India) finally enter the market.
7. National Carbon Baselining Programing: The Australian Government spent $15billion between 2000 and 2007 on environmental and NRM action, and ear-marked a further $10billion for the Murray-Darling rehabilitation. A significant part of this expenditure could be avoided if Australian landholders change their land management practices to grow soil carbon. Against this saving, the Government could consider offering carbon baselining to every landholder as a means of encouraging them to change their practices, by linking access to Government support and tax concessions to the direction of the landholder’s soil carbon score. (Soil carbon is a good key performance indicator for measuring land stewardship, soil fertility, biodiversity, and a range of ecological and environmental indicators.)
There are many avenues for removing cost as a barrier.
Do we have the time?
There is no time for new 3 year research projects. Three years is too long to wait. The time has come for learning by doing. Take action and monitor results. Assume we are wrong and look for evidence of it. The risk of not doing something is now greater than the risk of doing the wrong thing.
RSVP
This paper is full of holes. Information is missing. Assumptions are challengable. If its weaknesses can be addressed and none are fatal, perhaps – with goodwill and a focus on the purpose of the global effort to stabilize climate – it can form part of a solution based on aggregated ideas and pooled resources. Please respond.
Michael Kiely
Carbon Coalition
02 6374 0329
michael@carboncoalition.com.au
Unique substance
Soil carbon is a unique substance. It has many benefits for soils, including:
• increasing productivity
• reducing salt infestation
• improving water-holding ability
• building soil structure
• reducing erosion
• building soil microbe activity
• improving soil nutrients
It also has a positive impact on biodiversity. Landscapes which increasing soil carbon levels also experience a significant expansion of species numbers, both above and below ground.
The most important benefit of the soil’s ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere by photosynthesis is the impact on the Carbon overload in the atmosphere which is commonly believed to be causing global warming and climate change.
Of all solutions suggested for reducing emissions in future (such as solar, wind, nuclear power, clean coal or forests), none has the capacity, capability, or critical mass to start sequesting the large amounts of CO2e already loose and wreaking havoc in the atmosphere. Only soil can play the critical role of a secure bridge to the future for the next 30 years while other technologies grow to critical mass.
The ability to trade the soil carbon they grow would also provide farmers and graziers with a new income stream, a welcome change of fortune in a sector of the economy that has been suffering from declining terms of trade and severe drought.
In light of these benefits, soil carbon deserves to be treated as a special case when being considered for admission to the global trading system.
Barrier to trading soil carbon
The lack of a system of Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV) that satisfies the accounting principles of the Kyoto Protocols has been the major barrier to trade in soil carbon for more than 15 years. Despite millions of dollars in research grants, books, papers, conferences, and government enquiries, we are no closer to a solution. Although we know more about soil carbon, the “practical difficulties” remain unresolved.
The Garnaut Enquiry Issues Paper identified two major barriers to trade:
1. “A difficulty in the development of any offset project is the transaction costs in baseline setting, accreditation, monitoring, measurement and reporting, ensuring additionality, and preventing ‘double counting’ with actions covered by the scheme”.
2. “While significant at the national scale, agriculture and forestry emissions sources and sinks are often small, diffuse and difficult to measure and verify at the individual entity level. Sources and sinks are frequently small relative to the measurement effort required.”
The Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading Report agreed:‘factors that suggest initial exclusion of the agricultural sector from an emissions trading scheme ... that is, the lack of reliable measurement methodologies at the farm level and the complexity and cost of verifying emissions.’
CRC for Greenhouse Accounting’s John Carter, (program leader on soil carbon) was even more definitive: “Soil carbon is more difficult and expensive to measure and verify than carbon in tree plantations. …. These types of measurements require expensive mechanical sampling and laboratory measurements. Soil carbon is spatially variable, even at quite fine scales… High spatial variability increases the amount of sampling (and, hence, analysis costs) required to precisely estimate soil carbon stocks. ’ (Australian Farm Institute, Strategic Roundtable Conference, Future Agriculture, 2–3 November 2006, Sydney)
This mercurial nature of soil carbon is at the heart of the problem.
Soil carbon challenges Kyoto system
The conclusion that soil carbon has attributes which make it unsuitable for inclusion in an accounting scheme would indicate that the accounting scheme was the problem, given the potential benefits of soil carbon. The accounting scheme was established to facilitate a market only because the global community wanted to encourage widespread adoption of desirable practices.
The design of the Kyoto accounting system was based on application to less complex sources and sinks. It was originally devised to manage the sulphur dioxide/acid rain emissions reduction program. History guided the hands of those who migrated the SO2 model to CO2e.
However, the IPCC must be brought to understand that its purpose is not to produce a perfect accounting model. It’s purpose is to deploy the resources of its member nations to urgently remove CO2e from the atmosphere.
If the world’s 5.5billion hectares of agricultural soil were able to sequester 0.5 tonne of Carbon/hectare/year, it would remove 20billion tonnes of CO2e. Half that or half that again, and again, and there remains a significant contribution to restoring balance in the atmosphere. Only an IPCC that has forgotten its raison d’etre could allow worship of rules to blind them to their duty.
An approach for soil carbon trading
“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you always got.” The path to a soil carbon trading system does not appear to lie in the direction of more scientific knowledge alone. Other disciplines must be engaged, as Dr Rattan Lal declared . Integrated teams of economists, scientists, traders and agronomists must contribute to a solution that meets the needs of the market.
The solution could lie in reframing the question. Instead of asking:
“How can we measure soil carbon more accurately to meet the needs of the Kyoto accounting system?”,
...we could ask:
“How can we measure soil carbon to assure a buyer of offsets that they
have received what they wanted?”
Study the buyer. What are they buying? A tonne of CO2e removed from the atmosphere and stored.
Are they buying a particular tonne? Or a non-specific tonne?
Why are they buying it? To use it to offset an emission? To know that it is disabled as a gas.
Does it matter to them that they are buying an ‘aggregated tonne’ from a large ‘aggregated pool’ of tonnes that have been ‘equalised’ ie., flux is statistically ‘compressed’ (peaks and troughs equalised)? The buyer buys from an aggregated pool of tonnes as part of an aggregated pool of buyers. The significant variations at individual tonne level are eliminated by statistical smoothing.
This is not an original idea:
• This approach was first noted by Sandor and Skees who say that we need not worry about how much carbon is sequestered on an individual paddock, because, while estimates at an individual level may be flawed, the error has ‘typical statistical properties’ and that estimating many individual parcels and aggregating them into a single parcel will improve the estimate significantly. (Sandor, R. L. & Skees, J. 1999. Creating a market for carbon emissions. Choices 3rd Quarter, pp 13-17.)
• A similar note was sounded by the Australian Farm Institute: “if measurement or estimation systems are robust and unbiased… the aggregate result for the combined scheme will be relatively accurate due to the effect of combining many estimates together.” (The New Challenge for Australian Agriculture: How do you muster a paddock of carbon?)
• Wholesale aggregators are already commonly used in carbon markets and the system for aggregation exists. The Australian Greenhouse office already recognizes the benefits of aggregation in forest sinks, called ‘carbon pooling’. Dr Lal also sees the way forward in pooling: “[A protocol to trade C credits] will require development of routinely usable techniques to measure change in soil C pool at landscape level over a time span of 1 to 2 yr.”
• The concept is in tune with the call by Dr John Kimble for a ‘real world’ approach to soil carbon measurement, based on what is known about the behaviour of soil carbon.
Therefore we need to know how far such a solution can take us and where are its flaws.
Reducing the cost of MMV
There are several options for removing the barrier of cost of measurement:
1. Aggregated Sampling & Analysis: The current price of sampling is high on a per unit basis. But in the real world each landholder is not likely to be negotiating with a laboratory for sampling services. They will form buyer groups. Aggregators will negotiate on behalf of large numbers of landholders. The Government could play a role in tendering the entire Australian sampling opportunity to get the lowest per unit cost.(See point 7 below.) What price for core sampling 130,000 properties in Australia?
2. Predictive Ratios: Exploit the statistical properties of soil carbon flux to build predictive ratios. Baseline with 100cm cores, calculate the ratio of soil carbon in top 30cm over the total sample, and all monitoring samples thereafter need only be 30cm to measure total 100cm. Similarly, reduce the number of samples required by building predictive ratios between initial 200 samples and 20 samples per unit. Further, the statistical relationship between the individual samples and a single ‘bulked up” sample may enable the sampling to be dramatically reduced. The questions arise: what degree of uncertainty is acceptable to the Kyoto accountants? What tolerances will they allow soil carbon given the extraordinary uncertainty factors they allow other sources and sinks? What degree of accuracy (individual unit vs aggregated) would satisfy a buyer?
3. Simplified System: By stripping unnecessary elements from the testing regime and retaining only those needed to achieve our purpose (carbon sequestered), we can further reduce costs. Do we need to map soil types? Do we need to measure anything other than total carbon? How often do we need to measure bulk density?
4. Hybrid MMV system: The number of core samples could be reduced if a combination of visual audit and/or remote sensing were incorporated. An annual visual aduit could cover the following “Indicators” or proxies: • increased groundcover and therefore biomass • increased perenniality & therefore produce more biomass • increased biodiversity of plants species and wildlife in and on the soil • reduced soil disturbance and compaction.
5. Advance on Sales: Aggregators can advance the farmer the cost of measurement against future sales.
6. Revenue Context: Any cost for sampling should be considered against the price of carbon. This has ranged from $1 to $40 and some estimate it will reach $100 when the big 3 emitters (USA, China, India) finally enter the market.
7. National Carbon Baselining Programing: The Australian Government spent $15billion between 2000 and 2007 on environmental and NRM action, and ear-marked a further $10billion for the Murray-Darling rehabilitation. A significant part of this expenditure could be avoided if Australian landholders change their land management practices to grow soil carbon. Against this saving, the Government could consider offering carbon baselining to every landholder as a means of encouraging them to change their practices, by linking access to Government support and tax concessions to the direction of the landholder’s soil carbon score. (Soil carbon is a good key performance indicator for measuring land stewardship, soil fertility, biodiversity, and a range of ecological and environmental indicators.)
There are many avenues for removing cost as a barrier.
Do we have the time?
There is no time for new 3 year research projects. Three years is too long to wait. The time has come for learning by doing. Take action and monitor results. Assume we are wrong and look for evidence of it. The risk of not doing something is now greater than the risk of doing the wrong thing.
RSVP
This paper is full of holes. Information is missing. Assumptions are challengable. If its weaknesses can be addressed and none are fatal, perhaps – with goodwill and a focus on the purpose of the global effort to stabilize climate – it can form part of a solution based on aggregated ideas and pooled resources. Please respond.
Michael Kiely
Carbon Coalition
02 6374 0329
michael@carboncoalition.com.au
Monday, March 17, 2008
We need your help
The Prime Minister has passed the ball to Tony Burke, Minister for Agriculture, who sounds like a reasonable man. The Coalition needs to get his ear because soil carbon sceptics are often called Professor or Dr and politicians often assume 'science' is objective.
The Minister needs to hear the following alternative view:
The trading in soil carbon can only be conducted if a system of measurement, monitoring, and verification (MMV) can be agreed between the parties to the trade (and regulators).
A purely scientific solution is not likely to be found because of the unique properties of soil carbon and its dynamic interface with the atmosphere. Finer and finer levels of measurement take us further away from the solution. The soil and vegetation ‘breathe’ carbon in and out and this ‘flux’ makes conventional measurement impossible. Spacial variation is also significant. The possibility of trade therefore rests on the willingness of the parties to accept a system of practical estimations within certain statistical tolerances (that accord with uncertainty levels already accepted under IPCC protocols).
Science alone cannot provide the answer…
The question the Minister should be asking is this: “Why, after more than 12 years research, have the best scientists, working in the soil carbon field all over the world, not yet delivered a cost-effective and practical measurement, monitoring and verification (MMV) system to enable trade in soil carbon to proceed when it took only 8 years to put a man on the moon?” It is plain that the solution does not lie in more scientific research to develop more “accurate” measurement techniques.
The answer lies in gaining agreement between parties to the trading scheme that they can be confident they can transact and achieve their goals. Science cannot be a proxy for the decision because science, from 1995 to date, has only discovered reasons why the trade cannot proceed, based on increasing degrees of exactitude. Always the response is: “More research is needed.” (The 10 years Sir Nicholas Stern gave the world in which to act to avoid climate crisis 2 years go will have passed before the extraordinary sequestration capacity of soils can be deployed.) The world’s leading soil carbon scientists are appealing to their colleagues to abandon the purist approach and contribute to a practical solution. (Professor R. Lal (IPCC), Dr John Kimble, ex-USDA)
Because it is asking the wrong question…
Policy makers have ‘framed’ the question the wrong way. The question should not be: “How can we measure soil carbon with exactitude that matches other forms of carbon sinks or offsets?” The question should be: “How can we construct a measurement system that will satisfy buyers of offsets and make the trade in soil carbon possible?”
A customer-driven solution
Therefore the preferred methodology is to engage buyers, traders and regulators in discussion of MMV issues and enlist their help to develop a workable system. References will be made to analogous uncertainties in other categories of abatement and GHG offset. The engagement strategy includes interviews and workshops with carbon traders, commodity market experts, statisticians, buyers, regulators, and growers. Scientists will be involved where they understand that the objective of the exercise is not precision but practical solutions.
By revealing to the stakeholders the elements of systems for assessing soil C levels and their uncertainty levels, as well as the potential for using combinations of techniques, the stakeholders can gain an understanding and give considered opinions about degrees of confidence.
Friday, March 07, 2008
CARBON COALITION CONGRATULATES 'TRUE BELIEVERS' ON AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT BREAKTHROUGH
To the True Believers and Hornblowers,
"Well they blew their horns.... and the walls came down." (The Walls Came Down, by The Call, is the theme song of the Carbon Coalition)
The Walls are made of old paradigms, misinterpretations, suspicions, vested interests, ignorance, and fear. Cracks are appearing in them and this week PM Rudd kicked a big chunk out.
Many people played played a major role in projecting the soil carbon issue onto the national agenda. In the wake of PM Kevin Rudd's announcement that soil carbon would be thoroughly investigated, the Carbon Coalition thanks a long list of people and bodies that "blew their horns" and assisted the soil carbon cause.
The list of horn blowers includes the Central West CMA (especially Truk, John Lawrie), ABC Rural Radio Central West (Meg Strang and Michael Conlon), The Country Hour, Rural Press (The Land's Mathew Caywood), Dr John Williams (NSW Commissioner Natural Resources), Jock Laurie and the NSW Farmers' Association, David Crombie and the NFF, Dr Tim Flannery, the Australian Greenhouse Office, sustainability coach Michael Mobbs, Pancake Parlor's Sam Meadmore, Landcare Australia, Landmark, NAB Agribusiness, Holistic Management International, and Country Energy. Steve Truman of Agmates.com has been a stalwart. Terry McCosker of RCS and Rod Rush of CarbonLink have made a huge contribution to the media frenzy in Queensland where the PM saw the light. (He's a Queenslander, after all.)
The Coalition also thanks the Hon. Tony Windsor, Member for New England, who asked a PM Howard a question he couldn't answer in Parliament for the Coalition after we gave him a briefing. Thanks also to the Hon. Peter Garrett who gave us a fair hearing and saw to it that our demands were included on the ALP Platform for the last Election. The NSW Nationals' Andrew Fraser was an early supporter as well, putting soil carbon on his Party's platform for the NSW Election in 2007. The Democrats' Christine Milne gave us a fair hearing and they placed soil carbon on their platform. And a big thank you to Patrice Newell who invited the Coalition to stand a candidate for both the NSW and Federal Elections for the Climate Change Coalition.
Our greatest supporters have been the leading scientists who have appeared at our seminars and engaged with us about the issue. Their names shall be legend one day, but for now we'll keep it as a discreet general thank you because many suffered under the old regime and freedom of speech is a lesson we must all relearn. There are also the many Landcare Groups and Catchment bodies who invited us to speak to their members. The Coalition's own membership of 350 "true believers" also played a major role.
International support had come from scientists Professor Rattan Lal and Dr John Kimble, pioneer of Holistic Management, Allan Savory, Abe Collins of Carbon Farmers of America, and Alan Mayne and Max Purnell of Carbon Farmers Of New Zealand.
The Coalition's Advisory Council includes prominent carbon farmers David Marsh, Col Seis, Rick and Angus Maurice, and Jane Wilson. Daniel Kiely has given valuable technical support.
"But the one person who deserves to be honoured beyond all others for her contribution and commitment to the soil carbon solution is Dr Christine Jones. The nation owes her a debt it can never repay."
The Carbon Coalition has been almost entirely funded by the convenors and a small number of contributors. "The Coalition has received some financial support from individual donors who deserve to be cast in bronze. We also appreciate the support of commercial sponsors and welcome their involvement," says Michael Kiely. "All financial support is precious and extends our capacity to achieve our goals: higher soil carbon, regenerationof rural landscapes and biodiversity, healthy ecologies, new revenue streams for farm families, and stronger rural communities."
CARBON COALITION BACKGROUND
The Carbon Coalition was founded in February 2006 to campaign for the right of farmers and graziers to be paid fairly for the carbon they can capture and hold in their soils. The Coalition has conducted publicity campaigns, provided information services, published online sites, organised seminars and conferences, spoken to many gatherings of landholders across Australia, handled many hundreds of media enquiries, and travelled to the USA and NZ to study soil carbon sequestration. While there they assisted in the founding of Carbon Farmers bodies. The convenors of the Coalition established Carbon Farmers of Australia as a trading arm to enter the voluntary market and breakdown institutional barriers. CFA is writing its own Voluntary Soil Carbon Standard which it will submit to global standards authorities for ratification. The definitive soil carbon website Soil-C-Central is being constructed to give access to all available knowledge about soil carbon in the world, as well as virtual community facilities for meetings, discussion groups, and bulletin boards. At the same time, the convenors are seeking to offer growers the opportunity to get premium prices for 'emissions-reductions' produce by aggregating orders and using a brand story.
RUDD PROMISES SOIL CARBON INVESTIGATION:
The benefits of soil in sequestering carbon and its place in an emissions trading scheme will be investigated by the Federal Government, Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, announced yesterday.
In his opening address to this year's ABARE Outlook conference in Canberra, Mr Rudd said: "We need to prepare for climate change, but we also need to be ready to seize new market opportunities that come with tackling climate change. Because as well as difficult challenges, climate change will create opportunities for agricultural Australia. Today I want to announce one opportunity that the Government will be investigating: soil carbon. A few days after the Government was sworn into office last year, I visited Matt and Anna Ahern’s cattlestud in Roma with Queensland Agforce President Peter Kenny and with Tony Burke, the Minister for Agriculture. We discussed soil management practices on farms, and the scope for productivity improvements and reduced emissions from improving cropping practices. Peter’s plea to me was that if the Government wanted to do something about carbon emissions for agricultural Australia, we should focus on the soil.
"I am hearing more and more about the possible potential of enhancing the carbon stored in our soils. That is why today I am asking Tony Burke – as part of the our Australia’s Farming Future initiative – to investigate how better soil management can be part of Australia’s response to climate change. I recognise that this is a complex area and there is a variety of view points. I am told that there are significant challenges to measuring the emissions from different farming techniques and estimating the carbon stored in our soils. Those obstacles may make it difficult for soil carbon to play a role in our response to climate change, but we must examine the options. The truth is that, as in many aspects of climate change, we are only just beginning to look at soil carbon. ‘Low till’ or ‘no till’ soil management practices were first promoted for their environmental benefits through the previous Labor Government’s Landcare program that began in the early 1990s. More recently in Parliament, the Independent MP for New England Tony Windsor has been a champion of these practices for their water conservation benefits.
We now need to investigate how such practices might provide Australian agriculture with a role in new markets related to reducing carbon emissions.
…….
The challenges to the future of Australian agriculture are great, but we must not lose sight of the enormous opportunities for this sector given our natural competitive strengths. To succeed in addressing those challenges, we need to draw out the best ideas for Australia’s future from all parts of the community.
…..
We want to hear new ideas about which rural industries are best positioned to take advantage of the global consumer markets of the 21st century.
We are asking what options are possible for effective structural adjustment for rural industries and communities suffering the long term impact of climate change? And we are seeking view on what is the best way the Government can ensure the long term sustainability of rural and regional communities, including the fostering of the next generation of Australian farmers?"
"Well they blew their horns.... and the walls came down." (The Walls Came Down, by The Call, is the theme song of the Carbon Coalition)
The Walls are made of old paradigms, misinterpretations, suspicions, vested interests, ignorance, and fear. Cracks are appearing in them and this week PM Rudd kicked a big chunk out.Many people played played a major role in projecting the soil carbon issue onto the national agenda. In the wake of PM Kevin Rudd's announcement that soil carbon would be thoroughly investigated, the Carbon Coalition thanks a long list of people and bodies that "blew their horns" and assisted the soil carbon cause.
The list of horn blowers includes the Central West CMA (especially Truk, John Lawrie), ABC Rural Radio Central West (Meg Strang and Michael Conlon), The Country Hour, Rural Press (The Land's Mathew Caywood), Dr John Williams (NSW Commissioner Natural Resources), Jock Laurie and the NSW Farmers' Association, David Crombie and the NFF, Dr Tim Flannery, the Australian Greenhouse Office, sustainability coach Michael Mobbs, Pancake Parlor's Sam Meadmore, Landcare Australia, Landmark, NAB Agribusiness, Holistic Management International, and Country Energy. Steve Truman of Agmates.com has been a stalwart. Terry McCosker of RCS and Rod Rush of CarbonLink have made a huge contribution to the media frenzy in Queensland where the PM saw the light. (He's a Queenslander, after all.)
The Coalition also thanks the Hon. Tony Windsor, Member for New England, who asked a PM Howard a question he couldn't answer in Parliament for the Coalition after we gave him a briefing. Thanks also to the Hon. Peter Garrett who gave us a fair hearing and saw to it that our demands were included on the ALP Platform for the last Election. The NSW Nationals' Andrew Fraser was an early supporter as well, putting soil carbon on his Party's platform for the NSW Election in 2007. The Democrats' Christine Milne gave us a fair hearing and they placed soil carbon on their platform. And a big thank you to Patrice Newell who invited the Coalition to stand a candidate for both the NSW and Federal Elections for the Climate Change Coalition.
Our greatest supporters have been the leading scientists who have appeared at our seminars and engaged with us about the issue. Their names shall be legend one day, but for now we'll keep it as a discreet general thank you because many suffered under the old regime and freedom of speech is a lesson we must all relearn. There are also the many Landcare Groups and Catchment bodies who invited us to speak to their members. The Coalition's own membership of 350 "true believers" also played a major role.
International support had come from scientists Professor Rattan Lal and Dr John Kimble, pioneer of Holistic Management, Allan Savory, Abe Collins of Carbon Farmers of America, and Alan Mayne and Max Purnell of Carbon Farmers Of New Zealand.
The Coalition's Advisory Council includes prominent carbon farmers David Marsh, Col Seis, Rick and Angus Maurice, and Jane Wilson. Daniel Kiely has given valuable technical support.
"But the one person who deserves to be honoured beyond all others for her contribution and commitment to the soil carbon solution is Dr Christine Jones. The nation owes her a debt it can never repay."
The Carbon Coalition has been almost entirely funded by the convenors and a small number of contributors. "The Coalition has received some financial support from individual donors who deserve to be cast in bronze. We also appreciate the support of commercial sponsors and welcome their involvement," says Michael Kiely. "All financial support is precious and extends our capacity to achieve our goals: higher soil carbon, regenerationof rural landscapes and biodiversity, healthy ecologies, new revenue streams for farm families, and stronger rural communities."
CARBON COALITION BACKGROUND
The Carbon Coalition was founded in February 2006 to campaign for the right of farmers and graziers to be paid fairly for the carbon they can capture and hold in their soils. The Coalition has conducted publicity campaigns, provided information services, published online sites, organised seminars and conferences, spoken to many gatherings of landholders across Australia, handled many hundreds of media enquiries, and travelled to the USA and NZ to study soil carbon sequestration. While there they assisted in the founding of Carbon Farmers bodies. The convenors of the Coalition established Carbon Farmers of Australia as a trading arm to enter the voluntary market and breakdown institutional barriers. CFA is writing its own Voluntary Soil Carbon Standard which it will submit to global standards authorities for ratification. The definitive soil carbon website Soil-C-Central is being constructed to give access to all available knowledge about soil carbon in the world, as well as virtual community facilities for meetings, discussion groups, and bulletin boards. At the same time, the convenors are seeking to offer growers the opportunity to get premium prices for 'emissions-reductions' produce by aggregating orders and using a brand story.
RUDD PROMISES SOIL CARBON INVESTIGATION:
The benefits of soil in sequestering carbon and its place in an emissions trading scheme will be investigated by the Federal Government, Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, announced yesterday.
In his opening address to this year's ABARE Outlook conference in Canberra, Mr Rudd said: "We need to prepare for climate change, but we also need to be ready to seize new market opportunities that come with tackling climate change. Because as well as difficult challenges, climate change will create opportunities for agricultural Australia. Today I want to announce one opportunity that the Government will be investigating: soil carbon. A few days after the Government was sworn into office last year, I visited Matt and Anna Ahern’s cattlestud in Roma with Queensland Agforce President Peter Kenny and with Tony Burke, the Minister for Agriculture. We discussed soil management practices on farms, and the scope for productivity improvements and reduced emissions from improving cropping practices. Peter’s plea to me was that if the Government wanted to do something about carbon emissions for agricultural Australia, we should focus on the soil.
"I am hearing more and more about the possible potential of enhancing the carbon stored in our soils. That is why today I am asking Tony Burke – as part of the our Australia’s Farming Future initiative – to investigate how better soil management can be part of Australia’s response to climate change. I recognise that this is a complex area and there is a variety of view points. I am told that there are significant challenges to measuring the emissions from different farming techniques and estimating the carbon stored in our soils. Those obstacles may make it difficult for soil carbon to play a role in our response to climate change, but we must examine the options. The truth is that, as in many aspects of climate change, we are only just beginning to look at soil carbon. ‘Low till’ or ‘no till’ soil management practices were first promoted for their environmental benefits through the previous Labor Government’s Landcare program that began in the early 1990s. More recently in Parliament, the Independent MP for New England Tony Windsor has been a champion of these practices for their water conservation benefits.
We now need to investigate how such practices might provide Australian agriculture with a role in new markets related to reducing carbon emissions.
…….
The challenges to the future of Australian agriculture are great, but we must not lose sight of the enormous opportunities for this sector given our natural competitive strengths. To succeed in addressing those challenges, we need to draw out the best ideas for Australia’s future from all parts of the community.
…..
We want to hear new ideas about which rural industries are best positioned to take advantage of the global consumer markets of the 21st century.
We are asking what options are possible for effective structural adjustment for rural industries and communities suffering the long term impact of climate change? And we are seeking view on what is the best way the Government can ensure the long term sustainability of rural and regional communities, including the fostering of the next generation of Australian farmers?"
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Carbon Farmers light a fire in New Zealand
The Kiwi contingent to the Carbon Farmers Expo & Conference did far more than simply attend the event in Mudgee last November. They went back to NZ all fired up with how far ahead of the game Australia is compared to NZ and plotted to "let the genie out of the bottle" in that country. Alan Mayne (right) and Max Purnell (left) are agriculturalists, entrepreneurs, visionaries and philanthropists. Alan contributed his financial support and organisational skills, and Max his political connections to get the Carbon Coalition in to see many influential people in NZ. Max is a Trustee of Agmart, the NZ Government's funding body.
(1) We met Clive Howard-Williams from the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research who told us of the dramaitic danger faced by many of NZ's natural waterways due to runoff. The land needs increased soil carbon to filter the water as it leaves.
We also learned that there is a controversy over soil C in NZ soils. One group of scientists maintain carbon has reached "steady state" ie. can sequester no more. Another group report that carbon levels across the country have collapsed in the last 25 years.
(2) We spoke to an audience of 350 NZ farmers in Christchurch at the "Farming For Change" Conference, organised by Peter Floyd's consultancy eCOGENT.
The three day event featured Dr Arden Anderson (a medical doctor who has an interest in the link between soil health and food nutrition.) 
With him was Dr Paul Dettloff, a vet from the USA who discovered the secret to animal health lies in soil biology.
(3) President of the Federated Farmers, Charlie Pedersen, was very willing to discuss the NZ soil carbon situation and especially the methane situation.
Agriculture is the source of the highest proportion of NZ's GHG emissions, responsible for 49% because of the importance of the sector to the economy. (The world average is 12% of emissions from agriculture.) Methane is the main source.
The soil C solution was news to everyone we spoke to in NZ and especially the potential for it to meet the methane overhead. The official government position in NZ reflects the conventional scientific attitude towards soil carbon: The only sink that exists in NZ is forests. "Removals of greenhouse gases from other changes jn land use were not significant (in 2005)", reports the Department of the Environment. The level of understanding under the direcion of conventional science results in statements like these from the Department: ""The biological health of soil is determined by measuring the level of potentially mineralisable nitrogen in the soil."
(4) The current state of NZ's soils (over the last decade) is typified by increasing compaction, loss of organic matter and soil structure under cropping, and nitrogen build-up under dairy pastures.a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXDBZN3VZ0fg-sN6M1ayKR-bmd_dYrp3nFD4tmSWkVI_iPlgf4EqtfG2luLAa8zGz-wQ63zBwTsDfyzcLS8vOl5fa71GJGCRZnCISVMk9J0U2wzAke4wljT_IdWIWSZSCK7SZI/s1600-h/P1060352.jpg">
"Most declines in soil health are potentially reversible," says the Department of Environment. "But the shift to more intensive farming practices in many regions may make a reversal difficult to achieve in some soils." The 500 Soils Project found the following average total carbon scores for different land use changes: Native Forest 56.5tC/Ha, Dairy Pasture 66.9tC/Ha, Drystock Pasture 50.8tC/Ha, Arable Cropping 40.7tC/Ha.
NZ trading scheme within 18 months
The Convenors last week toured New Zealand meeting scientists, government officials and farmers. The NZ Government has declared that it will have a soil carbon trading system by July 2009. The Government put out a Tender for a Voluntary Carbon System in December, 2007. The Carbon Coalition submitted a response to the Tender (see below).
The scientific research agency which told us it was 99% sure it would win the Tender to design the NZ trading system, is in the curious position of claiming to be equipped to design a system for trading increases in soil carbon while it's official position is that NZ soils cannot sequester more carbon: "Most New Zealand pastures are well stocked with soil carbon and there is little scope for increases-indeed there is evidence that soil carbon can decline if already fertile pastures receive more fertiliser. In general however, fertiliser additions enhance plant residue inputs and decomposition, so cycling of carbon increases, but soil carbon levels remain at a steady state. This is why we cannot use soils to store more carbon to offset methane and nitrous oxide emissions from New Zealand farms."
Dr Kevin Tate is NZ's most senior soil scientist. We discussed the collaborative farmer/scientist model of scientific research which would involve educating farmers to lab assistant level so they can be more disciplined in taking measurements, and giving scientists a grounding in on-farm realities to assist them in avoiding poorly-designed studies.
VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET OPPORTUNITIES
SOIL CARBON MANAGEMENT IN NEW ZEALAND
Capabilities Statement
(Including CVs)
The Carbon Coalition NZ Soil C Team has the Capabilities and Credentials needed to achieve the Government’s objective in this exercise:
To develop a cost-effective and practical system that allows those undertaking cropland management and grazing land management activities to estimate/measure soil carbon changes on their land and sell voluntary carbon market offsets.
Capabilities
The Government will require a consultancy that has five fundamental capabilities:
1. KNOWLEDGE of the scientific, marketplace, and regulatory realities and possibilities that define the global soil C trading opportunity for New Zealand;
2. INSIGHTS from dealing with scientists and farmers and corporate buyers of soil C offsets for long enough to understand their issues;
3. CONNECTIONS with the key players in the emerging market for soil C offsets in this region and overseas;
4. AWARENESS of the contribution science can make (its enabling effect) and its limitations (its disabling effect); and
5. EXPERIENCE with designing and running voluntary soil C trading schemes.
These Five Capabilities point to one key factor on which the success hinges: Creative Insight, based on understanding all aspects of the creation of markets for soil C.
There are 18 reasons why the Carbon Coalition NZ Soil C Team has this level of Understanding:
1. Practical experience: we have been actively campaigning for creation of the market for soil C since February 2006, preparing position papers and presentations for political, industry and corporate decision-makers;
2. Grassroots insights: we have addressed more than 70 gatherings of landholders on the soil carbon issue and fielded hundreds of emails and and telephone calls;
3. “Market making”: we have designed a voluntary market system based on the Chicago Climate Exchange model and are engaged in building our own voluntary market standard for submission to the Voluntary Carbon Standard in June 2008;
4. Pioneering change agents: we were the first organization to trade soil C units in Australia and have been trading in a trial system since February 2007;
5. Global scientific contacts: we are in regular contact with the world’s most eminent scientists and agricultural economists working in the soil C field; (with Prof. Lal at Ohio State U, Columbus OH)
6. Global market contacts: we secured the first order for 25,000 acres of Australian farm soil carbon from the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in October, 2006; we are in regular contact with key personnel in the only active exchange in the world trading in soil C; (Left: Mike Walsh, svp, CCX Chicago.)
7. Building bridges: we have been engaged with Australia’s most senior soil C scientists for more than 12 months in a series of “Soil Science Summits” to build understanding and remove obstacles to trading;
8. Knowledge base: we have an extensive library of literature – both scientific and reportage - focussed soley on issues affecting soil C trading;
9. Network resources: we communicate daily with a growing network of scientists, extension officers, and farmers and graziers, sharing our knowledge between us;
10. Serving industry: we are currently building Soil-C-Central, the world’s largest database and online community focussed on soil C production and trading;
11. Real world involvement: we are registered, as farmers, as part of the Greenhouse Challenge Plus, an emissions reduction scheme run by the Australian Greenhouse Office – the first graziers to do so – in order to experience the full force of “net-net” carbon accounting;
12. Removing blockages: we were the first to detect the flaws in the scientific method used by the CRC for Carbon Accounting to measure the sequestration capacity of Australian soils;
13. Building community: we staged the worlds first Carbon Farming Expo & Conference on 16th-17th November, 2007 in Mudgee, NSW, with scientists, traders, and farmers speaking to an audience from every State in Australia and New Zealand;
14. Insider information: we have inside knowledge of the three trading operations emerging in Australia in the past 12-18 months and we are in touch with their promoters;
15. Credibility with farmers: landholders who control more than 2 million hectares have chosen Carbon Farmers of Australia, the non-profit trading arm of the Carbon Coalition to act as their representatives/aggregators for soil C trading; (Below: winners of the ‘Carbon Cocky of the Year’ Awards at Carbon Farming Expo & Conference, 2007);
16. Marketing expertise: we have more than 30 years experience as marketing consultants, working with major brands such as Toyota, Xerox, American Express, Australia Post, and Macquarie Bank;
17. Growers’ advantage: we have launched the “CarbonCredited™” scheme for producers who enter into recognised emissions-reduction programs, starting with an aggregated wool pool aimed to meet demand from retailers in Europe;
18. Intellectual resources: we have, as part of the Carbon Coalition NZ Soil C team, one of world’s leading soil scientists with research expertise in the area of applying advance technology to the function of “Measurement, Monitoring, & Verification” ; and
19. Acknowledged expertise: we assisted three political parties to develop their soil carbon policies for elections in Australia in 2007: the federal ALP (the new Commonwealth Government), the federal Democrats, and the NSW Nationals.
The scientific research agency which told us it was 99% sure it would win the Tender to design the NZ trading system, is in the curious position of claiming to be equipped to design a system for trading increases in soil carbon while it's official position is that NZ soils cannot sequester more carbon: "Most New Zealand pastures are well stocked with soil carbon and there is little scope for increases-indeed there is evidence that soil carbon can decline if already fertile pastures receive more fertiliser. In general however, fertiliser additions enhance plant residue inputs and decomposition, so cycling of carbon increases, but soil carbon levels remain at a steady state. This is why we cannot use soils to store more carbon to offset methane and nitrous oxide emissions from New Zealand farms."
Dr Kevin Tate is NZ's most senior soil scientist. We discussed the collaborative farmer/scientist model of scientific research which would involve educating farmers to lab assistant level so they can be more disciplined in taking measurements, and giving scientists a grounding in on-farm realities to assist them in avoiding poorly-designed studies.
VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET OPPORTUNITIES
SOIL CARBON MANAGEMENT IN NEW ZEALAND
Capabilities Statement
(Including CVs)
The Carbon Coalition NZ Soil C Team has the Capabilities and Credentials needed to achieve the Government’s objective in this exercise:
To develop a cost-effective and practical system that allows those undertaking cropland management and grazing land management activities to estimate/measure soil carbon changes on their land and sell voluntary carbon market offsets.
Capabilities
The Government will require a consultancy that has five fundamental capabilities:
1. KNOWLEDGE of the scientific, marketplace, and regulatory realities and possibilities that define the global soil C trading opportunity for New Zealand;
2. INSIGHTS from dealing with scientists and farmers and corporate buyers of soil C offsets for long enough to understand their issues;
3. CONNECTIONS with the key players in the emerging market for soil C offsets in this region and overseas;
4. AWARENESS of the contribution science can make (its enabling effect) and its limitations (its disabling effect); and
5. EXPERIENCE with designing and running voluntary soil C trading schemes.
These Five Capabilities point to one key factor on which the success hinges: Creative Insight, based on understanding all aspects of the creation of markets for soil C.
There are 18 reasons why the Carbon Coalition NZ Soil C Team has this level of Understanding:
1. Practical experience: we have been actively campaigning for creation of the market for soil C since February 2006, preparing position papers and presentations for political, industry and corporate decision-makers;
2. Grassroots insights: we have addressed more than 70 gatherings of landholders on the soil carbon issue and fielded hundreds of emails and and telephone calls;
3. “Market making”: we have designed a voluntary market system based on the Chicago Climate Exchange model and are engaged in building our own voluntary market standard for submission to the Voluntary Carbon Standard in June 2008;
4. Pioneering change agents: we were the first organization to trade soil C units in Australia and have been trading in a trial system since February 2007;
5. Global scientific contacts: we are in regular contact with the world’s most eminent scientists and agricultural economists working in the soil C field; (with Prof. Lal at Ohio State U, Columbus OH)
6. Global market contacts: we secured the first order for 25,000 acres of Australian farm soil carbon from the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in October, 2006; we are in regular contact with key personnel in the only active exchange in the world trading in soil C; (Left: Mike Walsh, svp, CCX Chicago.)
7. Building bridges: we have been engaged with Australia’s most senior soil C scientists for more than 12 months in a series of “Soil Science Summits” to build understanding and remove obstacles to trading;
8. Knowledge base: we have an extensive library of literature – both scientific and reportage - focussed soley on issues affecting soil C trading;
9. Network resources: we communicate daily with a growing network of scientists, extension officers, and farmers and graziers, sharing our knowledge between us;
10. Serving industry: we are currently building Soil-C-Central, the world’s largest database and online community focussed on soil C production and trading;
11. Real world involvement: we are registered, as farmers, as part of the Greenhouse Challenge Plus, an emissions reduction scheme run by the Australian Greenhouse Office – the first graziers to do so – in order to experience the full force of “net-net” carbon accounting;
12. Removing blockages: we were the first to detect the flaws in the scientific method used by the CRC for Carbon Accounting to measure the sequestration capacity of Australian soils;
13. Building community: we staged the worlds first Carbon Farming Expo & Conference on 16th-17th November, 2007 in Mudgee, NSW, with scientists, traders, and farmers speaking to an audience from every State in Australia and New Zealand;
14. Insider information: we have inside knowledge of the three trading operations emerging in Australia in the past 12-18 months and we are in touch with their promoters;
15. Credibility with farmers: landholders who control more than 2 million hectares have chosen Carbon Farmers of Australia, the non-profit trading arm of the Carbon Coalition to act as their representatives/aggregators for soil C trading; (Below: winners of the ‘Carbon Cocky of the Year’ Awards at Carbon Farming Expo & Conference, 2007);
16. Marketing expertise: we have more than 30 years experience as marketing consultants, working with major brands such as Toyota, Xerox, American Express, Australia Post, and Macquarie Bank;
17. Growers’ advantage: we have launched the “CarbonCredited™” scheme for producers who enter into recognised emissions-reduction programs, starting with an aggregated wool pool aimed to meet demand from retailers in Europe;
18. Intellectual resources: we have, as part of the Carbon Coalition NZ Soil C team, one of world’s leading soil scientists with research expertise in the area of applying advance technology to the function of “Measurement, Monitoring, & Verification” ; and
19. Acknowledged expertise: we assisted three political parties to develop their soil carbon policies for elections in Australia in 2007: the federal ALP (the new Commonwealth Government), the federal Democrats, and the NSW Nationals.
PM Rudd warned: “Beware the Scientific Quicksand”
The question the Prime Minister should be asking is this: “Why, after more than 15 years, have the best scientists, working in the soil carbon field all over the world, not yet delivered a cost-effective and practical measurement system to enable trade in soil carbon to proceed when it took only 8 years to put a man on the Moon?”
It is plain to anyone involved in the field for more than a few months that the solution to measuring and trading soil carbon does not lie in more scientific research to develop more “accurate” measurement techniques. The answer lies in gaining agreement between parties to the trading scheme that they can be confident they can transact and achieve their goals. Science cannot be a proxy for the decision because science, from 1995 to date, has only discovered reasons why the trade cannot proceed, based on increasing degrees of exactitude. Always the response is: “More research is needed.”
Dr Peter Grace from Queensland University of Technology represents the anti-trading faction among scientists. He greeted the PM’s statement with the conventional phrases such as “expensive” and ‘difficult’ and the inevitable bottomline: ‘more research is needed’. (Cynics could say there is a gravy-train mentality surrounding soil carbon. This is certainly the case in NZ where the "Crown Research Agencies" line up for handouts and the Government's response to climate change in agriculture is to create professorships - 2 in the case of biochar.)
The Carbon Coalition has been in discussions with enlightened soil scientists for more than 12 months to solve these problems. The world’s first Carbon Farming Conference in November was a watershed for soil carbon science. It brought scientists and farmers together to solve problems. We believe that some scientists may have changed their focus from accuracy of measurement to practical solutions for trading. If so, they know where the Moon is.
The trading in soil carbon can only be conducted if a system of measurement, monitoring, and verification (MMV) can be agreed between the parties to the trade (and regulators). A purely scientific solution is not likely to be found because of the unique properties of soil carbon and ts porous interface with the atmosphere. Finer and finer levels of measurement take us further away from the solution. The soil and vegetation ‘breathe’ carbon in and out and this ‘flux’ makes conventional measurement impossible. Spacial variation is also significant. The possibility of trade therefore rests on the willingness of the parties to accept a system of practical estimations within certain statistical tolerances (that accord with uncertainty levels already accepted under IPCC protocols). Australia could lead the world by devising and championing a commonsense regime that will enable the deployment of the power of soil to cure the carbon imbalance that afflicts the world.
Re the constant call for "more research" from the scientific community: We can't wait for the results of more 3 year trials. The 10 years Sir Nicholas Stern gave the world in which to act to avoid climate crisis 2 years go will have passed before the extraordinary sequestration capacity of soils can be deployed. The world’s leading soil carbon scientists are appealing to their colleagues to abandon the purist approach and contribute to a practical solution. (See comments of Professor R. Lal (IPCC), Dr John Kimble, ex-USDA below)
Preferred methodology: Therefore the preferred methodology is to engage buyers, traders and regulators in discussion of MMV issues and enlist their help to develop a workable system. References will be made to analogous uncertainties in other categories of abatement and GHG offset. The engagement strategy includes interviews and workshops with carbon traders, commodity market experts, statisticians, buyers, regulators, and growers. Scientists will be involved where they understand that the objective of the exercise is not precision but practical solutions.
By revealing to the stakeholders the elements of systems for assessing soil C levels and their uncertainty levels, as well as the potential for using combinations of techniques, the stakeholders can gain an understanding and give considered opinions about degrees of confidence.
Leading Scientists Call For Common Sense
Leading US scientists are questioning the importance of ‘flux’ and demanding that soil scientists come into the real world and find solutions:
• Dr John Kimble: "It is often pointed out that soils have a large
amount of variability, but with knowledge of soil sciences and
landscapes, variability can be described and sampling protocols
can be developed to deal with this," writes Dr John Kimble.29 "One
reason I feel people say that soils vary and SOC cannot be
measured is that we soil scientists focus on showing variability, not
on showing what we know about the variability.” "We too often focus on this [variability], worry about laboratory precision and field variation and do not look at the real world where most things are based on averages and estimated data. We tend to focus on finding variation and not on using our
knowledge of soil science to describe what we know. All systems
vary, but in soils we focus on a level of precision and accuracy that
may not have any relevance to the real world because we can take
so many samples and look at the variation." (Kimble, J., "Advances In Models To Measure Soil Carbon: Can Soil
Carbon Really Be Measured?", in Lal, R., Cerri, C., Bernoux, M.,
Etchevers, J., and Cerri, E., eds., Carbon Sequestration in Soils in Latin
America, Food Products Press, Birmingham, NY, 2006)
• Dr Rattan Lal: “Coming events are casting their shadow in this important and emerging field of immense significance to soil science, and the researchers must put their act together before the train departs the station…., While techniques of measuring concentration of C in soils, methodologically sampled and carefully prepared for laboratory analysis, are well known, the principal challenge to soil scientists lies in: (i) upscaling the point data to landscape, farm, watershed or a region … (ii) evaluating changes in soil C with reference to a baseline for cultivated land unit comprising a large farming community, and (iii) verifying that the C thus sequestered is permanent … Soil and tillage researchers must be pro-active in this important theme.” (Dr Rattan Lal, “Farming Carbon”, Soil & Tillage Research 96 (2007)
Dr Lal is Director, Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio; Professor of Soil Science, College of
Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, School of Natural
Resources, Ohio State University; Liebig Applied Soil Science Award.)
It is plain to anyone involved in the field for more than a few months that the solution to measuring and trading soil carbon does not lie in more scientific research to develop more “accurate” measurement techniques. The answer lies in gaining agreement between parties to the trading scheme that they can be confident they can transact and achieve their goals. Science cannot be a proxy for the decision because science, from 1995 to date, has only discovered reasons why the trade cannot proceed, based on increasing degrees of exactitude. Always the response is: “More research is needed.”
Dr Peter Grace from Queensland University of Technology represents the anti-trading faction among scientists. He greeted the PM’s statement with the conventional phrases such as “expensive” and ‘difficult’ and the inevitable bottomline: ‘more research is needed’. (Cynics could say there is a gravy-train mentality surrounding soil carbon. This is certainly the case in NZ where the "Crown Research Agencies" line up for handouts and the Government's response to climate change in agriculture is to create professorships - 2 in the case of biochar.)
The Carbon Coalition has been in discussions with enlightened soil scientists for more than 12 months to solve these problems. The world’s first Carbon Farming Conference in November was a watershed for soil carbon science. It brought scientists and farmers together to solve problems. We believe that some scientists may have changed their focus from accuracy of measurement to practical solutions for trading. If so, they know where the Moon is.
The trading in soil carbon can only be conducted if a system of measurement, monitoring, and verification (MMV) can be agreed between the parties to the trade (and regulators). A purely scientific solution is not likely to be found because of the unique properties of soil carbon and ts porous interface with the atmosphere. Finer and finer levels of measurement take us further away from the solution. The soil and vegetation ‘breathe’ carbon in and out and this ‘flux’ makes conventional measurement impossible. Spacial variation is also significant. The possibility of trade therefore rests on the willingness of the parties to accept a system of practical estimations within certain statistical tolerances (that accord with uncertainty levels already accepted under IPCC protocols). Australia could lead the world by devising and championing a commonsense regime that will enable the deployment of the power of soil to cure the carbon imbalance that afflicts the world.
Re the constant call for "more research" from the scientific community: We can't wait for the results of more 3 year trials. The 10 years Sir Nicholas Stern gave the world in which to act to avoid climate crisis 2 years go will have passed before the extraordinary sequestration capacity of soils can be deployed. The world’s leading soil carbon scientists are appealing to their colleagues to abandon the purist approach and contribute to a practical solution. (See comments of Professor R. Lal (IPCC), Dr John Kimble, ex-USDA below)
Preferred methodology: Therefore the preferred methodology is to engage buyers, traders and regulators in discussion of MMV issues and enlist their help to develop a workable system. References will be made to analogous uncertainties in other categories of abatement and GHG offset. The engagement strategy includes interviews and workshops with carbon traders, commodity market experts, statisticians, buyers, regulators, and growers. Scientists will be involved where they understand that the objective of the exercise is not precision but practical solutions.
By revealing to the stakeholders the elements of systems for assessing soil C levels and their uncertainty levels, as well as the potential for using combinations of techniques, the stakeholders can gain an understanding and give considered opinions about degrees of confidence.
Leading Scientists Call For Common Sense
Leading US scientists are questioning the importance of ‘flux’ and demanding that soil scientists come into the real world and find solutions:
• Dr John Kimble: "It is often pointed out that soils have a large
amount of variability, but with knowledge of soil sciences and
landscapes, variability can be described and sampling protocols
can be developed to deal with this," writes Dr John Kimble.29 "One
reason I feel people say that soils vary and SOC cannot be
measured is that we soil scientists focus on showing variability, not
on showing what we know about the variability.” "We too often focus on this [variability], worry about laboratory precision and field variation and do not look at the real world where most things are based on averages and estimated data. We tend to focus on finding variation and not on using our
knowledge of soil science to describe what we know. All systems
vary, but in soils we focus on a level of precision and accuracy that
may not have any relevance to the real world because we can take
so many samples and look at the variation." (Kimble, J., "Advances In Models To Measure Soil Carbon: Can Soil
Carbon Really Be Measured?", in Lal, R., Cerri, C., Bernoux, M.,
Etchevers, J., and Cerri, E., eds., Carbon Sequestration in Soils in Latin
America, Food Products Press, Birmingham, NY, 2006)
• Dr Rattan Lal: “Coming events are casting their shadow in this important and emerging field of immense significance to soil science, and the researchers must put their act together before the train departs the station…., While techniques of measuring concentration of C in soils, methodologically sampled and carefully prepared for laboratory analysis, are well known, the principal challenge to soil scientists lies in: (i) upscaling the point data to landscape, farm, watershed or a region … (ii) evaluating changes in soil C with reference to a baseline for cultivated land unit comprising a large farming community, and (iii) verifying that the C thus sequestered is permanent … Soil and tillage researchers must be pro-active in this important theme.” (Dr Rattan Lal, “Farming Carbon”, Soil & Tillage Research 96 (2007)
Dr Lal is Director, Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio; Professor of Soil Science, College of
Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, School of Natural
Resources, Ohio State University; Liebig Applied Soil Science Award.)
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Kevin Rudd says YES to Soil Carbon
The Prime minister today said the words the Coalition has been wating to hear for more than 2 years
"I am hearing more and more about the possible potential of enhancing the carbon stored in our soils. That is why today I am asking Tony Burke – as part of the our Australia’s Farming Future initiative – to investigate how better soil management can be part of Australia’s response to climate change," he said at the ABARE Outlook 2008 Conference in Canberra today, 4 March 2008
His speech included the following: "I recognise that this is a complex area and there is a variety of view points. I am told that there are significant challenges to measuring the emissions from different farming techniques and estimating the carbon stored in our soils.Those obstacles may make it difficult for soil carbon to play a role in our response to climate change, but we must examine the options. The truth is that, as in many aspects of climate change, we are only just beginning to look at soil carbon. ‘Low till’ or ‘no till’ soil management practices were first promoted for their environmental benefits through the previous Labor Government’s Landcare program that began in the early 1990s. More recently in Parliament, the Independent MP for New England Tony Windsor has been a champion of these practices for their water conservation benefits. We now need to investigate how such practices might provide Australian agriculture with a role in new markets related to reducing carbon emissions."
A MESSAGE OF THANKS
Congratulations to everyone who has worked to see the soil carbon solution given a fair hearing. Those who contributed money, precious time, and support know who they are. Some even risked their careers to support us. There will be statues erected to you all in the Soil Carbon Hall of Heroes. But the work is not yet done. The door has been opened a little. You can expect the sceptics to fight even harder from here on in. But the tide is turning. Our numbers are small, but we are aided by mighty forces. This is a glorious day, but t is only another step along the way to our ultimate goal: to see soil carbon traded and the farmers who grow it paid fairly for it.
"I am hearing more and more about the possible potential of enhancing the carbon stored in our soils. That is why today I am asking Tony Burke – as part of the our Australia’s Farming Future initiative – to investigate how better soil management can be part of Australia’s response to climate change," he said at the ABARE Outlook 2008 Conference in Canberra today, 4 March 2008
His speech included the following: "I recognise that this is a complex area and there is a variety of view points. I am told that there are significant challenges to measuring the emissions from different farming techniques and estimating the carbon stored in our soils.Those obstacles may make it difficult for soil carbon to play a role in our response to climate change, but we must examine the options. The truth is that, as in many aspects of climate change, we are only just beginning to look at soil carbon. ‘Low till’ or ‘no till’ soil management practices were first promoted for their environmental benefits through the previous Labor Government’s Landcare program that began in the early 1990s. More recently in Parliament, the Independent MP for New England Tony Windsor has been a champion of these practices for their water conservation benefits. We now need to investigate how such practices might provide Australian agriculture with a role in new markets related to reducing carbon emissions."
A MESSAGE OF THANKS
Congratulations to everyone who has worked to see the soil carbon solution given a fair hearing. Those who contributed money, precious time, and support know who they are. Some even risked their careers to support us. There will be statues erected to you all in the Soil Carbon Hall of Heroes. But the work is not yet done. The door has been opened a little. You can expect the sceptics to fight even harder from here on in. But the tide is turning. Our numbers are small, but we are aided by mighty forces. This is a glorious day, but t is only another step along the way to our ultimate goal: to see soil carbon traded and the farmers who grow it paid fairly for it.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Garnaut drops a big hint
There was good news for 'soilies' when Professor Ross Garnaut released his "Interim" report today. He is clearly serious about including agriculture in an emissions trading scheme as early as possible.
Our take-outs from the Report, and especially the passage below, are:
Climate change is URGENT for Australia because of Agriculture's exposure and our relationships with fragile nations in Asia.
Australia must act quickly to sequester large amounts of carbon.
Australian soils can potentially sequester large amounts of carbon.
Agriculture can be included in a trading scheme if it gets the same protection being considered for other "trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries" (ie. coal mining and aluminium and other 'dirty' industries).
Issues that must be addressed: MMV and transaction costs.
The Carbon Coalition has maintained since the beginning that URGENCY would force the powers that be to loosen their rules once they realise the importance of soil in the short term action plan.
The relevant passagecan be found on page 47 of the Report. You can download the report at www.garnautreview.org.au:
"An efficient ETS would have as broad coverage of emitting sectors as possible within
practical limits imposed by factors such as measurability and transaction costs.
The proposals by the Task Group on Emissions Trading (2007) suggested relatively
wide coverage for an Australian ETS. The recently announced proposals for a New
Zealand ETS includes all sectors. Some sectors that are usually considered to be
difficult, like forestry, are to be included from the beginning, and others, like agriculture,
are to be included later, to allow time to develop ways to include them.
In Australia, there is considerable potential for sequestering large amounts of carbon
through changes in land and forest management and agricultural practices. It is
important that incentives to realise this potential are in place as early as possible in the
life of the ETS. Full inclusion of agriculture and forestry could require consideration of
measures available to other trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries.
The Carbo Coalition's submission can be found at http://soilcarbongarnaut.blogspot.com
A BIG HOORAY to those members who made submissions.
Our take-outs from the Report, and especially the passage below, are:
Climate change is URGENT for Australia because of Agriculture's exposure and our relationships with fragile nations in Asia.
Australia must act quickly to sequester large amounts of carbon.
Australian soils can potentially sequester large amounts of carbon.
Agriculture can be included in a trading scheme if it gets the same protection being considered for other "trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries" (ie. coal mining and aluminium and other 'dirty' industries).
Issues that must be addressed: MMV and transaction costs.
The Carbon Coalition has maintained since the beginning that URGENCY would force the powers that be to loosen their rules once they realise the importance of soil in the short term action plan.
The relevant passagecan be found on page 47 of the Report. You can download the report at www.garnautreview.org.au:
"An efficient ETS would have as broad coverage of emitting sectors as possible within
practical limits imposed by factors such as measurability and transaction costs.
The proposals by the Task Group on Emissions Trading (2007) suggested relatively
wide coverage for an Australian ETS. The recently announced proposals for a New
Zealand ETS includes all sectors. Some sectors that are usually considered to be
difficult, like forestry, are to be included from the beginning, and others, like agriculture,
are to be included later, to allow time to develop ways to include them.
In Australia, there is considerable potential for sequestering large amounts of carbon
through changes in land and forest management and agricultural practices. It is
important that incentives to realise this potential are in place as early as possible in the
life of the ETS. Full inclusion of agriculture and forestry could require consideration of
measures available to other trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries.
The Carbo Coalition's submission can be found at http://soilcarbongarnaut.blogspot.com
A BIG HOORAY to those members who made submissions.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Green Cow Manifesto
Coalition member Murray Schofield has answered our call for ideas to promote the Cause.
"Most people view cattle as destructive. Green groups have for years been telling them this, how cows ruin waterways, cause erosion, destroy county by overgrazing, huge amounts of methane into the air and the list goes on..."
The bumper stickers are handed out and direct people to a website where Murray hits them with 'REAL FACTS'about how cattle can heal the land, etc. The we direct them to drill down into other articles including testimonials from graziers/ranchers from all over the world - telling the people we attract about increasing biodiversity and the increase in native wildlife.
"Most people couldn't care less if you tell them how you can improve stocking rates or profits, but they do care about environmental issues, like climate change or wildlife issues," says Murray.
The controversial statement should attract attention from the media - giving the campaign a boost.
Some variations on the GREEN COW MESSAGE: "The Best Environmentalist I Know Is A Cow."
"COWS + GRASS + SOIL = NATURAL CARBON SINK"
"MAN CREATES CO2 NATURE CAPTURES CO2"
"CARBON A DIRTY WORD
ONLY IF IT'S IN THE AIR.
PUT IT IN THE SOIL
WHERE IT BELONGS"
"Build us a soil C trading system"
Carbon Farmers of Australia - the non-profit trading arm of the Carbon Coalition - is working on IP (intellectual property) in the MMV (measurement, monitoring and verification) area.(Everyone else is doing it.) We'd tell you about it, but it seems you have to be secretive about it or someone ill steal it. We recently responded to a tender from the NZ Government for a soil carbon trading mechanism.
EXTRACT FROM TENDER:
Introduction: The methodology outlined here might be surprising, given the dominance of science and scientists in the debate so far. The question the MAF should be asking is this: “Why, after more than 12 years research, have the best scientists, working in the soil carbon field all over the world, not yet delivered a cost-effective and practical measurement, monitoring and verification (MMV) system to enable trade in soil carbon to proceed when it took only 8 years to put a man on the moon?” It is plain to anyone involved in the field for more than a few months that the solution the MAF is seeking does not lie in more scientific research to develop more “accurate” measurement techniques. The answer lies in gaining agreement between parties to the trading scheme that they can be confident they can transact and achieve their goals. Science cannot be a proxy for the decision because science, from 1995 to date, has only discovered reasons why the trade cannot proceed, based on increasing degrees of exactitude. Always the response is: “More research is needed.” (The 10 years Sir Nicholas Stern gave the world in which to act to avoid climate crisis 2 years go will have passed before the extraordinary sequestration capacity of soils can be deployed.) The world’s leading soil carbon scientists are appealing to their colleagues to abandon the purist approach and contribute to a practical solution, based on their knowledge of how soil carbon acts. We have already seen movement in this direction among Australian soil scientists ho must be among the most progressive in the world. (See comments of Professor R. Lal (IPCC), Dr John Kimble, ex-USDA attached)
EXTRACT FROM TENDER:
Introduction: The methodology outlined here might be surprising, given the dominance of science and scientists in the debate so far. The question the MAF should be asking is this: “Why, after more than 12 years research, have the best scientists, working in the soil carbon field all over the world, not yet delivered a cost-effective and practical measurement, monitoring and verification (MMV) system to enable trade in soil carbon to proceed when it took only 8 years to put a man on the moon?” It is plain to anyone involved in the field for more than a few months that the solution the MAF is seeking does not lie in more scientific research to develop more “accurate” measurement techniques. The answer lies in gaining agreement between parties to the trading scheme that they can be confident they can transact and achieve their goals. Science cannot be a proxy for the decision because science, from 1995 to date, has only discovered reasons why the trade cannot proceed, based on increasing degrees of exactitude. Always the response is: “More research is needed.” (The 10 years Sir Nicholas Stern gave the world in which to act to avoid climate crisis 2 years go will have passed before the extraordinary sequestration capacity of soils can be deployed.) The world’s leading soil carbon scientists are appealing to their colleagues to abandon the purist approach and contribute to a practical solution, based on their knowledge of how soil carbon acts. We have already seen movement in this direction among Australian soil scientists ho must be among the most progressive in the world. (See comments of Professor R. Lal (IPCC), Dr John Kimble, ex-USDA attached)
Soil-C-Central - World's Largest Source of Soil Carbon Information
We hope to launch “SoilCCentral.com”, a website devoted to all known research and knowledge of Soil Carbon sequestration, including ideas and farming techniques to increase Carbon in soils. It will have links to every resource available online and be useful for scientists, primary producers, and policy makers. Once we have achieved our objective, it would be transformed into a resource to support farmers trading soil and other forms of carbon. The Objective is to speed up the development of MMV solutions (Measurement/Monitoring/Verification), which is the sticking point for trading.
Coalition Update
This is a photo of the audience at the Macquarie 2000 Landcare AGM 2 weeks ago. We spoke on the same program as Christine Jones who is a stunning educator. It was a pleasure to be working with her again. She has been our inspiration since 2005 when we attendd her Carbon Forum in Armidale - and where we met Col Seis, David Marsh, and Rick Maurice.
Christine announced that the first cheques will be presented to the farmers enrolled in her Accreditation Scheme at Parliament House in 2009. Then, she said, if the IPART (the weights and measures body) don't accept her MMV system, she will continue to sell on the Voluntary market. ('Voluntary' is quickly losing its meaning with the carbon nazis insisting that the unregulated market should be as regulated as the regulated market - and the ACCC is conducting an enquiry into it.)
We are off the NZ at the end of the week to speak to farmers and scientists and government officials about soil carbon. An entrepreneur called Alan Mayne is paying us to do the trip. He was a delegate at the Carbon Farming Conference we organised last November. We are putting our slides in order for a Kiwi version of our presentation. (They have a problem with the official view of soils in NZ as well: the dominant paradigm says that NZ soils can't sequester much carb on because they're all full up! Paradigm Busters!)
At the same time I am negotiating with the publishers of Ethical Investor Magazine to speak at their conference in both Sydney and Melbourne in May on "Green Marketing". Unfortunately they don't want to pay my travel and accommodation (not to mention my speakers' fee) and we have to weigh up the value of the opportunity.
At the same time I have a presentation to do at ad agency WHYBIN to sell in our CarbonCredited™Brands solution for city based businesses.
At the same time we have to prepare for a week in WA speaking at Conferences and meeting farmers, in March.
We are speaking at YASS on 9 April at the Soldiers' Club.
At the same time we are working on a Voluntary Carbon Standard for soils, to submit to the global Voluntary Carbon Standard organisation.
At the same time we are working to codify our current 'proxy/indicator' model for selling 'soil credits' by April 4 when our 'sustainability coach' Michael Mobbs is in town.
Meanwhile we must soon have another meeting with our friends in the scientific community to plan the 2008 Conference...
Soil-C-Central is going ahead, despite the fact that Louisa did not win the $10k bursary from the Rural Womens' Award, which was to be our down payment. Need a sponsor.
Meanwhile I am toying with a user pays information service for soil carbon....
BTW: Tom Nicholson is crossing the Nullabor as I write, on his way to WA as part of his research for a book on Carbon Farming.
BTW Christine Jones is writing a book to be published in 2009.
Soil Carbon's Rural Woman of the Year
We enter awards and stand for parliament in order to raise the profile of soil carbon.
Louisa was runner-up in the NSW RIRDC Rural Women’s Award 2008. The winner was Tracey Knowland, a businesswoman from Brooklet near Byron Bay. Here's how the organisers presented the two finalists:
Tracey Knowland, a businesswoman from Brooklet
Tracey, along with her husband Stuart, owns and operates Bangalow Wholesale Nursery at Bangalow in the Byron Bay hinterland. Tracey’s business specialises in trialling and developing superior selections of small to medium Australian temperate/subtropical rainforest trees and coastal tolerant trees. Her target markets include the landscape and development industry. Tracey proposes to use the bursary to fund her participation in the 2008 National Nursery & Garden Industry Association National Conference in Adelaide in March, followed by a study tour of Victoria's largest wholesale production nurseries to look at sustainable growing methods. Tracey also hopes to build on a water recycling project as part of their nursery business, and share her experiences with other women in rural and urban-based businesses.
Louisa Kiely, Goolma
Louisa and her husband Michael own and operate a superfine wool enterprise at Goolma in central western NSW. Her focus for the past two years has been on climate change and sustainable farming. She has coordinated a number of workshops and summits, bringing together scientists and farmers to share information about carbon farming. Louisa’s award project involves building and launching SoilCCentral.com – a website devoted to research and knowledge of carbon soil sequestration, including ideas and farming techniques to increase carbon in soils. She hopes to use her project to highlight the benefits of increasing carbon in our agricultural soils to help save family farms and the environment at large.
And this is how ABC RADIO's Country Hour reported the event:
Last night at a gala ceremony in Sydney, Bangalow Nursery manager Tracey Knowland was named NSW rural woman of the year, by the Minister for Primary Industries Ian Macdonald.
"Tracey's business focuses on innovative advanced tree production and and is looking to develop a thriving export business as well as keeping a sense of the environmental issues involved with tree planting and production.
"The environment also plays a big part in the success of the runner up for the award Louisa Kiely from Goolma who is a strong advocate for carbon farming and the implications of climate change."
THIS WAS LOUISA'S APPLICATION:
Louisa Kiely
“Uamby” via Goolma NSW 2852
Convenor
Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming
Principal,
Carbon Farmers of Australia
[Mobilise the Soils, Save the Planet, Save the Family Farm]
DEMONSTRATED PERSONAL COMMITMENT*
February 2006 - Co-Founded the Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming to lobby for the right of Australian landholders to trade on the emissions offset market the credits they can earn by sequestering carbon in their soils.
May, 2006 - Presentation at Manning Landcare event, Gloucester
2 June, 2006 - Brief NSW Farmers’ Association, Jock Laurie, Sydney NSW
14 July, 2006 – Presentation for CWCMA, Mudgee Small Farm Field Day
19 July, 2006 – Presentation to Baradine Landcare Group
July, 2006 - Presentation to Land Management Workshop, Cobar
18/19 September: Washington DC –2006 Global CO2 Cap-And-Trade Forum
21/22 September: Bozeman, Montana - Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase 2 Project Management Plan Workshop
25 September: College Station, Texas - Professor Bruce McCarl, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University
27 September: Albuquerque, New Mexico - Peter Holter, Holistic Management Int
28 September: Attended and addressed 2 day Phase 2 Workshop in Albuqurque,New Mexico of the Southwest Regional Partnership
29 September: Swanton, Vermont - Address Farmers’ gathering organised by Coalition member Abe Collins from Vermont.
1 October: Columbus, Ohio - Professor Rattan Lal, School of Natural Resources at Ohio State University, Columbus Ohio
3 October: Chicago, Illinois – Mike Walsh, SVP, Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)
Secured first order for 25,000 acres Australian soil from CCX.
23 October, 2006 – Presentation to Kingaroy Carbon Forum, Kingaroy
Coordinated 8-farm application for CWCMA funding for soil trials.
13 November, 2006 – meet with NSW President Soil Science Society re data for CCX and Summit of scientists and Practitioners
25 November, 2006 – Make presentation to Cobar/Nyngan Landcare
22/23 November, 2006 - Speak at National Carbon Forum Canberra
19 December, 2006 - Briefed NSW Farmers’ Asociation’s Jock Laurie.
9 February, 2007 - Address SA No Till Farmers’ Association, Tanunda, SA
5 March, 2007 - Address CWA Agriculture & Environment Seminar, CWA House
7 March, 2007 - Conduct 4 hour workshop on carbon trading for RCS, Yeppoon
8 March, 2007 - Address soils gathering, CWCMA Dubbo, NSW
10 March, 2007 - Address landholders’ gathering at Collarenabri, NSW
12 March, 2007 - Address Landcare meeting, Mudgee NSW*
1 April, 2007 - Launch Carbon Farmers of Australia – trading arm of Carbon Coalition. Make first sales of Australian farm Soil Credits.
22 March, 2007 Organised Summit between Scientists and Farmers, Dubbo NSW
29/30 March, 2007 - Address Landcare Farming Forum, Grafton
25-27 April - Address Southern Rivers CMA/Landcare Forum, Merimbula /Eden
3 May, 2007 - Attend “Green Dollar” Conference, Canberra ACT
15 May, 2007 - Brief Judi Earl, Holistic Management International, Goolma
14 June, 2007 - Organised 2nd Summit between scientists and farmers, Orange
21 June, 2007 – Attend and address DPI landholders’ meeting at Junee Reef.
4 July, 2007 – Address Ebor Beef Group, Armidale NSW
14-15 July, 2007 – Address NSW Women In Agriculture Conference, Forbes
19 JULY, 2007 – Address Biodynamic Farmers, Melbourne Victoria
*My husband Michael is Co-Convenor. He does all the website communications and public relations. We often share the podium or present alone. Michael’s solo lobbying or presentation work is not listed here.
THE SOIL CARBON OPPORTUNITY
• Restore Australia’s heavily depleted agricultural soils to health and productivity.
• Restore the financial security of farm families by giving them access to what will soon be the largest commodity market in the world.
• Restore local economies and rural communities.
• Restore the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere and help avert the worst effects of Climate Change.
A PERSONAL MISSION: My specific focus for the past 2 years has been Climate Change and Sustainable Farming. When I entered agriculture as a woolgrower 10 years ago, I studied sustainable farming practices as part of the Advanced Diploma of Farm Management at the University of Sydney (Orange) and my husband and son joined me in learning the Holistic Management approach to grazing management. I experimented with various techniques of rebuilding the depleted soils on our ‘renovator’s dream’ property “Uamby”, which has been farmed hard for 182 years.
To get litter on the ground and encourage soil biological processes that make healthy soil, we tired mulching bare earth, mulching rank grass and thistles, spreading manure, spreading treated human biosolids, spreading worm juice, spreading seaweed, and other experiments. We proved that you can grow new topsoil quickly with effort.
But the breakthrough for me was attending one of the first Carbon Forum staged by Dr Christine Jones in Armidale. We were selected as among the 10 most innovative farm families in the Catchment by the Central West Catchment Management Authority, and trained for 20 days in a range of skills to do with innovative farm planning. We that soil carbon was the key performance indicator of progress towards soil health, reduced salination, water management, biodiversity, reduced erosion… and climate change mitigation. In fact, we concluded that the world’s agricultural soils could be the only solution to the Global Warming Crisis.
The UN, NASA, and our own Australian Greenhouse Office agree: there is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to push the globe through the 2°C increase that will cause climate chaos. The only way to remove it is Photosynthesis. Plants and Trees. No other popular solution can do it – clean coal, nuclear power, solar and wind power, these can only avoid future emissions. And Forests, even if we planted enough today, cannot reach critical mass in less than 15-20 years. The Stern Report said we have 10 years in which to act, and NASA agrees. The only solution is agricultural soils. They already have critical mass and can start sequestering carbon instantly on a large scale.
A slight increase in soil carbon across Australia’s agricultural regions can sequester more than half our greenhouse gas emissions.
EVIDENCE: A 0.1% increase in organic carbon across only 10% of Australia’s agricultural lands would sequester 387 million tonnes CO2. Australia’s emissions are projected to reach 603 million tonnes annually over 2008–12. (Soil C in the top 20 cm of soil with a bulk density of 1.2 g/cm3 represents a 2.4 t/ha increase in soil OC which equates to 8.8 t/ha of CO2 sequestered. - Dr Christine Jones)
CASE STUDY: Pasture cropping/time controlled grazing combination in Central West NSW recorded increase in soil carbon from 2% to 4% over 10 years (0.2%C/yr) (CSIRO)
OPPORTUNITY: Soil carbon credits could underwrite the income of many farm families and enable them to offset their emissions from methane and other greenhouse gases. Australia’s soils are badly in need of restoration. We have lost 50% of our topsoil in 200 years and 80% of the soil organic carbon. There is great potential for reversing these trends.
CALCULATIONS: The Department of Environment and Climate Change, and the Central West Catchment Management Authority estimated that the soils in the Catchment can capture 183 million tonnes of Carbon by 2020 if farmers switch to “advanced farming practices”. The shift would result in a doubling of the soil carbon contained in paddocks.
183 million tonnes of Carbon = 671 million tonnes CO2e (Carbon tonne x 3.67 = Carbon Dioxide tonne)
At $25/tonne = $16.75 billion dollars. At only $5/tonne = $3.35 billion dollars
$3.35 billion dollars ÷ 5500 farms* = $609,440 per farm
$600,000 ÷ 15 years** = $40,000/year (At $5/tonne, the low point.)
*In the Central West Catchment (ABS)
**2005-2020 – the average period for soils to saturate with carbon.
POTENTIAL: The Carbon Coalition has been the only organization to focus consistently on promoting this opportunity. It has lobbied all levels of government and raised awareness of the opportunity with government officials and scientists. The Commonwealth Government has the power to allow landholders access to the carbon market on equal terms.
Through our lobbying efforts, the NFF, NSW Farmers, the NSW National Party and the ALP (Federal Opposition) have endorsed the soil carbon trading concept. Others we have influenced include Australian of the Year, Dr Tim Flannery, NSW Commissioner for Natural Resources Dr John Williams, and Professor Rattan Lal, the world’s foremost soil scientist and leader of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change soils delegation from the USA to the UN.
LATEST PROJECT: We are organizing the world’s first CARBON FARMING EXPO & CONFERENCE on 16th-17th November, 2007 in Mudgee NSW. Professor Lal described it as “an historical event of international importance.” The Kiely family is underwriting the conference.
HOW $10,000 WOULD BE INVESTED:
We hope to launch “SoilCCentral.com”, website devoted to all known research and knowledge of Soil Carbon sequestration, including ideas and farming techniques to increase Carbon in soils. It will have links to every resource available online and be useful for scientists, primary producers, and policy makers. Once we have achieved our objective, it would be transformed into a resource to support farmers trading soil and other forms of carbon.
Budget:
Research (time and subscriptions) $5000
Website development $3500
Publicity $1500
LEADERSHIP AND SKILLS SHARING
This role has given me for, the first time in my career, the authority to shape policy and direction. The Coalition is a leadership body – leading the campaign for property rights to the carbon a farmer grows in their soil.
The tool we have at our disposal are basically two:
1. knowledge
2. communications technology
Soil C Central will provide us with both, but at a higher level than to date.
The website by its nature will be a vehicle for sharing knowledge and opportunities.
This knowledge will also be delivered through my public speaking activities.
A PERSONAL STATEMENT
As a landholder and woolgrower, I am concerned about the health of the land I have in my care.
As a grandmother and mother, I am concerned about the world I will leave to my children and their children.
As a human being, I am afraid for the future of our community and nation as we enter a new era of uncertainty and insecurity.
The 2008 RIRDC Rural Women’s Award would be a significant contribution to our morale and resources. But the recognition alone would be worth more than the money in helping to promote our work and the outcomes we seek.
Together, we can achieve good things for the environment, good things for farm families and our communities, and good things for those who will otherwise be severely effected by extreme climate events.
Louisa Kiely
Louisa was runner-up in the NSW RIRDC Rural Women’s Award 2008. The winner was Tracey Knowland, a businesswoman from Brooklet near Byron Bay. Here's how the organisers presented the two finalists:
Tracey Knowland, a businesswoman from Brooklet
Tracey, along with her husband Stuart, owns and operates Bangalow Wholesale Nursery at Bangalow in the Byron Bay hinterland. Tracey’s business specialises in trialling and developing superior selections of small to medium Australian temperate/subtropical rainforest trees and coastal tolerant trees. Her target markets include the landscape and development industry. Tracey proposes to use the bursary to fund her participation in the 2008 National Nursery & Garden Industry Association National Conference in Adelaide in March, followed by a study tour of Victoria's largest wholesale production nurseries to look at sustainable growing methods. Tracey also hopes to build on a water recycling project as part of their nursery business, and share her experiences with other women in rural and urban-based businesses.
Louisa Kiely, Goolma
Louisa and her husband Michael own and operate a superfine wool enterprise at Goolma in central western NSW. Her focus for the past two years has been on climate change and sustainable farming. She has coordinated a number of workshops and summits, bringing together scientists and farmers to share information about carbon farming. Louisa’s award project involves building and launching SoilCCentral.com – a website devoted to research and knowledge of carbon soil sequestration, including ideas and farming techniques to increase carbon in soils. She hopes to use her project to highlight the benefits of increasing carbon in our agricultural soils to help save family farms and the environment at large.
And this is how ABC RADIO's Country Hour reported the event:
Last night at a gala ceremony in Sydney, Bangalow Nursery manager Tracey Knowland was named NSW rural woman of the year, by the Minister for Primary Industries Ian Macdonald.
"Tracey's business focuses on innovative advanced tree production and and is looking to develop a thriving export business as well as keeping a sense of the environmental issues involved with tree planting and production.
"The environment also plays a big part in the success of the runner up for the award Louisa Kiely from Goolma who is a strong advocate for carbon farming and the implications of climate change."
THIS WAS LOUISA'S APPLICATION:
Louisa Kiely
“Uamby” via Goolma NSW 2852
Convenor
Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming
Principal,
Carbon Farmers of Australia
[Mobilise the Soils, Save the Planet, Save the Family Farm]
DEMONSTRATED PERSONAL COMMITMENT*
February 2006 - Co-Founded the Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming to lobby for the right of Australian landholders to trade on the emissions offset market the credits they can earn by sequestering carbon in their soils.
May, 2006 - Presentation at Manning Landcare event, Gloucester
2 June, 2006 - Brief NSW Farmers’ Association, Jock Laurie, Sydney NSW
14 July, 2006 – Presentation for CWCMA, Mudgee Small Farm Field Day
19 July, 2006 – Presentation to Baradine Landcare Group
July, 2006 - Presentation to Land Management Workshop, Cobar
18/19 September: Washington DC –2006 Global CO2 Cap-And-Trade Forum
21/22 September: Bozeman, Montana - Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase 2 Project Management Plan Workshop
25 September: College Station, Texas - Professor Bruce McCarl, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University
27 September: Albuquerque, New Mexico - Peter Holter, Holistic Management Int
28 September: Attended and addressed 2 day Phase 2 Workshop in Albuqurque,New Mexico of the Southwest Regional Partnership
29 September: Swanton, Vermont - Address Farmers’ gathering organised by Coalition member Abe Collins from Vermont.
1 October: Columbus, Ohio - Professor Rattan Lal, School of Natural Resources at Ohio State University, Columbus Ohio
3 October: Chicago, Illinois – Mike Walsh, SVP, Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)
Secured first order for 25,000 acres Australian soil from CCX.
23 October, 2006 – Presentation to Kingaroy Carbon Forum, Kingaroy
Coordinated 8-farm application for CWCMA funding for soil trials.
13 November, 2006 – meet with NSW President Soil Science Society re data for CCX and Summit of scientists and Practitioners
25 November, 2006 – Make presentation to Cobar/Nyngan Landcare
22/23 November, 2006 - Speak at National Carbon Forum Canberra
19 December, 2006 - Briefed NSW Farmers’ Asociation’s Jock Laurie.
9 February, 2007 - Address SA No Till Farmers’ Association, Tanunda, SA
5 March, 2007 - Address CWA Agriculture & Environment Seminar, CWA House
7 March, 2007 - Conduct 4 hour workshop on carbon trading for RCS, Yeppoon
8 March, 2007 - Address soils gathering, CWCMA Dubbo, NSW
10 March, 2007 - Address landholders’ gathering at Collarenabri, NSW
12 March, 2007 - Address Landcare meeting, Mudgee NSW*
1 April, 2007 - Launch Carbon Farmers of Australia – trading arm of Carbon Coalition. Make first sales of Australian farm Soil Credits.
22 March, 2007 Organised Summit between Scientists and Farmers, Dubbo NSW
29/30 March, 2007 - Address Landcare Farming Forum, Grafton
25-27 April - Address Southern Rivers CMA/Landcare Forum, Merimbula /Eden
3 May, 2007 - Attend “Green Dollar” Conference, Canberra ACT
15 May, 2007 - Brief Judi Earl, Holistic Management International, Goolma
14 June, 2007 - Organised 2nd Summit between scientists and farmers, Orange
21 June, 2007 – Attend and address DPI landholders’ meeting at Junee Reef.
4 July, 2007 – Address Ebor Beef Group, Armidale NSW
14-15 July, 2007 – Address NSW Women In Agriculture Conference, Forbes
19 JULY, 2007 – Address Biodynamic Farmers, Melbourne Victoria
*My husband Michael is Co-Convenor. He does all the website communications and public relations. We often share the podium or present alone. Michael’s solo lobbying or presentation work is not listed here.
THE SOIL CARBON OPPORTUNITY
• Restore Australia’s heavily depleted agricultural soils to health and productivity.
• Restore the financial security of farm families by giving them access to what will soon be the largest commodity market in the world.
• Restore local economies and rural communities.
• Restore the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere and help avert the worst effects of Climate Change.
A PERSONAL MISSION: My specific focus for the past 2 years has been Climate Change and Sustainable Farming. When I entered agriculture as a woolgrower 10 years ago, I studied sustainable farming practices as part of the Advanced Diploma of Farm Management at the University of Sydney (Orange) and my husband and son joined me in learning the Holistic Management approach to grazing management. I experimented with various techniques of rebuilding the depleted soils on our ‘renovator’s dream’ property “Uamby”, which has been farmed hard for 182 years.
To get litter on the ground and encourage soil biological processes that make healthy soil, we tired mulching bare earth, mulching rank grass and thistles, spreading manure, spreading treated human biosolids, spreading worm juice, spreading seaweed, and other experiments. We proved that you can grow new topsoil quickly with effort.
But the breakthrough for me was attending one of the first Carbon Forum staged by Dr Christine Jones in Armidale. We were selected as among the 10 most innovative farm families in the Catchment by the Central West Catchment Management Authority, and trained for 20 days in a range of skills to do with innovative farm planning. We that soil carbon was the key performance indicator of progress towards soil health, reduced salination, water management, biodiversity, reduced erosion… and climate change mitigation. In fact, we concluded that the world’s agricultural soils could be the only solution to the Global Warming Crisis.
The UN, NASA, and our own Australian Greenhouse Office agree: there is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to push the globe through the 2°C increase that will cause climate chaos. The only way to remove it is Photosynthesis. Plants and Trees. No other popular solution can do it – clean coal, nuclear power, solar and wind power, these can only avoid future emissions. And Forests, even if we planted enough today, cannot reach critical mass in less than 15-20 years. The Stern Report said we have 10 years in which to act, and NASA agrees. The only solution is agricultural soils. They already have critical mass and can start sequestering carbon instantly on a large scale.
A slight increase in soil carbon across Australia’s agricultural regions can sequester more than half our greenhouse gas emissions.
EVIDENCE: A 0.1% increase in organic carbon across only 10% of Australia’s agricultural lands would sequester 387 million tonnes CO2. Australia’s emissions are projected to reach 603 million tonnes annually over 2008–12. (Soil C in the top 20 cm of soil with a bulk density of 1.2 g/cm3 represents a 2.4 t/ha increase in soil OC which equates to 8.8 t/ha of CO2 sequestered. - Dr Christine Jones)
CASE STUDY: Pasture cropping/time controlled grazing combination in Central West NSW recorded increase in soil carbon from 2% to 4% over 10 years (0.2%C/yr) (CSIRO)
OPPORTUNITY: Soil carbon credits could underwrite the income of many farm families and enable them to offset their emissions from methane and other greenhouse gases. Australia’s soils are badly in need of restoration. We have lost 50% of our topsoil in 200 years and 80% of the soil organic carbon. There is great potential for reversing these trends.
CALCULATIONS: The Department of Environment and Climate Change, and the Central West Catchment Management Authority estimated that the soils in the Catchment can capture 183 million tonnes of Carbon by 2020 if farmers switch to “advanced farming practices”. The shift would result in a doubling of the soil carbon contained in paddocks.
183 million tonnes of Carbon = 671 million tonnes CO2e (Carbon tonne x 3.67 = Carbon Dioxide tonne)
At $25/tonne = $16.75 billion dollars. At only $5/tonne = $3.35 billion dollars
$3.35 billion dollars ÷ 5500 farms* = $609,440 per farm
$600,000 ÷ 15 years** = $40,000/year (At $5/tonne, the low point.)
*In the Central West Catchment (ABS)
**2005-2020 – the average period for soils to saturate with carbon.
POTENTIAL: The Carbon Coalition has been the only organization to focus consistently on promoting this opportunity. It has lobbied all levels of government and raised awareness of the opportunity with government officials and scientists. The Commonwealth Government has the power to allow landholders access to the carbon market on equal terms.
Through our lobbying efforts, the NFF, NSW Farmers, the NSW National Party and the ALP (Federal Opposition) have endorsed the soil carbon trading concept. Others we have influenced include Australian of the Year, Dr Tim Flannery, NSW Commissioner for Natural Resources Dr John Williams, and Professor Rattan Lal, the world’s foremost soil scientist and leader of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change soils delegation from the USA to the UN.
LATEST PROJECT: We are organizing the world’s first CARBON FARMING EXPO & CONFERENCE on 16th-17th November, 2007 in Mudgee NSW. Professor Lal described it as “an historical event of international importance.” The Kiely family is underwriting the conference.
HOW $10,000 WOULD BE INVESTED:
We hope to launch “SoilCCentral.com”, website devoted to all known research and knowledge of Soil Carbon sequestration, including ideas and farming techniques to increase Carbon in soils. It will have links to every resource available online and be useful for scientists, primary producers, and policy makers. Once we have achieved our objective, it would be transformed into a resource to support farmers trading soil and other forms of carbon.
Budget:
Research (time and subscriptions) $5000
Website development $3500
Publicity $1500
LEADERSHIP AND SKILLS SHARING
This role has given me for, the first time in my career, the authority to shape policy and direction. The Coalition is a leadership body – leading the campaign for property rights to the carbon a farmer grows in their soil.
The tool we have at our disposal are basically two:
1. knowledge
2. communications technology
Soil C Central will provide us with both, but at a higher level than to date.
The website by its nature will be a vehicle for sharing knowledge and opportunities.
This knowledge will also be delivered through my public speaking activities.
A PERSONAL STATEMENT
As a landholder and woolgrower, I am concerned about the health of the land I have in my care.
As a grandmother and mother, I am concerned about the world I will leave to my children and their children.
As a human being, I am afraid for the future of our community and nation as we enter a new era of uncertainty and insecurity.
The 2008 RIRDC Rural Women’s Award would be a significant contribution to our morale and resources. But the recognition alone would be worth more than the money in helping to promote our work and the outcomes we seek.
Together, we can achieve good things for the environment, good things for farm families and our communities, and good things for those who will otherwise be severely effected by extreme climate events.
Louisa Kiely
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Here's your $67,000 bill for Methane
Will Farmers be denied soil credits to pay $67,000pa methane bill?
The average Australian farmer could get a bill of $67,000 every year for methane and other emissions, but won’t be able to pay for it with the carbon they grow in their soils, says the Carbon Coalition.
A Greenhouse Office calculator case study* for a mixed farming operation on 2200ha has the total annual emissions liability of 2687t/CO2e, which would cost $67,000 to “offset” by buying carbon credits at $25/tonne.
“While the farmer in the example earns carbon credits for 100ha of trees, there is no allowance on the calculator for carbon stored in the soil, which could be worth more than the total emissions,” says Coalition Convenor Michael Kiely. “That tonnage of CO2e can be captured in only 732 tonnes of soil carbon†, or 0.33tonnes C/ha/year. That is not a big ask with ‘Carbon Farming’ techniques.”
“In fact, a NSW Forests calculator of soil carbon sequestration reveals that our farmer could capture twice the amount of carbon needed per hectare to ‘pay’ for the methane and other emissions,” he says.
The Carbon Coalition recommended to the Garnaut Climate Change Review for Agriculture to be involved in an emissions trading scheme. ‘But only a scheme which allowed landholders to offset their emissions with the soil carbon they can capture and store. We are willing to go into the market ‘eyes wide open’, aware of our liabilities and equally confident of our assets,” says Michael Kiely.
The Coalition’s submission (online at http//soilcarbongarnaut.blogspot.com) is critical of the way soil carbon science has been managed. “There are huge gaps in the data sets and, on the basis of inadequate data, the myth that Australian soils are too old and degraded to sequester much carbon,” says Michael Kiely.
“The irony is that everyone who makes that statement reveals their ignorance of basic soil science. Age has nothing to do with it and what has been lost can be restored. I would advise those ‘policy’ people and ‘researchers’ who make these statements to stop embarrassing themselves.”
“There is not one piece of scientific evidence to prove the claim that Australian soils do not have the potential to sequester significant amounts of soil C. On the contrary, we have evidence that Australian soils do have that potential. The CSIRO has said this. The NSW DPI has said this. Yet there are still some who ignorantly parrot old slogans.”
Coalition unmasks soil C “difficulties”
The Coalition’s submission demolishes the many “difficulties” that soil carbon sceptics say make soil C a non-starter for trading:
1. Too many small sources and sinks: “The aggregation of growers is an everyday reality in commodity marketing. Marketing Boards, Grain Desks, and Producer Groups are well understood by growers. Woolgrowers are setting up “demand chains” or “supply chain solution for retailers”. EMS systems make aggregation easy.”
2. Difficult to measure: “Poppycock. It’s easy to measure. The problem is ‘flux’ – the amount moves around. Highly respected soil scientists such as John Kimble and Rattan Lal have urged their colleagues to stop being so precious. Flux has statistical properties and can be averaged for accurate real world estimation.”
3. Cost of measurement and monitoring: “Amortise the cost over 130,000 landholders - bulk buy the service - and the price will be realistic. Set it against $25 or $50 or $100 a tonne CO2e and the cost is trivial. Those amounts will be possible when the 3 biggest emitters USA, China and India, enter the market to buy offsets.”
4. 100 Year Rule: “It can’t apply to soil which can do the job for 30 years while all the other solutions grow to critical mass. It’s either soil C or climate chaos. Soil is the only short to medium term solution. Kyoto did not anticipate it and the IPCC has it in its power to change the rules.”
5. Permanence: “You might be 65% water today and 65% water tomorrow, but it is different water. It ‘fluxes’. We don’t care which carbon atom was held. It’s the steady increase in the total amount of soil C that counts.”
6. Initial costs high: “The cost of a soil carbon solution should be seen in context of the billions Australian Governments have spent trying to get Australian landholders to “care” and change their paradigm of relationship with the land. A system that rewards landholders for increasing Soil C will achieve so many Natural Resource Management objectives.”
7. Trade exposed industries: “What appears as a disadvantage can be turned into a competitive advantage by turning a necessity into a virtue: ie., building a brand that exploits the producer’s emissions reduction. The ‘concerned Climate Change consumer’ has already emerged in Europe and British retailers are requesting ‘carbon neutral’ wool from Australian wool buyers.”
“All the things the sceptics call ‘difficulties’ with soil C are simply barriers they put in front of us. They make no attempt to solve these ‘difficulties’; they just parrot them as though saying it will make it real,” says Mr Kiely.
[*“Sheep Greenhouse Accounting Framework” and **“Carbon Sequestration Predictor for selected land use change in inland areas of NSW Version 2.0” can be found at http://ww.greenhouse.crc.org.au/tools/calculators/]
†Convert Carbon to CO2e by multiplying by 3.67
Clean Coal Gone: Bush stands naked
The US Government has scrapped the most advance “clean coal” project after pouring US$2billion into it. The project would have built the first pilot clean coal power plant with carbon sequestration. The Energy Department is officially shelving the FutureGen Alliance project that the Bush administration had supported for five years.
The Bush Administration rested all its hopes on ‘clean coal’ and so diverted vast amounts of funding earmarked for soil carbon sequestering research.
In private conversations with US scientists, the Carbon Coalition was told more than $300million was withdrawn from one bio-sequestration project group alone. In separate conversations with scientists working on FutureGen projects, we were told that deep-geologic burial was “pipe dreams”, untried and dangerous.
FutureGen is one of the most advanced projects for determining whether emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, can be captured from coal-fired plants and stored underground. Carbon sequestration is considered essential to meeting targets for US greenhouse gas emissions.
What has the world got if they can’t rely on a ‘technology’ fix.. like ‘clean coal’?
It’s got “Nothing”.
Solar, wind, nuclear, trees, char, thermal… Nothing can be deployed in time.
Only soils. 5.5 billion hectares of it stands ready to serve the cause of mitigation.
The world has a choice.
It’s SOILS or “Nothing”.
Friday, February 01, 2008
ATTENTION SOIL SCIENTISTS & STATISTICIANS
The NZ Government have called tender to decide who will advise it on establishing a soil C trading program for the voluntary market. The Carbon Coalition is well advanced down this track as a result of recent work and we need help from an Australian scientist (knwoledge of NZ soils not essential but useful) and we need help from a statistician. Please call 63740329.
The RFP is due in a week, so call now. The solution is due in a year and a half.
Michael Kiely
michael@carboncoalition.com.au
VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET OPPORTUNITIES – SOIL CARBON MANAGEMENT IN NEW ZEALAND
1. Purpose
1.1. To develop a cost-effective and practical system that allows those undertaking cropland management and grazing land management activities to estimate/measure soil carbon changes on their land and sell voluntary carbon market offsets.
2. Context
2.1. The Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change Plan of Action includes a Government-Primary Sector partnership focused on assisting land-based primary sectors to capitalise on the business opportunities arising from climate change.
2.2. Moving from a high-emission to a low-emission economy is as much about positioning New Zealand for longer-term economic growth as it is about meeting our international climate change obligations. New Zealand’s agricultural and forestry industries will need to adapt to changing markets and capitalise on the resulting business opportunities.
3. Background
3.1. The Plan of Action will identify how New Zealand’s land-based primary sector firms and industries can position themselves for longer-term economic growth and competitive advantage. One area where there may be new business opportunities is in the voluntary carbon market.
3.2. Voluntary and compliance carbon markets are rapidly evolving around the world. The voluntary carbon market is where individuals or businesses offset greenhouse gas emissions without any legislated requirement to do so. In New Zealand a number of recently announced initiatives will facilitate the trading of voluntary carbon market units.
3.3. In the USA the Chicago Carbon Exchange currently sells units generated from rangeland soil carbon management and agricultural soil carbon activities. In Western Australia a group has announced the soil carbon accreditation scheme.
3.4. New Zealand chose not to elect any activities under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol for the first commitment period (2008-2012). Emissions and removals from activities such as cropland management and grazing land management therefore do not generate Kyoto carbon credits for New Zealand. There may, however, be opportunities for those undertaking activities such as cropland management and grazing land management to supply the voluntary carbon market with offset units.
3.5. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has recently put out a Request for Proposal (Climate Change– ‘Plan of Action’ research programme 2007/08) on GETS (ref 20284) which included a topic entitled ‘Review of soil carbon status and mitigation options for New Zealand’: This review of soil carbon status and mitigation options should be able to assist in informing this research on voluntary carbon market opportunities from soil carbon management.
3.6. This research project seeks to expand on the issues and opportunities for New Zealand in the soil carbon (cropland management and grazing land management) area.
4. Research requirements
4.1. Introduction - a goal of the sustainable land management and climate change plan of action is to position the sectors to take advantage of the economic opportunities arising from climate change. This includes carbon market opportunities.
4.2. Aim - this research will contribute to this goal by developing a cost-effective and practical system that allows those undertaking cropland management and grazing land management activities to estimate/measure soil carbon changes on their land and sell voluntary carbon market offsets.
4.3. Outputs - the research project will:
Part 1
• Identify and describe what carbon market opportunities (voluntary and compliance) have been created (or are in the process of being created) overseas in the soil carbon area;
• Identify, describe and compare the technical specifications/standards, carbon accounting methodologies, and the monitoring, reporting and verification requirements in each of the situations identified above;
• Identify lessons from overseas for implementation in New Zealand;
Part 2
• Design a soil carbon assessment system for New Zealand that allows those undertaking cropland management and grazing land management activities to estimate/measure soil carbon changes on their land and sell voluntary carbon market offsets. This system would include:
• Technical specifications/standards, carbon accounting methodologies, guidelines and monitoring, reporting and verification requirements;
• System design considerations should include:
• consistency with New Zealand’s international reporting obligations under UNFCCC, and potential future international accounting such as under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol;
• cost-effectiveness and practical feasibility ;
• feedback from potential participants;
• how the system could operate under the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme.
• Identify potential risks for the government and/or participants, including consideration of how these risks can be managed or minimised;
• Estimate the size of the voluntary carbon market opportunity from soil carbon management in New Zealand;
• Identify the barriers to the creation of voluntary carbon market opportunities from soil carbon in New Zealand and propose solutions for how these barriers can be managed or minimised; and
• Identify requirements for underpinning research, information and tools that would support individuals to secure soil carbon opportunities in the voluntary carbon market in New Zealand.
Outputs from Part 1 are to be delivered by 30 June 2008.
Outputs from Part 2 are to be delivered by 30 June 2009 with a draft by February 2009.
The RFP is due in a week, so call now. The solution is due in a year and a half.
Michael Kiely
michael@carboncoalition.com.au
VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET OPPORTUNITIES – SOIL CARBON MANAGEMENT IN NEW ZEALAND
1. Purpose
1.1. To develop a cost-effective and practical system that allows those undertaking cropland management and grazing land management activities to estimate/measure soil carbon changes on their land and sell voluntary carbon market offsets.
2. Context
2.1. The Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change Plan of Action includes a Government-Primary Sector partnership focused on assisting land-based primary sectors to capitalise on the business opportunities arising from climate change.
2.2. Moving from a high-emission to a low-emission economy is as much about positioning New Zealand for longer-term economic growth as it is about meeting our international climate change obligations. New Zealand’s agricultural and forestry industries will need to adapt to changing markets and capitalise on the resulting business opportunities.
3. Background
3.1. The Plan of Action will identify how New Zealand’s land-based primary sector firms and industries can position themselves for longer-term economic growth and competitive advantage. One area where there may be new business opportunities is in the voluntary carbon market.
3.2. Voluntary and compliance carbon markets are rapidly evolving around the world. The voluntary carbon market is where individuals or businesses offset greenhouse gas emissions without any legislated requirement to do so. In New Zealand a number of recently announced initiatives will facilitate the trading of voluntary carbon market units.
3.3. In the USA the Chicago Carbon Exchange currently sells units generated from rangeland soil carbon management and agricultural soil carbon activities. In Western Australia a group has announced the soil carbon accreditation scheme.
3.4. New Zealand chose not to elect any activities under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol for the first commitment period (2008-2012). Emissions and removals from activities such as cropland management and grazing land management therefore do not generate Kyoto carbon credits for New Zealand. There may, however, be opportunities for those undertaking activities such as cropland management and grazing land management to supply the voluntary carbon market with offset units.
3.5. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has recently put out a Request for Proposal (Climate Change– ‘Plan of Action’ research programme 2007/08) on GETS (ref 20284) which included a topic entitled ‘Review of soil carbon status and mitigation options for New Zealand’: This review of soil carbon status and mitigation options should be able to assist in informing this research on voluntary carbon market opportunities from soil carbon management.
3.6. This research project seeks to expand on the issues and opportunities for New Zealand in the soil carbon (cropland management and grazing land management) area.
4. Research requirements
4.1. Introduction - a goal of the sustainable land management and climate change plan of action is to position the sectors to take advantage of the economic opportunities arising from climate change. This includes carbon market opportunities.
4.2. Aim - this research will contribute to this goal by developing a cost-effective and practical system that allows those undertaking cropland management and grazing land management activities to estimate/measure soil carbon changes on their land and sell voluntary carbon market offsets.
4.3. Outputs - the research project will:
Part 1
• Identify and describe what carbon market opportunities (voluntary and compliance) have been created (or are in the process of being created) overseas in the soil carbon area;
• Identify, describe and compare the technical specifications/standards, carbon accounting methodologies, and the monitoring, reporting and verification requirements in each of the situations identified above;
• Identify lessons from overseas for implementation in New Zealand;
Part 2
• Design a soil carbon assessment system for New Zealand that allows those undertaking cropland management and grazing land management activities to estimate/measure soil carbon changes on their land and sell voluntary carbon market offsets. This system would include:
• Technical specifications/standards, carbon accounting methodologies, guidelines and monitoring, reporting and verification requirements;
• System design considerations should include:
• consistency with New Zealand’s international reporting obligations under UNFCCC, and potential future international accounting such as under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol;
• cost-effectiveness and practical feasibility ;
• feedback from potential participants;
• how the system could operate under the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme.
• Identify potential risks for the government and/or participants, including consideration of how these risks can be managed or minimised;
• Estimate the size of the voluntary carbon market opportunity from soil carbon management in New Zealand;
• Identify the barriers to the creation of voluntary carbon market opportunities from soil carbon in New Zealand and propose solutions for how these barriers can be managed or minimised; and
• Identify requirements for underpinning research, information and tools that would support individuals to secure soil carbon opportunities in the voluntary carbon market in New Zealand.
Outputs from Part 1 are to be delivered by 30 June 2008.
Outputs from Part 2 are to be delivered by 30 June 2009 with a draft by February 2009.
ATTENTION VICTORIAN CARBON FARMERS
ABC TV's 4Corners is seeking "Carbon Farmers" in the Birchip/Horsham mallee district to interview. Contact Kate Wild at wild.kate@abc.net.au
If you want to know if you are a Carbon Farmer, you can call me on 63740329. (If you are reading this you area Carbon Farmer.
If you want to know if you are a Carbon Farmer, you can call me on 63740329. (If you are reading this you area Carbon Farmer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
