A study by the Pew Environment Group understates the Australian countryside’s carbon storage by more than half. The study measured only carbon captured in plants and trees, overlooking soils which can hold three times as much carbon as vegetation. The Pew Study says vegetation could possibly contain an extra 1.3 billion tonnes of carbon by 2050. Australian scientists have said the soil can sequester nearly a billion tonnes of CO2 each year.
NASA estimates that the world’s soils hold 1500 gigatonnes of carbon while the world’s vegetation holds less than 800 gigatonnes.
The Pew website describes its study as "An assessment of carbon storage, sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions in remote Australia."
Why would the Pew study ignore soils if it wanted to demonstrate the carbon capture capability of our farmlands and rangelands? It is very pointed. Green groups cannot get their heads around anything that isn’t forests and native vegetation. Carbon Farming includes protecting native vegetation and reforestry. The Pew study report hides the exclusion of soil carbon in a footnote. This suspicion of farmers and the ideological belief that they should not be rewarded for changing to more conservationist farming practices because ‘they should be doing it anyway’.
Potential soil carbon sequestration tonnages: various estimations
256 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year – rangelands only
(Baker, B, Barnett, G., and Howden, M. “Carbon Sequestration in Australia’s Rangelands” CRC for Greenhouse Accounting, Canberra, 2000)
596 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year - rangelands, cropping soils (Garnaut Climate Change Review 2008)
928 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year – rangelands only
(Grace, Peter, Carbon Models and Rangelands, Carbon Farming Conference, 2008)
946 million tonnes carbon dioxide per annum – rangelands, cropping soils (Dr Christine Jones, Pers. Comm, Garnaut Enquiry, 2008)
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Carbon market not Python's Parrot, says The Land
The Land declared the carbon offsets market alive and breathing in a recent item by MATT CAWOOD.
HE WROTE; THE CPRS might be dead — or at least in deep freeze —but carbon trading opportunities for farmers are likely to emerge as Australia opens up a voluntary emissions trading scheme.
The Federal Government is backing the voluntary market with its National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS), due to begin on July 1, which will establish government-endorsed benchmarks for trading in emissions credits, but without the strings of heavy government regulation. For agriculture, the most significant aspect of NCOS is that it allows emissions brokers, research agencies and other interested parties to suggest new approaches to creating tradeable emissions offsets.
Greg Combet, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, told the Voluntary Carbon Markets Association in a recent address that “given the ingenuity of stakeholders in this arena”, he expected plenty of proposals to be put on the table.
“Australian businesses, particularly farmers, will have the opportunity to develop offset credits from a range of activities that reduce emissions while providing other resource management benefits — such as the management of native vegetation and soils, and rehabilitation of rangelands,” Mr Combet told the association.
Michael Kiely of the Carbon Coalition said he was aware of several proposals for trading soil carbon due to be put before NCOS.
After talking with farmers across the country during a series of workshops, he has some of his own criteria for an effective soil carbon offset credit. “Farmers won’t consider a contract that’s any longer than five years, and if the money is inconsequential, they won’t play at all,” Mr Kiely said. He believes the success of the voluntary emissions market, and of a market for farm-derived offsets, is of some importance to the government after the political killing of its mandatory trading scheme.
“Penny Wong described the voluntary market as the mandatory market on trainer wheels,” Mr Kiely said. “The government needs this voluntary market to work as a gateway back to the CPRS, or another version of it. They are asking for the same level of scientific rigour, but without the same rules.”
Mr Combet gave this impression before the Voluntary Carbon Markets Association, where he commented that “progress on climate change cannot be taken for granted ... reform is difficult”.
“You can help to educate and inform the public about climate change and the sorts of changes we can all make to reduce our emissions. You can provide the mechanisms whereby individuals and households take action by buying a carbon neutral product."
HE WROTE; THE CPRS might be dead — or at least in deep freeze —but carbon trading opportunities for farmers are likely to emerge as Australia opens up a voluntary emissions trading scheme.
The Federal Government is backing the voluntary market with its National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS), due to begin on July 1, which will establish government-endorsed benchmarks for trading in emissions credits, but without the strings of heavy government regulation. For agriculture, the most significant aspect of NCOS is that it allows emissions brokers, research agencies and other interested parties to suggest new approaches to creating tradeable emissions offsets.
Greg Combet, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, told the Voluntary Carbon Markets Association in a recent address that “given the ingenuity of stakeholders in this arena”, he expected plenty of proposals to be put on the table.
“Australian businesses, particularly farmers, will have the opportunity to develop offset credits from a range of activities that reduce emissions while providing other resource management benefits — such as the management of native vegetation and soils, and rehabilitation of rangelands,” Mr Combet told the association.
Michael Kiely of the Carbon Coalition said he was aware of several proposals for trading soil carbon due to be put before NCOS.
After talking with farmers across the country during a series of workshops, he has some of his own criteria for an effective soil carbon offset credit. “Farmers won’t consider a contract that’s any longer than five years, and if the money is inconsequential, they won’t play at all,” Mr Kiely said. He believes the success of the voluntary emissions market, and of a market for farm-derived offsets, is of some importance to the government after the political killing of its mandatory trading scheme.
“Penny Wong described the voluntary market as the mandatory market on trainer wheels,” Mr Kiely said. “The government needs this voluntary market to work as a gateway back to the CPRS, or another version of it. They are asking for the same level of scientific rigour, but without the same rules.”
Mr Combet gave this impression before the Voluntary Carbon Markets Association, where he commented that “progress on climate change cannot be taken for granted ... reform is difficult”.
“You can help to educate and inform the public about climate change and the sorts of changes we can all make to reduce our emissions. You can provide the mechanisms whereby individuals and households take action by buying a carbon neutral product."
Friday, June 11, 2010
Minister confirms Voluntary Market for farmers (Pinch yourself)
"Australian businesses, particularly farmers, will have the opportunity to develop offset credits from a range of activities that reduce emissions while providing other natural resource management benefits - such as the management of native vegetation and soils, and rehabilitation of rangelands." Greg Combe, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Penny Wong, said this to the Voluntary Carbon Markets Association National Conference yesterday. He confirmed that we are engaged in shaping the future, not building models of the past. In the clearest statement of the inevitable yet made by the Government he said that the Government was looking for 'firms to come forward with new approaches for other domestic offsets that are not currently counted towards our Kyoto target, including soil carbon and forestry.' He then made reference to the thought leaders in our field: "Given the ingenuity of stakeholders in this arena I am sure there will be many abatement proposals put forward for consideration"
The Carbon Coalition urges all Ministers and Policy advisers involved in choosing 'experts' to oversee the launching of the voluntary market to be aware that they are designing a solution for today to address problems of tomorrow, not building a mausoleum for yesterday. And should you falter at the threshold or fold under pressure - for there are many still actively whiteanting and libelling soil carbon and its promoters - be aware that a voluntary market standard is neither compulsory nor exclusive, nor can it negate the right of free individuals to enter into commercial transactions under other standards not sanctioned by governments or interest groups. Or even no standard at all. Should you fail to provide a workable mechanism, the market will emerge of its own accord. The people want action because they feel the urgency. The sudden collapse of support for the Rudd government after scrapping the CPRS said it all. The silent, despairing majority want someone to do something.
The Carbon Coalition urges all Ministers and Policy advisers involved in choosing 'experts' to oversee the launching of the voluntary market to be aware that they are designing a solution for today to address problems of tomorrow, not building a mausoleum for yesterday. And should you falter at the threshold or fold under pressure - for there are many still actively whiteanting and libelling soil carbon and its promoters - be aware that a voluntary market standard is neither compulsory nor exclusive, nor can it negate the right of free individuals to enter into commercial transactions under other standards not sanctioned by governments or interest groups. Or even no standard at all. Should you fail to provide a workable mechanism, the market will emerge of its own accord. The people want action because they feel the urgency. The sudden collapse of support for the Rudd government after scrapping the CPRS said it all. The silent, despairing majority want someone to do something.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Minister Ian MacDonald's Contribution to Soil Carbon Cause
There will be no statue erected to Ian MacDonald in the Hall of Heroes of the New Agricultural Revolution. While not celebrating his departure, the Carbon Coalition can reveal that former Minister for Primary Industries was not a supporter of farmers when it came to carbon sequestration. He dismissed soil carbon sequestration out of hand when we spoke to him, reciting as his reasons the standard Farm Institute line - can't measure it, Kyoto Rules, etc. Instead he was confidently looking forward to deep burial Carbon Capture and Storage - untried, uncosted, and potentially dangerous technology that lives only in the imagination of a dwindling number of devotees. Mr MacDonald's shrinking Department conducted the "Soil Carbon Myth Busters" propaganda tour of all states of Australia, with the CSIRO. More recently DPI researchers announced that they could find no carbon sequestered when Carbon Farming techniques, such as grazing management and pasture cropping, are applied. Here's hoping the Department can return to its former glory after this dark period is forgotten.
Monday, June 07, 2010
Hatchet Job on Bioferts?
Is the MLA performing a hatchet job on biological fertilisers under the guise of scientific trials? Why do we ask? Because "science" has traditionally been used to discourage adoption of innovations that emerge from the grassroots and because the language used to report the project indicates that the outcome is predictable. The story starts with the blanket statement; "Australian farmers have always prided themselves on innovation but when it comes to alternative fertilisers, they're justifiably wary." Bioferts are considered dangerous by the scientists conducting the eight Producer Sites across southern Australia. Soil scientist Jeff Hirth is quoted as saying that "many farmers fall under the spell of clever marketing by alternative fertiliser products." Holbrook grazier Ian Locke - one of the participating graziers -also jumps to conclusions before the findings are in, saying, "It would be difficult to be a profitable low input production system." The MLA Research Adoption Manager Jane Weatherley felt confident enough of the outcome to make the sweeping statement: "Farmers want optimum beef production out of their land and not all the products on the market can enable that." How can you know the results of a race before the race has been run? WE predict that this project will repeat the recent Department of Industry and Investment report on pastures and soil carbon - finding that none of the alternative products will be validated by science and the reason will be found in the methodology. Products in the trials include TM21, Nutrisoil LS, CalSap, Bactivate, Prolong, RUM and single super a 123KG/HA. (Feedback, May 2010) COULD THIS be the pushback attack we have been anticipating? (Hint: The Sales Manager of one of the candidate bioferts was asked to supply one litre of product for the trial! This person revealed that the company had not been informed of the trials, nor was it consulted about application of the product. This is common practice when hatcheting. The DI&I last year failed to involve Col Seis in trials of pasture cropping in NSW, despite the fact that there are many conflicting definitions of the practice. Not only did they fail to consult the originator of the practice on the accuracy of the methodology, they sought to deny his role as originator in the final report.)
Monday, May 24, 2010
The Soil Carbon Data Register & Casebook
The Soil Carbon Data Register & Casebook
Hi,
I would like your opinion on the following. Would you contribute data?
We are sitting on an unleveraged advantage - all the case study data gathered routinely in the course of business. On their own they may not carry much weight - but as a body of work - cases from every state, every type of farming and grazing - the sheer weight of numbers begs the question - why the gap between scientific reaility and on-farm reality?
This is very important now as the voluntary carbon standard is being finalised.
Cheers!
MIchael Kiely
Convenor
Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming
Why should the other side have all the data?
After the Farm Institute’s Mick Keogh delivered yet another damning presentation on the prospects of soil carbon trading recently, we asked him could he find one positive thing to say about it. He replied: “Show me the data.”
WE have data – lots of it. IT’S TIME we showed it to them.
Send your data to the Soil Carbon Data Register…
The Soil Carbon Data Register is a central database of results from on-farm trials and routine sampling commissioned by farmers.
It aims to highlight the performance of farmers who can increase soil carbon levels in their soils faster and higher than the science community has achieved.
The sheer weight of numbers of cases showing higher results would raise the question: why?
Scientific studies fail to reproduce the results farmers can achieve because they lack the farmer’s skill in managing soils and because they have yet to study biological practices which are delivering dramatically higher results than ever before.
As a result, the only ‘science’ that is presented to politicians and decision-makers is that which ‘proves’ that soil carbon can only be increased extremely slowly, if at all.
This issue is important in the next few months because the details of the National Carbon Offset Standard (which will allow the soil carbon offset market to commence) are being finalized.
The Soil Carbon Data Register will be used to support the reality of soil carbon.
The following information will be needed:
Name of Farmer:
Name of Property:
Location:
Area Involved:
Soil Management Practices:
Soil Carbon Results:
Name of Soil Laboratory:
By contributing you data you are giving us the ammunition we have been needing for so long.
For more information, call (02) 6374 0329 or email michael@carboncoalition.com.au
Hi,
I would like your opinion on the following. Would you contribute data?
We are sitting on an unleveraged advantage - all the case study data gathered routinely in the course of business. On their own they may not carry much weight - but as a body of work - cases from every state, every type of farming and grazing - the sheer weight of numbers begs the question - why the gap between scientific reaility and on-farm reality?
This is very important now as the voluntary carbon standard is being finalised.
Cheers!
MIchael Kiely
Convenor
Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming
Why should the other side have all the data?
After the Farm Institute’s Mick Keogh delivered yet another damning presentation on the prospects of soil carbon trading recently, we asked him could he find one positive thing to say about it. He replied: “Show me the data.”
WE have data – lots of it. IT’S TIME we showed it to them.
Send your data to the Soil Carbon Data Register…
The Soil Carbon Data Register is a central database of results from on-farm trials and routine sampling commissioned by farmers.
It aims to highlight the performance of farmers who can increase soil carbon levels in their soils faster and higher than the science community has achieved.
The sheer weight of numbers of cases showing higher results would raise the question: why?
Scientific studies fail to reproduce the results farmers can achieve because they lack the farmer’s skill in managing soils and because they have yet to study biological practices which are delivering dramatically higher results than ever before.
As a result, the only ‘science’ that is presented to politicians and decision-makers is that which ‘proves’ that soil carbon can only be increased extremely slowly, if at all.
This issue is important in the next few months because the details of the National Carbon Offset Standard (which will allow the soil carbon offset market to commence) are being finalized.
The Soil Carbon Data Register will be used to support the reality of soil carbon.
The following information will be needed:
Name of Farmer:
Name of Property:
Location:
Area Involved:
Soil Management Practices:
Soil Carbon Results:
Name of Soil Laboratory:
By contributing you data you are giving us the ammunition we have been needing for so long.
For more information, call (02) 6374 0329 or email michael@carboncoalition.com.au
Monday, May 03, 2010
Soil Offsets Scheme to Launch 1 July 2010 - without CPRS
A senior member of Penny Wong's management team told us this morning that the National Carbon Offset Standard would be going ahead despite the shelving of the CPRS. Director of Strategic and Technical Analysis in the Offsets Office of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Kath Rowley, confirmed that the following text from the background papers for this Wednesday's Soil Carbon Workshop for Research, Industry, Policy and Market Stakeholders is an accurate statement of the Government's position:
"Provided there is sufficient progress on international climate action, the Government will legislate the CPRS in 2013. The National Carbon Offset Standard will support additional voluntary action to reduce emissions, and commences on 1 July 2010."
"Agricultural emissions including soil carbon will not be liable under the CPRS. Instead, subject to the development of robust methodologies, offsets will be able to be generated for soil carbon abatement (both sequestration and avoided emissions."
"Provided there is sufficient progress on international climate action, the Government will legislate the CPRS in 2013. The National Carbon Offset Standard will support additional voluntary action to reduce emissions, and commences on 1 July 2010."
"Agricultural emissions including soil carbon will not be liable under the CPRS. Instead, subject to the development of robust methodologies, offsets will be able to be generated for soil carbon abatement (both sequestration and avoided emissions."
Saturday, May 01, 2010
CSIRO optimistic, but Malcolm T set the pace for passion
Several delegates to the invitation-only Soil carbon Workshop for Research, Industry, Policy ad Market Stakeholders in May referred to the Carbon Coalition in their brief position paper they were asked to submit. We stand accused of formenting 'unrealistic expectations', using 'a lot of rhetoric', making 'over-optimistic claims', and being 'dogmatic and anti-scientific'.
We make no apology for shaking the sleepwalkers. In 2006 Mike Steketee could not have written what he wrote in today's Australian about the CSIRO:
"Perhaps the government will get serious about exploring the potential to offset carbon emissions by putting carbon into the soil through improved land management and innovations such as biochar. The CSIRO has estimated that an extra one billion tonnes of carbon can be stored in Australian soils and vegetation each year for the next 40 years, which alone could offset all of Australia's annual emissions."
We were also described as 'passionate advocates'. But the person with a passion for soil carbon who turned the tables for Agriculture is Malcolm Turnbull. Welcome back, Mr T.
We make no apology for shaking the sleepwalkers. In 2006 Mike Steketee could not have written what he wrote in today's Australian about the CSIRO:
"Perhaps the government will get serious about exploring the potential to offset carbon emissions by putting carbon into the soil through improved land management and innovations such as biochar. The CSIRO has estimated that an extra one billion tonnes of carbon can be stored in Australian soils and vegetation each year for the next 40 years, which alone could offset all of Australia's annual emissions."
We were also described as 'passionate advocates'. But the person with a passion for soil carbon who turned the tables for Agriculture is Malcolm Turnbull. Welcome back, Mr T.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Corn crop can sequester 34 tonnes CO2-e per hectare per year (DI&I)
Corn can be used to build soil carbon levels. Total carbon added from corn roots averaged five tonnes per hectare per year with cotton-corn and 9.3t/ha/year with back-to-back corn, says Industry & Investment NSW senior research scientist, Nilantha Hulugalle. THIS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF BETWEEN 18 TONNES OF CO2-E AND 34 TONNES OF CO2-E PER HECTARE PER YEAR. Soil organic carbon dynamics in these farming systems have focussed on inputs of above-ground material.
“Addition of root material to soil carbon stocks either in the form of roots dying and decaying during and after the crop’s growing season are, however, significant," she said in a Land Newspaper report.
A project examining grey clay cotton soils near Narrabri found root death and decay contributed more than half of corn’s carbon to soil. Corn is a summer crop often grown under irrigation after cotton.
“We measured corn root growth in back-to-back corn and a cotton-corn rotation sown on one metre beds during the summers of 2007-08 and 2008-09, Dr Hulugalle said. Root measurements were made at intervals of two to four weeks during the growing season by using a combination of soil cores, a minirhizotron and an image capture system, using a video camera inserted into the soil through a clear plastic root observation tube. “The video camera was connected to a field computer with software which is able to take root images at specified depths. Carbon was analysed in roots sampled by coring.
The amount of carbon held in the crop roots at the end of the season and the amount of carbon added to the soil by roots dying during the growing season, were measured. Corn root densities, particularly towards the latter part of the growing season, were higher with back-to-back corn than with cotton-corn rotation.
“The amount contributed by root death during the growing season averaged 11% of the total amount.
“Relative to carbon contributed by the whole corn crop, above and below the ground, the amount of carbon contributed by roots can range from 50% to 65%.”
“Addition of root material to soil carbon stocks either in the form of roots dying and decaying during and after the crop’s growing season are, however, significant," she said in a Land Newspaper report.
A project examining grey clay cotton soils near Narrabri found root death and decay contributed more than half of corn’s carbon to soil. Corn is a summer crop often grown under irrigation after cotton.
“We measured corn root growth in back-to-back corn and a cotton-corn rotation sown on one metre beds during the summers of 2007-08 and 2008-09, Dr Hulugalle said. Root measurements were made at intervals of two to four weeks during the growing season by using a combination of soil cores, a minirhizotron and an image capture system, using a video camera inserted into the soil through a clear plastic root observation tube. “The video camera was connected to a field computer with software which is able to take root images at specified depths. Carbon was analysed in roots sampled by coring.
The amount of carbon held in the crop roots at the end of the season and the amount of carbon added to the soil by roots dying during the growing season, were measured. Corn root densities, particularly towards the latter part of the growing season, were higher with back-to-back corn than with cotton-corn rotation.
“The amount contributed by root death during the growing season averaged 11% of the total amount.
“Relative to carbon contributed by the whole corn crop, above and below the ground, the amount of carbon contributed by roots can range from 50% to 65%.”
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Contour Plot Illustration Opaque, Not Fake
Willem said...
Michael,
I think you are misintepreting the figure. It is still possible that is a mock-up.
What you are looking at are the values on the contour lines, there are actually no real data points in the plot, although they are suggested by the "bomb craters". The contour lines might suggest the same values, but they are the result of the spatial integration that was used to make the plot and thus represent some sort of average between points.
Willem
Hi Willem,
I stand corrected. If those values on the control plot are contours or 'isobars', that would account for them. But the caption implies otherwise. The average reader is not a scientist. It is "A Farmer's Guide". However there is no evidence that the map is a 'fake'. Just opaque. I withdraw the comment and apologise.
The significance of this "illustration" - whatever it is - must be understood: it appears to be a powerful argument against trading in soil carbon. It is an obstacle. Some people have invested enormous amounts of time and money identifying and publicising obstacles to the trade in soil carbon. Why have they not invested the same resources in searching for ways to remove these obstacles? Given the benefits to society that the 'recapitalising' of our degraded soils would bring, who does this obstruction benefit? If President Kennedy was relying on people with this attitude to put a man on the Moon, he would have heard: "Sorry. Can't do it. It's too hard."
Michael,
I think you are misintepreting the figure. It is still possible that is a mock-up.
What you are looking at are the values on the contour lines, there are actually no real data points in the plot, although they are suggested by the "bomb craters". The contour lines might suggest the same values, but they are the result of the spatial integration that was used to make the plot and thus represent some sort of average between points.
Willem
Hi Willem,
I stand corrected. If those values on the control plot are contours or 'isobars', that would account for them. But the caption implies otherwise. The average reader is not a scientist. It is "A Farmer's Guide". However there is no evidence that the map is a 'fake'. Just opaque. I withdraw the comment and apologise.
The significance of this "illustration" - whatever it is - must be understood: it appears to be a powerful argument against trading in soil carbon. It is an obstacle. Some people have invested enormous amounts of time and money identifying and publicising obstacles to the trade in soil carbon. Why have they not invested the same resources in searching for ways to remove these obstacles? Given the benefits to society that the 'recapitalising' of our degraded soils would bring, who does this obstruction benefit? If President Kennedy was relying on people with this attitude to put a man on the Moon, he would have heard: "Sorry. Can't do it. It's too hard."
Friday, April 09, 2010
Sequestadors from Mexico
A delegation of hydrologists and soil carbon scientists from Mexico visited the Carbon Coalition's HQ in the Cudgegong Valley near Goolma NSW to talk about water and see the rare sight of full dams, running creeks and tall grasses in our district. One of the party, Dr Jorge Etchevers from Chile,, co-edited Carbon Sequestration in Soils of Latin America with Dr Rattan Lal. The party was brought to our carbon farming/woolgrowing enterprise by Dr Willem Vervoort to meet the farmers who started a grassroots soil carbon campaign. Dr Vervoort, Senior Lecturer Hydrology & Catchment Management in Alex McBratney's Faculty at Sydney University, had visited Mexico because of the similarities of their challenges with soils and climate change. Dr Israel Velasco and Dr Waldo Bustamante are hydrologists interested in irrigation. Luckily we found a great deal of water running through our soils towards the creek, because of the clay pan we inherited from nearly 200 years of mouldboard plowing. Dr Etchevers informed us that the soil classification system used by the Aztecs was approximately the same that scientists in South America use today. Jorge also shares the same anxieties about soil carbon trading that Australian scientist suffer. As the party was leaving, Dr Velasco told me he was going to become a sequestador. Nice word.
DR Chan’s findings distorted by media massage
Dr Yin Chan is always careful to be scientifically correct whenever he discusses his results. Not so the ‘communications’ experts massaging the media. The Doctor says his investigation, no statistical difference was found for all options except pastures improved with phosphate fertiliser. He doesn’t discount the possibility that other options could have an effect. He says the methodology – paired paddock comparisons - and the ‘field variability’ in samples could easily have ‘masked’ any differences.
But in the Booklet which reports the results, the headline reads “Pasture types do not affect SOC” which is very different to the text beneath: “We found no significant differences in SOC stocks between introduced or native pastures, and between annual and perennial pastures.”
This study had two “findings” reports – an interim report released in July 2009 and the elaborate Booklet “A Farmer’s Guide…” last month.
To judge by the tone of the ABC Rural report, the direction of the spin: “The latest science has debunked theories that rotational grazing methods can dramatically improve carbon storage in your soil. Dr Yin Chan of the NSW Department of Primary Industries says they compared carbon sequestration under set stock grazing compared to rotational grazing, native versus introduced pastures, and perennial versus annual plants. Dr Yin says none of those methods increased the amount of carbon taken up by soil in paddocks. He says adding phosphorous fertiliser was the only significant way to improve pasture production and soil carbon.”
He said no such thing. He was caerfulgt to say: "Actually after we got all the data and compared them statistically there's only one treatment we can find a statistical difference and that's due to P fertilisers," says Dr Yin Chan.
Dr Chan was not ‘debunking’ anything.
But in the Booklet which reports the results, the headline reads “Pasture types do not affect SOC” which is very different to the text beneath: “We found no significant differences in SOC stocks between introduced or native pastures, and between annual and perennial pastures.”
This study had two “findings” reports – an interim report released in July 2009 and the elaborate Booklet “A Farmer’s Guide…” last month.
To judge by the tone of the ABC Rural report, the direction of the spin: “The latest science has debunked theories that rotational grazing methods can dramatically improve carbon storage in your soil. Dr Yin Chan of the NSW Department of Primary Industries says they compared carbon sequestration under set stock grazing compared to rotational grazing, native versus introduced pastures, and perennial versus annual plants. Dr Yin says none of those methods increased the amount of carbon taken up by soil in paddocks. He says adding phosphorous fertiliser was the only significant way to improve pasture production and soil carbon.”
He said no such thing. He was caerfulgt to say: "Actually after we got all the data and compared them statistically there's only one treatment we can find a statistical difference and that's due to P fertilisers," says Dr Yin Chan.
Dr Chan was not ‘debunking’ anything.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Farmers set the pace in adaptation - it's getting around
Alan Lauder's insights into Carbon Grazing are a signal that giving farmers the right to trade the soil carbon that they grow is the way to unlock the new ideas that will eventually lead to the solutions we need to survive and thrive in the new conditions. Expect to see a lot more of this type of innovative thinking coming from the farmers. Official science is still stumbling along behind, "proving" that no-till and planned grazing and pasture cropping don't work. This pattern of denial has become embarrassing and was mentioned by Tony Windsor MP and the Australian Farm Journal in recent weeks. The Productivity Commission Inquiry into Rural Research & Development Agencies has put the question: "How effective is the current rural R&D and extension framework, and is the role of the RDCs within that framework appropriate and clearly defined?" Has there been anything useful for farmers and the broader community in the torrent of negativity pouring out of esteemed research institutions on the prospects of increasing soil carbon levels? Any new ideas?
"Innovative farmers are in front of the researchers," says Independent MP, Tony Windsor, Member for New England, who was on the standing committee on primary industries looking at methods being adopted to help reduce agricultural emissions and the impacts of climate change on farming. In the area of bio-dynamic and biological farming practices, many farmers are experimenting way ahead of the research currently available. "There's a lot of history in that. In the adoption to no-till farming and conservation farming, it was farmers leading the debate. The researchers eventually caught up."
PAtrick Francis, editor of Australian Farm Journal, declares is the April issue that "mainstream science is struggling to embrace opportunities for adaptation, preferring to lobby for more research." He quotes from the new CSIRO book Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change. The authors of the chapter on grazing wrote this revealing statement: "The adaptation challenge and opportunity need to be clearly defined by quantifying the range of plausible impacts that uncertain climate change could have on the grazing industry and framing adaptation options in relation to existing management pressures. Likely responses of grazier and policy-makers to these impacts need to be determined and comprehensively evaluated." Put aside the astonishing lack of urgency..
The CSIRO and their colleagues in other institutions have been acting as though climate variability is a new phenomenon. But a 2004 study by the QLD Dept of Natural Resources identified 8 'pasture degradation' episodes since 1788. The main factor in degradation was poor stock management. Too many animals left on the pasture too long. (“Pasture Degradation and Recovery in Australia’s Rangelands”) Patrick quotes a 2009 FAO paper "Review of evidence on drylands pastoral systems and climate change" which is optimistic about grazing management and soil carbon in pastures. He quotes the CSIRO making the obligatory negative statement: "Efforts to sequester carbon in rangelands will also have to be carefully considered against the long-term costs and benefits of maintaining the enhanced vegetation and soil carbon stores often in face of climate changes which tend to reduce them."
What must be discouraging for these ‘concerned’ scientists is the rapid uptake of the practices they prove to be ineffectual by their research trials. No-till isreaching saturation in several states. Col Seis – the inventor of Pasture Cropping – is having trouble keeping up with demand since a nasty attack on him and his techniques by NSW Industry & Investment..
And you’d have to look hard to find a conventional set stocker in many districts.
The CSIRO’s contribution to the soil carbon trading cause has been the “You Can’t Afford to Grow Humus” campaign with the GRDC and “The Bucket of Biomass Limitations” Theory. And the “Soil Carbon Mythbusters” campaign with NSW I&I. It has always been consistently negative. Now it is being noticed.
"Innovative farmers are in front of the researchers," says Independent MP, Tony Windsor, Member for New England, who was on the standing committee on primary industries looking at methods being adopted to help reduce agricultural emissions and the impacts of climate change on farming. In the area of bio-dynamic and biological farming practices, many farmers are experimenting way ahead of the research currently available. "There's a lot of history in that. In the adoption to no-till farming and conservation farming, it was farmers leading the debate. The researchers eventually caught up."
PAtrick Francis, editor of Australian Farm Journal, declares is the April issue that "mainstream science is struggling to embrace opportunities for adaptation, preferring to lobby for more research." He quotes from the new CSIRO book Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change. The authors of the chapter on grazing wrote this revealing statement: "The adaptation challenge and opportunity need to be clearly defined by quantifying the range of plausible impacts that uncertain climate change could have on the grazing industry and framing adaptation options in relation to existing management pressures. Likely responses of grazier and policy-makers to these impacts need to be determined and comprehensively evaluated." Put aside the astonishing lack of urgency..
The CSIRO and their colleagues in other institutions have been acting as though climate variability is a new phenomenon. But a 2004 study by the QLD Dept of Natural Resources identified 8 'pasture degradation' episodes since 1788. The main factor in degradation was poor stock management. Too many animals left on the pasture too long. (“Pasture Degradation and Recovery in Australia’s Rangelands”) Patrick quotes a 2009 FAO paper "Review of evidence on drylands pastoral systems and climate change" which is optimistic about grazing management and soil carbon in pastures. He quotes the CSIRO making the obligatory negative statement: "Efforts to sequester carbon in rangelands will also have to be carefully considered against the long-term costs and benefits of maintaining the enhanced vegetation and soil carbon stores often in face of climate changes which tend to reduce them."
What must be discouraging for these ‘concerned’ scientists is the rapid uptake of the practices they prove to be ineffectual by their research trials. No-till isreaching saturation in several states. Col Seis – the inventor of Pasture Cropping – is having trouble keeping up with demand since a nasty attack on him and his techniques by NSW Industry & Investment..
And you’d have to look hard to find a conventional set stocker in many districts.
The CSIRO’s contribution to the soil carbon trading cause has been the “You Can’t Afford to Grow Humus” campaign with the GRDC and “The Bucket of Biomass Limitations” Theory. And the “Soil Carbon Mythbusters” campaign with NSW I&I. It has always been consistently negative. Now it is being noticed.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Why is a market for soil carbon offsets important?
In recent weeks we have been astonished to hear two executives from biofert companies say that they thought the market for soil carbon offsets is either not important, not going to happen, or not very meaningful anymore. This is a complete disconnect between perception and reality. The Government is building the trading structure and developing standards while the Minister declared only last month "You will get cash" for soil sequestration. For biofert companies, this market could mean a tidal wave of business. Even at a slow rate of take-up of soil C trading by farmers, any valuation of such a company facing such an immediate prospect would be very bullish. But it seems that some people have been talked out of their belief in trading - the Pushback has had an impact. Here's proof:
“We understand that carbon credits are important, but that should be the added bonus of achieving exceptional soil health which then achieves greater things for the farmer. The first aim is to get the communication out there on how to achieve healthy soils, which creates healthier people and a healthier world. And if we happen to get some money back for it well that is just a great bonus!”
Many people feel that the prospect of farmers receiving money for storing carbon in Australia’s agricultural soils is not as important as the benefits of higher soil carbon levels. These benefits of soil carbon include less erosion, better soil structure, better water retention, higher levels of nutrient availability, and potentially higher production. Healthy soils mean heathier food and healthier people. There are also environmental benefits, such as greater biodiversity. And the capture and storage of carbon in soils represents a major interim solution to the crisis of Climate Change.
THE GOAL IS THE SAME
To agree with the proposition that it can be “one before the other” or that “one is more important than the other” is not the issue. The goal is the same, the benefits of soil carbon, whichever is chosen.
But it is “both together” for the fastest restoration of the environment and quickest response to Climate Change. And “both together” for natural justice for farmers. And “both together” to boost the health of rural communities and local economies. The urgency of the need for widespread action by farmers makes the financial incentive essential to speed uptake.
DELIVERING FOR ENVIRONMENT, CLIMATE AND COMMUNITIES
The Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming has campaigned for 5 years to see a market for soil carbon offsets established in Australia for one very specific reason: to see ALL the benefits of soil carbon sequestration delivered. The market offers the fastest pathway to the critical change in land management that farmers must make for the dominoes to start falling – a change they have been slow to make to date.
The restoration of Australia’s 400 million hectares of agricultural soils requires investment that should be thought of as a ‘recapitalisation’ of our greatest national asset, our core productive resource, our soils. Soil has been ‘decapitalised’ – left to run down as the nutrient value and capacity have been mined – in an unsustainable way. Just like a manufacturing company that fails to maintain its machinery, Australian Soils Inc is headed for insolvency.
It should not be thought of as Conservation. Nothing is being conserved (ie. left the same). Everything will change for the better – new models of farm biodiversity, new modes of production, new energy flows, new attitudes to resources, new relationships with communities at all levels. It is a reversal – because nearly every aspect of Australian agriculture has offended against the basic principles of Nature since it landed here as British agriculture, outside its relevance zone.
To recapitalise our major asset could cost billions. Who will pay for it? Governments have spent $15billion in the past decade on natural resource base programs – and the Murray-Darling ran dry during that decade. Governments have proved unable to solve the problem and are reluctant to continue with the old model. They favour action closer to the grassroots – farmers’ groups are being funded with money previously spent by national and state agencies. The soil carbon offset market is a further step towards the grassroots – drawing in the average farmers who would not join a group.
NOT EASY TO CHANGE
To change the soil we must first change the people who manage the soil. For rapid change to occur, we must short circuit the long, slow cultural change process. The incentive of payment plays an important role in changing the people.
To make the change to land practices that store carbon is not easy or cheap. For most farmers it means changing the practice of generations, moving out of a comfort zone that is wrenching to leave. A farmer’s approach to farming is an important part of their identity and position in a rural community. There is strong pressure to conform and the farmer changing practice runs the risk of being ostracised by neighbours. This is because neighbours interpret the change as a challenge to them. They hope the risk-taker fails.
Organisations such as the South Australian NoTill Farming Association provide members making the change with a buddy support system for this reason.
NOT CHEAP TO CHANGE
The capital investment needed to move to “Carbon Farming” practices varies. “Wire and water” for a time-controlled grazing operation can cost many thousands of dollars. An application of a biofertiliser can cost a fraction of the cost of traditional fertiliser.
But it is the internal costs of new practices that can cause the most pain. For instance, a grazier who sells half a flock rather than overgraze pastures and bare the soil to erosion has effectively halved their wool cheque for that year and may find that price movements mean the cost of restocking is far higher than the price they received for the stock they sold. There is no compensation for such behaviour.
There are only two approaches to getting farmers to change land management practices:
1. “Extension, Education, and Encouragment” approach.
This is the current model. It has achieved the current rate of change. Government is not likely to increase funds for this model, as it is defunding agencies formerly engaged in these activities.
2. Soil Carbon Offsets Trading.
This method has not yet been trialled in Australia. It provides a direct cash incentive for behaviour change. The money is provided by Greenhouse Gas Emitters who buy the offsets. The risks of entering a change management regime are weighed by the farmer against the reward of the revenue. It aligns with the Government’s belief that markets should provide services where they can.
HOW FAST CAN FARMERS CHANGE?
A famous study of the rate at which farmers will make a change found that a shift from a traditional seed corn to a more productive hybrid seed corn by extension and education took 14 years. This rate of uptake was possibly faster than we could expect for soil carbon – given that the benefits are not widely understood and don’t immediately result in higher economic returns from their produce.
The researchers tracked each farmer as they changed and developed a model of adoption, commonly known as the Bell Curve of Adoption. It reveals that adoption is driven by different types of farmer, depending on their attitude to risk. The fearless Innovators rush in to satisfy their need to be at the front. The other groups watch the group in front of them. The Early Adopters are also anxious to be among the front-runners, but they won’t move until they see Innovators doing it. The bulk of the market – the Mature Market – is still driven by who they can see adopting the change. Laggards rarely change.
For such a process to take place when;
- a change in land management promises gradual increases in soil carbon;
- co-benefits could take many years to become obvious;
-very few farmers understand the concept of soil carbon;
-the downside risk is perceived to be high;
many poorly-informed and mistaken ideas about soil carbon trading have been promoted widely,
…would suggest a slower process than the corn case. Closer to 25 years than 15.
THE NEED FOR SPEED
Why is it important to restore Australian soils quickly? Two words: Food Security. The area to Australia’s north has been tagged as one of the top 3 regions for the collapse of food systems due to extreme climate change. Australian and international security bodies predict 40 million climate change refugees could be moving in our area within 50 years.
The world will need to grow twice as much food in 50 years’ time with the same amount of soil and the same amount of water.
At the same time, the Food & Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the World Bank, the USA , the EU and food and farming organizations believe the world’s agricultural soils have the capacity to draw down the equivalent of 50ppm for 50 years – stalling the process of Climate Change long enough for alternative sources of energy to reach critical mass and replace carbon emitting power generation.
The sooner the world’s farmers start returning carbon to the soil, the sooner the process of regeneration of the natural resource base can begin, building a buffer against inevitable increases in temperature and reduction in rainfall.
Educational experts know that it is easier to change attitudes by first changing behaviour. “Learning by doing”. Behaviour Change becomes Cultural Change as the farmer sees and feels the change in the landscape – and comes to value a carbon-rich environment.
As a farmer, living and working in a rural community, and travelling throughout Australia meeting farmers who have been doing the right thing for decades, I have observed:
• Few farmers say they are not interested in the money. The love of the benefits runs through their veins. But to describe carbon credits as ‘a great bonus’ is to ignore the financial tightrope most agriculturalists walk. No source of revenue can be taken lightly. And the farmer should be given the right to make their own decision as to which is more important.
• Non-farmers expect Farmers to perform environmental services for free. No other profession or career requires this of its practitioners. At the same time, society refuses to pay a fair price for their produce. If the ecological cost of producing the food was included in the price at the store, consumers would rebel.
“A GREAT BONUS”?
The relegation of soil carbon offsets to “just a great bonus” puts the cart before the horse. We need the offset to pull the farmer through to the rewards and benefits of soil carbon.
The “Great Bonus” Idea may have started in the GRDC – the research agency most actively opposed to soil carbon offsets: “Carbon credits are like FlyBuy Points – a nice bonus, but don’t go shopping just to get them,” said Dr Martin Blumenthal, GRDC Manager, Agronomy, Soils and Environment at a GRDC workshop about on-farm carbon accounting. It quickly gained currency among scientists who doubt that Australian farmers can grow significant amounts of carbon in soils, nor that they could hold any that they sequestered. Jeff also feared that they would suffer losses if they tried trading because of the dangers of drought and fire. But there is no scientific evidence that proves Australian soils cannot sequester significant amounts of carbon. Second, there is no scientific evidence that proves that Australian farmers cannot hold the carbon sequestered for the period specified in an offsets contract. For example the potential of biological fertilisers and inoculants has yet to be studied.
FEARS FOR FARMERS
The motives behind these statements are fears held that farmers might be lured into signing contracts that they could not fulfil, causing them damage. These fears are realistic and justified, but are no reason not to consider entering into contracts if the conditions are acceptable.
Risk management is built into offset contracts because the sponsors of these projects cannot afford to have farmers lose out, if only for the sake of their on-going operation. Scientists can be forgiven for not knowing these risk management practices.
For instance, no soil carbon trading program has a contract period of 100 years or anything like it. The longest period in operation or even proposed is 5 years. Farmers are reluctant to enter into longer contracts. But the “behavour change becomes attitude change becomes culture change” process takes over to make the changes last.
No soil carbon trading program forces the individual farmer to carry the risk of losing carbon to bushfire or drought. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and its affiliates use a "Buffer Pool" of credits. For every 5 tonnes of CO2-e a farmer submits in the CCX world, only 4 can be sold. 20% are retained in a vault, never to be sold, as a surety against catastrophic or man-made losses. To reflect the increased danger of bushfire and drought in Australia, the Prime Carbon system puts one tonne in the vault for every tonne sold. The farmer is therefore part of a large collective self-insurance system.
The Carbon Coalition did not campaign for farmers’ rights to trade soil carbon offsets, to deliver these same farmers into danger.
CAN YOU HELP?
The Government has announced that the first soil carbon offsets market can start from 1 July, 2010. Farmers need help to access the opportunity that offsets present.
First they need unbiased information about risks and returns and how to manage those risks. They need to be equipped to make decisions.
Second they need to be ‘aggregated’ – pooled with other growers for their mutual protection and to be able to trade in marketable volumes.
And third they need to know they can trust their advisers.
The best source of these three elements is a supplier whose knowledge and integrity they already rely upon. You could fit that role. You could add these services to your existing offering, within the same ethical framework you currently maintain.
Carbon Farmers of Australia is a not-for-profit organization that represents growers interests as an extension of the role its principals played fighting for the rights of farmers to trade soil carbon as convenors of the Carbon Coalition. We offer training, access to all available trading programs, advice, advocacy, and aggregation services – delivered through host service providers.
………………………
The role of the farmer is critical to our chances of navigating to a safe future where the world’s population can be fed and our grandchildren’s children can sleep safely in their beds.
We can play our part by making sure the farmer is paid fairly for what they grow – including soil carbon.
“We understand that carbon credits are important, but that should be the added bonus of achieving exceptional soil health which then achieves greater things for the farmer. The first aim is to get the communication out there on how to achieve healthy soils, which creates healthier people and a healthier world. And if we happen to get some money back for it well that is just a great bonus!”
Many people feel that the prospect of farmers receiving money for storing carbon in Australia’s agricultural soils is not as important as the benefits of higher soil carbon levels. These benefits of soil carbon include less erosion, better soil structure, better water retention, higher levels of nutrient availability, and potentially higher production. Healthy soils mean heathier food and healthier people. There are also environmental benefits, such as greater biodiversity. And the capture and storage of carbon in soils represents a major interim solution to the crisis of Climate Change.
THE GOAL IS THE SAME
To agree with the proposition that it can be “one before the other” or that “one is more important than the other” is not the issue. The goal is the same, the benefits of soil carbon, whichever is chosen.
But it is “both together” for the fastest restoration of the environment and quickest response to Climate Change. And “both together” for natural justice for farmers. And “both together” to boost the health of rural communities and local economies. The urgency of the need for widespread action by farmers makes the financial incentive essential to speed uptake.
DELIVERING FOR ENVIRONMENT, CLIMATE AND COMMUNITIES
The Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming has campaigned for 5 years to see a market for soil carbon offsets established in Australia for one very specific reason: to see ALL the benefits of soil carbon sequestration delivered. The market offers the fastest pathway to the critical change in land management that farmers must make for the dominoes to start falling – a change they have been slow to make to date.
The restoration of Australia’s 400 million hectares of agricultural soils requires investment that should be thought of as a ‘recapitalisation’ of our greatest national asset, our core productive resource, our soils. Soil has been ‘decapitalised’ – left to run down as the nutrient value and capacity have been mined – in an unsustainable way. Just like a manufacturing company that fails to maintain its machinery, Australian Soils Inc is headed for insolvency.
It should not be thought of as Conservation. Nothing is being conserved (ie. left the same). Everything will change for the better – new models of farm biodiversity, new modes of production, new energy flows, new attitudes to resources, new relationships with communities at all levels. It is a reversal – because nearly every aspect of Australian agriculture has offended against the basic principles of Nature since it landed here as British agriculture, outside its relevance zone.
To recapitalise our major asset could cost billions. Who will pay for it? Governments have spent $15billion in the past decade on natural resource base programs – and the Murray-Darling ran dry during that decade. Governments have proved unable to solve the problem and are reluctant to continue with the old model. They favour action closer to the grassroots – farmers’ groups are being funded with money previously spent by national and state agencies. The soil carbon offset market is a further step towards the grassroots – drawing in the average farmers who would not join a group.
NOT EASY TO CHANGE
To change the soil we must first change the people who manage the soil. For rapid change to occur, we must short circuit the long, slow cultural change process. The incentive of payment plays an important role in changing the people.
To make the change to land practices that store carbon is not easy or cheap. For most farmers it means changing the practice of generations, moving out of a comfort zone that is wrenching to leave. A farmer’s approach to farming is an important part of their identity and position in a rural community. There is strong pressure to conform and the farmer changing practice runs the risk of being ostracised by neighbours. This is because neighbours interpret the change as a challenge to them. They hope the risk-taker fails.
Organisations such as the South Australian NoTill Farming Association provide members making the change with a buddy support system for this reason.
NOT CHEAP TO CHANGE
The capital investment needed to move to “Carbon Farming” practices varies. “Wire and water” for a time-controlled grazing operation can cost many thousands of dollars. An application of a biofertiliser can cost a fraction of the cost of traditional fertiliser.
But it is the internal costs of new practices that can cause the most pain. For instance, a grazier who sells half a flock rather than overgraze pastures and bare the soil to erosion has effectively halved their wool cheque for that year and may find that price movements mean the cost of restocking is far higher than the price they received for the stock they sold. There is no compensation for such behaviour.
There are only two approaches to getting farmers to change land management practices:
1. “Extension, Education, and Encouragment” approach.
This is the current model. It has achieved the current rate of change. Government is not likely to increase funds for this model, as it is defunding agencies formerly engaged in these activities.
2. Soil Carbon Offsets Trading.
This method has not yet been trialled in Australia. It provides a direct cash incentive for behaviour change. The money is provided by Greenhouse Gas Emitters who buy the offsets. The risks of entering a change management regime are weighed by the farmer against the reward of the revenue. It aligns with the Government’s belief that markets should provide services where they can.
HOW FAST CAN FARMERS CHANGE?
A famous study of the rate at which farmers will make a change found that a shift from a traditional seed corn to a more productive hybrid seed corn by extension and education took 14 years. This rate of uptake was possibly faster than we could expect for soil carbon – given that the benefits are not widely understood and don’t immediately result in higher economic returns from their produce.
The researchers tracked each farmer as they changed and developed a model of adoption, commonly known as the Bell Curve of Adoption. It reveals that adoption is driven by different types of farmer, depending on their attitude to risk. The fearless Innovators rush in to satisfy their need to be at the front. The other groups watch the group in front of them. The Early Adopters are also anxious to be among the front-runners, but they won’t move until they see Innovators doing it. The bulk of the market – the Mature Market – is still driven by who they can see adopting the change. Laggards rarely change.
For such a process to take place when;
- a change in land management promises gradual increases in soil carbon;
- co-benefits could take many years to become obvious;
-very few farmers understand the concept of soil carbon;
-the downside risk is perceived to be high;
many poorly-informed and mistaken ideas about soil carbon trading have been promoted widely,
…would suggest a slower process than the corn case. Closer to 25 years than 15.
THE NEED FOR SPEED
Why is it important to restore Australian soils quickly? Two words: Food Security. The area to Australia’s north has been tagged as one of the top 3 regions for the collapse of food systems due to extreme climate change. Australian and international security bodies predict 40 million climate change refugees could be moving in our area within 50 years.
The world will need to grow twice as much food in 50 years’ time with the same amount of soil and the same amount of water.
At the same time, the Food & Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the World Bank, the USA , the EU and food and farming organizations believe the world’s agricultural soils have the capacity to draw down the equivalent of 50ppm for 50 years – stalling the process of Climate Change long enough for alternative sources of energy to reach critical mass and replace carbon emitting power generation.
The sooner the world’s farmers start returning carbon to the soil, the sooner the process of regeneration of the natural resource base can begin, building a buffer against inevitable increases in temperature and reduction in rainfall.
Educational experts know that it is easier to change attitudes by first changing behaviour. “Learning by doing”. Behaviour Change becomes Cultural Change as the farmer sees and feels the change in the landscape – and comes to value a carbon-rich environment.
As a farmer, living and working in a rural community, and travelling throughout Australia meeting farmers who have been doing the right thing for decades, I have observed:
• Few farmers say they are not interested in the money. The love of the benefits runs through their veins. But to describe carbon credits as ‘a great bonus’ is to ignore the financial tightrope most agriculturalists walk. No source of revenue can be taken lightly. And the farmer should be given the right to make their own decision as to which is more important.
• Non-farmers expect Farmers to perform environmental services for free. No other profession or career requires this of its practitioners. At the same time, society refuses to pay a fair price for their produce. If the ecological cost of producing the food was included in the price at the store, consumers would rebel.
“A GREAT BONUS”?
The relegation of soil carbon offsets to “just a great bonus” puts the cart before the horse. We need the offset to pull the farmer through to the rewards and benefits of soil carbon.
The “Great Bonus” Idea may have started in the GRDC – the research agency most actively opposed to soil carbon offsets: “Carbon credits are like FlyBuy Points – a nice bonus, but don’t go shopping just to get them,” said Dr Martin Blumenthal, GRDC Manager, Agronomy, Soils and Environment at a GRDC workshop about on-farm carbon accounting. It quickly gained currency among scientists who doubt that Australian farmers can grow significant amounts of carbon in soils, nor that they could hold any that they sequestered. Jeff also feared that they would suffer losses if they tried trading because of the dangers of drought and fire. But there is no scientific evidence that proves Australian soils cannot sequester significant amounts of carbon. Second, there is no scientific evidence that proves that Australian farmers cannot hold the carbon sequestered for the period specified in an offsets contract. For example the potential of biological fertilisers and inoculants has yet to be studied.
FEARS FOR FARMERS
The motives behind these statements are fears held that farmers might be lured into signing contracts that they could not fulfil, causing them damage. These fears are realistic and justified, but are no reason not to consider entering into contracts if the conditions are acceptable.
Risk management is built into offset contracts because the sponsors of these projects cannot afford to have farmers lose out, if only for the sake of their on-going operation. Scientists can be forgiven for not knowing these risk management practices.
For instance, no soil carbon trading program has a contract period of 100 years or anything like it. The longest period in operation or even proposed is 5 years. Farmers are reluctant to enter into longer contracts. But the “behavour change becomes attitude change becomes culture change” process takes over to make the changes last.
No soil carbon trading program forces the individual farmer to carry the risk of losing carbon to bushfire or drought. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and its affiliates use a "Buffer Pool" of credits. For every 5 tonnes of CO2-e a farmer submits in the CCX world, only 4 can be sold. 20% are retained in a vault, never to be sold, as a surety against catastrophic or man-made losses. To reflect the increased danger of bushfire and drought in Australia, the Prime Carbon system puts one tonne in the vault for every tonne sold. The farmer is therefore part of a large collective self-insurance system.
The Carbon Coalition did not campaign for farmers’ rights to trade soil carbon offsets, to deliver these same farmers into danger.
CAN YOU HELP?
The Government has announced that the first soil carbon offsets market can start from 1 July, 2010. Farmers need help to access the opportunity that offsets present.
First they need unbiased information about risks and returns and how to manage those risks. They need to be equipped to make decisions.
Second they need to be ‘aggregated’ – pooled with other growers for their mutual protection and to be able to trade in marketable volumes.
And third they need to know they can trust their advisers.
The best source of these three elements is a supplier whose knowledge and integrity they already rely upon. You could fit that role. You could add these services to your existing offering, within the same ethical framework you currently maintain.
Carbon Farmers of Australia is a not-for-profit organization that represents growers interests as an extension of the role its principals played fighting for the rights of farmers to trade soil carbon as convenors of the Carbon Coalition. We offer training, access to all available trading programs, advice, advocacy, and aggregation services – delivered through host service providers.
………………………
The role of the farmer is critical to our chances of navigating to a safe future where the world’s population can be fed and our grandchildren’s children can sleep safely in their beds.
We can play our part by making sure the farmer is paid fairly for what they grow – including soil carbon.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Helping Growers Make A Decision On Trading Soil Carbon
Recently, when Minister Tony Burke said famously: “ If you’re able to improve the amount of carbon in the soil through sequestration, you get cash." He also said: "Now people can do their own sums as to what sort of deal that would end up being for farmers.” Can they? We believe they can't. That's why we have developed the Soil Carbon Offset Grower’s Risk/Return Calculator.
Soon Australian growers will be faced with a decision: "To Trade Or Not To Trade - and With Whom?". As part of our 'Getting Ready To Trade' workshops* which we have conducted throughout NSW and OLD, we have developed decision-making tools to make it easier to navigate through the confusion. The Soil Carbon Offset Grower’s Risk/Return Calculator enables you to weigh the returns against the risks. You can use this Calculator to analyse any one of the many opportunities offered to you and do your own sums as to what sort of deal that would end up being for you.
PRICE: Price Per Tonne is what we have found most growers focus on. A range of prices have been floated, from $5 to $40. Farmers always favour a higher price per tonne. But is Price Per Tonne the Bottomline? Price Per Tonne can be high, but the Grower can be disadvantaged by: • Low volume per hectare • High middleman costs • High insurance cost • Low protection against C losses • Long contract period. Price Per Tonne can be low and the Grower can be advantaged by: • Higher volume per hectare • Fixed low middleman costs • Low insurance cost • High protection against C losses • Short contract period. So Price Per Tonne should not be the sole decider.
TONES PER HECTARE: All trading systems will need to have an element of estimation* involved, as all carbon trading and all trading systems do. Tonnes Per Hectar allowable will depend on the system adopted by each operation. The Tonneage allowed in an estimation system is likely to be between 2 and 10tCO2(-e) per hectare per year. Tonneage under an accurate measurement system varies with the amount measured. The Grower will have less to trade if only Humus is measured, more if Total Carbon is measured. But the security of humus will attract a higher prince per tonne.
HECTARES ENROLLED: Carbon Farmers of Australia recommend that Growers have their property 'Baselined" and put a toe in water with 150Ha to start.
COST OF LAND MANAGEMENT CHANGE: To be eligible to sell soil carbon offsets, a farmer must be able to demonstrate that these amounts of additional carbon are the result of a change in land management. The Cost of Land Management Change can vary dramatically depending on which technique is chosen. Random costs we have heard include 'wire and water' for grazing management ($40k), installing leaky weirs (Natural Sequence Farming - $5k to $40k), spreading Microbes $7k, Pasture Cropping $3k.
COST OF BASELINING AND MONITORING:
The Cost of Baselining and Monitoring must be low enough to allow trade to proceed but high enough to give buyers confidence. The cost in the only system currently making public its information, Prime Carbon, has been floated at $5.50/ha/yr
MIDDLEMAN COSTS:
Middlemen are a necessary evil. But as the smallest trading unit allowable is far higher than one Grower could supply, farmers will have to be aggregated into pools. So a necessary middleman is an Aggregator. There also needs to be management of the "Buffer Pool", part of a self insurance system which requires Growers to submit additional tonnes to cover losses from fire and drought. A Database of Units must be managed transparently. The Auditor role is important. Both the latter two make buyers confident enough to buy. We need a Broker to make the sale and there is a fee for using the system. The Prime Carbon system caps the middleman costs at 10%. The CCX equivalent is 15% and for many years was 30%.)
DURATION OF CONTRACT:
The Duration of the Contract should be a major consideration. The Kyoto Protocols require contracts for trees to be 100 years or at least 75 years. Such a period would be an unacceptable risk to Growers. But under the New Deal for Agriculture being shepherded through the UNFCCC Copenhagen '09/Mexico City '10 process by the FAO, soil sequestration is expected to draw down the equivalent of 50ppm for 50 years, so 50 years could be considered. Another option is 25 years. The contracts offered by the Chicago Climate Exchange are 5 years renewable and Prime Carbon's period is 5 years non-renewable. These periods do not mean the captured carbon is immediately released. Soil carbon reaches equilibrium and seeks to maintain that new level via its own resources. A Stewardship Payment system would maintain enthusiasm among land managers.)
PERMANENCE LIABILITY: Permanence Liability is a downside risk that can be managed by the Buffer Pool, which is a collective self insurance. The Grower contributes units to be held in trust. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) requires that the Grower submit 1 in 5 tonnes, and Prime Carbon 1 in 2 tonnes.
The Grower needs to give their own weight to each element to make their ultimate decision.
FOOTNOTES:
* Practical Soil Carbon Farming Workshops by Carbon Farmers of Australia. Call (02) 6374 0329 to find out when we will be in your area. (If you have a group of farmers interested in a one- or two-day workshop, we can organise to come to your location.
**An "estimation system" uses indicators such as land management change to estimate volumes of carbon captured and stored, according to modelled data. On the opposite pole is a "direct measurement system" which seeks to detect exactly the amount of carbon captured with a view to trading the maximum amount grown. Versions of a hybrid system are most likely to be adopted for risk management and measurement cost reasons.
Soon Australian growers will be faced with a decision: "To Trade Or Not To Trade - and With Whom?". As part of our 'Getting Ready To Trade' workshops* which we have conducted throughout NSW and OLD, we have developed decision-making tools to make it easier to navigate through the confusion. The Soil Carbon Offset Grower’s Risk/Return Calculator enables you to weigh the returns against the risks. You can use this Calculator to analyse any one of the many opportunities offered to you and do your own sums as to what sort of deal that would end up being for you.
PRICE: Price Per Tonne is what we have found most growers focus on. A range of prices have been floated, from $5 to $40. Farmers always favour a higher price per tonne. But is Price Per Tonne the Bottomline? Price Per Tonne can be high, but the Grower can be disadvantaged by: • Low volume per hectare • High middleman costs • High insurance cost • Low protection against C losses • Long contract period. Price Per Tonne can be low and the Grower can be advantaged by: • Higher volume per hectare • Fixed low middleman costs • Low insurance cost • High protection against C losses • Short contract period. So Price Per Tonne should not be the sole decider.
TONES PER HECTARE: All trading systems will need to have an element of estimation* involved, as all carbon trading and all trading systems do. Tonnes Per Hectar allowable will depend on the system adopted by each operation. The Tonneage allowed in an estimation system is likely to be between 2 and 10tCO2(-e) per hectare per year. Tonneage under an accurate measurement system varies with the amount measured. The Grower will have less to trade if only Humus is measured, more if Total Carbon is measured. But the security of humus will attract a higher prince per tonne.
HECTARES ENROLLED: Carbon Farmers of Australia recommend that Growers have their property 'Baselined" and put a toe in water with 150Ha to start.
COST OF LAND MANAGEMENT CHANGE: To be eligible to sell soil carbon offsets, a farmer must be able to demonstrate that these amounts of additional carbon are the result of a change in land management. The Cost of Land Management Change can vary dramatically depending on which technique is chosen. Random costs we have heard include 'wire and water' for grazing management ($40k), installing leaky weirs (Natural Sequence Farming - $5k to $40k), spreading Microbes $7k, Pasture Cropping $3k.
COST OF BASELINING AND MONITORING:
The Cost of Baselining and Monitoring must be low enough to allow trade to proceed but high enough to give buyers confidence. The cost in the only system currently making public its information, Prime Carbon, has been floated at $5.50/ha/yr
MIDDLEMAN COSTS:
Middlemen are a necessary evil. But as the smallest trading unit allowable is far higher than one Grower could supply, farmers will have to be aggregated into pools. So a necessary middleman is an Aggregator. There also needs to be management of the "Buffer Pool", part of a self insurance system which requires Growers to submit additional tonnes to cover losses from fire and drought. A Database of Units must be managed transparently. The Auditor role is important. Both the latter two make buyers confident enough to buy. We need a Broker to make the sale and there is a fee for using the system. The Prime Carbon system caps the middleman costs at 10%. The CCX equivalent is 15% and for many years was 30%.)
DURATION OF CONTRACT:
The Duration of the Contract should be a major consideration. The Kyoto Protocols require contracts for trees to be 100 years or at least 75 years. Such a period would be an unacceptable risk to Growers. But under the New Deal for Agriculture being shepherded through the UNFCCC Copenhagen '09/Mexico City '10 process by the FAO, soil sequestration is expected to draw down the equivalent of 50ppm for 50 years, so 50 years could be considered. Another option is 25 years. The contracts offered by the Chicago Climate Exchange are 5 years renewable and Prime Carbon's period is 5 years non-renewable. These periods do not mean the captured carbon is immediately released. Soil carbon reaches equilibrium and seeks to maintain that new level via its own resources. A Stewardship Payment system would maintain enthusiasm among land managers.)
PERMANENCE LIABILITY: Permanence Liability is a downside risk that can be managed by the Buffer Pool, which is a collective self insurance. The Grower contributes units to be held in trust. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) requires that the Grower submit 1 in 5 tonnes, and Prime Carbon 1 in 2 tonnes.
The Grower needs to give their own weight to each element to make their ultimate decision.
FOOTNOTES:
* Practical Soil Carbon Farming Workshops by Carbon Farmers of Australia. Call (02) 6374 0329 to find out when we will be in your area. (If you have a group of farmers interested in a one- or two-day workshop, we can organise to come to your location.
**An "estimation system" uses indicators such as land management change to estimate volumes of carbon captured and stored, according to modelled data. On the opposite pole is a "direct measurement system" which seeks to detect exactly the amount of carbon captured with a view to trading the maximum amount grown. Versions of a hybrid system are most likely to be adopted for risk management and measurement cost reasons.
Beware the Myths of Trade
"Farmers will be reluctant to lock themselves into any changes in land use or land management, particularly where this involves them taking on liabilities if soil carbon later declines (such as due to prolonged drought)." These words appear in "The Low Carbon Growth Plan for Australia", a report released last week by ClimateWorks Australia. This is a myth repeated by the. Every soil carbon trading system that has existed or is being planned right now involves three fundamentals: 1. Aggregation - the collecting together of growers who individually do not have enough tonneages to sell to deal with the market alone. 2. Buffer Pooling - Growers are required to contribute additional tonnes to act as self-insurance should the worst happen. If an individual's losses are greater than their buffer stock, the collective pool carries them. 3. Limited contract duration - no possibility of 100 years is entertained for soil sequestration. Kyoto doesn't rule.
[The Buffer Pool acts as a 'collective self insurance program' so no Carbon Farmer should stand to lose if drought or fire causes carbon losses.] NB. These concepts are taught as part of the Carbon Farmers of Australia "Practical Carbon Farming Workshop. Call 02 6374 0329 to find out when the workshop will be in your area.
[The Buffer Pool acts as a 'collective self insurance program' so no Carbon Farmer should stand to lose if drought or fire causes carbon losses.] NB. These concepts are taught as part of the Carbon Farmers of Australia "Practical Carbon Farming Workshop. Call 02 6374 0329 to find out when the workshop will be in your area.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
"Potential" to be false and misleading
Industry & Investment NSW (I&I NSW) scientists claim that they have revealed the potential for storing carbon in soil to reduce the impact of climate change. “We have spent three years studying carbon in soils and now have sufficient data available to assess the potential of soil as a carbon sink for mitigating the effects of climate change," says leader of the project, Dr Yin Chan.
Let's get this straight: No attempt has been made to test the 'potential' sequestration capability of Australian soils. And there is no work underway that will reveal it. There is no attempt to study the impact of biological farming on its own and, more to the point, there is no plan to study 'portfolio planning' or combinations of land management practices that complement and reinforce each other to maximise soil C sequestration. This is the reality on the farm. This is what Carbon Farmers do. (Eg. At "Uamby' we use grazing management pasture cropping and probiotic innoculants, on the same piece of ground.) We have developed the Soil Carbon Optimising Tool to help farmers build a carbon farm plan to 'mix and match' their sequestration techniques. So while Science is measuring the potential of the past, we are seeking to live the potential of the present while helping to create the future.
MOTIVATION: Ponder for a moment the meaning behind the act of declaring the limits of the potential of our soils and our management to sequester carbon. It is like telling an Olympic athlete before they compete that they can only run so fast, no faster. Why demotivate the athlete when the goal is higher, further, faster... and our goal is a safer world? Science seems to be constantly in the sideline, urging us to fail. Rarely bringing us ideas to help us achieve more.
Let's get this straight: No attempt has been made to test the 'potential' sequestration capability of Australian soils. And there is no work underway that will reveal it. There is no attempt to study the impact of biological farming on its own and, more to the point, there is no plan to study 'portfolio planning' or combinations of land management practices that complement and reinforce each other to maximise soil C sequestration. This is the reality on the farm. This is what Carbon Farmers do. (Eg. At "Uamby' we use grazing management pasture cropping and probiotic innoculants, on the same piece of ground.) We have developed the Soil Carbon Optimising Tool to help farmers build a carbon farm plan to 'mix and match' their sequestration techniques. So while Science is measuring the potential of the past, we are seeking to live the potential of the present while helping to create the future.
MOTIVATION: Ponder for a moment the meaning behind the act of declaring the limits of the potential of our soils and our management to sequester carbon. It is like telling an Olympic athlete before they compete that they can only run so fast, no faster. Why demotivate the athlete when the goal is higher, further, faster... and our goal is a safer world? Science seems to be constantly in the sideline, urging us to fail. Rarely bringing us ideas to help us achieve more.
The PUSHBACK is ON!
There are many actively lobbying for Tony Burke to reverse his "You Get Cash" announcement, especially the "We'll Ignore Your Emissions" part of the statement. Green groups are outraged: The Climate Institute's Corey Watts (ex-Australian Conservation Foundation) responded to the new deal for Agriculture in disbelief: "Including agricultural offsets by exempting agriculture from any liability for their own emissions and asking other sectors to pay is a situation that can’t last." The Institute has never been a friend to farmers.
A methodology for building a market mechanism for soil C
The following is from a paper we produced in 2008 called Soil Carbon and Measurement: Practical Solutions to Practical Difficulties.
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?”, we could ask: “How can we measure soil carbon to assure a buyer of offsets that they have achieved their objective?” The answer lies with the buyer’s objective. What are they buying? A tonne of CO2e removed from the atmosphere and stored. 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 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.***
A market-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.
** “In cooperation with economists, soil scientists must develop a protocol to trade C credits.” Dr Rattan Lal, “Soil Science and the Carbon Civilisation”, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 71 (3), Sept-Oct 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,
World Congress of Soil Science 2006; President, Soil Science Society of America.
*** 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.47 "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.” Dr Kimble recently retired from the US Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Centre, Lincoln, Nebraska. "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
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?”, we could ask: “How can we measure soil carbon to assure a buyer of offsets that they have achieved their objective?” The answer lies with the buyer’s objective. What are they buying? A tonne of CO2e removed from the atmosphere and stored. 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 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.***
A market-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.
** “In cooperation with economists, soil scientists must develop a protocol to trade C credits.” Dr Rattan Lal, “Soil Science and the Carbon Civilisation”, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 71 (3), Sept-Oct 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,
World Congress of Soil Science 2006; President, Soil Science Society of America.
*** 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.47 "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.” Dr Kimble recently retired from the US Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Centre, Lincoln, Nebraska. "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
Does Science hold all the answers?
One of the essential features of scientific method is "repeatability" - which means that a scientist can repeat an experiment and get the same result. This result is called 'scientific knowledge', said to be the most reliable form of knowledge. But soil carbon seems to exclude itself from "scientific' status because it can't be repeated. It won't stay still. Dr Chan et al., in "A Farmer's Guide..." reported that soil organic carbon levels in a 40m x 40m area varied between 2.72% and 1.44%. A total of 20 soil samples were taken to 5cm deep*. This phenomenon is called "Spatial Variation" and it means trouble for pure science. The researchers say this 'large field variability tends to mask any small real difference in SOC due to management practice...' They go on to say this mask could be the reason why they couldn't detect differences between management techniques.
Could it be that it is time to call in the actuaries? We have a dataset. Actuaries can see patterns in data others can't.
Could it be time to call in the market economists, the innovators and inventors?
It is natural for scientists to believe that highest possible degrees of accuracy in measurement are needed for trading. Indeed, to believe trade could not take place without it. In fact, the opposite is the case. We are faced with finding an acceptable way to "generalise" the data.
* Chan, YN, Oates, A., Lui, DL., Li, GD., Prangnell, R., Poile, G., and Conyers, MK. (2010). "A farmer's guide to increasing soil organic carbon under pastures", NSW Industry & Investment, Wagga Wagga, NSW
Could it be that it is time to call in the actuaries? We have a dataset. Actuaries can see patterns in data others can't.
Could it be time to call in the market economists, the innovators and inventors?
It is natural for scientists to believe that highest possible degrees of accuracy in measurement are needed for trading. Indeed, to believe trade could not take place without it. In fact, the opposite is the case. We are faced with finding an acceptable way to "generalise" the data.
* Chan, YN, Oates, A., Lui, DL., Li, GD., Prangnell, R., Poile, G., and Conyers, MK. (2010). "A farmer's guide to increasing soil organic carbon under pastures", NSW Industry & Investment, Wagga Wagga, NSW
Saturday, March 20, 2010
The gap widens between science and farm ?
WE HAVE A PROBLEM CALLED SCIENCE: When a highly respected scientist such as Dr YN Chan produces a report* which says we can't sequester carbon except by using traditional fertiliser, science has a problem. Farmers who are growing carbon in their soils know these results are wrong. Scientists we speak to are surprised at the results. But Science has never been able to justify any land management approach that it did not originate: eg. planned grazing or pasture cropping or zero tillage. To find for the petrochemical companies and against grass-roots-developed natural systems has caused some cynical remarks.
GAP GROWING WIDER: More than a decade ago a soil scientist declared that the gap between science and farmers was widening. Professor Ben Norton identified this 'impasse' between graziers and researchers in the McClymont Lecture** in 1998: "The results of grazing trials have been counter-intuitive... Based on scientific research, [we] can only recommend continuous grazing and reduced stocking rates..." [to increase pasture biomass]. Science, based on 'hundreds of studies' concluded that planned grazing is not cost effective. This would be embarrassing if one study reported it, but the entire research community? Professor Norton*** observed that "graziers are looking elsewhere for advice". How many graziers today use some form of stock movement to manage their pasture? The emergence of farmer groups to drive their own research agendas and control their own destinies has paralleled the rise in biological agriculture.
HANDY LITTLE BOOK: The report on soil carbon and fertiliser is published in the form of a handy little book which has quite useful information: ie. the basics about measuring and calculating amounts, how they take samples, etc. There is a stunning ilustration of the way soil carbon levels vary across a field. All useful stuff. (Given the propaganda surrounding the release of the topline results several months ago, this book should be seen in the context of that desperate campaign by DII to discredit and disprove the potential for soil carbon. They admit it: "There is a need for farmers to be better informed of the facts about soil carbon in agriculture so they can make sense of the many but often confusing claims appearing in the media." The claims appearing in this booklet are confusing as well. (Out of confusion comes knowledge.)
FOOTNOTES:
* Chan, YN, Oates, A., Lui, DL., Li, GD., Prangnell, R., Poile, G., and Conyers, MK. (2010). "A farmer's guide to increasing soil organic carbon under pastures", NSW Industry & Investment, Wagga Wagga, NSW
**Norton, BE., "The application of grazing management to increase sustainable livestock production," Animal Production In Australia, Vol. 22 1998.
*** Ben Norton was a Professor in the Department of Rangeland Resources at Utah State University.
GAP GROWING WIDER: More than a decade ago a soil scientist declared that the gap between science and farmers was widening. Professor Ben Norton identified this 'impasse' between graziers and researchers in the McClymont Lecture** in 1998: "The results of grazing trials have been counter-intuitive... Based on scientific research, [we] can only recommend continuous grazing and reduced stocking rates..." [to increase pasture biomass]. Science, based on 'hundreds of studies' concluded that planned grazing is not cost effective. This would be embarrassing if one study reported it, but the entire research community? Professor Norton*** observed that "graziers are looking elsewhere for advice". How many graziers today use some form of stock movement to manage their pasture? The emergence of farmer groups to drive their own research agendas and control their own destinies has paralleled the rise in biological agriculture.
HANDY LITTLE BOOK: The report on soil carbon and fertiliser is published in the form of a handy little book which has quite useful information: ie. the basics about measuring and calculating amounts, how they take samples, etc. There is a stunning ilustration of the way soil carbon levels vary across a field. All useful stuff. (Given the propaganda surrounding the release of the topline results several months ago, this book should be seen in the context of that desperate campaign by DII to discredit and disprove the potential for soil carbon. They admit it: "There is a need for farmers to be better informed of the facts about soil carbon in agriculture so they can make sense of the many but often confusing claims appearing in the media." The claims appearing in this booklet are confusing as well. (Out of confusion comes knowledge.)
FOOTNOTES:
* Chan, YN, Oates, A., Lui, DL., Li, GD., Prangnell, R., Poile, G., and Conyers, MK. (2010). "A farmer's guide to increasing soil organic carbon under pastures", NSW Industry & Investment, Wagga Wagga, NSW
**Norton, BE., "The application of grazing management to increase sustainable livestock production," Animal Production In Australia, Vol. 22 1998.
*** Ben Norton was a Professor in the Department of Rangeland Resources at Utah State University.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Are you part of the Problem? Or part of the Solution?
Are you part of the Problem? Or part of the Solution? How can you tell? If you find yourself always ‘playing Devil’s Advocate’ when some new plan is presented, you’re part of the problem. If you believe that observing the rules is more important than achieving a breakthough, you are part of the problem. If you have achieved high office under the current system, you are likely to be part of the problem. If you find yourself saying “that can’t be done”, you are part of the problem. If you find yourself saying “but it must be this way’”, you’re part of the problem. If you feel you don’t get enough respect, you are probably part of the problem. And if you feel something bad will happen if we deviate from protocols and procedures, you are part of the problem. But if you can free yourself from the past long enough to imagine the future, a future in which there is solution to the insoluable, you are part of the Solution.
ACCC proves ‘false and misleading’ easy
The Carbon Coalition says the recent action against Ken Bellamy and Prime Carbon by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) was as much about sending the Soil Carbon Offsets Industry a message as it was about Mr Bellamy’s actions. Consumer affairs watchdog Chairman Graeme Samuels is eager to get involved in this field: “The ACCC is closely monitoring this industry… We’ve put on notice anyone else who is in this business.”
The industry welcomes the ACCC’s attention at this early stage of its formation, says Michael Kiely, Convenor of the Carbon Coalition. “In every new industry there is no path to follow,” he says. “It’s easy to make mistakes when everything is so new. Few understand soil carbon issues and even bodies such as the ACCC and the ABC can make mistakes with the wording of public statements about it.”
ABC Rural Radio reported on NSW Country Hour on Friday 12th, 2010 that the Federal Court found Mr Bellamy had made false statements about ‘the environmental benefits of its products’ when in fact the Court made no mention of them. “The ABC Country Hour had no intention to make a misleading statement, but the complexity of the soil carbon issue tripped them up,” says Michael Kiely.
The ACCC itself made a wrong statement in the headline of its press release announcing its victory over Prime Carbon. It wrote: “Company admits misleading consumers about marketing carbon credits”. There were no consumers involved in the Prime Carbon transactions. The buyers are major corporate emitters. The farmers growing the soil carbon to create the offsets are suppliers, or sellers.
The ACCC also demonstrated how easily a misleading impression can be made by what it fails to say: The main crime alleged against Prime Carbon was that it claimed ‘that it was registered as a broker and an aggregator with the National Stock Exchange’. This statement on its own is very serious. But when you include the rest of the story - that Prime Carbon ‘was and is registered as a broker and aggregator with the National Environment Register (a subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange (NSX Limited)’ - the seriousness of the offense is plain to see.
Some have accused the ACCC of trivialising the soil carbon industry by pursuing one of its members for confusing the names of third parties in brochures several years ago. They question the timing of the action, with the Government's voluntary carbon market standard about to be announced. The Coalition, however, welcomes the Commission’s timely reminder to all members of the industry. A charge of ‘greenwashing’ can be easy to make and hard to defend, especially when outsiders cannot understand the industry. “We have to educate the public and their officials about what we stand for. We are not primarily a consumer market operation,” says Michael Kiely. Soil carbon is an agricultural commodity.
Mr Samuel said he would be on the look out for “unsubstantiated claims.” The Soil Carbon Offsets Industry is a hornet’s nest of ‘unsubstantiated claims’. "The lack of Australian research and the conflicting versions being presented to farmers make for a healthy debate,” says Mr Kiely. “We believe – where Climate Change is at issue – the world should use the Precautionary Principle: “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures”.’ (A GUIDE TO THE CLIMATE CHANGE CONVENTION AND ITS KYOTO PROTOCOL, UNFCCC, Bonn, 2002)
The Carbon Coalition supports Ken Bellamy as a member and as a technical leader. “He is motivated by a sense of urgency about Climate Change. His brinksmanship and risk-taking led him to rush ahead of the rest – and as a result he is closest to providing the market with a workable trading model,” says Michael Kiely. “For this reason the Carbon Coalition endorses Ken Bellamy’s unorthodox methods. The ends can justify the means, when the end represents the only hope we have to slow Climate Change long enough to make the transition to alternative energy.”
The Urgency of Prime Carbon’s Work
Scientists have now agreed that it is too late to avert the damaging impact of Climate Change. The globe is on track to an average increase in temperature of more than 2°C.(1) The Carbon in the Atmosphere is the load arising from 100 years of emissions. There is only one way to reduce this load: by drawing down the CO2 via the process of photosynthesis, the only process known to sequester atmospheric CO2. Agricultural soils and vegetation can draw down the equivalent of 50ppm of atmospheric CO2 for 50 years.(2)
Farmers manage 5 billion hectares of agricultural land around the world. The success of this project depends upon their willingness to change from Greenhouse Gas emitting land management practices to techniques that expand the capacity of photosynthesis to draw down the excess emissions. The market for soil carbon offsets – the field in which Prime Carbon operates – is the source of the funds to reward farmers for making this change. The Australian Government has started the search for a workable trading model. The process of the draw down cannot start without it.
Many companies and innovators have attempted to formulate a model. Ken Bellamy’s Prime Carbon is the closest to achieving that goal that we know of. There is no other apparent at this stage. “But if there were, the Coalition would be supporting them as well,” says Mr Kiely. The Mission of the Carbon Coalition is: “To see soil carbon offsets traded and farmers paid fairly for what they grow.”
The rapid increase of extreme climate events increases the urgency of the mission. The Australian Government has set a date of 1 July 2010 for the market in soil carbon offsets to commence.(3) It cannot start until we have a workable model.
“Ken Bellamy has been a leader in that search, at great personal expense. He is not a scientist. He is an inventor. A practical innovator,” says Michael Kiely. “That doesn't put anyone above the law.”
FOOTNOTES
1. “The science now tells us that it will be next to impossible for nations to achieve the scale of reductions required in sufficient time to avoid dangerous climate change unless we also remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it in vegetation and soils…The power of terrestrial carbon to contribute to the climate change solution is profound.”- “Optimising Carbon in the Australian Landscape” - Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, October 2009
2. ‘The technical potential of carbon sequestration in world soils may be 2 billion to 3 billion mt per year for the next 50 years. Thus, the potential of carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation together is equivalent to a draw-down of about 50 parts per million of atmospheric CO2 by 2100.’ - Rattan Lal (lal.1@osu.edu) is Director of the Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Center and Professor of Soil Science in the School of Environment and Natural Resources.
3.http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/carbon-offset.aspx “The National Carbon Offset Standard provides Australian businesses, particularly farmers, with the opportunity to develop offset credits for voluntary carbon markets. These opportunities include offsets from increased soil carbon and from other land-based emissions sources.”
The industry welcomes the ACCC’s attention at this early stage of its formation, says Michael Kiely, Convenor of the Carbon Coalition. “In every new industry there is no path to follow,” he says. “It’s easy to make mistakes when everything is so new. Few understand soil carbon issues and even bodies such as the ACCC and the ABC can make mistakes with the wording of public statements about it.”
ABC Rural Radio reported on NSW Country Hour on Friday 12th, 2010 that the Federal Court found Mr Bellamy had made false statements about ‘the environmental benefits of its products’ when in fact the Court made no mention of them. “The ABC Country Hour had no intention to make a misleading statement, but the complexity of the soil carbon issue tripped them up,” says Michael Kiely.
The ACCC itself made a wrong statement in the headline of its press release announcing its victory over Prime Carbon. It wrote: “Company admits misleading consumers about marketing carbon credits”. There were no consumers involved in the Prime Carbon transactions. The buyers are major corporate emitters. The farmers growing the soil carbon to create the offsets are suppliers, or sellers.
The ACCC also demonstrated how easily a misleading impression can be made by what it fails to say: The main crime alleged against Prime Carbon was that it claimed ‘that it was registered as a broker and an aggregator with the National Stock Exchange’. This statement on its own is very serious. But when you include the rest of the story - that Prime Carbon ‘was and is registered as a broker and aggregator with the National Environment Register (a subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange (NSX Limited)’ - the seriousness of the offense is plain to see.
Some have accused the ACCC of trivialising the soil carbon industry by pursuing one of its members for confusing the names of third parties in brochures several years ago. They question the timing of the action, with the Government's voluntary carbon market standard about to be announced. The Coalition, however, welcomes the Commission’s timely reminder to all members of the industry. A charge of ‘greenwashing’ can be easy to make and hard to defend, especially when outsiders cannot understand the industry. “We have to educate the public and their officials about what we stand for. We are not primarily a consumer market operation,” says Michael Kiely. Soil carbon is an agricultural commodity.
Mr Samuel said he would be on the look out for “unsubstantiated claims.” The Soil Carbon Offsets Industry is a hornet’s nest of ‘unsubstantiated claims’. "The lack of Australian research and the conflicting versions being presented to farmers make for a healthy debate,” says Mr Kiely. “We believe – where Climate Change is at issue – the world should use the Precautionary Principle: “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures”.’ (A GUIDE TO THE CLIMATE CHANGE CONVENTION AND ITS KYOTO PROTOCOL, UNFCCC, Bonn, 2002)
The Carbon Coalition supports Ken Bellamy as a member and as a technical leader. “He is motivated by a sense of urgency about Climate Change. His brinksmanship and risk-taking led him to rush ahead of the rest – and as a result he is closest to providing the market with a workable trading model,” says Michael Kiely. “For this reason the Carbon Coalition endorses Ken Bellamy’s unorthodox methods. The ends can justify the means, when the end represents the only hope we have to slow Climate Change long enough to make the transition to alternative energy.”
The Urgency of Prime Carbon’s Work
Scientists have now agreed that it is too late to avert the damaging impact of Climate Change. The globe is on track to an average increase in temperature of more than 2°C.(1) The Carbon in the Atmosphere is the load arising from 100 years of emissions. There is only one way to reduce this load: by drawing down the CO2 via the process of photosynthesis, the only process known to sequester atmospheric CO2. Agricultural soils and vegetation can draw down the equivalent of 50ppm of atmospheric CO2 for 50 years.(2)
Farmers manage 5 billion hectares of agricultural land around the world. The success of this project depends upon their willingness to change from Greenhouse Gas emitting land management practices to techniques that expand the capacity of photosynthesis to draw down the excess emissions. The market for soil carbon offsets – the field in which Prime Carbon operates – is the source of the funds to reward farmers for making this change. The Australian Government has started the search for a workable trading model. The process of the draw down cannot start without it.
Many companies and innovators have attempted to formulate a model. Ken Bellamy’s Prime Carbon is the closest to achieving that goal that we know of. There is no other apparent at this stage. “But if there were, the Coalition would be supporting them as well,” says Mr Kiely. The Mission of the Carbon Coalition is: “To see soil carbon offsets traded and farmers paid fairly for what they grow.”
The rapid increase of extreme climate events increases the urgency of the mission. The Australian Government has set a date of 1 July 2010 for the market in soil carbon offsets to commence.(3) It cannot start until we have a workable model.
“Ken Bellamy has been a leader in that search, at great personal expense. He is not a scientist. He is an inventor. A practical innovator,” says Michael Kiely. “That doesn't put anyone above the law.”
FOOTNOTES
1. “The science now tells us that it will be next to impossible for nations to achieve the scale of reductions required in sufficient time to avoid dangerous climate change unless we also remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it in vegetation and soils…The power of terrestrial carbon to contribute to the climate change solution is profound.”- “Optimising Carbon in the Australian Landscape” - Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, October 2009
2. ‘The technical potential of carbon sequestration in world soils may be 2 billion to 3 billion mt per year for the next 50 years. Thus, the potential of carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation together is equivalent to a draw-down of about 50 parts per million of atmospheric CO2 by 2100.’ - Rattan Lal (lal.1@osu.edu) is Director of the Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Center and Professor of Soil Science in the School of Environment and Natural Resources.
3.http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/carbon-offset.aspx “The National Carbon Offset Standard provides Australian businesses, particularly farmers, with the opportunity to develop offset credits for voluntary carbon markets. These opportunities include offsets from increased soil carbon and from other land-based emissions sources.”
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
"You get CASH!" Minister Burke"You get cash!" Burke pledges soil carbon credits
The Minister Tony Burke spoke plain English at the ABARE Conference this week - admitting his Government had failed in telling farmers about the change in policy in November 2009. "If you’re able to improve the amount of carbon in the soil through sequestration, you get cash." Don't punish yourself, Tony. More than half the population out here has stopped listening to politicians and scientists with degrees in anything approximating climate studies.
"How does all of this come back to the farmer? ...what it actually means for someone on their own property. Inputs – fertiliser price, chemical price, unchanged. Fuel price goes up, fully offset by a relay. Electricity prices do go up. And there’s a direct line of money to help people with the cash to be able to move to lower energy use for their electricity with a particular focus on meat process, dairy and malt.... For emissions Agriculture [is one of] the only sections of the Australian economy where we ignore the emissions, ignore them completely. Even if they go up, we ignore them. The only section of the Australian economy where it did that.
"But if you’re able to reduce your emissions through abatement, you get cash.
"If you’re able to improve the amount of carbon in the soil through sequestration, you get cash.
"Now people can do their own sums as to what sort of deal that would end up being for farmers. But simply inputs roughly the same, cost of emissions completely ignored, opportunities for new lines of income created. That is the legislation in its final form."
"How does all of this come back to the farmer? ...what it actually means for someone on their own property. Inputs – fertiliser price, chemical price, unchanged. Fuel price goes up, fully offset by a relay. Electricity prices do go up. And there’s a direct line of money to help people with the cash to be able to move to lower energy use for their electricity with a particular focus on meat process, dairy and malt.... For emissions Agriculture [is one of] the only sections of the Australian economy where we ignore the emissions, ignore them completely. Even if they go up, we ignore them. The only section of the Australian economy where it did that.
"But if you’re able to reduce your emissions through abatement, you get cash.
"If you’re able to improve the amount of carbon in the soil through sequestration, you get cash.
"Now people can do their own sums as to what sort of deal that would end up being for farmers. But simply inputs roughly the same, cost of emissions completely ignored, opportunities for new lines of income created. That is the legislation in its final form."
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
PERSISTENCE
“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan "press on" has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race”
Calvin Coolidge
Calvin Coolidge
ABBOTT SERIOUS ABOUT SOIL?
Dale Enerson, Director of the US National Farmers Union's Carbon Credit Program asked us about the Abbott soil carbon proposal: "Supposedly there would not be trading, but a set price by the government?" He is right. It is not trading, sos the price mechanism will not operate.
The Abbott Model for soil carbon is too sketchy to judge properly, but there are some fundamentals you cannot overlook:
1. The “Practical Action” strategy is Howard-like. When the electorate want something that you don’t believe in, do something trivial but visible to make them think something serious is being done.
2. As part of such a strategy, soil carbon might not last beyond the first term of an Abbott Government in its Government-funded form. There is no doubting the sincerity of Greg Hunt, shadow minister for Climate Change. He believes Climate Change is real.
3. A Market is the best form of incentive reward because it lasts beyond the next election, it is something farmers know and appreciate, and it offers a farmer more dignity to be paid for what they grow instead of getting Government handout money.
IS A MARKET NECESSARY AT ALL?
To achieve our goals for the planet, we need 85% of the agricultural lands involved in sustainable land management practices. The trade is not the main game. It is the attention-getter. It is the behaviour change device. But the main game is not just behaviour change for a period on a plot. It is culture change. This comes when a farmer learns how it feels to work in a carbon rich environment. And comes to understand the co-benefits – healthy soils, fertility, lower inputs, water efficiency, productivity, etc.
The Abbott Model for soil carbon is too sketchy to judge properly, but there are some fundamentals you cannot overlook:
1. The “Practical Action” strategy is Howard-like. When the electorate want something that you don’t believe in, do something trivial but visible to make them think something serious is being done.
2. As part of such a strategy, soil carbon might not last beyond the first term of an Abbott Government in its Government-funded form. There is no doubting the sincerity of Greg Hunt, shadow minister for Climate Change. He believes Climate Change is real.
3. A Market is the best form of incentive reward because it lasts beyond the next election, it is something farmers know and appreciate, and it offers a farmer more dignity to be paid for what they grow instead of getting Government handout money.
IS A MARKET NECESSARY AT ALL?
To achieve our goals for the planet, we need 85% of the agricultural lands involved in sustainable land management practices. The trade is not the main game. It is the attention-getter. It is the behaviour change device. But the main game is not just behaviour change for a period on a plot. It is culture change. This comes when a farmer learns how it feels to work in a carbon rich environment. And comes to understand the co-benefits – healthy soils, fertility, lower inputs, water efficiency, productivity, etc.
RISK MANAGEMENT - COLLECTIVE SELF-INSURANCE
Contrary to the mythunderstandings spread like superphosphate on a windy day by people who do not understand the structure and dynamics of markets, no soil carbon trading program forces the individual farmer to carry the risk of carbon lost to fire, drought, etc. The CCX and its affiliates use a "Buffer Pool" of credits. For every 5 tonnes of CO2-e a farmer submits in the CCX world, only 4 can be sold. 20% are retained in a vault, never to be sold, as a surety against catastrophic or man-made losses. To reflect the increased danger of bushfire and drought in Australia, the Prime Carbon system puts one tonne in the vault for every tonne sold. The farmer is therefore part of a large collective self-insurance system. The International Federation of Agricultural Producers calls it a "collective persistence" -our version of The Permanence Principle is as dynamic as Carbon itself.
WHAT MARKET IS THAT?
There are 4 markets available or coming available: 1. The “Cap and Trade” Compliance Market. That will commence when and if the Government is successful getting the CPRS passed by Parliament. “Compliance” because companies covered by the legislation must reduce their emissions to the level of the “Cap” or buy offsets. 2. The Regulated Voluntary Market. This market is to be used by companies and consumers wanting to voluntarily abate their emissions. It is regulated by a series of standards. Australia should have its first official voluntary market standard by July 2010. 3. The Unregulated Voluntary market. Buyer and seller come to a mutually agreeable arrangement. In the case of farm soil credits, the volumes tend to be small and the purchase deemed a form of ‘sponsorship’ by buyers, atype . 4. The Chicago Climate Exchange, Chicago, Ill. We took an order for 25,000 acres in 2006 and we are still waiting on the science.
WHAT DO GROWERS THINK?
When the Government and the Opposition made their recent announcements about soil carbon, nobody thought to ask farmers about the price they are expected to accept. Prices from $5 and $8 a tonne for CO2 stored in soil have been floated – but farmers we have consulted so far say these prices as not sufficient to cover the risk. Carbon Farmers of Australia are conducting a series of 2-day workshops which prepare the farmers to trade and at the same time canvass their views on such issues as price. They are in Tamworth on 16th-17th February, and Bungendore at Mulloon Creek on 23rd-24th the week afterwards, having already met with farmers in Dubbo, Wagga Wagga, Young and Moree. We are in Queensland after that – Biloela 9th-10th March and Ayr 15th-16th March.
The Minister for Agriculture Tony Burke told us that he was very pleased to hear that these meetings are being held and farmers are learning about the benefits of soil carbon.
Under the National Carbon Offset Standard, released last December by the Commonwealth Government, the market can open from July this year.
Carbon Farmers of Australia intends to have a program up and running in the Voluntary Market by then. Carbon Farmers is a not-for-profit ‘growers’ service association’. Services will include education, information, advice. It is a continuation of the work we have been doing as Convenors of the Carbon Coalition to win for farmers the right to trade soil carbon. We are woolgrowers from near Wellington, NSW. The 2-day “Boot Camp” is Farm Ready Approved which means that farmers may be eligible to be fully reimbursed for the cost which is $550 (incl. GST.) The workshop takes participants through the A-to-Z of Carbon, Soil Carbon, How to Grow it and sell it and hold onto it. A copy of the book Practical Carbon Farming, is given to each attendee.
Call (02) 6374 0329
The Minister for Agriculture Tony Burke told us that he was very pleased to hear that these meetings are being held and farmers are learning about the benefits of soil carbon.
Under the National Carbon Offset Standard, released last December by the Commonwealth Government, the market can open from July this year.
Carbon Farmers of Australia intends to have a program up and running in the Voluntary Market by then. Carbon Farmers is a not-for-profit ‘growers’ service association’. Services will include education, information, advice. It is a continuation of the work we have been doing as Convenors of the Carbon Coalition to win for farmers the right to trade soil carbon. We are woolgrowers from near Wellington, NSW. The 2-day “Boot Camp” is Farm Ready Approved which means that farmers may be eligible to be fully reimbursed for the cost which is $550 (incl. GST.) The workshop takes participants through the A-to-Z of Carbon, Soil Carbon, How to Grow it and sell it and hold onto it. A copy of the book Practical Carbon Farming, is given to each attendee.
Call (02) 6374 0329
The Money In Soil Carbon
Q.: Is there any money in soil carbon? YES. A Carbon Farmer can earn as little as $10 per hectare or as much as $900 per hectare, according to experts.
Here we use 3 price predictions: $5/tonne CO2-e (used by two parties preparing trading systems), $10/tonne CO2-e (the Abbott proposal) and $30/tonne CO2-e (the Government’s proposal, as reported by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists).
And we use 3 ‘average tonnages possible’: 2tonnes, 5-to-10tonnes, and 30tonnes. The following scenarios take their tonnages from several respected sources:
2 TONNES CO2-e/ha/yr – Chan, YN (changed cropping methods - unpublished) to Garnaut Review; Grace, Peter, et al., 2004 – changed cropping in south east Australia (Grace, P.R., Antle, J., Aggarwal, P.K., Andren, O., Ogle, S., Conant, R., Longmire, J., Ashkalov, K., Baethgen, W.E., Valdivia, R. & Paustian, K. 2004, Assessment of the Costs and Enhance Global Potential of Carbon Sequestration in Soil, IEA/CON/03/95.)
5-10 TONNES CO2-e/ha/yr - Christine Jones, personal communication, to Garnaut Review; Wiley, Tim, WA Food & Agriculture personal communication, to Garnaut Review; Prime Carbon Assisted Land Management Change Program
30 TONNES CO2-e/ha/yr Christine Jones, personal communication, to Garnaut Review (ideal conditions)
NB: The following figures are gross revenue, with no allowance for costs and fees. These should not amount to more than 10% of gross.
At $5 a tonne:
• At 2 tonnes CO2-e/hectare/year, the grower could earn
the princely sum of $10/ha – or $1500 for 150 ha.
• At 10 tonnes CO2-e/hectare/year, the grower could earn
$50/ha – or $6500 for 150 ha.
• At 30 tonnes CO2-e/hectare/year, the grower could earn
$150/ha – or $22500 for 150 ha.
Per annum.
At $10 a tonne:
• At 2 tonnes CO2-e/hectare/year, the grower could earn $20/ha – or $3000 for 150 ha.
• At 10 tonnes CO2-e/hectare/year, the grower could earn $100/ha – or $15000 for 150 ha.
• At 30 tonnes CO2-e/hectare/year, the grower could earn $300/ha – or $45000 for 150 ha.
Per annum.
At $30 a tonne:
• At 2 tonnes CO2-e/hectare/year, the grower could earn $60/ha – or $9500 for 150 ha.
• At 10 tonnes CO2-e/hectare/year, the grower could earn $300ha – $45000 for 150 ha
• At 30 tonnes CO2-e/hectare/year, the grower could earn $900/ha – or $135,000 for 150 ha.
Per annum.
NB. These figures are before costs and risk management contributions to buffer pools, etc.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Farmers to “own” soil carbon trading
Farmers can only avoid the sharks in the coming soil carbon market if they take control of it for themselves, says farmers’ group Carbon Farmers of Australia. They can take advantage of the early notice of the coming market in soil carbon to join with other farmers to form trading ‘groups’ and stand their ground on price.
“When the Government and the Opposition made their announcements about soil carbon, nobody thought to ask farmers about the price they are expected to accept,” says Carbon Farmers’ Director Michael Kiely. “Prices from $5 and $8 a tonne for CO2 stored in soil have been floated – but farmers we have consulted so far say these prices as not covering the risk they are expected to take.”
“To get the uptake by farmers the country needs to tackle the CO2 problem, prices will have to start at $25-$30,” says Kiely. Carbon Farmers are conducting a series of 2-day workshops which prepare the farmers to trade in the Prime Carbon system and at the same time canvass their views on such issues as price. They are in Tamworth on 16th-17th February, and Bungendore the week afterwards, having already met with farmers in Dubbo, Wagga Wagga, Young and Moree.
“The Minister for Agriculture Tony Burke told us that he was very pleased to hear that these meetings are being held and farmers are learning about the benefits of soil carbon,” says Michael Kiely.
Under the National Carbon Offset Standard, released last December by the Commonwealth Government, the market can open from July this year. The only program ready to go is run by Prime Carbon which has submitted its system to the Government for approval. “Carbon Farmers of Australia is a not-for-profit ‘growers’ representative. We advise the grower and represent them in disputes and negotiations, if necessary,” says Kiely, who with his wife and fellow Director Louisa have campaigned for four years as Convenors of the Carbon Coalition to win for farmers the right to trade soil carbon. They are woolgrowers from near Wellington, NSW.
The 2-day “Boot Camp” is Free To Farmers (Farm Ready Approved) which means that farmers are fully reimbursed for the cost which is $555 (incl. GST.) The workshop takes participants through the A-to-Z of Carbon, Soil Carbon, How to Grow it and sell it and hold onto it. A copy of the book Practical Carbon Farming is given to each attendee.
Call (02) 6374 0329
“When the Government and the Opposition made their announcements about soil carbon, nobody thought to ask farmers about the price they are expected to accept,” says Carbon Farmers’ Director Michael Kiely. “Prices from $5 and $8 a tonne for CO2 stored in soil have been floated – but farmers we have consulted so far say these prices as not covering the risk they are expected to take.”
“To get the uptake by farmers the country needs to tackle the CO2 problem, prices will have to start at $25-$30,” says Kiely. Carbon Farmers are conducting a series of 2-day workshops which prepare the farmers to trade in the Prime Carbon system and at the same time canvass their views on such issues as price. They are in Tamworth on 16th-17th February, and Bungendore the week afterwards, having already met with farmers in Dubbo, Wagga Wagga, Young and Moree.
“The Minister for Agriculture Tony Burke told us that he was very pleased to hear that these meetings are being held and farmers are learning about the benefits of soil carbon,” says Michael Kiely.
Under the National Carbon Offset Standard, released last December by the Commonwealth Government, the market can open from July this year. The only program ready to go is run by Prime Carbon which has submitted its system to the Government for approval. “Carbon Farmers of Australia is a not-for-profit ‘growers’ representative. We advise the grower and represent them in disputes and negotiations, if necessary,” says Kiely, who with his wife and fellow Director Louisa have campaigned for four years as Convenors of the Carbon Coalition to win for farmers the right to trade soil carbon. They are woolgrowers from near Wellington, NSW.
The 2-day “Boot Camp” is Free To Farmers (Farm Ready Approved) which means that farmers are fully reimbursed for the cost which is $555 (incl. GST.) The workshop takes participants through the A-to-Z of Carbon, Soil Carbon, How to Grow it and sell it and hold onto it. A copy of the book Practical Carbon Farming is given to each attendee.
Call (02) 6374 0329
Can the globe afford modern science?
"We often say in science that eminence is measured by the length of time progress is held up by a scientist's ideas." (James Loveock, The Revenge of Gaia)
The National Carbon Offset Standard released in December was not a standard that described how we could trade soil C. It was a plea for help. How long will we have to wait for the Government to realise that science will never provide a workable trading mechanism because science cannot, has not and will not create such a thing. it is against its nature to do so. The process of science is not to simplify but to complicate. The needs of a market is simplicity and averaging. The market needs low cost solutions to weights and measures issues. Science cannot supply them and therefore says they can't and won't ever exist. Science would rather see the trade not occur than suggest less than pristine mechanism.
Will the Minister have the courage to tell Dr Brian Keating - director of CSIRO's new Sustainable Agriculture Flagship - that we are dealing with an emergency that could destroy civilisation. We don't need to be told that "the science is not advanced enough to confirm that whether this abatement could be achieved in practice." Can we do nothing until the CSIRO says we can?
There is little possibility that the CSIRO will be able to do anything more than confirm the beliefs of the scientists, such as that expressed by Dr Jeff Baldock in The Land: "A CSIRO soil carbon expert, Dr Jeffrey Baldock, said that while the technology had enormous potential in Australia, it was hard to measure and retain carbon stored in soil over a large area." The phenomenon of scientists being unable to verify what farmers on the ground are finding was demonstrated in a paper called Production-Oriented Conservative-Impact Grazing Management. It was prepared for a WA Department of Agriculture workshop in 2002, by Professor Ben Norton. He points out that the majority of published research studies of rotational grazing find that continuous grazing is better than or comparable to rotational grazing in terms of either animal or plant production. Yet “Hundreds of graziers on three continents claim that their livestock production has increased by half or doubled or even tripled following the implementation of rotational grazing…”
The Parable of the Space Pen illustrates the point: During the Space Race the AMericans spent US$25m developing a titanium biro that could write in weightless conditions (There was a Seinfeld episode featuring a Space Pen.) The Russians achieved the same result for a few cents. They equiped their cosmonauts with a pencil each.
The National Carbon Offset Standard released in December was not a standard that described how we could trade soil C. It was a plea for help. How long will we have to wait for the Government to realise that science will never provide a workable trading mechanism because science cannot, has not and will not create such a thing. it is against its nature to do so. The process of science is not to simplify but to complicate. The needs of a market is simplicity and averaging. The market needs low cost solutions to weights and measures issues. Science cannot supply them and therefore says they can't and won't ever exist. Science would rather see the trade not occur than suggest less than pristine mechanism.
Will the Minister have the courage to tell Dr Brian Keating - director of CSIRO's new Sustainable Agriculture Flagship - that we are dealing with an emergency that could destroy civilisation. We don't need to be told that "the science is not advanced enough to confirm that whether this abatement could be achieved in practice." Can we do nothing until the CSIRO says we can?
There is little possibility that the CSIRO will be able to do anything more than confirm the beliefs of the scientists, such as that expressed by Dr Jeff Baldock in The Land: "A CSIRO soil carbon expert, Dr Jeffrey Baldock, said that while the technology had enormous potential in Australia, it was hard to measure and retain carbon stored in soil over a large area." The phenomenon of scientists being unable to verify what farmers on the ground are finding was demonstrated in a paper called Production-Oriented Conservative-Impact Grazing Management. It was prepared for a WA Department of Agriculture workshop in 2002, by Professor Ben Norton. He points out that the majority of published research studies of rotational grazing find that continuous grazing is better than or comparable to rotational grazing in terms of either animal or plant production. Yet “Hundreds of graziers on three continents claim that their livestock production has increased by half or doubled or even tripled following the implementation of rotational grazing…”
The Parable of the Space Pen illustrates the point: During the Space Race the AMericans spent US$25m developing a titanium biro that could write in weightless conditions (There was a Seinfeld episode featuring a Space Pen.) The Russians achieved the same result for a few cents. They equiped their cosmonauts with a pencil each.
Don't let's wait another 10 years
Imagine what Australia would be like if all the farms and land holdings had been managed as carbon farms for the past 10 years. Carbon rich soil, good ground cover, well-established vegetation, moisture retained in the landscape for far longer, less erosion, heathier soil microbes hard at work manufacturing more carbon and making more nutrients available for plants to grow. The cooling influence of vegetation sees microclimates joining microclimates and expanding to include districts and regions, forging feedback loops that cascade through mineral and energy cycles, unleashing processes long hidden that have unanticipated impact on production and productivity. And all the while this same vegetation and soil are extracting vast amounts of 'the airborne fraction' - the Legacy Load, the CO2 and other greenhouse gases that are the real cause of the climate chaos battering our planet. Imagine your own version of that. Then think what the place will be like if we have to wait another 10 years for carbon farming to become widespread. If the doubters and delayers get their way. If its 'too hard' to try. If the cynics and the deniers win. Then we lose hope. And all we have left is despair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
