Breaking the 100 Years barrier (25 is better)

"The Coalition... says it's committed to repealing the carbon tax, but supports the Carbon Farming Initiative and will honour carbon credits earned under the scheme," reported ABC Radio earlier this week. In fact, shadow environment minister Greg Hunt says, in Government, he would look to expand the Initiative. Greg says it's not reasonable to expect farmers to lock up areas of land for carbon sequestration for 100 years in order to earn credits.

"Our view is we will work to make a 25-year approach... It's a view which is almost universal across the sector that a quarter of a century, which is still a long time, is realistic, it allows people to long-term investments, but it's not binding beyond the lifetime of one particular farm."

We believe in the principle of healthy diversity and ‘let the market decide’. We advocate a plurality of offerings: 100 Year contract, 25 Year contract, 5 Year renewable contracts – renewable 4 times. The latter is the most acceptable to farmers, according to our research. However prices are likely to be lower at this end of the continuum.

We have long advocated the logic of a shorter option for the Permanence requirement because:

• No sane farmer would sign a contract for 100 Years with all the uncertainties and penalties associated with soil carbon as it has been presented;

• Soil Carbon sequestration can play an important interim role in the next 50 years while renewable energy sources grow to baseload capacity, according to prominent scientists

• The 100 Years period is not scientifically significant; it is not the time it takes for a molecule of CO2 to cycle out of the atmosphere. It was selected as a convenient period for comparing the warming potential of different greenhouse gases.

• 100 Years was chosen supposedly to equalise offsets based on sequestration with offsets based on avoided emissions. But the permanence of the avoided combustion of a tonne of coal via the use of renewable energy has been questioned on the grounds that there is no guarantee that the tonne of coal won't be dug up and burnt at a later date.

• The co-benefits of soil carbon are so many and so beneficial, including reducing the need for chemical inputs and suppressing disease in crops, according to the latest reports.

Onwards!

Carbon Sunday: Judgement Day?

On a day in October 1844 in Ithaca, New York, a Baptist Minister and his parishioners gave away all their belongings and climbed to high places - hills, treetops, roofs-  -  to wait for the Second Coming. The Minister had calculated the day from the Book of Daniel. admitted that he'd made a mistake and recalculated a new date. The new date came and went. These good folk did not question their beliefs. They simply called the day The Great Disappointment and formed a religion: The Seventh Day Adventists. Fast forward 168 years. Today is Carbon Sunday. It could be a day of Celebration ora day of Calami. It depends upon belief that looks, smells and feels like religious belief.  Most people know very little about Global Warming. Only a tiny number are scientists. An even smaller number are genuine climate scientists. The rest of us can't spend the time studying the subject, so we have got to take someone's word for it. It's Blind Faith. How we feel about Climate Change will reflect how we feel about politics and religion. Fear and irrational beliefs create their own impulsion. Populations 'catch' them from each other. Both sides don't want facts except those that confirm our beliefs. They cant hear the other side's facts. The Deniers denied that Climate Change was happening... until it became too obvious. So they agreed it was happening, but denied CO2 was the cause. The Alarmists blamed it on "warming" until it appeared to be cooling at the same time. So they shifted to climate chaos. It's human nature to pick another date. And to climb up a tree. Happy Carbon Sunday.

Carbon increases create miracle soils: GRDC

They call them “suppressive” soils because they suppress disease in crops. Scientists are racing to find out why. But they know 2 things: 1.  Soil microbes are responsible for them. 2. Soil carbon increases are the key. And  “There are soils right across the country where the incidence or severity of disease is suppressed, even in the presence of the pathogen that causes it, a host plant and a favourable environment,”  says Associate Professor Pauline Mele, LaTrobe University and principal research scientist, Department of Primary Industries Victoria (DPI).

“These disease-suppressive soils have been found to develop under management practices that supply higher levels of carbon inputs for more than five consecutive years. The carbon from plant roots and crop residues is biologically available and provides an important food source for soil biota, ” says CSIRO’s Dr Gupta Vadakattu in GRDC’s GroundCover 96 Soil Biology Supplement.

Disease suppression is the result of increased species density among microbial communities in soils associated with increased carbon levels. We know that, when soil carbon levels are rising, biodiversity increases and this has the effect of increasing resilience (or disease resistance). “We know the effect is due to the presence of a diverse range of ‘good’ micro-organisms,” says Professor Mele.

Three facts Dr Mele mentioned provide further evidence that soil carbon is a key influence:

1. Balance in the microbial  community is critical: “upsetting the balance or sterilising the soil can cause the disease to strike with a vengeance”.

2. It is not soil type specific; it could therefore be a soil health agent – such as carbon – that is at work: “ we believe every soil has the potential to be suppressive”

3. It is a feature of soil heavily influenced by a farmer’s management practices: “it’s just a matter of working out what management techniques will encourage it.”

The fact that a microbial community is a natural system and such systems exhibit ‘emergent properties’ as they become more complex. It is not one variable at work. However, reductionist science tends to look for the single factor. However the Professor says, “At this stage, though, we’re still trying to identify exactly what organisms, or combination of organisms, are doing the work.”

 “HIGH rainfall zone (HRZ) grain growers stand to increase yields and save significant amounts of money on chemicals, if the secrets of suppressive soils can be unlocked,” reports The Land. Growers lose an estimated $250 million each year from root lesion nematodes alone. “Soil biology is tipped to be the ‘next big thing’ in terms of productivity gains and a five-year research program is currently being funded by the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) to address some of the knowledge gaps.” Having poured scorn on soil biology as “snake oil” and ‘witches brew’ for so long, the GRDC’s epiphany is welcome.

“The soil biological resource under our feet is seen as something of the ‘last frontier’ for the grains industry… We know it’s about competition for resources. If we create a habitat that favours one type of soil microbe, say through repeated use of the same management practice such as addition of fertiliser or sowing the same plant types, the community may end up with fewer types of biota present; thereby reducing the resilience of the system,” says Professor Mele.

The writing is on the wall for chemical companies. “Using biological suppression to reduce crop losses, without chemicals or with minimum chemical input, could improve the profitability of growers worldwide,” says the Professor.                                      

More information about the Soil Biology Initiative II is available at www.grdc.com.au/soilbiology. Research partners include the Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DPI Vic), Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestries (DAFF), Department of Agriculture and Food WA (DAFWA), and CSIRO.  

The Earth's Not Flat and All Carbon Cycles

THE VAULT vs THE HOLDING BAY

There is a battle between the belief that only stable fractions of soil carbon can be traded and the belief that only Total Carbon is necessary. The outcome will determine whether agricultural soils can achieve the dramatic levels of “drawdown” of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases claimed by those who believe soil carbon can be a “secure bridge to the future”.

The Fixed Molecule Theory Vs The Cycling Molecule Theory

The Fixed Molecule Theory: “Carbon is sequestered in soil when rendered immobile in the form of stable fractions such as humus. Carbon held temporarily in labile fractions cannot be said to be sequestered because it is oxidised in a short time.
“Therefore only carbon stored in soil as humus can be counted towards a farmer’s tradable tonneages of stored carbon.”
Such a restraint would reduce the incentive for landholders to revert and lose the benefits to society of the sequestration.

The Cycling Molecule Theory: Carbon by its nature cycles.
The Carbon Cycle is fundamental to life on Earth.
All forms of Carbon are cycling between sink and source.
These cycles vary in length of time, some very short, some very long, depending on the nature of the sink.
No sink is permanent.
All sinks act like ‘holding bays’ - some hold Carbon Molecules for centuries and some for seconds.

Climate Change is caused by imbalance in the cycles: ie. too much carbon is being held in the Atmosphere and not enough in other sinks. Carbon sequestration occurs when the Carbon Cycle is adjusted to delay its transition from one sink to another.
When Carbon is captured by Vegetation and becomes a component of soil it enters a ‘holding bay’.
Sequestration takes place when the amount Carbon in the holding bay increases and that increase is maintained.
The volume of Carbon in the holding bay is not affected by the rate of C atoms escaping so long as the rate of C atoms arriving remains equivalent or greater.
If the rate of arrivals is equal to the rate of departures, Carbon is said to be in a “steady state”.
If the rate of arrivals exceeds that of departures, Carbon is said to be sequestered.
If the rate of arrivals falls short of the rate of departures, Carbon is said to be emitted.
Therefore the key to sequestration in soil is not the individual molecule but the representative value of a molecule.
Increases in “Molecular Value” can be created by changing land management practices.
These changes can start with:
Ceasing to cause losses of Carbon from soil.
Ie., refraining from baring the soil by ploughing, burning, overgrazing.

Change Land Management
50% of Australia’s top soil has been lost in 200 years of conventional land management
75% of Organic Carbon has been lost at the same time
By changing to a neutral position - not emitting/not sequestering (steady state) - the land manager has made a positive contribution in ‘foregone emissions’.
The ‘holding bay’ contains more Carbon.

The Impact of Time
The act of changing land management has one impact on the holding bay.
The effect of time on the process has another impact.
Ie. Planned grazing uses the movement of animals to increase the efficiency of the conversion of sunlight into vegetation. The effect of even grazing, even distribution of dung, and the tilling effect of hooves in concentrated areas - combined with long recovery periods - is a gradual increase in fertility and biological activity until a tipping point is reached and vegetation and soil condition improve rapidly. These indicate increases in Carbon levels.

The Bucket Theory

The Bucket Theory of Soil Carbon Sequestration holds that Carbon levels can ONLY be increased by the addition of Organic Matter of the type known as ‘shoot dry matter’, ie. leaf litter. As such, the claim by leading Carbon Farmers to have increased their soil carbon from 2% to 4% in 10 years is technically impossible.
.This is incorrect. Increased Organic Matter does nurture micro-organisms which manufacture soil carbon. But there are at least three other ways to increase carbon in soils:
1. Microbial balancing;
2. Rhizodeposition; and
3. Phototrophism (or in-soil photosynthesis).


The amount of organic carbon in soil is a balance between the build-up which comes from inputs of new plant and animal material and the constant losses where the carbon is decomposed and the constituents separate to mineral nutrients and gases, or are washed or leached away. This theory limits the amount of carbon a soil can sequester to a theoretical ceiling of dry shoot biomass introduced into the soil.
Microbial communities are at their most effective when they are balanced. When one or several links in the chain are missing, the processes of decomposition and photosynthesis can never be fully effective. Just as a football team with several positions unmanned cannot hope to score. Inoculating soil with the missing members of the community is like putting players into empty positions. The effectiveness of the team is increased by an order of magnitude.

Rhizodeposition: For many plants as much as 30–50% of the C fixed in photosynthesis is initially translocated below-ground. It is estimated that the ratio of SOC derived from below-ground plant C to that derived from above-ground dry shoot was nearly 2:1 in long-term corn plots.*
In fact, corn may translocate more to the soil from below- than above-ground. And below-ground plant C is the major source for conversion into more stable forms of SOC.**
In soil photosynthesis: There is a class of microbial life called ‘autotrophic’ or ‘phototrophic’ that do not rely on Organic Matter for their sustenance. They use solar energy to grow via the process of photosynthesis. Cyanobacteria and Algae are examples.
These add Carbon independently of other processes. Autotrophic bacteria obtain their energy from sunlight (by photosynthesis) or the oxidation of ammonium, sulfur, and iron. They get their carbon from carbon dioxide.
• phototrophic cyanobacteria
• green sulfur-bacteria
• some purple bacteria
• many chemolithotrophic species, such as nitrifying or sulfur-oxidising bacteria.***
Many species of algae live in soils and photosynthesise their carbon as plants do.
Increased microbial activity automatically means increased methane emissions as the microbes die.
Increased microbial activity also means increased carbon production.
A landholder can manage their soil for microbes (ie. bacteria-dominance vs fungi-dominance).
The logic behind the Molecular Value Theory supports the contention that only Total Carbon is necessary or trading purposes.
Focus on fractions has several negative outcomes: It complicates the process of measurement. It makes measurement more expensive. It denies the landholder the right to sell sequestered carbon. It delays the commencement of trading and the benefits to society of biosequestration.
Total Carbon at Point In Time B MINUS Total Carbon at Point In Time A = Carbon Sequestered For Purpose of Trade.
Total Carbon is all that is needed for trade.

*John M. Baker,, Tyson E. Ochsner a,b, Rodney T. Venterea, Timothy J. Griffis, Tillage and soil carbon sequestration—What do we really know? Commentary, 2006 Christophe Nguyen, Rhizodeposition of organic C by plants: mechanisms and controls, Agronomie 23 (2003) 375-396
**Modeling the incorporation of corn (Zea mays L.) carbon from roots and rhizodeposition into soil organic matter
J.A.E. Molinaa, C.E. Clappb, D.R. Lindenb, R.R. Allmarasb, M.F. Layeseb, R.H. Dowdyb, H.H. Cheng Soil Biology & Biochemistry 33 (2001) 83–92
***Hellingwerf K, Crielaard W, Hoff W, Matthijs H, Mur L, van Rotterdam B (1994). "Photobiology of bacteria". Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 65 (4): 33147. doi:10.1007/BF00872217. PMID 7832590.

Dark satanic windmills?

Several months ago we were informed that 300+ wind turbines were going to be erected on the hilltops surrounding our peaceful valley. We had heard it on the grapevine, although those neighbours who had been signed up had been sworn to secrecy. The company crept into our valley and  set neighbour against neighbour.  The good news is that we have heard that several prominent farmers have withdrawn from the deal and that could be the end of it. Wind 'farms' are great on desolate landscapes that make them look like art. But not where people are living their lives. How many wind farm executives live within eyeshot of a wind farm? None? And they wave the results of public opinion surveys that tell us 75% of people like the idea of wind farms. If it is true that there are 900 turbines planned for the stretch between Wellington and Mudgee, and that is repeated in other places, the percentage in favour may slip dramatically. Carbon farming in the shadow of these dark satanic (wind)mills is not Nature's way. PS. Please dont call them 'farms'.

100 Years: it's political, not scientific

Some believe that 100 years is the time it takes for a tonne of CO2 to cycle through the atmosphere. It is not. This is a common misconception. Eg., "The internationally accepted timeframe for ensuring sequestration is equivalent to emissions is 100 years. This is based on the estimated life of one tonne of carbon pollution in the atmosphere." - Carbon Farming Initiative Handbook. (P.17)

Let's ask a scientist:
john.friend@industry.nsw.gov.au wrote

"Regarding your questions about where did I get the "100 year" figure for carbon dioxide and its relation to the issue of permanence. The figure has its origins in the Kyoto protocol. The IPCC have then used 100 year horizon values to compare the other greenhouse gases to carbon dioxide (the IPCC table is here). Regarding a specific reference for the 100 year value, I can't find one. From what I can gather, the rationale behind using 100 years is from this paper which states an "adjustment time" of 50-200 years". This paper actually states that the decay of excess CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be expressed in a single figure, so the 100 year figure seems to be more politically correct than scientifically correct."

Dr John Friend, Leader, Soil and Salinity, Natural Resources Advisory Services, Department of Primary Industries, NSW Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services

“This 100 year timeframe is a policy-determination, not a technical one,” reveals a peer--reviewed report by Pedro Moura Costa and Charlie Wilson.(1) It is a period chosen by the IPCC for calculating the Global Warming Potential of each different Greenhouse Gas compared to CO2. For instance, Nitrous Oxide has a GWP of 298 (ie., one tonne of N2O is equivalent to 298 tonnes of CO2).

Some believe that 100 years is the time it takes for a tonne of CO2 to cycle through the atmosphere. It is not. This takes only 4 years, according to an IPCC Report. “The turnover time of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it, is about 4 years. This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean.” (2.) However, it can take far longer for the atmosphere to adjust to the new levels of CO2, up to 200 years. (3.)

The EcoSecurities analysts calculate that removing a tonne of CO2 and holding it for 55 years is sufficient to counteract its effect on Global Warming. The IPCC uses 20, 100 and 500 year periods in much of its analysis. “The Kyoto Protocol set the time horizon against which [GWPs] are to be determined at 100 years (addendum to the Protocol, Decision 2/CP.3, para. 3)." (4.)

"To be consistent, it can be implied therefore that the Protocol also requires the benefits of sequestration in counteracting the radiative forcing effects of CO2 emissions to be evaluated over a 100 year time horizon. Any uncertainties derive from both this choice of time horizon, as well as future scenarios of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, are not technically driven but rather are a natural consequence of ‘arbitrary’ policy selections.”

“Functional Permanence”

Clearly, there is no definition of Permanence for Biosequestration that is dictated by Scientific Fact. The periods quoted range from 4 years to ‘forever’, with points of 20, 50, 55, 100, 200 and 500 years in between. The choice of 100 Years appears to have been a function of the need to find a scale on which to compare the Global Warming Potential of various Greenhouse Gases. Its choice as a time horizon took place as part of the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocols and was based on functional considerations. One function – the engagement of farmers in soil carbon sequestration activities – was overlooked.

FOOTNOTES:
(1.) Pedro Moura Costa and Charlie Wilson, An equivalence factor between CO2 avoided emissions and sequestration – description and applications in forestry, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Volume 5, Number 1, 51-60
(2.) Watson, R.T., Rodhe, H., Oeschger, H. and Siegenthaler, U. 1990. Greenhouse gases and aerosols. In IPCC Report No 1, World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, Cambridge University Press.
(3.) “This short time scale must not be confused with the time it takes tor the atmospheric CO2 level to adjust to a new equilibrium if sources or sinks change This adjustment time… is of the order of 50 - 200 years, determined mainly by the slow exchange of carbon between surface waters and the deep ocean.” ibid
(4.) "Reaffirms that global warming potentials used by Parties should be those provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Second Assessment Report (“1995 IPCC GWP values”) based on the effects of the greenhouse gases over a 100-year time horizon, taking into account the inherent and complicated uncertainties involved in global warming potential estimates. In addition, for information purposes only, Parties may also use another time horizon, as provided in the Second Assessment Report.” IPCC, REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES ON ITS THIRD SESSION, HELD AT KYOTO FROM 1 TO 11 DECEMBER 1997, PART TWO: ACTION TAKEN BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES AT ITS THIRD SESSION, 25 March 1998, P. 31, Decision 2/CP.3

Why measure charcoal in soil?

There's charcoal running across the chart dead straight. It never changes. Why, then, do we measure it at all? It is said to be costly. It takes us no closer to a reliable baseline methodology. That's all we need for trade to commence. Soil Carbon Credits Now!

Soil Carbon baseline ALERT

Farmers involved in Action On The Ground projects which have soil carbon measurement as a key objective should ask their scientific adviser about the baseline measurement methodology you will be using. The requirement that the farm-scale or paddock-scale measurement method used for Action On The Ground be consistent with that used in the SCaRP is confusing. “SCaRP was not set up to baseline carbon contents on paddocks or farms”, Dr Jeff Baldock wrote in a paper published late last year.  So where does that leave you? Ask your scientific adviser the following questions:

1. Do we have a soil carbon baseline methodology that meets the Department's requirements?
2. Do we know if the baseline measurements that we take for this project will be useful for measuring carbon sequestered that we can put towards gaining offsets should they become available?
3. Will our involvement in this project disqualify us from earning soil carbon offsets in future because of the Additionality Integrity Standard? What can we do to avoid this outcome?

Now you can afford to increase soil carbon

One of the biggest puzzles about soil carbon has been solved. In 2008, 5 scientists published a short paper called "The Hidden Cost of Carbon Sequestration".* Many people thought it shot a big hole in any prospect of Soil Carbon trading. Effectively, it made the claim that a farmer could not afford to increase carbon levels in their soils because humus ties up nitrogen and other nutrients needed by plants to grow. The farmer would have to buy extra fertiliser to replace that stolen by the humus and it would cost more to do that than soil carbon trading would pay.  The lead author told me that, based on his paper's argument,  the increases in soil C achieved by leading carbon farmers were doubtful. "

I am aware of Colin Seis's remarkable achievements, and I have wondered 
how he has succeeded in increasing soil organic matter in the topsoil by
 2%. If that increase is largely humus, then it is likely to contain, in 
organically bound form, about 2 tonne/ha of N, 400 kg/ha of P and 300
kg/ha of S.  I puzzle about where such large amounts could have come
 from.

 Regards, 

John Passioura".  Well, now science has solved the puzzle. Free-living nitrogen-fixing bacteria are supplying 75% of the N a 2t/ha cereal wheat paddock in the Mallee uses, according to the Victorian DPI. A 12-year trial found bacteria are delivering 35kg/ha each year. In an intensive cropping regime the organic carbon level rose from 0.80% to 1% between 1997 and 2011. Cropping is usually a carbon-exporting activity. The CSIRO's Dr Margaret Roper has published a review of literature that estimates that the theoretical potential of the contribution of these bacteria is up to 150kgN/ha. The DPI's Ron Sonogan reported the Mallee trials: "Assuming a 0.2% increase in OC each year, this may well have added another 120kg/ha of nitrogen to the system over 14 years." The  widespread shift to no-till and stubble-retention over the last 20 years has increased the carbon inputs which are a key driver for bacterial N2 fixation. Estimates of fixation were set more than 20 years ago and are therefore in need of up-dating, say the scientists. Australian Farm Journal reported the findings earlier this year, proving that the nutrients incorporated in humus don't have to come out of a bag.

*GRDC Groundcover Magazine Issue 76, p.19  (2008)

Don't call it Carbon Farming

They destocked Henbury Station and they’ve locked all 500,000ha of it up, and called it Carbon Farming.  It is the most high-profile example of ‘carbon farming’ but it sends all the wrong messages. Call it “Conservation” or a National Park, but it is not farming. It is simplistic and wrong to say that locking country up will protect it from degradation. The relationship between animals and vegetation is symbiotic when managed for balance. Grazing animals need plants for food. Plants need animals to graze them to prevent loss of groundcover and desertification which occurs when grasses die and oxidise. Plants need animals to disturb the soils around them and incorporate their carbon-rich dung and nitrogen-rich urine into it. Grazing can reduce fuel loads, reducing the severity of wildfires. And grazing is the only way that we can produce food in the rangelands. But not just any old grazing. Balance must be achieved by exposing the plants to grazing only to the point where the plant can easily recover. The roots of the plant need the leaves to be trimmed because they die back and then they return downwards. In each direction - coming and going - the soil microbes are excited by the food that the roots give them. Decomposing roots are partyfood for bacteria, etc. Roots returning by pushing down through the soil release delicious nectar that is also partyfood. The more partyfood we can offer soil microbes, the more they will manufacture the soil carbon which builds fertility, soil stability, water efficiency, biodiversity, and resilience. Destocking is a tactical tool, but it is not a strategy. It is not the presence of animals that is the problem; it is the recovery time allowed to the plant to deploy its leaves for maximum growth and maximum extraction of carbon from the atmosphere through the unique action of photosynthesis.

Is there money in dairy manure methane destruction?

Dairy farmers are caught in a price war between the supermarkets on top of a long term decline in their terms of trade. The new methane destruction opportunity could give many of them a lifeline in the form of a new revenue stream from carbon markets. The economics of methane destruction will dictate its success. The cost to install a system has been variously quoted at anything between $80,000 and $300,000. Many dairy farmers won’t have the money lying around. But there are other questions that need answers: 1. Will the farmer qualify for offsets when they do install a system, and 2. How long into the future will these offsets be available? The uncertainty is caused by the notion of common practice. The Additionality Principle holds that if 5% of farmers in a location or market or environment adopt a practice, the practice is now likely to be taken up for its inherent benefits rather than the incentive of offsets. So the early adopters get offsets, but only until the practice reaches the 5%, after which it is declared common and offsets cease. Australia has around 7000 dairy farms. 75% of them currently use anaerobic ponds. Dairying is location specific. Farms tend to be clustered in districts where soils and rainfall are favourable. The principle of ‘common practice’ only works if the practice has inherent benefits for production or cost reduction. Now piggeries need energy to warm sow stalls, so they can save a lot of money on their electricity bills. Dairies are also big users of electricity. But will that be enough to encourage a farmer unlucky enough to be in the +5% cluster to stump up the cash? “They would have done it anyway” is at best a guess… and a most unscientific method on which to base a plan to save the planet.

Global Warming good for soil carbon traders

GOOD NEWS for farmers who choose to trade soil carbon offsets: Global Warming will increase soil carbon sequestration rates for decades ahead, according to a recent research results summarized by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CO2science.org). As the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase, most plants increase photosynthetic rates to produce greater amounts of biomass. This leads to greater inputs of carbon to the soil from roots, root exudates and dead above-ground plant material. It’s not just about more biomass, either. CO2 enrichment typically reduces decomposition rates of dead plant materials present in soils.  This phenomenon often leads to greater soil carbon sequestration. Scientists have concluded that, in spite of predicted increases in temperature, this stimulation of the below-ground carbon sequestration could exert a negative feed-back on the current rise of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Finally, with more carbon in soils, soil structure and fertility should be improved, providing a positive feedback that further enhances plant growth and soil carbon sequestration. 

Carbon Farming: “Show Me The Money”

“By farmers, for farmers” is our motto. We are farmers. Everything we do and have done in the past 6 years ago to get a market started has been to see farm carbon offsets traded and farmers paid fairly for carbon captured and emissions avoided. Carbon farming is now law. The next task is to make sure farmers will want to get involved. Farmers are saying: “Show Me The Money”. This ‘quick-read report’ tells you about 5 ways we are doing this.

The Money Tree – The first CFI activity available to the average farmer is environmental plantings. To make it easier for landholders to come to grips with this opportunity we are working on a guidebook called The Money Tree which translates the ‘meth’* into simple ‘how to’ language. It looks at the CFI planting opportunity as well as other ways to make money from trees on farm. Out soon.

Opening the Market – Carbon Farmers of Australia has opened an account on an offsets register (Markit Environmental Registry, a robust global registry to provide transparency and credibility) which enables us to assist landholders to sell their offsets. We have also opened an account with the Carbon Trade Exchange so we can purchase offsets on behalf of organizations wanting to ‘go Carbon Neutral’. And we are applying to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to be registered to provide financial services in emissions units.

Soil Carbon Methodology News – Our ‘meth’ has been before the expert panel** and we are working on responding to its requests.  We are almost ready to go back to them, once we have nailed the measurement of methane by fitting in with the National Inventory Report methodology (which is designed to report Australia’s National Greenhouse Accounts to the IPCC rather than to measure one farm’s emissions). We are in touch with others working on other soil carbon meths. And we have been told that ‘the Department’ is developing protocols for measurement of soil carbon. (There are at least 3 scientists working on seperate measurement solutions.) It’s the Holy Grail of soil science. There are some fascinating facts about how wool is measured. (See below.***) The most important feature of our meth is the way it uses the wool industry’s solution to a similar problem to ‘defang’ the 100 Year Rule, which we believe removes a major barrier to farmer involvement.

Positive List News – For a land management activity (such as bioferts or tillage innovations) to be part of a CFI methodology so farmers can use it to earn offset credits it must first be accepted onto the Positive List. This is a list of activities that the Government has accepted as “Additional” (or capable of producing genuine abatement). If the activity can prove that it is not “common practice” (adopted by less than 5% of farmers in a market or location), it could be accepted for the Positive List (so long as it is not on the Negative List). We are assisting several innovators to prepare their submissions because we believe the more options that farmers have, the more farmers will get involved.

Going Carbon Neutral – To help build the market for CFI farm offsets in the voluntary market, we are offering companies wishing to go Carbon Neutral guidance to achieve that goal. Our first client is a bulk haulage company in regional NSW. The process is complex and difficult, but so is everything else to do with the CFI. We have established the baseline, estimated the changes the company will make to reduce emissions, identified the offsets to be purchased to bridge the gap, had a site visit by the verifiers (GHD – one of the world’s leading environmental auditors) and we are responding to their recommendations next week.

Don’t Be Put Off – For every negative you might hear about the CFI there is a positive that is not being mentioned. (See an example below.****) The CFI is about innovation which means solutions to problem. The negative voices are not involved in the CFI processes.  The positive are inside the process, making it better.

Your Questions – There is a lot to be confused about in the CFI, especially in the “show me the money” issues.. Call 02 6374 0329 or email with your questions.

* A ‘meth’ is a methodology or set of rules a farmer must follow to make money from the CFI.

** The DOIC – Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee. In the period between the return of our meth and our response the Interim DOIC has been replaced by the Permanent DOIC, which has at least three new members who have soil/agricultural expertise, including the Chairman Professor Timothy Reeves an international consultant with expertise in the development and extension of sustainable agricultural productions systems and crop-livestock integration. He is a Professorial Fellow at the Melbourne School of Land and Environment, a director of The Future Farm Industries Cooperative Research Centre, was a Senior Expert for the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and was formerly the Director-General of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre. Professor Lynette Abbott is the Vice Dean of the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Science and Professor in the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Western Australia. Dr Tony Press was the Director of the Cooperative Research Centre for the Sustainable Development of Australia’s Tropical Savannas.

*** Like carbon in soil, wool is an extremely variable commodity. A 21 micron wool may have a spread of fibres from 11 microns to 37 microns, according to the Australian Wool Testing Authority. “Wool is an extremely variable commodity and wool testing is used to provide an estimate of its properties based on a sample taken from the bulk. Because wool is variable, no two samples are the same.” To overcome the problem buyers would have wit uncertainty, the industry used a statistical device called the Coefficient of Variation of Diameter. It is a measure of the variation in micron measurements along and between individual fibres, relative to the average (or mean) fibre diameter.” The precision of an individual test result is usually expressed in Confidence Limits. Normally, the precision of a test result is defined in terms of 95% Confidence Limits, i.e., the limits on either side of the "true" result within which you can expect 95% of any repeat measurements to lie.

**** You might get the impression from some presentations about the CFI that the odds are you would be paying back offsets you earned because fire wiped out your trees. The facts are these: Between 2001 and 2005, only 2.5% of Australia’s forests were impacted by wildfire each year. The odds are 37 to 1 of a fire event. The majority of wildfires do not kill the trees. The CFI requires that dead trees be replanted. The odds of that happening are far longer than you’d get on a roughie in the first at Randwick next Saturday, not Black Caviar’s @ $1.10, which is the impression given by some presenters. (For more read Top 15 Questions about the Carbon Farming Initiative.)

Not enough time for action on the ground?

It may have been listed last in the priorities for the Government's Action On The Ground research program when it was launched last year, but soil carbon projects made up 40 of the 60 research trials announced this week. The balance of the projects sharing in $25m released for farmer-driven research focus on nitrogen emissions from soils, methane emissions from stock, a biochar and an algae project in round one of the program covering 2012 to 2015. Action on the Ground is designed to assist the on-farm trial and demonstration of practices and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and/or increase carbon stored in soil. It is an ongoing program that will invest $99 million until 2017. It's to be hoped that the soil carbon projects get round two funding because three years is too short a period to demonstrate soil carbon from scratch. This was pointed out to me by a very senior soil science academic. The same problem faces the Soil Carbon Research Program which was launched in 2009 and is due to report next month. Nevertheless, it is an exciting time for sustainable agriculture.

How to eat an elephant (or engage with the Carbon Farming Initiative)

You eat an elephant one bite at a time. And so it is with the Carbon Farming Initiative. Here is a safety-first path for farmers who want to take advantage for this one-in-a-generation opportunity. It is a toe-in-the-water approach for maximum risk management and learning by doing. Step 1. Trees on farm. Identify a small area that could benefit from planting native trees. It could be a recharge zone causing salt expression further down the slop. It could be a erosion zone that needs to be stablilised. You could chose to plant 10ha-20ha, but make it part of a larger plan for your farm, a plan you could execute as you become more comfortable with the process. Step 2. Reduction in nitrous oxide emissions from fertiliser application. (At least two methodologies should be available later this year.) This can be done in any number of ways: straight reduction in NPK fertiliser; shift to precision application; part-replacement of fertiliser by bioferts; full replacement of fertiliser with biofert. Step 3: Reduction in methane emissions from livestock. (Methodology coming.) Step 4: Soil carbon sequestration. By this time you have had a chance to get used to the culture of the CFI - measuring and reporting on the activities; the concept of 100 Years; the production benefits of soil carbon, etc. You earn instant offsets for the emissions avoidance activities (nitrous oxide and methane) and delayed offsets (eg. 5 years, etc.) for carbon captured and held in vegetation and soils. This is just one example of the way you can take a staged approach to building a carbon farming portfolio. It is entirely voluntary. Your commitment deepens slowly so you can retreat early in the process. As you get closer to it, your elephant will shrink.

Could you be on the Positive List?

Could your product or practice be eligible to appear on the Carbon Farming Initiative Positive List? Companies and individuals who have innovative carbon farming practices or products that reduce emissions or sequester carbon can apply. The benefits for you are these: 1. Being on the Positive List certifies that your product or practice is not common practice and that emissions avoided or sequestered via them have been declared "Additional" by the Minister. 2. Being on the Positive list means your product or practice can be used as part of a 'methodology' for a offsets project under the Carbon Farming Initiative. (The Government recently announced grants to help innovators write up their brilliant products and practices into methodologies (or "meths"), with the help of scientists and other experts. 3. You could earn royalties every time your innovation is used, if you have genuine intellectual property in your "meth". Go to the Positive List page on the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency website, download the Positive List Guidelines and the short Positive List Proposal Form and fill it out. It is easy to be confused. For instance, the Guidelines state that offsets "will not be available for projects that are required by law" in one place, and "activities that are required by law" will be listed "in some circumstances"in another. So, if your product or practice is mandated by regulation, don't let that stop you. Contact the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency on (02) 6159 7000 to ask what those "circumstances" are. The other barrier to listing is "common practice" - ie. if the activity is already widely adopted. It is assumed that once between 10% and 30% of landholders in a location or industry or "environment" have taken up the practice - in order to earn offsets - the balance will adopt it without the incentive of the offsets and therefore the emissions avoided or sequestered resulting would have happened anyway and are therefore not additional. An activity can be uncommon for all sorts of reasons: it is unusual in certain regions; it is unusual on the scale proposed; it is unusual at a particular time; it is a genuine variant of an activity. "The activity must be carefully defined to allow for an accurate assessment of whether or not it is not already common," says the Guidelines. This means you should be very specific defining your activity. It is recommended that you identify a relevant comparison group of non-users to "capture the circumstances in which the activity is uncommon". The Government will be surveying farmers every couple of years to get a picture of penetration of activities. This is important to understand: your activity can be delisted as soon as it looks like being a success. But the benefits of being on the Positive List outweigh the difficulties.

Reds under the bed, on the tractor, and in the shed?

I like the MP for Parkes Mark Coulton. I stood against him when he was first elected in 2007.  He showed he has a fine sense of the hystorical in Parliament on Thursday when he warned farmers to stay away from the Carbon Farming Initiative because it could lead to the failure of Australian agriculture. He announced that farmers had to sign up for the CFI and submit themselves to being told what to do by the government. He's right, of course. Famous failed experiments of state-controlled agriculture led to famine and disaster in the Soviet Union and China and more recently North Korea and Zimbabwe. But Mark need not worry. The CFI is still voluntary. In fact, the CFI wants farmers to tell governments what to do by making their innovations available to other farmers by submitting them to the Positive List. (The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) includes an additionality test to ensure that carbon credits generated by CFI projects can genuinely offset the emissions produced. To pass the additionality test, a project must be on the Positive List.)

Soil carbon calling 42,000 farmers

The Government’s Caring for our Country program has made huge changes already and now it aims to recruit 42 000 farmers to improve soil practices across 70 million hectares by 2013. Trends in the adoption of practices that increase carbon in soils, reduce acidification and erosion are being tracked on 33,000 farms. The targets include 50% to 70% groundcover. The number of graziers monitoring ground cover levels has increased from 70% per cent in 2007–08 to 79% per cent in 2009–10. But those setting groundcover targets decreased from 40% to 31% in the same period. What is to stop a grazier from abandoning their groundcover target and graze their pastures harder when things get tough? It costs to maintain groundcover. That is where soil carbon offsets come in. We need as much land ‘under contract’ for soil carbon sequestration as possible. How? By getting as many graziers engaged in soil carbon sequestration by making the deal more farmer friendly. It’s hard to see a future government putting another $2 billion into research and extension for these issues. Look around you. Where can the money come from? Where it is now. The Big Emitters. King Coal. We stand at a unique time in history, where need and providence collide. What a tragedy if we don't reach out and take it.

The Money Tree

I am currently rushing to finish writing a book called "The Money Tree: How To Make Money Today From The Carbon Farming Initiative" which reveals to farmers how to make money by planting trees on their farms. They can earn Carbon Credits by planting native trees on degraded land to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. (New.) It's the first thing your average Joe farmer can do to get hold of some of this carbon money that will be soon sloshing around. We are changing the workshop program (An Introduction to Carbon Farming and Trading) to put more emphasis on the tree methodology because it is immediately available. The Money Tree includes chapters on a range of other money-making farm forestry activities such as growing sawlogs, fire wood, christmas trees, oil mallees, etc.. Properly integrated into a farm plan, trees can bring a long list of co-benefits - such as soil fertility, salt scarring, wind and rain erosion, shelter for stock, biodiversity and more. We hope to have it finished in a week or two. BTW: We are open to consider any contributions of useful text and photos.

Top 15 Questions about the Carbon Farming Initiative

 Many farmers interested in the CFI are now asking the following questions:

Q. What is happening on 1 July, 2012? What do I have to do?

A. Nothing. On 1 July, 2012 the Clean Energy Future program starts. The top 500 emitters of Greenhouse Gas will be required to pay a price on the carbon they emit. This will increase some input costs for farmers as those companies forced to pay the price on carbon pass on some of the increase to their customers. Eg. power costs.  But the huge increases in power bills in recent times have nothing to do with the price on carbon because that won’t start until 1 July, 2012. The dramatic price hikes predicted to be inflicted by the ‘carbon tax’ were based on worst case scenarios used in the political campaign against the price on carbon. As well, companies like Fontera have said they would avoid passing on increased power costs to its farmers. Farmers do not have to pay for their emissions on farm, despite the fact that Australian Agriculture emits more than the transport industry.  Instead the  plan is that farmers will be paid to increase the carbon in the landscape and reduce their emissions of methane from animals and nitrous oxide from fertiliser and other sources.

Q. How do we get paid to reduce our emissions?

A. The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) is  a government program that enables farmers to earn carbon credits which they can sell on the carbon market. The credits can be bought by companies that need to or want to offset their emissions. This is why they are called an “offset” – they allow emitters to bridge the gap while they invest in the changes they must make to be part of a low carbon economy. Offsets earned in Agriculture are known as “Australian Carbon Credit Units” (ACCUs). 

Q. What do we have to do to earn ACCUs?

A. A wide range of activities may be used to earn ACCUs. They include reforestation and revegetation and surrender of permits to clear, reduced methane emissions from livestock - eg., using tannins as a feed supplement for ruminants, incorporating Eremophila (emu grass) into feed for ruminant livestock, and manipulation of gut flora in ruminant livestock - reduced fertilizer emissions, manure management, reduced  emissions of nitrous oxide – including application of urea inhibitors to manure, application of urea inhibitors to fertiliser - and increased sequestration of carbon in agricultural soils. The types of projects that may be permitted include planting native vegetation, restoring drained wetlands, applying biochar to soil, and flaring methane from livestock manure.

Q. How much can we make from the CFI?

A. Nobody knows. The Government has set a fixed price for carbon of $23/tonne for the “Compliance” market (the market made up of those companies listed in the top 500 emitters). This will rise by 2.5% each year until 2015 when the price will float.  Not all CFI ACCUs will be eligible for purchase on the Compliance market. Non-Kyoto-compliant CFI ACCUs are restricted to the “Voluntary” market (the market made up of those companies and individuals who want to go carbon neutral to reduce emissions) which is expected to attract lower prices. The Government has put aside $250 million to buy Voluntary ACCUs to support the market. The prices are hard to predict. However, ACCUs are bankable, so farmers can wait for the right price before selling.

Q. Do some activities pay more than others?

A. Yes. For every tonne of methane you can avoid emitting (eg., by changing the diet of your cattle or sheep) you may earn 24 tonne of CO2-e.  For every tonne of nitrous oxide you can avoid emitting (eg., by changing the method and the amount of fertliser you apply) you may earn close to 300 tonne of CO2-e. (We are waiting for a Methodology to be approved for both Greenhouse Gases.)

Q. Why do scientists say soil carbon can make only a modest contribution to the efforts to reduce Global Warming?

A. Not all scientists say that. The world’s leading soil scientist Dr Rattan Lal believes the world's farmers control the largest installation of a biological technology (photosynthesis in vegetation across 5 billion hectares worldwide) that can extract billions of tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere, interrupting the rapid rise of Global Warming. He says farmers can draw down the equivalent of 50ppm (parts per million of CO2-e) from the atmosphere for 50 years. It just so happens that it will take only another 50ppm to the atmosphere before we reach 450ppm (which will increase Global temperature by 2°C).  We need to buy time for low-emissions renewable energy to reach critical mass. Change land management to turn agricultural soils and vegetation into a vast global carbon sink.  Soil is fully deployed, has critical mass, and massive capacity. Let’s get on with it.

Q. How do we get started? Who do we talk to?

A. The CFI is in the start-up phase. One by one, the long list of offset activities is coming on stream as “methodologies” are written for them. A methodology is a set of rules that enables someone to take it off the shelf and follow it like a recipe to conduct the activity and earn offsets in a way that is genuine and reassures buyers that they are getting what they are paying for. There are only 4 ‘meths’ available at this time: environmental plantings of native trees would be most relevant to the majority of farmers; flaring methane from manure ponds in piggeries; managing methane emissions from landfill; and reducing emissions from savanna burning.

Q. Can we cut out the Middleman?

A. The Government believes that farmers should be able to manage the process themselves. However, they will need the services of some third party because offsets are typically sold in bundles of thousands of tonnes, orders that few landholders will be able to fill. An ‘aggregator’s responsibilities can include parcelling orders, pool management, registry maintenance, measurement, trading, and educating. As much as farmers love to cut out the “Middleman”,  direct trading makes up a small fraction of produce sold. Experience in markets overseas tells us that landholders will have choice of aggregation services from their farmers’ association, natural resource management bodies such as CMAs, suppliers such banks, agents or agronomy services, and dedicated aggregation services. The role of aggregator is difficult and requires substantial database management capabilities. Based on overseas experience, the cost of aggregation, insurances, etc. varied between 10% and 30%. Landholders will most likely choose to aggregate with the best price/lowest risk provider. (E., A farmers’ group could choose to form a cooperative to engage an aggregator.)

Q. Do we have to take land out of production in order to raise carbon levels in our soils?

A. No. The best process for increasing soil carbon levels involves active farming. Carbon farming includes all forms of grazing management, biological and biodynamic farming, composting, pasture cropping, soil inoculants, etc. And agroforestry and integrated use of trees can have a significant impact on production. Seasoned carbon farmers have discovered that they can plant 20% of their land to trees and maintain production while gaining many benefits, including increased biodiversity, landscape resilience, and lower levels of evaporation.

Q. Will they ask for the money back if we earn credits for increasing carbon in our soils or trees and subsequently lose it?

A. No. If you lose soil or tree carbon due to bushfire or drought or any other reason beyond your control, you will not be asked to pay the money back. The Program automatically puts 5% of the value of every sale into a ‘buffer account’ – called a Risk of Reversal Buffer – which covers the losses. You will be expected, however, to restore the carbon levels in soils or trees for which you had earned ACCUs. If you refuse to restore the carbon, the Program Regulator can request that you ‘relinquish’ (or hand back) the ACCUs you were paid in the first place. Your ‘carbon maintenance obligation’ sounds like a burden, but it means that you simply commit to continuing the land management practices that had led to the soil carbon levels previously achieved.

Q. If we plant trees today under the Environmental Plantings methodology, how soon can we be paid for it?

A. Theoretically, you can be ‘paid’ at the end of the first year. Practically, you would be likely to wait until there has been enough carbon captured to make it worthwhile to submit an audit report. You can claim ACCUs only after a reporting period closes. You can choose the ‘reporting period’ from 12 months at the minimum or any time up to 5 Years after commencement of the project. Each subsequent reporting period begins immediately after the last reporting period.

Q. How long can we expect the income from Environmental Plantings to continue?

A. The CFI law sets out the length of time that different activities can generate credits using an approved CFI methodology. This is known as a ‘crediting period’. Most projects have a 7 year crediting period. Reforestation will have a 15 year crediting period and native forest protection projects have a 20 year crediting period. The end of the crediting period does not mean the end of the project’s earning capacity. Projects can be approved for a further crediting period so long as the project activity remains eligible. (This sounds like enough time for someone to shift the goal posts. If you are signing contracts for a project like this, insist that the factors that will make activities eligible or ineligible are spelled out in the contract.)

Q. The prices that carbon credits are fetching now are too low to make it worth my while, according to many experts. Why should I bother?

A. No one has any knowledge of how the market for ACCUs will operate. Any opinion about the future is mere speculation, especially if it is based of misunderstandings. Eg. the price on international markets has plummeted in Europe for no other reason than the Global Financial Crisis forced companies with carbon offsets on their books liquidate these assets for cash flow. The rush to offload units depressed prices.  In the USA the year before, the Chicago Climate Exchange’s agricultural offsets price collapsed after President Obama failed to convince his Congress to pass an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) into law. The companies buying CCX units were doing so to prepare for the ETS which did not arrive. Unlike the USA, Australia is getting an ETS.  The CCX scheme also had problems with Additionality which the CFI solves. Another ‘fact’ experts quote is that Voluntary market units inevitably sell for less than Compliance market units. But, in Europe, voluntary units have sold for close to 10 times the price of Kyoto compliance units. So you see, speculation is useful only if it is based on facts, such as: 1. You can ‘bank’ your ACCUs and sit on them until the market price suits you. 2. No Australian farmer is likely to have enough sequestered carbon to sell until at least 5 years in to the project’s life. A lot has happened in the last 5 years and a lot can happen in the next 5 years. 3. Within that period, our major trading partner China has announced that it will have a nation-wide Carbon Trading system by 2015. It has started a  three-year trial in 5 provinces using a $10/tonne Carbon price.

Q. No farmer I know would sign a contract for 100 years, especially as many of them are close to retirement. The experts always mention the 100 years rule as a problem. What do you say to that?

A. While it is natural to imagine the worst thing that could happen, the facts are these: 1. Between 2001 and 2005, only 2.5% of Australia’s forests were impacted by wildfire each year. The odds are 37 to 1 of a fire event. The vast majority of wildfires do not kill the trees. The CFI requires that dead trees be replanted. 2. The Soil Carbon Methodology submitted to the Government’s expert panel by the Bridge Consortium (Carbon Farmers of Australia is a member)  offers an ‘self-insurance’/’mutual insurance’-type system that spreads the risk over pooled and stored units and over a number of farmers across climate zones. 3. “100 years liability” sounds worse than “100 years of healthy soils”.  But how hard could it be to continue treating the soil with respect and enjoying the benefits of soil structure, water efficiency, increased microbiological activity, more available nutrients, buffering against drought, greater resilience against disease, etc.? 4. If those "experts" are right and prices of soil carbon offsets never amount to much, your Permanence liability will never amount to much either. 5. 100 Years might seem to be set in stone, but there is no scientific reason for that period. It is not the amount of time in which a molecule of CO2 is held in the atmosphere. The CFI Legislation allows the Minister to set any other period. Carbon Farmers of Australia is seeking to have the 100 Year Principle reconsidered.

Q. Who can I call for information I can trust about carbon farming and trading?

A. The CFI requires that the only individuals who can advise you must have a Financial Services Licence because the Government has defined carbon credits as financial instruments and any advice about them is financial advice. Carbon Farmers of Australia provides information of a general nature.  But you should consult your professional adviser for more specific advice. If your adviser is ignorant of carbon farming and trading you might invite them to consider attending the Regional Carbon Market Summit on 25^th-26^th July, 2012 in Dubbo NSW, which includes workshops for legal and financial advisers as well as other regional businesses. (www.regionalcarbonsummit.com.au)

(www.carbonfarmersofaustralia.com.au)

The Race Is On For Big Ideas

You'd better get your skates on to be in the race for grants of $50k-$200k towards the development of CFI methodologies - the Government is in a hurry to fertilise the field of opportunity. They want to start giving the money away on 1st July, 2012. After a public consultancy period until 4 May, 2012, you will have a month to get your submission in. The CFI Methodology Development Program (MDP) has taken a $19.6 million slice from the Carbon Farming Futures package to fund the development of CFI methodologies. Approximately $7.2 million of the MDP fund has been allocated to the preparation of methodologies by government research agencies through collaborative grants projects.
The Department says: "The objective of the MDP is to expand the opportunities for land managers under the CFI through the development of methodologies that meet CFI requirements." It is clear that there were too few 'meths' rolling off the production line. A good number of individuals/organisations can now be funded - between 60 and 240, depending on how much each 'winner' gets. The amount might be limiting in many cases. The following table reveals the size of the opportunity:

Key points of the Departmental press release about the MDP draft guidelines:

Big ideas: "Innovative ideas are encouraged, combined with a sound technical approach to project development."

Big Science: "Where [the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (the Department)] undertakes methodology development, it works in collaboration with the scientific community, practitioners and relevant organisations to ensure methodologies are robust, underpinned by appropriate research, and are supported by industry. Successful applicants under the MDP will also be required to work in collaboration with relevant stakeholders in the methodology."

Big partners: "The department is seeking applications from suitable organisations and individuals to prepare CFI methodologies in collaboration with the Department and relevant stakeholders." [It would be useful to know at this stage what makes an organisation or individual 'unsuitable'?]

Big hurdles: "The program will... support... methodology development projects that have the following characteristics.
1. The project involves a methodology that has potential for application across an region or industry because the abatement activity or activities:
* have significant abatement potential
* are cost effective and easily adopted, and/or
* have co-benefits for agricultural productivity, biodiversity or natural resource management.
2. the proposed methodology has the potential to be approved under the CFI
* the abatement activity is covered by the CFI, and on the Positive list or likely to be assessed as beyond common practice
* there is a coherent methodological approach, including an accurate and realistic baseline scenario, a defined abatement activity or change in management practice, a clearly defined project boundary and a rigorous approach to emissions estimation
* the proposed methodological approach is likely to meet the CFI integrity standards and is supported by peer reviewed science. 3. the project team has demonstrated technical capability to carry out the project
* there is a budget for the project that includes cash and/or in-kind contributions by the applicant
* there is a well structured draft work program that covers the development of the methodology through to its final assessment by the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee.

Big race: "Not all projects that meet these program objectives will receive funding."

Big scoreboard: "The following indicators will be used to measure the success of the Methodology Development Program:
* the number of methodologies approved for use under the CFI that have received support through this program
* the number of regions and industries where these methodologies are applicable
* the number of projects implemented using these methodologies and the resulting abatement. [This is the only one that matters. The number of farmers engaged, the degree of behaviour change and the results.]

Big opportunity; 'To be eligible for funding under this program the applicant must be one of the following legal entities based in Australia or, ideally, a consortium of such entities:
* industry representative groups and associations
* individuals supported by technical experts
* companies with an Australian company number
* natural resource management groups at the local, regional and national level
* research organisations
* Australian tertiary institutions.'"

Big process: "Applications for funding will be reviewed by assessors comprised of staff from the Australian Government (which may include staff from Commonwealth agencies other than the department), and non-government technical experts.... The assessment panel will consider:
* value for money, including the value that the applicant provides through in-kind contributions and industry experience and the likelihood that the applicant can successfully execute the work plan
* comparative value; that is, how the application compares to others in meeting the program objectives
* whether the application is comprehensive, logical and clear.
Applicants who demonstrate financial stability and a record of delivering projects of a similar nature will be viewed favourably in the selection process."

"The department will enter into funding agreements with successful applicants and negotiate the final work plan for the project. ... Successful applicants will be required to enter into a legally binding funding agreement with the Commonwealth. The department reserves the right to change these conditions or apply different conditions to a particular project. The department may propose changes to the project proposed during negotiation of the funding agreement, to increase the likelihood that the project will achieve the program objectives.

"The department may request progress meetings and audio conferences with appropriate notice, during the methodology development process.
Some say the Government could have achieved the same result it is seeking with the MDF by using the technique employed by the largest regulator of offsets in the voluntary market - Verified Carbon Standard. VCS channels royalties to methodology developers from other users of the methodology. A simple market-based solution. We say: "Well Done, Minister."

*TWF -Technical Working Group - a group of government and non-government experts with specialised knowledge in the specific field.

Is 100 Years of Healthy Soils too much?

So what’s the big deal about being paid to stop flogging the land for 100 years? It has taken us only 234 years to lose half of the top soil that we rely upon to feed ourselves. We are still losing it at 5 times the rate of replacement. How hard can it be to stop hammering the source of your children’s and grandchildren’s food?
Why is 100 years of doing the right thing for soils such a scary thought? There is not a single soil scientist who doesn’t agree that increasing soil carbon is a good thing for the farm, the landscape and the nation. Soil carbon sequestration is not a silver bullet. It’s a no-brainer.
It stops erosion. It buffers against drought. It restores fertility. It builds biodiversity. And it fights Climate Change. The carbon that the soil needs is taken out of the Atmosphere where it is doing damage. Farmers command the only technology that can convert Greenhouse Gas into soil and food: photosynthesis. It’s easy to capture CO2 because we do it all the time for a living, growing grass and grain, bushes and trees. But don''t some people tell us our soils are slow to put on carbon? Yes, but highly skilled carbon farmers have shown that they can sequester carbon 10 times faster than non-farmers. The farmers practice every day.
But don’t the experts say that we lose carbon as fast as we take it in? Yes, they do say that, but we know that carbon can be trapped safely in soil humus for 1,000 years or more. And humus can make up 80% of carbon in the soil.
But isn’t it risky? Don’t they ask you to give the carbon credits back if you lose soil carbon because of drought or fire? No, they don’t. You just have to build it up again, by doing what you did to get it in the first place: treating the soil with respect. (You have the option to 'relinquish' the units you earned.)
There are some people who don’t want farmers to be paid to do this. They want them to do it for free. The Carbon Farming Initiative is the first opportunity for farmers to be paid the true cost of agricultural production instead of being expected to work to protect the environment on behalf of the community for nothing. Simply putting a dollar figure on soil speaks volumes.
To start A Century of Healthy Soils, we need to make it easy for farmers to get involved. Right now, with the CFI legislation the way it is, it’s like trying to bring down the road toll by fitting cars with square wheels. It works. You’ll also solve the traffic problem. There won’t be any.
There are ways to achieve Permanence without scaring the farmers: insurance, buffering or carbon pooling. Spreading the risk is reducing the risk. Our “Soil Carbon Methodology” uses buffering and pooling – a type of self insurance. It removes the danger without risking the result.
Instead of scaring farmers off by making the risks seem worse than they truly are, we should be recruiting them with a vision of how good life can be when your soils are rich with carbon.
So next time you hear someone reciting a long list of negatives about the prospects of being paid to increase soil carbon, ask them: “Is 100 Years of Healthy Soils too much?”

*Carbon Farmers of Australia is a not-for-profit company.
* MIchael Kiely is a Director of Healthy Soils Australia.

Disclaimer
The material in this blog is made available for general information only and on the understanding that Carbon Farmers of Australia is not providing advice. Readers should familiarise themselves with the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) and obtain professional advice suitable to their particular circumstances. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, correctness and reliability of this publication, Carbon Farmers of Australia and all persons acting for Carbon Farmers of Australia preparing this publication accept no liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this publication, and expressly disclaim liability for any person’s loss arising directly or indirectly from the use of, inferences drawn, deductions made, or acts done in reliance on this publication.

How common is common practice?

Clare writes: “I was under the impression that additonality only kicks in if the whole industry has a 5% adoption rate, not if a district does? Where is this written? I can't find reference to 5% anywhere on the Govt's website or material.”
HI CLARE,
Thank you for your question.
A reference to 5% can be found in the "Positive List Guidelines Common Practice". The text reads: " For the relevant comparison group: The adoption rate for the activity is estimated to be less than 5% because
- data indicates that this is the case;
- the activity is dependent on a new technology;
- there is at least one significant impediment to adoption; or
the activity penetration has not yet reached the take-off point for that activity.”
The Guidelines also contain the following: "For example, a particular activity might be common among southern beef producers, but uncommon among beef producers in the north of Australia. For example, the restoration of wetlands may be common in national parks, but uncommon on land under other management regimes. The comparison group can also be thought of as the people subject to the same factors influencing whether they adopt an activity, or who share common barriers t]]o uptake of an activity. The relevant comparison group could comprise all participants in an industry, subsector or a region."
The words below come from the CFI Regulations Explanatory Statement. The last word is 'environments'. It is use]d in the following context: "The positive list identifies activities that are not considered to be common practice within relevant industries or environments." The concept of 'environment' in context of adoption of management practices by farmers could refer to the geographic locations through which the practice spreads by 'over the fence' observation, eg no-till penetration is highest in WA, next highest in SA, and so on. The concept of the 'diffusion of innovation' applies across industries and districts (subset of region). The word 'environments' is possibly used by the writer of the Explanatory Statement to allow for any other subset of 'farmers' which the Government may identify in future.
As for 5%, there has been talk of extending it to 30% in some cases. Perhaps the most important element of the Common Practice Principle is that the impact of the CFI will taken into account. In accordance with the CFI legislation, the Minister must factor out the impact of the scheme when assessing whether an activity is common practice .This might be just as well because there could be an issue with the model of adoption chosen for the CFI. It has to do with the 'take-up rate' and the 'take-off point'. "The take-up rate is the percentage of landholders in the comparison group who are currently undertaking the activity. It is sometimes called the 'adoption rate'. The uptake of a technology or practice is generally slow during the invention and innovation phase. The activity penetration rate increases until the take-off point is reached indicating that there are no significant barriers to the adoption of the activity and that the activity will become common practice." But it cannot be assumed that farmers will adopt new ways of farming at the same rate after the incentive of CFI offsets is removed. The take up rate prior to the activity reaching take off point will be driven by the financial incentive (otherwise the farmer would have already adopted it). The adoption rate could slow once the activity comes off the Positive List, especially among those who have no natural inclination to adopt the new.
The concept of Adoption Rate first appeared in 1943, researchers from Iowa State College plotted farmers adoption of a new hybrid corn seed. The bell curve they observed has since become known as the classic adoption curve for new ideas, practices, products and services. The process of adoption over time follows a classical normal distribution or "bell curve." The first group of people to change is called "innovators," followed by "early adopters." Next come the early and late majority, and the last group are called "laggards." The demographic and psychological (or "psychographic") profiles of each adoption group are:
* innovators - had larger farms, were more educated, more prosperous and more risk-oriented. (Added to this could be, in the case of the CFI, conservation-oriented farmers.)
* early adopters - younger, more educated, tended to be community leaders
* early majority - more conservative but open to new ideas, active in community and influence to neighbours
* late majority - older, less educated, fairly conservative and less socially active
* laggards - very conservative, smalls farms and capital, oldest and least educated.
The world expert on take up rates and adoption curves is Geoffrey Moore who wrote Crossing the Chasm in 1991 and set the standard. Moore identifies a chasm between the early adopters (enthusiasts and visionaries) and the early majority (the pragmatists). This is the chasm and it is right at this point the 5% line is crossed. The withdrawal from the Positive List could depress take up of the activity by the farmers who are least likely to adopt without financial incentive. Again the Minister will factor out the effect of the CFI. That should solve a lot of issues.

Disclaimer
The material in this blog is made available for general information only and on the understanding that Carbon Farmers of Australia is not providing advice. Readers should familiarise themselves with the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) and obtain professional advice suitable to their particular circumstances. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, correctness and reliability of this publication, Carbon Farmers of Australia and all persons acting for Carbon Farmers of Australia preparing this publication accept no liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this publication, and expressly disclaim liability for any person’s loss arising directly or indirectly from the use of, inferences drawn, deductions made, or acts done in reliance on this publication.