Correction CarbonLink

This item was jumbled: A prominent big city climate change lawyer told me his firm was helping 2 or 3 different clients put together soil carbon operations. So we can be sure there are many more rushing to complete measurement systems and get them approved while sweating over clauses in contracts for farmers to sign. The most prominent of those jostling for position on the grid would be Terry McCosker's CarbonLink. When Terry predicted there would be ‘rivers of cash’ flowing from soil carbon he may have been anticipating some of the flow coming his way. We said this because we believed that the CarbonLink model required the landholder be an RCS member who has been practicing “Grazing For Profit” techniques. WE went on to say: "Fenceline comparisions, the methodology RCS is using, works on the assumption that the next door neighbour won’t be an RCS member. This might not be the case for long as membership of RCS is the ticket to the dance for CarbonLink. In other words, Terry has engineered his soil carbon operation to act as a funnel for his RCS consultancy. Clever." CarbonLink CEO Rod Rush denies the RCS precondition and says: "By the way, anyone can participate in the Carbon Link model including holistic management and carbon coalition devotees." We stand corrected.

Christine Jones update: is Roth C up to it?

Dr Christine Jones recently questioned the value of conventional soil carbon measurement models such as Roth C, the model of choice of Australian soil science. Conventional models are useful for describing soil carbon loss, but they are inadequate for determining soil carbon gain. They don’t take into account humification of root exudates or contributions from mycorrhizal fungi. ‘Sequestration rates under regenerative agricultural regimes may be quite a bit higher than estimated by current models,’ she says in a recent CSIRO magazine article (ECOS). She reports on progress with her Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme (ASCAS). ASCAS is the culmination of her 10-year crusade to raise soil carbon to its rightful place in agriculture. She hopes to demonstrate through farm trials that increases in soil carbon can be achieved quickly when biological farming techniques are combined with deep-rooted perennial pastures and annual crops. “Through photosynthesis plants convert CO2 to sugars to power growth, releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. The activities of symbiotic bacteria and fungi, associated with roots and fed by the sugars, enable the exuded carbon to be combined with soil minerals and made into stable humus which locks the carbon away,” says ECOS. ‘This can’t happen where farm chemicals kill the essential soil microbes,’ says Dr Jones. ‘When chemical use is added to intensive cultivation, which exposes and oxidises the humus already in soil, it is easy to see why soil has become a huge net source rather than a net “sink” for atmospheric CO2 under current farming practices.’
Tim Wiley, Development Officer with Western Australia’s Department of Agriculture and Food, says: ‘The trend is clear – perennial pastures sequester 5 to 10 tonnes of CO2 per hectare annually.’ But he says there are data deficiencies: ‘We don’t know enough about carbon under different farming systems. We have data from farmer samplingbefore and after perennials were plantedand over-the-fence comparisons, but it is not rigorous enough. To trade carbon we need a working model such as Roth C for estimating changes in carbon. The model results would be verified by occasional soil sampling of farmers’ paddocks. Roth C needs to be validated with data from long-term trials in the regions that accurately measure carbon.’ Results from the first 12 months of ASCAS field trials will be known later this year. ‘One of the broadacre cropping properties north-east of Clermont in Queensland that is participating in the ASCAS project has more than three times the amount of carbon in the farmed soil than there is under the surrounding native vegetation (149 tonnes of carbon/ha under native vegetation versus 516 tonnes of carbon/ha under the crop). As a result, the wheat crop yielded 4 tonnes per hectare of grain with 13.5 per cent protein this year – well above the district average. The afrmer used no-till and microbial stimulants. ECOS reports: “Under the Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme, participating farmers will receive Soil Carbon Incentive Payments (SCIPS) calculated at one-hundredth the 100-year rate ($25 per tonne CO2 sequestered). The incentive payments made to farmers are a private donation from Rhonda Willson, Executive Chairman, John While Springs (S) Pte Ltd and Director, Gilgai Australia. Receipt of Soil Carbon Incentive Payments will be similar to being paid ‘on delivery’ for livestock or grain…” Rio Tinto Coal Australia is currently funding research into soil carbon’s potential for a future carbon trading scheme under ASCAS. Incitec Pivot Ltd is also supporting the Queensland field trials. The ECOS article was written by James Porteous and Frank Smith.

Soil gets a seat at the table

The Coalition was represented recently at public hearings of submissions to a NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Climate Change, Emissions Trading Schemes and Natural Resource Management. Three of the six members of the Committee attended. The three attending were dumbfounded upon hearing the Soil Carbon story. We were dumbfounded as well, because we had made a 20-page submission on the subject to the Committee in December, 2007, before it widened its terms of reference to include trading.
(Note to those making submissions to Government Inquiries: If you can't get in front of the Inquiry to present your case, a document is almost worthless.) The Chair, Karyn Paluzzano MP, asked what the Coalition wanted. We replied: "Permission to start trading tomorrow on a no-Carbon sequestered, no-credits earned" basis. (See: New Manifesto Launched..)

Also visiting Soil Carbon HQ this week was Keith Emery, a senior soil and landscape specialist from the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change. He has a theory that his colleagues could do with some exposure to "Carbon Farmers" who he describes as 'observational scientists' (as opposed to 'experimental scientists'). He is a mapping specialist and is interested in building a database of live farm information that can feed into the scientists' processes. The magic word: "Collaboration."

Behind the scenes… Before the Goldrush

JOSTLING: A prominent big city climate change lawyer told me his firm was helping 2 or 3 different clients put together soil carbon operations. So we can be sure there are many more rushing to complete measurement systems and get them approved while sweating over clauses in contracts for farmers to sign. The most prominent of those jostling for position on the grid would be Terry McCosker's CarbonLink. When Terry predicted there would be ‘rivers of cash’ flowing from soil carbon he may have been anticipating the flow coming his way. We say this because the CarbonLink model requires the landholder be an RCS member who has been practicing “Grazing For Profit” techniques. Fenceline comparisions, the methodology RCS is using, works on the assumption that the next door neighbour won’t be an RCS member. This might not be the case for long as membership of RCS is the ticket to the dance for CarbonLink. In other words, Terry has engineered his soil carbon operation to act as a funnel for his RCS consultancy. Clever. [Correction: CarbonLink CEO Rod Rush denies the RCS precondition and says: "By the way, anyone can participate in the Carbon Link model including holistic management and carbon coalition devotees."]

CMA TAKES CREDITS: One CMA wants to cash in on carbon credits that is ‘clients’ might earn. The agreement landholders are signing has the following words: “any carbon credits generated through activities of this project / bid will become the property of the (name withheld) CMA, and net returns from their sale shared with the landholder.” Now there is a certain logic to this. If the CMA contributes 100% of the funds for the tree planting, for instance, you might say it is reasonable that they share in the spoils. But is it in a CMA’s brief to collect carbon credits earned on its clients’ properties? Is it time the role of the CMA was considered in light of the coming carbon market? Soil carbon trading would create a demand for CMA services and support for such things as wire and water.


CMA SYNERGY WITH SOIL CARBON: . If the price of carbon goes high enough, landholders may not need the incentive of CMA funding to make the changes to land management sought by the Government. And if a steadily-rising soil carbon level in the landscape brings with it all the associated benefits: better soil structure, improved hydrology, reduced salination, increased biodiversity, etc. the CMAs should find their jobs getting easier and easier. Reading the Central West Catchment Management Authority’s Catchment Action Plan 2006-2016, we were struck by the number of Catchment and Management Targets across the basic themes of Salinity, Water, Vegetation, Biodiversity, and Soil that the widespread use of carbon farming techniques will address. The synergies are uncanny. For instance, assume a take-up rate of carbon farming of 85%. (This figure can be reached within the first 5 years over the next period of the Catchment Action Plan.) We were able to put a star – which means Carbon Farming can help by providing a polluter-funded, private enterprise solution for achieving CMA targets – on 5/5 Management Targets for Soils, 4/4 for Biodiversity, 9/9 for Salinity, 6/7 for water, and 6/9 for Vegetation. Even if you cut it in half, it is still a major contribution to the CMA’s efforts. The CMA concept always included the community and the farm sector. With the formal recognition of Carbon Farming and Soils recently, there will be a higher percentage of farmer input, which will please many in the CMA.

Soil C Ignorance in NZ Government dangerous

The NZ Government clearly does not understand the soil carbon issue at all levels and the gravity of its apparent decision on leaving soil carbon out of its ETS gives this ignorance the force of a national scandal.

First it dismisses soil carbon as having any potential to sequester carbon: In New Zealand, pasture is carbon neutral “and worse” says a memo from a senior departmental officer. A slide from a Government presentation has no sequestration in the plant photosynthetic process at all. The plant takes in 20 tonnes of Carbon per year and respires 10 tonnes to the atmosphere. The balance (10tC) is respired by plant roots (5tC) or turned into plant shoots where it neatly divides itself into the following emissions: faeces - 1400kgC, urine – 100kgC, respiration – 2840kgC, milk/meat 500kgC, and Methane 160kgC as CH4.

Having dismissed the possibility that grazed pasture can sequester any Carbon, the NZ Government points to the Voluntary Market as having “potential” for soil carbon credits. “This may be where the call for ‘offsets’ can be met,” says a senior official.

This wasn’t a slip of the tongue: the NZ Government called a tender for the development of a Voluntary Market mechanism for the country’s sequestered soil carbon to be traded. (MAF-POL/CP04 CARB-MARKETS-01 VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET OPPORTUNITIES – SOIL CARBON MANAGEMENT IN NEW ZEALAND) One tenderer was the research company which proclaimed that New Zealand’s soils could not sequester carbon. It appears that it did not let its conviction that there would be no soil carbon sequestered that could be traded on this new Voluntary Carbon Market stop it from accepting a Government contract to provide these non-existent tonnes of soil carbon with a mechanism to be sold.



The levels of understanding within the Ministry and Cabinet, indicated by this single fact, are dangerously low given the disruption their decisions will make to the lives of NZ farmers.

More Kiwis come to OZ to learn soil carbon war dance

A steady stream of farmers are arriving in Australia wondering what hit them after the NZ Government apparently decided to leave Agriculture out of its Emissions Trading Scheme for soil carbon and in for its emissions (Methane and Nitrous Oxide). The latest was Graham Clarke, Otago-based organic beef and sheep grower who came to OZ to join the audiences at Young and Condobolin last week at the "Practical Carbon Farming" One Day Seminar, now being conducted by the Carbon Coalition's Convenors Michael & Louisa Kiely. Despite the chilly weather, Graham wore stubbies and (formal) thongs throughout his visit. Graham is Chairman of the Southern Beef Council, among other roles. Kiwi farmers are in despair, if the deflated tone of their Federated Farmers chairman Charlie Pedersen is a guide. He simply waved a white flag in response to a damning report on the NZETS, when he presented to the Farm Institute conference.

It might help to have a fact or two up your sleeve when the doomsayers are writing Agriculture off. WHile they recite those tired old stats: the agricultural sector contributes around 16% of national greenhouse gas emissions and accounts for 60% and 85% of total methane and nitrous oxide emissions, you can tell them this:

Research in New Zealand has revealed that breeding for more efficient animals may result in 10 to 20% less methane. Similarly, research in Australia demonstrated that animals on high quality spring pasture producing up to 37% less methane than those on poor quality summer pasture. Still more research shows that dietary oils (eg. whole cotton seed) fed to
dairy cattle on summer pastures can reduce methane emissions by 12% and feeding tannin extracts from the black wattle to
dairy cows on lush spring pasture was shown to reduce methane emissions by up to 29%. These figures come from the nation's foremost expert on emissions from agriculture, Dr Richard Eckard, Greenhouse in Agriculture,The University of Melbourne and Department of Primary Industries, Victoria.

Furphies lead Emissions Trading debate astray

Ministers Wong and Burke and agriculture industry association leaders are being led down the garden path by ‘expert’ advisors. This is clear from the furphies being accepted as facts in the debate.

The biggest furphy of them all is that emissions trading is going to be difficult for the farm sector because of the sheer number of farms which would need to be individually measured. No one is proposing that we measure every cow’s belch and fart, or every paddock’s fertiliser load, or every hectare for soil carbon. All measurement of emissions across both greenhouse gas inventories and in emissions trading schemes around the world use estimates rather than direct measurement. Even with direct measurement, you take a sampling approach then extrapolate up to the total amount of emission.

The Australian Greenhouse Office was well aware that measurement of emissions from individual farms was not the issue. It reported in 2005 that: “uncertainty about activity levels rather than the complex and variable biological processes that
generate greenhouse gases” was the big problem. It said: ‘…uncertainty in the reported cattle numbers was the most significant contributor to the overall uncertainty’. (National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2003, AGO 2005, p.121.) Have things changed so much since then?

Graziers are already required to report their stock numbers for different functions and these systems can be easily tightened. One consultant economist told a gathering of farmers at Yass last month that they would simply include their stock numbers with their BAS statement.

The language coming out of the consultation process indicates that the Ministers and industry association leaders are being guided Sir Humphrey-like by advisors. ("Ministers will generally accept proposals which contain the words simple, quick, popular and cheap. 

Ministers will generally throw out proposals which contain the words complicated, lengthy, expensive and controversial.”)

The Land reports the meeting as follows: “The complexities of trying to fit the farm sector into the scheme were obvious… Agricultural emissions from livestock and cropping inputs in particular are hard to measure, while abatement opportunities in soil sequestration are equally difficult and not currently recognised under the Kyoto protocol… agriculture will have significant cost increases to contend with….”

It is reported that there are 4 options:

1. Agriculture “in” from day 1, paying its way with emissions and trading the offsets it is allowed to trade.
2. Agriculture “out” for purposes of paying its way, but “in” for selling offsets (forests, soil “if the science allows”)
3. Agriculture “out” for emissions and “out” for offset trading.
4. Agriculture “out” for emissions and “out” for offset trading. Regulations force changes on land and stock management.

Naturally everyone would like No. 2, but there is a sting in the tail. When you don’t stand on your own two feet – when you’re beholden to Government, you are not free to control your own destiny. We believe that “waiting for the science” could blow out into a permanent state of being controlled.

The Coalition believes the science will never be ready, that more scientific exactitude will even deepen the bog we are in, and that practical solutions must be developed.

The Government must sweep the debate free of furphies and red herrings, or risk being “Sir Humpreyed” by well-intentioned but misguided advisors.

Scare campaign against trading scheme

There is a scare campaign underway to spook farmers about emissions trading and what it will do to them.

There has been an almost unanimously negative response to the prospect of an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) from officials and industry leaders.
Nothing but bad news and predictions of doom. The Landcare Groups Conference at Yass on 9 April 2008 saw farmers almost rise up in revolt when the message sank in that the official position was they would pay for methane and nitrous oxide and be denied access to soil carbon credits. The Australian Farm Institute audience in Maroochydore (21/22nd April, 2008) had so few farmers and so many ‘middlemen’ and 'officials' that it swallowed the bad news whole. The worst case scenario was presented as the most likely outcome.

This is intellectually dishonest and damaging to the morale of the farm community at a time when they need hope. And there is hope, but the message is beng drowned out by the wailing of the ignorant.

Firstly, the science on soil carbon is not yet officially “in”. While common wisdom has it that our soils can sequester tiny amounts of carbon at best, the Department of Climate Change has admitted that the relatively new land management techniques known as “carbon farming” that are designed to maximize carbon build-up have not been assessed for sequestration potential. Trials are underway and early results indicate levels of sequestration that will surprise many.

Secondly, most people at the AFI conference were not informed that under a cap and trade system the farmer would not be asked to buy carbon credits to cover their entire emissions each year. Only the gap between the cap set and the level to which the farmer can bring emissions down by all available means would need to be offset. No allowance in official projections is made for solutions already coming through, such as methane inoculants, natural fertilizers, etc.

Thirdly, no allowance in the bad news projections is made for on-farm innovation, ie. farmers' natural ability to invent solutions to reduce emissions. (There is a solar ute under construction in the Central West. ) All other sectors of the economy affected by emissions trading have developed ways to reduce emissions that don't involve buying carbon credits.

If farmers are left to carry the can on methane and nitrous oxide with no access to the soil carbon they can grow and trade to pay for their liabilities, it will be gross negligence on the part of the their industry representatives who refused to engage with the issue until it was too late. If the energy that has been put into denigrating the concept of soil carbon trading had instead been put into finding ways to make it happen, we'd be trading it today. The question remains: why are so many people in official roles so passionately against what is clearly in the interests of farmers, climate change management, restoration of farm landscapes, and the health of rural communities?

New Ag Research Supremo declares Soil Carbon the “Hot Topic”

Soil Carbon was not listed as a special topic at the Australian Farm Institutes Agriculture, Greenhouse and Emissions Trading Summit last week – but it got more than a fair go, with many speakers referring to it and a strong contingent of Carbon Coalition members attending..

“Soil Carbon – the Hot Topic!” said Michael Robinson, Executive Director of Land & Water Australia. He revealed a stunning statistic that shows soil carbon has long been neglected and forgotten. Of the 404 projects his team identified as currently underway, only 9 are investigating soil carbon offsets opportunity. This is a direct result of the bad image imposed on soil carbon by the AGO’s misrepresentation of the science.

Michael Robinson has been placed in charge of the National Climate Change Research Strategy for Primary Industries (CCRSPI) which brings under one authority all State and Territory and Federal Governments’ research and development activity. Soil carbon emerged as a ‘hot topic’ during the consultation process for CCRSPI.

Soil carbon has a bright future under CCRSPI for several reasons: 1. Its research strategy focuses on areas of common interest across industries. (Soil is shared by most agriculturalists.) 2.”Offset creation is essential” says one of its 6 areas of focus, “based on full understanding of life cycles and processes.”

Michael made a telling point about the conference participants: huge knowledge gaps and people making many false assumptions. We believe that this ignorance reaches up into all levels of Government.

Rudd Government wants soil “in”

The Government wants soil carbon to be a starter when the Australian scheme starts in 2010 – if we can get our act together and overcome the ‘practical difficulties’ we always hear about when soil carbon is mentioned.

Sources within the Government say that the Government wants the ETS to cover as many sectors of the economy as ‘practicable’ because it allows for the lowest cost abatement in every sector covered. “Maximum practical coverage” is the policy*. What is ‘practical’ depends on what tolerances you have for deviations between estimates of emissions versus the actual emissions taking place. Every type of emission source is estimated. What makes the difference is what degree of uncertainty is acceptable.

The Government believes that all measurement of emissions across both international greenhouse gas inventories reported to the international community and in emissions trading schemes around the world use estimates rather than direct measurement. Even with direct measurement, you take a sampling approach then extrapolate up to the total amount of emission.

The Government will publish a “Green Paper” for comments in July – so now is the time to shout for soils.

*The following slide was presented to a CSIRO conference in October 2007 by Dr Stephen Bygrave who is Assistant Secretary, Emissions Trading Platform Branch, Department of Climate Change:

* Achieving Wide Coverage
• Maximum practical coverage of all
sources, sinks and greenhouse gases
• Agriculture and forestry not liable parties
– Brought into scheme as practical issues are
resolved

Why we want Agriculture “in” the first stage of trading

This is the first of a series of reports on the Australian Farm Institute’s “Agriculture, Greenhouse and Emissions Trading Summit” this week.

While a communiqué from the attendees at the Conference claimed that they were committed to being “in” the trading scheme, they put so many caveats and conditions on entry that Agriculture could not be ready in time for the 2010 start date. Ironically, participants complained that agriculture was seen as bellyaching and asking for handouts and special deals. They then went on to ask for special consideration: transitional arrangements in the form of the old AGO’s “Best Management Practices” rewarded by payments from the Government.

Tim Wiley (who was not officially tattending, but we can reveal that he is Development Officer with the Department of Agriculture WA) met Justin MacDonnell from the Cattle Council of Australia. Justin was amazed to meet the negativity he encountered in official circles after attending the Coaliton's Carbon farming Conference in 2007.

As the Coalition suspected when this BMP ‘Trojan Horse’ was first produced by the AGO in 2007, it could deliver farmers into the hands of the Government. There is some evidence for this:

1. Best Management Practice means Carbon Farming without the returns. You capture and store the carbon, but you cannot sell it. Instead the Government may have access to it for meeting its considerable Kyoto liabilities. (Remember what happened to the 1 million hectares of ‘avoided deforestration’ used to meet the Howard Government’s targets.)
2. Transitional arrangements can easily become permanent, especially when their duration depends on the ability of science to solve the traditional ‘difficulties’ surrounding emissions. (And its enthusiasm for the job. Michael Robinson)
3. Stewardship payments always come with shackles, with the Government able to stop the flow at any time. A change of government and all bets are off. Whereas carbon is something you grow and sell. The farmer stays in control of the transaction.

Mick Keogh ran a tight ship and delivered a good platform for soil carbon.

The communiqué from the AFI Conference was driven by fear based on ignorance: Many of the people in the discussion groups seemed to believe that farmers would be forced to offset all their emissions from Day 1, which is wrong. Under a cap and trade system, the emitter commits to reducing emissions in stages, not all at once. And if the farmer has access to the soil carbon to offset their methane and nitrous oxide liabilities, we remain confident that Agriculture will survive and thrive as it transitions to the Carbon Age.

The PUSHBACK: You are needed

While this brave rearguard action is on, we need to simply and calmly get our message out. You can help:

1. Scan the media for Soil Carbon Sceptics attacking soil carbon and alert us to them.
2. Write a letter to the editor or producer of the show asking for balance and offering a Coalition spokesperson.
3. email/mail your networks to alert them to the struggle that is going on.


If you need help, we are here: (02) 6374 0329 or louisa@carboncoaliton,com.au

THE PUSHBACK*: Australia's dangerous knowledge gap

Australian officials are suffering from a dangerous knowledge gap over Climate Change and soil carbon. This was revealed at the Yass Area Landcare Groups' seminar called "Climate Change: Carbon Farming and Trading" on 9 April, 2008.

The speakers included the head sherang of Minister for Environment, Penny Wong's department, David Borthwick who told us how bad it was going to be when Climate Change really starts to bite. He was followed by a stream of high profile speakers from significant Canberra-based organisations who read chapter and verse from the official IPCC predictions about how bad things will be. The ANU, CSIRO, ABARE, etc. gave depressingly similar stories using the same data in many cases.

There as one thing missing from all their calculations: soil carbon. None of the IPCC's projections or the AGO's predictions re accurate because none of their models includes the impact of increasing levels of soil carbon and what they would do to water availability, ambient on-farm temperatures, productivity of soil, etc. The IPCC projections for parts per million increases in Greenhouse Gases make no allowance for the impact of 5.5 billion hectares of agricultural soil coming on line to start sequestering.

This dangerous gap was caused by the false conclusions made by the now-defunct Australian Greenhouse Office based on incomplete, out-of-date, wrong data. These myths have taken hold in official circles and given a kick along by the Australian Farm Institute. Despite its usual rigor and independence, it has made no attempt to correct the distorted version of the "soil carbon trading will be bad for farmers" line put forth by John Carter, author of the original AGO soil carbon report that suffered from huge gaps in the datasets which led naturally to the poor advice given to governments.

THE CROWD TURNED HOSTILE TO THE NEGATIVE TONE OF SOME OF THE PRESENTAITONS AT YASS
The Farm Institute's Mick Keogh made a presentation at Yass that found many technical and administrative reason why soil carbon shouldn't be traded. However the urgency of equipping farmers with some way of addressing the Methane and Nitrous Oxide issues, both of which will crush farmers if they have no soil carbon offsets to trade against them.

It s difficult to imagine the cause of such opposition, given the extraordinary benefits soil C offers the world:
* Restoration of degraded soils and landscapes.
* Vast capacity to reduce Greenhouse Gases already in the atmosphere.
* Give other Climate Change responses time to achieve criticla mass over 15-20 years.
* Help the world feed itself in 50 years time when it will need to produce twice as much food with the same water and land.
* Give farmers another revenue stream which doesn't require losing productive land to forests.
* Low input farming becomes the norm and spiralling prices are avoided.

*THE PUSHBACK is a counter-attack by the loose alliance of "soil carbon sceptics" who occupy influential positions in government, industry associations and companies. Since PM Rudd's statement they have been preparing for the last desperate fight. We need to be resolute and believe in ourselves and fight back.

THE PUSHBACK: why does GRDC attack soil carbon?

The "Soil Carbon Sceptics" are becoming active again. Even the discredited "Australian soils are too ancient and degraded to sequester much carbon" furphy has been given another airing recently by the research director of a respected industry body. The facts: age and degree of degradation are irrelevant to carbon storage capacity.

The GRDC's Alan Umbers has warned farmers about thinking of carbon sequestration as an income source at an Agribusiness Crop Updates event in Perth in February. Mr Umbers said that there is no scientific evidence to support our view that croppers can sequenter carbon in significant amounts.

Mr Umbers is a victim of the same out-of-date AGO data that has misled governments and policymakers for a decade.The lag time between the start and completion dates of trials being between 3 and 5 years, the only data available to him is conventional cropping data. But Dr K Yin Chan, Principal Research Scientist (Soils), NSW Department of Primary Industries, (one of the world's 10 most influential researchers) believes we can recover the 25 tonnes per Ha of soil carbon lost under cultivation since 1770. He calls it the "Soil C Sequestration Potential".

Here is some more scientific research:

•The NSW DPI, DECC and CSIRO are currently evaluating an increase in soul carbon recorded on grazing and cropping land from 2% to 4% recorded on “Winona”, Gulgong, between 1995 and 2005.

• There was a 0.46% carbon difference between a paddock managed by conservation farming techniques (stubble retained/no-tillage) and a paddock heavily grazed and conventionally tilled over 10 years at Greenethorpe, NSW translated into a difference of 185 tonnes of carbon per hectare (or 675 tonnes of CO2e.)

• A CSIRO study (unpublished) in Albany WA found a significant difference in organic matter between two paddocks, one stubble-burned 3 years previous then no-tillage treatment for three years (3.35% OM), the other managed with no-tillage (5% OM).

Something many critics of soil carbon trading misunderstood is the value of what appears to be small amounts of carbon.One percent of carbon is a significant amount. It can translate into 48 tonnes of soil carbon which equates to 176 tonnes of CO2e per hectare (at Bulk Density 1.6 and 30cms depth). A 1% increase in soil carbon per hectare – at $25/tonne – in this situation would be worth $4440. Multiply by a thousand hectares and you have a significant figure.

Senior CSIRO soil scientist Jeff Baldock says there is today no technical barriers to a fully-functioning market in soil carbon, and that such a market could make it ‘more economic to farm for carbon than to farm for yield.’

Mr Umber's statement that “these soils will require continued inputs of organic carbon at high levels just to remain at an elevated organic carbon level...[which]... may lead to the areas involved becoming ‘uneconomic’, as the cropping and grazing systems would have to be dramatically altered to retain the levels of organic matter needed to sustain higher soil carbon levels..." is further proof that we need to educate industry commentators about the basics. All carbon sequestration is based on changed land management. Minimum or No Till, Stubble Retention, Pasture Cropping... these techniques are becoming popular among Australian croppers.

The lack of meaningful recent data leads to many mistakes: “Simple arithmetic shows that the grains industry will be a net emitter of greenhouse gasses, to the tune of approximately 700 or so kg of emissions per hectare, or 14 million tonnes over the whole Australian crop,’’ said Mr Umber. “If, under a carbon trading system carbon is valued at (say) $20 per tonne, then rather than farmers making a return from sequestering carbon, they may end up with being asked to pay around $14 per hectare, and potentially more.” Nothing is simple about Greenhouse Gasses. No figures which do take account of soil carbon realities can be relied upon.

THE PUSHBACK**: Coalition branded 'irresponsible'

"There's been a lot of irresponsible speculation about the pot of gold which sits for agriculture at the end of the offsets rainbow." This was the Farm Institute's Mick Keogh on ABC Radio late last year. NSW Farmers - once strong supporters of the soil carbon solution (or at least Jock Laurie was) - have a new position: "Farmers should be extremely cautious about pinning their hopes on sales of soil carbon as a new farm enterprise," writes the Chairman of NSW Farmers Climate Change Working Group, Richard Clark. His letter to the editor in this week's Land is as confused and contradictory as the climate change sceptics who fill the columns of Rural Press publications and dominate the debate at NSW Farmers' meetings. Both Mick and Richard would agree that soil carbon credits are important for meeting our methane and other greenhouse emissions bills. Yet they are trying to scare farmers off, by bringing out all the old boogeymen and some new ones.
"In times of drought, carbon levels run down and carbon credits may have to be bought by cash-strapped farmers in a market where their neighbours are also trying to buy out their obligations." But then he makes a plea for the inclusion of soil carbon as an offset to a farmers' methane bill.

Here is the text of our letter to the editor of The Land. As they rarely publish our material, we send it to you directly.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Thanks to the Land for giving soil carbon so much coverage over the past two years. The Carbon Coalition truly appreciates it, although it is surprising, given the coverage, that so much of what is being said in your pages by ‘experts’ lately is so wrong. For instance, the claim soil carbon trading is dangerous because farmers will be forced to buy carbon credits when they lose soil carbon in a drought or simply to pay for methane and nitrous oxide emissions from stock and fertiliser betrays a need to do some homework.

Here are the facts: Farmers trading soil carbon will be protected by a “buffer pool” of ‘credits’ that can be dipped into whenever they go backwards due to drought or natural disaster. Soil Carbon Trading is not conducted between individual farmers and buyers. Large numbers of farmers are pooled or aggregated in the same way wool is sold. The aggregator holds a percentage of all units submitted for sale in a “buffer pool” which is released for sale at various points in the time period covered by the contract. There is also a system of insurances that can be used. The system has been working for American farmers on the Chicago Climate Exchange for 4 years and our trading arm, Carbon Farmers of Australia offers the same protection. It works for forests, which are in greater danger of destruction than soil carbon.

Methane and nitrous oxide: If you made no changes to the way you manage your animals and to the way you applied fertiliser and to the way you manage your land, then yes, you could end up paying for carbon credits. But this is a distant possibility. There are many alternatives that can reduce your total “Carbon Footprint”. You can reduce methane emissions in many ways: grazing management, rumen inoculants, and genetics. Nitrous oxide can be reduced by targeted fertiliser application, a range of new biological fertilisers, and simply the introduction of dung beetles. Soon the marketplace will be flooded with alternatives. Early indications are that soil carbon increases could easily account for the methane and nitrous oxide liability in the short term while we shift to a new way of farming.

No one is forcing your readers to consider soil carbon (the only revenue positive aspect of the carbon equation for farmers.). But the Government will force everyone to confront their emissions from farming activities. Those who would deter farmers from engaging in soil carbon trading could find themselves in a tricky legal position should the day arrive when farmers who, following their advice, ignored the soil carbon opportunity and find themselves clearly disadvantaged.

I should declare an interest here: We have campaigned for two years to see the day farmers would be paid for the soil carbon they grow. There will be billions sloshing around when carbon becomes the world’s largest commodity market, and unless we fight for it, farmers will see none of it. We formed a non-profit trading arm called Carbon Farmers of Australia to start the market in Australia.

If the naysayers had spent as much energy trying to find ways to make the soil carbon market opportunity happen as they have spent trying to find reasons not to do it, we would be trading now.

Put this question to the next expert you hear listing all the reasons why soil carbon trading is impossible/bad/dangerous/etc.: “Why do you want us to face a carbon bill without any carbon currency to pay it?”

Michael Kiely
“Uamby”
Goolma
Convenor
Carbon Coalition

Removing Barriers to Soil Carbon Offsets Trading

The value to Australia and the world that could arise from widespread adoption of farming techniques that sequester carbon is so great that removing the barriers to market for soil carbon offsets is worth considerable effort. This paper suggests a new line of enquiry for those working on this opportunity.

Unique substance

Soil carbon is a unique substance. It has many benefits for soils, including:

• increasing productivity
• reducing salt infestation
• improving water-holding ability
• building soil structure
• reducing erosion
• building soil microbe activity
• improving soil nutrients

It also has a positive impact on biodiversity. Landscapes which increasing soil carbon levels also experience a significant expansion of species numbers, both above and below ground.

The most important benefit of the soil’s ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere by photosynthesis is the impact on the Carbon overload in the atmosphere which is commonly believed to be causing global warming and climate change.

Of all solutions suggested for reducing emissions in future (such as solar, wind, nuclear power, clean coal or forests), none has the capacity, capability, or critical mass to start sequesting the large amounts of CO2e already loose and wreaking havoc in the atmosphere. Only soil can play the critical role of a secure bridge to the future for the next 30 years while other technologies grow to critical mass.

The ability to trade the soil carbon they grow would also provide farmers and graziers with a new income stream, a welcome change of fortune in a sector of the economy that has been suffering from declining terms of trade and severe drought.

In light of these benefits, soil carbon deserves to be treated as a special case when being considered for admission to the global trading system.

Barrier to trading soil carbon

The lack of a system of Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV) that satisfies the accounting principles of the Kyoto Protocols has been the major barrier to trade in soil carbon for more than 15 years. Despite millions of dollars in research grants, books, papers, conferences, and government enquiries, we are no closer to a solution. Although we know more about soil carbon, the “practical difficulties” remain unresolved.

The Garnaut Enquiry Issues Paper identified two major barriers to trade:

1. “A difficulty in the development of any offset project is the transaction costs in baseline setting, accreditation, monitoring, measurement and reporting, ensuring additionality, and preventing ‘double counting’ with actions covered by the scheme”.

2. “While significant at the national scale, agriculture and forestry emissions sources and sinks are often small, diffuse and difficult to measure and verify at the individual entity level. Sources and sinks are frequently small relative to the measurement effort required.”

The Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading Report agreed:‘factors that suggest initial exclusion of the agricultural sector from an emissions trading scheme ... that is, the lack of reliable measurement methodologies at the farm level and the complexity and cost of verifying emissions.’

CRC for Greenhouse Accounting’s John Carter, (program leader on soil carbon) was even more definitive: “Soil carbon is more difficult and expensive to measure and verify than carbon in tree plantations. …. These types of measurements require expensive mechanical sampling and laboratory measurements. Soil carbon is spatially variable, even at quite fine scales… High spatial variability increases the amount of sampling (and, hence, analysis costs) required to precisely estimate soil carbon stocks. ’ (Australian Farm Institute, Strategic Roundtable Conference, Future Agriculture, 2–3 November 2006, Sydney)

This mercurial nature of soil carbon is at the heart of the problem.

Soil carbon challenges Kyoto system

The conclusion that soil carbon has attributes which make it unsuitable for inclusion in an accounting scheme would indicate that the accounting scheme was the problem, given the potential benefits of soil carbon. The accounting scheme was established to facilitate a market only because the global community wanted to encourage widespread adoption of desirable practices.

The design of the Kyoto accounting system was based on application to less complex sources and sinks. It was originally devised to manage the sulphur dioxide/acid rain emissions reduction program. History guided the hands of those who migrated the SO2 model to CO2e.

However, the IPCC must be brought to understand that its purpose is not to produce a perfect accounting model. It’s purpose is to deploy the resources of its member nations to urgently remove CO2e from the atmosphere.

If the world’s 5.5billion hectares of agricultural soil were able to sequester 0.5 tonne of Carbon/hectare/year, it would remove 20billion tonnes of CO2e. Half that or half that again, and again, and there remains a significant contribution to restoring balance in the atmosphere. Only an IPCC that has forgotten its raison d’etre could allow worship of rules to blind them to their duty.

An approach for soil carbon trading

“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you always got.” The path to a soil carbon trading system does not appear to lie in the direction of more scientific knowledge alone. Other disciplines must be engaged, as Dr Rattan Lal declared . Integrated teams of economists, scientists, traders and agronomists must contribute to a solution that meets the needs of the market.

The solution could lie in reframing the question. Instead of asking:

“How can we measure soil carbon more accurately to meet the needs of the Kyoto accounting system?”,

...we could ask:

“How can we measure soil carbon to assure a buyer of offsets that they
have received what they wanted?”

Study the buyer. What are they buying? A tonne of CO2e removed from the atmosphere and stored.

Are they buying a particular tonne? Or a non-specific tonne?

Why are they buying it? To use it to offset an emission? To know that it is disabled as a gas.

Does it matter to them that they are buying an ‘aggregated tonne’ from a large ‘aggregated pool’ of tonnes that have been ‘equalised’ ie., flux is statistically ‘compressed’ (peaks and troughs equalised)? The buyer buys from an aggregated pool of tonnes as part of an aggregated pool of buyers. The significant variations at individual tonne level are eliminated by statistical smoothing.

This is not an original idea:

• This approach was first noted by Sandor and Skees who say that we need not worry about how much carbon is sequestered on an individual paddock, because, while estimates at an individual level may be flawed, the error has ‘typical statistical properties’ and that estimating many individual parcels and aggregating them into a single parcel will improve the estimate significantly. (Sandor, R. L. & Skees, J. 1999. Creating a market for carbon emissions. Choices 3rd Quarter, pp 13-17.)

• A similar note was sounded by the Australian Farm Institute: “if measurement or estimation systems are robust and unbiased… the aggregate result for the combined scheme will be relatively accurate due to the effect of combining many estimates together.” (The New Challenge for Australian Agriculture: How do you muster a paddock of carbon?)

• Wholesale aggregators are already commonly used in carbon markets and the system for aggregation exists. The Australian Greenhouse office already recognizes the benefits of aggregation in forest sinks, called ‘carbon pooling’. Dr Lal also sees the way forward in pooling: “[A protocol to trade C credits] will require development of routinely usable techniques to measure change in soil C pool at landscape level over a time span of 1 to 2 yr.”

• The concept is in tune with the call by Dr John Kimble for a ‘real world’ approach to soil carbon measurement, based on what is known about the behaviour of soil carbon.

Therefore we need to know how far such a solution can take us and where are its flaws.

Reducing the cost of MMV

There are several options for removing the barrier of cost of measurement:

1. Aggregated Sampling & Analysis: The current price of sampling is high on a per unit basis. But in the real world each landholder is not likely to be negotiating with a laboratory for sampling services. They will form buyer groups. Aggregators will negotiate on behalf of large numbers of landholders. The Government could play a role in tendering the entire Australian sampling opportunity to get the lowest per unit cost.(See point 7 below.) What price for core sampling 130,000 properties in Australia?

2. Predictive Ratios: Exploit the statistical properties of soil carbon flux to build predictive ratios. Baseline with 100cm cores, calculate the ratio of soil carbon in top 30cm over the total sample, and all monitoring samples thereafter need only be 30cm to measure total 100cm. Similarly, reduce the number of samples required by building predictive ratios between initial 200 samples and 20 samples per unit. Further, the statistical relationship between the individual samples and a single ‘bulked up” sample may enable the sampling to be dramatically reduced. The questions arise: what degree of uncertainty is acceptable to the Kyoto accountants? What tolerances will they allow soil carbon given the extraordinary uncertainty factors they allow other sources and sinks? What degree of accuracy (individual unit vs aggregated) would satisfy a buyer?

3. Simplified System: By stripping unnecessary elements from the testing regime and retaining only those needed to achieve our purpose (carbon sequestered), we can further reduce costs. Do we need to map soil types? Do we need to measure anything other than total carbon? How often do we need to measure bulk density?

4. Hybrid MMV system: The number of core samples could be reduced if a combination of visual audit and/or remote sensing were incorporated. An annual visual aduit could cover the following “Indicators” or proxies: • increased groundcover and therefore biomass • increased perenniality & therefore produce more biomass • increased biodiversity of plants species and wildlife in and on the soil • reduced soil disturbance and compaction.

5. Advance on Sales: Aggregators can advance the farmer the cost of measurement against future sales.

6. Revenue Context: Any cost for sampling should be considered against the price of carbon. This has ranged from $1 to $40 and some estimate it will reach $100 when the big 3 emitters (USA, China, India) finally enter the market.

7. National Carbon Baselining Programing: The Australian Government spent $15billion between 2000 and 2007 on environmental and NRM action, and ear-marked a further $10billion for the Murray-Darling rehabilitation. A significant part of this expenditure could be avoided if Australian landholders change their land management practices to grow soil carbon. Against this saving, the Government could consider offering carbon baselining to every landholder as a means of encouraging them to change their practices, by linking access to Government support and tax concessions to the direction of the landholder’s soil carbon score. (Soil carbon is a good key performance indicator for measuring land stewardship, soil fertility, biodiversity, and a range of ecological and environmental indicators.)

There are many avenues for removing cost as a barrier.

Do we have the time?

There is no time for new 3 year research projects. Three years is too long to wait. The time has come for learning by doing. Take action and monitor results. Assume we are wrong and look for evidence of it. The risk of not doing something is now greater than the risk of doing the wrong thing.

RSVP

This paper is full of holes. Information is missing. Assumptions are challengable. If its weaknesses can be addressed and none are fatal, perhaps – with goodwill and a focus on the purpose of the global effort to stabilize climate – it can form part of a solution based on aggregated ideas and pooled resources. Please respond.

Michael Kiely
Carbon Coalition
02 6374 0329
michael@carboncoalition.com.au

We need your help

The Prime Minister has passed the ball to Tony Burke, Minister for Agriculture, who sounds like a reasonable man. The Coalition needs to get his ear because soil carbon sceptics are often called Professor or Dr and politicians often assume 'science' is objective.

The Minister needs to hear the following alternative view:

The trading in soil carbon can only be conducted if a system of measurement, monitoring, and verification (MMV) can be agreed between the parties to the trade (and regulators).

A purely scientific solution is not likely to be found because of the unique properties of soil carbon and its dynamic interface with the atmosphere. Finer and finer levels of measurement take us further away from the solution. The soil and vegetation ‘breathe’ carbon in and out and this ‘flux’ makes conventional measurement impossible. Spacial variation is also significant. The possibility of trade therefore rests on the willingness of the parties to accept a system of practical estimations within certain statistical tolerances (that accord with uncertainty levels already accepted under IPCC protocols).

Science alone cannot provide the answer…

The question the Minister should be asking is this: “Why, after more than 12 years research, have the best scientists, working in the soil carbon field all over the world, not yet delivered a cost-effective and practical measurement, monitoring and verification (MMV) system to enable trade in soil carbon to proceed when it took only 8 years to put a man on the moon?” It is plain that the solution does not lie in more scientific research to develop more “accurate” measurement techniques.

The answer lies in gaining agreement between parties to the trading scheme that they can be confident they can transact and achieve their goals. Science cannot be a proxy for the decision because science, from 1995 to date, has only discovered reasons why the trade cannot proceed, based on increasing degrees of exactitude. Always the response is: “More research is needed.” (The 10 years Sir Nicholas Stern gave the world in which to act to avoid climate crisis 2 years go will have passed before the extraordinary sequestration capacity of soils can be deployed.) The world’s leading soil carbon scientists are appealing to their colleagues to abandon the purist approach and contribute to a practical solution. (Professor R. Lal (IPCC), Dr John Kimble, ex-USDA)

Because it is asking the wrong question…
Policy makers have ‘framed’ the question the wrong way. The question should not be: “How can we measure soil carbon with exactitude that matches other forms of carbon sinks or offsets?” The question should be: “How can we construct a measurement system that will satisfy buyers of offsets and make the trade in soil carbon possible?”

A customer-driven solution
Therefore the preferred methodology is to engage buyers, traders and regulators in discussion of MMV issues and enlist their help to develop a workable system. References will be made to analogous uncertainties in other categories of abatement and GHG offset. The engagement strategy includes interviews and workshops with carbon traders, commodity market experts, statisticians, buyers, regulators, and growers. Scientists will be involved where they understand that the objective of the exercise is not precision but practical solutions.
By revealing to the stakeholders the elements of systems for assessing soil C levels and their uncertainty levels, as well as the potential for using combinations of techniques, the stakeholders can gain an understanding and give considered opinions about degrees of confidence.

CARBON COALITION CONGRATULATES 'TRUE BELIEVERS' ON AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT BREAKTHROUGH

To the True Believers and Hornblowers,

"Well they blew their horns.... and the walls came down." (The Walls Came Down, by The Call, is the theme song of the Carbon Coalition)
The Walls are made of old paradigms, misinterpretations, suspicions, vested interests, ignorance, and fear. Cracks are appearing in them and this week PM Rudd kicked a big chunk out.

Many people played played a major role in projecting the soil carbon issue onto the national agenda. In the wake of PM Kevin Rudd's announcement that soil carbon would be thoroughly investigated, the Carbon Coalition thanks a long list of people and bodies that "blew their horns" and assisted the soil carbon cause.

The list of horn blowers includes the Central West CMA (especially Truk, John Lawrie), ABC Rural Radio Central West (Meg Strang and Michael Conlon), The Country Hour, Rural Press (The Land's Mathew Caywood), Dr John Williams (NSW Commissioner Natural Resources), Jock Laurie and the NSW Farmers' Association, David Crombie and the NFF, Dr Tim Flannery, the Australian Greenhouse Office, sustainability coach Michael Mobbs, Pancake Parlor's Sam Meadmore, Landcare Australia, Landmark, NAB Agribusiness, Holistic Management International, and Country Energy. Steve Truman of Agmates.com has been a stalwart. Terry McCosker of RCS and Rod Rush of CarbonLink have made a huge contribution to the media frenzy in Queensland where the PM saw the light. (He's a Queenslander, after all.)

The Coalition also thanks the Hon. Tony Windsor, Member for New England, who asked a PM Howard a question he couldn't answer in Parliament for the Coalition after we gave him a briefing. Thanks also to the Hon. Peter Garrett who gave us a fair hearing and saw to it that our demands were included on the ALP Platform for the last Election. The NSW Nationals' Andrew Fraser was an early supporter as well, putting soil carbon on his Party's platform for the NSW Election in 2007. The Democrats' Christine Milne gave us a fair hearing and they placed soil carbon on their platform. And a big thank you to Patrice Newell who invited the Coalition to stand a candidate for both the NSW and Federal Elections for the Climate Change Coalition.

Our greatest supporters have been the leading scientists who have appeared at our seminars and engaged with us about the issue. Their names shall be legend one day, but for now we'll keep it as a discreet general thank you because many suffered under the old regime and freedom of speech is a lesson we must all relearn. There are also the many Landcare Groups and Catchment bodies who invited us to speak to their members. The Coalition's own membership of 350 "true believers" also played a major role.

International support had come from scientists Professor Rattan Lal and Dr John Kimble, pioneer of Holistic Management, Allan Savory, Abe Collins of Carbon Farmers of America, and Alan Mayne and Max Purnell of Carbon Farmers Of New Zealand.

The Coalition's Advisory Council includes prominent carbon farmers David Marsh, Col Seis, Rick and Angus Maurice, and Jane Wilson. Daniel Kiely has given valuable technical support.

"But the one person who deserves to be honoured beyond all others for her contribution and commitment to the soil carbon solution is Dr Christine Jones. The nation owes her a debt it can never repay."

The Carbon Coalition has been almost entirely funded by the convenors and a small number of contributors. "The Coalition has received some financial support from individual donors who deserve to be cast in bronze. We also appreciate the support of commercial sponsors and welcome their involvement," says Michael Kiely. "All financial support is precious and extends our capacity to achieve our goals: higher soil carbon, regenerationof rural landscapes and biodiversity, healthy ecologies, new revenue streams for farm families, and stronger rural communities."

CARBON COALITION BACKGROUND

The Carbon Coalition was founded in February 2006 to campaign for the right of farmers and graziers to be paid fairly for the carbon they can capture and hold in their soils. The Coalition has conducted publicity campaigns, provided information services, published online sites, organised seminars and conferences, spoken to many gatherings of landholders across Australia, handled many hundreds of media enquiries, and travelled to the USA and NZ to study soil carbon sequestration. While there they assisted in the founding of Carbon Farmers bodies. The convenors of the Coalition established Carbon Farmers of Australia as a trading arm to enter the voluntary market and breakdown institutional barriers. CFA is writing its own Voluntary Soil Carbon Standard which it will submit to global standards authorities for ratification. The definitive soil carbon website Soil-C-Central is being constructed to give access to all available knowledge about soil carbon in the world, as well as virtual community facilities for meetings, discussion groups, and bulletin boards. At the same time, the convenors are seeking to offer growers the opportunity to get premium prices for 'emissions-reductions' produce by aggregating orders and using a brand story.

RUDD PROMISES SOIL CARBON INVESTIGATION:

The benefits of soil in sequestering carbon and its place in an emissions trading scheme will be investigated by the Federal Government, Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, announced yesterday.

In his opening address to this year's ABARE Outlook conference in Canberra, Mr Rudd said: "We need to prepare for climate change, but we also need to be ready to seize new market opportunities that come with tackling climate change. Because as well as difficult challenges, climate change will create opportunities for agricultural Australia. Today I want to announce one opportunity that the Government will be investigating: soil carbon. A few days after the Government was sworn into office last year, I visited Matt and Anna Ahern’s cattlestud in Roma with Queensland Agforce President Peter Kenny and with Tony Burke, the Minister for Agriculture. We discussed soil management practices on farms, and the scope for productivity improvements and reduced emissions from improving cropping practices. Peter’s plea to me was that if the Government wanted to do something about carbon emissions for agricultural Australia, we should focus on the soil.

"I am hearing more and more about the possible potential of enhancing the carbon stored in our soils. That is why today I am asking Tony Burke – as part of the our Australia’s Farming Future initiative – to investigate how better soil management can be part of Australia’s response to climate change. I recognise that this is a complex area and there is a variety of view points. I am told that there are significant challenges to measuring the emissions from different farming techniques and estimating the carbon stored in our soils. Those obstacles may make it difficult for soil carbon to play a role in our response to climate change, but we must examine the options. The truth is that, as in many aspects of climate change, we are only just beginning to look at soil carbon. ‘Low till’ or ‘no till’ soil management practices were first promoted for their environmental benefits through the previous Labor Government’s Landcare program that began in the early 1990s. More recently in Parliament, the Independent MP for New England Tony Windsor has been a champion of these practices for their water conservation benefits.
We now need to investigate how such practices might provide Australian agriculture with a role in new markets related to reducing carbon emissions.
…….

The challenges to the future of Australian agriculture are great, but we must not lose sight of the enormous opportunities for this sector given our natural competitive strengths. To succeed in addressing those challenges, we need to draw out the best ideas for Australia’s future from all parts of the community.
…..

We want to hear new ideas about which rural industries are best positioned to take advantage of the global consumer markets of the 21st century.

We are asking what options are possible for effective structural adjustment for rural industries and communities suffering the long term impact of climate change? And we are seeking view on what is the best way the Government can ensure the long term sustainability of rural and regional communities, including the fostering of the next generation of Australian farmers?"

Carbon Farmers light a fire in New Zealand

The Kiwi contingent to the Carbon Farmers Expo & Conference did far more than simply attend the event in Mudgee last November. They went back to NZ all fired up with how far ahead of the game Australia is compared to NZ and plotted to "let the genie out of the bottle" in that country. Alan Mayne (right) and Max Purnell (left) are agriculturalists, entrepreneurs, visionaries and philanthropists. Alan contributed his financial support and organisational skills, and Max his political connections to get the Carbon Coalition in to see many influential people in NZ. Max is a Trustee of Agmart, the NZ Government's funding body.

(1) We met Clive Howard-Williams from the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research who told us of the dramaitic danger faced by many of NZ's natural waterways due to runoff. The land needs increased soil carbon to filter the water as it leaves. We also learned that there is a controversy over soil C in NZ soils. One group of scientists maintain carbon has reached "steady state" ie. can sequester no more. Another group report that carbon levels across the country have collapsed in the last 25 years.

(2) We spoke to an audience of 350 NZ farmers in Christchurch at the "Farming For Change" Conference, organised by Peter Floyd's consultancy eCOGENT. The three day event featured Dr Arden Anderson (a medical doctor who has an interest in the link between soil health and food nutrition.)
With him was Dr Paul Dettloff, a vet from the USA who discovered the secret to animal health lies in soil biology.

(3) President of the Federated Farmers, Charlie Pedersen, was very willing to discuss the NZ soil carbon situation and especially the methane situation. Agriculture is the source of the highest proportion of NZ's GHG emissions, responsible for 49% because of the importance of the sector to the economy. (The world average is 12% of emissions from agriculture.) Methane is the main source.

The soil C solution was news to everyone we spoke to in NZ and especially the potential for it to meet the methane overhead. The official government position in NZ reflects the conventional scientific attitude towards soil carbon: The only sink that exists in NZ is forests. "Removals of greenhouse gases from other changes jn land use were not significant (in 2005)", reports the Department of the Environment. The level of understanding under the direcion of conventional science results in statements like these from the Department: ""The biological health of soil is determined by measuring the level of potentially mineralisable nitrogen in the soil."

(4) The current state of NZ's soils (over the last decade) is typified by increasing compaction, loss of organic matter and soil structure under cropping, and nitrogen build-up under dairy pastures.a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXDBZN3VZ0fg-sN6M1ayKR-bmd_dYrp3nFD4tmSWkVI_iPlgf4EqtfG2luLAa8zGz-wQ63zBwTsDfyzcLS8vOl5fa71GJGCRZnCISVMk9J0U2wzAke4wljT_IdWIWSZSCK7SZI/s1600-h/P1060352.jpg">

"Most declines in soil health are potentially reversible," says the Department of Environment. "But the shift to more intensive farming practices in many regions may make a reversal difficult to achieve in some soils." The 500 Soils Project found the following average total carbon scores for different land use changes: Native Forest 56.5tC/Ha, Dairy Pasture 66.9tC/Ha, Drystock Pasture 50.8tC/Ha, Arable Cropping 40.7tC/Ha.

NZ trading scheme within 18 months

The Convenors last week toured New Zealand meeting scientists, government officials and farmers. The NZ Government has declared that it will have a soil carbon trading system by July 2009. The Government put out a Tender for a Voluntary Carbon System in December, 2007. The Carbon Coalition submitted a response to the Tender (see below).

The scientific research agency which told us it was 99% sure it would win the Tender to design the NZ trading system, is in the curious position of claiming to be equipped to design a system for trading increases in soil carbon while it's official position is that NZ soils cannot sequester more carbon: "Most New Zealand pastures are well stocked with soil carbon and there is little scope for increases-indeed there is evidence that soil carbon can decline if already fertile pastures receive more fertiliser. In general however, fertiliser additions enhance plant residue inputs and decomposition, so cycling of carbon increases, but soil carbon levels remain at a steady state. This is why we cannot use soils to store more carbon to offset methane and nitrous oxide emissions from New Zealand farms."



Dr Kevin Tate is NZ's most senior soil scientist. We discussed the collaborative farmer/scientist model of scientific research which would involve educating farmers to lab assistant level so they can be more disciplined in taking measurements, and giving scientists a grounding in on-farm realities to assist them in avoiding poorly-designed studies.


VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET OPPORTUNITIES
SOIL CARBON MANAGEMENT IN NEW ZEALAND

Capabilities Statement
(Including CVs)

The Carbon Coalition NZ Soil C Team has the Capabilities and Credentials needed to achieve the Government’s objective in this exercise:

To develop a cost-effective and practical system that allows those undertaking cropland management and grazing land management activities to estimate/measure soil carbon changes on their land and sell voluntary carbon market offsets.

Capabilities

The Government will require a consultancy that has five fundamental capabilities:

1. KNOWLEDGE of the scientific, marketplace, and regulatory realities and possibilities that define the global soil C trading opportunity for New Zealand;

2. INSIGHTS from dealing with scientists and farmers and corporate buyers of soil C offsets for long enough to understand their issues;

3. CONNECTIONS with the key players in the emerging market for soil C offsets in this region and overseas;

4. AWARENESS of the contribution science can make (its enabling effect) and its limitations (its disabling effect); and

5. EXPERIENCE with designing and running voluntary soil C trading schemes.

These Five Capabilities point to one key factor on which the success hinges: Creative Insight, based on understanding all aspects of the creation of markets for soil C.

There are 18 reasons why the Carbon Coalition NZ Soil C Team has this level of Understanding:

1. Practical experience: we have been actively campaigning for creation of the market for soil C since February 2006, preparing position papers and presentations for political, industry and corporate decision-makers;

2. Grassroots insights: we have addressed more than 70 gatherings of landholders on the soil carbon issue and fielded hundreds of emails and and telephone calls;

3. “Market making”: we have designed a voluntary market system based on the Chicago Climate Exchange model and are engaged in building our own voluntary market standard for submission to the Voluntary Carbon Standard in June 2008;

4. Pioneering change agents: we were the first organization to trade soil C units in Australia and have been trading in a trial system since February 2007;

5. Global scientific contacts: we are in regular contact with the world’s most eminent scientists and agricultural economists working in the soil C field; (with Prof. Lal at Ohio State U, Columbus OH)

6. Global market contacts: we secured the first order for 25,000 acres of Australian farm soil carbon from the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in October, 2006; we are in regular contact with key personnel in the only active exchange in the world trading in soil C; (Left: Mike Walsh, svp, CCX Chicago.)

7. Building bridges: we have been engaged with Australia’s most senior soil C scientists for more than 12 months in a series of “Soil Science Summits” to build understanding and remove obstacles to trading;

8. Knowledge base: we have an extensive library of literature – both scientific and reportage - focussed soley on issues affecting soil C trading;

9. Network resources: we communicate daily with a growing network of scientists, extension officers, and farmers and graziers, sharing our knowledge between us;

10. Serving industry: we are currently building Soil-C-Central, the world’s largest database and online community focussed on soil C production and trading;

11. Real world involvement: we are registered, as farmers, as part of the Greenhouse Challenge Plus, an emissions reduction scheme run by the Australian Greenhouse Office – the first graziers to do so – in order to experience the full force of “net-net” carbon accounting;

12. Removing blockages: we were the first to detect the flaws in the scientific method used by the CRC for Carbon Accounting to measure the sequestration capacity of Australian soils;

13. Building community: we staged the worlds first Carbon Farming Expo & Conference on 16th-17th November, 2007 in Mudgee, NSW, with scientists, traders, and farmers speaking to an audience from every State in Australia and New Zealand;

14. Insider information: we have inside knowledge of the three trading operations emerging in Australia in the past 12-18 months and we are in touch with their promoters;

15. Credibility with farmers: landholders who control more than 2 million hectares have chosen Carbon Farmers of Australia, the non-profit trading arm of the Carbon Coalition to act as their representatives/aggregators for soil C trading; (Below: winners of the ‘Carbon Cocky of the Year’ Awards at Carbon Farming Expo & Conference, 2007);

16. Marketing expertise: we have more than 30 years experience as marketing consultants, working with major brands such as Toyota, Xerox, American Express, Australia Post, and Macquarie Bank;

17. Growers’ advantage: we have launched the “CarbonCredited™” scheme for producers who enter into recognised emissions-reduction programs, starting with an aggregated wool pool aimed to meet demand from retailers in Europe;

18. Intellectual resources: we have, as part of the Carbon Coalition NZ Soil C team, one of world’s leading soil scientists with research expertise in the area of applying advance technology to the function of “Measurement, Monitoring, & Verification” ; and

19. Acknowledged expertise: we assisted three political parties to develop their soil carbon policies for elections in Australia in 2007: the federal ALP (the new Commonwealth Government), the federal Democrats, and the NSW Nationals.

PM Rudd warned: “Beware the Scientific Quicksand”

The question the Prime Minister should be asking is this: “Why, after more than 15 years, have the best scientists, working in the soil carbon field all over the world, not yet delivered a cost-effective and practical measurement system to enable trade in soil carbon to proceed when it took only 8 years to put a man on the Moon?”

It is plain to anyone involved in the field for more than a few months that the solution to measuring and trading soil carbon does not lie in more scientific research to develop more “accurate” measurement techniques. The answer lies in gaining agreement between parties to the trading scheme that they can be confident they can transact and achieve their goals. Science cannot be a proxy for the decision because science, from 1995 to date, has only discovered reasons why the trade cannot proceed, based on increasing degrees of exactitude. Always the response is: “More research is needed.”

Dr Peter Grace from Queensland University of Technology represents the anti-trading faction among scientists. He greeted the PM’s statement with the conventional phrases such as “expensive” and ‘difficult’ and the inevitable bottomline: ‘more research is needed’. (Cynics could say there is a gravy-train mentality surrounding soil carbon. This is certainly the case in NZ where the "Crown Research Agencies" line up for handouts and the Government's response to climate change in agriculture is to create professorships - 2 in the case of biochar.)

The Carbon Coalition has been in discussions with enlightened soil scientists for more than 12 months to solve these problems. The world’s first Carbon Farming Conference in November was a watershed for soil carbon science. It brought scientists and farmers together to solve problems. We believe that some scientists may have changed their focus from accuracy of measurement to practical solutions for trading. If so, they know where the Moon is.

The trading in soil carbon can only be conducted if a system of measurement, monitoring, and verification (MMV) can be agreed between the parties to the trade (and regulators). A purely scientific solution is not likely to be found because of the unique properties of soil carbon and ts porous interface with the atmosphere. Finer and finer levels of measurement take us further away from the solution. The soil and vegetation ‘breathe’ carbon in and out and this ‘flux’ makes conventional measurement impossible. Spacial variation is also significant. The possibility of trade therefore rests on the willingness of the parties to accept a system of practical estimations within certain statistical tolerances (that accord with uncertainty levels already accepted under IPCC protocols). Australia could lead the world by devising and championing a commonsense regime that will enable the deployment of the power of soil to cure the carbon imbalance that afflicts the world.

Re the constant call for "more research" from the scientific community: We can't wait for the results of more 3 year trials. The 10 years Sir Nicholas Stern gave the world in which to act to avoid climate crisis 2 years go will have passed before the extraordinary sequestration capacity of soils can be deployed. The world’s leading soil carbon scientists are appealing to their colleagues to abandon the purist approach and contribute to a practical solution. (See comments of Professor R. Lal (IPCC), Dr John Kimble, ex-USDA below)

Preferred methodology: Therefore the preferred methodology is to engage buyers, traders and regulators in discussion of MMV issues and enlist their help to develop a workable system. References will be made to analogous uncertainties in other categories of abatement and GHG offset. The engagement strategy includes interviews and workshops with carbon traders, commodity market experts, statisticians, buyers, regulators, and growers. Scientists will be involved where they understand that the objective of the exercise is not precision but practical solutions.

By revealing to the stakeholders the elements of systems for assessing soil C levels and their uncertainty levels, as well as the potential for using combinations of techniques, the stakeholders can gain an understanding and give considered opinions about degrees of confidence.

Leading Scientists Call For Common Sense

Leading US scientists are questioning the importance of ‘flux’ and demanding that soil scientists come into the real world and find solutions:

• Dr John Kimble: "It is often pointed out that soils have a large
amount of variability, but with knowledge of soil sciences and
landscapes, variability can be described and sampling protocols
can be developed to deal with this," writes Dr John Kimble.29 "One
reason I feel people say that soils vary and SOC cannot be
measured is that we soil scientists focus on showing variability, not
on showing what we know about the variability.” "We too often focus on this [variability], worry about laboratory precision and field variation and do not look at the real world where most things are based on averages and estimated data. We tend to focus on finding variation and not on using our
knowledge of soil science to describe what we know. All systems
vary, but in soils we focus on a level of precision and accuracy that
may not have any relevance to the real world because we can take
so many samples and look at the variation." (Kimble, J., "Advances In Models To Measure Soil Carbon: Can Soil
Carbon Really Be Measured?", in Lal, R., Cerri, C., Bernoux, M.,
Etchevers, J., and Cerri, E., eds., Carbon Sequestration in Soils in Latin
America, Food Products Press, Birmingham, NY, 2006)

• Dr Rattan Lal: “Coming events are casting their shadow in this important and emerging field of immense significance to soil science, and the researchers must put their act together before the train departs the station…., While techniques of measuring concentration of C in soils, methodologically sampled and carefully prepared for laboratory analysis, are well known, the principal challenge to soil scientists lies in: (i) upscaling the point data to landscape, farm, watershed or a region … (ii) evaluating changes in soil C with reference to a baseline for cultivated land unit comprising a large farming community, and (iii) verifying that the C thus sequestered is permanent … Soil and tillage researchers must be pro-active in this important theme.” (Dr Rattan Lal, “Farming Carbon”, Soil & Tillage Research 96 (2007)
Dr Lal is Director, Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio; Professor of Soil Science, College of
Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, School of Natural
Resources, Ohio State University; Liebig Applied Soil Science Award.)

Kevin Rudd says YES to Soil Carbon

The Prime minister today said the words the Coalition has been wating to hear for more than 2 years

"I am hearing more and more about the possible potential of enhancing the carbon stored in our soils. That is why today I am asking Tony Burke – as part of the our Australia’s Farming Future initiative – to investigate how better soil management can be part of Australia’s response to climate change," he said at the ABARE Outlook 2008 Conference in Canberra today, 4 March 2008

His speech included the following: "I recognise that this is a complex area and there is a variety of view points. I am told that there are significant challenges to measuring the emissions from different farming techniques and estimating the carbon stored in our soils.Those obstacles may make it difficult for soil carbon to play a role in our response to climate change, but we must examine the options. The truth is that, as in many aspects of climate change, we are only just beginning to look at soil carbon. ‘Low till’ or ‘no till’ soil management practices were first promoted for their environmental benefits through the previous Labor Government’s Landcare program that began in the early 1990s. More recently in Parliament, the Independent MP for New England Tony Windsor has been a champion of these practices for their water conservation benefits. We now need to investigate how such practices might provide Australian agriculture with a role in new markets related to reducing carbon emissions."

A MESSAGE OF THANKS

Congratulations to everyone who has worked to see the soil carbon solution given a fair hearing. Those who contributed money, precious time, and support know who they are. Some even risked their careers to support us. There will be statues erected to you all in the Soil Carbon Hall of Heroes. But the work is not yet done. The door has been opened a little. You can expect the sceptics to fight even harder from here on in. But the tide is turning. Our numbers are small, but we are aided by mighty forces. This is a glorious day, but t is only another step along the way to our ultimate goal: to see soil carbon traded and the farmers who grow it paid fairly for it.