The Senate is debating the Carbon Farming Initiative legislation. Three senators quoted our evidence before the Senate Inquiry during the debate so far, so the voices of carbon farmers was heard:
Senator Richard Colbeck (Liberal, Tasmania)
5 July 2011
I want to move on to the issue of permanence. It is a
complex issue and one that needs modification as part
of this legislative process. It is interesting that some
farmers who came in to talk to us, who are all about
storing carbon in their landscape, brought in to us
presentations demonstrating how they were changing
their farming methodologies to store carbon in their
landscape. They talked about the improvements in
productivity. They discussed with us the carrying
capacity of their land as a result of their different
management practices. And yet Mr Kiely, who came
before the committee to give us evidence, says that
permanence is 'the deal killer'. He said:
No farmer would be silly enough to agree to 100 years for
soil carbon or 100 years for anything. A finance lender
would want to know seriously the impact on the value of the
property of agreeing to such a thing. We did some research
into the 100 years thing and discovered it was a policy
decision, not a scientific measure …
These are people who are committed to carbon storage,
who are practising the sorts of things the government
wants to encourage, and they are saying that the
government processes are a 'deal killer'. And these are
the sorts of people who the government should
legitimately be listening to as part of this process. It is
only common sense that practitioners, who have spent
time and effort in trying to develop their farms and
who actually practice these things, and have some
expertise, should be listened to by the government.
Senator Nick Xenaphon, Independent, South Australia
6 July, 2011
'Permanence' is defined in the act as '100 years'. On the
face of it, that gives a great deal of confidence. But it is
not realistic in the context of farming practices and it is
not realistic in getting a good outcome.
Let me quote from page 35 of the Senate committee
report. The Chairman of the Carbon Farming and
Trading Association, Michael Kiely, said:
No farmer would be silly enough to agree to 100 years for
soil carbon or 100 years for anything. A finance lender
would want to know seriously the impact on the value of the
property of agreeing to such a thing. We did some research
into the 100 years thing and discovered it was a policy
decision, not a scientific measure ...
That is a real concern. We need to listen to key
stakeholders such as the CFTA. It would be foolish not
to listen to those who have that firsthand practical
knowledge. This was a recommendation about the
issue of permanence in the inquiry into these bills. It is
important that the DOIC continue to update, amend
and improve the scheme into the future.
Senator Simon Birmingham, Liberal, South Australia
The CFTA appeared before the inquiry and
described the provision as the 'deal killer'. I will read
an extract of the evidence that is highlighted in the
inquiry. Mr Michael Kiely, Chairman of the CFTA,
stated:
No farmer would be silly enough to agree to 100 years for
soil carbon or 100 years for anything. A finance lender
would want to know seriously the impact on the value of the
property of agreeing to such a thing. We did some research
into the 100 years thing and discovered it was a policy
decision, not a scientific measure ...We believe that 100
years is a perverse outcome. The result is said to be
necessary so buyers can be confident they are getting
value—that is, genuine abatement—so they get nothing.
There is nothing available for them. We have found
examples where the IPCC and the Verified Carbon Standard
have allowed other periods of time recently—20, 25, 30-odd
years. We believe we could work within that sort of time
frame.
Opportunities in the Carbon Farming Initiative will be revealed at the Carbon Farming Conference & Expo, 28-29 September, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment