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.

Garnaut drops a big hint

There was good news for 'soilies' when Professor Ross Garnaut released his "Interim" report today. He is clearly serious about including agriculture in an emissions trading scheme as early as possible.

Our take-outs from the Report, and especially the passage below, are:

Climate change is URGENT for Australia because of Agriculture's exposure and our relationships with fragile nations in Asia.
Australia must act quickly to sequester large amounts of carbon.
Australian soils can potentially sequester large amounts of carbon.
Agriculture can be included in a trading scheme if it gets the same protection being considered for other "trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries" (ie. coal mining and aluminium and other 'dirty' industries).
Issues that must be addressed: MMV and transaction costs.

The Carbon Coalition has maintained since the beginning that URGENCY would force the powers that be to loosen their rules once they realise the importance of soil in the short term action plan.

The relevant passagecan be found on page 47 of the Report. You can download the report at www.garnautreview.org.au:

"An efficient ETS would have as broad coverage of emitting sectors as possible within
practical limits imposed by factors such as measurability and transaction costs.
The proposals by the Task Group on Emissions Trading (2007) suggested relatively
wide coverage for an Australian ETS. The recently announced proposals for a New
Zealand ETS includes all sectors. Some sectors that are usually considered to be
difficult, like forestry, are to be included from the beginning, and others, like agriculture,
are to be included later, to allow time to develop ways to include them.
In Australia, there is considerable potential for sequestering large amounts of carbon
through changes in land and forest management and agricultural practices. It is
important that incentives to realise this potential are in place as early as possible in the
life of the ETS. Full inclusion of agriculture and forestry could require consideration of
measures available to other trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries.

The Carbo Coalition's submission can be found at http://soilcarbongarnaut.blogspot.com

A BIG HOORAY to those members who made submissions.

The Green Cow Manifesto

Coalition member Murray Schofield has answered our call for ideas to promote the Cause.

"Most people view cattle as destructive. Green groups have for years been telling them this, how cows ruin waterways, cause erosion, destroy county by overgrazing, huge amounts of methane into the air and the list goes on..."

The bumper stickers are handed out and direct people to a website where Murray hits them with 'REAL FACTS'about how cattle can heal the land, etc. The we direct them to drill down into other articles including testimonials from graziers/ranchers from all over the world - telling the people we attract about increasing biodiversity and the increase in native wildlife.

"Most people couldn't care less if you tell them how you can improve stocking rates or profits, but they do care about environmental issues, like climate change or wildlife issues," says Murray.

The controversial statement should attract attention from the media - giving the campaign a boost.

Some variations on the GREEN COW MESSAGE: "The Best Environmentalist I Know Is A Cow."

"COWS + GRASS + SOIL = NATURAL CARBON SINK"

"MAN CREATES CO2 NATURE CAPTURES CO2"

"CARBON A DIRTY WORD
ONLY IF IT'S IN THE AIR.
PUT IT IN THE SOIL
WHERE IT BELONGS"

"Build us a soil C trading system"

Carbon Farmers of Australia - the non-profit trading arm of the Carbon Coalition - is working on IP (intellectual property) in the MMV (measurement, monitoring and verification) area.(Everyone else is doing it.) We'd tell you about it, but it seems you have to be secretive about it or someone ill steal it. We recently responded to a tender from the NZ Government for a soil carbon trading mechanism.
EXTRACT FROM TENDER:
Introduction: The methodology outlined here might be surprising, given the dominance of science and scientists in the debate so far. The question the MAF should be asking is this: “Why, after more than 12 years research, have the best scientists, working in the soil carbon field all over the world, not yet delivered a cost-effective and practical measurement, monitoring and verification (MMV) system to enable trade in soil carbon to proceed when it took only 8 years to put a man on the moon?” It is plain to anyone involved in the field for more than a few months that the solution the MAF is seeking does not lie in more scientific research to develop more “accurate” measurement techniques. The answer lies in gaining agreement between parties to the trading scheme that they can be confident they can transact and achieve their goals. Science cannot be a proxy for the decision because science, from 1995 to date, has only discovered reasons why the trade cannot proceed, based on increasing degrees of exactitude. Always the response is: “More research is needed.” (The 10 years Sir Nicholas Stern gave the world in which to act to avoid climate crisis 2 years go will have passed before the extraordinary sequestration capacity of soils can be deployed.) The world’s leading soil carbon scientists are appealing to their colleagues to abandon the purist approach and contribute to a practical solution, based on their knowledge of how soil carbon acts. We have already seen movement in this direction among Australian soil scientists ho must be among the most progressive in the world. (See comments of Professor R. Lal (IPCC), Dr John Kimble, ex-USDA attached)

Soil-C-Central - World's Largest Source of Soil Carbon Information

We hope to launch “SoilCCentral.com”, a website devoted to all known research and knowledge of Soil Carbon sequestration, including ideas and farming techniques to increase Carbon in soils. It will have links to every resource available online and be useful for scientists, primary producers, and policy makers. Once we have achieved our objective, it would be transformed into a resource to support farmers trading soil and other forms of carbon. The Objective is to speed up the development of MMV solutions (Measurement/Monitoring/Verification), which is the sticking point for trading.

Coalition Update

This is a photo of the audience at the Macquarie 2000 Landcare AGM 2 weeks ago. We spoke on the same program as Christine Jones who is a stunning educator. It was a pleasure to be working with her again. She has been our inspiration since 2005 when we attendd her Carbon Forum in Armidale - and where we met Col Seis, David Marsh, and Rick Maurice.

Christine announced that the first cheques will be presented to the farmers enrolled in her Accreditation Scheme at Parliament House in 2009. Then, she said, if the IPART (the weights and measures body) don't accept her MMV system, she will continue to sell on the Voluntary market. ('Voluntary' is quickly losing its meaning with the carbon nazis insisting that the unregulated market should be as regulated as the regulated market - and the ACCC is conducting an enquiry into it.)

We are off the NZ at the end of the week to speak to farmers and scientists and government officials about soil carbon. An entrepreneur called Alan Mayne is paying us to do the trip. He was a delegate at the Carbon Farming Conference we organised last November. We are putting our slides in order for a Kiwi version of our presentation. (They have a problem with the official view of soils in NZ as well: the dominant paradigm says that NZ soils can't sequester much carb on because they're all full up! Paradigm Busters!)

At the same time I am negotiating with the publishers of Ethical Investor Magazine to speak at their conference in both Sydney and Melbourne in May on "Green Marketing". Unfortunately they don't want to pay my travel and accommodation (not to mention my speakers' fee) and we have to weigh up the value of the opportunity.

At the same time I have a presentation to do at ad agency WHYBIN to sell in our CarbonCredited™Brands solution for city based businesses.

At the same time we have to prepare for a week in WA speaking at Conferences and meeting farmers, in March.

We are speaking at YASS on 9 April at the Soldiers' Club.

At the same time we are working on a Voluntary Carbon Standard for soils, to submit to the global Voluntary Carbon Standard organisation.

At the same time we are working to codify our current 'proxy/indicator' model for selling 'soil credits' by April 4 when our 'sustainability coach' Michael Mobbs is in town.

Meanwhile we must soon have another meeting with our friends in the scientific community to plan the 2008 Conference...

Soil-C-Central is going ahead, despite the fact that Louisa did not win the $10k bursary from the Rural Womens' Award, which was to be our down payment. Need a sponsor.

Meanwhile I am toying with a user pays information service for soil carbon....

BTW: Tom Nicholson is crossing the Nullabor as I write, on his way to WA as part of his research for a book on Carbon Farming.

BTW Christine Jones is writing a book to be published in 2009.

Soil Carbon's Rural Woman of the Year

We enter awards and stand for parliament in order to raise the profile of soil carbon.

Louisa was runner-up in the NSW RIRDC Rural Women’s Award 2008. The winner was Tracey Knowland, a businesswoman from Brooklet near Byron Bay. Here's how the organisers presented the two finalists:

Tracey Knowland, a businesswoman from Brooklet
Tracey, along with her husband Stuart, owns and operates Bangalow Wholesale Nursery at Bangalow in the Byron Bay hinterland. Tracey’s business specialises in trialling and developing superior selections of small to medium Australian temperate/subtropical rainforest trees and coastal tolerant trees. Her target markets include the landscape and development industry. Tracey proposes to use the bursary to fund her participation in the 2008 National Nursery & Garden Industry Association National Conference in Adelaide in March, followed by a study tour of Victoria's largest wholesale production nurseries to look at sustainable growing methods. Tracey also hopes to build on a water recycling project as part of their nursery business, and share her experiences with other women in rural and urban-based businesses.



Louisa Kiely, Goolma

Louisa and her husband Michael own and operate a superfine wool enterprise at Goolma in central western NSW. Her focus for the past two years has been on climate change and sustainable farming. She has coordinated a number of workshops and summits, bringing together scientists and farmers to share information about carbon farming. Louisa’s award project involves building and launching SoilCCentral.com – a website devoted to research and knowledge of carbon soil sequestration, including ideas and farming techniques to increase carbon in soils. She hopes to use her project to highlight the benefits of increasing carbon in our agricultural soils to help save family farms and the environment at large.

And this is how ABC RADIO's Country Hour reported the event:

Last night at a gala ceremony in Sydney, Bangalow Nursery manager Tracey Knowland was named NSW rural woman of the year, by the Minister for Primary Industries Ian Macdonald.

"Tracey's business focuses on innovative advanced tree production and and is looking to develop a thriving export business as well as keeping a sense of the environmental issues involved with tree planting and production.

"The environment also plays a big part in the success of the runner up for the award Louisa Kiely from Goolma who is a strong advocate for carbon farming and the implications of climate change."


THIS WAS LOUISA'S APPLICATION:

Louisa Kiely

“Uamby” via Goolma NSW 2852
Convenor
Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming
Principal,
Carbon Farmers of Australia

[Mobilise the Soils, Save the Planet, Save the Family Farm]

DEMONSTRATED PERSONAL COMMITMENT*

February 2006 - Co-Founded the Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming to lobby for the right of Australian landholders to trade on the emissions offset market the credits they can earn by sequestering carbon in their soils.
May, 2006 - Presentation at Manning Landcare event, Gloucester
2 June, 2006 - Brief NSW Farmers’ Association, Jock Laurie, Sydney NSW
14 July, 2006 – Presentation for CWCMA, Mudgee Small Farm Field Day
19 July, 2006 – Presentation to Baradine Landcare Group
July, 2006 - Presentation to Land Management Workshop, Cobar
18/19 September: Washington DC –2006 Global CO2 Cap-And-Trade Forum
21/22 September: Bozeman, Montana - Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase 2 Project Management Plan Workshop
25 September: College Station, Texas - Professor Bruce McCarl, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University
27 September: Albuquerque, New Mexico - Peter Holter, Holistic Management Int
28 September: Attended and addressed 2 day Phase 2 Workshop in Albuqurque,New Mexico of the Southwest Regional Partnership
29 September: Swanton, Vermont - Address Farmers’ gathering organised by Coalition member Abe Collins from Vermont.
1 October: Columbus, Ohio - Professor Rattan Lal, School of Natural Resources at Ohio State University, Columbus Ohio
3 October: Chicago, Illinois – Mike Walsh, SVP, Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)
Secured first order for 25,000 acres Australian soil from CCX.
23 October, 2006 – Presentation to Kingaroy Carbon Forum, Kingaroy
Coordinated 8-farm application for CWCMA funding for soil trials.
13 November, 2006 – meet with NSW President Soil Science Society re data for CCX and Summit of scientists and Practitioners
25 November, 2006 – Make presentation to Cobar/Nyngan Landcare
22/23 November, 2006 - Speak at National Carbon Forum Canberra
19 December, 2006 - Briefed NSW Farmers’ Asociation’s Jock Laurie.
9 February, 2007 - Address SA No Till Farmers’ Association, Tanunda, SA
5 March, 2007 - Address CWA Agriculture & Environment Seminar, CWA House
7 March, 2007 - Conduct 4 hour workshop on carbon trading for RCS, Yeppoon
8 March, 2007 - Address soils gathering, CWCMA Dubbo, NSW
10 March, 2007 - Address landholders’ gathering at Collarenabri, NSW


12 March, 2007 - Address Landcare meeting, Mudgee NSW*
1 April, 2007 - Launch Carbon Farmers of Australia – trading arm of Carbon Coalition. Make first sales of Australian farm Soil Credits.
22 March, 2007 Organised Summit between Scientists and Farmers, Dubbo NSW


29/30 March, 2007 - Address Landcare Farming Forum, Grafton
25-27 April - Address Southern Rivers CMA/Landcare Forum, Merimbula /Eden

3 May, 2007 - Attend “Green Dollar” Conference, Canberra ACT
15 May, 2007 - Brief Judi Earl, Holistic Management International, Goolma
14 June, 2007 - Organised 2nd Summit between scientists and farmers, Orange
21 June, 2007 – Attend and address DPI landholders’ meeting at Junee Reef.
4 July, 2007 – Address Ebor Beef Group, Armidale NSW
14-15 July, 2007 – Address NSW Women In Agriculture Conference, Forbes
19 JULY, 2007 – Address Biodynamic Farmers, Melbourne Victoria

*My husband Michael is Co-Convenor. He does all the website communications and public relations. We often share the podium or present alone. Michael’s solo lobbying or presentation work is not listed here.


THE SOIL CARBON OPPORTUNITY

• Restore Australia’s heavily depleted agricultural soils to health and productivity.
• Restore the financial security of farm families by giving them access to what will soon be the largest commodity market in the world.
• Restore local economies and rural communities.
• Restore the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere and help avert the worst effects of Climate Change.

A PERSONAL MISSION: My specific focus for the past 2 years has been Climate Change and Sustainable Farming. When I entered agriculture as a woolgrower 10 years ago, I studied sustainable farming practices as part of the Advanced Diploma of Farm Management at the University of Sydney (Orange) and my husband and son joined me in learning the Holistic Management approach to grazing management. I experimented with various techniques of rebuilding the depleted soils on our ‘renovator’s dream’ property “Uamby”, which has been farmed hard for 182 years.

To get litter on the ground and encourage soil biological processes that make healthy soil, we tired mulching bare earth, mulching rank grass and thistles, spreading manure, spreading treated human biosolids, spreading worm juice, spreading seaweed, and other experiments. We proved that you can grow new topsoil quickly with effort.

But the breakthrough for me was attending one of the first Carbon Forum staged by Dr Christine Jones in Armidale. We were selected as among the 10 most innovative farm families in the Catchment by the Central West Catchment Management Authority, and trained for 20 days in a range of skills to do with innovative farm planning. We that soil carbon was the key performance indicator of progress towards soil health, reduced salination, water management, biodiversity, reduced erosion… and climate change mitigation. In fact, we concluded that the world’s agricultural soils could be the only solution to the Global Warming Crisis.

The UN, NASA, and our own Australian Greenhouse Office agree: there is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to push the globe through the 2°C increase that will cause climate chaos. The only way to remove it is Photosynthesis. Plants and Trees. No other popular solution can do it – clean coal, nuclear power, solar and wind power, these can only avoid future emissions. And Forests, even if we planted enough today, cannot reach critical mass in less than 15-20 years. The Stern Report said we have 10 years in which to act, and NASA agrees. The only solution is agricultural soils. They already have critical mass and can start sequestering carbon instantly on a large scale.

A slight increase in soil carbon across Australia’s agricultural regions can sequester more than half our greenhouse gas emissions.

EVIDENCE: A 0.1% increase in organic carbon across only 10% of Australia’s agricultural lands would sequester 387 million tonnes CO2. Australia’s emissions are projected to reach 603 million tonnes annually over 2008–12. (Soil C in the top 20 cm of soil with a bulk density of 1.2 g/cm3 represents a 2.4 t/ha increase in soil OC which equates to 8.8 t/ha of CO2 sequestered. - Dr Christine Jones)

CASE STUDY: Pasture cropping/time controlled grazing combination in Central West NSW recorded increase in soil carbon from 2% to 4% over 10 years (0.2%C/yr) (CSIRO)

OPPORTUNITY: Soil carbon credits could underwrite the income of many farm families and enable them to offset their emissions from methane and other greenhouse gases. Australia’s soils are badly in need of restoration. We have lost 50% of our topsoil in 200 years and 80% of the soil organic carbon. There is great potential for reversing these trends.

CALCULATIONS: The Department of Environment and Climate Change, and the Central West Catchment Management Authority estimated that the soils in the Catchment can capture 183 million tonnes of Carbon by 2020 if farmers switch to “advanced farming practices”. The shift would result in a doubling of the soil carbon contained in paddocks.

183 million tonnes of Carbon = 671 million tonnes CO2e (Carbon tonne x 3.67 = Carbon Dioxide tonne)
At $25/tonne = $16.75 billion dollars. At only $5/tonne = $3.35 billion dollars
$3.35 billion dollars ÷ 5500 farms* = $609,440 per farm
$600,000 ÷ 15 years** = $40,000/year (At $5/tonne, the low point.)

*In the Central West Catchment (ABS)
**2005-2020 – the average period for soils to saturate with carbon.

POTENTIAL: The Carbon Coalition has been the only organization to focus consistently on promoting this opportunity. It has lobbied all levels of government and raised awareness of the opportunity with government officials and scientists. The Commonwealth Government has the power to allow landholders access to the carbon market on equal terms.

Through our lobbying efforts, the NFF, NSW Farmers, the NSW National Party and the ALP (Federal Opposition) have endorsed the soil carbon trading concept. Others we have influenced include Australian of the Year, Dr Tim Flannery, NSW Commissioner for Natural Resources Dr John Williams, and Professor Rattan Lal, the world’s foremost soil scientist and leader of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change soils delegation from the USA to the UN.

LATEST PROJECT: We are organizing the world’s first CARBON FARMING EXPO & CONFERENCE on 16th-17th November, 2007 in Mudgee NSW. Professor Lal described it as “an historical event of international importance.” The Kiely family is underwriting the conference.

HOW $10,000 WOULD BE INVESTED:
We hope to launch “SoilCCentral.com”, website devoted to all known research and knowledge of Soil Carbon sequestration, including ideas and farming techniques to increase Carbon in soils. It will have links to every resource available online and be useful for scientists, primary producers, and policy makers. Once we have achieved our objective, it would be transformed into a resource to support farmers trading soil and other forms of carbon.



Budget:

Research (time and subscriptions) $5000
Website development $3500
Publicity $1500


LEADERSHIP AND SKILLS SHARING

This role has given me for, the first time in my career, the authority to shape policy and direction. The Coalition is a leadership body – leading the campaign for property rights to the carbon a farmer grows in their soil.

The tool we have at our disposal are basically two:

1. knowledge
2. communications technology

Soil C Central will provide us with both, but at a higher level than to date.

The website by its nature will be a vehicle for sharing knowledge and opportunities.

This knowledge will also be delivered through my public speaking activities.





A PERSONAL STATEMENT

As a landholder and woolgrower, I am concerned about the health of the land I have in my care.

As a grandmother and mother, I am concerned about the world I will leave to my children and their children.

As a human being, I am afraid for the future of our community and nation as we enter a new era of uncertainty and insecurity.

The 2008 RIRDC Rural Women’s Award would be a significant contribution to our morale and resources. But the recognition alone would be worth more than the money in helping to promote our work and the outcomes we seek.

Together, we can achieve good things for the environment, good things for farm families and our communities, and good things for those who will otherwise be severely effected by extreme climate events.


Louisa Kiely

Here's your $67,000 bill for Methane

Will Farmers be denied soil credits to pay $67,000pa methane bill?

The average Australian farmer could get a bill of $67,000 every year for methane and other emissions, but won’t be able to pay for it with the carbon they grow in their soils, says the Carbon Coalition.

A Greenhouse Office calculator case study* for a mixed farming operation on 2200ha has the total annual emissions liability of 2687t/CO2e, which would cost $67,000 to “offset” by buying carbon credits at $25/tonne.

“While the farmer in the example earns carbon credits for 100ha of trees, there is no allowance on the calculator for carbon stored in the soil, which could be worth more than the total emissions,” says Coalition Convenor Michael Kiely. “That tonnage of CO2e can be captured in only 732 tonnes of soil carbon†, or 0.33tonnes C/ha/year. That is not a big ask with ‘Carbon Farming’ techniques.”

“In fact, a NSW Forests calculator of soil carbon sequestration reveals that our farmer could capture twice the amount of carbon needed per hectare to ‘pay’ for the methane and other emissions,” he says.

The Carbon Coalition recommended to the Garnaut Climate Change Review for Agriculture to be involved in an emissions trading scheme. ‘But only a scheme which allowed landholders to offset their emissions with the soil carbon they can capture and store. We are willing to go into the market ‘eyes wide open’, aware of our liabilities and equally confident of our assets,” says Michael Kiely.

The Coalition’s submission (online at http//soilcarbongarnaut.blogspot.com) is critical of the way soil carbon science has been managed. “There are huge gaps in the data sets and, on the basis of inadequate data, the myth that Australian soils are too old and degraded to sequester much carbon,” says Michael Kiely.

“The irony is that everyone who makes that statement reveals their ignorance of basic soil science. Age has nothing to do with it and what has been lost can be restored. I would advise those ‘policy’ people and ‘researchers’ who make these statements to stop embarrassing themselves.”

“There is not one piece of scientific evidence to prove the claim that Australian soils do not have the potential to sequester significant amounts of soil C. On the contrary, we have evidence that Australian soils do have that potential. The CSIRO has said this. The NSW DPI has said this. Yet there are still some who ignorantly parrot old slogans.”

Coalition unmasks soil C “difficulties”

The Coalition’s submission demolishes the many “difficulties” that soil carbon sceptics say make soil C a non-starter for trading:

1. Too many small sources and sinks: “The aggregation of growers is an everyday reality in commodity marketing. Marketing Boards, Grain Desks, and Producer Groups are well understood by growers. Woolgrowers are setting up “demand chains” or “supply chain solution for retailers”. EMS systems make aggregation easy.”

2. Difficult to measure: “Poppycock. It’s easy to measure. The problem is ‘flux’ – the amount moves around. Highly respected soil scientists such as John Kimble and Rattan Lal have urged their colleagues to stop being so precious. Flux has statistical properties and can be averaged for accurate real world estimation.”

3. Cost of measurement and monitoring: “Amortise the cost over 130,000 landholders - bulk buy the service - and the price will be realistic. Set it against $25 or $50 or $100 a tonne CO2e and the cost is trivial. Those amounts will be possible when the 3 biggest emitters USA, China and India, enter the market to buy offsets.”

4. 100 Year Rule: “It can’t apply to soil which can do the job for 30 years while all the other solutions grow to critical mass. It’s either soil C or climate chaos. Soil is the only short to medium term solution. Kyoto did not anticipate it and the IPCC has it in its power to change the rules.”

5. Permanence: “You might be 65% water today and 65% water tomorrow, but it is different water. It ‘fluxes’. We don’t care which carbon atom was held. It’s the steady increase in the total amount of soil C that counts.”

6. Initial costs high: “The cost of a soil carbon solution should be seen in context of the billions Australian Governments have spent trying to get Australian landholders to “care” and change their paradigm of relationship with the land. A system that rewards landholders for increasing Soil C will achieve so many Natural Resource Management objectives.”

7. Trade exposed industries: “What appears as a disadvantage can be turned into a competitive advantage by turning a necessity into a virtue: ie., building a brand that exploits the producer’s emissions reduction. The ‘concerned Climate Change consumer’ has already emerged in Europe and British retailers are requesting ‘carbon neutral’ wool from Australian wool buyers.”

“All the things the sceptics call ‘difficulties’ with soil C are simply barriers they put in front of us. They make no attempt to solve these ‘difficulties’; they just parrot them as though saying it will make it real,” says Mr Kiely.


[*“Sheep Greenhouse Accounting Framework” and **“Carbon Sequestration Predictor for selected land use change in inland areas of NSW Version 2.0” can be found at http://ww.greenhouse.crc.org.au/tools/calculators/]

†Convert Carbon to CO2e by multiplying by 3.67

Clean Coal Gone: Bush stands naked

The US Government has scrapped the most advance “clean coal” project after pouring US$2billion into it. The project would have built the first pilot clean coal power plant with carbon sequestration. The Energy Department is officially shelving the FutureGen Alliance project that the Bush administration had supported for five years.

The Bush Administration rested all its hopes on ‘clean coal’ and so diverted vast amounts of funding earmarked for soil carbon sequestering research.

In private conversations with US scientists, the Carbon Coalition was told more than $300million was withdrawn from one bio-sequestration project group alone. In separate conversations with scientists working on FutureGen projects, we were told that deep-geologic burial was “pipe dreams”, untried and dangerous.

FutureGen is one of the most advanced projects for determining whether emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, can be captured from coal-fired plants and stored underground. Carbon sequestration is considered essential to meeting targets for US greenhouse gas emissions.

What has the world got if they can’t rely on a ‘technology’ fix.. like ‘clean coal’?

It’s got “Nothing”.

Solar, wind, nuclear, trees, char, thermal… Nothing can be deployed in time.

Only soils. 5.5 billion hectares of it stands ready to serve the cause of mitigation.

The world has a choice.

It’s SOILS or “Nothing”.

ATTENTION SOIL SCIENTISTS & STATISTICIANS

The NZ Government have called tender to decide who will advise it on establishing a soil C trading program for the voluntary market. The Carbon Coalition is well advanced down this track as a result of recent work and we need help from an Australian scientist (knwoledge of NZ soils not essential but useful) and we need help from a statistician. Please call 63740329.

The RFP is due in a week, so call now. The solution is due in a year and a half.

Michael Kiely
michael@carboncoalition.com.au


VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET OPPORTUNITIES – SOIL CARBON MANAGEMENT IN NEW ZEALAND



1. Purpose

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

2. Context

2.1. The Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change Plan of Action includes a Government-Primary Sector partnership focused on assisting land-based primary sectors to capitalise on the business opportunities arising from climate change.

2.2. Moving from a high-emission to a low-emission economy is as much about positioning New Zealand for longer-term economic growth as it is about meeting our international climate change obligations. New Zealand’s agricultural and forestry industries will need to adapt to changing markets and capitalise on the resulting business opportunities.

3. Background

3.1. The Plan of Action will identify how New Zealand’s land-based primary sector firms and industries can position themselves for longer-term economic growth and competitive advantage. One area where there may be new business opportunities is in the voluntary carbon market.

3.2. Voluntary and compliance carbon markets are rapidly evolving around the world. The voluntary carbon market is where individuals or businesses offset greenhouse gas emissions without any legislated requirement to do so. In New Zealand a number of recently announced initiatives will facilitate the trading of voluntary carbon market units.

3.3. In the USA the Chicago Carbon Exchange currently sells units generated from rangeland soil carbon management and agricultural soil carbon activities. In Western Australia a group has announced the soil carbon accreditation scheme.

3.4. New Zealand chose not to elect any activities under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol for the first commitment period (2008-2012). Emissions and removals from activities such as cropland management and grazing land management therefore do not generate Kyoto carbon credits for New Zealand. There may, however, be opportunities for those undertaking activities such as cropland management and grazing land management to supply the voluntary carbon market with offset units.

3.5. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has recently put out a Request for Proposal (Climate Change– ‘Plan of Action’ research programme 2007/08) on GETS (ref 20284) which included a topic entitled ‘Review of soil carbon status and mitigation options for New Zealand’: This review of soil carbon status and mitigation options should be able to assist in informing this research on voluntary carbon market opportunities from soil carbon management.

3.6. This research project seeks to expand on the issues and opportunities for New Zealand in the soil carbon (cropland management and grazing land management) area.

4. Research requirements
4.1. Introduction - a goal of the sustainable land management and climate change plan of action is to position the sectors to take advantage of the economic opportunities arising from climate change. This includes carbon market opportunities.
4.2. Aim - this research will contribute to this goal by developing a cost-effective and practical system that allows those undertaking cropland management and grazing land management activities to estimate/measure soil carbon changes on their land and sell voluntary carbon market offsets.
4.3. Outputs - the research project will:

Part 1
• Identify and describe what carbon market opportunities (voluntary and compliance) have been created (or are in the process of being created) overseas in the soil carbon area;

• Identify, describe and compare the technical specifications/standards, carbon accounting methodologies, and the monitoring, reporting and verification requirements in each of the situations identified above;

• Identify lessons from overseas for implementation in New Zealand;

Part 2
• Design a soil carbon assessment system for New Zealand that allows those undertaking cropland management and grazing land management activities to estimate/measure soil carbon changes on their land and sell voluntary carbon market offsets. This system would include:
• Technical specifications/standards, carbon accounting methodologies, guidelines and monitoring, reporting and verification requirements;

• System design considerations should include:
• consistency with New Zealand’s international reporting obligations under UNFCCC, and potential future international accounting such as under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol;
• cost-effectiveness and practical feasibility ;
• feedback from potential participants;
• how the system could operate under the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme.

• Identify potential risks for the government and/or participants, including consideration of how these risks can be managed or minimised;

• Estimate the size of the voluntary carbon market opportunity from soil carbon management in New Zealand;

• Identify the barriers to the creation of voluntary carbon market opportunities from soil carbon in New Zealand and propose solutions for how these barriers can be managed or minimised; and

• Identify requirements for underpinning research, information and tools that would support individuals to secure soil carbon opportunities in the voluntary carbon market in New Zealand.

Outputs from Part 1 are to be delivered by 30 June 2008.

Outputs from Part 2 are to be delivered by 30 June 2009 with a draft by February 2009.

ATTENTION VICTORIAN CARBON FARMERS

ABC TV's 4Corners is seeking "Carbon Farmers" in the Birchip/Horsham mallee district to interview. Contact Kate Wild at wild.kate@abc.net.au

If you want to know if you are a Carbon Farmer, you can call me on 63740329. (If you are reading this you area Carbon Farmer.

New documents in Links on Left

There are three new documents attached as links on te left hand side of this page

Our submission to the Garnaut Review
Our submission to the NSW Government Committee on NRM
A new soil C for beginners site

Soil MMV and the Uncertainty Principle

In its submission to the Garnaut Review, the Carbon Coalition contended that the demands for precision of measurement made of soils go far beyond the exactitude demanded of other sinks.

This is because 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?”

MMV stands for Measurement Monitoring and Verification. It is the process through which greenhouse gas accounting is conducted. It suits trees (above the groundline). But it doesn’t suit soils because soil carbon is subject to “Flux”.

Carbon ‘cycles’ in and out of its ‘sinks’ – soil, ocean, vegetation, and atmosphere (as well as mineral forms in geological deposits, such as coal and diamonds). The movement between atmosphere and soil takes place by several processes: photosynthesis, methane emissions from rotting microbes and dead vegetation, etc. The soil and vegetation “breathes” during the day: breathes out Oxygen during the day and CO2 during the evening. So a measurement taken at midday would be different to one taken at midnight.

However, this is not a barrier to estimating the amount of Carbon in a paddock. Water ‘fluxes’ into and out of the human body. But if your body is 70% water today it is likely to be 70% water tomorrow and next year – unless you change the muscle/fat ratio (the body management style).

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. "One reason I feel people say that soils vary and SOC cannot be measured is that we soil scientists focus on showing variability, not on showing what we know about the variability.” Dr Kimble recently retired from the US Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Centre, Lincoln, Nebraska. "We too often focus on this [variability], worry about laboratory precision and field variation and do not look at the real world where most things are based on averages and estimated data. We tend to focus on finding variation and not on using our knowledge of soil science to describe what we know. All systems vary, but in soils we focus on a level of precision and accuracy that may not have any relevance to the real world because we can take so many samples and look at the variation."

• Dr Rattan Lal: “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 comprising 100,000-200,000 ha (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 and not re-emitted because of changes in land use or management practices… Soil and tillage researchers must be pro-active in this important theme.”

The Carbon Coalition contends that the entire Kyoto Protocol process is entangled in uncertainties, and that these uncertainties and ambiguities have been addressed to achieve practical outcomes. We believe soil has been subject to discrimination and hyper-exactitude.

Uncertainty and Forests as C Sinks

Uncertainty afflicts forests as tradable sinks:

• “In soils we can go to a 100m2 field and sample every square meter and look at the differences we find. But if you sample every tree in a large area you would see a similar variability,” says Dr Kimble.

• The Australian Academy of Science stated that “accounting for the carbon contained in forests is difficult. The amount of carbon in forest soils, forest litter and the trees themselves needs to be measured. Different types of trees store different amounts of carbon when growing on different types of soils in different climates. In addition, we might expect natural year-to-year variations in carbon stored, related to climate variations.”

Scientists have accused the Kyoto solution for forests as being riddled with uncertainties: More than 50% of the carbon stored in a forest can be found beneath the ground. Yet it is not counted. This is dangerous because the changes in below ground C-stocks can be in the opposite direction from the changes above ground upon a change in land use.
• “A decline in soil C has been observed in NSW for pastures planted to radiata pine. There are several other examples in the literature of soil C-content being lower under trees than under matched pasture sites and indeed a process-modelling study of pastures in south-central USA planted to pine plantation predicted a decline in soil organic C down to 1m depth over 50 years. Thus if changes in soil C are not included with the estimate of the above ground plantation sink, that plantation sink will be wrongly estimated.”
• “It is possible for a forest to be a source of emissions rather than a sink…. The soil organic pool is a large carbon reservoir: in a mature forest it commonly contains at least 50% of the total forest carbon stock. .. When agricultural land is reforested there may be significant losses from the soil carbon pool… Soil carbon is likely to decrease initially, as a result of a decline in pasture litter inputs in the early phase of plantation establishment, and then increase as litter input from the forest is added to the system. The decline in soil carbon is usually temporary: as the plantation grows, soil carbon will be replenished from litter fall and root turnover, usually restoring soil carbon stock to original levels within 30 years (Paul et al., 2002). If the site being reforested has a high concentration of readily decomposable soil carbon, such as may occur under a heavily fertilised, irrigated pasture, then the soil carbon stock may not reach the level under the previous pasture system. There is some evidence that soil carbon stock is lower under pine plantations than eucalypts (Guo and Gifford, 2002; Paul et al., 2002). …Significant losses of soil carbon after reforestation are most likely in soils that are high in labile carbon, such as where new plantations are established into pastures that have been heavily fertilised, and enhanced productivity has elevated the soil carbon above native levels. … It would be prudent, in predicting forest carbon sequestration, to assume a decline in soil carbon stock for reforestation of pasture soils”

Uncertainty and the Global Greenhouse Gas Protocol

The unavoidable uncertainty the typifies all Climate Change activities is acknowledged in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol developed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

It identifies two types of uncertainty in estimating emissions or sinks:
- scientific uncertainty and
- estimation uncertainty.
The latter is further divided into
- model uncertainty and
- parameter uncertainty. (See Appendix 3)
• Scientific uncertainty arises when the science of the actual emission and/or removal process is not completely understood. For example, many direct and indirect factors associated with global warming potential (GWP) values that are used to combine emission estimates for various GHGs involve significant scientific uncertainty. Analyzing and quantifying such scientific uncertainty is extremely problematic and is likely to be beyond the capacity of most company inventory programs.
• Estimation uncertainty arises any time GHG emissions are quantified. Therefore all emissions or removal estimates are associated with estimation uncertainty. Estimation uncertainty can be further classified into two types: model uncertainty and parameter uncertainty. Model uncertainty refers to the uncertainty associated with the mathematical equations (i.e., models) used to characterize the relationships between various parameters and emission processes. For example, model uncertainty may arise either due to the use of an incorrect mathematical model or inappropriate input into the model. As with scientific uncertainty, estimating model uncertainty is likely to be beyond most company’s inventory efforts;
• “…uncertainty estimates for corporate GHG inventories will, of necessity, be imperfect.”
• “For these reasons, almost all comprehensive estimates of uncertainty for GHG inventories will be not only imperfect but also have a subjective component and, despite the most thorough efforts, are themselves considered highly uncertain.”
• “... a reduction in air travel would reduce a company’s scope 3 emissions. This reduction is usually quantified based on an average emission factor of fuel use per passenger.
• “Generally, as long as the accounting of indirect emissions over time recognizes activities that in aggregate change global emissions, any such concerns over accuracy should not inhibit companies from reporting …

Uncertainty and the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Uncertainty is a key aspect of greenhouse emission estimates produced for publication in the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. The Inventory is compiled from data from a range of sources, and in many cases represents a ‘scaling up’ of sample, experimental or case study results (much in the way Lal recommends). There is an active process of continual improvement underway — but AGO is open about the fact that some estimates are likely to be more reliable than others. For the 2003 NGGI, the AGO estimates an uncertainty band for the estimated national emissions outcome of 550 Mt CO2e ±5.2%.

“Uncertainty over agricultural emissions makes a relatively strong contribution to uncertainty regarding the overall national emissions outcome —particularly with respect to estimates for agricultural soils, savanna burning, forestry and land clearing. However, the reported uncertainties appear to be primarily associated with uncertainty about activity levels rather than the complex and variable biological processes that generate greenhouse gases… The AGO reports that ‘… uncertainty in the reported cattle numbers was the most significant contributor to the overall uncertainty’

Let this be noted and the question be put: Why, if the AGO has access to calculators for at least 5 sectors in Agriculture, have these calculators been delayed in deployment, if the reason given – difficulty in measuring biological processes – is no longer the case?

The methods employed by the AGO to reconcile uncertainties with the Roth C Modelling system reveal an acceptance of a transitional model that reflected Dr John Kimble’s appeal for “real world” science.

“Development of the NCAS was undertaken with the clear understanding that data would be imperfect, but that the significance of data limitations could be assessed only in a functional integrated system.”

The AGO took a ‘fix it in the mix’ approach – making no attempt at ‘precision’: “The tacit acceptance of variability in data provided for a proper focus on matters of accuracy and bias, rather than on potentially unachievable precision.”
The Carbon Coalition welcomes this flexibility and looks forward to the same open-minded, “can do” attitude in its future dealings with Government agencies.

Sir Humphrey & The Garnaut Enquiry

The objections and issues about soil C trading raised with the Garnaut Enquiry during its preliminary meetings with public servants reveal a pattern of perception management identified in the Yes Prime Minister series as a technique to ‘guide’ the outcome of deliberations. The Carbon Coalition submits that the Enquiry should be wary of being “Sir Humphreyed”:

SIR HUMPHREY:

"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.

“Above all, if you wish to describe a proposal in a way that guarantees that a Minister will reject it, describe it as courageous."

EXTRACTS FROM ISSUES PAPER 1 CLIMATE CHANGE: LAND USE AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY

“…a number of potential practical difficulties to the inclusion of agriculture..”

“…difficult to guarantee given the complexity…”

“…diverse range of locations, climates…”

“…processes that are inherently variable…”

“…difficulties associated with monitoring…”

“…may add complexity to the design…”

“…difficult to apply traditional regulatory measures…”

“…involve initial investment while the benefits may be realised over a longer period of time…”

“…existing practical limitations…”

“…limited and/or administratively burdensome…”

“…the costs of accurately monitoring and verifying emissions at entity level is likely to be high relative to the level of emissions…”

“…may lead to errors in emissions calculations if the relationship … is uncertain …”

“… the high level of variation that can occur…”

“…research has suggested that models… complex, technically demanding, time consuming…”

“…do not produce results accurate enough…”

“…require an initial upfront investment…”

Soil C Sceptics have no evidence

There is not one piece of scientific evidence to prove the claim that Australian soils do not have the potential to sequester significant amounts of soil C. On the contrary, we have evidence that Australian soils do have that potential.

Coalition takes on soil C sceptics

The Coalition’s submission to the Garnaut Climate Change Review demolishes the many “difficulties” that soil carbon sceptics say make soil C a non-starter for trading:

1. Too many small sources and sinks: “The aggregation of growers is an everyday reality in commodity marketing. Marketing Boards, Grain Desks, and Producer Groups are well understood by growers. Woolgrowers are setting up “demand chains” or “supply chain solution for retailers”. EMS systems make aggregation easy.”

2. Difficult to measure: “Poppycock. It’s easy to measure. The problem is ‘flux’ – the amount moves around. Highly respected soil scientists such as John Kimble and Rattan Lal have urged their colleagues to stop being so precious. Flux has statistical properties and can be averaged for accurate real world estimation.”

3. Cost of measurement and monitoring: “Amortise the cost over 130,000 landholders - bulk buy the service - and the price will be realistic. Set it against $25 or $50 or $100 a tonne CO2e and the cost is trivial. Those amounts will be possible when the 3 biggest emitters USA, China and India, enter the market to buy offsets.”

4. 100 Year Rule: “It can’t apply to soil which can do the job for 30 years while all the other solutions grow to critical mass. It’s either soil C or climate chaos. Soil is the only short to medium term solution. Kyoto did not anticipate it and the IPCC has it in its power to change the rules.”

5. Permanence: “You might be 65% water today and 65% water tomorrow, but it is different water. It ‘fluxes’. We don’t care which carbon atom was held. It’s the steady increase in the total amount of soil C that counts.”

6. Initial costs high: “The cost of a soil carbon solution should be seen in context of the billions Australian Governments have spent trying to get Australian landholders to “care” and change their paradigm of relationship with the land. A system that rewards landholders for increasing Soil C will achieve so many Natural Resource Management objectives.”

7. Trade exposed industries: “What appears as a disadvantage can be turned into a competitive advantage by turning a necessity into a virtue: ie., building a brand that exploits the producer’s emissions reduction. The ‘concerned Climate Change consumer’ has already emerged in Europe and British retailers are requesting ‘carbon neutral’ wool from Australian wool buyers.”

“All the things the sceptics call ‘difficulties’ with soil C are simply barriers they put in front of us. They make no attempt to solve these ‘difficulties’; they just parrot them as though saying it will make it real,” says Mr Kiely.

No soil credits to pay $70,000pa methane bill?

Under a future Kyoto regime, the average Australian farmer could get a bill of $70,000 every year for methane and other emissions, but won’t be able to pay for it with the carbon they grow in their soils.

A Greenhouse Office calculator case study* for a mixed farming operation on 2200ha has the total annual emissions liability of 2687t/CO2e, which would cost $67,175 to “offset” by buying carbon credits at $25/tonne.

“While the farmer in the example earns carbon credits for 100ha of trees, there is no allowance on the calculator for carbon stored in the soil, which could be worth more than the total emissions. That tonnage of CO2e can be captured in only 732 tonnes of soil carbon†, or 0.33tonnes C/ha/year. That is not a big ask with ‘Carbon Farming’ techniques.”

In fact, a NSW Forests calculator of soil carbon sequestration reveals that our farmer could capture twice the amount of carbon needed per hectare to ‘pay’ for the methane and other emissions.

The Carbon Coalition recommended to the Garnaut Climate Change Review for Agriculture to be involved in an emissions trading scheme. But only a scheme which allowed landholders to offset their emissions with the soil carbon they can capture and store. We are willing to go into the market ‘eyes wide open’, aware of our liabilities and equally confident of our assets.

The Coalition’s submission (online at http//soilcarbongarnaut.blogspot.com) is critical of the way soil carbon science has been conducted. There are gaps in the data sets and levels of uncertainty so high they make soil carbon flux seem positively inert. And on the basis of inadequate data the myth that Australian soils are too old and degraded to sequester must carbon. The irony is that everyone who makes that statement reveals their ignorance of basic soil science. Age has nothing to do with it and what has been lost can be restored.”


[*“Sheep Greenhouse Accounting Framework” and **“Carbon Sequestration Predictor for selected land use change in inland areas of NSW Version 2.0” can be found at http://ww.greenhouse.crc.org.au/tools/calculators/]

†Convert Carbon to CO2e by multiplying by 3.67