Top 15 Questions about the Carbon Farming Initiative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. How much can we make from the CFI?

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

Q. Do some activities pay more than others?

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Can we cut out the Middleman?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(www.carbonfarmersofaustralia.com.au)

The Race Is On For Big Ideas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is 100 Years of Healthy Soils too much?

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

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

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

How common is common practice?

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

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

A new DOIC

The permanent Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee (DOIC) has been appointed to replace the interim DOIC which was appointed in 2011 when the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) legislation passed into law. The DOIC is an independent expert committee charged with "supporting the environmental integrity of carbon offsets generated under the Carbon Farming Initiative." The new DOIC includes the following:
Professor Timothy Reeves (Chair): Professor Reeves is an international consultant with expertise in the development and extension of sustainable agricultural productions systems and crop-livestock integration. He is a Professorial Fellow at the Melbourne School of Land and Environment, a director of The Future Farm Industries Cooperative Research Centre, was a Senior Expert for the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and was formerly the Director-General of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre.
Dr Tony Press: Dr Press has led one of Australia’s leading climate science bodies, the Australian Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre as CEO since 2009 and has been Chair of the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Board for many years. He was previously a senior executive on the Environmental Forest Taskforce in the Department of the Environment and Heritage and was the Director of the Cooperative Research Centre for the Sustainable Development of Australia’s Tropical Savannas.
Professor Lynette Abbott: Professor Abbott is the Vice Dean of the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Science and Professor in the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Western Australia. Professor Abbott is an internationally well known and respected scientist who has published widely in soil, agricultural and botanical research journals. Professor Abbott’s principle area of scientific expertise is within the agricultural sector with broad expertise in soil biology, including retention/protection of soil carbon.
Ms Rebecca Burdon: Ms Burdon is the principal economist at the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Ms Burdon has extensive international experience assessing the economic impact of existing and proposed regulatory interventions using statistical and econometric analysis and modelling. Prior to working with ACMA Ms Burdon assisted the NSW government with the development of the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, specifically with the rules governing the creation of NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Certificates from demand side abatement activities.
Dr Brian Keating (CSIRO representative): Dr Keating is Director of the National Research Flagship on Sustainable Agriculture focusing on productivity, greenhouse gas abatement and sustainability challenges in Australian agriculture, forestry and land-use systems. Brian has 35 years experience in agricultural and natural resource management R&D with leadership roles including the Chief of the CSIRO Division of Sustainable Ecosystems (2004-2008) and a past Board member of Sugar, Rainforest Ecology and Management and Tropical Savannas CRCs. Brian has authored over 200 scientific papers covering diverse topics including soil and water management, plant nutrition, soil carbon and nitrogen cycling, crop physiology, farming systems analysis and design, bioenergy, simulation modelling, climatic risk management and food security. He is a continuing member of the Editorial Board of the international journal, Agricultural Systems.
Ms Shayleen Thompson (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency representative): Ms Thompson is the Head of the Land Division in the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. She has worked on international and domestic climate change policy and programs since 1995. The Land Division was established in July 2010 to provide a coherent and coordinated approach to climate change mitigation.

The DOIC's role is to assess methodology proposals for use under the scheme and advise the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, who makes a decision whether to approve methodology proposals. The Committee also provides advice to the Minister on regulations specifying eligible activities under the Carbon Farming Initiative that are not common practice, known as the 'positive list'. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency may also seek the Committee's technical and scientific advice on other offset matters.

No-till farmers doubled soil carbon levels

Farmer Ray Harrington was a founder of the West Australian No Till Farmers Association. WANTFA celebrates 10 years this month."The soils on our farms have become more fertile and we've doubled our organic carbon levels on pretty mongrel soils."
No-till farmers report that the technique has doubled their soil organic matter - that is a 100% increase. Yet research repeatedly fails to detect a statistical difference in soil carbon sequestration between no-till and conventional cultivation. Both scientists and farmers should be concerned about this issue because - as the no-till adoption rates prove - farmers are always willing to forge ahead alone. Friction between the parties over this can lead to poor allocation of resources, ie. research funds

My 'vested interest'

Recently more than one or two people have accused us of having a vested interest in the outcome of the Carbon Farming Initiative. Well they're right! Here you see our vested interests. Our grandchildren -the ones who will feel the full brunt of Climate CHange when we won't be there to protect them. We do have an ulterior motive. We're not just doing this for farmers. We're doing it for these kids - Brody, Portia and Xavier. Now that we are getting towards the pointy end of the process of winning for farmers the right to grow and be rewarded for growing their soil carbon levels, it would be strange if those who have been against our campaign all along should not stir the possum at this late stage.
These are the facts: Carbon Farmers of Australia is a not-for-profit company. We have launched many services for farmers interested in soil carbon credits in the past 6 years to drive the campaign forward and because no one else did: the Carbon Farming Conference, the Carbon Cocky Awards (with the Central West CMA), the Carbon Farming Handbook, the 1-day Carbon Farming Workshop, the blog, the Newsletter, the Carbon Farming & Trading Association. With our colleagues in the Bridge Consortium, we have donated hundreds of person-hours working on a soil carbon methodology for which we cannot claim any intellectual property and therefore no return apart from seeing the market open. We are launching a Regional Carbon Market Summit to make sure as much of the wealth created by the CFI stays in the regions. We are launching a representation, advocacy and aggregation service to give farmers the option of dealing with a known quantity in the new market and because there isn't much knowledge about trading in the traditional channels because few have paid attention and taken the time to learn this new language and farmers need information NOW. And finally we have launched a service for companies wanting to go carbon neutral voluntarily, to create a market for farm offsets.
Anyone who thinks working for 6 years for nothing in order to make a business in a market that there was no guarantee of ever emerging is a smart move must have rocks in their heads. Vested interest, indeed.
We all have a vested interest in the success of the soil carbon offsets market. Soil Carbon is widely acknowledged as the only chance we've got to hold Global Warming around the 2°C level beyond which the scientists recite doomsday scenarios. Remember that famous phrase from our first Conference: "We're all in this together." Not to get rich. What's the use of money if you've got no hope for the future?

Destocking vs managing stock differently

Temporary destocking for deep regeneration before careful reintroduction sounds like a sound strategy and well worth funding by a temporary stewardship provision. Unfortunately this Government does not believe in the European practice of paying farmers not to grow produce. Witness what happened to the RM Williams Company's attempt to get carbon credits by locking up Henbury Station. There may be some money for it available in the $1bn Biodiversity Fund introduced under The Carbon Farming Initiative. There may be some money available for research under the Action On The Ground program run by DAFF. David Pollock might even be able to use grazing management intensively on a small area of Wooleen to generate revenue while saving the rest... Evan Pensini of Cheela Plains Station in the Pilbara has been trying to perfect the formula for capturing carbon in the rangelands for more than 10 years. Across a small section of his 133,000 hectare property west of Paraburdoo, he manages a mob of cattle by cell grazing. He says the paddocks are closely monitored to ensure ground cover is restored. "We've basically tripled our carrying capacity since we've been implementing the system and we've had some extremely dry years in amongst it as well, but the whole object of is the point that you're only grazing when you've got that food on offer."

Answers from David and Frances

Under the impression that David Pollock had destocked his station Wooleen permanently, we put a series of questions to him after his story appeared on Australian Story. WHile he and partner Frances have not turned the property into a 'national park with no income', their radical destocking strategy has forced a lot of graziers to consider their own stiuation. As David says, most could not afford to do it. Here are their answers to our questions:
Q.1. Would the tourism enterprise keep the property afloat without stewardship payments?
A.1. The short answer No. Perhaps with more investment and some staff the tourism would be able to. But at the current level it can’t, and we unfortunately can't afford the investment it needs to go to the next level. Tourism has allowed us to pay majority of the bills over the last 4 years but it hasn't been able to pay interest and so our overdraft increases each year. As a condition of our pastoral lease we need to maintain all infrastructure on the property and so the tourism income is running two businesses.
Q.2. What contribution does the regeneration strategy chosen make to providing food or fibre?
A.2. It makes a huge contribution. It means that we will be able to produce food and fibre into the future. You’re a farmer, you would know that sometimes you push a paddock too far, and it needs time to recover. We have a whole station like that! just because you have a paddock with no stock doesn’t mean that it’s a write off into the future. In fact it means the opposite, that you will be able to produce a better quality product, and if you manage it well and have a good understanding of how to manage it, it will produce more. Currently in our area, we have a degraded resource, and no clear idea of how to manage it to its environmental, economic and social capacity.
Q.3. Was a regeneration strategy using grazing management to restore the landscape considered?
A.3. It was considered and is being used on most properties, more or less. It is a very long and difficult road to achieve recovery and most of the stations that are trying to get through with stock in this area are at best sustaining an bad situation. In essence, all grazing management should also be a regeneration strategy, the problem is that the landscape is too degraded at this time to handle any grazing, and Im not just talking about cows, as to have one windmill on could result in 2000 kangaroos in an area, enough to make sure it doesn’t recover. Added to this argument is the necessity of added infrastructure to obtain the control needed for grazing based regeneration. Wooleen has over 200kms of (reasonable) fence, which is hard enough to look after itself, let alone the fences needed for a good rotational grazing system. I’m not saying it’s not possible, but it will take much longer to see results, be just as expensive, and mean a much greater susceptibility to making a wrong judgement in a landscape whose maximum potential is not known.
Q.4. Have the opportunities presented by the Carbon Farming Initiative been considered?
A.4. At this stage, what opportunities? I probably know as much as most pastoralists about CFI, being selected to represent them at a recent meeting of government agencies and industry to identify and address knowledge gaps that may stop uptake of CF. At present there are no avenues to uptake CF, and no means of measuring carbon at a rangeland scale. There are lots of Gaps though! Were working on it.
Q.5. Have the carbon levels in the soil been monitored?
A.5. No. not by me.
Q.6. Is the model valid for use by a large number of graziers in any district or can there be only one as a demonstration property.
A.6. to my mind the best thing about destocking is its simple, it will work everywhere(Maybe with variations), and if they were paid to, everyone could do it. In fact if a few stations did it together it would be much more effective.

Questions for David Pollock and Frances Jones:

ABCTV ‘s Australian Story tonight was about a farmer who destocked his rangeland grazing property in outback Western Australia. It was a love story about a girl from the city who came out for a few weeks and stayed forever, falling in love with the farmer and the farm.
Questions not answered by the program – that would have made sense of the story had they been answered – were the following:
1. Would the tourism enterprise keep the property afloat without stewardship payments?
2. What contribution does the regeneration strategy chosen make to providing food or fibre?
3. Was a regeneration strategy using grazing management to restore the landscape considered?
4. Have the opportunities presented by the Carbon Farming Initiative been considered?
5. Have the carbon levels in the soil been monitored?
6. Is the model valid for use by a large number of graziers in any district or can there be only one as a demonstration property.
Is there a danger that David and Frances's story could encourage city-based people to believe that all farms should be run like theirs - that supermarkets provide food, not farms?
We loved their innovations, like the water spreading wire tubes. Brilliant.

Carbon Farmers on the road

Carbon Farmers of Australia's Michael and Louisa Kiely are 'on the road' conducting the 1-Day Workshop 'An Introduction to Carbon Farming & Trading' in NSW, VIC, SA and WA in the time available while the FarmReady program winds down. The rising numbers of attendees reveals the demand for information is high, especially on the trade side of the equation.

If you would like the Workshop brought to your district, call (02) 6374 0329 or email louisa@carbonfarmersofaustralia.com.au

It's a Tree-Rush!

A sign of the times: tree company CO2 Australia has taken over an entire building in Wagga Wagga as the tree-rush caused by the lop-sided offering available under the CFI.

Are we in danger of celebrating the Year of the Farmer by shutting down Australian Agriculture?
While politicians make speeches about how badly the country needs its farmers, we are finding new and better ways to lock up productive land.
There’s a coal rush, then a gas rush, now a tree rush – farmers turning over their land to companies who lock the animals out while they try to lock the CO2 in, securing future food resources for koalas but not humans. And we’re back to the bad old days when carbon forests marched across the landscape, ripping the children out of the schools, the family incomes out of the local economy and the heart out of rural Australia.
The only environmental and climate change option that secures family farming is soil carbon enrichment. It increases production and buffers the landscape against drought. Yet the Government is dragging the chain – giving broadacre farmers only one option – forests – to gain from the Carbon Farming Initiative. Government sources have revealed that they don’t expect to see soil carbon offsets traded for years. We have been told to curb our expectations.
The forest promoters have been waived through, meanwhile, to plunder the farmlands being abandoned by families because the next generation can’t see a future in it. Dad can sell it to the carbon forest people and retire.
If the current speed of Government-funded soil carbon research and development is a guide, forests will be all there is for what could be years. Late last year we discovered that the $20m Soil Carbon Research Program (SCaRP) – which is due to report after 3 years - is not going to produce a method for measuring how much carbon a farmer has stored. It will not serve the interests of farmers at all. Instead it will inform policy makers of what we already know: that the CSIRO and the GRDC, etc. do not approve of farmers being rewarded for enriching their soils with carbon and predict that only tiny amounts can be sequestered anyway. This is because the scientists study what they imagine carbon farming to be, not what it is, as practiced by skilled practitioners, who are simply better at it than scientists.
We believe farmers - given the chance to show what they can do - will be able to measure carbon increases in their soils at surprising levels. If given the chance. The SCaRP system would appear to be feeding the small results into a computer model which will ‘tell’ a farmer how much they can claim, given their climate zone, soil type and management practice. Not only will the amounts be small, the coverage of management types will also be low.
The Department of Climate Change is working on a measuring methodology. It could take a year. Meanwhile the World Bank and the FAO have started soil carbon programs in Africa, and the United Nations’ Environment Program is urging the world community to make soil sequestration a priority to feed a starving world.
There are two methodologies for soil carbon offsets being prepared under the CFI: one from the Department of Climate Change and one by the Bridge Consortium – of which Carbon Farmers of Australia is a member. Ours uses buffer pools to manage risk and address uncertainty rather than pursuing impossible levels of scientific exactitude.
All of the successful methodologies to date are the work of Government Departments.
The process of developing and having a methodology approved is so intensively convoluted and bureaucratic that the thought of a farmer attempting it alone – an opportunity that the Government generously offers – is fantastic. The need for buyer confidence to create demand is acknowledged, but precaution should not be so stringent that it chokes supply.
The CFI promises to drive a revolution in agricultural practices on the ground, if it can get there. What a tragedy if, at the end of it, all we have to show is kilometres of forest and not much else.

This is the gauntlet we are running

The process of developing a methodology involves several stages of review and adjustment of the submission as it moves toward being approval.. The first review is to ensure that all essential elements have been addressed. The second review is to ensure that the submission complies with the legislation. The first two reviews are conducted by the Department. The third review is conducted by the expert panel (the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee - the DOIC) which has the power to recommend that the Minister give approval. The final stage involves exposure for 40 days for public comment. At each stage, the methodology proponent can be asked to make changes to their submission. In this process, we have been told, the Department and the DOIC will work with the proponent to find a way to approve the methodology that observes the stringent Integrity Standards. Our soil carbon methodology is at the second stage. We hope that those assessing methodologies realise that they are working to make a successful market. A market needs willing buyers and willing sellers. The conditions imposed upon sellers in the name of giving buyers confidence should not be so difficult that none will come forward. Should that happen we will have failed and the 'once in a generation opportunity to recapitalise our soils' (in Tony Abbott's words) will be lost.

Soil CArbon Methodology - Comin' Round The Mountain

Members of the Bridge Consortium met with "the Department" (DCCEE) to get a response to our soil carbon methodology submission. We were told to expect a long time to pass before we get an outcome. We were told we should not raise unrealistic expectations. We were told that we are running ahead of the Department in such areas as the protocols for measurement. (Eg., We have to wait for the D. to produce these since it was agreed that the measurement protocols developed for the Soil Carbon Research Project are not suitable for baselining.) So instead of Martin Luther King's 'burning urgency of now', we're singing 'she'll be comin' round the mountian when she comes'.

The Farmer Wants Advice

Farmers are running way out in front of agronomists and advisers, adopting biological systems that advisers don't understand, according to Patrick Francis, editor of Australian Farm Journal. Plant nutrition and advice is in a state of confusion, he says. Few understand the function of soil organic matter and carbon.
“Farmers are adopting new systems that are far more sympathetic to soil health and increasing organic matter levels. They have precision farming technology to monitor impacts but their advisors knowledge of what’s happening to soil biology is rudimentary at best. Most advisors have a background in soil chemistry and physics and don’t understand what’s happening to the soil food web as organic matter increases. It’s why many (advisors) continue to recommend annual inorganic fertiliser applications even though responses are often uneconomic,” Mr Francis says. “There are now so many questions being raised about the plant, soil, water, carbon interface that piece meal research programs need to be converted into a concerted, national, across systems approach with at least a 21 year time frame."
Australia needs a dedicated Soil Health CRC. “Farmers are looking for better direction about holistic farming systems, compatibility of inputs, levels of inputs, alternative inputs and their consequences for food nutritional content,” he said. A classic example is the impact of increasing soil carbon on populations of free-living nitrogen fixing bacteria. Their implications for soil health and cost of production are likely to be enormous. Many farmers don't apply inorganic fertilisers in some years but still achieve as good as if not better yields than those applying them. But the one common denominator is increasing soil organic matter and carbon. “The major changes on these farms are stubble retention, legume cover crops and often controlled traffic. On their own, or combined, organic products like composted manures and soil biology enhancers, means there are all sorts of implications for the soil food web. And how does the soil food web react to conventional fertilisers and pesticides. For instance, what is the impact of herbicides and fungicides on rhizobia, the bacteria that work symbiotically with legumes to fix nitrogen? There is no research data from Australia on this subject but the door has been opened overseas to suggest there is a problem. And if there is with rhizobia, what is happening to other soil species?”
“A soil health CRC needs to operate without barriers between biological, chemical and holistic approaches," he says.

What is an agricultural community worth?

Finley High School principal Bernie Roebuck spoke at the Murray Darling Basin Plan consultations in Deniliquin last December. It is an amazing depiction of life in a community threatened by climate. Society has got to make a choice between the sentimentalism of rural communities vs the sentimentality of environmental flows in a river system.

My name is Bernie Roebuck and I am currently the principal at Finley High School. Previously I was principal at Deniliquin High School and for a two-year period worked as a principal consultant across all schools in the Riverina.
Though I might be called a “blow in” by some standards I have lived and worked in communities in the Murray Valley for 34 years. My grandfather settled in Deniliquin during WWI and my father was born in Deniliquin in 1919. My children have all been born in the Murray Valley and two have started their working lives there. So “blow in” maybe, but for 96 years and four generations my family have lived in this part of the world and it gives us a claim of having a vested interest in the future of Riverina communities.
I represent the NSW Secondary Principals Council, a professional organisation of public school secondary principals. You may well ask, so what has the Murray-Darling Basin Plan have to do with school principals?
In truth, heaps.
The reason for our existence, our students, are the group of people that will be most affected by whatever the final decision is in regard to the Basin Plan — the full effects of these proposals will fall on my children’s heads and their children. We must not forget this.
It also affects our staff — their future employment is at stake, the value of the homes that many of them purchase is at stake. It also affects school communities. Uncertainly has already taken its toll in many instances.
The young people that we work with on a daily basis are not oblivious to the pressures that their mums and dads are under, and there is no question that affects many of them.
This is my second stint at Finley High. In 1990 when I was first appointed there as a head teacher the student population was 720. Currently our enrolment is 450 — a decline of close to 40%. In the Deniliquin area of schools known as South West Riverina this enrolment decline is similar across all schools. In fact, apart from Albury, and to a lesser extent Wagga, it is the pattern across the whole Riverina.
What has this meant for schools? Less students means we can give students less options in terms of curriculum choice, recruiting staff is more challenging. Because there is uncertainly of employment the pool of quality students in each year group continues to get smaller and this can have a critical impact on student outcomes.
We have any number of schools that are so critically small now that they are absolutely in danger of closing or of not being able to deliver a quality education.
This is not some emotive throwaway line, it is the honest truth.
Of greatest concern for students is their life after school. Increasingly they know that local jobs are hard to come by. Increasingly young people see no future in their communities.
Some see no point in studying when there is a limited future. We constantly hear about things such as skills shortages, but as an example try and find a building apprenticeship easily in this part of the world. Increasingly they seek work away from these communities and so not surprisingly rural communities have less and less young people.
The decline of schools in our communities has other effects as well.
Less students means less teaching and admin staff, and often affects trades that support schools such as builders, plumbers, electricians, local grocers, bus drivers etc, so that income therefore disappears from the local economy and the multiplier effect on local businesses rolls out.
I feel bemused, and confused and quite frankly angry when I hear criticism as soon as someone makes any emotive response to the plan, or when someone wants to talk about the human cost of the plan, such as what I am doing right now.
Constantly I hear that emotive calls, emotive language, emotive pleas, emotive people should be dismissed as the lunatic fringe because they exaggerate, they misrepresent, they do not produce balance nor facts in dealing with the plan.
I would say how can one not be emotive if your livelihood, and all that is important to you, is at stake. I see no reason for us to need to apologise for being emotive. But that does not mean we cannot be rational or that we do not understand what is happening in the basin.
Few would deny that the Murray-Darling Basin has a complexity of issues to address. And find me an irrigator who would not applaud the concept of a sustainable Murray-Darling river system.
Many of my students have real mums and dads who are farmers. The very same people who produce the quality wine, rice, rockmelons, potatoes and grains that are in such demand in the supermarket. The vast majority of them are not environmental vandals.
They are in many cases hard working, highly skilled operators who have a vested interest in protecting and preserving their land, and they do so. Why would they not want a sustainable future for their sons and daughters?
These people are happy to discuss changes to aspects of water policy that would lead to a sustainable future. And they would love to see real investment in the infrastructures that would save enormous quantities of water that could contribute to environmental flows.
I for one applaud the announcement this week by Mr Burke of some major infrastructure programs. But why has it taken till this week for such an announcement to be made? And in truth, we would like to think this is but the first step.
Let’s be frank here, our nation is currently spending tens of billions of dollars to ensure that Australia has the technology base for the 21st century through the national broadband network.
The infrastructure base for our irrigation systems is in many cases 70-80 years old — what we are asking for is a fraction of the NBN but it would give this nation a base for huge water savings and at the same time allow for productive 21st century agriculture.
It would also create the jobs and the certainty to give the young and not-so-young people of rural communities hope, security and to feel that they can make a real contribution.
Without a commitment to long-term sustainable development in rural Australia our future is potentially very grim.
My staff and my students and my community are full of some of the very best people. These are the very same people who endure higher fuel prices, higher food costs, poorer medical facilities and poorer educational outcomes than any other part of our country. It is not reasonable, nor acceptable, for people in these communities to continue being treated as the rural underclass.
We are not second rate — we have some of the best brains, the best thinkers, the most creative talents and the best students. I cannot continue to accept that my students and the students of my colleagues at other basin schools should have a quality of life that is less than that of any students in Sydney or Canberra. How totally inequitable and un-Australian would that be?
I do not ever want to see my school become so small and so residualised and marginalised that it cannot deliver top quality education as it now does. Yet that is the clearly the fate in the very near future of many of our rural schools.
I implore you not to sell us down the drain. This issue needs serious and sustained consideration.
(MDBA chairman) Craig Knowles has said that in consideration of the plan there have been vastly opposite views of what needs to happen and what should happen. None of us doubt that. We accept that, we are reasonable people, we will compromise.
Some of those views, however, come from those whose livelihoods are not at stake. They come from those who do not have to worry about their kids futures.
In comparison our governments and business magnates are hell bent on digging everything and anything from the ground.
The environmental issues in so many cases related to mining receive scant consideration — such developments are perceived to be in the public interest and therefore environmental costs are deemed acceptable. The hypocrisy is totally unacceptable.
In truth, rural people do not accept that they are treated with respect. Their opinions, though considered, are often derided as second rate compared to their politically powerful, well connected urban counterparts, and rarely if ever are rural communities given the chance to be a part of the solutions.
In my 34 years in the Riverina I have seen the slow but constant decline in communities to the point where we now have those publicly saying “are communities under 15,000 people worth saving? Is it a waste of government money to keep them afloat?”
All this at a time of urban congestion, rising urban social violence, transport gridlocks, a lack of affordable urban housing, and the need to feed a rapidly rising population in this country and the rest of the world.
We have a rapidly declining manufacturing base and a massive over reliance on the mining sector that has a limited life span. There is a clear and obvious reason why vibrant and sustainable rural environments are critical to this nation.
In conclusion, I want to give my students and my community hope. I want them to vigorously support the concept of long term sustainability but I want governments to give them the sensible pragmatic means to do that.
I plead for some commonsense, practical solutions, not those concocted in the pristine halls of power away from the very people who are most affected. Include rural people way beyond flying one day visits, way beyond fly-in fly-out three hour meetings. Way beyond tokenistic representation on committees and working parties.
Engage with the people here, negotiate with them. Properly and sincerely and seriously engage with them — work with them to find some reasonable solutions. I implore you do not to be so naive as to think that the people of these communities are unreasonable or are not important.

UN calls for urgent action on soil carbon measurement

http://thenortoneffect.blogspot.com.au/

We’re all in this together.”

The UN has called for urgent action on soil carbon. It wants a method for measuring soil carbon so farmers can be paid to capture and store it. Specifically, it wants “the development of universally agreed and reproducible field and laboratory methods for measuring, reporting and verifying changes of soil carbon over time,” says Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program. It is a timely call because in June this year the CSIRO is scheduled to report on the Soil Carbon Research Program - a $20m project that started in 2009. When it was announced we were called by CSIRO's Dr Jeff Baldock, the scientist charged with spending the money. His call was to thank us for our part in getting the funds allocated to soil carbon. We then petitioned the Minister for a collaborative role in deciding how the money would be spent. We wanted the practical barriers to trading soil carbon offsets removed. We wanted the money spent on methodologies for direct measurement - which would maximise returns to the farmer and maximise their interest in storing carbon in soil. Instead the CSIRO decided to spend the money populating a model that would 'predict' the amount of carbon that could be stored by climate zone and by soil type as a result of changed land management. The model under-estimates the impact of soil biology. Unfortunately this would have the effect of minimising the return to the farmer because of the "Norton Effect" - the failure of scientists to replicate the soil carbon performance of experienced Carbon Farmers. (Named after Professor Ben Norton who discovered the condition.) If, after three years and $20million, we are not one centimeter closer to a soil carbon methodology that would deliver the promise of restored soil health, regenerated farm landscapes, increased biodiversity, reduce farm input costs, improved water holding capacity, and climate change mitigation, etc. we can’t blame scientists for obeying their science. The decision was made –based on the only available science – that a direct measurement methodology was not possible and that a model was the only way forward. We discovered that this was the case only recently: “SCaRP was not set up to baseline carbon contents on paddocks or farms," said Jonathan Sanderman, Jeffrey Baldock et.al.,, NATIONAL SOIL CARBON RESEARCH PROGRAMME: FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES CSIRO Land and Water, 2011. Why not? Because the scientist is a prisoner of his paradigm. Instead of dismissing the reported increases achieved by experienced Carbon Farmers as 'anecdotal' (even though they use the same measurement techniques and the same laboratories as official scientists), a more fruitful line of enquiry would be to assume for a moment that these farmers aren't lying and study how they consistently report rates of increase in soil C up to 10 times faster than conventional scientists. A purely scientific approach will not work. Scientists have been unable to supply a solution for direct measurement. We have submitted a methodology to the Government's expert panel that addresses the measurement difficulties and solve the problems by actuarial methods commonly used in the insurance industry. The FAO, the World Bank, the UN have all called for action on soil carbon.
Until political decision-makers take the time to learn the issue they will suffer by outsourcing their power to one group of professionals who, on their own, will never provide the answer. There will be many millions of dollars misallocated until the collaboration between science, actuarial science, market economics and carbon farmers. “We’re all in this together.”

Walking backwards into the future

The leadership of the major farmers' groups in NSW and VIC have redefined leadership as walking backwards into the future on the issue of carbon trading. "NSW and Victorian farmer groups are urging producers to be wary of locking into long term carbon trading, " reported the ABC recently. "Both groups see little financial benefit for producers from the new carbon trading to begin in July. NSW Farmers Association's senior vice president and head of their sustainability taskforce, Sam Archer, says the returns are not there due to falling global carbon prices and restrictive land management."Potentially low commercial benefits, restrictions on land use practices, the onerous land use permanence requirements of 100 years, and as we have seen overseas, a high transactional cost (so) all of which I would encourage people to err on the side of caution." The President of the Victorian Farmers Federation, Andrew Broad, says farmers reject the notion of a carbon economy. "Globally we have been fools by making our agriculture less competitive and we think somehow that we are saving the planet."

The comments are poorly informed. EG., the low prices currently on offer reflect the global financial crisis as companies realise the value of offsets they have on their books for liquidity purposes. Now is the perfect time to buy some cheap offsets to cover your future liability. A farmer sitting on offsets would be wise to keep sitting until better prices are available. Few farm commodities are as bankable. These gentlemen may not be aware (because they are not engaged in the process) that there are several insurance and buffer mechanisms being proposed to reduce the 100 Year risk. Sam's complaint about 'restrictions on land use practices' seem odd since he has his own scheme called the National Ecosystem Services Scheme (ESS) which would see farmers paid for land stewardship - which involves 'setting aside marginal land' for ecological 'goods and services'. The only difference between the CFI system and Sam's Scheme is how the farmer is paid. We believe in markets. Sam believes in taxes: "Potential funding for the scheme could come from a GST on fresh food..." Whoa! Australians love their farmers, but not enough to pay 10% more for food. And governments tend to find it difficult keeping their hands off a GST. Stewardship payments are handouts which institutionalise the top-down, dependency relationship traditional for farmers. They can be switched on or off at will. In The Land's Year of the Farmer supplement recently, Mr Archer said his proposed ESS could become "the cornerstone of Australia's response to climate change..." But it has no connection to Climate Change. Why is the carbon market anathema to many in agriculture? Why are those involved in it seen to be ethically compromised? This has motivated some to propose "Market Based Instruments" which are not markets at all, but schemes that pit farmer against farmer to compete for handouts.

Andrew Broad claims to speak for farmers who reject the carbon economy. Do they reject the Government's decision to absolve farmers for responsibility for all their emissions on farm and reward them instead with tradable offsets for their efforts to reduce methane and nitrous oxide? Or the option of being paid to enrich their soils and strategically revegetate their landscapes? Is Mr Broad's climate denialism typical of farmers? The dairy farmers are hardest hit by the price on carbon because of their energy usage. Yet Dairy Australia says on its website: “Belief’ in Climate Change is no longer relevant because the very idea of Climate Change, backed up by clearly more volatile weather events, has created its own, overwhelming social and economic momentum. ‘Climate Change’ is fundamentally changing everything from the behaviour of Governments to consumer choices. It has become one of the critical lenses through which every decision must pass – how individuals and industries react will fundamentally their future resilience and competitive advantage."

These are the facts: 1. No farmer is obliged to change anything in the way they manage their holdings when the carbon markets start operating. 2. No farmer is obliged to get involved with carbon markets. 3. No farmer should rush into any arrangement, especially planting trees. Changing the way you manage pastures or cropping is less restrictive of land use than planting trees. The tree companies want to sell as many trees as possible. Too many trees can be as bad as too few trees. The strategic placement of vegetation can enhance production. 4. Your advisor should have experience in whole-of-farm-planning for carbon farming. Contact the Carbon Farming & Trading Association to be put in touch with experienced carbon farmers who know what they are talking about.

Additionality Trap defanged

As members of the Bridge Consortium, we met yesterday with representatives of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests to discuss the reaction to our Soil Carbon Methodology. During the meeting we brought up the issue of the Additionality Trap (landholders falling into a permanent state of 'business as usual' by changing land management practices for scientific trials, etc. when they intend to make the change when they can earn offsets for it (when a methodology comes available). Representatives from both departments indicated that this was not an outcome they could accept and that something would be done about it. In the meantime we recommend that a statutory declaration of the landholder's prior intent We will report the DAFF/DCCEE mechanism when it appears..

Plantation carbon trees dangerous - Fire Services

The Fire and Emergency Services Authority (FESA) in Western Australia says an increase in the number of carbon capturing tree plantations poses a huge fire risk. More native plantations have arisen in traditional farming areas since the onset of the carbon farming industry, after the Kyoto Protocol ratification came into effect in 2008 and more are expected to be planted via the CFI and the Biodiversity Fund. While there is no method for trading soil carbon offsets, trees are threatening to dominate farmland. Most of the plantations are owned by companies so have no-one onsite to put out fires when they start."By their definition these areas are carbon sequestration areas which means that in theory they're not burnt and they remain a repository to trap the carbon," says Great Southern area manager John Tonkin. "Not withstanding that, there are natural effects like lightning ... which may occur that may ... [start] these parcels of land on fire."

Hard Questions for The Year of The Farmer

AN extract from a speech by Wendell Berry delivered in 1974 in Spokane, Washington. It formed the kernel of his book The Unsettling Of America, 1977. It asks the hard questions we should be asking about Agriculture in the Year of the Farmer.

In the decades since World War II the farms of Henry County [Kentucky] have become increasingly mechanized. Though they are still comparatively diversified, they are less diversified than they used to be. The holdings are larger, the owners are fewer. The land is falling more and more into the hands of speculators and professional people from the cities who-in spite of all the scientific agricultural miracles-still have much more money than farmers. There are not nearly enough people on the farms to maintain them properly, and they are for the most part visibly deteriorating. The number of part-time farmers and ex-farmers increases every year. Our harvests depend more and more upon the labor of old men and little boys. The farm people live less and less upon their own produce, more and more from the grocery stores. The best of them are more worried about money and more overworked than ever before. Among the people as a whole, the focus of interest has largely shifted from the household to the automobile; the ideals of workmanship and thrift have been replaced by the goals of leisure, comfort and entertainment-for, as my friend, Maurice Telleen says, "this nation has created the world's first broad-based hedonism."

And nowhere that I know is there a market for a hen or a bucket of cream or a few dozen eggs. Those markets were done away with in the name of sanitation-but to the enormous enrichment of the large producers. Future historians will no doubt remark upon the inevitable association, with us, between sanitation and filthy lucre. It is, of course, one of the miracles of science that the germs that used to be in our food have been replaced by poisons.

In all of this few people whose testimony would have mattered have seen the connection between "modernization" of agricultural techniques and the disintegration of the culture and the communities of farming. What we have called agricultural progress has, in fact, involved the forcible displacement of millions of people.

I remember, during the fifties, the outrage with which certain of our leaders spoke of the forced removal of the populations of villages in communist countries. I also remember that at that same time, in Washington, the word on farming was "Get big or get out"-a policy that is still in effect. The only difference here is in the method: the force used by the communists was military; with us it has been economic, a "free" market in which the freest were the richest. The attitudes were equally cruel, and I believe that in the long run the results will be equally damaging-not just to the concerns and values of the human spirit, but to the practical possibilities of survival.

And so those who could not get big got out-not just in my community but in farm communities all over the country. But bigness is a most amorphous and unstable category. As a social or economic goal it is totalitarian; it establishes an inevitable tendency toward the tyrannical one that will be the biggest of all. Many who got big to stay in are now being driven out by those who are still bigger. The aim of bigness implies not one social or cultural aim that is not noxious. Its influence on us may already have been disastrous, and we have not yet seen the worst.

And this community-killing agriculture, with its monomania of bigness, is not primarily the work of farmers, though it has burgeoned upon their weaknesses. It is the work of the institutions of agriculture: the experts and the agri-businessmen, who have promoted so-called efficiency at the expense of community, and quantity at the expense of quality.

In 1973 1,000 Kentucky dairies went out of business. They were the victims of policies by which we imported dairy products to compete with our own, and exported so much grain as to cause a drastic rise in the price of feed. Typically, an agricultural expert at the University of Kentucky, my colleague, was willing to applaud the failure of 1,000 dairymen, whose cause he supposedly being paid-with their money-to serve. They were inefficient producers, he concluded, who needed to be eliminated.

He did not say-indeed, there was no indication that he had even considered-what might be the limits of his criterion or his logic. Does he propose to applaud this same process year after year until "biggest" and "most efficient" become synonymous with "only"? This sort of brainlessness is invariably justified by pointing to the enormous productivity of American agriculture. But any abundance, in any amount, is illusory if it does not safeguard its producers-and in American agriculture abundance has tended to destroy its producers.

Along with the rest of society, the established agriculture has shifted its emphasis-even its interest-from quality to quantity. And along with the rest of society it has failed to see that, in the long run, quantity is inseparable from quality. To pursue quantity alone is to destroy those disciplines in the producers that are the only assurance of quantity. The preserver of abundance is excellence.

What are the results of such thinking? The results are the drastic decline in farm population and political strength; the growth of a vast, uprooted, dependent and unhappy urban population. (Our rural and urban problems have largely caused each other.) The result is an unimaginable waste of land, of energy, of fertility, of human beings. The result is that the life of the land, which in its native processes is infinite, has been made totally dependent upon the finite, scarce and expensive products of industry. The result is the disuse of so-called marginal lands, potentially productive, but dependent upon intensive human care and long-term familiarity and affection. The result is the virtual destruction of the farm culture without which farming, in any but the exploitive and extractive sense, is impossible.

My point is that food is a cultural, not a technological, product. A culture is not a collection of relics and ornaments, but a practical necessity, and its destruction invokes calamity. A healthy culture is a communal order of memory, insight, value, and aspiration. It would reveal the human necessities and the human limits. It would clarify our inescapable bonds to the earth and to each other. It would assure that the necessary restraints be observed, that the necessary work be done, and that it be done well. A healthy farm culture can only be based upon familiarity; it can only grow among a people soundly established upon the land; it would nourish and protect a human intelligence of the land that no amount of technology can satisfactorily replace. The growth of such a culture was once a strong possibility in the farm communities of this country. We now have only the sad remnants of those communities. If we allow another generation to pass without doing what is necessary to enhance and embolden that possibility, we will lose it altogether. And then we will not only invoke calamity-we will deserve it.

It' only a market. It won't kill you.

Carbon Farming is now law. It is the Law of the Land. It is being progressively implemented by the approval of "Methodologies" which govern the way offsets can be earned. It is a fait accomplis. Still some people champion alternative solutions. This is good. Diversity means opportunity. For instance, Sam Archer's National Ecosystem Services Scheme (ESS) would see farmers paid for land stewardship - which involves 'setting aside marginal land' for ecological 'goods and services' such as carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, improved water quality and bushland protection. (Taking animals off land and locking it up is the fast way to degrade it.) Government regulation would be 'light' to avoid the scheme becoming a victim of political whim and changes of government. (Can't see how this works.) "Potential funding for the scheme could come from a GST on fresh food..." Whoa! The Community loves its farmers and expects them to protect the environment, but not enough to pay for it. And governments tend to find the concept of 'light regulation' difficult and keeping their hands off a GST? Stewardship payments are handouts which institutionalise the top-down, dependency relationship traditional for farmers. They can be switched on or off at will. The 600lb gorilla not in the room is the market. The market for offsetting carbon emissions... "Mr Archer said his proposed ESS could become the cornerstone of Australia's response to climate change..." But it has no connection to Climate Change. The carbon market is anathema to many in agriculture - and those involved in it are seen to be ethically compromised. This has motivated some to propose "Market Based Instruments" which are not markets at all, but schemes that pit farmer against farmer to compete for handouts.

My colleague and fellow director of Healthy Soils Australia, Walter Jehne, has an excellent scheme: “The Net Emissions Reduction Incentive“ scheme or N.E.R.I. "Emitters have an option of ... offsetting their emissions ... by buying offsets generated by farmers through soil-carbon farming, whereby farmers manage their land in a regenerative, holistic, productive, resilient system that sequesters carbon as HUMUS in the soil, giving long-term food and water security."

" There would be no opportunity for carbon to be on-traded as a commodity."

Farmers are commodity marketers by nature. They are used to derivatives as a concept. The answer to every problem is not Government interference. Cooperatives don't guarantee protection from being ripped off. There is a role for stewardship payments and for Government regulation. But we are not dealing with a temporary change. We need a change in culture and tradition, a permanent shift in the relationship between humanity and nature in the way we extract our food, clothing and shelter from it. The free market drives innovation and incites entrepreneurs to develop new solutions, new technologies, new answers. Our future is bright only if bright ideas are allowed to flourish in an open market. Open minds are needed, not ancient prejudices.

Last chance for independent advice on the Carbon Farming Initiative before FarmReady funding runs out.

For farmers wondering what the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) has for them, there’s an opportunity to find out while FarmReady subsidies are still available.FarmReady funding runs out in June 2012. Farmers could potentially have 65% of the course fee reimbursed if they act soon. “An Introduction to Carbon Farming & Trading” is a 1-day Workshop that will equip farmers to make decisions about the CFI opportunities they will be offered. It is FarmReady Approved which means attendees may be eligble for a 65% subsidy of the course fee. The CFI is moving quickly as new income streams are emerging. Already there are possibilities under the headings of “Environmental Plantings” (farm forestry), “Savanna Burning”, and “Manure Management” (Piggeries). Carbon Farmers of Australia have an application for a Soil Carbon Methodology before the expert panel. Course Participants get more than just a day’s training. They get a copy of the Carbon Farming Handbook, the only one of its kind. They receive email updates in the Carbon Farming Newsletter. They receive invitations to events such as the Carbon Farming Conference where you meet with other ‘Carbon Farmers’. And they become part of the community that is working to restore farm landscapes to health while paying farmers for their role in this important national responsibility.You will have many people offering you opportunities that sound good but may not be what they seem. After attending “An Introduction to Carbon Farming & Trading” you will know the right questions to ask to avoid pitfalls.

The course is delivered by Carbon Farmers of Australia, experienced professionals who have six years practical hands-on engagement in the carbon farming 'industry', having led the campaign for farmers' rights to carbon credits under the banner of the Carbon Coalition and now have established the Carbon Farming & Trading Association. The have staged the Carbon Farming Conference every year since 2007 and publish the Carbon Farming Handbook.

“I believe that we have the Carbon Farming Initiative today because of the efforts of the Kielys over the past 5 years.” – Professor John Crawford, University of Sydney

“There would have been no Carbon Farming Initiative if not for the work of Michael and Louisa Kiely.” – Hon. Greg Hunt, Shadow Minister for Environment & Climate Action.

Upcoming dates include:

BENDIGO 27 February, WARRAGUL 1 March, TERANG 5 March, WAGGA WAGGA 13 March, ORANGE 15 March, SINGLETON 22 March, JAMBEROO 26 March

We can run a workshop in your district. Call Louisa on 02 6374 0329 to find out how it works.

New Edition of Carbon Farming Handbook - Contributions?

The Carbon Farming Handbook is uniquely useful as it forms a comprehensive introduction to the discipline. The Handbook is being updated. Contributions are welcome. We are particularly interested in techniques for increasing soil carbon levels. The list of contents (below) reveal the gaps. We also welcome support from advertisers and sponsors, companies that want to introduce themselves to the many new farmers entering the carbon field. We have various ways to make the introduction. Call us on 02 6374 0329 or email michael@carbonfarmersof australia.com.au.

Contents

What is Soil Carbon?
An Introduction to Carbon Farming
Can Farmers Slow Climate Change?
Changing the Way We Farm
Soil Organic Matter
Soil Organic Carbon
Benefits of SOC
The Soil Carbon Solution
Can We Capture Carbon?
Carbon Farming Techniques
Grazing Management
Conservation Tillage
Pasture Cropping
Biological Farming (including Organic Farming)
Biochar: What Do We Know?
Albrecht Natural Farming System
Biodynamic Farming
Natural Sequence Farming
Landsmanship: Reading The Landcape
How Nature Farms: Sir Albert Howard
Microclimates: Can Carbon Farming Make It Rain?
Microbes Making Carbon
The Root of the Matter
Rhizodeposition: A Hole In The Bucket?
The Liquid Carbon Pathway
Carbon Farming: Grassroots Innovation
The Hidden Costs of Soil Carbon Sequestration?
Farmers Lead Compost Revoluton
Triggering Terra Biologica
Is Fertiliser Bad For Carbon?
The Myth Of Nitrogen Fertilisation For Soil Carbon
Trees and Carbon Farming
Farm Forest Offsets Now Available
Carbon Sinks & Sources
Managing High Energy Costs in Dairy
Pig Farmers Earn Credits For Manure
22 Ways To Go Low N2O
How to Calculate Carbon Credits
Carbon Farm Plan: Soil Carbon Optimising Tool
The Carbon Farming Initiative
What Is A Carbon Offset?
How Does The Market Work?
How To Weigh Up A Soil Carbon Proposal
What’s In The CFI For You?
Did Agriculture Dodge A Bullet?
Why Is The Government Doing This?
CFI 101: The Basics
How To Earn Australian Carbon Credit Units
The Positive List: What You Can Do
The Negative List: What You Cannot Do
Permanence: What You Must Do
A Soil Carbon Methodology
Carbon Tax Funds Farming
Carbon Offsets Value Proposition
“How Much Can I Make From Soil Carbon?”
Potential Returns
Potential of Australian Soils
Australian Farm Offsets: Building The Brand
Frequently Asked Questions
Carbon Glossary
Acronymns
Soil, Food & Human Health: It’s Personal

Farmers fall into the Additionality Trap?

Farmers are in danger of forfeiting their right to earn carbon credits for on-farm activities if they move too soon. They can fall into the Additionality Trap if they get involved in on-farm trials before joining an approved offset program. And there aren't many methodologies approved. This is perplexing for those groups working to submit applications for funds under the Government's Action On The Ground because it leaves them in no-man's-land. The Carbon Farming & Trading Association has requested that the Departments involved - DAFF and DCCEE - provide farmers with a mechanism for avoiding this pitfall. Here are the details:

Farmers who take part in the Government’s $99 million Action On The Ground program could fall into the “Additionality Trap” and be excluded from the Carbon Farming Initiative’s Carbon Credits scheme. The program aims to “to assist landholders trial and demonstrate ways to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and/or increase carbon stored in soil.” But farmers who change their practices as part of these trials before they are registered in an offsets project with an approved methodology will almost inevitably make themselves ineligible to earn offsets that they can trade.
The CFI’s Additionality Standard disqualifies any activity that is already underway (‘business as usual’). For a project to deliver genuine carbon abatement, it must result in a reduction in atmospheric greenhouse gas that is additional to what would have occurred in the absence of the project. Currently there are only 4 methodologies approved: methane flaring from waste, savanna burning, piggery methane flaring, and native forest planting. The priorities for Action On The Ground are reduction of methane and nitrous oxide emissions and increased storage of soil carbon. Activities that would be eligible for funding under the program include most of the main Carbon Farming practices, which means that the “Additionality Trap” throws the net wide:
• animal management and feed strategies that can reduce methane emissions
• management strategies to reduce soil nitrous oxide emissions including the use of chemical inhibitors
• planting, rotation, cropping or grazing practices to either reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions from soil and/or increase carbon stored in soil
• on-farm management practices and abatement technologies to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural wastes
• other practices and abatement technologies that can be demonstrated on-farm to have the potential to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and/or increase carbon stored in soil.
DAFF lists a number of practices to be trialled for soil carbon that would be adopted to earn offsets: “Action on the Ground is seeking applications for on-farm projects to trial and demonstrate practices that can be used to increase and maintain the amount of carbon stored in soil. Such practices may include, but are not limited to, crop rotation strategies to reduce or eliminate fallow periods, addition of pasture phase to crop practices and/or cropping pastures, soil amendments, offsite additions to soil (such as claying, addition of organic materials etc), increasing pasture cover and/or inclusion of perennial species, conversion from cropping to perennial pasture and restoration of degraded farm land.”
The “Additionality Trap” also disqualifies farmers in areas where the offset practices had become ‘common practice’. (If more than 5% of farmers in a district or industry segment have adopted the practice, new adoptees are deemed to not be motivated by CFI considerations and any abatement arising would have happened anyway.) Local NRM bodies engaging farmers in certain districts in “soil carbon trials” not only endanger participating farmers, but all others in the district.

“Ignorance of the basic principles of carbon farming and trading is dangerous for farmers and their advisers. We estimate the losses by farmers as a result of these types of incidents could amount to significant dollars,” says Michael Kiely of the Carbon Farming & Trading Association. “These farmers must be informed, if only so they can manage the risk.”
It is to be wondered if the Government's CFI training course would include practical trading information of this type or whether it will be a "Government Information Campaign."
“This is not the first time there has been a collision between government programs due to misunderstanding the CFI. The confusion over carbon credits for Henbury Station is a classic example of silos colliding.”

Ruling sought

The Association is seeking a ruling from the DCCEE and DAFF on the following issues:
Will there be a suspension of the “Business As Usual” provision of the Additionality Standard for those farmers involved in the Action On The Ground program?
Will there be a suspension of the “Business As Usual” and “Common Practice” provisions of the Additionality Standard for those farmers involved in “Soil Carbon Trials” staged by CMAs and DPIs?
Will there be a mechanism provided for farmers who intend to earn offsets for activities for which there has yet to be a methodology approved to register their intention?