Carbon Farmers of Australia Blog

The first soil carbon methodology submitted to the Domestic Offset Integrity Committee (DOIC) has reached first base! Submitted only 8 weeks ago, it has been analysed and an issues paper written in response. We should get it in a few days. Stay tuned...

Read more.

The Carbon Farming Bill passed by the Australian Senate is the world's first national scheme that regulates the creation and trade of carbon credits from farming and forestry. It is the first major legislation passed by the government with Greens support in the Senate since the Greens took the balance of power on July 1. "Green carbon is one of the four pillars of the climate package, alongside putting a price on pollution and investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency," Greens deputy leader Christine Milne said.

Australian industries which buy carbon offsets will need to ensure at least 50 percent of the offsets are domestic credits. The government estimates the carbon farming initiative will help cut Australia's carbon emissions by 460 million tonnes by 2050. "There is increased interest in the CFI from across market and the first wave of investment activity will start to unfold now the Act has been passed," said Martijn Wilder, global team leader for environmental markets at law firm Baker & McKenzie in Sydney. "But the really significant activity under the CFI will come with the approval of carbon pricing laws."

The Opposition strongly opposes putting a price on carbon and will scrap the scheme if it wins the next election, due in the second half of 2013. It would have to wait until mid-2016 before they could win enough seats in the Senate to repeal the carbon laws, and its direct action plan for tackling emissions could be delayed until 2018, according to Reuters. These and many other issues will be canvassed at the Carbon Farming Conference, 27 - 29 September, 2011 in Dubbo NSW.

Speculation about the negative effects of the carbon tax was "a beat-up" and was causing a lot of unnecessary fear, according to agricultural consultant Steve Hossen.

He believes the effects of the carbon tax on farming will be no worse than seasonal variations. "Agricultural products go through phases of supply and demand and it ebbs and flows. When there is good demand for your product, the price will rise, and when it is over supplied, prices will be weak and will affect the farming sector. The likely impact on costs and potential inflation have been detailed by the Productivity Commission and are not as high as they're being made out to be."

Mr Hossen told Farming Weekly that Australia's carbon tax was similar to New Zealand's emissions trading scheme (ETS) introduced in 2009 with agriculture exempt until 2015, where it had made little impact."The New Zealand farming magazines are full of the normal stuff, sales, technology and farm-based chit chat. I suspect that if you ask a 100 farmers in New Zealand what they know about the carbon tax and what damage it has done, they would say 'I don't know'."

Read more.

There are at least 10 wrong 'facts' about soil carbon put about by people for various reasons:

1. Only small amounts of carbon can be sequestered in soil, and then it takes a long period.

There is no peer-reviewed science that confirms this assertion.

2. Kyoto rules will prevent soil carbon being traded at any worthwhile prices.

After next year the Kyoto rules run out. There is no rush to renew them.

3. Australian soil carbon offsets will be forced to trade on the domestic voluntary market which will only offer low prices.

In at least one case recently the voluntary units sold for close to 10 times as much as the compliance market units, proving that nothing is inevitable about price.

4. Degraded soils are best rehabilitated by tree plantings.

No soil is so degraded that it cannot be restored by carbon farming techniques. The emptier the glass, the more we can fill it.

5. Soil carbon is so unstable that it disappears soon after it is captured.

Humus colloids can last 1000 years.

6. A farmer has to choose between producing food and fibre or growing soil carbon levels.

Soil carbon is grown fastest and longest in actively managed soils.

7. Soil carbon levels are dictated by rainfall, so it is beyond the control of the farmer.

Several experienced carbon farmers recorded between 2% and 3% increases in soil carbon during the recent decade long drought.

8. When a farmer sells soil carbon offsets, they must farm for the new owner.

Offsets are not property rights. They represent the performance of a service. There is no new owner.

9. A farmer has to hold the carbon captured in soils for 100 years because science tells us it takes that long for CO2 to disappear from the atmosphere.

Scientists do not say this because it is not true. Various time scales have been suggested, but 100 years was decided by delegates to Kyoto talks. Politicians. Besides there are several ways to achieve Permanence other that signing a 100-year contract.

10. Peer-reviewed science is a reliable guide to the potential of Australian soils to sequester carbon.

There is no peer-reviewed science that measures the real world performance of a skilled carbon farmer applying several carbon farming practices in combination that can be relied upon.

11. A farmer growing soil carbon levels locks up nutrients in humus that cost far more to replace than the returns on offsets sales.

God did not have to order fertiliser from Incitec Pivot when He was making the soil rich in the beginning. Soil biology can make available millions of tonnes of nutrient locked up in soils.

12. Farmers shouldn't need to be paid to increase carbon in their soils because it is a good thing to do.

Then why haven't they done it already? Only a non-farmer could make a statement like that. Everyone else can earn money from offsets - alternative energy, forestry, light bulbs - but not the farmer. She's got to do it because it is good for her. "The good farmers are already doing it," says a politician. "Therefore the rest should follow." That's implied. "Pay them a pittance... or nothing at all."

STAND UP FOR SOIL CARBON: Register now for the Carbon Farming Conference -- 28/29 September, 2011

How will the Biodiversity Fund benefit farmers? One billion of the $1.5bn contribution from the Carbon Price to the "Land Sector" is assigned to The Biodiversity Fund "for landholders to undertake projects that establish, restore, protect or manage biodiverse carbon stores" - sounds to us like a lot of trees will be planted and not much else.

The nation would be short-changed were this the case. And the Government would hand a stick to its enemies to beat it with. Biodiversity means landscape resilience which means the more complex the web of existence, the stronger is its ability to withstand degradation. Two areas where biodiversity translates into food security are:

1. Soil microbiology
2. Grass species.

The trigger is No.1. As below the ground, so above the ground. Biodiversity above the ground seems to follow biodiversity beneath the ground. The food chain stretches from lower to higher order species. Simply planting trees is a superficial response to monoculture. Even native plantings of the type envisaged by the RM Williams organisation at Henbury Station are a simplistic solution. We would hope to see some of that big budget item branded Biodiversity devoted to encouraging farmers to increase biodiversity where it counts.

This analysis of the Carbon Tax funding for farmers is brought to you by the Carbon Farming & Trading Association.

We told Minister Combet last February that the Soil Carbon Research Program would provide only 20% of the data needed to make trade in soil carbon offsets possible, he seemed surprised. When we asked him was there any more money to finish the job, he said “No!” Something happened between then and last Sunday when the Carbon Tax detail was released. Blame it on the Independents and Greens.

The headline: $1.5 billion for landholders to switch to more climate friendly activities on farm.
In summary, this is how the $1.5 billion is divided up:

• $201 million for research into “new ways of storing carbon and reducing pollution in the land sectors.”
• $20 million to “convert research into practical methodologies which are recognised under the Carbon Farming Initiative
• $99 million “for landholders to take action on the ground, including testing new ways to increase soil carbon and reduce pollution.”
• $250 million for the Carbon Farming Initiative non Kyoto Carbon Fund will be used by the Government to purchase carbon credits that will create “incentives to undertake land-based action such as the storing of soil carbon, revegetation and forest conservation.”
• $946 million from the Biodiversity Fund “for landholders to undertake projects that establish, restore, protect or manage biodiverse carbon stores.”
• $44 million will provide "a refundable tax offset to encourage the uptake of conservation tillage farming techniques and participation in soil carbon sequestration research”.

A total of $1.5 billion for land sector activities. Stupendous. Let’s look a little more closely at the numbers. First, divide it all by 6 to get the annual figure as all amounts are to cover 6 years (except the conservation tillage 15% tax offset – it is for 3 years).

The $201 million for research amounts to $33 million per year. By comparison, the Soil Carbon Research Program (SCRP) had a total of $25.5 million over three years. But this new funding is not solely for soil carbon. It has to be shared between projects “to improve soil carbon, reduce pollution from livestock and crops, and enhance sustainable agricultural practices. Novel approaches, including biochar, biofuels and new crop and grazing species, will be targeted”. If the SCRP achieved 20% of it’s task with $25.5 million, it would need an additional $100 million to complete it. (The Commonwealth contributed $8 million to the initial SCRP budget, the balance coming from partners such as GRDC. The Commonwealth contribution would therefore be $32 million.) Will soil carbon get the funds? Not without a fight. Is it the research we want?? Good question. Populating models with “monopractice” data* on the grounds that it will help guide farmers’ decisions about whether to 'invest' in soil carbon activities does not translate into a trading regime. However it could be the basis for a scientifically-respectable CCX-style estimation system; ie. assigning a fixed rate of sequestration to a certain practice in a certain climate zone. The resulting data is the best a scientist can do, not the best a farmer can do. Carbon farmers are “poly-practitioners”; ie. they apply a suite of soil management practices to enrich their soil. Simply adding the results for the separate practices together does not add up, because the mechanism is ecological; the dynamic is geometrical, not arithmetic . Ie., it grows by multiplication, not addition.

$20 million will be available to convert research into practical methodologies which are recognised under the Carbon Farming Initiative. This will speed up the development of methodologies because right now there is no incentive to produce meths other than good citizenship.

$99 million will be provided “for landholders to take action on the ground, including testing new ways to increase soil carbon and reduce pollution.” This could mean there is money for farmers to hire scientists and do the research that is being neglected. ie, demonstrating true potential for sequestration.

The $250 million to be spent buying voluntary market offsets (Non-Kyoto) for “ the storing of soil carbon, revegetation and forest conservation” implies that a soil carbon methodology is passed by the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee (DOIC). Yet the document says soil carbon will emerge ‘over time’, which betrays a belief that only science can provide a solution. (A reference to ‘engaging more scientists and independent experts’ to do research could indicate that the Government is willing to broaden the skillsets and perspectives applied to the wicked problem of soil carbon.)

It may look like a straight copy of Abbott’s Direct Action plan, but it is only a faint echo. The $40 million per year the Government intends to spend can purchase 4 million units at $10 (although the Government has not indicated a price). The Opposition’s Direct Action soil carbon solution, whereby the Government is the only buyer and farmers compete to offer the lowest price, expects to purchase 10 million units in 2012-3, rising to 85 million units per year in 2020. This “market mechanism” does not fit the Association’s idea of an ideal system because it operates to restrict returns to farmers and reduce the contribution that the soil carbon solution can make to addressing climate change and landscape restoration, both of which rely on widespread change of land management practice.

There is another likely farmer response depressant: the intrusion of Government bureaucracy into the marketplace. Seeking to use a market to attract conservative farmers who would run a mile from anything that looked like government environmental program, the Association was shocked to read the following: “Natural resource management organisations will develop plans in each region to guide where carbon farming projects should be located in the landscape. These can be used by landholders to identify and develop activities to reduce carbon pollution.” This creates another level of decision-making to slow down the process and add costs.

The Big ticket item was the billion dollars for ‘BIODIVERSITY”. The Biodiversity Fund will support:

• reforestation and revegetation in areas of high conservation value including wildlife corridors, rivers, streams and wetlands
• management and protection of biodiverse ecosystems, including publicly owned native forests and land under conservation covenants or subject to land clearing restrictions
• action to prevent the spread of invasive species across connected landscapes.

Trees and native vegetation can make a major contribution to landscape resilience and farm production, but this is a very narrow definition of Biodiversity. In farmland, Biodiversity can be found in the species density in pasture grasses, in the species density in soil microbial communities, in grassy woodlands, and in the edge effect of ribbon planting of crops. Biodiversity naturally increases with soil carbon. The two are interdependent. We will need to broaden this definition to gain funds for on farm biodiversity projects. The amount to be spent from the Biodiversity funds on mainly reforestation or forestation is gobsmacking when considered alongside the budget for soil carbon. The Government says the money is to be used “for landholders to undertake projects”, but there is a danger that the lion’s share of it will find its way into salaries with precious little left over for farmer incentives. The “extension/education/encouragement” model is very effective at changing behaviour in those open to the message. But this Conversion Model can be slow-acting and even ineffective with the conservative majority – failing to gain even consideration from minds made up after a lifetime immersed in a culture of traditional ways. The prospect of additional income from growing a new commodity in parallel with their existing enterprises is proven to gain attention long enough for consideration of the proposition. In doing so, this commercial return incentive would work faster because it offers the means to balance risk of experimenting with new business practices. The market model would add potency to the extension model, providing the agencies with access to groups of farmers formerly unavailable to them.

Given the amounts of money on offer and the broad terms of reference, there is likely to be a feeding frenzy by stakeholders who traditionally work in this space and who naturally feel entitled, and newcomers like ourselves (though 6 years is a lifetime in carbon issues) who are pursuing a paradigm shift and need resources to prove our contention. Soil Carbon will have to compete vigorously to not only get a fair share of the resources that we helped to make available, but also to avoid losing control of our destiny by having the agenda fall into unsympathetic hands.

There is a lot of hard work to be done and someone has got to do it – all day every day. This is the reason we formed the Carbon Farming & Trading Association. To give you the opportunity to play an active part in the effort, to build the resource base we need to field a team – because if we don’t turn up, you can be sure the others will, and 85% of success is simply in turning up.

* The Potential of Australian Farmers to Earn Income from Soil Carbon Sequestration has been estimated at unrealisticially low levels. The peer-reviewed science fails to replicate what farmers can achieve because it studies only monopractice (single practice change), it does not study polypractice (multiple practice changes) which is the real-world behaviour of farmers seeking to enrich their soils and increase their soil carbon levels.

The highest level of increase recorded by scientists studying monopractices is 0.5 tonnes of carbon. Experienced carbon farmers using multiple land management changes have recorded 30 tonnes and more per year for 10 years.
These tonnages are not recognised by government scientists because they have not studied it and have no plans to study it. Officially they don't exist. The studies, when they take place, can take up to 5 years. Years can pass before funding is available, then three year field trials, followed by a year getting the results published in an academic journal before it can be considered 'sound science'.
The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists have declared that there is no peer-reviewed science that reveals the potential of carbon farming for soil carbon sequestration. They are right. Public policy has not been informed by knowledge of the existence of the Hidden Tonnes of Soil Carbon.

THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT has announced that it will have a national emissions trading scheme at the same time as Australia, reports Reuters. China will pilot six emissions trading schemes by 2013, and set up a national trading platform by 2015, according to Xie Zhenhua, vice-minister of China's economic planner the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). The official Xinhua news agency said on Sunday that, like Australia, China will pilot a carbon trading scheme and gradually build a market for emissions trading to meet pollution goals and fight climate change. To get started, Beijing will force power-intensive industries to pay higher electricity tariffs than other industries. Beijing will also encourage energy conservation by improving laws, regulation and taxation policies and asking financial groups to fund low-carbon emission projects. The Government will also discourage 'excessive growth' in power-intensive sectors. Reuters says companies and governments around the world are turning to emissions trading as a way to combat climate change and join a world carbon market worth $142 billion last year.

The Opposition Direct Action plan promises to achieve ‘lowest cost’ abatement by inviting farmers to tender their best price for soil carbon offsets in a market with only one buyer – the Government. Australian farmers won’t line up to sell a government soil carbon at bargain basement prices. The plan would pit farmer against farmer in a race to the bottom to see who could cut their throats the fastest. Farmers are gunshy after a protracted scare campaign about soil carbon sequestration convinced many that trading soil carbon is dangerous. And, as with any market, the higher the perceived risk, the better the money advantage has to be. The price of $8 to $10 a tonne has been floated by the Coalition. The responsibilities of a Carbon Farmer are high, including holding the carbon in the soils for 100 years. There’s too much uncertainty with this program. It can be cut off at any time. Knowing the pragmatism that surrounds Direct Action, there is too much risk for a farmer to take for a few dollars a tonne. In a Clayton’s market, farmers face a ‘take it or leave it’ attitude with only one buyer. As for the assertion that the price could be zero because farmers take up sustainable farming without the promise of offsets, why haven't they done it already? Get serious.

Carbon farming income as much as $100g per year

The Gillard Government’s announcement of a price for Carbon is welcomed by the Carbon Farming & Trading Association. It is good news for farmers because they can make additional income. Farmers can be paid the carbon price for reducing their emissions or capturing and storing carbon in soils and trees. The Carbon Farming Initiative legislation is complementary to the Carbon Tax legislation and is in the final stages of being passed through the Senate. “Farmers stand to make significant additional income if they take maximum advantage,” says Michael Kiely, Chairman of the Carbon Farming & Trading Association. “If soil carbon CO2 offsets fetch $23 a tonne, our best carbon farmers could make more than $100,000 a year at the top end of estimates.”*

“Add to that offsets earned for reducing methane from animals, reducing nitrogen emissions from animals and fertiliser, removing feral animals, planting native forests, reducing burning stubble and grasslands, etc. and there are many opportunities in prospect for farmers.”

These opportunities will be revealed at the Carbon Farming Conference in Dubbo NSW on 28-29 September, 2011.

*Leading carbon farmers report increases in soil carbon of 2% in a decade: 0.2% @ 30cms @ Bulk Density 1.0: 22tCO2-e/Ha/yr @ $23/t: $506/Ha. For 200Ha: $101,000. (NB. $23/t is the price to apply in the Compliance market. Soil carbon will initially be traded in the Voluntary market, price estimated at $10-15/tCO2-e, but the pathway to the Compliance market is anticipated by the Carbon Farming Initiative. For a more conservative estimate, simply halve the price and the resulting income. Note the above calculation based on 200Ha. Average farm size 800Ha. Note that the price on carbon will rise in the coming decade.)

Course puts focus on carbon farming
Farmers could have their own weapon for beating the carbon tax. A Carbon Farming course is being held in Dubbo on July 12 looking at ways farmers can manage carbon mitigation on-farm.

Working with the weather
More than 100 farmers and industry figures learnt how to prepare for the elements around them as part of Goulburn Murray Landcares annual Future Farming Forum last week.

Tackling food price volatility requires decisive action from G20 countries
The first-ever official meeting of Ministers of Agriculture from G20 countries being held in Paris on June 22-23, presents an extraordinary opportunity.

Carbon farming legislation 'a good first step'
The Federal Government's carbon farming initiative was passed in the lower house last week with the support of independent MPs Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor and the Greens' Adam Bandt.

Changing chemical culture
If the federal government is serious about storing carbon in soil it needs to invest in biological farming instead of relying so heavily on chemicals, two regional scientists say.

English dairy farmers set the pace
It's a crisp spring morning in Marlborough, Wiltshire, southern England, and David Homer has begun putting his first heifers out in the paddocks after a long, cold winter.

Chester rejects carbon tax
GIPPSLAND MHR Darren Chester has welcomed the National Farmers Federation’s decision to reject the Federal Government’s proposed tax on carbon dioxide.

Carbon Farming Bill clears house of reps
The Carbon Farming Bill 2011, that allows both the agricultural and waste sectors to sell green house gas emission offsets on the domestic and international markets, cleared the Federal House of Representatives on Thursday June 16.

Aviation industry is committed to addressing climate change impact
Richard Fielding ("Emissions accelerating, not declining", June 13) rightly highlights the urgent need for society to address the global challenge of climate change and the role that aviation must play in this regard.

Green Groups Blast U.N. Climate Panel
If you haven’t yet heard, hell froze over last week. Ironically, this is very bad news for a warming planet. On Monday, more than 125 environmental groups sent a scathing letter to Rajendra Pachauri, the Nobel prize-winning head of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the institutional

Carbon Sequestration : A ray of new hope
The World Come To An End On 21st October, 2011, according to Harold camping prediction, even some countries believe and start praying for a better and safer earth.

New CSIRO website shows steady rise of greenhouse gases
A new website launched today allows the public to see how greenhouse gas emissions have risen steadily over the past 35 years.

Burnoffs 'need to be halved'
THE number of bushfires deliberately lit by authorities should be halved, says a CSIRO scientist. Ecologist Anna Richards yesterday said some patches of savanna were burnt every two or three years.

From the Bottom Up – A DIY Guide to Wicking Beds
By Rob Avis: Wicking beds are a unique and increasingly popular way to grow vegetables. They are self-contained raised beds with built-in reservoirs that supply water from the bottom up – changing how, and how much, you water your beds.

Hot topics on a winter’s night
Royal Society of Tasmania’s winter lecture series Two burning issues – forests and carbon - are to be explored in the Royal Society of Tasmania’s winter lecture series, which kicks off tonight (Monday 20 June 2011) in the Stanley Burbury Theatre.

Soil has the answer to burning climate questions
by Fresh Science: Decreasing the frequency of wild fires in northern Australia would lead to an increase in the amount of carbon stored in the soil, significantly lowering greenhouse gas emissions, according to CSIRO ecologist, Dr Anna Richards.

Tony Abbott interview with Smith and McCallum, 3AW - Plebiscite on Julia Gillard’s carbon tax
TRANSCRIPT OF THE HON. TONY ABBOTT MHR INTERVIEW WITH JUSTIN SMITH AND NICK MCCALLUM, RADIO 3AW, MELBOURNE Subjects: Plebiscite on Julia Gillard’s carbon tax.