Wow,   what a great  header!    Wish it was mine!

But no,  its another GREAT example of the Voluntary Market in action.  

 I've been musing about the Voluntary market, and how in my opinion we'll need a robust Voluntary market NOT dependent on Government. 

So, according to  'V-Carbon News'  " TJ DiCaprio, Microsoft's Senior Director of Environmental Sustainability, announced Microsoft's new wave of offset purchases at last week's REDD+ Talks in California. Microsoft has chosen to partner with The CarbonNeutral Company to invest in carbon reduction projects that preserve forests and wildlife while generating jobs and funding education. Projects supported include Terra Global Capital's VCS/CCB-verified Oddar Meanchey REDD+ project in Cambodia. A new Ecosystem Marketplace article takes a closer look into the technology giant's thinking behind its carbon offsetting strategy as part of its goal to strengthen its own operations while supporting work in developing countries".  click here to read the whole story. 

Now, imagine that there was a group over here, which could provide the same  'integrated' approach to a corporates needs  -  AND  which was based in, and relied on Regional Australian generated credits and had appropriate links into education and other social networks.   Wow, then we would be getting powerful for our own climate needs and long term sustainability of farmers and our landscape. 

Dream on?   

So,  I promised that I'd  be letting you know more about the 'Voluntary Market' and even those  'CDM type'  credits the Opposition is talking about.

The best known company Internationally who approves 'methodologies'  is the Verified Carbon Standard or VCS.  They act in a very similar way to our  Carbon FArming Initiative rules -  but with many more category of credit available.   They also support the CDM  (Clean Development Mechanism) methodologies.

 Funny enough,  a perfect example of the type of credit which I understand could be available in addition to the CFI  under the Oppostion crossed my desk this morning.  Click here to read it all, but in essence its about the VCS  approving  a revision of CDM methodology AMS-III.BC, "Emission reductions through improved efficiency of vehicle fleets".

So,  any fleet of vehicles which shows they adhere to the methodology via energy efficiencies would be able to claim a reduction in emissions and earn a credit  - which, under the Opposition would be available for sale to the Government.    This could suit  Linfox,  or other large trucking firms for example. 

If done under VCS rules, the credit would also be available to sell Internationally.  

Yes, it does concern me that Farming Credits  would have so much competition.   For this reason we are supporting the  newly formed   Australian Carbon Co-operative.   Farmers will need to gather together to ensure they are able to get economies of scale on pricing, as well as blocks of carbon to sell direct to polluters.  More later!  

This is an amazing time -    I don't think I've lived through a  pre-election period like it.   The Government is attempting to get through as many things as possible, as even they seem to have accepted the inevitability  of the change-over.  Meanwhile,  the Opposition is in the mode that would normally take place AFTER an election.   Politics sure is a funny game.  I think it prudent not to assume anything and be aware of what might happen under either scenario.

So, Greg Hunt,  shadow minister for climate action, Environment and Heritage has fleshed out more of what will happen in this area should the Opposition win Government. Click here for the full story,  but here are the main points for our stakeholders:

• They agree on: 1. The 'science of climate change', 2.  the targets to reduce emissions -  ie the 5% by 2020 (which may be far too low to actually stall climate change)  and 3.on using markets as the best mechanism to reduce emissions.  

•They will keep and expand the Carbon Farming Initiative -  meaning we have to compete with energy efficiency - which is usually understood to be a cheaper alternative to our 'natural ecosystem'  solutions.

They have said they will offer a 25 year project period for these credits -  hopefully adding choice - however it will affect price.    One of the main things is to 'unblock'  the CFI pipeline for farmers - to put the 'farming'  back into the Carbon Farming Initiative!  

However,  to actually stall climate change, we must take many millions of tons out of the atmosphere - and only photosynthesis can do that.  ONe day the world will wake up to that reality. 

•So, with the Governments  'tax'  becoming a market in 2015 -  looks like a market either way.    BUT, how do farmers make sure they get a fair price -  that is yet to be played out,  but one thing is for sure -  Farmers will have to fight to be paid fairly, and have access to more than just the 'Government'  as a buyer.   This speaks to two things for me: 

1.  We need a robust Voluntary market -  which involves marketing our 'value added'  credits at home and abroad.  (Value added =  improved resilence to climate change, improved productivity and assisting to drought proof Australia) Under the Coalition, they are the only buyers and this is just not enough.

2. We need excellent  'aggregations'   -  Structures run by  farmers, for farmers.  NOT just city based businesses -  structures where the money from the credits will flow back into the Regions.  There is already one such  -   The Australian Carbon Co operative (ACC).  Click here to read a little about them.  If ever there was a case for a new farmer co operative, surely the  carbon market is one.  Greg Hunt acknowledges this  "There will be an opportunity for organisations to act as aggregators and bid into the market as a group.  As an example, .......  Farmers may work together to deliver carbon capture and storage in soil, or landowners to achieve abatement through revegetation or reafforestation of marginal lands".

So, that is why  we'll be raising the profile and understanding of the Voluntary market - up until now the more 'maligned'  and dismissed market due to its size.    As I've said before,  niche markets can work!

We are also talking with the  ACC  to move those excellent values along for farmers.

Will keep you posted!   

Now that it is looking more and more like the Voluntary Markets will be  very important,  its time to get to know them!

 click here and get learning!.   These guys are a company, not a Government, and they are rapidly becoming THE go-to system for creating methodologies.  This is also a glimpse into the future if the Coalition wins Government because it encompasses many of the things they are talking about in addition to the Carbon Farming Initiative - ie  Energy Efficiency methodologies.   They are also not stuck on the 100 year rule. 

Lets make the future work for us!   

For those of us who believe looking after the planet is bigger than politics, we need to think of life post-election. So, what do we have?

If Labour wins (and stranger things have happened), we get 'business as usual' - The CFI, and a mandatory market, but with prices linked to the EU post 2015 - which, by all accounts probably means low prices! We also get a market STILL run by Government - and since when do Governments run a market well? 

If the Coalition wins we get the CFI, plus 'CDM type' projects - which is to say energy efficiency methodologies - in an effort to gain 'lowest cost' abatement. Soil is still in their 'direct action' plan, but has to compete with others. It is 'assumed' soil may well NOT be lowest cost (due to delays in getting going and bringing forth innovation I would suggest!) 

Either way, we get a mandatory market at low prices - high volumes AND/ OR a market dominated by ONE player - the Government - after low prices.

However - strangely enough, they both need to reach the 5% by 2020 target, which is quite a lot of carbon. Therefore one can safely assume there is a market.

As one who entered this space with a deep belief that we need to make changes to the way we consume energy and to the improvements of our 'farm scape' , as well as continue to grow economically and socially, then I'm wondering:

• Can we make a market without 'Government' How do we transition from this phase of 'Government forcing us to do something to a population which wishes to make changes and therefore change happens? 
• Is this happening anywhere in the world? 

If so, what is the 'business case'?

• The cost of the extreme weather events is already mounting, here and overseas. This is why Governments are worried. China is worried! They will 'mandate' things as we move forward and it is likely they will impose tarriffs on countries who are not doing something. 
• Most people have children and grandchildren and wish for our most beautiful planet to remain so. After all, 'good planets are hard to find' and even if there is a small chance climate change is real, if we give them a Good Value, easy to implement reason for adding $25 a week to their budgets to ensure it does, I have no doubts they will do so. (how much does a steak cost in Sydney, for example?)
• Business understands they need a stable atmosphere to maintain business and they have a duty of care to stakeholders and others. Responsible business such as Transforce Buik Haulage in Dubbo NSW stands ready to support farmers in their bid to improve their soils and help them 'clean up after themselves'

So, I'm dreaming of a real market, one where normal business drivers exist, where jobs are created and profits earnt, where our soils are simultaneously resorted, our air cleaned and our children protected. Where our energy efficiency improves, we learn to use our waste profitably again and Government is not front and centre!

Can we do it? Yes we can!

The Two Markets

In this week's webinar 'The Two Markets' we will be exploring some of what is happening here and overseas and 'envisioning' a market we'd like to live in. Our webinars are for innovators - We go beyond just 'explain the CFI', we give clues to potential futures, we open up your mind. We have over 25 years of Marketing and Business experience which we have focussed in this area. Come, pick our brains and be inspired about the future!

CFI 'heats up'

Amazingly, having reported the first soil carbon measurement protocol published, we have two more in the pipeline! And also, RCS (Grazing for Profit) will soon be putting up a soil carbon methodology for the CFI - with a new soil carbon measurement protocol in it as well. This leaves the CSIRO one needing to come to light. Yes, innovation will come. Thats what getting started is about. 

This is why we do not agree that investigating the sequestration potential of soil carbon is 'going up a blind alley'.

Yes, we were floored by the Radio National Story on Sunday - The journalist did a great job, but it appeared to be a 'shut the gate' exercise from Dreyfus. Personally, I think he is worried that it is an area that the Opposition could just creep up behind them on - again. And again, the Government may be shown to be wanting.

Do we remember, for instance, how many times it took Thomas Edison to discover how to make an electric light work more efficiently! The scientists themselves now acknowledge the need to look into areas which we asked for right from the beginning (collaborative science with those making the high end of sequestration a reality)!

For our response to the Sunday program, please check it out here. 

To me, it looks like soil carbon may have just become politicised in this highly charged election year. However, the soil remains the largest carbon sink under our control, and if we do not want any perverse outcomes from only allowing trees to be planted , then we have only just found out one small piece of information to be put into the jigsaw puzzle. 

In the meantime, we had a great first webinar last week and are set to continue this week. This Thursday we continue with 'The Carbon Farming Initiative Process', featuring 'The Seven Steps to a Carbon Credit'. Register now to receive the most up to date information from those that know!

Whats happening with the CFI this week?

Confidence in the Carbon Markets has been shown by the Landfill Gas Recovery and Intensive Pig Industry.

Since the first piggery 'CO2 from methane' digester project was started in the Young District, there are now four others up and in the running for Carbon Credits. Two declared and two more coming. Add this to the fact that there are no fewer than 20 capture and combustion of methane in landfill gas from legacy waste projects, shows that people will invest to enter this market. See the full list here.

Meanwhile Broadacre farmers and the soils wait... 

Go forth and plant trees, my son! (sayeth the Department). Begs the question yet again - is the CFI just an intensive industry/waste industry initiative? There have been millions spent on soil carbon research - and our need to change soil management is immediate. We have been given assurances that things are moving fast...

Webinars

Carbon Farming is here to stay - both sides of politics are committed (YAY!). Coalition is promising a soil carbon methodology within the CFI - with a 25 year option, but low on details at this point. 

Don't forget to register for upcoming webinars to make sure you are ready to take decisions! We take the pain out of the language and point the way to the future. 

Soil Carbon "Action on the Ground" 

The VCS guys are off and running. Their 'learnings' will help us all. Click here to view the VCS soil carbon meth in action!

ALSO from overseas - more soil carbon measurement protocols being developed. Who said nothing is happening overseas? Click here for more information!

Check out our new Resources section

Because we are educators at our core we like to share our wealth of information. We have an academic and business background and have researched widely. These resources are a great way to understand the what/where/how of Carbon Farming, the CFI, and other matters. Plus, many of them are FREE.

We've been working hard on the 'methodology' area as well, to enable 'the common man' to be able to participate in this 
area. Michael has written a fantastic guide which is available in the online shop - it's a great guide to staying sane through the process!

Miscellaneous great links and stories from home and abroad! 

• Want the facts and only the facts on recent heat wave, duration, highest temps? Click here to read the Bureau of Meteorology's climate statement. Sobering reading if you ask me. 
• Discussion around climate change and doing something may be changing in the USA as people come to grips with the increased cost associated with the ferocity of surges, storms and other nasties - click here to read.
• Measuring, mapping, and understanding water risks around the globe! Very authoritative. Click here to read.

I remain your humble carbon servant. I can be reached on 02 6374 0329, or email louisa@carbonfarmersofaustralia.com.au.

There is a movement afoot to blame soil carbon for nitrous oxide emissions from soils. You might have read this somewhere recently: “The carbon (organic matter) content of a soil is a major driving factor in the amount of N2O it can emit. Farming systems that produce large amounts of carbon, either as pasture or crop residues, have the potential to emit higher levels of N2O. This is because the carbon provides energy to bacteria that carry out the denitrification process. Preliminary research from the Nitrous Oxide Research Program has found that in some regions retaining crop residues can lead to high N2O emissions.”

Are they recommending to farmers that they stop building carbon rich soils? Are those naughty N people trying to burst soil carbon’s balloon with yet another reason why increasing soil carbon is bad for you? Well, here is another perspective from a group of eminent scientists that includes Prof. Peter Grace from QUT: “To date the vast majority of evidence supports nitrogen input as the most robust and reliable default proxy for calculating N2O emissions.”* So it is the amount of N applied that determines how much N2O emitted.

It wasn’t an increase in soil carbon levels that caused the N2O curve to climb steadily for 40 years, obviously. Soil carbon levels have been falling ever since the first plough bit into the virgin soils of the Great South Land. It was inputs of N that caused the N2O spike, not soil carbon. The fact that reducing application of N is standard advice now in outreach and training programs. American farmers are even now still being encouraged to over-use N fertiliser “with the common practice of producers to apply N fertilizer rates based upon recommendations derived from yield goal calculations known to overestimate crop N needs.”

Yield goal estimates? What are they? “Since the 1970s it has been common practice… for producers to apply rates of N fertilizer based on recommendations derived from yield goal estimates. The agricultural departments of land grant universities and state agricultural organizations have typically endorsed yield-goal N fertilizer rate recommendations. These organizations are the most common source of external information and advice for producers” say Millar et al. The practice of over-prescribing N inputs by advisers was so widespread that the Methodology for reducing N fertilizer use on crops is accepting these levels as a business-as-usual scenario for proving additionality. 

* Millar, N, G.P. Robertson, A. Diamant, R.J. Gehl, P.R. Grace, and J.P. Hoben. 2012. Methodology for Quantifying Nitrous Oxide (N 2 O) Emissions Reductions by Reducing Nitrogen Fertilizer Use on Agricultural Crops. American Carbon Registry, Winrock International, Little Rock, Arkansas This methodology developed by Michigan State University (MSU) with support from the Electric Power Research Institute.

We have identified a list of “high performance” soil carbon managers who have demonstrated a potential well beyond the average. These ‘outliers’ present a challenge for the conventional estimation of the potential of Australian soils to sequester carbon. 

If these outliers can do it, it can be done.

The CSIRO’s chief soil carbon scientist Jeff Baldock pointed us in the direction of these outliers. We need a study of high performance individuals and what characteristics they share. We need the equivalent of the Australian Institute of Sport for carbon farmers.

AN outlier is a point that is off the curve. In statistics, an outlier is an observation that is numerically distant from the rest of the data. An outlying observation, or outlier, is one that appears to deviate markedly from other members of the sample in which it occurs. (Grubbs, F. E.: 1969, Procedures for detecting outlying observations in samples. Technometrics 11, 1–21.)

“Outliers… are often indicative either of measurement error or that the population has a heavy-tailed distribution. A frequent cause of outliers is a mixture of two distributions, which may be two distinct sub-populations...”

Those two sub-populations: conventional farmers in the hump of the curve and carbon farmers in the tail. (Have we been measuring in the hump and not in the tail?)

And below we have Jeff's formal graph where we can see the 'heavy tail' (c.2011 slide presentation).

The people you are about to meet are all highly respected by their peers for their contribution to their industries. But they all do something that modern science says is impossible. They capture and hold carbon in their soils at three-to-eighteen-times the rate that scientists believe possible.

 
The CSIRO's best soil scientists say the largest increase possible in Australian soils that they have recorded is half a tonne per hectare per year. But David Marsh (left) from Boorowa NSW averaged an increase of more than 3 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year over 10 years. Craig Carter (right) from Willow Tree NSW has added 8 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year over 3 years at his best monitoring sites. David sits on the Board of his local Catchment Management Authority and Craig is a member of the Liverpool Plains Land Management and Sydney University Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources ‘CANEn’ project – Connecting Agriculture, Nutrition and Environment. He was also selected to be featured in former Governor-General Major General Michael Jeffrey's Soils For Life program. (Chairman of Healthy Soils Australia Tom Nicholas is pictured centre)

David Bruer (above) of Temple- Bruer Vineyards at Langhorne Creek (SA) increased average soil carbon levels by 2% in 10 years to 2011 (more than 3 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year ). The project aims to highlight information and tools for managing climate risk on farm. 

Col Seis (above) increased soil carbon by 3 tonnes per hectare per year (from 2% to 4%) on “Winona”, Gulgong, between 1995 and 2005. Between 2008 and 2010 his sequestration rate was close to 9 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year. Col is co-inventor of the practice known as Pasture Cropping.

New England grazier Cam Banks has used cell grazing and a focus on soil health to achieve an increase of 2.6 tonnes of Carbon sequestered/ha/yr between 2007-2011 at “Lakeview” in Uralla NSW (above). Cam is an active member of Landcare.

Martin Royds moved his soil carbon levels at "Jillamatong" near Braidwood NSW from 3% to 7% in 5 years, lifting his tonnage per hectare from an increase of 2 tonnes per year to more than 14 tonnes per year at his best monitor points in that time frame. He was awarded National Carbon Cocky of the Year 2011, sponsored by Ylad Living Soils. Rhonda Daly (seen presenting the award) and her husband Bill are also Carbon Farmers at Young NSW. They have compared a compost mineral blend vs single super, and observed an increase of 0.5% in soil carbon vs 0.07% increase between 2008-2010 - or close to 2.5 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year in a cropping enterprise.

But remember: none of this exists... officially... 

Officially the most soil carbon that can be sequestered in Australian soils is 0.5tonnes/hectare/year. Why is t here a vast gap between the performance predicted by scientific models and the actual performance of many carbon farmers? The farmers' high carbon scores are not considered reliable by scientists because the measurement was not conducted by scientists, according to scientific protocols. These results are described by scientists as 'anecdotal'. But here, in this small sample of farmers, we have a pattern which poses the question: Why?

Could the farmers be fudging the figures? But what motive would a farmer have to skew their carbon scores? No one is offering to pay them for it. No carbon trading scheme pays for past performance. Most of the farmers featured above started measuring their carbon levels 10 years ago, before there was a hint of earning carbon credits.

Also, these farmers have recorded falls in their soil carbon levels as well as increases along the way. Their integrity is not in question.

They may not use the same rigour in their measurement methodology, taking fewer samples than a scientist would take. But is this enough to explain the gap? (Some of the measurement was done by scientists and in all cases the analysis was done at a NATA-accredited laboratory.)

When it comes to 'growing carbon' farmers enjoy an unfair advantage. Each farmer lives inside a live experiment, 24/7, observing how nature responds to various activities. They micromanage their farms, combining techniques and practices, endlessly trialling and making decisions every day. Their experiments are conducted in a single location for application in that location. The farmer is there on the ground every day, absorbing the whole ecological 'event', processing it intuitively, referencing their entire experience with nature, and developing new hypotheses on the run. 

These farmers bring a learning attitude to their work. They read a lot, attend conferences, and most are active members of local natural resource management bodies or groups. 

The farmer is not seeking to answer a single question about an isolated variable in the ecological mix. The farmer wants to learn everything at once. They want to know how to get more and better pasture and crops, better water efficiency, healthier animals and better quality produce. They want more sustainable farming for today and tomorrow when they hand the farm to the next generation. They want more profit, more drought resistance, more production. 

The farmers just want to know what works. They don't have to spend time working out why it work. This can explain the gap in performance: farmers are better carbon farmers because they have a narrower task, more time to spend on it, freedom to change direction when early results indicate.

A formal scientific experiment sets out a methodology for each study which must be strictly observed for the period of the program, usually 3 years . This is because scientists must prove their results to others while farmers only have to prove it to themselves. 

The result of this unfair advantage are the higher soil carbon scores registered by farmers and the refusal by scientists to accept these scores because they are not replicable, as science demands of new facts.

These farmers are "outliers" - not a statistical aberration, but the result of a mixture of two distributions or sub-populations. Each of them have spent the 10,000 hours studying and practicing "required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert - in anything," according to Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers. It is on these grounds that we believe these high performance carbon farmers reveal the true potential of Australian soils.

The Carbon Farming Initiative should focus all resources tagged for soil carbon on the challenge of measurement and set farmers free to sequester as much carbon as they can, independent of what the models say we can. This is the only way that the soil carbon credit can act as the catalyst needed to spark the chain reaction among farmers around the world to activate the massive carbon extractive capacity of the soils and vegetation. 

Read more...