We were discussing some difficulties with methodologies and land use change. The operative of ‘consistently’ became problematic as climate change is about uncertainty in weather patterns!!!

My friend said I have a meteorology business for exactly that reason. So where are you at I asked: Answer, we are in the middle of contract negotiations with XXXX Airport and have 2 different capital raisings underway (one for an existing project and one for an exciting startup). However, I think you know I have an interest in seeing if this carbon space can work. CO2Land org should add this friend’s track record in other spaces is pretty good. So why only express and interest in the carbon space, why is there a hesitation to get fully into it when it is so important?

Assuming CO2Land org decided on a capital raising venture, my friend said adopt this approach if it is based on Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) and determine: How many farmers do you believe you have willing to participate, and how many hectares do you believe could be allocated? In truth without an approved methodology – none! But we have lots of potential!

Assuming we have potential (and pending approval of our methodology – allow 12 months or more for approval) we have to determine: What proportions of these (farmers and hectares) consistently fall into the rainfall categories:

a)      800 -899mm per annum or greater

b)      700-799mm pa

c)       600-699mm pa

d)      500-599mm pa

e)      Below 500mm pa

Now we enter into a circular argument (The operative of ‘consistently’ became problematic as climate change is about uncertainty in weather patterns!!!). To add another dimension we can talk of timeframes for participation: Is it 7 years, 25years or 100years – back to you later – but assume 100years remains. Notice how many time the word assume is used – remember the old adage – to assume is to make an ass of you!

Many landholders can be looking at what best suits their contribution to participate in abatement activities, Some will decide on the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI), some Biodiversity Funds (BF) and some might just choose business as usual (BAU). CO2Land org has previously stated BAU is a means of denial and a work to go broke slowly tactic.

So what causes some to think BAU? Possibly, some might have been very keen on biodiversity a few years back and question the efficiency and effectiveness. In recent times those that have effective strategies in place and locked up their properties had had this turned around by coal seam gas well and minerals exploration. Additionally, as reported by The Conversation, 11 July 2012, was that 168 countries including Australia signed the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992-93 to achieve  “a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level” by 2010 – by 2010 not one of the 168 countries could demonstrate significant progress toward meeting this target.

Then consider: Australia has plenty of food and exports about 50% of production, we only create about 1% of the global food supply – Australian farmers are efficient in terms of the food and fibre produced per unit of labour input – but most of our farming systems are based on high inputs of expensive fuel, fertilizer, chemicals, and machinery – with very high wage costs and a high Australian dollar, it is increasingly difficult for Australia to hold existing markets. Then comes the question from CO2Land org, and our biggest retailers import food, yet we are the most efficient country in the world per unit of labour input – and if we can recycle most fertilizer use, why is not that encouraged?

How is your methodology, well maybe it takes a long time to get a approval for good reason, if you want a biodiversity outcome the following could worry you as “There is an emerging view that although forests remove a substantial amount of CO2 from the atmosphere, much of the carbon is being stored in living woody biomass rather than as dead organic matter in soils – carbon stored in soils is desirable from a management perspective in that soils are more stable over time, so carbon can be locked away for hundreds to thousands of years and not be re-released to contribute to atmospheric CO2. Source: The Conversation 12July 2012. Maybe CFI based on carbon stored in soil is the way to go!

Now a little more on why your methodology may be too narrow in its focus and it revolves around the word ‘Resilience’. According to the Decision Point, August 2012, Resilience is not about not changing as far as natural habitats are concerned – it is concerned with holding a system in exactly the same condition erodes resilience because the capacity to absorb disturbance is based on the system’s history of dealing with disturbances.

Once again CO2Land org does thank Garry Reynolds of Caring for our Country, DAFF for the reference sources.