Carbon Training International will be road testing their newest short course on the 16th & 17th August 2012

Carbon Training International will be road testing their newest short course on the 16th & 17th August  – “Source, Evaluate & Purchase Carbon Offsets” (national course code CTICM402A).

We are invited to be participants and chosen from across industry and from a cross section of the market to be involved to QA the program and the content. This includes industry professionals who work across the value chain, including finance professionals, suppliers and end users.

Co2Land org has been asked to extend the invitation for its readers to participate and we have a great deal of respect for the chief presenter – Bill Mcghee.

The program outline and the registration details are available on the webpage setup for the Carbon Offsets Pilot course

Carbon Trade Exchange is assisting with additional candidate recruitment & providing the trading platform for the course.

If you want to know more contact Rob Nicholls:

  Robert Nicholls

Managing Director

Carbon Training International

GPO Box 3414, Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia

m: +61 (0) 403 806 779

www.co2ti.com

build a carbon-responsive workforce

 

Do you wait for government approval or go it alone?

Scenario: You have an idea to save the earth; it ticks all the right boxes – manageable, positive environmental impacts, economics drivers.  Then your problem becomes, it takes a government department to act in its pedant fashion a solid 12 months to determine you have a sound proposal; that the Minister will be interested and then forward through the Ministerial process for the policy announcement. So what is the cost? Personally, two major risks: Your funds dry up waiting and waiting has a cost; someone might leak out your proposal and a pro-active body will develop and package your idea.  Why would they do that – package your idea?

The next step of government once Ministerial approval is given is call for Expression of Interest (EOI) or a tender (RFT or RFQ), or if fortunate called as a select process (select meaning limited responses canvased).  Once called your package is most at risk – it is most likely the call will be a contestable program.  Yes, you may have guessed the problem; your idea is used as the basis of the call and offered as a framework for the development proposal. This means those that, during the 12 months hiatus, proactively developed your idea can now offer it to tender with many more questions fully answered or they may be better able to offer additional value of the proposal.

Why does this happen? Because in this country government cannot be seen to proactively encourage any industry to be innovative at the early adopter stage.  But, I hear you say taxpayers money is involved and at risk. But, we say that is not true, it is the innovator that is taking the risk, all that is required of government is encouragement and ensuring a sufficient procedure is in place for ethical behaviours.  If you look hard at current policy and find pleasure in the ‘bell curve’ it becomes very easy to see that current policy follows the pareto rule but it is skewed to mature or big brand programs only.  This inclination does make an absolute mockery of term ‘strategic direction’; it follows that known acceptable programs tend to be tactical in the response pattern and is likely to be reactionary and not proactive.

the Innovation Exchange SEROC and Zero Waste Australia

SEROC and Zero Waste Australia are daring all to be different with resources. Their staging an event named “the Innovation Exchange” at Queanbeyan Showground on Thursday the 6th September 2012.

They have great expectation the event will build on the successful Groundswell project. Product from the project includes the Groundswell compost process and on-farm weeds composting as well as the Bio Regen unit – turning food waste into foliar fertiliser. They are also planning a renewable energy/bio char demonstration and the launch of Zero Waste Australia’s Training Programs.

Speakers booked for the event include Eric Lombardi from the United States and Richard Denniss from the Australia Institute. It should be a good afternoon and evening includes dinner. You can register on the Zero Waste Australia web site at: wwwzerowasteaustralia.org

The event is limited to about 200 seats and it should prove popular – maybe to early register is advisable.

For more information, contact Gerry Gillespie on 0407 956 458 email: gerry.b.gillespie@gmail.com or Kay Hewitt on 0409 464 788 email: kay.hewitt@bigpond.com .

CO2Land org applauds this group as Zero Waste is about the art of innovation and the creative development of new business in your community through the use of new technologies. The Innovation Exchange is for people who want to stop talking and start doing!  The motto is – Innovation Exchange – providing support for community initiative.

Qualification – gap filled for AHC10

There is a qualification that fills the gap in the current Rural Production Training package AHC10. In conjunction with NSW Dept. of Education and Training and George Gundry (g.gundry@bigpond.com), a course in Holistic Management has been developed to meet the needs of land managers for accredited training in holistic management. George supplied a background on the founder of holistic management (developed over a period of 40 years by Alan Savory) and the facts to support the importance of the principles that include:

  • Over 12 Million hectares worldwide are managed using holistic principles
  • Since 1994, 250 people in Australia have attended training in holistic management.
  • The principles are sound and are suitable for people who want to make decisions on ecological, financial and socially sound land use in the short and long term for what they manage.

The course starts at TAFE Goulburn Campus on 24 &25 August 2012. There will be 8 workshops in total. The delivery pattern is two consecutive days off-farm with a reasonable interval to focus and achieve the outcomes desired of the course. Cost $231 plus textbooks.

CO2Land org is happy to alert where worthwhile learning structures are put forward. While we do what we can to determine whether the material is factual, it cannot be verified as suitable for what you intend and cannot be seen as a recommendation to participate. However, unashamedly we give credit for effort when the material is for the purpose of building sound practices.

Sequenced – a banana genome

Looking at a banana you might ask, how did this monoculture, a cultivar derived from only one seed become a major source of food (eighty-five percent of banana production is consumed locally in tropical and sub-tropical countries), and is a major source of income for over 500 million people.  You might then fairly come to the realisation a banana is a staple food and food security issues abound.

With a little research the prime issues surface as: Pests and diseases have gradually adapted to the cultivar that is predominating in banana production; the two main diseases at the moment are the Panama Disease and the Black Sigatoka Disease. The Black Sigatoka is now all over the world and the Panama Disease – a new type – is in Asia only, but it will probably extend to other areas.

The potential solution is reported by DW and according to Zulfikar Abbanyin: “France’s CIRAD – a centre for agricultural research for development – and the National Research Agency (ANR) say they have sequenced the DNA of banana. Led by CIRAD’s Angélique D’Hont, the researchers were able to map the genome of a wild Asian strain called Musa acuminate – a component in every edible variety of bananas. They say their work is an important step toward understanding the genetics of the crop – and toward improving varieties and strengthening them against fungus and pests. But Angélique D’Hont says CIRAD is focused on cross-breeding rather than genetically modifying bananas”.

So, how can the findings help farmers and cultivators beat the pests?

The work has the objective to breed new banana varieties – new cultivar. CIRAD say this type of breeding is quite complicated, as bananas have to produce sterile fruit – that is, fruit without seeds to make them edible. And to make new bananas you have to perform crossbreeding, so you need a fertile plant. So far CIRAD has sequenced one banana genome type and have identified 36,000 genes and the exact position of these genes on the chromosome. And, more work is required to find the specific genes that confer resistance to the main diseases and also for conferring good fruit quality.

Now comes the interesting question: Will they want to genetically modify…? No.

The answer comes in the term transgenesis – to modify current cultivar and then attempting to breed new cultivar by crossing different cultivar with different types of resistance. This breeding approach is possible because of knowing which gene and which genotype has the important gene that will help the breeder to create new cultivar by classical breeding techniques.

CO2Land org can see the approach to protect this important food source as most important and the other value added aspects for the environment become apparent including the reduced need for using pesticides and reducing cost for agriculture.  But a surprising barrier to the adoption of the new cultivar is the process for transporting and conserving bananas for export. The fact is current refrigerated means of transport are developed for one cultivar, the Cavendish banana. An interesting case of need for adaptation to changed needs, and the change will all come down to the money- Yes!

Carbon – the word confused in CFI

A consortium of CO2Land org friends met with a government department recently and the discussion centred on how best to reach the target audience of the Carbon Farm Initiatives. It was quickly determined that large brand influence gave comfort to the executive level but gave little comfort to the target level – the landholders. Part of the problem is the word ‘carbon’ and carbon is directly linked to abatement and an offsets market.  Whereas the focus issue for farmers is methane production and it is part of the production cycle and it does seem contradictory to imply the backside of a cow can be abated as a constant! Or, that a field in production will have a constant and linear carbon footprint over time because that production will be affected by climate change.  No room for climate change deniers here, but the thinking caps might be needed on how to be more effective on how to reach the rural production people.

CO2Land org will go Greenhouse Gas 101 to give more detail on the problem: The GHG protocol provided principles when undertaking a GHG inventory – relevance, completeness, consistency, transparency and accuracy are the tests. Take consistency as an example: To allow for meaningful comparison of emissions performance over time. A market will make an accounting assumption and be consistent with that assumption, but in practice a cow or field will have two forces at work – The quality of feed available, and the natural microbe activity that nature balances to inputs. The other 4 requirements of the protocol are then compromised if they only measure a snapshot of the activity and assume a standard deviation of the mean is sufficient for productive outcomes. Only a full life cycle of the production is the proof for sustainable production and the market can only give an element of comfort – when dealing with rural livelihoods that operate on small margins in return for the activities. Therefore this point illustrates that the measures are very important considerations for participation.

Can you now see the connection of why CFI methodologies are so exhaustively vetted? Why it is so difficult to get a simple answer to your query? Is the word Carbon itself causing confusion?