Tag: land management practices

Contaminated Land – Research data

Posted on Posted in Carbon Opportunity, Hot air, Zero WasteTagged , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Reported is that research is ramping up into the number of areas responsible, or have responsibility for management of contaminated land. Worldwide, it appears the impediment to date has been the concern of uncovering unintended consequences by the actions that might be taken. This is understandable if you add that in order to take notice you need to understand the problem. It also follows that any data collection effort will serve as a proving ground for a methodology to deal with the problems that are uncovered. That in itself introduces another problem in that developing a Methodology requires funding or promises for funding.

Knowing that even governments have funding issues internal to themselves we could ask: So where should we start in Australia?  The immediate noticeable group addressing the quality of data issues of ‘real’ remediation challenges is the federal Department of Finance and Deregulation (DoFD) which has a Special Claims and Policy Branch that is leading a strategic data collection project examining the manner in which contamination issues are addressed. However, its purpose is to address Commonwealth Land Decisions-making and gather data only from entities covered under the FMA Act (Government Agencies) and CMA Act (Authorities). The Department has set out the project is to be collecting information in the earlier part of 2013. Whilst a let down to some, it is a start to identifying the effort needed.

Concurrently, Canada is turning its attention to those that refuse to clean up where they have polluted, and Environment Canada is beginning feasibility studies of remediation technologies that could be used on federal properties contaminated by chemicals.  Source: http://mobile.firehouse.com/news . A watching brief on Canada’s and other overseas, state and private groups suggests it is very wise to manage contamination within property decision-making groups and that they undertake research into solutions under key terms that may be available to reference available literature and what might be uncovered.

What CO2Land org has noted is that DoFD is finding the need to validate their understanding of the Commonwealth’s legal obligations relating to contamination liability – to clarify what they must manage as opposed to should manage.  (Those that follow this thread might recall – Posted on January 6, 2013 by co2land, Contaminated Land – Obligations to manage – was written to help the reader to understand that managing the environment means many things and it is not necessarily so that moral decisions will be made). This implies there are many areas of uncertainty and any contamination related advice would be welcome to help them target key areas of uncertainty.

In relation to the DoFD data project, Posted on January 8, 2013 by co2land , Contaminated Land – Remediation challenges was written Presently for a majority of contaminates, there are no endorsed standards or guidelines within Australia that define, for each category of land use, safe levels of soil contamination. What we do have within the National Environment Protection Measures Act 1998 (NEPM Act) guidelines is an adopted remediation criteria recommending investigation levels. Our suggestion is this investigation criterion is far too conservative and not well adopted or able to properly adept to manage health and environmental risks. Also written was CO2Land org noted that the federal Department of Finance and Deregulation has a number of areas responsible or have responsibility pertinent to management of contaminated land and wonders if it might be data collection that is the greater weakness in terms of the abilities for adequate and timely responses. This new post suggests DoFD is now prepared to push the boundries into uncertainty for those areas not previously covered by the scope of the land policy functions. CO2Land org also notes the timeframes for the project indicates the willingness for the data to be available for the 2013/14 Strategic Review Program – we applaud you for that. Small steps by a leap forward in terms of past efforts.

Contaminated Land – Remediation challenges

Posted on Posted in Carbon Opportunity, Hot air, Zero WasteTagged , , , , , 1 Comment

Presently, for a majority of contaminates, there are no endorsed standards or guidelines within Australia that define, for each category of land use, safe levels of soil contamination. What we do have within the National Environment Protection Measures Act 1998 (NEPM Act) guidelines is an adopted remediation criteria recommending investigation levels. Our suggestion is this investigation criterion is far too conservative and not well adopted or able to properly adept to manage health and environmental risks.

Posted on January 6, 2013 by co2land, Contaminated Land – Obligations to manage – was written to help the reader to understand that managing the environment means many things and it is not necessarily so that moral decisions will be made. From that story it follows that a natural discussion point is to now look at the remediation challenges, or if you prefer to call it – appropriate actions, and the point is made that to manage contamination the issues may involve: risk management activities, including actions to limit exposure to contaminates; remediation, such as physical containment, capture and on-site treatment, or removal/offsite for disposal; or whatever combination of above. In today’s political climate it is unlikely a government officer would go along with addressing the challenges unless due diligence investigations and factoring the results into a cost-benefit analysis was done ‘appropriately’. As a Carbon Manager, we might say extensive due diligence investigations and cost-benefit analysis has cost and time implications that science clearly indicates we do not have the luxury to indulge into – the earth as we know is dependent on our actions.

Notwithstanding the urgency matter, ‘real’ remediation challenges include managing the uncertainty associated with the costs of remediation, remember it was said investigative sampling could only provide an estimate of the actual problem (the nature, extent and concentrations of what is the contaminant(s)). Therefore any property management decision can attract significant cost risk when considering changes to land use. To recant the start of this discussion it was said recommendations are part of the NEPM Act and the conservative responses that will be elicited are not strong. It may be that the data available is part of the problem and that needs to be addressed in a more robust or targeted way.

CO2Land org noted that the federal Department of Finance and Deregulation has a number of areas responsible or have responsibility pertinent to management of contaminated land and wonders if it might be data collection that is the greater weakness in terms of the abilities for adequate and timely responses. Stronger more targeted data collection could be better used to quantify the risk and might lessen the likelihood of ‘excessive’ or redundant analysis on a project-by-project basis. The potential is to save money too!

We will expect we will increasingly see this approach being implemented and would applaud where issues such as uncertainty is reduced; improved decision making processes are covered off; and more efficient funding approval processes are followed. We believe additional benefits could accrue and if it is transparent shared lessons learnt and reports could give improvement in practice and the moral and the legal be much the same outcome.

Transistion to LLS – NSW

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Some confusion exists of the changes in NSW, and how safeguarding agriculture will continue. The November 2012 issue of the Tablelands Landholder Newsletter features John Seaman the Chairman from the Livestock Health and Pest Authorities (LHPA).  The central message is LHPA will continue to service agriculture stakeholders until LHPA, Catchment Management Authorities (CMA) and some of the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) responsible units are amalgamated into the new body in NSW called Local Land Services (LLS). The complete handover to LLS is expected to be January 2014.

CO2Land org is compelled to help clarify what is happening in the transition after we broke a story Major shake-up for DPI: Posted on October 10, 2012 by co2land. In that post as quoted “It is goodbye to Catchment Management and the Livestock Health and Pest Authorities. They are to be eliminated in a major shake-up in the provision of agricultural and catchment management services in NSW. This means a Major shake-up for the Department of Primary Industries. It is understood the new structure would be responsible for:  Agricultural advice, plant and animal pest control and biosecurity, natural resource management; and, emergency and disaster assessment and response.

The Primary Industries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson was quoted as saying “agricultural advisory services provided by Agriculture NSW (part of the Department of Primary Industries) would also be incorporated in a single new body, Local Land Services”.

The theme of the transition is ‘let’s work together’ and it is said that ‘business as usual’ will continue in terms of maintaining commitment to the landholders.

On the theme of lets work together highlighted is:

  • Reduce Rural Crime, and unfortunately opportunist crime is common and organized crime continues. Good neighbours is as important as is effective policing and it could be time for a sensible Christmas present suggestion – motion sensing cameras around and at the entrance of the property.  Maybe everything that goes moo though the night might be a real mover?
  • Fox control has resulted in a 10-15% lamb marking increase – serious effort required to continue with eliminating this introduced pest.
  • It is a legal requirement for all landholders in NSW to control declared pest animals. Wild Rabbits are part of that requirement.
  • From 1 September 2012, in NSW, anyone who keeps livestock will be required to have a Property Identification Code (PIC). This code is for the parcel of land in which the livestock are kept. You should be aware this requirement says the land parcel owns the Livestock and the carer (Landholder/Manager) needs permission to move the livestock to other areas or parcels of land. You should also be aware that the previous requirement for the PIC has been expanded to deer, bison, buffalo, alpacas, llama, donkeys, and horses, keeping more than 100 poultry, more than 10 emu or ostriches in addition to cattle, sheep, goats and pigs need to have a PIC number.

Looking at the model of Local Land Services you might notice the emphasis is on a better relationship for regional areas, and making it less prescriptive in dealing with the landholders. While it is welcome that the work of community-based natural resource management organisations like Landcare NSW and Greening Australia will be more closely attuned to the administration it remains to be seen if harmony will prevail over funding distributions and cooperation with other co-funded organisations including the Rural Research and Development Corporations. That said, both federal and state bodies are on record as being supportive of volunteers that work in the communities and in return they can receive stewardship payments to offset some of the program costs.

It follows that most landholders are part of a community group and would be happy if the benefits of the changes included biodiversity reintroduction, carbon sequestration and salinity and erosion control. And, little or no additional cost being levied on landholders to achieve the benefit.

Co2Land org  encourages any question to be directed to admin.tablelands@lhpa.org.au

Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund discussion paper

Posted on Posted in Carbon Opportunity, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

What is a position paper when it does not necessarily represent the views of the Government or any Government Minister – It could be a discussion paper and one very recent issue on the CFI related discussion is a position paper prepared by the Land Division of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to promote discussion ahead of developing program guidelines for the Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund. The paper titled Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund Discussion paper for public comment – November 2012.

If you are wondering what does it mean, firstly you need to understand that the Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund is about abatement activities that do not count towards Australia’s emissions targets. It is about a market based incentive for CFI credits that do not have access to other markets. Equally important the Fund will not duplicate other grant-based or research and development funding provided under the Clean Energy Future Plan.

So why do it?  To encourage investment and promote innovation all related to reducing emissions or store carbon and would not have been contributing in other ways to Australia’s emissions targets. A big part of this objective is the ‘learning by doing’.

Looking closer at the Carbon Farming Initiative it is a legislated framework to ensure that abatement is real, permanent and additional. If you want to investigate what is thought of this statement you can read CO2Land orgs post  Real, Additionality, RECs

Posted on August 14, 2012 by co2land “Curiosity lead to checking out the reporting standard AS/NZS ISO 14064, finding it is silent on the word or term ‘real’ and completely avoids the topic of additionality, was fascinating given that you can’t even conceive of an offset without the concept of additionality!

CO2Land org now ponders: If ‘real’ cannot be a guarantee of a good project outcome. It follows that the use of the word or term ‘real’ can be seen as a initial or promised activity increase and not be seen as a guarantee of an increase in the carbon offset (it could be real activity and still lead to a decrease of carbon offsets). So if I say it was real at the time I acted; it was an act in good faith only. The issue with the word ‘real’ is it literally means the activity is a cause of change.

This lead to thinking of the impact this has on the Carbon Farming Initiative as legislated when the Gold Standard and Carbon Fix require that projects be “real”, but no international standard could explain what they mean by using the terms.

CO2Land org looked a little harder (we don’t want this post to be no more than ‘hot air’) and found:

◦    Specifically ISO 14064-2 (project accounting) does not include ‘Real’ because during development of ISO 14064-2 ‘Real’ was regarded as a programmatic rule/criteria, which is outside the scope of ISO 14064-2.

◦    ISO 14064-2 is a standard rather than a program

◦    ISO 14064-2 (Clause 5.4) specifies the following requirement in regards to additionality: “The project proponent shall select or establish, justify and apply criteria and procedures for demonstrating that the project results in GHG emissions reductions or removal enhancements that are additional to what would occur in the baseline scenario.”

◦    Additionality is incorporated into ISO 14064-2 is based on the core principles of ISO standards in general, i.e. that ISO standards not be a barrier to trade (WTO-TBT – anyone following development of ISO 14067 (product) will know this is a major issue). As such, ISO standards must be policy-neutral (extended to include program-neutrality). This is of course very important for market confidence.

◦    ISO 14064 deals with the concept of additionality by requiring that the GHG project has resulted in GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements in addition to what would have happened in the absence of that project. It does not use the term “additionality”…Thus the project proponent may apply additionality criteria and procedures, or define and use boundaries consistent with relevant legislation, policy, GHG programmes and good practice.”

◦    Although the concept/requirement of additionality is within the requirements of ISO 14064-2, the simple reason why the ‘term’ additionality is not present within the requirements of ISO 14064-2 is because of certain sensitivities/perceptions/politics of certain parties involved in the development of the standard. ”

If we press on with the currect discussion paper: You should be aware the Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund will only purchase credits issued under the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) and the department states the rigorous CFI integrity standards apply to both Kyoto and non-Kyoto projects.

To quote the Department: “The CFI is based on internationally accepted principles for ensuring that abatement is real, permanent and additional; and incorporates safeguards against adverse impacts — for example on biodiversity, water availability and employment. It allows landholders to generate carbon credits for abatement actions, whether or not they contribute to Australia’s emissions targets. All abatement — including Kyoto and non-Kyoto abatement — is subject to rigorous integrity standards, which cover:

  • Measurement:  each CFI project must use an approved CFI methodology to ensure that abatement is measurable and verifiable. CFI methodologies are supported by peer reviewed science and assessed by an independent expert committee (the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee).
  • Additionality:  abatement must go beyond legal requirements and common practice within a comparable industry and/or region.
  • Leakage:  measurement methods must account for leakage and variability and use conservative assumptions.
  • Permanence:  sequestration from establishing trees or building soil carbon must be permanent.

The CFI is administered by the Clean Energy Regulator. It is supported by legislation and includes measures to minimise fraud and dishonest conduct. The CFI framework gives buyers confidence that offsets make a genuine contribution to climate change mitigation. “

Co2land org does not intent to verbatim the paper and you can easily get a download of  the discussion paper at:  http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/carbon-farming-initiative-non-kyoto.aspx .

But if you prefer we can explain what is Kyoto versus non-Kyoto activities. Kyoto protocol was ratified by Australia in 2007 and we agreed to to limit our national emissions in the period 2008-2012 (the first commitment period) and the Government has recently announced its intention to join a second commitment period, consistent with our domestic commitment to reduce emissions by 5 per cent from 2000 levels by 2020.

The Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund promotes land sector abatement that does not contribute to Australia’s internationally committed emissions targets, but represents genuine abatement nonetheless. Some non-Kyoto activities are likely to transition into the Kyoto framework (or its successor) over time.

The Kyoto Protocol establishes an internationally-agreed framework for measuring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions. Australia ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2007, agreeing Land sector activities that contribute to Australia’s Kyoto Protocol emissions target (Kyoto activities) include:

  • activities that reduce agricultural emissions;
  • reforestation (land that was clear of forest before 1990); and
  • avoided deforestation (those present in 1990).

Under a second Kyoto Protocol commitment period (from 2013), it will be mandatory to account for forest management.

Rules:

* The carbon pricing mechanism allows CFI credits from Kyoto activities can be used as offsets.

* You can use the CFI to credit abatement from activities that do not currently contribute to Australia’s Kyoto Protocol emissions target (non-Kyoto activities).

* Credits generated from non-Kyoto activities will be eligible under the Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund, but cannot be used as offsets under the carbon pricing mechanism.

Transitioning activities into the Kyoto framework

  • International climate change negotiations are ongoing. What we have the moment is an intention to join a second commitment period.
  • Forest management and other voluntary land sector activities were not followed in the first commitment period because of risk. Risks that the gains from carbon sequestration could become losses from natural events, such as bushfire and drought. New provisions allow countries to exclude emissions from major natural disturbances when accounting for forest management and reforestation.
  • Accounting for forest management will become mandatory for parties under a second Kyoto Protocol commitment period.
  • Other land sector activities — including the storage of carbon in agricultural soils, grazing land management and the restoration of wetlands — will remain voluntary. Or at least until the Government assesses the impacts in Australia’s national accounts.
    • If activities enter the national accounts, credits from those activities would become allowable offsets under the carbon pricing mechanism and would no longer be eligible under the Non‑Kyoto Carbon Fund.
    • Fence sitters will be delighted. There will be arrangements to help stakeholders to manage uncertainty around the timing of any transition.

What happens if non-kyoto activities are brought into the Kyoto framework? The proposal is :  A voluntary opt-out clause would allow Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund participants to choose to sell to other buyers, if activities become eligible offsets under the carbon pricing mechanism.

What happens from here?  “The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency will continue to consult with stakeholders on the design of the Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund. Interested parties are encouraged to make submissions on the proposals outlined in this discussion paper.

Draft program guidelines will be published in the first half of 2013, for further stakeholder comment. This will be followed by the release of final program guidelines prior to program commencement.”

In the mean time, if you are an interested stakeholder – Submissions are accepted until 14 Dec 2012 from stakeholders. Follow the full discussion and make your comments as described and email to cfi@climatechange.gov.au .

Farm related posts – Production, Landcare, Investments

Posted on Posted in Carbon Opportunity, Carbon Risk, Hot air, Zero WasteTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Farmers make up less than 1% of the Australian population today and feeds 600 people – in 1950, an Australian farmer fed 20 people – in 1970, the farmer fed 200 people. Source: Lynne Strong, Bega ABARES Regional Outlook Conference 30 Aug 2012.

Artificial fertilizer costs too much and the dairy industry is returning to the use of nitrogen fixing perennial clovers in its pasture mix to reduce its greenhouse gas footprint. Source: Joanne Bills, Bega ABARES Regional Outlook Conference 30 Aug 2012.

The global dairy trade is increasing every year by between 9-10 billion litres of milk – equivalent to the size of the entire Australian industry each year. Source: BRW 12 July 2012.

A Tasmanian dairy farm has Australia’s first rotation platform that milks 24 cows without human involvement – separate robots prepare and clean the teats, attach the suction cups and disinfect the teats after milking. Source: BRW 12 July 2012.

Warrnambool Cheese & Butter operates the largest and most efficient dairy processing site in Australia – Bega Cheese owns 17% of the company. Source: AFR 03 Nov 2012.

Research in the UK has found that organic farms are less energy intensive than conventional farming – but they are also less productive – that means organic livestock have higher greenhouse gas emissions per unit of milk or meat. Source: NRM on Farms 04 Sept 2012. 

Dr Carole Hungerford of Bathurst links the health of the population to the health of its food – she says that you can’t get healthy animals from unhealthy land – she relates disease and illness to deficiencies in soils – in turn creating deficiencies in foods – she notes that 1 Australian dies every 2 hours from bowel cancer. Source: National Landcare 04 Sept 2012.

Asa Walquist, writer on rural affairs, says that animal products supply one third of the world’s protein – if livestock were eliminated, half as much again of vegetable protein crops would have to be produced to replace meat – but the shift from pasture to cropping would lead to a reduction in soil carbon – increasing soil carbon will be critical to Australia’s future carbon balance – Walquist says that the most effective way to increase carbon levels in soil used for agriculture is to return some crop land to well-managed pasture, preferably native pasture. Source: NRM on Farms 04 Sept 2012.

In the Western Sydney Parklands of over 5,000 hectares, 500 hectares have been reserved for urban farming – small plots are being leased to farmers to keep a food basin close to the capital city. Source: SMH 27 Oct 2012.

Financial losses from events related to weather in Australia have risen 4 fold over the past 30 years according to reinsurance corporation Munich. Source: SMH 27 Oct 2012.

60% of Australia’s researchers work in universities – the highest percentage of any modern economy. Source: AFR 03 Nov 2012.

The driver of the growth will come from improvements in productivity – labour productivity per person in China is only 20% of that of the US – in India and Indonesia it is about 10%. Source: AFR 29 Oct 2012.

Over the next 20 years almost 9 out of 10 new middle-class consumers worldwide will emerge in the Asian region. Source: AFR 29 Oct 2012.

Asia will be home to 4 of the 10 biggest economies within 13 years according to the Asian Century White Paper – China, India, Japan and Indonesia. Source: AFR 29 Oct 2012.

Between 2005 and 2011, US-based corporations invested $550 billion in Australia compared with $20 billion from China-based companies. Source: The Australian 16 Aug 2012.

Chinese consumers have developed a liking for Starbucks, pizza, Haagen-Dazseven and even Santa – they prefer western brands to domestic competitors. Source: The Deal Aug 2012.

95% of Chinese investment in Australia over the past 6 years was made by state-owned enterprises – nearly $50 billion over the last 5 years and mainly in mining and energy. Source: SMH 25 Aug 2012.

Chinese investment in Australia dropped by 51% last year to $19 billion – Australian investment in China grew by 278% to $17 billion. Source: The Australian 26 Oct 2012.

Unilever’s CEO, Paul Polman, thinks that for the next few years the US will be more internally focused – and that China and India won’t be willing to step up and assume the responsibility that comes with size – he believes that this creates a major opportunity for responsible companies to step up to be a force for good. Source: AFR Boss July 2012.

Unilever’s targets for 2020 are: to help more than 1 billion people improve their hygiene habits and bring safe drinking water to 500 million people – and halve the greenhouse gas impact of the company’s products across their lifecycle, from sourcing to consumer use and disposal – also to halve the water consumption associated with the consumer, particularly in countries that are populous and water-scarce – plus halve the waste associated with the disposal of products. Source: AFR Boss July 2012.

Unilever currently sources 10% of agricultural raw materials sustainably – by the end of this year it aims to source 30% – by 2015 50% – and by 2020 100% – by 2020 it also aims to link 500,000 smallholder farmers and small-scale distributors into its supply chain. Source: AFR Boss July 2012.

The Indigenous Land Corporation has gained approval under the Carbon Farming Initiative to earn up to $500,000 a year by selling carbon credits from projects combating savannah wildfires on its Fish River property south of Darwin. Source: The Age 02 Nov 2012.

  • CO2Land org queries the Fish River story and asks where this number comes from as it is unlikely in free trade the price will be higher than $AU10 for some time, and the Government itself in a media release said the number of credits generated from the exercise is 20,000 per annum – simple arithmetic = $200,000. It is most likely the number of $500,000 is a Carbon Tax transitional number and not a continuing expectation.  You might notice we posted Unfinished business, The EU ETS continues (Posted on July 17, 2012 by co2land). The story is about the need of the managers to artificially prop up the price after falling values. “To counter this the European Commission proposes to withhold permits and boost prices by “backloading” auctioning. That is delaying sales due next year until later in the 2013-2020 trading phase. This strategy is designed to maintain the EU carbon prices at no lower than €8.” It follows that Australia has elected to follow the EU ETS and make a transition from the Carbon Price (Carbon Tax) to the market.

Co2Land org thanks Garry Reynolds Caring for our Country National Coordinator, Business and Industry – for the inputs.

What would happen if the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) did not go ahead

Posted on Posted in Carbon Opportunity, Hot airTagged , , Leave a comment

What would happen if the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) did not go ahead – the faithful can take the view it is an unlikely scenario – however, the terms of what is a commitment seems to loom as a political issue.  The pros and conns of whether it should be 10, 25 or 100 years is very much part of the politics and views have been put forward in previous writings suggesting it is something that needs to be carefully evaluated and a mistake in the terms and timings could amount to a revival of feudalism for farmers (Posted on August 8, 2012 by co2land – You can’t sit on a fence, a barbed wire fence at that, and have one ear to the ground).

Recently, the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) in Australia made some important announcements:

  1. The case for continuing with CFI: The case can best be viewed through www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au and recent presentations include the process of eligible activities, the intention of the positive list, baseline identification (which clearly put the illustration of what will happen if the CFI did not continue as a project), examples of the methodology proposal, preparation and the approval process (which is in complete acceptance when it appears on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments).
  2. The appointment of Agrifood Skills Australia to develop the competency sets for CFI participants:  Associates of CO2Land org had previously lobbied both parties to argue the need for the competency sets and urged they should not believe they alone fully know the competency sets required. Examples were given where previous outreach attempts lacked some hard capability to influence other than a  ‘wait and see’ attitude and business as usual will continue until the audience can fully understand the partitioners voice is being heard. It is urged the associates should still be canvased to help resolve such dilemma in developing competency set faced by outreach entities.

CO2Land org also researches in an independent way and notes that according to US advances in ‘green businesses’ (previously we have also indicated CFI should not be described as a ‘carbon’ business initiative) the “Bay Area news channel KQED, by funneling auction revenues into green businesses, like sustainable farming, and encouraging corporate polluters to find more eco-friendly methods of conducting business, the state has a chance to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050″.

What exactly constitutes a green business? The news channel reports that sustainable agriculture is on the state’s approved list. This includes farms that “sequester carbon” with methods like reducing soil tillage, practicing water and energy conservation, and reducing synthetic fertilizer use through compost, cover crops, and crop rotation. Could we see a policy change here, suitable for Australia – soon!

Australian Government shifts on Additionality?

Posted on Posted in Carbon RiskTagged , Leave a comment

The Australian Government is determined to avoid penalising landholders who have been managing their land well. The Savanna Burning Methodology allows landholders to choose a date to set the Baseline so they won’t be excluded. Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change Mark Dreyfus told ABC Radio’s PM program on 3 July: “land managers can get credit for all their good work in the future, without being penalised for any good work they’ve done in the past.” This means that landholders will be able to earn carbon credits in future for land management practices they adopted before the start date of a recognised project.  The precedent has been set that “good work” should be recognised: “As part of this methodology a baseline, which is set with reference to averaging annual emissions over the 10 years up to the project, and if they’ve already been doing recent pollution reduction burning, then that will be taken into account and the average will be set from the period immediately before the recent pollution reduction burning that they’ve been doing.” The Methodology allows landholders to go back up to 6 years to start the 10-year average emissions estimation to set the Baseline. The Methodology for Savanna Burning puts it this way:

“A project’s baseline will be the estimated average annual CH4 and N2O emissions from the project area in the 10 years immediately preceding project commencement. Where strategic fire management has been implemented within the project area for a period of at least one year but no more than six years immediately prior to project commencement, the baseline emissions can be estimated as the 10 years preceding this period of fire management.”
It remains to be seen if this provision can be used in a non-savanna methodology.

Fully referenced from: Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming blog:

Posted by Michael Kiely at 7:48 AM  Monday, July 09, 2012

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook