Legal issues in carbon farming : biosequestration, carbon pricing, and carbon rights

This paper critically analyses the proposed Australian regulatory approach to the crediting of biological sequestration activities (biosequestration) under the Australian Carbon Farming Initiative and its interaction with State-based carbon rights, the national carbon-pricing mechanism, and the international Kyoto Protocol and carbon-trading markets. Norms and principles have been established by the Kyoto Protocol to guide the creation of additional, verifiable, and permanent credits from biosequestration activities. This paper examines the proposed arrangements under the Australian Carbon Farming Initiative and Carbon Pricing Mechanism to determine whether they are consistent with those international norms and standards. This paper identifies a number of anomalies associated with the legal treatment of additionality and permanence and issuance of carbon credits within the Australian schemes. In light of this, the paper considers the possible legal implications for the national and international transfer, surrender and use of these offset credits.

The legal framework for Australia's carbon pricing mechanism : a critique

As part of the Australian Government’s Clean Energy Plan, the Government has attempted to harness the legal innovation of the tradeable emissions unit, within a capped carbon trading system, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Such an approach promises to send a price signal to the market which will influence emitting behaviours and reduce our emissions in a cost-effective manner. However, if the carbon trading scheme is to successfully achieve cost-effective emissions reductions then the carbon market must be supported by an appropriate legal framework. This paper will consider the key features of the Australian Carbon Pricing Mechanism, including the Carbon Farming Initiative, and critique whether it has all the hallmarks of an effective legal framework to reduce Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions. The likely future of the trading scheme, following the 2013 elections, will also be addressed.

Australia and Forest Carbon Partnerships : Indigenous Land Rights

One of the ways in which indigenous communities seek justice is through the formal recognition of their sovereign rights to land. Such recognition allows indigenous groups to maintain a physical and spiritual connection with their land and continue customary management of their land. Indigenous groups world over face significant hurdles in getting their customary rights to land recognized by legal systems. One of the main difficulties for indigenous groups in claiming customary land rights is the existence of a range of conflicting legal entitlements attaching to the land in question. In Australia, similar to New Zealand and Canada legal recognition to customary land is recognized through a grant of native title rights or through the establishment of land use agreement. In other jurisdictions such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea a form of customary land title has been preserved and is recognized by the legal system. The implementation of REDD+ and other forms of forest carbon investment activities compounds the already complex arrangements surrounding legal recognition of customary land rights. Free, prior and informed consent of indigenous groups is essential for forest carbon investment on customary land. The attainment of such consent in practice remains challenging due to the number of conflicting interests often associated with forested land. This paper examines Australia’s experience in recongising indigenous land rights under its International Forest Carbon Initiative and under its domestic Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act (Australia) 2011. Australia’s International Forest Carbon initiative has a budget of $273 million dollars. In 2008 the governments of Australia and Indonesia signed the Indonesia-Australia Forest Carbon Partnership Agreement. This paper will examine the indigenous land tenure and justice lessons learned from the implementation of the Kalimantan Forest and Climate Partnership (KFCP). The KFCP is $30 million dollar project taking place over 120,000 hectares of degraded and forested peatland in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. The KFCP project site contains seven villages of the Dayak Ngdu indigenous people. In 2011 Australia established a domestic Forest Carbon Initiative, which seeks to provide new economic opportunities for farmers, forest growers and indigenous landholders while helping the environmental by reducing carbon pollution. This paper will explore the manner in which indigenous people are able to participate within these scheme noting the limits and opportunities in deriving co-benefits for indigenous people in Australia under this scheme.

Issues in negotiating a Carbon Sequestration Agreement for a Biosequestration Offsets Project

Biosequestration of carbon in trees, forests and vegetation is a key method for offsetting greenhouse gas emissions. To facilitate it, the Commonwealth has introduced the Carbon Farming Initiative, a scheme whereby carbon credits can be earned for biosequestration offsets projects. The project proponent must acquire under state law a ‘carbon sequestration right’ which confers the benefit of the sequestered carbon on the land. Each State provides for an agreement associated with the carbon sequestration right between the landowner and the holder of the right (‘carbon sequestration agreement’). This article identifies some key risks and issues that must be considered in the drafting of a carbon sequestration agreement to support the successful operation of a biosequestration offsets project.

From rights to responsibilities : reconceptualising carbon sequestration rights in Australia

Biosequestration of carbon in trees, forests and vegetation is a key method for mitigating climate change in Australia. To facilitate this, all States have enacted legislation for carbon sequestration rights, separating commercial rights in carbon from ownership of the land, trees and vegetation in which the carbon is sequestered. Ownership of carbon sequestration rights under state law is a prerequisite for the issue of carbon credits to proponents of ‘eligible sequestration offsets projects’ under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 (Cth) (‘Carbon Farming Act’). This article examines the extent to which current State carbon sequestration rights support the offsets regime established by the Carbon Farming Act. The Commonwealth Act is concerned with allocating responsibilities to ensure the maintenance of the carbon sequestration, while the State Acts confer commercial rights in the carbon and leave the responsibilities to be allocated by private agreements. The carbon sequestration rights as defined by state laws do not confer the rights of access and management over land that a project proponent needs in order to discharge its responsibilities to maintain the carbon sequestration.

State of Energy Efficiency Education in Australian Technical & Further Education (TAFE) : A Report to the Australian Government Skills for the Carbon Challenge Initiative, The Natural Edge Project (TNEP), Queensland University of Technology

The Australian Government’s Skills for the Carbon Challenge (SCC) initiative aims to accelerate industry and the education sectors response to climate change. As part of the SCC initiative, the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIICCSRTE) provided funding to investigate the state of energy efficiency education in engineering-related Australian Technical and Further Education (TAFE) Programs. The following document reports on the outcomes of a multi-stage consultation project that engaged with participants from over 80% of TAFE institutions across Australia with the aim of supporting and enhancing future critical skills development in this area. Specifically, this report presents the findings of a national survey, based on a series of TAFE educator focus groups, conducted in May 2013 aimed at understanding the experiences and insights of Australian TAFE educators teaching engineering-related courses. Responses were received from 224 TAFE Educators across 50 of the 61 TAFE institutions in Australia (82% response rate).

Analysing governance of Australia's system of landscape-based greenhouse gas abatement

Healthy governance systems are key to delivering effective outcomes in any broad domain of natural resource management (NRM). One of Australia's emerging NRM governance domains is our national framework for greenhouse gas abatement (GGA), as delivered through a wide range of management practices in the Australian landscape. The emerging Landscape-Based GGA Domain represents an innovative governance space that straddles both the nation's broader NRM Policy and Delivery Domain and Australia's GGA Domain. As a point-in-time benchmark, we assess the health of this hybrid domain as it stood at the end of 2013. At that time, the domain was being progressed through the Australian government's Clean Energy Package and, more particularly, its Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI). While significant changes are currently under development by a new Australian government, this paper explores key areas of risk within the governance system underpinning this emerging hybrid domain at that point in time. We then map some potential reform or continuous improvement pathways required (from national to paddock scale) with the view to securing improved landscape outcomes over time through widespread GGA activities.

Baseline and greenhouse-gas emissions in extensive livestock enterprises, with a case study of feeding lipid to beef cattle

For accurate calculation of reductions in greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, methodologies under the Australian Government's Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) depend on a valid assessment of the baseline and project emissions. Life-cycle assessments (LCAs) clearly show that enteric methane emitted from the rumen of cattle and sheep is the major source of GHG emissions from livestock enterprises. Where a historic baseline for a CFI methodology for livestock is required, the use of simulated data for cow-calf enterprises at six sites in southern Australia demonstrated that a 5-year rolling emission average will provide an acceptable trade off in terms of accuracy and stability, but this is a much shorter time period than typically used for LCA. For many CFI livestock methodologies, comparative or pair-wise baselines are potentially more appropriate than historic baselines. A case study of lipid supplementation of beef cows over winter is presented. The case study of a control herd of 250 cows used a comparative baseline derived from simple data on livestock numbers and class of livestock to quantify the emission abatement. Compared with the control herd, lipid supplementation to cows over winter increased livestock productivity, total livestock production and enterprise GHG emissions from 990 t CO2-e to 1022 t CO2-e. Energy embodied in the supplement and extra diesel used in transporting the supplement diminished the enteric-methane abatement benefit of lipid supplementation. Reducing the cow herd to 238 cows maintained the level of livestock production of the control herd and reduced enterprise emissions to 938 t CO2-e, but was not cost effective under the assumptions of this case study.

Carbon sequestration: Evaluating the impact on rural land and valuation approach

This thesis uses semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis to explore the impact of carbon sequestration rights on rural land in Queensland and to determine whether current rural valuation knowledge and practice is equipped to deal with these rights. The carbon right in Queensland is complex and subject to significant individual variation. The nature and form of this right will determine whether it has a positive or negative impact on Queensland rural land. Significant gaps in the knowledge of industry stakeholders, including rural valuers, concerning carbon rights were found, and recommendations for valuation practice were made.

Climate Clever Beef: options to improve business performance and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in northern Australia

The Rangeland Journal – Climate Clever Beef special issue examines options for the beef industry in northern Australia to contribute to the reduction in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to engage in the carbon economy. Relative to its gross value (A$5 billion), the northern beef industry is responsible for a sizable proportion of national reportable GHG emissions (8–10%) through enteric methane, savanna burning, vegetation clearing and land degradation. The industry occupies large areas of land and has the potential to impact the carbon cycle by sequestering carbon or reducing carbon loss. Furthermore, much of the industry is currently not achieving its productivity potential, which suggests that there are opportunities to improve the emissions intensity of beef production. Improving the industry’s GHG emissions performance is important for its environmental reputation and may benefit individual businesses through improved production efficiency and revenue from the carbon economy. The Climate Clever Beef initiative collaborated with beef businesses in six regions across northern Australia to better understand the links between GHG emissions and carbon stocks, land condition, herd productivity and profitability. The current performance of businesses was measured and alternate management options were identified and evaluated. Opportunities to participate in the carbon economy through the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) were also assessed. The initiative achieved significant producer engagement and collaboration resulting in practice change by 78 people from 35 businesses, managing more than 1 272 000 ha and 132 000 cattle. Carbon farming opportunities were identified that could improve both business performance and emissions intensity. However, these opportunities were not without significant risks, trade-offs and limitations particularly in relation to business scale, and uncertainty in carbon price and the response of soil and vegetation carbon sequestration to management. This paper discusses opportunities for reducing emissions, improving emission intensity and carbon sequestration, and outlines the approach taken to achieve beef business engagement and practice change. The paper concludes with some considerations for policy makers.

Implications of retaining woody regrowth for carbon sequestration for an extensive grazing beef business: a bio-economic modelling case study

A bio-economic modelling framework (GRASP-ENTERPRISE) was used to assess the implications of retaining woody regrowth for carbon sequestration on a case study beef grazing property in northern Australia. Five carbon farming scenarios, ranging from 0% to 100% of the property regrowth retained for carbon sequestration, were simulated over a 20-year period (1993–2012). Dedicating regrowth on the property for carbon sequestration reduced pasture (up to 40%) and herd productivity (up to 20%), and resulted in financial losses (up to 24% reduction in total gross margin). A net carbon income (income after grazing management expenses are removed) of $2–4 per t CO2-e was required to offset economic losses of retaining regrowth on a moderately productive (~8 ha adult equivalent–1) property where income was from the sale of weaners. A higher opportunity cost ($ t–1 CO2-e) of retaining woody regrowth is likely for feeder steer or finishing operations, with improved cattle prices, and where the substantial transaction and reporting costs are included. Although uncertainty remains around the price received for carbon farming activities, this study demonstrated that a conservatively stocked breeding operation can achieve positive production, environmental and economic outcomes, including net carbon stock. This study was based on a beef enterprise in central Queensland’s grazing lands, however, the approach and learnings are expected to be applicable across northern Australia where regrowth is present.

Analysis of the needs of the East Coast cluster regional natural resource management bodies in relation to planning for climate change adaptation

The Climate Change Adaptation for Natural Resource Management (NRM) in East Coast Australia Project aims to foster and support an effective “community of practice” for climate change adaptation within the East Coast Cluster NRM regions that will increase the capacity for adaptation to climate change through enhancements in knowledge and skills and through the establishment of long‐term collaborations. It is being delivered by six consortium research partners: * The University of Queensland (project lead) * Griffith University * University of the Sunshine Coast * CSIRO * New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage * Queensland Department of Science, IT, Innovation and the Arts (Queensland Herbarium). The project relates to the East Coast Cluster, comprising the six coastal NRM regions and regional bodies between Rockhampton and Sydney: * Fitzroy Basin Association (FBA) * Burnett‐Mary Regional Group (BMRG) * SEQ Catchments (SEQC) * Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority (CMA) (NRCMA) * Hunter‐Central Rivers CMA (HCRCMA) * Hawkesbury Nepean CMA (HNCMA). The aims of this report are to summarise the needs of the regional bodies in relation to NRM planning for climate change adaptation, and provide a basis for developing the detailed work plan for the research consortium. Two primary methods were used to identify the needs of the regional bodies: (1) document analysis of the existing NRM/ Catchment Action Plans (CAPs) and applications by the regional bodies for funding under Stream 1 of the Regional NRM Planning for Climate Change Fund, and; (2) a needs analysis workshop, held in May 2013 involving representatives from the research consortium partners and the regional bodies. The East Coast Cluster includes five of the ten largest significant urban areas in Australia, world heritage listed natural environments, significant agriculture, mining and extensive grazing. The three NSW CMAs have recently completed strategic level CAPs, with implementation plans to be finalised in 2014/2015. SEQC and FBA are beginning a review of their existing NRM Plans, to be completed in 2014 and 2015 respectively; while BMRG is aiming to produce a NRM and Climate Variability Action Strategy. The regional bodies will receive funding from the Australian Government through the Regional NRM Planning for Climate Change Fund (NRM Fund) to improve regional planning for climate change and help guide the location of carbon and biodiversity activities, including wildlife corridors. The bulk of the funding will be available for activities in 2013/2014, with smaller amounts available in subsequent years. Most regional bodies aim to have a large proportion of the planning work complete by the end of 2014. In addition, NSW CMAs are undergoing major structural change and will be incorporated into semi‐autonomous statutory Local Land Services bodies from 2014. Boundaries will align with local government boundaries and there will be significant change in staff and structures. The regional bodies in the cluster have a varying degree of climate knowledge. All plans recognise climate change as a key driver of change, but there are few specific actions or targets addressing climate change. Regional bodies also have varying capacity to analyse large volumes of spatial or modelling data. Due to the complex nature of natural resource management, all regional bodies work with key stakeholders (e.g. local government, industry groups, and community groups) to deliver NRM outcomes. Regional bodies therefore require project outputs that can be used directly in stakeholder engagement activities, and are likely to require some form of capacity building associated with each of the outputs to maximise uptake. Some of the immediate needs of the regional bodies are a summary of information or tools that are able to be used immediately; and a summary of the key outputs and milestone dates for the project, to facilitate alignment of planning activities with research outputs. A project framework is useful to show the linkages between research elements and the relevance of the research to the adaptive management cycle for NRM planning in which the regional bodies are engaged. A draft framework is proposed to stimulate and promote discussion on research elements and linkages; this will be refined during and following the development of the detailed project work plan. The regional bodies strongly emphasised the need to incorporate a shift to a systems based resilience approach to NRM planning, and that approach is included in the framework. The regional bodies identified that information on climate projections would be most useful at regional and subregional scale, to feed into scenario planning and impact analysis. Outputs should be ‘engagement ready’ and there is a need for capacity building to enable regional bodies to understand and use the projections in stakeholder engagement. There was interest in understanding the impacts of climate change projections on ecosystems (e.g. ecosystem shift), and the consequent impacts on the production of ecosystem services. It was emphasised that any modelling should be able to be used by the regional bodies with their stakeholders to allow for community input (i.e. no black box models). The online regrowth benefits tool was of great interest to the regional bodies, as spatial mapping of carbon farming opportunities would be relevant to their funding requirements. The NSW CMAs identified an interest in development of the tool for NSW vegetation types. Needs relating to socio‐economic information included understanding the socio‐economic determinants of carbon farming uptake and managing community expectations. A need was also identified to understand the vulnerability of industry groups as well as community to climate change impacts, and in particular understanding how changes in the flow of ecosystem services would interact with the vulnerability of these groups to impact on the linked ecologicalsocio‐economic system. Responses to disasters (particularly flooding and storm surge) and recovery responses were also identified as being of interest. An ecosystem services framework was highlighted as a useful approach to synthesising biophysical and socioeconomic information in the context of a systems based, resilience approach to NRM planning. A need was identified to develop processes to move towards such an approach to NRM planning from the current asset management approach. Examples of best practice in incorporating climate science into planning, using scenarios for stakeholder engagement in planning and processes for institutionalising learning were also identified as cross‐cutting needs. The over‐arching theme identified was the need for capacity building for the NRM bodies to best use the information available at any point in time. To this end a planners working group has been established to support the building of a network of informed and articulate NRM agents with knowledge of current climate science and capacity to use current tools to engage stakeholders in NRM planning for climate change adaptation. The planners working group would form the core group of the community of practice, with the broader group of stakeholders participating when activities aligned with their interests. In this way, it is anticipated that the Project will contribute to building capacity within the wider community to effectively plan for climate change adaptation.

Farmers behaviour on mitigation and adaptation to climate change: A case study in Kenya.

Farmers in Africa are facing climate change and challenging rural livelihoods while maintaining agricultural systems that are not resilient. By 2050 the mean estimates of production of key staple crops in Africa such as maize, sorghum, millet, groundnut, and cassava are expected to decrease by between 8 and 22 percent (Schlenker and Lobell 2010). In Kenya, although projections of rainfall do not show dramatic decreases, the distribution of impacts is clearly negative for most crops. As increases in temperature will lead to increases in evapotranspiration, a potential increase in rainfall in Kenya may not offset the expected increases in agricultural water needs (Herrero et al. 2010). In order to respond to these present and future challenges, potential mitigation and adaptation options have been developed. However, implementation is not evident. In addition to their benefits in either mitigating or reducing the vulnerability of climate change effects, many of these options do not have economic costs and even provide economic benefits (e.g. savings in the consumption of energy or natural resources). Nevertheless, it is demonstrated that even when there are no biophysical, technological or economic constraints and despite their potential benefits from either the economic or environmental climate change point of view, not all farmers are willing to adopt these measures. This reflects the key role that behavioural barriers can play in the uptake of mitigation and adaptation measures.

Soil carbon sequestration rates and associated economic costs for farming systems of south-eastern Australia

Soil organic carbon (C) sequestration rates based on the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) methodology were combined with local economic data to simulate the economic potential for C sequestration in response to conservation tillage in the six agro-ecological zones within the Southern Region of the Australian grains industry. The net C sequestration rate over 20 years for the Southern Region (which includes discounting for associated greenhouse gases) is estimated to be 3.6 or 6.3 Mg C/ha after converting to either minimum or no-tillage practices, respectively, with no-till practices estimated to return 75% more carbon on average than minimum tillage. The highest net gains in C per ha are realised when converting from conventional to no-tillage practices in the high-activity clay soils of the High Rainfall and Wimmera agro-ecological zones. On the basis of total area available for change, the Slopes agro-ecological zone offers the highest net returns, potentially sequestering an additional 7.1 Mt C under no-tillage scenario over 20 years. The economic analysis was summarised as C supply curves for each of the 6 zones expressing the total additional C accumulated over 20 years for a price per t C sequestered ranging from zero to AU$200. For a price of $50/Mg C, a total of 427 000 Mg C would be sequestered over 20 years across the Southern Region, <5% of the simulated C sequestration potential of 9.1 Mt for the region. The Wimmera and Mid-North offer the largest gains in C under minimum tillage over 20 years of all zones for all C prices. For the no-tillage scenario, for a price of $50/Mg C, 1.74 Mt C would be sequestered over 20 years across the Southern Region, <10% of the simulated C sequestration potential of 18.6 Mt for the region over 20 years. The Slopes agro-ecological zone offers the best return in C over 20 years under no-tillage for all C prices. The Mallee offers the least return for both minimum and no-tillage scenarios. At a price of $200/Mg C, the transition from conventional tillage to minimum or no-tillage practices will only realise 19% and 33%, respectively, of the total biogeochemical sequestration potential of crop and pasture systems of the Southern Region over a 20-year period.

Soil carbon sequestration and associated economic costs for farming systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plain : a meta-analysis

Soil organic carbon sequestration rates over 20 years based on the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) methodology were combined with local economic data to determine the potential for soil C sequestration in wheat-based production systems on the Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP). The C sequestration potential of rice–wheat systems of India on conversion to no-tillage is estimated to be 44.1 Mt C over 20 years. Implementing no-tillage practices in maize–wheat and cotton–wheat production systems would yield an additional 6.6 Mt C. This offset is equivalent to 9.6% of India's annual greenhouse gas emissions (519 Mt C) from all sectors (excluding land use change and forestry), or less than one percent per annum. The economic analysis was summarized as carbon supply curves expressing the total additional C accumulated over 20 year for a price per tonne of carbon sequestered ranging from zero to USD 200. At a carbon price of USD 25 Mg C−1, 3 Mt C (7% of the soil C sequestration potential) could be sequestered over 20 years through the implementation of no-till cropping practices in rice–wheat systems of the Indian States of the IGP, increasing to 7.3 Mt C (17% of the soil C sequestration potential) at USD 50 Mg C−1. Maximum levels of sequestration could be attained with carbon prices approaching USD 200 Mg C−1 for the States of Bihar and Punjab. At this carbon price, a total of 34.7 Mt C (79% of the estimated C sequestration potential) could be sequestered over 20 years across the rice–wheat region of India, with Uttar Pradesh contributing 13.9 Mt C.