When it comes to the impact of fires on carbon projects, fire can reverse abatement and sequestration, posing a primary risk to projects that requires careful consideration, monitoring and evaluation.

GreenCollar has an extensive fire monitoring program in place, which means we are well placed to work with our land manager partners in the event of a potential fire. So how big a risk is fire? And how can the risk be effectively managed? GreenCollar Monitoring Coordinator, Silas Darnell explains: 

Working together

“Fire is one of the most significant risks for any vegetation in Australia,” he said. “When dealing with carbon projects, regardless of approach and methodology, risk management is a shared responsibility between land managers and project managers.”

He said that generally, land managers undertake on-ground management, including preventative measures and firefighting as needed.

“Practical measures that manage fuel loads, such as managed grazing, clearing along fence lines and implementing fire breaks are all things that are part of good land management, so they naturally apply to properties where carbon projects are in place.

“Where we as the project manager get involved is in the monitoring and evaluation aspect. We look at what is happening on the ground and run modelling to determine the impact of a particular fire on the projected outcomes of an individual project.”

Mr Darnell explained GreenCollar has a remote daily hotspot approach in place to monitor fires across Australia.

“Using satellite data through the Digital Earth Australia system run by the Australian government, we can detect fairly well any fire in Australia, with updates every 24 hours.”

“We then download the data and compare it across the boundaries of our projects. Where hotspots are picked up on a project – and a fire might not be one hotspot, but thousands of hotspots – we can then start to assess the seriousness of the fire.”

He said the assessment takes into account some known shortcomings of the system.

“Sometimes there can be false positives with satellite detection, and certain things like huge smoke plumes or clouds might obscure fires, or it’s possible that fires may miss detection. Generally, however, it is fairly accurate and gives us a good starting point.”

Mr Darnell said that the ongoing relationships built between the GreenCollar Project Partnership team and land manager partners were even more important than the detection system.

“Strong working relationships are important because land managers ideally alert us if there is a fire, or notify us if they are going to do any burning. We can then compare our data to what they are seeing on the ground and ensure we have an accurate picture of the severity of the fire.”

In the event of a fire, the team at GreenCollar and the land manager will be in very close contact, but there are also fire prevention measures in place with the team working with land managers to stay informed on fire risk management and look at things like the fuel load and fire break maintenance on a quarterly basis.

Understanding fire risk

Mr Darnell said the Seasonal Fire Risk update published quarterly by the National Council for Fire and Emergency Services is also used as a resource to share with land managers.

“This report is based on climate data and is compartmentalised into states and areas within states. We look at the seasonal data and weather projections, then get in touch with land managers and talk to them about the likely fire risk in their area. In most cases, land managers already have an eye on the situation, but it is a good way to start the conversation and consider the impact on a particular project.”

While remote sensing data plays an important role in fire risk management, GreenCollar doesn’t just rely on remote monitoring, preferring to have teams in the field year-round collecting data and monitoring fuel loads to assess overall fire risk. This on-ground data feeds back into land and fire risk management decisions.

Mr Darnell said different projects have different rules around approaching fire and using fire as a management tool through prescribed burning (this covers controlled burns undertaken for hazard reduction or ecological reasons).  

“Using fire to reduce the fuel load is permissible within certain projects, but it is up to the land manager to determine if this is appropriate. Burning in this way does negatively impact the abatement and therefore the number of Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) issued to a project, but the land manager may assess a small cut in the number of ACCUs issued is preferable to having a more severe impact in a wildfire.”

“Within all the methodologies, there are ways to account for fire within a project. In methodologies like human-induced regeneration, the fire is added to the model to assess the impact.

“When there is a fire on a project, we will map it using satellite and aerial imagery and maps from the land manager to determine the boundaries and extent of the fire. We can then map the fire area and compare it to the carbon project areas on the property to determine how much of the project is impacted. From there, we determine the severity of the fire, calculate the estimated mortality of trees and update our model inputs from there.”

He said the initial development process for the project would have determined the vegetation types within the project areas – known collectively as the carbon estimation area.

“Once we have all the data on the fire, we go away and look at the literature on how fire impacts those specific vegetation types and then work out the severity of the fire and the predicted impact.”

“In our modelling, we can then work out the change in abatement. For an avoided deforestation project, it could be that a bad burn would take an area out if there was no longer forest. But if the assessment suggests the area still has forest cover after the fire, then it would be able to hold the abatement at the originally projected level.”

“Carbon projects have a minimum life span of 25 years, so the bottom line with fire is that it can almost certainly change the abatement, but it’s not necessarily going to end the project.”

Nationwide variation

In terms of the impact of fires on carbon projects, Mr Darnell said there are a range of differences across the country.

“We have had projects in Western Australia heavily impacted over the last couple of years in the Gascoyne region, while in western New South Wales, it’s typically hard for that country to carry a significant fire because it’s quite arid.

“In Queensland, fire is more used as a management tool, and in a lot of northern Australia, particularly the far north, we can consider fires and the burn frequency in the models. So even at the start of calculating project potential, regular fires can be included in the modelling.”

He said that managed fires and hazard reduction burning typically causes a lot less change in abatement than a big wildfire.

“Some Queensland properties using fire regularly have told us about their burning, but it has been such a cool burn that the hotspot system hasn’t picked it up. This shows how differently a fire will move through the landscape, with moisture levels in vegetation and weather conditions causing a considerable variation in burn severity,” he said.

Long term data analysis

Mr Darnell said it was essential to remember that the whole carbon industry is relatively new, with most projects less than 20 years old.

“For some land managers involved with projects, we are only now seeing the first big wet cycle. The processes in some semi-arid areas move so slowly that they are facing a fire cycle that is less likely to be one or two years and more likely decades.

“With the expansion of carbon projects, we have the advantage of collecting huge datasets that will, over time, assist us in answering questions about how fire impacts the ecology of different areas of Australia.”

Mr Darnell said his role was to work with the GreenCollar Project Partnership team and provide land managers with information that helps them understand and manage fire within their operational structure.

“I think the most useful information we can provide is an explanation of our processes, highlight case studies of how fires might affect abatement and undertake property modelling for individual properties if requested.”

“Once a project is up and running, a lot of work is undertaken to verify and monitor its performance against the methodology being used. Fire is just one aspect that can impact the overall success; however, from a land managers perspective, GreenCollar is there to assist with information to help build some robust risk management processes.”

“There is no silver bullet in building effectiveness against fire, but if you combine our systems, such as hotspot detection and vegetation monitoring, with strong land manager relationships, we are doing all we can to deliver an effective process,” he said.

The post The impact of fire on carbon projects appeared first on GreenCollar.

The post Does my land have carbon project potential? How to assess if carbon farming is right for you. appeared first on GreenCollar.

Carbon abatement is a key part of the climate solution that’s happening right now in Australia. GreenCollar CEO, James Schultz, explains why it’s an overwhelmingly good story for climate change and the future of the agricultural industry.   

As the climate emergency intensifies, the varying levels of work being done – or not done – to address it is continually pushed to the top of the political, corporate and news agenda. But it’s a mixed blessing for those of us who work daily on the ground to deliver the many benefits of carbon projects, such as carbon abatement.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of keeping climate change and climate risk front and centre of business and public policy discussion, but the intense focus can sometimes scramble the message. As noise from all sides increases, you could forgive Australians for not realising that there is already a great deal of solid and consistent work happening to reduce emissions. And that work is especially driven by the agriculture sector.  

Make no mistake, current climate solutions are sometimes imperfect. It’s an evolving space – one that will only keep changing as we grapple with advances in scientific and technological knowledge. But the reality on the ground is vastly different to the hyperbole of the headline arguments. And it is an overwhelmingly good story for climate change and the future of the agricultural industry.  

Since the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act was established in 2011, over a thousand projects across the country have been reducing emissions, sequestering carbon, and building alternative income streams for the agricultural community. It’s good for the environment and the farms’ bottom line. And with corporate and public sector demand for Australian carbon credits on the rise, the benefits of carbon farming only look set to increase.   

Over the last decade, land management projects have delivered millions of tonnes of carbon abatement, with conservative estimates placing the reinvestment into agriculture from carbon farming at around half a billion dollars. That’s money flowing back into farms around the country, allowing investment into infrastructure and technology, and sustaining businesses and jobs through periods of drought and other challenges.  

Despite this success story, a few misconceptions about carbon farming persist. 

One is that, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the agriculture sector doesn’t matter as much as energy or heavy industry and transport. This is wrong. Agriculture is a contributor to global emissions – estimated to account for up to 20% – but the cost of change to reduce these emissions is expensive and must be funded from somewhere. At the same time, let’s not forget that agriculture occupies a unique position in emissions reduction solutions, because the sector can both reduce its own emissions and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at the same time. By contrast, most other industries can only work to minimise their footprint.   

How is this the case? Farmland covers around half of Australia’s landmass. Much of that land and soil can be used to absorb carbon dioxide while still being farmed. The overwhelming majority of carbon projects take place on active farms, and if good carbon farming methods are employed, they can improve the sustainability of the agriculture sector while enabling reinvestment into primary production and regional communities. It’s not about displacing farming.  

Good carbon farming processes work alongside primary production – not in place of it. And they enhance on-farm productivity as well. It should never be about locking up the land or neglecting farm management.    

Modern carbon farming methods and good land-management practices are well aligned. Carbon farming activities – like changing the way livestock is managed, installing new fences, managing feral pests, increasing ground cover, improving soil – all have positive flow-on effects for farm productivity. In fact, the money made from generating credits is just one of the advantages of carbon farming.  

Farmland hosts a wealth of natural capital not currently recognised on the farm balance sheet. Beyond carbon this includes water quality and biodiversity. Most farmers recognise that the future of their agricultural enterprise relies on the environment – they want to be good stewards of the land – it’s crucial to the future of their livelihoods. By properly valuing environmental outcomes and rewarding good land stewardship, we enable farmers to adapt their approach and balance productivity with a healthier environment.

Harnessing the power of the agricultural community is a huge opportunity for Australia. Currently, Australian carbon credits are in high demand because there is a robust system in place that is regulated and independently verified. And there are plenty of environmental market options for landholders to explore. Farmers can run carbon projects alone, or they can work with credible partners that are signatories to the Carbon Industry Code of Conduct to help navigate complexities around land assessments, land management processes, and project monitoring and reporting. 

For many farmers, the decision to start exploring these options is an easy one. It’s also rewarding – and necessary. But the same can’t be said for every aspect of the economy. Many of Australia’s key industries face a bumpy road on the path to net zero. There will be radical changes to their operations, and the path forward for some of them isn’t currently clear.   

Farmers are in an enviable position.  If they choose to invest in carbon farming as part of their agricultural operations, they will help in bringing our country’s net zero and nature positive goals closer within reach.   

The bottom line is what makes it a win-win – for the farm, for the country, and for the environment. 

 

James Schultz is Chief Executive Officer of GreenCollar.

The post The environmental solution already playing out across Australian farms appeared first on GreenCollar.

In other words, climate action has started to go mainstream in the business world. But releasing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere isn’t the only negative impact businesses have had – and reducing their carbon footprint isn’t the only way they can do good. Water quality, plastic waste, biodiversity and the health of natural ecosystems; these are all pressing environmental issues. And as with carbon emissions, corporations can play an important role in ensuring these challenges are properly addressed. 

Thankfully, businesses working to combat climate change don’t have to go it alone. A wide range of environmental market-based mechanisms are emerging to help meet (and even exceed) ESG goals, with carbon credits just one part of the solution.

In this article, we take a look at three new environmental markets that move beyond carbon. Each market focuses on a specific environmental issue, and provides a targeted, financially incentivised method to drive long-term behaviour change and put the environment on the balance sheet. 

Environmental markets that move beyond carbon.

Plastic Credits

For years, the production of disposable plastics has outstripped our ability to process them, making plastic pollution one of the most pressing environmental issues facing the planet. Technically, it’s solvable: people can use fewer plastics, we can recycle, and companies can reduce plastic waste from their value chains.

Unfortunately, zero plastic isn’t an overnight option for some industries yet. But that doesn’t mean they can’t take action. Enter Plastic Credits, an environmental market designed to help reduce plastic waste in the aggregate, while enabling those who can’t (yet) go without to take ownership of their plastic footprint and make a positive difference.

A single Plastic Credit is generated when a verified plastic waste producer is able to remove, reuse or recycle one tonne of plastic from the environment. Currently, GreenCollar is working with banana farmers in Far North Queensland to responsibly discard or recycle the single-use plastic covers they have traditionally used to protect banana bunches as they ripen. The more covers they remove and recycle, the more Plastic Credits they earn – and the more credits other companies can purchase to help meet their ESG goals. 

Reef Credits 

In 2019, the Great Barrier Reef’s long-term outlook was downgraded to “very poor” – and things haven’t improved much since. One of the causes is fine sediment and dissolved inorganic nitrogen flowing into the reef from farmland across Queensland. Despite farmers’ best efforts, changing land management practice can be an expensive business, which is exactly the problem the Reef Credits Scheme seeks to solve.

The first water quality market of its kind in the world, Reef Credits pay farmers and land managers to make changes in how they use and look after their land. These can be subtle, such as changing the way they apply fertiliser, or more intensive rehabilitation projects to restore gullies or establish wetlands that naturally filter sediment from runoff. Either way, they result in less pollutants reaching the Great Barrier Reef without impacting productivity of the land, creating local jobs, and netting farmers extra income for their efforts. 

Until last month, the Queensland Government was the largest buyer of Reef Credits. But Qantas has just committed $500,000 to purchase 20 per cent of all Reef Credits produced to date, paving the way for more businesses to invest in the health of the Great Barrier Reef. The bulk of the revenue made from the sale of Reef Credits goes straight to farmers, providing them with the additional income needed to make ongoing improvements to the land.

NaturePlus™ Credits

Biodiversity may well be the single most important aspect of a healthy planet. Everything, from the air we breathe and the food we eat, to the economy at large, relies on a great variety of plants, animals and microorganisms working in tandem to keep ecosystems in balance. 

It’s no surprise, then, that businesses are beginning to take biodiversity loss seriously. By investing in programs that protect natural habitats and strengthen biodiversity, companies can help ward off catastrophe, while simultaneously assuring investors and stakeholders that they’re addressing one of the largest environmental challenges facing the planet.

And we’re not talking about protecting a piece of forest over here so you can clear one over there. NaturePlus™ Credits are focused on additionality with a view to achieving ‘Nature Positive’ outcomes that will see ecological systems improving and rebuilding by 2030.

While most payments for biodiversity outcomes are based on actions that are carried out with a view to improving biodiversity in the future, NaturePlus™ Credits are only awarded to projects that have already delivered third-party audited and certified improvement in environmental condition. This means investment in NaturePlus™ Credits represents positive outcomes for nature. 

GreenCollar is running 20 NaturePlus™ pilot projects in Australia with a view to valuing and rewarding adaptive land management that delivers benefits for native ecosystems and species. The first credits are expected to come to market in early 2023.

Environmental markets: the way forward

According to a 2021 report by the UN Environment Programme, over AU$11 trillion worth of investments need to be made in nature-based projects by 2050 if the planet is to come out the other side of the interlinked climate, biodiversity and land degradation crises it currently faces. 

That sounds like a lot of money – and for any individual, it is. But with robust, science-backed environmental markets working to make investment in the environment that much smoother and more rewarding for companies, it’s not only an achievable goal, but a desirable one. 

The post Beyond carbon credits: Investing in multiple environmental markets to meet sustainability goals appeared first on GreenCollar.

In fact, by 2050, the UN projects the global population will sit around 9.8 billion, and with it will come a growing demand for food. Australia is already feeling the impact of this year’s floods on the food supply, and globally hunger is on the rise as climate change impacts crop and grazing yields, ocean health, and natural resources—including water, and biodiversity. So it’s clear we need to evolve our approach to supply. 

In many parts of the world, agricultural methods have not changed for millennia. Some have been transplanted from one environment to another with little regard for the conditions in which they are supposed to flourish. Practices that once created a remarkable process of industrialisation and globalisation of food and agriculture can now undoubtedly be improved.  

From clearing forests to create pasture, to reliance on fertiliser and pesticides, many agricultural techniques generate a great deal of greenhouse gas. 38% of the world’s land is now used for farming and grazing, and is thought to be responsible for 23% of global emissions.  

It’s a good old-fashioned Catch 22. To feed people in the face of climate change, we need to farm more. But if we continue to farm in the exact same way, our climate is going to change for the worse even faster. The only solution, of course, is to approach farming a little differently.   

Embracing new methods 

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is an approach that transforms agricultural development under the new realities of climate change to support the future of business, biodiversity and food security. CSA supports reaching internationally agreed goals such as the Paris Agreement and aims to tackle three main objectives:  

• Increased productivity: Sustainably increasing agricultural productivity to improve nutrition security and incomes.
• Building resilience: Reducing the exposure of farmers to short-term risks like drought, pests and diseases to improve their capacity in the face of longer-term stressors like shortened seasons and erratic weather patterns. 
• Reducing emissions: For each calorie or kilo of food produced, CSA pursues lower greenhouse gas emissions, avoids deforestation and identifies ways to absorb carbon out of the atmosphere. 

Climate smart farming in action 

At GreenCollar, we work with farmers across all three CSA pillars. Our carbon farming projects are designed to enhance agricultural productivity whilst storing carbon in vegetation and soil, supporting infrastructure upgrades, feral pest management and land regeneration, among other things.  

For example, the Dungarvan Human-Induced Regeneration Project in Western New South Wales has seen the Leigo family change their decades-long approach to managing the land and their livestock. By installing over 135km of fencing that enables native animals to pass through the property, constructing 10 trap yards, and creating 13 new water points, the Leigos have been able to introduce periods of true rest for the land, which allows native vegetation to regenerate. The flourishing vegetation has, in turn, created a virtuous cycle for the livestock business, with the Leigos noting “the better the condition and extent of our native vegetation, the better our animals perform.”

Meanwhile, the Tallering Station Human-Induced Regeneration Project in Western Australia is breaking an historical cycle of almost 200 years of intensive grazing to establish a better balance of native vegetation, recognising that this will restore what had become an ‘at risk’ landscape.

A commitment to a climate-smart future 

GreenCollar is dedicated to working with farmers, graziers, Traditional Owners and land managers to help them change how they work the land to improve resilience and reverse humanity’s impact on the planet. For many farmers, learning to adapt to climate changes now, and to prepare for long-term changes in the future, can mean the difference between thriving and just getting by.  

The post Is it time for more ‘climate-smart’ farming? appeared first on GreenCollar.

They say the longest journeys start with a single step, but if people don’t have a reason or the courage to take that step, then nothing can be achieved.

When it comes to carbon projects, and integrating them into existing farms and farming practices, the journey itself can be part of the puzzle. Landholders can find that journey, from thinking about the issues to developing and finally implementing a strategy, long and arduous. But according to some, it is an easy enough puzzle to solve and well worth the effort.

Heather Cameron with daughter Zoe (left) and partner Popeye (right)

Heather Cameron is one such landholder, running a Merino sheep enterprise on Lower Lila Station, 84 km northwest of Bourke in New South Wales.

She admits when she started, it took considerable time and effort to come to grips with what could be done and how best to go about it.

“I was fortunate that I could access some local expertise, both in terms of someone who worked with GreenCollar, and other producers who had signed up to operate carbon projects in conjunction with their grazing operations.

“This local aspect, for me, was very beneficial. In the initial discussions, I was confident the GreenCollar representative knew the district, the country and how we operate. He helped me to understand the project and to get my head around some initial questions and concerns.

“In the end I could see that by making some environmental changes, I would gain an additional revenue stream and still maintain productive areas of the farm. The decision to go ahead simply made good sense.”

Peter and Edwina Ponder of Emaroo Station, 200km west of Bourke, have a similar story.

According to Peter, the catalyst that encouraged them to examine all their options was an extended period of exceptionally dry conditions.

“During the drought, we spent a lot of money feeding sheep, and we got to the point where we needed to find another source of income or sell the property and get out.”

The Ponder family

In a similar story to Heather, the Ponders started the discussion with someone they knew.

“While it was great that we knew someone, I don’t think it would have made an overall difference or changed the way we undertook the project. The important thing was some trusted input for that initial discussion, leading into the decision to go ahead.”

Heather and Peter stressed the need for landholders to actively seek information about carbon projects and then carefully consider how it applied to their area.

They suggested a broad understanding of how the carbon project could be positioned alongside existing operations, combined with sound legal and financial advice, was crucial to implementing a carbon agreement successfully.

Heather said even after reading through available information, she still had a long list of questions.

“Never be afraid to make enquiries because that is the only way to resolve questions and be comfortable with the steps required to make things work.”

Heather said that she had contacts with other groups but chose GreenCollar because the way it operated suited her approach.

“From my perspective, I wanted to work with someone that understood I was running a farming business, and I didn’t enjoy spending extra hours in the office keeping up with the paperwork side of the project operations.”

Having someone who could work cooperatively and allow her to get on with the core business was very appealing.

“The project has delivered a regular income and allowed me to put a strong foundation in my business. I have never been a big fan of grazing heavily, so the project has been established in line with my management approach, setting aside portions of the property for native forest and bushlands, and allowing me to run sheep on the remaining areas.”

“The great thing is the income flow has taken away some of that uncertainty, and I have managed to employ more people. I have also invested some of the project money into establishing some cabins along the river as part of an environmental tourism project, which is exciting for me.”

The partnership approach was also an essential aspect for Peter.

“The task of establishing a carbon project is quite complex, and I have no idea how you would even go about it on your own.”

“We did our initial research and reading, but without working in partnership with someone you trust, it would be reasonably difficult and daunting.

“After our initial consultations, we had representatives from GreenCollar come out and do their satellite imaging and ‘ground-truth’ the possibilities. They were here on the property for a couple of weeks and had determined the spots they needed to check via GPS coordinates. The process did not intrude on our operations and allowed us to determine the way forward.

“Once they knew what we had, we then sat down, and we took out some country which wasn’t useful in the project proposal, such as the holding paddocks and other areas we regularly use.”

He said that while there was no trouble with the process, it did take time.

While more information is available now, there is still a lack of understanding around the carbon trading business, and for busy producers and landholders, this is often a significant hurdle to overcome.

As Peter described it, when your primary occupation is grazing cattle, sheep or goats, there is not necessarily time for producers to delve into and understand the complexities of carbon trading and how it could make a difference to the business.

“It’s a bit like share trading – you can certainly do it yourself, but if you haven’t got the time and it’s not your primary expertise, the best option is to go with someone who has that experience and who can work with you to deliver results.”

The strong relationship and the sense of partnership have provided reassurance about how the projects operate.

The Ponders are now six years into a 25-year scheme and are happy with how things are progressing.

According to Peter, the length of time was a choice based on a plan to sell the property after years of drought.

“We thought the time frame would allow any in-coming purchasers to consider their options, but we are currently going well. Getting into the carbon business has allowed us to stock lightly; with the carbon credits, we are not pushing as hard to make an income.”

Heather Cameron opted for a 100-year scheme.

“I could not see any harm in it, to be honest, and I like the idea of protecting the property with moderate grazing pressure so that it can be passed down from generation to generation in good condition.”

The partnership with GreenCollar has provided reassurance and confidence in the way forward.

“I would encourage others to consider their options and carefully assess how to get involved.”

While information is available, Heather said she found personal discussions, information days and visual information beneficial.

“Property owners like to work alongside people who understand how they do business. While explanations are important, they are used to visually examining their animals and landscape, so they also need to see firsthand how things will operate.”

There is no doubt that landholders face a long and complex journey to establish a carbon project. But with the correct information and support, it is possible to deliver projects that allow landholders to make informed decisions and implement flexible approaches that support their land and, critically, their business operations.

The post Top tips from landholders: how to integrate a carbon project into your agribusiness appeared first on GreenCollar.

Last year, the Australian Institute reported that 75% of Australians are concerned about climate change – an all-time high for the nation. With mounting public concern, businesses are under pressure to improve their environmental impact. A strong stance on sustainability has become a key differentiator for businesses looking to attract quality talent, maintain a respected brand and mitigate legislative risks.

More and more companies are drawing a line in the sand and declaring a net zero emissions target. But promises are one thing and practice is another. As businesses look to reduce emissions through their value chains and offset what they can’t reduce, it is increasingly important to consider the integrity of credit providers and the quality of the credits themselves. Businesses need to ensure that their environmental commitments remain credible in an increasingly discerning market.

Trusted partners

For a responsible corporate, the environmental credits market can be difficult to navigate. Buyers need assurance that they are investing in legitimate solutions and not falling prey to greenwashing and empty claims. Corporates that are looking to meaningfully change their standing on Environmental, Societal and Governance (ESG) issues, need to look for trustworthy partners.

Principled credit providers can help buyers minimise, or even begin to reverse their environmental impact, and mitigate investment risk by helping them invest in credits from high quality projects. Additionally, partnerships with trusted providers can lend additional credibility to ESG efforts, bolstering marketing initiatives and standing up to public scrutiny. In order to find such partners, businesses need to look for proof of integrity from their credit providers, and interrogate their project development or credit sourcing process, in particular, how they measure and monitor the impact of their projects.

External validators such as certifications and accreditations can help verify that a provider already meets and maintains high standards. B Corp certification, for example, is a designation that a business meets verified standards of performance, accountability and transparency on both social and environmental factors. Certified B Corps, like GreenCollar, have passed a rigorous accreditation process and are transparent about their performance, making it publicly available on their B Corp profile. By seeking an independently verified credit provider, investors can be more confident in the integrity of their provider and the products they offer.

Investors can also look to third party audit records for assurance of quality.

All projects issued Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) under the Emissions Reduction Fund must successfully complete third-party auditing and verification. Responsible investors can look into a developers’ success rate as an indicator of how rigorously they control project quality. 

Quality credit providers will also be happy to share details on project monitoring processes. For example, GreenCollar validates initial carbon assessments with on-ground field work to set project baselines rather than relying on satellite imagery. Projects are monitored daily for fire and drought indicators and undergo change detection and canopy assessments to ensure continuing regeneration of vegetation. Quarterly landholder interviews qualify delivery of project actions, and outcomes are tracked through regular on-ground monitoring throughout the project lifetime.

Projects that perform

A trustworthy credit provider goes a long way in ESG investing, but buyers also need to do their due diligence on the credits they purchase. Carbon credits are underpinned by many different types of projects and investors should seek out credits with high-quality outcomes to maximise their ESG impact.

At GreenCollar, we partner with farmers, graziers, Traditional Owners and land managers to deliver projects with a variety of ESG benefits. We develop projects that are specifically designed to deliver additional social, cultural, economic and environmental gains over and above a specific credit. Our carbon credit projects are not limited to carbon sequestration, but also work to protect and regenerate native vegetation, provide safe habitats for native fauna, mitigate fire risk, improve drought resilience and invest in local communities through job creation.

GreenCollar project outcomes are also structured to be measured and verified. We value project integrity because it helps underpin high-quality carbon credits by providing investors with clear, measured and verified outcomes, and tangible impact stories.

As the carbon credit market expands, it is increasingly important for investors to seek out quality credits and sound projects. Businesses should be looking to invest in credits and projects with a range of impactful ESG benefits and transparent performance metrics.

Investing in outcomes

Trusted credit providers and verified projects can help businesses get bang for the buck – building strong sustainability credentials and mitigating risk in environmental markets. But ultimately, the goal of carbon credits and ESG investing is to have a positive impact on the environment and reduce climate risk.

Environmental credit markets should provide financial incentives for long-term behavioural change. To ensure their investment is delivering on this, investors need to also operate with integrity, seeking partners and projects with real merit and benefit. Not all carbon credits are equal, but credit should always go where it is due. 

The post Credit where credit is due appeared first on GreenCollar.

Now the federal government has announced it will create a biodiversity market.

Many of my colleagues in the environmental sector regard markets with deep suspicion, equating them with unbridled capitalism – profit with no environmental or social constraints, and minimal regulation.

Effective markets are typically driven by the gains to the participants from voluntary exchange of goods and services.

Our free and unencumbered consumption of ecosystem services – the many and varied benefits to humans provided by the natural environment and from healthy ecosystems – has widely been regarded by experts to be a “market failure”, mainly because the environment has been an unrewarded participant.

In liberal democracies, although profit remains the primary objective for business, shareholders and investors, the market is regulated. For example, in the Australian employment market, employers are required to pay employees a minimum wage for the services they provide, and it (largely) works, underpinned by the Fair Work Act.

The modern economy, underwritten by increasing consumption of mineral resources, fossil fuels and other ecosystem services, has for example, failed to constrain greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Farming, mining, manufacturing, transport, construction, infrastructure …even health and education … have all resulted in widespread pollution, deforestation and destruction of nature – despite the existence of a host of environmental regulations.

Modern life increasingly consumes ecosystem services in almost everything it does to sustain us, while we consumers have all become used to using them free of charge.

The result is that planetary health is declining rapidly.

Two recently released reports – the 2021 Australia State of the Environment and UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2021 ‘code red for humanity’ Assessment – provide vivid and deeply disturbing testaments to that.

Yet, this “market failure” can be corrected – by valuing and putting a price on those services.

Witness the idea of putting a price on carbon, the mechanism most economists, think tanks and conservation NGOs advocate as the most effective means to avoid overheating by GHGs and to return the atmosphere to a mix that avoids cooking the planet.

Of course, GHG pollution is only one of the crises facing humanity and the other 10 million species with which we share Earth.

Direct, activity-based regulation is essential to prevent bad things like speeding on roads, workplace discrimination, fraud and industrial pollution. But it is inadequate to drive environmental best practice in industries such as farming, manufacturing, transport and the like. You can’t make everyone buy an electric car or stop driving altogether. You can’t force farmers to invest in untested practices or restore landscapes they were once expected or required to clear. It costs money that people do not always have. The technology is not there. And they need to keep earning a living.

Markets, on the other hand, deliver things people want or need to pay for. And they can incentivise behaviour.

For markets to work for the environment, they need regulation – for example, by setting caps and putting a price on carbon emissions, which the new government is attempting to achieve via the revamped safeguard mechanism.

In this model, big polluters are required to reduce their emissions to a set level (a “baseline”, which declines as practices improve and targets are strengthened). If they can’t (or won’t) achieve this baseline, they must buy credits on the carbon market to “offset” their emissions. Then, as demand increases and credits become scarce and more expensive, it will soon prove cheaper to reduce emissions than pay for offsets.

This is market-driven behavioural change.

Here, regulation is being used to correct a “market failure” that has allowed us all to pollute for free. It’s about pricing GHG pollution. Similar mechanisms are needed for all forms of pollution and habitat destruction. Direct, activity-based regulation will do some of the heavy lifting. Regulated markets are needed for the rest.

In the early stages, the easy-to-reduce sectors of society, like electricity generation, will cover for the hard-to-reduce sectors, like airline travel. Nature-based offsets, like regenerating native vegetation to capture and store carbon (an example of carbon farming), can be used to offset hard-to-abate pollution until technology provides a more efficient solution and the market price drives the change from offsetting to emission reduction.

Experts agree that offsets are an essential component of achieving climate targets, that carbon sequestration (removal from the atmosphere to be stored in plants and soil)  will remain essential long past achieving carbon neutrality, both to bring the atmosphere back to a level that avoids ongoing heating and to offset activities that cannot be avoided in modern society.

Our best endeavours in correcting the degradation of the planet through education, direct, activity-based regulations and grants – though vital – have proved inadequate on their own.  Some would say they’ve failed dismally. Why? Because the economy, of which we are all inescapable participants, puts no value, monetary or otherwise, on the environment.

But now shareholders, customers and clients are increasingly demanding that the companies they invest in and products they buy be environmentally and socially ethical. This means profit is no longer the only motivation behind a business decision. It means the producers and suppliers of goods and services are increasingly seeking certification for being socially and environmentally ethical.

The bottom line is that, in our globalised world, the market is potentially delivering the mechanism that direct government regulation has failed to do.

But it is not quite that simple. The offsets companies buy MUST do what they say they’ll do. They must be measurable and verifiable – and those measures do not always reliably exist … yet. But it’s improving rapidly.

This is imperative for the market to have integrity. Which is essential for market confidence. And for real outcomes that benefit the market participants – the environment and humanity – and ultimately the health of our planet.

_____

Mike Berwick AOM BSc(Vet), who was arrested on the Daintree Blockade that led to the world heritage listing of Qld’s wet tropical forests, was subsequently awarded his Order of Australia for its conservation and services to local government. He has been media advisor to Senator Graham Richardson as Federal Environment Minister, five term Mayor of Douglas Shire and the local government representative on Federal Environment Minister, Sn Robert Hill’s Biodiversity Advisory Council. He is currently senior policy advisor to GreenCollar, Australia’s largest environmental projects developer.

This piece was published in Independent Australia on 18 September 2022 under the title, ‘Put a price on pollution or we’ll keep cooking the planet‘.

The post Why environmental markets are a vital part of the environment and climate solution appeared first on GreenCollar.

Research has shown that healthy soil can absorb almost twice as much C02 as plants and the atmosphere combined, making it a central player in the fight against climate change. In fact, scientists estimate that we could be storing another 1 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon in global soils per year. And the opportunity for improvement to soils here in Australia is significant.

Soil is, in many ways, a non-renewable resource. It can take up to a thousand years to create just one millimetre of soil. Which makes it all the more important to start protecting its impact today – which many Australian land managers are doing via the carbon market.

Take James Henderson as an example, a beef cattle farmer in Central Queensland. After the devastating 2006 drought, James knew he needed to find new ways to manage his land. He investigated carbon farming, and in partnership with GreenCollar, embarked on a regenerative land management program that paid him to do two main things: stop clearing native trees, and implement rotational grazing.

Less than five years later, James’ soil is now much healthier. It retains more water, and is more resilient during the dry summer months. The extra vegetation has created more shade too, stabilising temperatures and keeping his grasses greener for longer. As a result, James has been able to extend his growing season by about a month either side of summer. And under Australia’s Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), he has already generated over 54,000 ACCUs – not bad for a single property.

Across the rest of the country, Australian land managers are no stranger to erosion, acidification, compaction, salination and drought. By switching to more sustainable farming methods – like the ones used in carbon farming – it’s possible to improve soil health while bringing back the biodiversity and carbon-storage capacity the planet needs. And the practice can unlock productivity benefits for your farm too. For example, increasing soil carbon has shown to reduce the need for fertilisers by up to 7%

And you don’t have to be a soil scientist to make a difference. Simple methodologies can have a massive impact – including practices like preserving native vegetation, adopting rotational grazing and regenerating natural filtration systems. With the help of a carbon farming specialist like GreenCollar, you can implement the kinds of activities applicable to your specific land and operations with minimal fuss – and maximum benefit.

Of course, saving the planet remains the bigger picture. But as James’ example demonstrates, carbon farming isn’t just good for the environment – it’s good for economics, too. By focusing on your soil’s health, you can invest in the planet and your farm, boosting your productivity while enhancing your soils’ water- and carbon-holding capacities.

Find out more about carbon farming .

The post Improving soil (and the planet) with carbon farming appeared first on GreenCollar.

The post Three simple carbon practices revolutionising sustainable agriculture  appeared first on GreenCollar.