New Ground-breaking Reef Credit Method for Grazing Land Management open for consultation

 

A new Grazing Land Management (GLM) Method that measures and values the reduction in sediment losses resulting from improved grazing land management has been published for public consultation under the Reef Credit Scheme. The proposed new Method will generate revenue for graziers that make changes to land management which result in reduced flow of fine sediment through to the Great Barrier Reef. Projects on any grazing land within the Great Barrier Reef catchments could be eligible to benefit. Here’s what you need to know about the Method and the opportunity.

What is a Reef Credit Method?

Methods are a fundamental element of all environmental markets. They prescribe the techniques used to measure and quantify outcomes from land management practices. They are a foundational tool for environmental markets like the Reef Credit Scheme, which aims to improve water quality at the Great Barrier Reef and are only approved after a detailed independent consultation and scientific peer review process. This ensures integrity of all credits produced under the Method.

How has the Grazing Land Management method been developed?

A unique and multiskilled partnership between GreenCollar, Verterra Ecological Engineering and AgriProve has brought together innovation, knowledge, and science, with experience in grazing land management, soil health, water quality and environmental markets to develop the Grazing Land Management Method. By working together to create the Method, the partners hope to deliver future opportunities for more land managers within the Reef catchments to undertake projects and generate revenue from Reef Credits. Importantly, the new Grazing Land Management Reef Credit Method has been developed to complement and work side by side with soil carbon crediting by improving soil carbon stores, as well as boosting grazing productivity from whole of property management planning.

How can the Grazing Land Management Method boost productivity?

Improved grazing land management offers multiple productivity, environmental, and agribusiness benefits, which is why this approach is promoted widely across the grazing industry. The new Method seeks to recognise the very real and important benefits improved grazing land management practice delivers for the health of the Reef and presents significant potential for land managers to boost revenue. By bringing together the complementary goals of improved pasture and soil health for graziers, and improved water quality for the Reef, the Grazing Land Management Method aims to incentivise and help graziers achieve a high level of ground cover before high intensity rainfall periods to reduce sediment run-off onto the Reef.

How does the Grazing Land Management Method work?

The proposed Method accounts for reductions in fine sediment losses that are achieved through improved grazing land management. Put simply, it uses historic measurements of sediment losses and tracks how changes in land management reduce the flow of sediment into waterways. After a series of accounting safeguards, independent audits and detailed reporting has been applied and verified, successful projects will be issued with Reef Credits for achieved reductions. Each Reef Credit is the equivalent of 538kgs of fine sediment prevented from flowing onto the Reef and, just like carbon credits, can be sold or traded to organisations that wish to support improvements in water quality.

What changes to land management need to occur?

The Method proposes that land managers develop a Grazing Land Management Plan which outlines their approach to improving grazing practice and soil health to increase ground cover, and ultimately reduce sediment run-off. Actions may include matching stocking rates to forage budgets and incorporating periods of rest. Infrastructure such as fencing and waterpoints may be incorporated, and up-to-date grazing charts must be provided to demonstrate that grazing practices align with increased ground cover and reduced sediment flow.

How are outcomes calculated?

The Grazing Land Management Method calculates the difference between historic and present-day sediment losses after land management changes have been implemented. Reporting periods are proposed to last between 12 months and five years, with changes in ground cover monitored monthly using remote sensing technology. 

What happens next?

EcoMarkets Australia, the independent administrator of the Reef Credit scheme, is managing the independent consultation and peer review process – a fundamental element in developing and approving new Reef Credit Methods. 

EcoMarkets Australia is accepting submissions throughout the public consultation period, which is due to end on 5th October 2023, after which the Method will be subject to independent scientific peer review.  

Following the consultation and peer review process EcoMarkets Australia will work with the Method authors to address feedback before the Method is formally approved and adopted under the Reef Credit Standard. Once passed, the Grazing Land Management Method will join the four existing pathways for land managers to get involved in the scheme which include:

• Managed Fertiliser Application
• Reduction in Sediment Run-off through Gully Rehabilitation
• Reduction of nutrient through Waste-Water Treatment
• Reduction in Nutrient Run-off through Constructed Wetlands (currently being finalised)

Find out more about the Grazing Land Management Method and consultation process here

Find out how to get involved in Reef Credits here

When considering a carbon project on your property, one of the most obvious questions is: does my land have carbon project potential?

There are many obvious things to be considered, such as property location and size, the nature of the current land use, existing vegetation and management plans. But the most critical elements to encourage progression are not what you might first think.

According to GreenCollar’s project development team, an inquiring mindset and a willingness to consider adapting land management practices are two of the most crucial elements to successfully get a project up and running.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a simple checklist for land managers to tell if their land is suitable. The reason for that lies in the complexity of the pathways that can be used to generate carbon credits.

Some properties and locations ultimately do not lend themselves to current eligible project activity, but a GreenCollar WA Business Development Manager says what constitutes a “good” property is different in every state and territory.

“If you look at what constitutes a good potential carbon project, I first look for a property with strong evidence of suppression. That is, a property where something has suppressed the native vegetation from growing or performing as it should – it could be feral animals, grazing cattle or sheep, or introduced weeds.”

 

Case-by-case basis

If the land manager is open to considering change, it comes down to having the ability to do things at scale, which can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

“From a land manager perspective, it comes back to the methodologies that can be applied to a property or location. Once you understand the potential approach, you need to assess whether you have enough scale to make it work.”

“In Western Australia, for example, you may be able to apply environmental planting or soil carbon in the southwest land division, while in the rest of the state, which is largely pastoral, you may be looking at human-induced regeneration. There is no simple, one size fits all solution or approach.”

The lack of an easy project template is a sentiment shared by others.

A GreenCollar’s Queensland Business Manager said there are a variety of pathways to generate credits, and each project requires a thorough assessment to determine the most appropriate way forward.

 

Eligible vegetation

Queensland is probably the most diverse state regarding various methods that could be followed.

“When considering a project, the stand-out feature is eligible vegetation, along with the size of the property and how particular country is classified.”

“The type of vegetation that qualifies is essentially that which allows you to undertake some adaptation to the current management approach of the land. For example, a property may have a history of being cleared by scrub pulling or chemical treatment and is due for treatment again. The land manager can consider the cost benefit of not clearing that land and gaining a carbon income stream under an avoided clearing project instead.”

An important aspect was recognising that the land could be managed differently and still be economically viable.

“Carbon farming is a chance for people to do things differently. For some land managers, this is about spelling country to build long-term sustainability and working to determine what exactly is eligible vegetation that can be used to claim carbon credits.”

“The things that stand out as having carbon project potential will vary across the state. For example, in southwestern Queensland, 100,000 hectares of eligible country would be exciting, while in central Queensland, in softwood scrub country, you may be able to go down to 180 hectares. What you need is eligible vegetation, suitable for that region, assessed against the opportunity for change under the Queensland Vegetation Management Act.”

Other elements, such as existing property management, the rainfall zone, and fire history, all factor into the ability of the landscape to undertake a successful project.

“I would say to land managers that, under the right circumstances, you could look at carbon projects through the lens of improving your dollar per hectare returns by being paid to look after your country and still produce healthy animals.”

 

What is suitable?

GreenCollar Queensland Business Manager warned, however, that not all country was suitable.

“The scale and type of country has to tick the boxes. If you have thousands of hectares of virgin scrub that has never been touched, or you have rainforest country that has been left alone for decades, that country will not work for a project. Which doesn’t mean you should go and clear it, then claim the regrowth as a project – there are protections against that!

“In some instances, you can have properties in the same region, where one is suitable for a project, and the other is not. It comes down to the type of land use, the land use history, the existing vegetation and the ability to make worthwhile changes in management of the land.

“Land managers must consider what areas can be managed differently, yet still fit in and complement their existing management systems. It is a case-by-case prospect.”

The assessment aspect is reinforced by GreenCollar Head of Monitoring, Reporting and Verification Louise Nott.

“For land managers, it is not as simple as having a certain mix of existing vegetation. One of the first things we need to understand to assess eligibility is how the land has been historically managed.”

“We need to understand the characteristics of the property in terms of land management. Is it used for grazing, cropping or forestry for example, and also, what the fire history has been. For vegetation projects, we typically look at whether there are existing stands of forests that are at risk of being cleared, or why areas of land may not currently have forest cover.”

She explained that the initial assessment focused on determining the level of suppression in that land area.

“For a regeneration-style project, suppression is one of the key eligibility requirements, so to establish a project we look at what can be done to remove some of that pressure on the vegetation. If the property has livestock, we can examine stock numbers and look at whether we need to reduce stock or introduce rotational grazing to run things more sustainably. We are not talking about a complete destock, it’s about understanding the levels of grazing pressure that are sustainable within a regenerating landscape.”

Ms Nott said one of the biggest things that people struggle to understand is additionality.

“When we are talking about creating a carbon credit unit that can be sold and used as an offset, additionality is essential. That means you have to take additional actions that would not have been done under usual business practices.”

“To get things started, we work with land managers to identify changes they could make which will result in additional carbon abatement. We make suggestions and recommendations, but ultimately the land managers decide which actions they want to undertake for their project.”

For vegetation-based projects, Ms Nott explained that another core component was the type of existing vegetation on the property.

“To consider a regeneration project, there needs to be an area with species that have the potential to grow into forest cover. Under the current methodology, the plants need to grow to two metres or more in height and provide 20% canopy cover of the land during the course of the project.”

“This means there might be areas on a property that are not eligible, or suitable under the current method, such as chenopod plains as the plants won’t grow tall enough to fit in existing methodologies.”

Ms Nott said another barrier could be the size of the property.

“Historically, the commercial viability of projects has tended to lend itself to larger properties. The project needs to produce enough credits to outweigh the of the costs of changing practices or installing infrastructure to implement the project.”

“However, environmental market projects on smaller properties are becoming increasingly more viable as a result of new carbon methodologies like method stacking, that will enable more carbon pools to be accounted for, as well as new markets that value other ecosystem services and are based on outcomes such as improved biodiversity.”

“Fundamentally, land managers need to consider not only the land and its environmental assets, but also whether changes can be made to the operation, and whether it is commercially viable to make those changes.”

For land managers, particularly those with little knowledge or experience of what a project may involve, it simply makes sense to ask questions and establish a workable partnership with a third party. A high level of experience and understanding of compliance and technical design is initially required to set the parameters for land management changes that can then be implemented using the land managers expertise.

Some tips from the experts

The next time someone asks what they should consider in establishing a carbon project, take some tips from the experts:

• In an environment where methodologies are changing and there is no simple “one size fits all” solution, communication and information are the keys.
• Talk to people in your production network or regional area and find what worked for them. Ask them for names of people to contact for further advice and engage with experts you trust to come and evaluate your property.
• Talk to your legal and financial advisers and carefully consider your reasons for getting involved, whether financial, environmental, or a combination of both.
• Above all, keep an open mind to the possibilities and examine the impact of changes on the overall operations of the enterprise.

Additionally, under the Australian Carbon Credit Scheme, land managers must choose a permanence period of either 25 or 100 years when registering the project. This decision cannot be changed. The permanence period is the amount of time the project must be maintained so that carbon is sequestered, or stored, in vegetation or the soil. On this basis, it makes sense to make the right decisions and understand how to take the next steps confidently.

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 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.”

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.

When people hear the term ‘carbon farming’, a variety of images tend to be conjured in their minds – many of which are extreme in their scale and methodologies: Large tracts of land replanted. Significant herd adjustments. Or land locked up and left to grow wild.

But the truth is, many eligible on-farm methodologies available for earning carbon credits are surprisingly simple and easy to achieve – and absolutely do not involve locking up the land.

With the right science and support, even simple changes can be revolutionary, and go a long way to improving on-farm production – better for the environment and your business. As such, entering the carbon market is getting easier and easier for land managers looking to unlock revenue, and – we’ll say it again – does not involve locking up the land.

After a thorough auditing process, a carbon partner – like GreenCollar – might introduce you to some of the subtle ways you can help store carbon and improve environmental outcomes, while maintaining optimum agribusiness operations. Projects will be co-designed based on the existing methodologies available and the unique usage, history and needs of your land, and you’ll be able to reduce emissions while earning valuable carbon credits in the process.

 Reducing Deforestation  

As many sectors of Australian agriculture benefit from La Niña’s increased rainfall, farmers, graziers and other land managers may be planning to clear more land for a high-yield season. But this planned clearing and deforestation is at odds with what the climate and often the land needs: more native vegetation protected in more places to increase shade, store carbon and support biodiversity. Land managers who have previously applied for clearing permits in NSW or that can demonstrate an historic pattern of clearing in QLD, can earn carbon credits by ‘avoiding’ this practice and instead protect those forests for up to 100 years, helping to decrease atmospheric CO2 and ensure the longevity of affected landscapes.

‘No-till’ methodologies

In the process of tilling soil to get ready for planting, the practice of ploughing or breaking up ground can expose carbon stored in that soil to air, which microbes then convert into C02. While exposing lower levels of soil is essential for sowing seeds, your carbon project developer might suggest earning credits by implementing ‘no-till’ or low-disruption methods – for example, placing seeds directly into holes drilled into the earth. According to recent studies, this practice may lower emissions from crop production by nearly a third, and can unlock significant carbon revenue for your farm.

 Rotational grazing   

Soil protection isn’t just for crop farmers. Livestock managers looking to protect their soil from hoof disturbance or exposure through overgrazing, might consider a variety of herd movement practices that put less pressure on the earth. Implementing a rotational grazing practice is a popular methodology available to many farmers to ease the chances of overgrazing or vegetation suppression, and can earn carbon revenue that can then be reinvested into the business in terms of new infrastructure or other sustainable changes.

 A win-win  

Here at GreenCollar, we believe that farmers, graziers and other land managers should be supported in achieving their potential to truly impact the climate situation. So whatever carbon farming methods your project developer deems most suitable for your land, you can rest easy knowing they’re only going to augment your traditional agriculture goals rather than drastically alter them. And because carbon farming practices are more sustainable, they have the added benefit of enhancing the long-term productivity of your land for the next generation as well.

We once looked at trees and saw only timber. Nowadays we see biodiversity and habitat too. But increasingly, environmentalists, businesses, and land managers alike are looking at trees and seeing a carbon sink —a means of absorbing CO2, the most abundant greenhouse gas, through a process called carbon sequestration. 

Carbon sequestration is the long-term capture and storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a process that happens naturally, but is increasingly encouraged and facilitated to mitigate the effects of climate change. 

Carbon is sequestered naturally via many different systems. It is absorbed by: 

• The biosphere: carbon dioxide absorbed by vegetation via photosynthesis. 
• The pedosphere: carbon dioxide absorbed and stored in soil. 
• The hydrosphere: absorption by the ocean, including marine vegetation and phytoplankton. 
• The lithosphere: assimilation and storage of CO2 into the earth’s minerals (rocks). 

As one of the most significant greenhouse gases because of its abundance and rapid growth in the atmosphere, the abatement and storage of carbon dioxide is of key importance in slowing down the effects of climate change.   

Most would be aware of Australia’s highly political carbon crediting and tax schemes over the last decade, which were designed to slow down and create consequence for large carbon emitters. 

Australia’s national carbon crediting model is administered by the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) and involves the exchange of Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) for the outcomes of verified carbon abatement projects. ACCUs are funded under the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) and sold from ACCU-generating projects to business wanting to offset their emissions. The market is largely voluntary, with businesses making commitments based on ESG and ‘net zero’ targets that deliver benefits to the planet and their brand. Though some of Australia’s larger emitters are required to offset emissions through the scheme’s Safeguard Mechanism. 

For land managers, carbon sequestration projects can deliver many benefits — not just in the form of ACCUs, but also on-farm and on-Country benefits that lead directly to a boost in productivity. These include:  

• Avoided Deforestation: Prevents the release of carbon dioxide by preserving forested areas earmarked for clearing andprotecting them for up to 100 years 
• Avoided Clearing: A method that sequesters carbon dioxide by breaking with a property’s current or historic clearing regime and providing increased capacity for vegetative carbon absorption.  
• Human Induced Regeneration: A carbon sequestration method that absorbs and stores carbon dioxide by changing land management practices and allowing native vegetation to regrow. 
• Soil Carbon Projects: Use sustainable and regenerative agriculture methods to help remediate soil health and build soil carbon. 
• Savanna Burning Projects: A method that limits carbon dioxide released by unmanaged wildfire through controlled and cooler burns as well as wildfire containment.  
• Beef Herd Management: A way to sequester carbon dioxide through livestock management and changing animal traffic to minimise soil disturbance.  

These methods, as well as the significant carbon abatement benefits and financial benefits to land managers, also are methods that lead to soil improvement, biodiversity enhancement, increased water health, and lead to improvements in productivity, tilling, and irrigation systems.   

GreenCollar’s project management focusses on this stacking of values, and works with the land manager to maximise both the environmental and business benefits that accrue as a result of carbon farming projects. Coupling specialist data monitoring and reporting with site visits, GreenCollar can assist land managers in unlocking the full potential  their land has to offer. 

 

Money Trees: Earning credits while providing environmental solutions

20 years ago, if you told farmers that they’d be farming carbon alongside their crops and cattle, they’d have thought you were joking. But today, the carbon market’s growing influence worldwide has seen prices of carbon credits soar in 2021, both nationally and overseas. Carbon farming is a way for land managers to participate and profit, while simultaneously continuing to farm, reaping the rewards of carbon credit generation and enhancing landscape biodiversity.

A popular way among land managers to become involved in carbon farming is through vegetation projects, which aid in carbon abatement by storing carbon in growing vegetation, or by preventing the further release of emissions from a reduction in land clearing.

Human-Induced Regeneration

Many landholders would be familiar with this method—which is the regeneration of native trees and vegetation with the aim of regenerating native shrubland and forest on areas of a property where vegetation may have historically been suppressed or removed. Eligibility for this kind of regeneration project must be among the following treatment methods:

• Management of the timing and extent of grazing, which focuses on changing patterns of land use to allow the regrowth of vegetation in suppressed areas.
• Management of feral animals to minimise browsing of saplings and juvenile vegetation.
• Cessation of mechanical or chemical destruction of regrowth, which aims to promote the recruitment of native vegetation in previous areas of suppression.
• Exclusion of livestock, to avoid the further suppression of native vegetation from trampling, browsing and soil compression.

Avoided Deforestation

Avoided deforestation projects are a straightforward commitment by land managers to protect or preserve native forest on a property that has previously received government consent to be cleared and converted to cropland or pasture. Following a detailed assessment process to identify areas under the clearing permit that qualify under the avoided deforestation method, credits are accrued by not clearing the land and agreeing to maintain it for up to 100 years, which aids carbon abatement by avoiding further release of emissions and preserving the forest as a ‘carbon sink’. One such project is the Osterley Downs Native Forest Protection project. Located near Cobar, NSW, Osterley Downs is a commercially successful cattle grazing operation, and the first ever CFI native forest projection project on leasehold land in Australia.

Avoided Clearing

Avoided clearing aims to protect growing forest from future scheduled clearing, breaking with the property’s historical clearing regime. For eligibility, avoided clearing projects must provide evidence of at least two historical clearing events where unrestricted clearing is permitted, and cropping or grazing has been undertaken between the clearing events.

Getting Started

In partnering with land managers, GreenCollar adopts a revenue sharing model, wherein we take a 30% revenue share of the project—incentivising best market price and credit production as well as eliminating any fees for project setup and facilitation. We take on the delivery risk under the Carbon Abatement Contract and are responsible for meeting delivery and compliance obligations, allowing land managers to focus on implementation. We also take on the administrative burden, technical data collection and ongoing monitoring of the project. Find out more about project development here.

Partnering with GreenCollar on vegetation projects is more than just a pathway to landscape rehabilitation. It’s a way for land managers to earn additional, diversified income, without the risk of going it alone.

 

 

 

You’re great at raising livestock or growing crops, but have you ever thought of farming carbon? While it may not the first thing you think of cultivating, carbon is increasingly profitable, works alongside your current farming operation, and can even increase productivity.

What is Carbon Farming?

Key to the success of carbon farming is carbon sequestration. Sequestration is a naturally-occurring process where carbon is absorbed by the landscape and becomes stored in soil or converted to new growth by vegetation. The emission of CO₂ into the atmosphere is the leading cause of climate change, and reducing carbon release remains the core aim of carbon farming projects.

Carbon projects avoid carbon emissions and increase carbon sequestration through changes in land management practices, but that doesn’t mean you have to lock up your land or de-stock. If done well, carbon projects complement existing operations to deliver benefits for business as well as the environment.

Carbon Farming in Australia

In Australia, land managers have participated in carbon farming initiatives since 2011, when the first scheme was introduced through the Emissions Reduction Fund.

Today, carbon farming has evolved in size and scope, with around 100 million carbon credits awarded to successful projects under the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) to date. Each project uses an approved methodology that suits its location, farming practice, land availability and land-use history. There are approximately 1,000 projects currently registered across all States and Territories in Australia and demand for high quality, high integrity carbon credits in the voluntary sector is increasing. McKinsey estimates that globally 95 million carbon credits were retired by voluntary buyers in 2020 alone, and expects demand to be 15 times higher by 2030.

Funding For Carbon Farming

The ERF is a government-run offsets program which allows land managers to implement carbon storage or emissions reduction (commonly known as abatement) activities to generate and sell carbon credits. These activities can include changes to vegetation clearing regimes, revegetation and pest control management strategies, changes to tilling, chemical and land use systems, and altered fire management practices. These methodologies (outlined below) reduce vegetation suppression and soil degradation, in turn increasing the carbon sequestration potential of the land.

The carbon credits land managers are awarded for successful projects are called Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) and represent one tonne of stored or avoided carbon dioxide (or non-carbon greenhouse gas equivalent) (tCO2-e). All ACCUs are awarded through approved management activities and methodologies.

Carbon credits (ACCUs) are purchased by the government, through the Emissions Reduction Fund, or by individuals and companies wishing to voluntarily offset their emissions – a trend that is growing exponentially.

At the highest end, the global voluntary carbon market is predicted to be valued at more than $50 billion by 2030. The ACCU spot price reached $22 at the end of July 2021 and some commentators predict that it will double by 2030.

Eligible Carbon Farming Methods

Carbon farming methodologies available through the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) range from savanna burning projects and vegetation management projects to changes in on-farm agricultural systems. There are a variety of ways to participate and profit.

Vegetation projects achieve net carbon reductions by maximising the amount of on-farm vegetation available to store carbon. There are a number of eligible activities that may be implemented for vegetation management:

• Human-Induced Regeneration projects aim to regenerate parts of a property where vegetation has previously been or is currently being suppressed – usually by mechanical or chemical destruction, or overgrazing by livestock and feral animals. Management practice changes such as the installation of infrastructure to enable rotational grazing, and effective management of feral animals allows natural regrowth of native vegetation.  Regenerated bushland and forests decelerate greenhouse gas release and store carbon, while improving soil health, water retention and biodiversity.
• Avoided Deforestation projects preserve areas of native forest which have previously received government consent to be cleared and converted to cropland or grassland. Projects generate carbon credits for landholders who maintain the forest and do not clear the land. Carbon abatement is achieved by not clearing native vegetation and avoiding the release of emissions.
• Avoided Clearing projects protect growing forest from future scheduled clearing. Carbon is stored in native regrowth that is scheduled to be cleared under a property’s historical clearing regime. To be eligible there must be evidence of two historical clearing events that have occurred where unrestricted clearing was permitted and cropping or grazing has been undertaken.

There are also other valuable methods and carbon abatement strategies that place more emphasis on altering existing farm systems.

• Soil Carbon projects earn carbon credits by storing carbon in soil, a process stacked with ecological benefits proven to boost soil quality and therefore, cattle and crop yield. Soil carbon sequestration and regenerative agriculture is seen as the most important and cost-effective system for storing and abating global CO₂ levels. Environmental consultant Energetics suggest that improved farming and land management as well as low carbon transport could contribute to most of Australia’s abatement targets by 2030.  Many techniques can be used to build soil carbon, and can include:

• • Increasing the input rate of carbon, through the planting of vegetation or input of compost or mulch
  • Changing fertiliser application and timing
  • Altering irrigation methods
  • Decreasing activities that cause carbon loss, such as stubble burning or vegetation clearing
  • Changing grazing and tilling practices to reduce soil impact and disturbance
  • Altering the soil profile to a composition that increases residence time of carbon in the soil, such as adding clay to sandy soils

Beef Herd Projects involve cattle and dairy farmers across livestock, grazing, and broadacre farming. These methods provide carbon abatement and productivity benefits by improving the overall health, nutrition, age structure and productive efficiency of cattle to reduce emissions and generate carbon credits. Projects have to be undertaken on a sufficiently large herd of 10,000 head or greater, and may include dietary adjustments, reducing the average age of the herd, reducing the proportion of unproductive cattle or changing the number of cattle within each livestock class within the herd.

• Animal Effluent Management Methods are for farmers with piggeries or dairies and reduce emissions by introducing new ways to treat waste by destructing methane.