Download carbon plantations kit - Private Forests Tasmania

CARBON PLANTATIONS KIT
THIS PROJECT IS SUPPORTED BY FUNDING FROM THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY UNDER ITS FOREST INDUSTRIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH FUND PROGRAM.
CARBON PLANTATIONS KIT
Acknowledgements
The Carbon Plantations - extending research and development to best management practices for carbon sequestration, wood
production and new investment opportunities on private land in Tasmania project is supported by funding from the Australian
Government’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry under its Forest Industries Climate Change Research Fund Program.
Project partners include:
AK Consulting
Livingston Natural Resource Services
CSIRO Sustainable Agriculture Flagship
Landholders who have
generously volunteered
their time, expertise and
knowledge:
Private Forests Tasmania
Alan and Rosie Davenport
Rural Development Services
Lawrence Archer
Rob and Kathy Henry
Richard Johnston
Disclaimer
Carbon Plantations
Kit developers:
Janice Miller
Email: [email protected]
Photography: Michael Castley
Private Forests Tasmania
Project Co-ordinator: Arthur Lyons
Private Forests Tasmania
8318
Design and Print: Walker Designs
Email: [email protected]
The information in this manual has been prepared by Private Forests
Tasmania and the project partners. Every reasonable endeavour has been
made to ensure that the material was accurate at the time of publication.
No legal responsibility can or will be accepted by Private Forests Tasmania
for the accuracy, completeness, or relevance of such information to the user’s
purpose. Before undertaking any significant forestry project, it is recommended
that professional advice is sought from Private Forests Tasmania.
For further information
please contact:
Private Forests Tasmania
Telephone: (03) 6336 5300
Email: [email protected]
CONTENTS
Carbon Plantations Project
Climate Change ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Australian Climate Change And Variability ........................................................................................... 4
The Carbon Cycle ................................................................................................................................................ 5
The Greenhouse Effect .................................................................................................................................... 7
The Role of Trees in The Carbon Cycle .................................................................................................. 9
Life Cycle of Carbon in Forests and Wood Products ..................................................................... 10
Case Studies
Cressy (Rob & Kathy Henry) ........................................................................................................................
Rosedale (Richard Johnston) ......................................................................................................................
Beechford (Lawrence Archer) ......................................................................................................................
Telita (Alan & Rosie Davenport) ..................................................................................................................
11
15
19
23
The Study - Methods and Results
Carbon Storage and Trading .........................................................................................................................
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Audit .............................................................................................................
Wood Production Options ...............................................................................................................................
Carbon and Wood Production Scenarios ..............................................................................................
Land Suitability .......................................................................................................................................................
28
35
37
40
44
Tools
Glossary ......................................................................................................................................................................
Helpful Links ..........................................................................................................................................................
Farm Forestry Toolbox .......................................................................................................................................
Considerations for Tree Growers Before Selling Their Carbon ...............................................
Frequently Asked Questions About Plantations & Greenhouse .............................................
Growing Plantations ...........................................................................................................................................
Do I Need A Forest Practices Plan? .........................................................................................................
What is a Forest Practices Plan? .................................................................................................................
Farm Forestry Getting it Right .......................................................................................................................
Tree Measurement Guide ................................................................................................................................
Seed Pack .................................................................................................................................................................
Carbon Plantations Kit Evaluation Questions For Landowners ...............................................
1
46
48
52
54
56
58
59
60
61
62
63
65
CARBON
PLANTATIONS
PROJECT
Private Forests Tasmania has, under
the Australian Government’s Forest
Industries Climate Change Research
Fund, received a grant of over
$255,000 to undertake a new project:
Carbon Plantations - extending
research and development to best
management practices for carbon
sequestration, wood production and
new investment opportunities on
private land in Tasmania.
This project assists landholders to
understand climate change impacts,
emissions trading and how to invest in,
grow and manage plantations as part of
their climate change management practices.
The project partners include Private Forests
Tasmania, CSIRO Sustainable Agriculture
Flagship, Rural Development Services,
AK Consultants, Livingston Natural Resource
Services and AFG-TreeSmart.
Key outcomes include:
A survey of landholders to find out what
they understand about the ‘carbon economy’
and the extent to which they will participate
in carbon offset projects or trading schemes.
Four on-farm demonstration sites
established.
A Carbon Plantations Kit including:
s demonstration plantation case studies balancing emissions and offsets;
s plantation management models and
options for carbon and/or wood
production;
s opportunities for plantation development,
offsets, carbon credits and trading;
s carbon calculators and tools.
s information on The Carbon Farming
Initiative and carbon pricing.
s a report on the plantation potential of
cleared land in Tasmania.
Field days in April 2011 and release of the
Carbon Plantations Kit.
The executive summaries and final reports
of key projects are available from:
www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/
projects/current projects
2
CLIMATE CHANGE
Human activities are adding huge amounts of greenhouse gas,
largely carbon dioxide, to the atmosphere. The biggest source
of greenhouse gas pollution is burning fossil fuels (like coal
and oil) for energy. Other causes are agricultural activities and
the clearing of forests, heathlands and grasslands.
The changing climate is expected to impact on agriculture in
many ways, with warmer temperatures and changing rainfall
patterns impacting on water availability. Tasmania is likely to
experience moderate rises in temperatures with evaporation
predicted to increase in all areas except the west coast and
associated highlands, where small decreases are predicted.
Rainfall is likely to increase by seven to 11 percent in the west
and central areas and decrease by around eight percent in
north eastern Tasmania by 2040. Sea level rises and frequent
and severe storm surges are likely to result in inundation and
erosion of Tasmania’s coast.
This pollution stays in the atmosphere for many years and
thickens the Earth’s ‘blanket’ thus heating the planet. This
is called global warming. As the planet warms, climate and
extreme weather events like heatwaves, floods, storms and
droughts are more intense, more frequent and happen in
more places.
Many of Tasmania’s primary industries are under threat from
climate change; however some industries, such as wine
growing, could benefit from the projected changes in climate,
due to the increase in temperature. For example by 2030
the annual average number of cold days below 0°C is likely to
decrease from 35 to 16-30 days in the Launceston region.
Australia is particularly vulnerable to climate change –
environmentally and economically. It is the driest inhabited
continent on earth and climate change is making many
regions of Australia drier. Natural habitats, especially alpine
environments and coastal systems, are expected to be
particularly affected by climate change. In Tasmania, for
example, increased temperatures will diminish the extent of
alpine areas and reduce habitats available for native species.
Across Australia in recent years more severe droughts, floods,
fires and cyclones have been experienced.
In 2006-07 the estimated gross value of agricultural
commodities in Tasmania was $942.4 million. The largest
contributors were: whole milk ($234.3 million); beef production
($236.2 million); and vegetables ($182.4 million). The impacts
of climate change may lead to a decline in Tasmanian farm
output, for example dairy production is projected to decrease by
around eight percent by 2030 and by 12.5 percent by 2050.
The Earth is wrapped in a natural ‘blanket’ of gases.
Like a greenhouse, this insulating layer traps heat from
the sun and sustains life. The chemical properties of
greenhouse gases mean that they strongly absorb and
re-radiate the sun’s warmth in the atmosphere.
SOURCES:
The Australian Government’s Department of Climate Change www.climatechange.gov.au
The CSIRO’s Climate Change in Australia website http://climatechangeinaustralia.com.au
3
AUSTRALIAN
CLIMATE
CHANGE
AND
VARIABILITY
The Bureau of Meteorology’s web site
provides information across Australia at
regional levels about changes in mean
climate and changes in climate extremes.
This includes:
Trend Maps
which show the value of the linear trend of
seasonal and annual mean rainfall, temperature,
pan evaporation and sea surface temperature for
selected regions and time periods.
Time Series Graphs
show historical values of rainfall, temperature, pan
evaporation and sea surface temperature averaged
over selected regions and seasons.
Average Maps
show the long-term average value of rainfall,
temperature, pan evaporation and sea surface
temperature for selected seasons.
Data Portal Maps
are interactive and allow users to download historical
monthly Australian rainfall and temperature records
for user-defined areas.
For further information go to:
www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/aus_cvac.shtml
4
THE CARBON CYCLE
SUNLIGHT
C02 CYCLE
AUTO & FACTORY
EMISSIONS
PLANT
RESPIRATION
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
ANIMAL
RESPIRATION
ORGANIC
CARBON
DEAD ORGANISMS
& WASTE PRODUCTS
ROOT
RESPIRATION
DECAY
ORGANISMS
FOSSILS &
FOSSIL FUELS
OCEAN
UPTAKE
Source: http://eo.ucar.edu/kids/green/cycles6.htm
5
Carbon is found in the oceans, air,
soil, certain rocks, plants and animals.
The carbon cycle is the natural
circulation of carbon through these
different elements and because
natural systems are dynamic, carbon
is continually moving from one form
to another. For example, in the
atmosphere, carbon ions attach
to oxygen ions to form carbon
dioxide molecules.
C
+ O2
=
CO2
The carbon cycle starts with plants
and certain microorganisms ‘fixing’
atmospheric carbon dioxide through
the process of photosynthesis.
Actively growing plants, algae and
some bacteria, remove CO2 from the
atmosphere through photosynthesis,
during which carbon dioxide and water
are chemically converted into sugars
such as glucose with the help of energy
from sunlight.
6
Oxygen is a by-product of
photosynthesis and is essential for
respiration in plants and animals.
The photosynthetic pathway can be
illustrated simply as:
6CO2 CARBON DIOXIDE
+ 6H2O WATER VAPOUR
+ SOLAR ENERGY
C6H12O6 SUGAR (GLUCOSE)
+ 6O2 OXYGEN
Through photosynthesis, carbon
becomes part of the plant, or
microorganism. Carbon is then passed
to humans and animals when the plants
are eaten. Photosynthetic organisms
which die and become buried may, over
millions of years, turn into fossil fuels
such as coal or oil. When these fossil
fuels are burnt, most of the stored
carbon quickly enters the atmosphere
as carbon dioxide. Similarly, when trees
and other plants are destroyed by fire,
carbon dioxide and other gases are
released. About 25 percent of human
produced CO2 is absorbed by oceans
making them more acidic, with some
marine life already affected.
Photosynthetic plants, algae
and bacteria also respire.
In this process oxygen is
combined with sugars to
chemically release energy,
water and carbon dioxide:
C6H12O6
+ 6O2
6CO2
+ 6H2O
+ ENERGY
Until the Industrial Revolution in the
nineteenth century, the amount of
carbon being absorbed and released
through photosynthesis and respiration
was relatively stable. The significant
increase in burning fossil fuels and
other human activities has increased
the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. Over the last 800,000
years, CO2 in the atmosphere has varied
between about 172 and 300 parts per
million. Since industrialisation, CO2 has
risen sharply to about 386 ppm.
Gases in the Atmosphere
NITROGEN (N2)
78%
OXYGEN (O2)
21%
ATMOSPHERE
WATER
VAPOUR (H2O)
0-4%
ARGON (AR)
0.93%
OZONE (O3)
0.01%
CARBON
DIOXIDE (CO2)
0.0386%
METHANE (CH4)
0.00017%
NITROUS
OXIDE (N2O)
0.00003%
TRACE GASES
0.0024%
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
Gases found in the Earth’s lower atmosphere are important in
absorbing the high-energy solar rays while letting in the light
and preventing the loss of heat. They play an important role
in maintaining life on earth. The atmospheric gases nitrogen,
oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide
and ozone are extremely important to the health of the planet.
The level and ratios of these gases is constantly changing
as, like all natural systems, the atmosphere is dynamic and
constantly adjusting. The diagram above gives an indication of
the percent volume for each gas listed, but these should not
be interpreted as absolute figures.
Human produced greenhouse gases are additional to
the natural production, capture, storage and release of
atmospheric gases by plants, animals and oceans.
Activities such as soil cultivation, fertiliser use, harvesting
and burning plant-based materials, all produce greenhouse
gases. Much of Australia’s land-based greenhouse
emissions occur as methane from livestock production
and nitrous oxide from fertiliser application.
FACT BOX 1
Methane myth gives cattle a bum steer!
Large animals, such as cattle, emit around 280 litres of methane per day,
while sheep produce about 25 litres.
Different countries have different levels of livestock agriculture, for example:
1
Australia’s livestock
production contributes
about 14 percent of the
country’s greenhouse gas
emissions and the most
significant gas produced is
methane. Tens of millions
of cattle and sheep
produce about three
million tonnes of methane
per year, equating to 90
percent of all methane
produced by Australia.
2
In New Zealand it is
estimated that there are
45 million sheep, 10
million cattle, one million
farmed deer, but only four
million people!
This makes methane
the most prolific (50%)
greenhouse gas produced
by New Zealand.
Methane production from livestock is a significant concern and for years it was
believed that flatulence produced the majority of this greenhouse gas. Not so!
Around 95 percent of methane produced by cattle comes from burping – during
‘chewing the cud’!
Source: ABC’s Dr Karls’ Great Moments in Science.
7
How is carbon measured?
In order to compare how each greenhouse
gas affects the Earth’s climate, they are
converted to a universal standard known
as ‘carbon dioxide equivalents’ (CO2-e).
Similarly, every greenhouse gas has
a ‘Global Warming Potential’ (GWP).
GWP is a measure of the additional heat/
energy retained in the Earth’s atmosphere
through increased levels of a particular
atmospheric gas.
Greenhouse gases are produced by
human activities, including:
s Burning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil or gas.
s Some aspects of farming, such as raising
cattle and sheep, using fertilisers and
growing some crops.
s Clearing land, including logging.
s Many industrial processes, such as
manufacturing cement and aluminium.
Around 24 percent of Australia’s greenhouse gas
emissions from human activities are produced by
livestock, crop production, land clearing and forestry.
Nationally, agriculture is the dominant source of both
methane (59%) and nitrous oxide (84%) emissions
into the atmosphere.
The increase in amounts and ratios of certain
atmospheric gases, especially carbon dioxide,
methane and nitrous oxide, over the last two hundred
years, has caused a gradual global temperature
increase of about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the lower
atmosphere. Atmospheric air and ocean circulation
has been affected causing rainfall and wind patterns
to alter. The change in global air and sea patterns
has resulted in widespread melting of ice caps and
glaciers resulting in a rise in sea levels.
Some gases are many times more potent that CO2.
Methane is 21 times more potent than CO2 and
nitrous oxide is 310 times more potent. In other
words, one tonne of methane is equivalent to 21
tonnes of CO2.
FACT BOX 2
s The breakdown of food and plant wastes
and sewerage.
The GWP of a given gas describes its
effect on climate change relative to a
similar amount of carbon dioxide. As the
base unit, carbon dioxide is 1.0. This
allows greenhouse gases regulated under
the Kyoto Protocol to be converted to the
common unit of CO2-e.
The two main greenhouse gases emitted
from agricultural activities are methane
and nitrous oxide and emissions are
measured in carbon dioxide equivalents.
METHANE (CH4)
1 tonne
NITROUS OXIDE (NO2)
1 tonne
=
=
CO2-e
21 tonnes
CO2-e
310 tonnes
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (N20)
is one of the most common gases on Earth and is used for
energy production. Since 1750, methane concentrations in the
atmosphere have increased by more than 150 percent. About
40 percent of the world’s methane is produced naturally from
wetlands and oceans but over 50 percent is from burning fuel
and raising livestock. Methane is a major by-product of the
digestive process in plant-eating animals. The bacteria in their
gut breaks down plant material under anaerobic (no oxygen)
conditions and releases methane. The less digestible the plant
material, the more methane produced.
is produced by biological activity in soil and water, particularly
by microbes in wet tropical forests. In Australia, between 1990
and 2006, agricultural nitrous oxide emissions increased by
over 19 percent (National Greenhouse Gas Inventory). Over
25 percent of the nitrous oxide emitted is from nitrogen-based
fertiliser application in cropping and pasture activities; with over
50 percent derived from nitrogen deposition in animal excreta.
(Revised calculations from: Australian Methodology for the
Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 2006).
8
THE ROLE OF TREES
IN THE CARBON CYCLE
Turning carbon dioxide into wood
Trees convert carbon dioxide into sugars through
photosynthesis, these sugars are then synthesised into cellulose,
abundant throughout the plant kingdom. Cellulose is the building
block for plant material, it forms every part of a plant and in
trees produces the leaves, bark, branches, trunk and roots. The
production and storage of cellulose produces wood.
The faster trees grow the more carbon dioxide they use
because they are actively photosynthesising. Planting trees
remains one of the cheapest and most effective means of
removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Although older trees
may not be actively capturing and storing new carbon, they
contribute to overall carbon storage.
Tree growth depends on species, local climate, soil factors
and management. Optimum growth is on productive sites
(good soils and rainfall). Some tree species grow faster than
others; some are relatively short-lived whilst others may live for
over 100 years. However, most trees grow more vigorously
when they are between 10-30 years old, with carbon capture
increasing until the tree has reached its peak growth rate. In
well-stocked forests, this period is when carbon dioxide is
sequestered and stored most effectively, sequestration then
declines as the trees age.
After trees are harvested and converted into solid wood
products, a large percentage of the carbon continues to be
stored, until the wood-based products decay or are burnt
(Forest and Wood Products Research and Development
Corporation). At the end of their life most wood products are
either recycled (over 50% of paper is recycled) or dumped in
landfill. Wood products in landfill are an important long-term
carbon store. However carbon stored in wood products is not
currently recognised in carbon emission schemes.
CARBON
Cumulative Carbon Stored Over Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
YEARS
CARBON STORAGE
Annual Carbon Capture
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
YEARS
9
Source: Private Forests Tasmania
LIFE CYCLE OF CARBON IN
FORESTS AND WOOD PRODUCTS
02
C02
CH4
C02
SAWMILL
SAWLOGS
OTHER
COMMERCIAL
LOGS
FOREST
RESIDUE
BURNT
WASTE
BIOENERGY
PAPER/
MULCH
C02
C02
C02
C02
CH4
MULCH - 100%
PAPER 10%
OTHER
COMMERCIAL
LOGS
SAWLOGS
SINK-FOSSIL
FUEL
DISPLACED
Source: Forests, Wood and Australia’s Carbon Balance, Australian
Government’s Research and Development Corporation and the
Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Accounting.
WASTE
BUILDING
Landfill
How much CO2 is captured in wood?
s$EPENDINGONTHESPECIESCARBONIN
tree roots may remain intact for up to 25
years after harvest, with 50 percent of
roots present after 85 years.
s4HEREFOREONETONNEOFDRYWOOD
equates to about one tonne of carbon.
s)FTHEPLANTATIONISHARVESTEDAND
replanted a new cycle starts as the
young trees grow.
s)N!USTRALIAFORESTSEXCLUDINGSOILSTORE
approximately 10.5 billion tonnes of
carbon representing a sequestering of
around 38.5 billion tonnes of carbon
dioxide.
After 100 years in a forest harvesting
rotation regime of 35 years, the carbon
stored in the trees and wood products
will total over 300 tonnes of carbon per
hectare. In the same regime but without
including any wood products produced,
the harvested forest will store around 100
tonnes of carbon per hectare. A forest that
is not harvested, stores around 200 tonnes
of carbon per hectare after 100 years.
s#ARBONISDISTRIBUTEDINDIFFERENTPARTSOF
a tree.
Carbon storage in harvested
and unharvested forests
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
YEARS
Unharvested forest
10
s7HENTREESDECAYORAREBURNTTHE
stored carbon is released.
s)THASBEENCALCULATEDTHATONETONNEOF
carbon represents about 3.67 tonnes of
carbon dioxide.
TONNES C/Ha
FACT BOX 3
s/NETONNEOFGREENWOODISABOUT
percent water and 50 percent organic
matter, primarily carbon.
Harvested forest - no
storage in wood products
Wood products included
Source: Forests, Wood and Australia’s Carbon Balance, Australian Government’s Research and
Development Corporation and the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Accounting.
200
CASE STUDY
OWNER
Rob & Kathy Henry
LOCATION
‘Woodrising’, Cressy
PROPERTY SIZE
430 hectares
MEAN ANNUAL RAINFALL
500–550mm
5
ENTERPRISES
Cropping, sheep breeding,
cattle and plantations
1
8
9
8
Pine Plantation
Planted 1998
9
8
Eucalypt Plantation
Planted 2000
9
Pine Plantation
Planted 1999
7
Pine Plantation
Planted 2001
Eucalypt Plantation
Planted 2000
2
6
WOODRISING
TOTAL AREA
Native Forest
Eucalypt Plantation
Pine Plantation
Biodiversity
Water Storage
Pasture (approx.)
3
11
430 Ha
10
51 Ha
2 Ha
15 Ha
5 Ha
9 Ha
348 Ha
11
N
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The amount of greenhouse gas emitted by a farm enterprise
depends on the nature, extent and management of the business.
This property is run as an intensive mixed enterprise business consisting
of cropping, sheep breeding (primarily for fat lambs) and some trade cattle.
Livestock stocking is about 1,900 head. All crops are irrigated and in 20092010 cropping included over 150 hectares of seed cabbages, poppies, clover
seed, pyrethrum, peas, grass seed, peppermint, fennel and lucerne.
Plantations include; five hectares mixed natives; 15 hectares Pinus radiata;
and two hectares Eucalyptus nitens.
About 51,840 kg of nitrogen fertiliser is applied, largely as poppy meal. Total
diesel usage is over 24,000 litres.
PROPERTY AREA 430HA
PASTURE
121HA
NITROGEN (N) FERTILISER USE
CROPPED
153HA
DIESEL USAGE
ELECTRICITY
USAGE
(applied as 800t
of poppy meal
at 5.6%N)
VEGETATION (PLANTED POST 1990)
EUCALYPTUS NITENS
2HA
PINUS RADIATA
15HA
MIXED NATIVE
5HA
ON CROPS
ON PASTURE
LANDHOLDER
THIRD PARTIES
LANDHOLDER
7,043KG
44,800KG
16,475L
8,238L
125,958KWH
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Capture 2009/10
TOTAL GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS
1,119
Tonnes CO2e
About 1,200 tonnes of CO2e is produced each
year from the farm. The farm’s trees capture
and store 43.9% of these emissions.
44%
NET FARM
GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS
CARBON CAPTURE &
STORAGE BY TREES
PLANTED POST 1990
628
Tonnes CO2e
491
Tonnes CO2e
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Over 73% of greenhouse gas emissions are
from livestock, 17% from crops and fertiliser
and 10% from ‘energy sector’ sources.
As at March 2011, the Australian Government’s
emissions policy excludes all emissions from
the agricultural sector, however emissions from
the ‘Energy Sector’ such as electricity and
vehicle fuel consumption are included. This
property’s eligible tree plantings are more than
offsetting its ‘energy sector’ emissions.
NITROUS OXIDE (N2O)
FERTILISER
NITROUS
OXIDE (N2O)
CROPS
8%
NITROUS OXIDE (N2O)
LIVESTOCK
CARBON
DIOXIDE (CO2)
FUEL & POWER
9%
CROPS & FERTILISER
10%
LIVESTOCK
17% 73%
12
METHANE (CH4)
LIVESTOCK
19%
54%
WOOD PRODUCTION
A farm’s proximity to markets, increases
the potential for a commercial thinning.
However even without thinning the
plantation will still bring a financial return.
In 1999, a 10-hectare radiata pine
plantation was established around the
edge of a pivot irrigator circle.
The plantation is managed to produce
clearwood by: pruning 350 trees/
ha to 6.5 metres high; harvesting the
unpruned trees in 2010/11; cutting
a final harvest of clearwood logs at
40 years.
The example shows that growing knotty
sawlogs has the highest rate of return,
lowest growing costs and lowest risk.
Growing clearwood is an option if
management operations occur on time.
However, this option incurs thinning
and pruning costs (totalling $1,200/ha)
which have to be carried for around
35 years. Lower wood quality may result
if the trees are harvested as late as
40 years old.
Wood production models (see below
example) show that there are a number
of options available when managing
plantations and these can change
over time.
Estimated Returns for Wood Management Options
MANAGEMENT OPTION
THINNING
AGE
(YEARS)
THINNING
INCOME
($/HA)
CLEARFALL
AGE
YEARS)
CLEARFALL
NET INCOME
($/HA)
NPV
($/HA)
IRR
(%)
AEV
($/HA)
-
-
39
32,794
2,249
6.9
132
Clearwood Commercial
Thinning
16
1,628
40
23,842
1,840
7.1
107
Knotty Sawlogs
12
1,648
34
13,594
2,043
8.8
126
Unthinned
-
-
40
22,526
1,752
7.3
102
MaxWood
-
-
38
19,408
1,599
7.2
95
Pulpwood
-
-
14
1,081
-775
-1.6
-78
Clearwood
The report, Wood Production Options, Livingston Natural Resource Services, December 2010, contains full details of each option and the modelling assumptions.
See http://www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/projects/current_projects
13
Management options for growing trees for wood
and/or carbon markets
CLEARWOOD
WITH
COMMERCIAL
THINNING
(40 YEARS)
CARBON
CAPTURE AND
STORAGE, NO
HARVESTING
(100 YEARS)
Average timber income
($/ha/yr)
1,089
Average carbon income
($/ha/yr)
178
Average net carbon
sequestered
(tCO2e/ha/yr)
11.9
Break-even carbon price
including $1500/ha
opportunity cost of land
($/tonne)
136
Break-even carbon price
excluding opportunity
cost of land
($/tonne)
3
Average timber income
($/ha/yr)
0
Average carbon income
($/ha/yr)
429
Average net carbon
sequestered
(tCO2e/ha/yr)
28.6
Break-even carbon price
including $1500/ha
opportunity cost of land
($/tonne)
123
Break-even carbon price
excluding opportunity
cost of land
($/tonne)
9
Estimates for income, carbon sequestration and break-even
prices are shown for two management options: clearwood
timber production and/or carbon capture and storage;
from this 10-hectare plantation when the carbon price is
$15 /tonne. For the seven options modelled, the break-even
prices include and exclude the opportunity cost of the land.
Where the opportunity cost is excluded, the land is considered
to have no value. It is assumed that 50% of carbon credits
are sold and there is no carbon liability at harvest because the
plantation is replanted. For ease of comparison all estimates
are normalised over a 40 year period.
Under the assumptions used in the model, none of the
management options for wood and/or carbon production
come even close to profitability at this location. The principal
reason for this is the high opportunity cost of the land. With
gross margins of $1,500/ha being foregone each year, carbon
forestry is not financially viable. On such valuable land, a
break-even carbon price well in excess of $100/tonne would
be required to make carbon forestry profitable. It is considered
highly unlikely that such a high price would occur. If the
opportunity cost is set to zero, all regimes become profitable
for carbon forestry except for pulpwood.
If the carbon price was increased from $15 to $40/tonne the
average carbon income increases from $178 to $476 and
from $429 to $1,624/ha/year respectively.
Source: Carbon Plantations – A case study into management options for carbon sequestration, wood production and new investment opportunities, Chris Beadle, Keryn Paul,
Andrew Reason, Jody Bruce and Michael Battaglia, CSIRO Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, April 2011. See www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/projects/current_projects
Some thoughts from Rob and Kathy,
When we got involved in
the Carbon Plantations
about six months ago
we did not think anyone
knew which way things
were going and therefore
our knowledge was pretty
basic. But we think it’s
time to start taking notice
because it looks as if, with
the Government’s Carbon
Farming Initiative and the
talk about a carbon price,
something is going to
happen. We honestly did
not think anything would
happen this quickly. It has
come out of the blue. We
reckon this reflects criticism
of the current government,
as they are seen to be
shooting from the hip
a bit and making policy
announcements before the
policies are fully developed.
14
But it makes one realise
that carbon trading is
closer than we thought and
obviously being involved in
this project was the start of
the learning curve for us.
We are interested in
understanding the
greenhouse gas emissions
audit of our enterprises and
the wood modelling options
for our pine plantations
provided under the project.
Our interest is not just in
forestry but in soil carbon
as well. We want to see
where that is going because
we are making moves in
that direction. We are
probably a bit out of the
pack in doing that but we
are sure that down the
track it is going to be an
important area. Together
with our bio-diesel, we think
we are probably going to
position ourselves in the
right place in the carbon
world because we have
About 18 months ago we
talked to a carbon broker
but now think we were too
early for that. But actually
‘I am interested in understanding the green
house gas emissions audit of my enterprises
and the wood modelling options for my pine
plantations provided under the project.
three different angles –
forestry, soil and bio-diesel.
We’re looking at where to
concentrate our efforts most
because we have room to
expand these enterprises.
We think this project
is timely given that the
Government is looking to
roll out its Carbon Farming
Initiative in July this year and
that an emissions trading
scheme is on the horizon.
that’s probably where we
should go next. To actually
go and get that bloke, or
another carbon broker,
back to look at what we
are doing. By then there
may be new rules to play
by, as the whole thing has
changed in 18 months.
That’s why we’ve been
hesitant to spend too much
time on it because it was a
bit of a moving target.
CASE STUDY
OWNER
Richard Johnston
LOCATION
‘OAKLEIGH’, Rosevale
‘HIGHBRAE’, Westwood
PROPERTY SIZE
692 hectares
5
MEAN ANNUAL RAINFALL
700mm
9
7
ENTERPRISES
Irrigated and dryland mixed cropping,
sheep and cattle grazing, native
forestry and plantations
2
9
8
3
11
1
8
6
8
10
Pine Plantation
Planted 1999
10
Eucalypt Plantation
Planted 1999
10
Pine Plantation
Planted 1998
Pine Plantation
Planted 2000
Pine Planation
Planted 2002
4
Eucalyptus Plantation
Planted 2005
Numerous narrow belts
Planted 2000-2005
Pine Plantation
Planted 2004
OAKLEIGH
HIGHBRAE
TOTAL AREA
TOTAL AREA
Native Forest
Eucalypt Plantation
Pine Plantation
Mixed Species
Dams
Pasture (approx.)
15
570 Ha
175 Ha
49 Ha
16 Ha
4 Ha
14 Ha
311 Ha
Eucalypt Plantation
Pine Plantation
Mixed Species Belts
Dams
Pasture (approx.)
N
122 Ha
1 Ha
6 Ha
1 Ha
2 Ha
112 Ha
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The amount of greenhouse gas emitted by a farm
enterprise depends on the nature, extent and
management of the business.
On this 692-hectare combined property irrigated crops grown
in 2009-2010 included peas, grass seed, potatoes, poppies
and beans. 15 hectares of dryland barley and 44 hectares
of fodder crops were also grown. The grazing enterprises
include sheep (fat lamb breeding) and some cattle. The cattle
enterprise has been converted from breeding to trading over
the 2009-2010 financial year with the result that the cattle
herd now consists of a larger number of younger cattle
compared to the start of the year. Plantation species include:
Eucalyptus nitens (49 hectares) Pinus radiata (16 hectares)
and mixed natives (four hectares).
PROPERTY AREA 690HA
NITROGEN (N) FERTILISER USE
DIESEL USAGE
ELECTRICITY
USAGE
ON CROPS
ON PASTURE
LANDHOLDER
THIRD PARTIES
LANDHOLDER
16,819KG
6,204KG
26,200L
15,000L
167,954KWH
PASTURE
423HA
CROPPED 208HA
VEGETATION (PLANTED POST 1990)
EUCALYPTUS NITENS 49HA
PINUS RADIATA
16HA
MIXED NATIVE
4HA
WOOD PRODUCTION
The case study plantation includes five
hectares of radiata pine planted on cleared
agricultural land in 1998. An adjoining
five hectares was established in 1999
and the whole plantation is managed for
clearwood production. There are 750-800
trees/ha with 275 trees/ha pruned to 6.4
metres. Commercial thinning is planned for
2011. Sirex wasp has caused the death of
some suppressed trees. Thinning should
overcome this problem.
There are a number of options available
when managing plantations and these
can change over time. Wood production
models (see below example) suggest both
clearwood and knotty sawlog options could
be successful. The decision rests with the
landowner and other factors, such as his
desired time frame for return on investment
will influence his choice.
If tree growth is lower than estimated the
impact will be less for growing knotty sawlogs.
If commercial thinning does not occur, then
growing the plantation as an unthinned
regime would give reasonable returns and
more flexibility of final harvest time.
On this site there are a wide range of viable
pine plantation management options.
RADIATA PINE
Estimated Returns for Wood Management Options for Pinus radiata
MANAGEMENT
OPTION
THINNING
AGE
(YEARS)
THINNING
INCOME
($/HA)
Clearwood Commercial
Thinning
16
1,685
Knotty Sawlogs
12
1,773
Clearwood
CLEARFALL
AGE
(YEARS)
CLEARFALL
NET INCOME
($/HA)
39
40
NPV
($/HA)
IRR
(%)
AEV
($/HA)
41,125
3,732
8.0
219
29,738
2,947
8.1
172
30
14,191
2,772
10.1
180
Unthinned
40
30,161
2,785
8.1
162
MaxWood
36
23,328
2,541
8.2
154
Pulpwood
14
1,142
-746
-1.2
-75
The report, Wood Production Options, Livingston Natural Resource Services, December 2010, contains full details of each option and the modelling assumptions.
See http://www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/projects/current_projects
16
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Capture 2009/10
TOTAL GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS
The farm produces over 2,100 tonnes of CO2e each
year. Eligible farm trees capture and store 115% of
these emissions, therefore the farm is storing 15% more
emissions than it produces.
2,103
Tonnes CO2e
115%
NET FARM
GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS
CARBON CAPTURE &
STORAGE BY TREES
PLANTED POST 1990
-139
About 84% of the farm’s greenhouse gas emissions come
from livestock, 8% come from crops and fertiliser and 8%
from ‘energy sector’ sources.
Tonnes CO2e
2,422
Tonnes CO2e
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CROPS & FERTILISER
NITROUS OXIDE (N2O)
CROPS
LIVESTOCK
8% 84%
NITROUS
OXIDE (N2O)
FERTILISER
NITROUS OXIDE (N2O)
LIVESTOCK
METHANE (CH4)
LIVESTOCK
CARBON
DIOXIDE (CO2)
FUEL & POWER
As at March 2011, the Australian Government’s
emissions policy excludes all emissions from the
agricultural sector, however emissions from the
‘Energy Sector’ such as electricity and vehicle
fuel consumption are included. This property’s
eligible tree plantings are more than offsetting
its ‘energy sector’ emissions.
2%
6%
8%
68%
plantation to 29 years to produce knotty
sawlogs would be possible to meet
specific needs for income generation or
other plantation benefits. Eucalypt sawlog
production poses some risk of wood decay
from pruning.
In 2005 a 20-hectare Eucalyptus nitens
plantation was established at 900 trees/
ha on a previous eucalypt plantation
site. This site is part of a Private Forests
Tasmania thinning/stocking trial, parts of
the plantation have had 350-400 stems/
ha pruned to 6.4m. The intention is to
grow clearwood.
EUCALYPTUS NITENS
16%
There are a number of options available
when managing plantations and these
can change over time. Wood production
models (see below example) suggest
a pulpwood option is suited to this site
because it gives the best IRR, quickest
return and lowest risk. Growing the
Estimated Returns for Wood Management Options for Eucalyptus nitens
MANAGEMENT
OPTION
THINNING
AGE
(YEARS)
THINNING
INCOME
($/HA)
CLEARFALL
AGE
(YEARS)
CLEARFALL
NET INCOME
($/HA)
NPV
($/HA)
IRR
(%)
AEV
($/HA)
Clearwood
-
-
27
36,382
7,594
12.5
519
Clearwood Commercial
Thinning
8
2,956
37
33,394
5,710
14.0
342
Knotty Sawlogs
10
3,298
25
17,640
5,851
16.6
415
Unthinned
-
-
29
29,172
5,712
12.0
377
MaxWood
-
-
22
21,607
5,996
14.5
456
Pulpwood
-
-
12
7,656
3,022
17.6
341
The report, Wood Production Options, Livingston Natural Resource Services, December 2010, contains full details of each option and the modelling assumptions.
See http://www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/projects/current_projects
17
Management options for growing Pinus radiata
trees for wood and/or carbon markets
CLEARWOOD
WITH
COMMERCIAL
THINNING
(40 YEARS)
CARBON
CAPTURE
AND
STORAGE,
NO
HARVESTING
(100 YEARS)
Average timber income
($/ha/yr)
1,414
Average carbon income
($/ha/yr)
229
Average net carbon
sequestered
(tCO2e/ha/yr)
15.2
Break-even carbon
price including $500/ha
opportunity cost of land
($/tonne)
11
Break-even carbon price
excluding opportunity
cost of land
($/tonne)
-27
Average timber income
($/ha/yr)
0
Average carbon income
($w/ha/yr)
551
Average net carbon
sequestered
(tCO2e/ha/yr)
36.7
Break-even carbon
price including $500/ha
opportunity cost of land
($/tonne)
17
Break-even carbon price
excluding opportunity
cost of land
($/tonne)
4
Estimates for income, carbon sequestration and break-even
prices are shown for two management options: clearwood
timber production and/or carbon capture and storage; from this
10-hectare pine plantation on ‘Oakleigh’ when the carbon price
is $15/tonne. For the seven options modelled, the break-even
prices include and exclude the opportunity cost of the land.
Where the opportunity cost is excluded, the land is considered to
have no value. It is assumed that 50% of carbon credits are sold
and there is no carbon liability at harvest because the plantation
is replanted. For ease of comparison, all estimates are normalised
over a 40-year period.
The opportunity cost of land at ‘Oakleigh’ is $500/ha.
In the case of radiata pine, only the clearwood with commercial
thinning and carbon management option is profitable at a
carbon price of $15/tonne. If the opportunity cost is set to zero,
all timber and carbon management options become profitable.
The E. nitens management options were examined and yield
substantially less timber and carbon than the pine options,
therefore they are less profitable. If the opportunity cost is set
to zero, all management options become profitable.
If the carbon price were increased from $15 to $40/tonne the
average carbon income increases from $229 to $610
and from $551 to $1,467/ha/year respectively.
Source: Carbon Plantations – A case study into management options for carbon sequestration, wood production and new investment
opportunities, Chris Beadle, Keryn Paul, Andrew Reason, Jody Bruce and Michael Battaglia, CSIRO Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, April
2011. See http://www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/projects/current_projects
Some thoughts from Richard,
I am growing trees with
timber production as the
main focus. There are
obvious things such as
shelter and all the other
benefits of having trees on
the farm but the main focus
is for timber.
The carbon opportunity
is another option that we
have to look at. Six months
ago I had no idea whether
we were producing carbon
emissions or not. I was
not fully aware of all the
ramifications. When invited
to be part of the Carbon
Plantations project last
year, I thought it would
be a good start to help
me understand where we
were at as a business and
as a farm. I was looking
forward to getting a basic
understanding of where we
are placed.
I was really pleased to learn
that our farm was more than
carbon neutral – the trees
are storing more carbon
18
than the farm is emitting.
That is really pleasing as I
had hoped we would be
at least carbon neutral and
now we find we are doing
better than that.
We are very interested
to see if there are ways
to actually produce both
timber and carbon - can
I have my cake and eat it
too? We are a business
and we are in the business
of trying to make money
so we will look at our
options. I’d like to know
whether carbon is the sole
way we go or could only
some percentage of our
plantations be for carbon
capture and storage.
This whole issue of carbon
trading and what the
government proposed to do
when we came on board
this project was pretty
confusing for people. Today,
and with the recent changes
in Government, it is still fairly
confusing. I think a lot has
changed and I guess my
understanding of what is
involved is growing.
I have heard that the
Carbon Farming Initiative is
going to be rolled out soon
by Government. That it is a
mechanism for landowners
to apply and obtain credits
for the carbon that they
are currently capturing and
positives for us, but now all
of a sudden there appears
another incentive to do it.
I certainly appreciate the
reports the project has
provided for me. I have
used those to get a better
understanding of where we
are at. It has certainly made
me more aware and when
I was really pleased to learn that our farm was
more that carbon neutral – the trees are storing
more carbon than is being emitted.
storing with the view to
trading those credits. My
knowledge is not good on
this and I guess I have put
it in the ‘too hard basket’
so I will just wait and see.
We don’t know how the
Carbon Farming Initiative,
or any future emissions
trading schemes, will
affect us, but it seems it
could be another positive
for growing trees. Shelter
and growing valuable
timber products have been
we see or hear on the radio
or newspapers something
about emissions trading we
take more notice.
Now that we have sound
information, we can look
into this with confidence
to have a greater
understanding of how it will
affect our business. We
are pleased to have had the
opportunity to participate in
the project and to share the
information with others.
CASE STUDY
OWNER
Lawrence Archer
LOCATION
‘EAST EFFINGHAM’
Beechford
PROPERTY SIZE
Biodiversity Plantation
Planted 2005
1
1,700 hectares
2
10
10
Pine / Eucalypt Belt
Planted 1992
10
8
7
Pine Plantation
Planted 1985
MEAN ANNUAL RAINFALL
8
650-700mm
2
7
6
ENTERPRISES
Dryland sheep, cattle grazing,
native forests and plantations
4
5
3
1
4
9
Plantation Pine
Planted 2004
Native Forest
(production)
Native Forest
(conservation)
EAST
EFFINGHAM
TOTAL AREA
Native Forests (conservation)
Native Forests (production)
Eucalypt Plantation
Pine Plantation & Belts
Native Species Belts
Pasture (approx.)
19
N
1,700 Ha
727 Ha
334 Ha
5 Ha
23 Ha
9 Ha
602 Ha
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The amount of greenhouse gas emitted by a farm
enterprise depends on the nature, extent and management
of the business.
On ‘East Effingham’ the livestock numbers for 2009-2010 comprised: cattle
(285 head); and sheep (2600 head) for both wool and meat production.
The farm has a large native and plantation forestry component, leaving
about 670 hectares available for livestock production and 16 hectares for
cropping. Plantation species include: Eucalyptus globulus (five hectares)
Pinus radiata (23 hectares) and mixed natives (nine hectares).
PROPERTY AREA 1,700 HA
NITROGEN (N)
FERTILISER USE
PASTURE
602HA
DIESEL USAGE
ELECTRICITY
USAGE
ON CROPS
0KG
VEGETATION (PLANTED POST 1990)
EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUS
PINUS RADIATA
MIXED NATIVE
5HA
23HA
9HA
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Capture 2009/10
ON PASTURE
LANDHOLDER
THIRD PARTIES
LANDHOLDER
1,800KG
2,950L
1,320L
120kWH
TOTAL GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS
2,103
Tonnes CO2e
Trees planted after 1990 capture and store
39.7% of the greenhouse gas emissions
produced by the farm.
40%
CARBON CAPTURE &
STORAGE BY TREES
PLANTED POST 1990
NET FARM
GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS
1,285
Tonnes CO2e
845
Tonnes CO2e
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Livestock account for almost
100% of the greenhouse gas
emissions from the farm.
s The estimated annual enteric
methane from cattle is 1.6t
CO2e per head (22%).
s The estimated annual enteric
methane from sheep is 0.5t
CO2e per head (61%).
s Approximately 17% of the
greenhouse gas emissions
come from dung and urine.
s Less than 1% of the
greenhouse gas emissions
come from ‘energy
sector’ sources.
As at March 2011, the Australian
Government’s emissions policy
excludes all emissions from
the agricultural sector, however
emissions from the ‘Energy Sector’
such as electricity and vehicle fuel
consumption are included. This
property’s eligible tree plantings
are more than offsetting its
‘energy sector’ emissions.
NITROUS OXIDE (N2O)
LIVESTOCK
17%
LIVESTOCK
100%
20
METHANE (CH4)
LIVESTOCK
83%
WOOD PRODUCTION
In 2004 a 13 hectare
radiata pine plantation was
established on cleared
agricultural land. The
plantation is managed for
knotty sawlog production and
if commercially viable will be
thinned. A farm’s proximity
to markets, increases the
potential for a commercial
thinning. However even
without thinning the
plantation will still bring
a financial return.
There are a number of
options available when
managing plantations and
these can change over time.
Wood production models
(see below example)
show the best option,
is knotty sawlogs.
Estimated Returns for Wood Management Options
MANAGEMENT OPTION
THINNING
AGE
(YEARS)
THINNING
INCOME
($/HA)
Clearwood
Clearwood Commercial
Thinning
16
2,657
Knotty Sawlogs
12
2,076
CLEARFALL
AGE
(YEARS)
CLEARFALL
NET INCOME
(YEARS)
NPV
($/HA)
IRR
(%)
AEV
($/HA)
37
33,562
2,832
7.4
169
40
26,454
2,628
7.9
153
29
12,497
2,697
10.3
178
Unthinned
40
27,527
2,429
7.8
142
MaxWood
36
20,902
2,142
7.9
129
The report, Wood Production Options, Livingston Natural Resource Services, December 2010, contains full details of each option and the modelling assumptions.
See www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/projects/current_projects.
21
Estimates for income, carbon sequestration and break-even
prices are shown for two management options: clearwood
timber production and/or carbon capture and storage;
from this 13-hectare plantation when the carbon price is
$15/tonne. For the seven options modelled, the break-even
prices include and exclude the opportunity cost of the land.
Where the opportunity cost is excluded, the land is considered
to have no value. It is assumed that 50% of carbon credits
are sold and there is no carbon liability at harvest because the
plantation is replanted. For ease of comparison, all estimates
are normalised over a 40-year period.
Management options for growing trees for wood
and/or carbon markets
CLEARWOOD
WITH
COMMERCIAL
THINNING
(40 YEARS)
CARBON
CAPTURE
AND
STORAGE,
NO
HARVESTING
(100 YEARS)
Average timber income
($/ha/yr)
1,789
Average carbon income
($/ha/yr)
194
Average net carbon
sequestered
(tCO2e/ha/yr)
12.9
Break-even carbon
price including $300/ha
opportunity cost of land
($/tonne)
-16
Break-even carbon
price excluding
opportunity cost of land
($/tonne)
-43
Average timber income
($/ha/yr)
0
Average carbon income
($/ha/yr)
478
Average net carbon
sequestered
(tCO2e/ha/yr)
31.9
Break-even carbon
price including $300/ha
opportunity cost of land
($/tonne)
28
Break-even carbon
price excluding
opportunity cost of land
($/tonne)
4
The opportunity cost of land is $300/ha. Under the
assumptions used in the model, a range of timber and carbon
management options is profitable. When carbon income
is included, clearwood management options, either with
commercial or non-commercial thinning, are most profitable.
Commercial thinning provides revenues which help to offset
the establishment costs, significantly improving profitability.
Growing pulpwood or plantations to simply capture and store
carbon, is unprofitable at a carbon price of $15/tonne. If
the opportunity cost is set to zero, all timber and carbon
management options are profitable.
If the carbon price was increased from $15 to $40/tonne the
average carbon income increases from $194 to $517 and
from $478 to $1,275/ha/yr respectively.
Source: Carbon Plantations – A case study into management options for carbon sequestration, wood production and new investment opportunities,
Chris Beadle, Keryn Paul, Andrew Reason, Jody Bruce and Michael Battaglia, CSIRO Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, April 2011.
For more information go to: www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/projects/current_projects
Some thoughts from Lawrence,
To date, growing trees
for carbon farming is
like playing football with
revolving goals because
the ‘carbon economy’ is
not easy to understand.
I have grown trees as part
of better farming practices
and for the benefits trees
provide. If I am able to trade
carbon, I see it as a bonus.
I am pleased that the
greenhouse gas emission
audit, which I have found
excellent, shows my
plantations are offsetting
my agricultural emissions
to some degree. I think the
only feasible way for me
to offset emissions is to
22
use trees. I appreciate the
estimated offsets are only
calculated for plantations
that are ‘Kyoto compliant’
and I suspect that other
plantations and the native
forest on my property
substantially increase
the offsets.
carbon liabilities farmers
may incur if the trees are
affected by natural disasters
such as fire or drought.
I hope that there is profit
in it for farmers whose
trees capture and store
after all the carbon remains
intact in the manufactured
wood products.
The Carbon Plantations
project has provided
economic and scientific
information I have found
I have grown trees as part of better farming
practices and for the benefits trees provide.
I found the wood
modelling options confirm
my thinking as to how
to manage my ‘Kyoto
compliant’ pine plantation.
I am on the right track
growing knotty sawlogs.
carbon and that there are
opportunities for them to
easily participate.
I need to study the
Government’s ‘Carbon
Farming’ initiative and am
curious about potential
I also hope that farmers
can grow trees for carbon
capture and storage and
continue to harvest trees –
very useful and I am
pleased to have been able
to contribute to it so that
other farmers may also learn
more about carbon, trees
and agriculture.
CASE STUDY
OWNER
Alan & Rosie Davenport
LOCATION
‘Telita Farm’, Telita
PROPERTY SIZE
280 hectares
MEAN ANNUAL RAINFALL
F
1,000mm
ENTERPRISES
Dairy cattle and plantation
Pine Plantation
Planted 2001
TELITA FARM
TOTAL AREA
280 Ha
Pine Plantation
11 Ha
Native Forest
39 Ha
(mostly wet forest with
Silver Wattle and Blackwood
dominated Scrub)
Pasture (approx.)
230 Ha
23
N
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The amount of greenhouse gas emitted by a farm enterprise
depends on the nature, extent and management of the business.
This dairy property is near Derby in north-east Tasmania. About 100 hectares is
irrigated. A small crop of potatoes (four hectares) was harvested in 2009-2010.
This farm is run in conjunction with others, thus replacement heifers are run offfarm. The number of livestock is 847 bulls, calves and cows. An 11-hectare Pinus
radiata plantation is established on a steep slope; scattered across the farm are
areas of native forest, totalling 29 hectares.
PROPERTY AREA 280HA
NITROGEN (N) FERTILISER USE
DIESEL USAGE
ELECTRICITY
USAGE
ON CROPS
ON PASTURE
LANDHOLDER
THIRD PARTIES
LANDHOLDER
660KG
4,600KG
5,000L
250L
298,422KWH
PASTURE
250HA
CROPPED
4HA
VEGETATION (PLANTED POST 1990)
PINUS RADIATA
11HA
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Capture 2009/10
About 11 tonnes of CO2e/ha was produced in
2009 - 2010 from the farm’s agricultural land.
The farm’s plantation is capturing and storing
about 23t CO2e/ha/yr, representing around
10% of the emissions. As the pine trees mature,
the rate of capture and storage will increase.
TOTAL GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS
2,580
10%
Tonnes CO2e
NET FARM
GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS
CARBON CAPTURE &
STORAGE BY TREES
PLANTED POST 1990
2,317
Tonnes CO2e
263
Tonnes CO2e
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As at March 2011, the Australian Government’s
emissions policy excludes all emissions from the
agricultural sector, however emissions from the
‘Energy Sector’ such as electricity and vehicle
fuel consumption are included. This property’s
eligible tree plantings are offsetting its ‘energy
sector’ emissions.
NITROUS OXIDE (N2O)
LIVESTOCK
METHANE (CH4)
LIVESTOCK
CARBON
DIOXIDE (CO2)
FUEL & POWER
Livestock are responsible for 93% of greenhouse
gas emissions and seven percent come from
‘energy sector’ sources.
7%
20%
FUEL & POWER
LIVESTOCK
7% 93%
24
73%
WOOD PRODUCTION
In 1998 the 11 hectare plantation,
of which two hectares are largely
Blackwood regeneration, was planted
on a steep hillside. This followed the
harvest of an earlier Pinus radiata
plantation. The site is unsuitable for
conventional harvesting machinery and
will require cable machinery. Growth
rates are lower than expected due
to strong competition from wildings
at establishment and ongoing weed
competition. The plantation is managed
for clearwood production and about
300 trees/ha are high pruned to
6.4 metres.
Commercial thinning on this steep
site will require specialised cable
harvesting. This is impractical with
existing equipment, therefore the
management options below are based
on conventional harvesting.
Managing the plantation for clearwood
is the obvious choice given the
limitations on commercial thinning and
proximity to market for pruned sawlog.
Non-commercial thinning will be more
expensive but returns warrant the
additional investment. The site is well
suited to growing a pine plantation
and all management options, except
pulpwood, are viable.
On other farms with similar plantation
productivity but without steep slopes,
clearwood regimes are most applicable.
While these are not modelled here,
the higher growth rates likely with
timely silviculture reinforce the value of
pruning and thinning.
Estimated Returns for Wood Management Options – Conventional Harvesting
REGIME
Clearwood
THINNING
AGE
(YEARS)
THINNING
INCOME
($/HA)
0
Clearwood Commercial
Thinning
16
1,851
Knotty Sawlogs
12
1,181
CLEARFALL
AGE
(YEARS)
CLEARFALL
NET INCOME
($/HA)
NPV
($/HA)
IRR
(%)
AEV
($/HA)
28
61,341
12,470
12.6
837
36
58,499
8,312
10.5
502
28
19,304
4,068
11.1
273
Unthinned
0
39
38,644
4,241
9.0
249
MaxWood
0
34
28,050
3,864
9.4
239
Pulpwood
0
14
616
-1999
-5.0
-101
The report, Wood Production Options, Livingston Natural Resource Services, December 2010, contains full details of each option and the modelling assumptions.
See http://www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/projects/current_projects
25
Management options for growing trees for wood
and/or carbon markets
CLEARWOOD
WITH
COMMERCIAL
THINNING
(40 YEARS)
CARBON
CAPTURE
AND
STORAGE,
NO
HARVESTING
(100 YEARS)
Average timber income
($/ha/yr)
1,573
Average carbon income
($/ha/yr)
239
Average net carbon
sequestered
(tCO2e/ha/yr)
15.9
Break-even carbon price
including $1,000/ha
opportunity cost of land
($/tonne)
24
Break-even carbon
price excluding
opportunity cost of land
($/tonne)
-37
Average timber income
($/ha/yr)
0
Average carbon income
($/ha/yr)
609
Average net carbon
sequestered
(tCO2e/ha/yr)
40.6
Break-even carbon price
including $1,000/ha
opportunity cost of land
($/tonne)
61
Break-even carbon
price excluding
opportunity cost of land
($/tonne)
4
Estimates for income, carbon sequestration and break-even
prices are shown for two management options: clearwood
timber production and/or carbon capture and storage; from this
11-hectare plantation when the carbon price is $15/tonne. For
the seven options modelled, the break-even prices include and
exclude the opportunity cost of the land. Where the opportunity
cost is excluded, the land is considered to have no value. It is
assumed that 50% of carbon credits are sold and there is no
carbon liability at harvest because the plantation is replanted.
For ease of comparison, all estimates are normalised over a
40-year period.
The opportunity cost of land is $1,000/ha and none of the
management options for either wood and/or carbon production,
are profitable when the price of carbon is $15/tonne. At this
location, a carbon price more than $24/tonne would be required
to make timber and carbon forestry profitable. In order for
growing plantations for carbon to be profitable, a carbon price of
more than $61/tonne is required. If the opportunity cost is set
to zero, all regimes become profitable.
If the carbon price were increased from $15 to $40/tonne
the average carbon income increases from $239 to $772 and
from $609 to $1,624/ha/year respectively.
Source: Carbon Plantations – A case study into management options for carbon sequestration, wood production and new investment opportunities, Chris Beadle,
Keryn Paul, Andrew Reason, Jody Bruce and Michael Battaglia, CSIRO Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, April 2011. See http://www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/
projects/current_projects
Some thoughts from Alan and Rosie,
We are mindful of
greenhouse gas emissions
from dairying, but there are
currently no market drivers
to change the way we
manage emissions for the
environment’s sake. Our aim
is to increase our productivity
through efficiency and to be
better than average, even
if this means increasing
our total greenhouse gas
emissions, as long as our
carbon emissions decrease
per unit of production.
We are always looking to
improve efficiency of fertiliser
use, water and feed inputs
because of the cost and
associated carbon emissions.
Our need to be more efficient
is driven by the existing
market for our produce and
not the carbon market.
In future, we would like
to continue to track our
emissions to ensure we
are competitive and we will
leave the timber industry
to drive the capture and
26
storage of carbon in trees.
Regarding the Government’s
proposed Carbon Farming
Initiative, we are interested
in soil carbon for productive
purposes, but it is volatile
and emissions due to a
dry year may be expensive.
There may be opportunities
for some farmers. We don’t
agree with the concept of
‘additionally’ for agriculture,
as this places the carrot
on a very long stick. The
CFI may not drive changes
in management practices
unless business can be
highly adaptable and
reliable. At this stage we
will watch the rollout and
uptake of the CFI and
respond accordingly.
We will be disappointed
if the CFI results in too
much distortion in markets,
especially if it impacts on our
ability to do business. We
can adapt to most things, but
foolish policy decisions can
be hardest to manage. Our
ability to achieve financial
returns from our enterprise is
key to our continued
ability to provide
environmental services to
the land we manage.
project. The figures have
verified that we are relatively
high emitters of carbon. It
is hard to see how our dairy
business can be carbon
neutral as it is difficult
for trees to complement
We appreciate the greenhouse gas
emissions audit done for us under this project.
The figures have verified our beliefs.
We will keep growing
trees as long as they pay
their way (and they do
provide shelter). We have
11 hectares of plantation
and 40 hectares of native
forest and vegetation. We
may grow more, but only
if it fits well with our other
farm operations. Our pine
trees are on steep erodible
land and managed for long
rotations to minimise the
impact of harvesting.
We appreciate the
greenhouse gas emissions
audit done for us under this
dairying when we need to
maximize grass production.
We value the wood
modelling options and advice
we have received under
this project as we now have
financial options to assist us
make sound management
decisions about our existing
11 hectares of pine and any
future plantings.
We are pleased to have
participated in the Carbon
Plantations Project and have
found it a very worthwhile
and informative experience.
THE
STUDY
METHODS & RESULTS
27
CARBON STORAGE AND TRADING
Below are the key findings from the study, Carbon Storage and Trading through Farm
Forestry: a Survey of Farmers in Tasmania, Don Defenderfer, Rural Development Services
December 2010.
The executive summary and full report are available at: www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/projects/current_projects
Executive Summary
What this report is about
This report presents the findings of a survey of Tasmanian
farmers regarding their awareness levels and attitudes about
carbon storage and trading issues as they relate to farm
forestry on their properties. The case study region for the
survey was northeast Tasmania (however additional landowners
from outside the region completed an on-line survey which was
available to any farmer in Tasmania).
The survey was designed to provide information to help identify
how farmers can participate effectively in the emerging carbon
economy. The survey is seen as a key step in understanding
what farmers know and don’t know about carbon issues, what
motivates them about the issues and the types of assistance
they need to get more involved.
Who this report is targeted at
The report is targeted at Private Forests Tasmania, industry
(including agriculture and farm forestry), farm advisors,
government policy makers and farmers that may already be
involved in, or considering their participation in, carbon storage
and trading opportunities through farm forestry. (The definition
of farm forestry used for this project includes plantations,
plantings of native vegetation for biodiversity and/or production
benefits and retained areas of native bush.)
Background
This report and the survey it is based upon is part of a
larger project Carbon Plantations: extending research and
development to best management practices for carbon
sequestration, wood production and new investment
opportunities on private land in Tasmania. The overall goal of
which is to develop products and services for landholders to
help them make more informed decisions about participating
in carbon storage activities on their farms and to help prepare
them for potential carbon trading opportunities.
28
The overall project is focused on four farms with dairy, beef,
sheep and cropping enterprises. Farm greenhouse gas
emissions, carbon sequestration and wood production options
under future climate and economic conditions have been
modelled at each farm as part of the wider project. The wider
project will also develop a Carbon Plantations Toolkit that will
be released at four field days in autumn 2011.
This is the first project in Tasmania aimed at empowering
farmers to make informed choices about managing their
greenhouse gas emissions through growing more trees on
their farms and/or managing existing trees. Farmers may also
be able to trade carbon in their plantation trees and/or sell
plantation-grown wood products.
The Carbon Plantations Project is funded by a grant of over
$255,000 from the Australian Government through its Forest
Industries Climate Change Research Fund and supplemented
by contributions from project partners including: AFGTreeSmart, AK Consultants, CSIRO Sustainable Agriculture
Flagship, Livingston Natural Resource Services, Private Forests
Tasmania and Rural Development Services.
Methods used
Both quantitative and qualitative social research methods were
used to generate data for this report. (See Appendix 1 of the
full report, for a copy of the survey questions.)
Sixty four landholders in Tasmania completed the survey, either
through phone interviews (30), on-line self-completion (30) or
through four in-depth semi-structured interviews which were
conducted with key landholders whose farms were established
as demonstration properties for the overall project.
The surveys were conducted between 9th August and 8th
October 2010.
A reference group was established for the overall project
and this group provided comments on the formation of the
survey questions which were developed by Rural Development
Services in consultation with Private Forests Tasmania.
Key Findings
1. Farmer awareness
2. Attitudes and Motivations
1.1 Carbon storage and emission issues
2.1 Greenhouse gas reduction activities on farm
Most farmers have a medium to low level awareness of carbon
storage and greenhouse gas emissions issues on their farms.
81% of farmers rated their awareness level as medium to very
low, with only 19% rating their understanding as high or very high.
Nearly half (49%) of farmers surveyed have taken actions to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions or store carbon on their farms.
Farmers have a good understanding of two major sources
of greenhouse gas emissions on their farms (livestock and
energy use) but have less awareness of the full range of the
sources of greenhouse gas emissions on their properties (e.g.
soils, fertiliser).
Farmers are divided about whether they believe they are net
emitters or storers of greenhouse gas emissions on their farms:
2.2 Financial motivations
The major reasons why farmers have taken actions to reduce
their greenhouse gas emissions or store carbon on their farms
(in order of preference) include:
s 34% of farmers surveyed believe they are a net emitter.
s financial gain;
s 26% believe their emissions are about neutral.
s social responsibility;
s 16% believe they are a net storer.
s biodiversity benefits;
s 23% are unsure of their net emissions.
s personal interest.
1.2 Level of engagement of farmers in carbon farming
Only 36% of farmers stated that carbon storage and trading is
a regular topic of discussion with their family, fellow farmers or
farm business advisors.
While farmers are aware of carbon and greenhouse gas
related issues in general, there has not been a deep level of
engagement with the issues as yet. Farmers see the issue as
a low farm management priority at the moment.
Uncertainties about future carbon markets and trading
schemes and the low price of carbon, as well as the current
financial challenges facing many commodity-based farmers
in Tasmania, were given as major contributing factors to the
current low level of farmer engagement in the issue.
1.3 Level of interest of farmers
Although the level of farmer engagement is low, there is a
high level of interest from farmers in learning more about the
carbon economy: 83% responded that they had a medium to
very high interest in learning more about carbon farming.
Only 17% of respondents said they had a low or very low
interest in learning more.
29
Major actions taken in order of highest take-up include:
establishment of shelterbelts (including riparian zone
re-vegetation), soil management and changed agricultural
management practices.
Financial gain was nominated by 88% as a key motivator for
farmers to get involved in carbon storage and trading through
farm forestry. However, it should be noted, that uptake of
actions involving carbon or greenhouse gas emissions are
only occurring when they align with perceived good farming
management practices.
63% of farmers indicated they would participate because of
the overall benefits to the environment and 50% said they
would most likely participate in carbon storage and trading
because of the overall benefits to society.
71% of farmers said they were likely to consider farm forestry
as a means to offset their emissions in the future.
2.3 Social responsibility
78% of farmers agreed that they have a social responsibility as
landholders to take action on their farms to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.
Farmers communicated that while they feel a strong sense
of social responsibility to reduce farm emissions, the wider
community should assist them to do this and not penalise them
for being productive farmers.
2.4 Disincentives
2.8 Attitude and motivation analysis
Farmers indicated that cost (73%) and lack of financial
gain (59%) were the main reasons they would not consider
offsetting their greenhouse gas emissions in the future.
Farmers are strongly motivated by financial considerations;
however they are also very strongly influenced by social and
environmental motivations.
Some farmers noted that a disincentive to adopt farm forestry
as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was
because they had high-value agricultural land and they did not
want to see this land go into plantations that would be less
economically productive for them.
Financial considerations can be seen as a prime driver in
farmer decision making, but these considerations are strongly
influenced by social and environmental motivations as well.
2.5 Brand recognition
3.1 Current information
Half of those surveyed (50%) agreed that there would be
brand recognition or marketing advantages for them in the
future through carbon storage activities.
54% responded that current information about carbon storing
and trading for farmers is inadequate. Only 9% responded
that current information is adequate. 36% replied that they
did not know.
Many of those who disagreed about the benefits of carbon
branding commented that they believe Tasmanian farmers will
not benefit because they sell into bulk commodity markets and
that if there were any market advantages in the future it will
only be the supermarkets that will gain any advantage.
3. Information and Training Needs
The main reasons given for the inadequacy of current
information and materials is:
s Current information is not geared to the needs of farmers.
s Current information is confusing and too complex.
2.6 Carbon brokers
Forty two per cent of farmers said employing a carbon broker
was likely in the future; 25% said it was highly unlikely and
32% said they didn’t know.
Those that did not want to employ a carbon broker gave
reasons such as the need to understand carbon trading
themselves before considering paying someone else; paying
unnecessary fees; and a general scepticism of ‘middle men’
taking profits out of a ‘tight’ system.
2.7 Need for emission trading scheme rules
Approximately two thirds of farmers (67%) agreed that there
was no benefit for them in reducing or offsetting their farm
greenhouse gas emissions through farm forestry until they
knew the rules of an emissions trading scheme. Approximately
one third (35%) strongly agreed with this statement and just
under one third of farmers disagreed.
Farmers want to know the rules of a trading scheme and the
current lack of rules was cited as a frustration and a major
reason for them not participating in carbon storage through
farm forestry.
Farmers are also concerned that whatever rules and
frameworks are developed, they need to be practical, provide
options and not penalise farmers.
s The information farmers need is not available.
3.2 Training needs
Farmers were asked through which means they would prefer
to learn more about carbon trading and storage issues. First
preference means were identified as:
s written information (67%);
s one on one advice (43%);
s newsletters (24%);
s field days (19%);
s DVD (16%);
s web (15%).
3.3 Current and future sources on information
The top sources of information farmers currently use or would
consider using in the future were all very closely ranked
(receiving first preference from nearly 50% of respondents in
each category). They are:
s newsletters;
s media;
s Tasmanian Country (a Tasmania-wide rural newspaper);
s farm advisors and consultants.
30
These first preferences were followed by the Tasmanian
Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA) (35%),
web (33%), government (25%), industry (22%) and
Private Forests Tasmania (18%).
3.4 Types of information
When given a choice of four types of information that would
assist them to participate in carbon storage and trading
through farm forestry in the future, farmers indicated a first
preference for financial advice (51%).
This was followed by information about greenhouse gas
emission and storage calculators (43%); information about
carbon brokers and offset schemes (27%); and farm forestry
management advice (23%).
3.5 Level of engagement of farmers
Only 36% of farmers agreed that carbon storage and trading
was a regular topic of discussion with their family, fellow
farmers or farm business advisors.
While farmers were aware of carbon and greenhouse gas
related issues in general, there has been not a deep level of
engagement with the issues as yet. Farmers see the issue as
a low farm management priority at the moment.
Uncertainties about future carbon markets and trading
schemes and the low price of carbon, as well as the current
financial challenges facing many commodity based farmers
in Tasmania were given as major contributing factors to the
current low level of farmer engagement in the issue.
3.6 Level of interest of farmers in the carbon economy
Although the level of farmer engagement is currently low, there
is a high level of interest by farmers in learning more about the
carbon economy, with 83% responding that they had a high, very
high or medium interest in learning more about carbon farming.
Only 17% of respondents said they had a low or very low
interest in learning more.
This section shows that farmers have not yet fully engaged in
the carbon economy, that it is not a regular topic of conversation
between them, but that they are eager to learn more.
31
4. Future Opportunities for Farmers
4.1 Opportunities to increase the engagement of
farmers in the carbon economy
Farmers believe the main opportunity that government and
industry have to best motivate them to get more involved in farm
forestry carbon storage projects, is for clearer economic benefits
to be detailed to them. This was indicated by 79% of farmers.
Farmers want to know, clearly and simply, without hyperbole
and salesmanship, what are the costs and economic benefits of
participating in carbon storage and trading through farm forestry.
Farmers also want better information than is now available
as current information is seen to be complex, incomplete,
not geared to the needs of Tasmanian farmers and not
scientifically based.
Tax incentives were noted by 43% of respondents as an
effective way for government and industry to motivate farmers
to get more involved in carbon storage and trading.
4.2 Future intentions: for established farm forestry
areas on farm
Shelter/windbreaks were nominated as the most likely use of
their property’s farm forestry areas in the future (by 55% of
farmers). This was followed by biodiversity and wood production.
Significantly, carbon storage was only identified by 21% of
respondents as the major future use of their existing farm
forestry areas.
However nearly half (46%) the respondents said it was
likely that they would establish farm forestry areas on their
properties in the next five years for carbon storage and trading.
4.3 Future intentions: carbon rights
More than half of farmers (57%) said they would consider
selling their carbon rights in the future. 20% of farmers said
they would not sell their rights; nearly a quarter said they didn’t
know if they would or not.
Farmers commented that there is still a great deal of
uncertainty about how future carbon trading systems will work
and this was preventing them from making a firm predication
about their future intentions.
4.4 Future intentions: plantations and
investments sources
5. Barriers and Risks
Farmers are willing to use their own resources to invest in a
carbon-based future. 55% of landowners indicated that they
would consider using their own financial resources to develop
new plantations on their farms for carbon storage and trading;
29% did not think they would; and 16% indicated that as yet
they did not know their intentions.
5.1 Barriers to participating in carbon storage and
trading
4.5 Future intentions: offering land to
external investors
When asked whether they would offer their land (e.g. lease) to
external investors to develop new plantations on their farms
for carbon storage and trading, only 31% agreed with this
statement.
60% of farmers said they would not offer their land to external
investors (including 22% who strongly stated they would not
do this). 9% said they were unsure.
Discussion on this point revealed that many farmers were wary
of external investors on their land, given the recent collapse of
several major ‘managed investment schemes’ for plantations.
Some farmers also commented that they felt there was
more profit in the long term if they invested in and managed
plantations with their own resources.
4.6 Future intentions: farm forestry for carbon storage
and trading
Nearly half (46%) the respondents said it was likely that they
would establish farm forestry areas on their properties in the
next five years for carbon storage and trading. 37% said that
did not think this was likely. 17% of farmers were unsure.
61% of those surveyed indicated that they would choose
planting trees with their own resources as their first preference
in the future.
The second first preference identified by farmers was to sell
carbon rights from their existing forests (52%). Planting trees
with external resources was a third first preference for 46%
of farmers.
Making land available for others to establish and manage
plantations was given the lowest preference, with only a third
of farmers indicating this as a first preference.
The major barriers to farmers participating in carbon storage
and trading highlighted by farmers include:
s Lack of a clear government policy or consistent
framework (60%).
s Financial return is too low or uncertain (58%).
s Not having enough information about it (40%).
s Lack of a carbon price (32%).
s Not understanding what it’s all about (30%).
The lack of a clear government policy (including lack of a
carbon price) and low or uncertain financial return are the
main reasons given for farmers not getting involved in carbon
storage and trading through farm forestry.
Lack of appropriate information and difficulty understanding
current information is also a major barrier.
The issue of not being able to factor in carbon sequestered
in native forests growing before 1990 (because of the Kyoto
Protocol) was highlighted as a barrier to engagement and a
disincentive for Tasmanian farmers to get involved in carbon
storage and trading.
5.2 Risk perception
The majority of farmers (53%) believe carbon storage and
trading through farm forestry is a risky activity. 28% said it
was not a risky activity and 19% said they didn’t know.
Reasons given for the belief that it is a risky activity mirror
the major barriers noted in Barriers to participating in carbon
storage and trading above, especially the lack of a clear
government policy and the fact that the financial return is
currently too low or uncertain.
5.3 Emissions rule changes and liabilities
70% of farmers indicated that one of the main reasons they
have not got involved in carbon storage and trading through
farm forestry is because they are concerned about future
emission trading rule changes and the possibility that their
offset operations could become a liability in the future.
Only 19% of farmers disagreed with the statement and the
rest didn’t know or thought the question was not applicable.
32
The level of uncertainty about future emission trading rule
changes is a major risk-oriented barrier preventing farmers
from fully engaging in the carbon economy.
Farmers do not want to invest in schemes where the rules are
not yet fixed and the ‘goal posts’ appear to be changing on a
regular basis.
6. Climate Change
6.1 Farmer belief in local climate change
60% of farmers surveyed believe that global climate change is
affecting their local climate, 22% indicated they thought global
climate change was not having an effect and 17% said they
didn’t know.
Two thirds of farmers believe ‘climate variations’ are affecting
their property due to global climate change. Other effects
identified by farmers include increased temperatures; changing
management techniques; and that climate change is ‘creating
unknowns’ in how to manage their property.
19% of farmers said they did not know how climate change
was affecting their property.
Observations on local climate change made by farmers were
diverse: some commented that the changes were subtle and
incremental; some made specific observations such as drier
winters; some communicated that if there were local changes
then they were part of natural cycles; others were adamant
that there were no local effects due to climate change on
their properties.
6.2 Greenhouse gas emissions and global
climate change
66% of farmers believe ‘greenhouse gas emissions due to
human activity are responsible for global climate change.’ Only
14% disagreed with this statement.
21% of farmers said they didn’t know if greenhouse gas
emissions due to human activity were responsible for global
climate change.
78% of farmers said they believe that climate change is a
serious problem. 15% disagreed with this statement and 7%
said they didn’t know.
When farmers were asked if they were happy with their
understanding of climate change issues, 69% said they were
happy, 29% said they were not and 2% were unsure.
33
6.3 Government and industry actions to address
climate change
71% of farmers believe that government is not doing
enough to address climate change issues, only 22% believe
government is doing enough, 7% say they don’t know.
60% of farmers believe industry is not doing enough to
address climate change issues, 26% believe industry is doing
enough, 14% say they don’t know.
A number of farmers are worried that future government
action on carbon trading will not take into consideration
farmer concerns and they strongly believe industry needs
to be proactive to protect its interests. Farmers want
encouragement and incentives to participate in carbon storage
and trading - they do not want to be penalised or victimised.
Recommendations
1. Increasing awareness level of farmers
To increase the awareness level of farmers about carbon
storage and trading opportunities through farm forestry, it is
recommended that extension materials should be developed
that include:
s Clear and concise written information about the carbon
economy as it relates to farmers in Tasmania, especially
carbon storage and trading opportunities.
s Clear written information about the potential economic
benefits and options for farmers.
s Independent one-on-one advice available to farmers.
s Targeted newsletters on carbon storage and trading issues
for farmers.
s Field days at key landholder sites.
2. Understanding of emissions and
storage options on farms
Learning materials should be developed for Tasmanian farmers
that clearly explain the major sources of greenhouse gas
emissions on farms and the options farmers have for storing
carbon and reducing their emissions through farm forestry.
Farmer-friendly greenhouse gas emissions and storage
calculators (especially with regard to farm forestry) should
be trialled with Tasmanian farmers, so they can quickly and
easily get a general idea of their farm’s net emissions and
storage options.
3. Increasing the engagement of farmers
6. National carbon policy framework
To increase the engagement of farmers in the carbon economy,
it is recommended that the economic benefits of participating in
carbon and storage be highlighted clearly in extension materials.
The lack of a government policy for a national carbon
framework and price for carbon is a strong disincentive for
farmers to get involved in carbon storage and trading through
farm forestry.
Clear and concise cost-benefit analysis information regarding
farmer participation in carbon storage and trading activities
through farm forestry should be developed so as to avoid
creating unrealistic expectations about the financial benefits
of the carbon economy.
4. Understanding economic, social and
environmental motivations of farmers
To increase the uptake of carbon farming programs, policy
makers should take into consideration that although farmers
are highly motivated by financial considerations, they also
have very strong social and environmental motivations that
significantly influence their decision making.
Policy makers should not consider the financial aspects of
policies and programs related to carbon trading and storage
in isolation, but they should also consider the social and
environmental consequences of any policies for farmers
(including incentives and disincentives).
Farmers are more likely to participate in a program if there
are integrated financial, environmental and social benefits.
Their current uptake only occurs when it aligns with what they
believe to be good farm management practice. For them, good
farm management practice is directed towards sustainable
production, as without this they will not have a profitable
business, which in turn, has social implications for them, their
families and their communities.
5. Carbon branding
‘Carbon Branding’ of farm forestry products associated with
carbon storage and trading should be pursued with great care
so as to ensure that farmers benefit from any such programs
and that branding does not create unnecessary administration,
auditing and regulatory burdens for them.
The net beneficiary of any carbon branding or codes of
practice should be analysed as there is concern amongst
farmers that any potential benefits of branding and marketing
will not flow through to them, but will only be realised by those
above them in the value chain (e.g. supermarkets).
34
A transparent and consistent national carbon trading and
storage policy should be developed and farmers should
have input into this framework to ensure greater uptake by
their industry.
If a national price for carbon is established, it must be a
competitive price or there will be limited uptake of farmers.
7. Carbon incentives for pre-1990
vegetation
Farmers are concerned that they cannot get carbon credits
or related incentives for areas of native vegetation on their
properties that were established pre-1990 (as currently
the Kyoto Protocol exempts these areas from carbon
accounting practices).
Government and industry should jointly investigate how
Tasmanian farmers can receive carbon credits or incentives for
managing areas of native vegetation on their properties that
were established prior to 1990.
8. Climate change
To increase farmer understanding and engagement with
climate change preparedness and mitigation, there should
be clear information and advice provided by government
and industry to Tasmanian farmers regarding global climate
change issues; the possible local effects of climate change;
mitigation options; and ways farmers can prepare for different
climate scenarios.
GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS AUDIT
Below are the key findings from the study, Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions Audits,
Ruth Hall, A K Consultants, December 2010.
The executive summary and full report are available at: http://www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/projects/current_projects
Executive Summary
Scope
Results
The demonstration farms consisted of a range of farming
enterprises including:
Key findings from the farm audits were:
s Intensive irrigated cropping (with some livestock).
s Mixed irrigated cropping and livestock.
s Dryland grazing.
s An irrigated dairy.
This mix was selected in order to gain an understanding of the
emissions profiles from different agricultural operations.
The audits in this report cover only those emissions that
Australia has agreed to report internationally under the Kyoto
protocol. They have been compiled using publically available
farm greenhouse gas calculators developed by Melbourne
University in conjunction with the Victorian Department of
Primary Industries. The accounting methodology used is
detailed in the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory which has
been approved by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC).
Emissions and sequestrations from farming enterprises are
calculated under three different reporting sectors as shown in
the table below:
REPORTING SECTOR
35
SUBSTANCE MEASURED
Agriculture
Methane and nitrous oxide emissions
Energy (including
stationary and transport)
Carbon dioxide emissions
Land Use, Land Use
Change and Forestry
Carbon sequestration
s On all farms, enteric methane (a natural by-product of
ruminant digestion) was the main contributor to greenhouse
gas emissions accounting for over 50% of emissions even
on the intensive cropping farm. On the two properties
running livestock only, namely the dryland grazing property
and the irrigated dairy, enteric methane contributed 83%
and 73% of the total GHG emissions respectively.
s Only one farm sequestered enough carbon to fully offset
all greenhouse gas emissions from the farming enterprise.
This appears to be due to this farm achieving a balance
of farming activities resulting in relatively fewer emissions
(3.3 tCO2e / ha) combined with a significant proportion
(12%) of the farm planted with eligible plantation trees
s If emissions from the Agricultural Sector are excluded, as
proposed in the Australian Government’s Carbon Pollution
Reduction Scheme, then all farms in this trial are able to
offset all eligible carbon emissions (ie emissions from the
Energy Sector) due to the amount of carbon sequestered
by eligible tree plantings (i.e. the Land Use, Land Use
Change and Forestry Sector).
Farm greenhouse gas emissions summary
OUTPUTS
PROPERTY 1
(TCO2E)
PROPERTY 2
(TCO2E)
Carbon Dioxide from Energy Use (Diesel & Power)
PROPERTY 3
(TCO2E)
PROPERTY 4
(TCO2E)
116
166
8
184
Enteric Methane from Cattle
56
242
459
1,839
Enteric Methane from Sheep
541
1,194
1,303
-
Nitrous Oxide from Nitrogen Fertiliser
98
37
4
10
Nitrous Oxide from Livestock Dung & Urine
43
137
178
234
168
191
178
269
-
-
-
42
Indirect Nitrous Oxides
Methane from Effluent (Dairy)
Nitrous Oxide from Effluent (Dairy)
-
-
-
2
Nitrous Oxide from Crop Residues
15
44
-
-
Nitrous Oxide from Nitrogen Fixation (crops)
74
92
-
-
1,119
2,103
2,130
2,580
Carbon Sequestration by trees planted post-1990
TOTAL Greenhouse Gas Emissions
491
2422
845
263
Net Farm Greenhouse Gas Emissions
628
-319
1,285
2,317
Figure 2: Shows emissions from each property per hectare farmed (excluding plantations and native forest)
Discussion
The first and most obvious point to note from these results
is that methane, specifically enteric methane, is the main
contributor to greenhouse gas emissions on farms. On the
two properties running livestock only, Properties 3 and 4,
enteric methane contributes 83% and 73% of the total GHG
emissions respectively.
Nitrous oxides attributable to livestock are the second largest
contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for an
average 18% across all four farms. The main contribution to
total emissions made by cropping enterprises is also nitrous
oxide. These arise from nitrogenous fertiliser application and
nitrogen fixation by leguminous crop and pasture species and
accounted for less than 1% of emissions across all farms,
except Property 1 (7%) where more nitrogen was added to the
pasture in the form of poppy meal (5.6% N).
Figure 2 shows emissions from each property per hectare
farmed (excluding plantations and native forest). This
demonstrates that intensive management of livestock in a dairy
situation, as is the case for Property 4, results in significantly
more emissions per hectare (10 tCO2e/ha) than either mixed
cropping or low intensity, dryland livestock grazing
(3-4 tCO2e/ha).
36
Figure 1: Greenhouse gas emissions per hectare farmed on
each of the trial properties
It is interesting to note that Property 2 has slightly less total
emissions than Property 3 despite running more livestock and
conducting cropping activities. On a per hectare basis Property
2 also has fewer emissions than both Property 3 (dryland
sheep only) and Property 1 (intensive irrigated cropping with
some trade livestock).
Only one property (Property 2) sequesters enough carbon to
fully offset all greenhouse gas emissions from the farming
enterprise (including the Agriculture Sector). This is largely
due to a 49 ha Eucalyptus nitens plantation on the property.
However, for this plantation to be counted towards providing
offsets for the farming enterprise, the carbon store needs to
meet the permanence criteria. ‘Permanence’ requires that the
carbon must be stored for at least 100 years. To do this it will
be necessary to ensure a ‘rolling stock’ of carbon via successive
plantings as the existing trees are thinned and harvested. This
aspect of trees on farms is being investigated in more detail by
other members of the Consortium contributing to this project,
namely Livingston Natural Resources and CSIRO Sustainable
Agriculture Flagship.
WOOD PRODUCTION OPTIONS
Below are the key findings from the study, Wood Production Options, Scott Livingston,
Livingston Natural Resource Services, December 2010.
The executive summary and full report are available at: www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/projects/current_projects
Executive Summary
Overview
This series of case studies examines different ways farmers
can manage their plantations to grow wood for industry. Each
study estimates the volumes and value of different wood
products that can be produced by different management
regimes and includes production costs and financial returns.
Modelling
Wood production estimates were undertaken using the Farm
Forestry Toolbox and based on growth rates as measured
on each site at age 5-12 years. Estimated regime length
(years to harvest) and product volumes and financial returns
to grower were calculated. Financial analysis of the regimes
included Net Present Values, Internal Rates of Return and
Annual Equivalent Value.
Net Present Value (NPV) converts a series of future cash flows
into a single value to allow alternative investment options to be
compared - this is essentially a benefit-cost analysis.
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) represents the expected return
(expressed as a percentage) on the initial investment, averaged
over the life of the project.
The Annual Equivalent Value (AEV) gives the expected annual
return, averaged over the life of the project and expressed in
present-day prices, enabling direct comparisons to be made
between projects with different durations.
Sites
The four case study sites were selected to represent the
broad range of growth potential for plantations across north
and northeast Tasmania, from low rainfall (620mm) low
fertility through to high rainfall (1200mm) high fertility sites.
The properties on which the case studies are located include
cattle and sheep grazing, dairy and cropping enterprises. All
sites include plantations about 10 hectares in size and at least
six years old. Four sites are Pinus radiata and one site is a
Eucalyptus nitens plantation.
37
Regimes
Four management regimes, described below, were modelled
for wood production on each site and are the most commonly
used in plantations in Tasmania. A short rotation pulpwood
regime was included for the eucalypt plantation site. Three
additional regimes were modelled for carbon sequestration
including short and long rotations (100 years), but not
modelled for financial analysis.
Management regimes
REGIME
OBJECTIVE
Clearwood
To produce a 6m pruned log from trees with an
average diameter breast height over bark (DBHob)
of 60cm in the shortest possible time.
Pruning and non commercial thinning undertaken.
Clearwood 2
To produce a 6m pruned log from trees with an
average diameter over bark (DBHob) of 60cm, with
revenue from pulpwood thinning.
Pruning and commercial thinning undertaken.
Knotty
Sawlog
To produce a final crop of unpruned trees with small
knots with an average diameter of 45cm.
Commercial thinning, no pruning undertaken.
Unthinned
Knotty
Sawlog
To produce a final crop of unpruned trees on sites
where commercial thinning is not economic or
markets are unavailable.
Lower grade logs with larger knots are produced,
but input costs are minimised.
No pruning or thinning undertaken.
Stumpage rates
Stumpage rates, or the price ($ per cubic metre) paid to
farmers for standing timber, were derived from industry
sources. They take into account, harvesting type and distance
to market based on an expected Mill Door price at the closest
point of sale. Regimes with high value products (veneer and
pruned logs) are less susceptible to harvesting and haulage
cost fluctuations and these products are more likely to be
saleable from smaller plantation areas.
Stumpage as a percentage of mill door price
(Radiata pine)
PRODUCT
RANGE
FROM
Findings
RANGE TO
AVERAGE
Veneer
66%
74%
70%
Pruned Sawlog
72%
77%
74%
Knotty Sawlog
57%
64%
59%
Small Sawlog
42%
53%
48%
8%
30%
17%
Pulp
The effect of distance to market on stumpage rates for Radiata
pine logs is shown below. Distance to market can influence
the regime for different sites, which in this study, varied
between 20 and 250 kilometres.
Distance to market effect on stumpage rates
$140
$120
$80
$60
$40
$20
25
0
23
0
21
0
19
0
17
0
15
0
13
0
11
0
90
70
50
30
$10
s Internal Rates of Return varied by 2-3% across regimes
on all sites. The lowest was 8% on low quality sites and
the highest was 11.5% on high quality sites.
s Delaying thinning in Clearwood regimes to produce
a commercial harvest on all sites had marginal effect
(<0.5%) on Internal Rates of Return. Annual Equivalent
Value was reduced by 17-24%.
s Clearwood with non-commercial thinning decreased IRR
by 2-3%. Here, the AEV was highest across all sites,
increasing by 42-57%.
$100
$/m3
s Distance to market has a significant effect on stumpage
rates and can influence the profitability of regimes
irrespective of site productivity.
s Thinning to produce knotty sawlog reduced regime lengths
by six years on low productivity sites and up to 11 years
on high productivity sites, when compared to unthinned
stands. IRR increased by 2-3% over all other regimes
on all sites. AEV increased between 8% and 17% over
unthinned stands.
Effect on distance to market on stumpage
Km to m arket
Veneer
38
s The profitability of all regimes increases with site
productivity. On low productivity sites, very long regimes are
needed to grow wood products to preferred market sizes.
To make regimes more viable, earlier harvests of smaller log
sizes are required which results in lower returns.
Pruned Sawlog
Knotty Sa
Pulp
s Choices of regimes must take into account a variety of
factors, such as site productivity, distance to market and
expected time of return on investment. Pruning regimes,
while on paper may result in lower economic returns, can
increase the likelihood of sales of low value products from
small plantation areas.
39
CARBON AND WOOD
PRODUCTION SCENARIOS
Below is the executive summary from the study, Carbon Plantations: A case study into
management options for carbon sequestration, wood production and new investment
opportunities, Chris Beadle, Keryn Paul, Andrew Reason, Jody Bruce and Michael Battaglia,
CSIRO Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, April 2011.
The executive summary and full report are available at: www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/projects/current_projects
Executive Summary
In Tasmania, agriculture accounts for 26% of greenhouse
emissions. Governments are actively considering ways of
offsetting these emissions and examining how farmers and
others can invest in carbon sequestration offsets and/or wood
production. Plantation forests can play a role in the capture
and storage of carbon. Well understood carbon accounting
methods and an established plantation industry, make it easy
to implement on-farm options for carbon sequestration.
In this study, five plantations in north and northeast Tasmania
were used as a starting point to model the effect of a
range of management practices on wood production and
carbon sequestration on private land. Mathematical models
that combine climate and soil descriptors of the growing
environment are used to predict wood production and calculate
carbon budgets for sequestration. Financial models are used
to create an understanding of relative financial benefits of
different management regimes based on the prices of wood
and carbon.
Climate
Mean atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are likely to rise
from the current 390 to at least 500 parts per million (ppm)
by the end of this century. As a result, in north and northeast
Tasmania, mean temperature is predicted to rise between
1.6 ºC and 2.9 ºC by the year 2100; mean annual rainfall is
likely to remain unchanged or increase by up to 10%. Altered
rainfall patterns and changed frequency of climatic extremes
are also anticipated.
40
Forests and carbon
Along with soil carbon, forests are a major reservoir of
terrestrial biomass carbon and provide long-term capacity
for sequestering carbon. In Tasmania, forest growth rates are
determined by the interactions among water availability, soil
fertility and temperature. The maximum rates of carbon storage
and totals stored by plantations are likely to be realised on
warmer, high-rainfall sites where tree growth is favoured by
abundant water and high soil fertility. Rates of photosynthesis
and levels of carbon storage may increase with increasing
CO2 concentration. Any benefits of elevated atmospheric
CO2 are also most likely to be realised on favourable sites
where nutrients and water are not limiting growth. In Tasmania,
Eucalyptus globulus, E. nitens and Pinus radiata are the
three main plantation species. They are well-adapted to the
current environmental conditions experienced in the State and
their high rates of early growth and good stem form support
commercial wood production when they are matched to
suitable planting environments.
Case study plantations and management regimes
Given the young age of the plantations (ages range from
5 -12 years), it was inappropriate to draw firm conclusions
about rotation-age performance from realised plantation
growth and there was a need to model potential growth at
each of the sites over full rotations and management options.
In areas where there is limited existing long-term growth data,
process-based models can be used to estimate potential
productivity. These models require climate and soils inputs to
be able to provide reasonable growth predictions. It is worth
noting, as each model has different data requirements, the
predicted growth will vary between models. For this study,
three models were used to predict growth.
Models
s The Farm Forestry Toolbox (FFT) contains a combination
of well-tested empirical and process-based growth
models. For these case studies, only the process-based
growth model AGGRO was used to estimate tree
growth. Standard data inputs are simplified to long-term
average monthly climates and texture, stone content
and fertility rankings for soil. This simplification can limit
the potential to ‘match’ productivity to specific sites and
may not represent the way in which site factors might
limit production, or how actual weather events may have
affected growth over the actual rotation.
s CABALA predicts the simultaneous fluxes of carbon,
water and nitrogen within a forest stand composed of
identical trees on a daily time-step. This is a very detailed
process-based model that is used to predict tree growth
in response to environment and a range of silvicultural
interventions. CABALA uses historical daily climate,
capturing the extremes in climate that can have large
impacts on productivity by calculating the average growth
for 20 different years of planting, rather than the longterm average climate used in the FFT. This model was first
calibrated for E. globulus; it has also been calibrated for
P. radiata and E. nitens, although the latter only with
limited data sets. CABALA is likely to provide the most
accurate predictions but may over-estimate growth
potential for P. radiata on low productivity sites under
certain conditions.
s 3-PG predicts stand development on a monthly timestep using five simple sub-models of key processes that
determine growth. This is the most widely used processbased model for predicting forest and plantation growth
and has been calibrated for P. radiata and E. globulus.
REGIME
CRESSY
There was no available soils information for the case study
sites on which to base predictions of growth. For each model,
soil conditions expected to be representative of those found
at the sites were selected based on location, geology and
rainfall and then modified so that modelled growth measured
the actual plantation inventory at each site. While this does not
ensure that soil conditions used in the models were correct,
the modelled growth trajectories did match actual plantation
growth recorded to date. To understand the key drivers of
growth at each site, sensitivity analysis testing different levels
of fertility and historical climate sequences was undertaken
using CABALA. This analysis showed, for instance, that
changes in levels of soil fertility had the greatest impact on
potential growth at Derby where rainfall is high.
Regimes and productivity
Seven management regimes are examined: two for pruned
sawlogs (CW1 and CW2) which are clearwood regimes without
and with commercial thinning, respectively); one for knotty,
unpruned sawlogs with commercial thinning (KSL) and which
can also be managed as an unthinned stand (UTH) where
there are no markets for thinnings; a regime that maximises
total wood production and carbon revenues (MWO); a shortrotation pulpwood regime (PUL); and a no-harvesting regime
(NHA) which has no commercial wood production.
The outputs from the modelled scenarios were used in
FULLCAM to estimate carbon stocks. FULLCAM is a massbalance carbon accounting model developed by the Australian
Government for the purpose of reporting greenhouse gas
emissions to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change. In this project it is used within NCAT,
the National Carbon Accounting Toolbox, to predict carbon
stocks in biomass and debris (below-ground biomass was not
included in this analysis as not all the models provide estimates
of root biomass). The NCAT predictions of growth were set to
those predicted by CABALA.
ROSEVALE
BEECHFORD
DERBY
1291
(40, 275)
1217 (38, 275)
1437 (36, 270)
310
(14, 900)
3
m /ha (yr, stems/ha)
1
CW2
987 (38, 275)
2
PUL
158 (13, 1075)
3
NHA
1138 (100, 386)
1493 (100, 236)
366 (14, 1075)
497 (14, 1075)
1355 (100, 272)
1720 (100, 168)
Table 1: CABALA-predicted standing volume (m3 ha-1) of P. radiata at harvest for three contrasting regimes (CW2, PUL and
NHA) at an ‘observed’ fertility level used to match observed growth at each site. The age (in blue) is the age at clearfall when the
appropriate size class was reached. The figure in pink is the stocking at harvest. Stocking at planting was 1075 stems/ha except
at Rosevale which was planted at 900 stems/ha. Eucalyptus nitens was also planted at Rosevale. Its performance is detailed in
the main report.
1
Clearwood plus commercial thinning; product is high-quality pruned sawlogs.
Pulpwood; minimises rotation length; product is pulpwood/wood-chips.
No harvesting; maximises total standing wood volume; product is stored carbon only.
2
3
41
The average clearfall volumes predicted by CABALA at
harvest are shown in Table 1. For each silvicultural regime,
standing volumes at harvest are ranked in the same order
as site mean annual rainfalls (Cressy 620 mm, Rosevale
890 mm, Beechford 740 mm and Derby 1090 mm). The
rotation lengths and final stockings are similar for all sites
in the clearwood (CW2) and pulpwood (PUL) regimes. The
no harvesting (NHA) regime indicates a continued slow
accumulation of stem wood in the second half of the rotation
at all sites, but this is accompanied by severe self-thinning
arising from competition induced mortality, which will have
implications for the long term storage of carbon.
Commercial outcomes
A variety of scenarios were considered in an examination of
returns from farm forestry that included carbon revenues. For
a full list of assumptions refer to the main report.
In this comparison (Table 2), returns from the CW2 (clearwood)
and NHA (no harvesting) regimes were compared using a
commonly applied discount rate (5%) and a $15/t C price.
This price is expected to be at the lower end of the price
range in carbon markets. The comparison is either inclusive
or exclusive of opportunity cost. The opportunity costs used
are based on current performance and returns on existing
enterprises at the four locations.
Potential productivity and climate change
The effects of increasing temperatures by up to 2.5ºC at
0.5 ºC intervals and increasing and decreasing rainfall by
10% at 5% intervals, were examined. For P. radiata,
responses are greatest to changes in rainfall, particularly at
the drier sites (Figure 1). Sensitivities to temperature were
generally small for P. radiata. However, E. nitens is sensitive
to high temperatures and increases in future temperature are
likely to result in decreased productivity. However, predicted
changes across locations were relatively small (< 7% for
P. radiata and <12% for E. nitens) compared to current
rates of production.
Figure 1: An anticipated response of stem volume production
(m3/ha) of Pinus radiata at harvest at Beechford to a
simulated increase in temperature (by up to 2.5ºC) and
changes in rainfall (+ or – 10%). This is an unthinned (UTH)
regime and the trees are harvested at age 50 years.
42
Table 2 below: Timber and carbon (C) revenues, net C
sequestered, NPV, AEV and break-even C price for P. radiata
at Cressy, Rosevale, Beechford and Derby; the opportunity
cost of land at these locations was $1500, $500, $300
and $1000, respectively. The variation in opportunity cost
reflects differences in land use. At Cressy, adjacent land is
used for irrigated crops; at Beechford for dryland grazing. A
5% discount rate and C price of $15/t is assumed. For the
CW2 regime, timber revenue includes commercial thinings
for the calculation of NPV, AEV and break-even C price. For
this analysis, permits for 50% of C sequestration throughout
the rotation were assigned, so less income is earned but
there is no C liability on harvest, assuming the plantation is
re-established. The break-even C price is its value when
NPV and AEV equal zero. For easy comparison, all economic
analyses have been normalised to 40 years. The actual
rotation length is in brackets next to the regime.
CW2 (40 YEARS)
CRESSY
ROSEVALE
BEECHFORD
DERBY
REVENUES
Timber
($/ha/year)
1,089
1,414
1,789
1,573
Carbon
($/ha/year
178
229
194
239
Net C sequestered
(tCO2e/ha/ year)
11.9
15.2
12.9
15.9
OPPORTUNITY COST
NPV
($)
-19,495
1,196
6,915
-2,592
AEV
($)
-1,136
70
403
-151
Break-even C price
($/t)
136
11
-16
24
($/ha)
6,571
9,771
12,060
14,558
AEV
($/ha)
331
569
703
848
Break-even C price
($/t)
3
-27
-43
-37
CRESSY
ROSEVALE
BEECHFORD
DERBY
0
0
0
0
NO OPPORTUNITY COST
NPV
NHA (100 YEARS)
REVENUES
Timber
($/ha/year)
Carbon
($/ha/year
429
551
478
609
Net C sequestered
(tCO2e/ha/ year)
28.6
36.7
31.9
40.6
OPPORTUNITY COST
NPV
($)
-24,308
-874
-3,171
-14,543
AEV
($)
-1,417
-51
-185
-847
Break-even C price
($/t)
123
17
28
61
($/ha)
1,417
7,701
1,974
2,616
AEV
($/ha)
83
449
115
152
Break-even C price
($/t)
9
4
4
4
NO OPPORTUNITY COST
NPV
Opportunity cost was a key variable determining the viability of establishing plantations. The CW2 regime that returns the second
highest timber revenues of the regimes tested, returned a negative NPV and AEV at Cressy and Derby when opportunity costs
($1500 and $1000/ha, respectively) were included; NPV and AEV were negative at all locations for the NHA regime. Landholders
are therefore unlikely to consider the establishment of carbon plantations on very profitable land. If opportunity costs are included,
the carbon price would need to exceed $24 and $136/t at Derby and Cressy, respectively if the CW2 regime was adopted.
On areas that make little or no money currently (low or no opportunity cost), the returns can be positive at a carbon price of $15/t.
These analyses are site and scenario specific to the project brief covered by this report and should not be used to inform decisions
beyond the scope of the defined project.
43
LAND SUITABILITY
Below are the key findings from a report, Plantation Potential of Cleared Land in Tasmania,
which primarily collates work undertaken by Private Forests Tasmania.
The executive summary is available at: http://www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/projects/current_projects
Executive Summary
Plantation potential on relatively lower
productivity sites
Private Forests Tasmania has investigated the area of cleared
private land potentially suitable for plantation development
for broad strategic purposes. Two different and separate
investigations include an internal technical report, Estimating
the area of private cleared land within Tasmania with potential
plantation, Peter Taylor, Private Forests Tasmania, 2009; and
other work in 2005 to identify potentially suitable cleared private
land for plantation development in lower rainfall areas under the
National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.
The 2005 analysis examined the area on mainland Tasmania
identified under the National Action Plan (NAP) for Salinity
and Water Quality 2004-2005 project, Productive Use and
Rehabilitation of Salt Affected Land, overseen by Private
Forests Tasmania. The purpose of this study was to investigate
the extent to which plantation forestry could be developed in
lower rainfall areas to produce wood and perhaps ameliorate
salinity impacts. Municipalities within the NAP study area
include Brighton, City of Launceston, Dorset, George Town,
Northern Midlands, Sorell, Southern Midlands and West Tamar.
In this study, a commercial plantation was deemed to have a
MAI of at least 15m3/ha/yr.
Interpretation of all results needs to be mindful that all
analyses are based on various economic, geographic and
operational assumptions. In addition, there are assumptions
underlying the growth models. Each analysis sets different
criteria for commercial viability. Generally, the first analysis
could be said to apply to potential plantation sites with rainfall
above about 1,000 mm/yr and the second to sites receiving
less than about 1,000mm/yr.
Plantation potential on relatively higher
productivity sites
The 2009 analysis, based on a one kilometre grid, included land
below 700 metres in elevation and above 600mm mean annual
rainfall. Areas where plantation forestry was uncompetitive with
other land uses, prohibited by planning schemes or not able to
be developed under the Forest Practices Code, were excluded.
Areas preferred for plantation development, based on location to
processing centres, were identified.
A plantation productivity measure, expressed as mean annual
increment (MAI), of 20 cubic metres per year (m3/ha/yr) was
regarded as the lower limit for commercial viability. Here, the
Net Present Value (NPV) of a plantation enterprise is positive
and has an acceptable rate of return when the MAI exceeds
20m3/ha/yr and the price paid for standing timber exceeds
$17.50/m3. On this basis, it is estimated there are upwards
of 73,000 net hectares of cleared private land suitable for
commercial plantations of Pinus radiata, Eucalyptus nitens
or E. globulus. Land suitable for plantations with an MAI of
19m3/ha/yr or less are estimated to be about 37,200 net
hectares. This analysis focused on wood productions and did
not include ‘carbon only’ plantings as different assumptions
may apply.
44
The study area included cleared land under 700 metres
elevation with above 600mm mean annual rainfall, with
slopes less than 27°. Wetlands were excluded. Within these
parameters, a total pool of land of 495,000 hectares was
identified as being potentially suitable for plantation. Areas
were identified according to plantation productivity, 0-9, 10-14,
15-19, 20-24 and 25m3/ha/yr or more.
The analysis estimated land in the study area for commercial
plantations is best suited for Pinus radiata with a potential
363,000 hectares (73%) of suitable land. Land suitable for
E. nitens is estimated to be about 334,000 hectares (67%).
Land suitable for E. globulus is estimated to be 115,000
hectares or 23% of the total study area.
Within the study area, a sub-pool of 201,400 hectares of land
with known salinity indicators was identified. Of this, 62% is
suited to Pinus radiata, 13% suited to E. globulus and 54%
suited to E. nitens.
A large area in the Longford-Cressy region shows potential for
both P. radiata and E. nitens to reach a peak MAI of
15-19m3/ha/yr. A small area in the Evandale-Nile area shows
potential for P. radiata to reach a peak MAI of up to 20-24m3/
ha/yr, with 15-19m3/ha/yr for E. nitens. There are also
several smaller areas with similar potential for these species
in the southern region from Triabunna, in the Coal River Valley,
through to Richmond and Sorell. Based on this modelling
process, the commercial plantation of E. globulus is confined
to small areas in the West Tamar region and near Sorell.
TOOLS
CARBON PLANTATIONS KIT
GLOSSARY
Some terms and their meanings, used in or related to the Carbon Plantations Kit.
Abatement
Carbon price
Emission
Reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, or enhancement of
greenhouse gas removal from the
atmosphere by sinks.
Common term for the cost of releasing
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Release of greenhouse gases into
the atmosphere.
Carbon sinks
Emission price
Natural or man-made systems that
absorb and store carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere, including plants, soils
and oceans.
The cost of releasing greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere. Often
referred to as the ‘carbon price’.
Anthropogenic (man made)
greenhouse gases
Greenhouse gases released due to
human activities.
Carbon capture and storage
(CCS)
Technology to capture and store
greenhouse gas emissions from energy
production or industrial processes.
Captured greenhouse gases have the
potential to be stored in a variety of
geological sites.
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
A naturally occurring gas. It is also a
by-product of burning fossil fuels and
biomass, other industrial processes
and land-use changes. It is the
main greenhouse gas that affects
anthropogenic changes to the
earth’s temperature.
Carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2-e)
A standard measure that takes
account of the different global warming
potentials of greenhouse gases and
expresses the cumulative effect in a
common unit.
46
Emissions trading scheme
Clean development
mechanism (CDM)
A mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol
through which developed countries
may undertake greenhouse gas
emission reduction or removal projects
in developing countries and receive
credits for doing so. They then may
apply these credits to meet their own
mandatory emissions targets.
Climate change
As defined by the UNFCCC (see
below): a change of climate that is
attributed directly or indirectly to human
activity that alters the composition of
the global atmosphere and that is in
addition to natural climate variability
over comparable time periods.
Deforestation
The conversion of forested land to an
alternative, non-forest use.
A scheme that creates a market
for emission rights by limiting the
total amount of emissions. Market
participants then buy and sell rights to
emit greenhouse gases.
Global warming potential
A system of multipliers devised to
enable the comparison of the warming
effects of different gases. For example,
over the next 100 years, a gram of
nitrous oxide in the atmosphere is
currently estimated as having 310 times
the warming effect as a gram of
carbon dioxide.
Greenhouse gases
Gases that cause global warming
and climate change. The major
greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur
hexafluoride (SF6).
Gross domestic product (GDP)
The total market value of all goods and
services produced in an economy.
Gross national product (GNP)
GDP adjusted for international transfers
of income. GDP measures what an
economy produces; GNP measures
what an economy can afford to buy.
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC)
Established in 1988, the IPCC surveys
worldwide scientific and technical
literature and publishes assessment
reports that are widely recognised as
the most credible existing sources of
information on climate change. The
IPCC also works on methodologies and
responds to specific requests from the
UNFCCC’s decision-making bodies.
Kyoto Protocol
An international treaty negotiated under
the auspices of the UNFCCC. It came
into force in 2005. Among other things,
the protocol sets binding targets for the
limitation of greenhouse gas emissions
by individual developed countries to be
met within the first commitment period
of 2008–12.
Land use, land-use change
and forestry
A reporting category comprising
agriculture emissions (land use) and
emissions from deforestation (landuse change) and carbon sequestered
through reforestation (forestry).
Mitigation
There are many online glossaries
defining the new range of terms used
by the new world paradigm of ‘carbon’.
Most glossaries have a specific focus.
Some useful glossaries relevant to
Australia are on the internet, simply use
your ‘search engine’ and locate:
A human intervention to reduce the
sources of, or enhance the sinks for,
greenhouse gases.
Climate change glossary
– EPA Victoria.
Scenario modelling
Glossary of common climate
change terms
– WWF Australia.
Scenario modelling is an assessment of
what could happen in the future, given
the structure of the models and input
assumptions. It is not a prediction of
what will happen in the future.
Sequestration
The removal of atmospheric carbon
dioxide, either through biological
processes (for example, photosynthesis
in plants), or geological processes (for
example, storage of carbon dioxide in
underground reservoirs).
United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC)
An international treaty adopted after
the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and
aimed at achieving the stabilisation
of greenhouse gas concentrations in
the atmosphere at a level that would
prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.
47
Other Glossaries
Carbon Offset Glossary /
Carbon Offset Guide Australia.
Carbon-capture
– Glossary.
Carbon Pollution Reduction
Scheme Green Paper
– Glossary.
Oz Coasts Organisation
– Glossary.
CO2e (Carbon dioxide equivalent)
Glossary, FAQs.
Glossary of Climate Change
Acronyms
HELPFUL LINKS
There are many useful government, non-government and industry web sites hosting a great
deal of information about carbon. A selection of sites by topic follows.
Reports
Australian Government policies and programs
Carbon Farming Initiative
Keep updated with Australian Government policies and
programs, including Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
(CPRS) progress, the National Carbon Offset Standard
(NCOS) and the Climate Change Research Program at the
Department of Climate Change website
The Government is committed to establishing the Carbon
Farming Initiative to give farmers, forest growers and
landholders access to domestic voluntary and international
carbon markets. The consultation paper was the first step
in a dialogue with stakeholders about the Carbon Farming
Initiative. The Department of Climate Change and Energy
Efficiency held consultation workshops and meetings around
Australia. The workshop presentation is available to
interested stakeholders.
Carbon brokers
A directory of carbon brokers currently operating within
both formal and informal markets, can be viewed on the
Private Forestry pages of the DPI website
Go to ‘Plantations & Climate Change’ then ‘Carbon Trading’.
Also available at this website is a wide range of information
and publications regarding commercial forestry projects on
private land.
Carbon cycle (for kids)
The ‘carbon cycle’ refers to the transfer of carbon, in various
forms, through the atmosphere, oceans, plants, animals,
soils and sediments. Plants and algae convert carbon
dioxide and water into biomass using energy from the sun
(photosynthesis). Living organisms return carbon to the
atmosphere when they respire, decompose or burn. Methane
is released through the decomposition of plants, animals and
other hydrocarbon material (fossil fuels and waste) when no
oxygen is present.
For further information see:
eo.ucar.edu/kids/green/cycles6.htm
48
The stakeholder submissions can be seen at
www.climatechange.gov.au/en/government/
submissions/carbon-farming-initiative.aspx
Carbon Farming Initiative draft legislation and
methodology guidelines
The Government released draft legislation and methodology
guidelines for the Carbon Farming Initiative to provide further
detail on how the proposals outlined in the consultation paper
would work in practice.
Carbon offset guide
The Carbon Offset Guide www.carbonoffsetguide.com.au/
is an independent directory of Australian carbon offset
providers developed through a partnership between EPA
Victoria and Global Sustainability at the Royal Melbourne
Institute of Technology (RMIT). It is a resource for businesses,
government and non-government agencies and individuals
seeking information about carbon offsets. The guide is
updated every six months. A search facility allows local offset
providers to be found across most sectors, eg. developers,
retailers, brokers, renewable energy, forestry, etc. The content
of the Carbon Offset Guide Australia website is provided
for information purposes only and does not represent an
endorsement of any carbon offset provider or product.
Climate Futures for Tasmania
The Tasmanian Government, alongside the Australian
Government’s Environment Research Facilities Programme
and Hydro Tasmania, are cooperatively funding a new research
collaboration which will provide likely future climate information
at local scales around Tasmania. Previously, national scale
projections have been relied upon which has sometimes
limited their use at local levels. The Climate Futures for
Tasmania Project will provide projections that can be used for
local decision-making and importantly involve a broad cross
section of the community promoting a more holistic approach
to climate change adaptations. The project, managed by the
Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research
Centre, is an essential part of Tasmania’s climate change
strategy as stated in the Tasmanian Framework for Action
on Climate Change.
For further information see:
www.acecrc.org.au/drawpage.cgi?pid=climate_futures
www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/climatechange/
adapting/climate_futures
Climate Futures for Tasmania reports
Read the reports that have been released so far:
General Climate Impacts Technical Report
(October 2010)
The report sets out the projected changes to Tasmania’s
climate during this century, including higher temperatures and
changes in rainfall patterns.
Impacts on Agriculture Technical Report
(March 2011)
The report sets out the impacts on Tasmanian agriculture
from projected climate change. The report examines the key
climate indices of frost, drought, chilling and growing degreedays; and focuses on the key agricultural sectors of perennial
horticulture, pasture production, grain crops, wine and issues
around bio-security.
Climate change
Basic climate change science and effects of
climate change are well described together with
other information at:
www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/climatechange/theBasic/
theBasic.htm
What is climate change? See:
www.climatechange.gov.au/en/climate-change.aspx
Information focused on adaption to climate change
in Tasmania at:
www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/climatechange
Dairy climate toolkit
Provides comprehensive information about Climate and
Greenhouse, Climate impacts and responses and a Farm
greenhouse gas calculator, see:
http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/Farm/MicroSite1/
Home.aspx
Forestry
Understanding greenhouse gases and forestry, see:
new.dpi.vic.gov.au/forestry/plantations-and-climatechange/understanding-greenhouse-gases
Garnaut Climate Change Review
The Government has commissioned Professor Ross Garnaut
to provide an independent update to his 2008 Climate
Change Review. He is also an independent expert adviser
to the Government’s Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.
Review papers are being released and the final report will be
presented to Government by 31 May 2011, see:
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/
Papers include:
1. Weighing the costs and benefits of climate change action.
2. Progress towards effective global action on climate
change.
3. Global emissions trends.
Water and Catchments Technical Report
(March 2011)
The report sets out projected river flows, to 2100, for more
than 1900 sub-catchments in 78 river catchments that cover
more than 70 per cent of the State by area. The future
operations of Tasmania’s hydro-electric system and 14 major
irrigation storages were also simulated to 2100.
4. Transforming rural land use.
5. The science of climate change.
6. Carbon pricing and reducing Australia’s emissions.
7. Low emissions technology and the innovation challenge.
8. Transforming the electricity sector.
Tasmanian Climate Change Office
Climate Futures for Tasmania projections on the
Land Information System Tasmania
The Climate Futures for Tasmania projections available on
LISTmap includes mean temperature change, annual rainfall
change, pan evaporation change and relative humidity change
for three time periods and under two emission scenarios.
49
The Tasmanian Climate Change Office (TCCO) is a small,
multi-disciplinary team established within the Department
of Premier and Cabinet to lead the Government’s efforts to
respond to the challenges of climate change in Tasmania.
http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/climatechange
Carbon Calculators
There are many online calculators that can estimate
greenhouse gas emissions and carbon capture and storage
by trees. Many are enterprise based. Some require basic
knowledge of the enterprise and others require a detailed
knowledge of economics and management practices.
Agriculture, forestry and natural resource management
consultants working in this field would be familiar with the
calculators most suited to Tasmanian enterprises.
The University of Melbourne has a site dedicated to
carbon tools:
www.greenhouse.unimelb.edu.au/Tools.htm
Calculators listed below are sourced from:
http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/farmingmanagement/climate/ctan/on-farm-greenhouse-gasaccounting-tools
Cropping, beef, sheep,
intensive livestock,
horticulture
Greenhouse in agriculture - greenhouse
frameworks for beef, wool and grains
Excel-based tools, useful for calculating emissions from
individual enterprise activities. Inputs and outputs are
presented on one page, with a graphical representation of
emissions from each key source.
FarmGAS greenhouse gas emissions calculator
Online tool that enables farmers to estimate a farm’s
annual emissions, both at the individual enterprise level and
for the farm as a whole, to examine the financial impacts that
different greenhouse mitigation options may have on farm
business productivity. Can include beef, sheep, broadacre
cropping (up to four dryland and two irrigated crops), intensive
livestock systems (beef feedlot and piggery), one perennial
horticulture crop and environmental plantings. Results are
stored online, so they can be automatically updated with any
changes in methods.
50
How to use the FarmGAS calculator?
View and listen to this article on farm greenhouse gas
emissions and how to use the FarmGAS calculator, presented
by Sally Davison from the Australian Farm Institute on Tuesday
24th August 2010.
FarmGAS final report and case studies
This report provides a background on the FarmGAS calculator
and how it was developed as well as eight case studies based
on real farms, including dryland: mixed enterprise (cattle weaners, sheep - wethers, winter crops); livestock only (cattle
- weaners, sheep - prime lamb); and cropping only (winter area
- 60%, summer area - 40%); feedlot steers; intensive piggery;
horticulture - cherries; and irrigated cropping in Queensland.
Horticulture carbon foot-printing tool
Excel-based tool to assist in estimating emissions from
horticulture growing operations. Additional information is also
provided on greenhouse gas emissions from horticulture,
how they might be reduced and uncertainties associated with
estimating and reducing emissions.
Fact sheet
- greenhouse gas emissions from horticulture
This fact sheet provides information on what emissions are
produced by horticultural activities, how to estimate emissions
from horticulture, carbon foot-printing and some options for
mitigating emissions in horticulture.
Dairy
Greenhouse in agriculture
- dairy greenhouse framework
Excel-based tool, useful for calculating emissions from dairy
farms. Inputs and outputs are presented on one page, with a
graphical representation of emissions from each key source.
Dairy greenhouse gas abatement
strategies calculator (DGAS)
Trees
Excel-based tool, that enables farm managers to calculate the
impact of adopting different abatement strategies on total farm
greenhouse gas emissions and explore strategies best suited
to their farming system, including herd management, feeding
management, soil management and farm intensification. In
addition to calculating on-farm nitrous oxide and methane
emissions and carbon dioxide emissions from electricity and
fuel use, DGAS estimates certain pre-farm emissions from
chemicals, fertilisers and feed inputs. Available in two versions:
‘Adviser’ and ‘Farmer’. The ’Farmer’ version is a simplified
version that requires the same farm inputs, but less detailed
herd information. It uses averages to automatically calculate
the weight of replacement cows, number and weight of bulls
and annual diets. This means less accuracy, but at least gives
the farmer a ‘feel’ for their emissions.
National carbon accounting toolbox
How to use the DGAS calculator?
View and listen to a presentation on dairy farm emissions, the
policy context and how to use the DGAS calculator, presented
by DGAS developer Karen Christie (Tasmanian Institute of
Agricultural Research) in December 2009.
Benchmarking dairy farms:
the Dairy Industry Farm Monitor Project
This Project provides a financial and comparative analysis
of 73 dairy farms from across Northern Victoria, South
Western Victoria and Gippsland. Over the past three years,
the project has also estimated the greenhouse gas emissions
for each farm, using the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory
methodology, adapted from the GIA greenhouse framework
for dairy. The key sources of emissions were enteric methane
(72%) from cow digestive processes, nitrous oxide (18%) from
soils, fertilisers, dung and urine and carbon dioxide (10%) from
electricity and fuel. Effluent ponds (1%) were a minor source.
Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector a life cycle assessment
The Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations
has released a new report on greenhouse gas emissions from
all major milk production systems. It focuses on the entire
dairy food chain, including emissions associated with the
production, processing and transportation of milk products
as well as emissions related to meat produced from animals
originating from the dairy system. According to this report,
the dairy sector accounts for around four percent of all
global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The
assessment is part of an ongoing programme to analyse and
recommend options for climate change mitigation.
51
The Toolbox includes the Full Carbon Accounting Model
(FullCAM), which may be used to estimate and predict carbon
flows associated with all biomass, litter and soil carbon pools in
forest and agricultural systems. It allows users to track carbon
dioxide emissions and removals using the same data and
modelling that is used to create Australia’s national greenhouse
accounts. The Model is being further developed to incorporated
nitrous oxide and methane emissions from agriculture.
Wine
International and Australian wine
carbon calculators
Useful for estimating emissions from vineyards, wineries and/
or packaging and distribution. Both tools are in compliance with
current international standards and practices for greenhouse
gas accounting and the Australian calculator incorporates
national emissions factors. They provide general guidance on
the significant emissions associated with individual products,
but are not sufficient for product-level lifecycle analysis (which
is required to claim ‘carbon neutrality’).
Note on calculation methods:
Most, if not all, of the tools listed above apply the
same methodology used by the Department of Climate
Change in the estimation of Australia’s National
Greenhouse Accounts for agricultural emissions.
Most of these tools also include a basic estimate for
tree carbon sequestration, but these do not necessarily
follow the national methods.
The National Carbon Accounting Toolbox (NCAT)
is the only tool that applies the national accounting
methods for tree carbon sequestration. FarmGAS
utilises outputs generated from NCAT to estimate
carbon sequestration from environmental plantings.
Methods are subject to change, as new research
becomes available, it is therefore important to
regularly check for any updates to these tools.
FARM FORESTRY TOOLBOX
Over the last ten years Private Forests Tasmania has
developed, and continuously improved, the Farm
Forestry Toolbox, see:
www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/products/farm_
forestry_toolbox
The Farm Forestry Toolbox is a collection of programs
(called tools) for assisting managers of shelter belts,
plantations or native forests. The tools have been
developed to be ‘user- friendly’ for farmers, foresters,
consultants and scientists.
Among other things the Farm Forestry Toolbox offers
ways to estimate:
s how much wood might grow in your pine or eucalypt
plantation;
s how much standing volume you have to sell now;
s the volume of your cut logs;
s keys to assist with diagnosing health problems in
trees, plantations and native forests.
The CD also contains a detailed user manual, worked
examples and short video clips to illustrate how each
tool is used. Version five of the Farm Forestry Toolbox
CD is available free of charge from any Private Forests
Tasmania office.
Before undertaking
any significant
forestry project,
it is strongly
recommended
that you seek
professional advice.
52
Developments in emissions trading and carbon credits are now
at a stage where a number of carbon trading schemes are
available for participation by forest growers. While receiving
payment for the carbon in new forests may offer an additional
source of income for tree growers, there are a few key
questions growers should ask before trading their carbon.
Know your rights and responsibilities
In all cases, legal agreements of some kind will be required, as
carbon buyers rightfully expect to know the carbon they are
buying is protected via an agreement. Similarly, the involvement
of a carbon broker or pool manager to facilitate the trade is
also required to account for the carbon benefit being produced,
market the carbon to potential buyers and ensure all of the
legal requirements surrounding the trade are met.
It is crucial to know what your rights and responsibilities will be
in any agreement - this should be clearly discussed with the
carbon broker.
Know your markets
Both buyers and brokers of carbon often have specific
requirements for the type of forestry offset they require. For
example, some buyers and brokers will only deal with new
plantings that are to be conserved in perpetuity, others will
allow harvesting and replanting, offering a once-off payment
for all of the carbon, whilst others may offer short-term
payment options. Some brokers may want to carry out the
planting and management themselves, others will expect the
landholder to do this.
In addition, carbon can be traded in formally recognised
markets that are highly regulated, or through informal voluntary
markets. This is an area that is changing significantly in
Australia as proposals for state and national trading schemes
are considered.
53
CONSIDERATIONS
FOR TREE GROWERS BEFORE
SELLING THEIR CARBON
The following information is from:
www.new.dpi.vic.gov.au/forestry/plantations-and- climate-change/carbon-market/tree-growers-carbon
and precedes the Australian Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative. and precedes the Australian
Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative. Even so, it provides insights into the ‘carbon market’.
Developments in emissions trading and carbon credits are now
at a stage where a number of carbon trading schemes are
available for participation by forest growers. While receiving
payment for the carbon in new forests may offer an additional
source of income for tree growers, there are a few key
questions growers should ask before trading their carbon.
Know your rights and responsibilities
In all cases, legal agreements of some kind will be required, as
carbon buyers rightfully expect to know the carbon they are
buying is protected via an agreement. Similarly, the involvement
of a carbon broker or pool manager to facilitate the trade is
also required to account for the carbon benefit being produced,
market the carbon to potential buyers and ensure all of the
legal requirements surrounding the trade are met.
It is crucial to know what your rights and responsibilities will be
in any agreement - this should be clearly discussed with the
carbon broker.
Know your markets
Both buyers and brokers of carbon often have specific
requirements for the type of forestry offset they require. For
example, some buyers and brokers will only deal with new
plantings that are to be conserved in perpetuity, others will
allow harvesting and replanting, offering a once-off payment
for all of the carbon, whilst others may offer short-term
payment options. Some brokers may want to carry out the
planting and management themselves, others will expect the
landholder to do this.
In addition, carbon can be traded in formally recognised
markets that are highly regulated, or through informal voluntary
markets. This is an area that is changing significantly in
Australia as proposals for state and national trading schemes
are considered.
54
Issues to consider when selling your carbon in a
carbon agreement
Considering the following issues and questions is a good start
for any carbon sequester in the forestry sector. However,
obtaining independent advice from your legal and financial
advisers may assist you to evaluate any potential implications
for your situation.
Fair price:
Am I getting the right/fair price for my carbon? Like any
market, it is important to obtain information from a variety of
carbon brokers/traders regarding the value of your carbon.
Impacts on land:
Will the carbon agreement have an impact on the rights to
the land and land values? Other related considerations may
be the effect on the land value if it is offered for sale in the
future. What are the potential implications of trees committed
to carbon storage on other areas of the farm business (eg
loans and investments, property titles)? For example, if there is
a mortgage on the land the financial institution as mortgagor
may be required to provide its consent. Also, if the land titles
are owned by separate individuals or business entities, then
each owner may require a separate carbon agreement.
Soil carbon:
What implications are there for the carbon stored in my soil
and other environmental issues? The establishment of trees on
cleared land may result in an initial release of soil greenhouse
chemicals followed by steady accumulation. This impact is still
being researched and is not as well understood as the benefit
that growing trees can provide. Tree establishment can also
deliver a range of other environmental considerations including
erosion mitigation, biodiversity habitat and visual amenity and
should be factored into any tree planting project.
Assistance with brokers:
Are there alternatives for dealing with carbon brokers? There
are organisations that can offer assistance for dealing with
brokers (see ‘Links and further information’).
Some questions to ask a carbon broker
?
?
Are there different methods of payment
available? For example, can I be paid in
an up-front sum to store my carbon for
an agreed period of time, or can I receive
an annual payment as long as the carbon
offset is maintained?
?
Can I thin or harvest any of the trees used
for carbon credits or do I have to fence
them off and conserve them for the life of
the agreement? (Some brokers will allow
you to follow productive forestry practices,
others will not.)
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
55
Are there any benefits or drawbacks if
I sell all or just some of my carbon? (It
may be possible to receive a better price
for carbon depending on the amount you
are trading.)
What happens if the carbon broker/buyer
no longer trades in carbon?
What are the brokers/buyers
responsibilities in my agreement?
How long am I committed to the carbon
agreement?
Who will manage and maintain the
agreement over time?
?
?
Are there any differences in value
between new and existing plantings?
?
How flexible is the agreement for future
modifications or negotiations? What if I
want to cancel the agreement?
?
Who pays the cost of registering/
verifying the carbon if it needs to be
registered on title?
?
?
Does the carbon agreement deal with
unforseen events?
?
Who is responsible to pay for and
undertake replacement of the forest?
Can I cancel the agreement? Will I have
to pay back the money received from the
carbon agreement? If so at what price?
?
Do I need to consider who has ongoing
responsibilities for the care and
maintenance of the forest?
What is the process for any measurement
and inspection of the trees?
What is considered reasonable access
to my land?
What if somebody injures themselves on
my property?
Are the credits Kyoto-consistent? What
are the implications if they are not
recognised by a formal market? (For
example, generally forests considered
Kyoto-consistent have: been planted after
1989; trees that grow to greater than
two metres in height; a greater than 20%
canopy cover; a land cover of more than
one hectare.)
What events are included and what are
the implications? (Consider the following
example: What happens if the carbon pool
is burned, damaged, dies or doesn’t grow
as expected?)
FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS ABOUT
PLANTATIONS & GREENHOUSE
The following is a list of questions often asked by landholders participating in a timber and greenhouse
plantations program in Victoria. Graeme Anderson, Manager of the Plantations for Greenhouse Program,
Department of Primary Industries (Victoria), provided the answers.
www.new.dpi.vic.gov.au/forestry/plantations-and-climate-change/faqs
Can you briefly explain the concept of
carbon sinks?
Doesn’t burning firewood increase our
greenhouse emissions?
Climate change or the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ is
caused by the increased concentration of greenhouse gases
(such as CO2) in the atmosphere. Reducing greenhouse gas
emissions is a fundamental task, however the planting of
new forests can sequester (absorb) greenhouse gas from the
atmosphere and serve as a valuable ‘sink’. The stored carbon
in these new greenhouse plantings will become a saleable
commodity in future.
The burning of most fuel to produce energy (oil, coal, gas,
wood) releases greenhouse emissions. One critical difference
is that firewood that is sourced from a renewable plantation is
actually greenhouse neutral. This means the carbon released
from burning the wood is taken back (sequestered) by the
plantation as it re-grows. It’s basically a greenhouse gas
recycling program.
What’s the use of planting trees as a
greenhouse sink if they will eventually be
cut down?
Most people think that planting trees as a carbon sink that will
eventually be harvested defeats the purpose. Why not plant
the trees and just leave them there? Surprisingly, a plantation
established on cleared farmland that is managed for longer
term production of renewable firewood and timber, has even
greater greenhouse benefits than a tree planting that is just
left alone to grow old. This is because there is generally a limit
to the amount of carbon that a forest can absorb and at full
maturity the forest will be at an equilibrium. However, a forest/
plantation managed to produce a sustainable (ongoing) supply
of greenhouse friendly products such as timber, helps to freeup the forest to grow and store more carbon (until it reaches
equilibrium again).
56
Is wood really a greenhouse
friendly product?
If wood is taken from renewable sources such as plantations,
it is a very greenhouse friendly option when compared to other
materials. For example, imagine the construction of 1000
metres of transmission line – the greenhouse emissions for
construction (to last 60 years) are: tubular steel poles = 38
tonnes emissions; concrete poles = 17 tonnes of emissions;
timber poles = 4 tonnes of emissions.
That’s why growing new carbon sink plantations that provide
ongoing supplies of wood products (paper, timber, flooring,
construction etc) are a very useful activity. Not only does the
new forest estate create increased stores of carbon, but the
wood produced can go to displace many other products that
have much higher emissions associated with their production.
How can a renewable plantation that
produces wood for biofuel or heating
actually provide a net greenhouse
carbon sink whilst still producing an
energy resource?
It’s all about the change in land use from cleared agricultural
land (with low carbon storage) to a new sustainable plantationbased land use. Over the longer term (repeated rotations)
the plantation goes on to produce a plentiful supply of wood
products such as fuel wood (energy), while at the same time
substantially increasing the overall carbon levels that are
stored on site. The key aspect is the change to a forested land
use which increases longer term carbon usage and storage.
What happens to the greenhouse benefit if
I grow the trees, cut them down and then
return the land to pasture?
If at the end of the day you harvest all the trees and return the
land to the original agricultural land use, the final carbon stored
on the land is likely to return to the very low carbon levels found
initially. While this may not result in a net carbon sink, if all of the
wood grown was used as a fuel source, it would have provided
a greenhouse benefit due to the fact that an equivalent amount
of other greenhouse emitting fuel (and thus emissions) was not
required. This outcome is still better than no plantation at all.
However permanent land use change towards plantations has
much better outcomes for greenhouse mitigation.
57
Do plantations provide other benefits
besides greenhouse mitigation?
Well-designed plantations can provide many other benefits
such as salinity control, farm shelter, biodiversity and improved
catchment health as well as producing fuel wood and timber.
Recent studies by Victorian fauna scientists are showing that
the diversity and abundance of native birdlife is vastly improved
in areas where new eucalypt plantations have been established.
Their studies are showing that even a single species eucalypt
planting can greatly benefit birdlife populations when compared
to the pre-existing cleared land. The fact that the new planting
produces nectar, provides protection, increases insect diversity
and partially recreates habitat, contributes to improving the value
of the area for native wildlife.
GROWING
PLANTATIONS
Growing a plantation, be it only a few trees or thousands,
requires forward planning well before the first tree is planted.
You may need a Forest Practices Plan if the area exceeds
10 hectares and/or the land is considered ‘threatened’.
See section ‘Do I Need a Forest Practices Plan?’ and
www.fpa.tas.gov.au/index.php?id=122
You may also need development approval from your local
government.
You may consider establishing a Private Timber Reserve over
the plantation or forest. In essence, this ensures the land use
can continue in event of changes in local planning schemes. In
other words, your investment is protected.
For further information see: www.privateforests.tas.gov.
au/private_timber_reserve_applications
You may wish to assign the trees to a person who is not
the registered title holder. This can be done through a
Forestry Right which is registered on the land title.
Planning, technical and economic information about plantation
establishment and management is available from staff at
Private Forests Tasmania’s offices in Hobart, Launceston and
Camdale. For information on these topics, see:
www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/publications/farm_
forestry_info_sheets
Private Forests Tasmania hires mound ploughs for site
cultivation to farmers. These ploughs deep-shatter rip and
mound tree planting lines often in one pass. They are suitable
for large farm tractors.
58
DO I NEED A FOREST
PRACTICES PLAN?
Forest Practices Plans are required for a range of forest operations, including establishment
of trees. However, plans are not required in all situations.
Establishment of trees and Forest Practices Plans
SITUATION
IF THE
ANSWER
IS ‘NO’
CONTINUE
DOWN
THE LIST
1. Has the proposed plantation site contained trees or a threatened
native vegetation community within the preceding five years?
Yes
Plan required
Yes
Plan required
sMORETHANHECTARESPERPROPERTYPERYEAR
Yes
Plan required
sLESSTHANHECTARESPERPROPERTYPERYEAR
Yes
No plan required
A Forest Practices Plan (FPP) is required for land where trees have been
removed within the last five years. (Also remember that for a carbon
plantation to be ‘Kyoto-compliant’ only land cleared before December 1989
can be planted.) There are a number of vegetation communities or types
described as ‘a threatened native vegetation community’ and listed in the
Nature Conservation Act 2002. These communities are listed in the table
below. A FPP is required if planting is proposed for areas that contained any
of these communities within the preceding five years.
2. Does the proposed plantation site require the construction of a road
or the operation of a quarry?
A FPP is required when a road is being built, or a quarry is used for the road,
as part of plantation development. A FPP is not generally required where
existing roads or tracks are being used.
3. If the proposed plantation site did not contain trees or a threatened
native vegetation community, within the preceding five year period,
will it be:
If the area to be planted is more than 10 hectares per property per calendar
year a FPP is required. If the area is less than 10 hectares per property per
calendar year a FPP is not required.
Notes: In most cases carbon-based tree plantings on cleared land of less than 10 hectares per property per year, will not require a FPP. A property
is defined as land listed as a property on the valuation rolls. A property can include one or more land titles and have a single Property Identification
Number (PID). Local government rates are paid on the basis of PIDs. Some land owners have all their land listed under a single PID. Other
landowners have a number of PIDs covering their lands.
59
What is a Forest Practices Plan?
A Forest Practices Plan is a written document detailing the
operations or works that will be undertaken on the land. A
FPP is prepared using guidelines and standards detailed in the
Forest Practices Code. The FPP also includes prescriptions
for the protection of natural and cultural values.
For information about Forest Practices Plans see:
Information for landholders and applicants at:
www.fpa.tas.gov.au/index.php?id=15
Summary
Anyone can prepare a FPP but usually it is prepared by a
Forest Practices Officer (FPO). Plantings over a number of
years can be covered in a single FPP.
The above information is a guide only. Formal advice on whether
a Forest Practices Plan is required is available from Forest
Practices Officers and the Forest Practices Authority (FPA).
A FPO must certify the FPP and a fee must be paid. Once
certified a FPP is legally enforceable and the applicant and any
contractor undertaking works, must follow its directions. Once
a FPP is completed a certificate of compliance is required.
Landowners should consult with their local government
authority to determine whether planning approval is necessary
for the activity.
Threatened native vegetation communities listed in the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (as at April 2011)
Alkaline pans
Eucalyptus risdonii forest and woodland
Allocasuarina littoralis forest
Eucalyptus tenuiramis forest and woodland on sediments
Athrotaxis cupressoides/Nothofagus gunnii short rainforest
Eucalyptus viminalis - Eucalyptus globulus coastal forest
and woodland
Athrotaxis cupressoides open woodland
Eucalyptus viminalis Furneaux forest and woodland
Athrotaxis cupressoides rainforest
Eucalyptus viminalis wet forest
Athrotaxis selaginoides/Nothofagus gunnii short rainforest
Heathland on calcarenite
Athrotaxis selaginoides rainforest
Heathland scrub complex at Wingaroo
Athrotaxis selaginoides subalpine scrub
Highland grassy sedgeland
Banksia marginata wet scrub
Highland Poa grassland
Banksia serrata woodland
Melaleuca ericifolia swamp forest
Callitris rhomboidea forest
Melaleuca pustulata scrub
Coastal complex on King Island
Notelaea - Pomaderris - Beyeria forest
Cushion moorland
Rainforest fernland
Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone
Riparian scrub
Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland on
cainozoic deposits
Seabird rookery complex
Eucalyptus brookeriana wet forest
Sphagnum peatland
Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland
Subalpine Diplarrena latifolia rushland
Eucalyptus globulus King Island forest
Subalpine Leptospermum nitidum woodland
Eucalyptus morrisbyi forest and woodland
Wetlands
Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland
Source: www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=ALL;doc_id=63%2B%2B2002%2BAT%40EN%2B20110405090000;histon=;prompt=;rec=;
term=Nature%20Conservation%20Act%202002
Further reference: Descriptions of the threatened native vegetation communities can be found in the publication ‘From Forest to Fjaeldmark’ by Steve Harris
and Anne Kitchener (2005). See: www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/LJEM-6K2749?open.
60
61
TREE MEASUREMENT GUIDE
If you wish to sell carbon stored in a plantation or forest, you
(or a person skilled or accredited in assessing carbon stocks)
will need to calculate the volume of carbon in the plantation. In
addition, tree growth will need to be regularly monitored over
time to determine the change in carbon stocks.
The Farm Forestry Toolbox V6 can be used to estimate current
and potential plantation carbon stocks and explore options
to harvest timber. Note: to obtain carbon credits a nationally
accredited method for estimating carbon stocks will need to
be used. Currently, the National Carbon Accounting Toolbox
(NCAT) is the only tool that applies the national accounting
methods for tree carbon sequestration. Under the Carbon
Farming Initiative, methods for assessing and monitoring
carbon stocks will be released later in 2011/2012.
Some basic tree measurements are required for the best
use of the Farm Forestry Tool Box to estimate for example, the
current volume, carbon stock and to model tree growth over time.
To assist you, a Tree measurement manual for farm
foresters - practical guidelines for farm foresters
undertaking basic tree measurement in farm forest
plantations can be downloaded from:
http://adl.brs.gov.au/brsShop/data/PC12760.pdf
Features of the manual
s No prior knowledge of forest measurement is required.
s A decision tree leads you logically through the parts of
the manual you need to use and chooses an appropriate
measurement system. Each step is written as a question.
For each question a page reference is provided which has
the necessary information.
s Instructions and procedures provide all the practical
information on how to measure area and different parts
of the plantation. Depending on the steps taken in the
decision tree you may not need to refer to all instructions.
s Field recording forms have been included in the manual’s
appendix for you to photocopy and use in the field.
s Additional information is provided on measuring growth
over time and products. A worksheet is provided to assist
with calculations. This sheet should be taken out into the
field and filled out as you go through the plantation.
Tree Diameter Tape
Tapes are used to measure tree diameters, usually at 1.3
metres above the ground. One side of the tape is a linear
measure but the other side, when wrapped around the tree,
directly measures the tree diameter.
The tape can also be used to estimate the ‘basal area’
in square metres. ‘Basal Area’ is explained in the Tree
measurement manual for farm foresters. It is very useful
to know this when deciding how to selectively thin a stand
of trees and essential to ensure the forest has potential to
regenerate or grow on productively after selective harvesting.
s Tapes and other tree measuring tools are available from
forestry equipment suppliers.
s Private Forests Tasmania has limited stocks of tree
diameter tapes available for purchase.
62
WITH OUR
COMPLIMENTS
Manuka, (Leptospermum scoparium),
although not a forest giant, is well
represented in Tasmania’s forest
ecosystems across a diverse range
of habitats.
It is also a valuable plant for amenity
plantings, forming a low, robust component
for shelter, and providing attractive
flowering in gardens.
We would be pleased if you took the
opportunity to grow the attached seeds
and plant in an appropriate site.
You may care to share the experience
with a group, family, class, children or
grandchildren.
Enjoy the experience growing plants can
bring, and know that all plants no matter
how small contribute to the uptake of
carbon in the atmosphere.
Growing notes
Leptospermum scoparium ( Manuka)
A hardy erect shrub to 3m. Loads of small white flowers in
spring and summer. Tolerates periodic wet and dry conditions.
Frost tolerant. Full sun or partial shade. Useful screen and
windbreak plant. Hardy in most situations.
Seed germinates easily with normal methods.
s 1. Fill a seedling tray or seedling punnet with a friable
seed raising mix.
s 2. Sprinkle seed across the surface and sieve a fine
covering layer of the raising mix to cover the seed.
Firm down gently.
s 3. Moisten the seed raising mix with a fine water spray so
as not to disturb the tiny seeds and make sure that
all the mix has been evenly moistened.
s 4. Keep the container in a shaded area away from direct
sunlight. Once the seedlings germinate, the seedlings
can be introduced to partial sunlight.
s 5. Keep the seed raising mix moist until the young
seedlings are to be transplanted. Do not waterlog the
mixture as this may inhibit germination success.
63
64
CARBON PLANTATIONS KIT
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
FOR LANDOWNERS
We would appreciate and value your confidential comments on the Carbon Plantations Kit. We would like to know
if it meets your needs and/or how it can be improved. We invite you to answer the following eight questions.
If you wish to complete this on-line please go to:
www.surveymonkey.com/s/CarbonPlantationsToolKitEvaluation
1. I have found the Carbon Plantations Kit to be:
…Highly useful
…Somewhat useful
…Not very useful
Any comments you would like to make about the usefulness of the Kit.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
2. Is the Kit written clearly and appropriately for farmers?
…Yes
…No
…Don’t Know
If no, tell us why.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
3. Has the Kit helped you to better understand carbon storage and greenhouse gas
emission issues associated with farm forestry?
…Yes
…No
…Don’t Know
If no, tell us why.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
65
4. Has the Kit helped you to better understand your economic options associated with
establishing plantations for carbon storage and trading?
…Yes
…No
…Don’t Know
If no, tell us why.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
5. What are the main strengths of the Kit?
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
6. What are the main weaknesses of the Kit?
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
7. What things would help to improve the Kit?
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
8. Any other final comments on the Carbon Plantations Kit that you
would like to make?
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
Thank you for completing the survey
66
If you are not completing the survey on-line, please fax or mail to:
Arthur Lyons, Regional Forester - North East, Private Forests Tasmania.
Facsimile: (03) 63 36 5445
Address: PO Box 180, Kings Meadows, Tasmania 7249
Carbon pollution…
BIG
‘large in size, bulk, mass or extent’
BLACK
‘the very darkest colour, dirty,
malignant, sinister or threatening’
Carbon pollution is a big issue for humanity. As
carbon pollution increases day by day, it increasingly
affects every plant, animal and human on our planet.
In the air, carbon is a gas. It is familiar to us as
charcoal from a wood fire. Although we can’t see
carbon dioxide gas, we are experiencing its effect
through climate warming and climate change.
UGLY
‘repulsive to the eye,
horrible or dangerous’
Climate warming and climate change are
impacting on all life on our planet. It is
threatening and very hard to control.
Trees…
CLEAN
GREEN
BEAUTIFUL
‘pure, complete, chaste or honest’
Trees and plants are the lungs of the planet. They
breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen.
Carbon is one of life’s building blocks.
‘a colour’
The green parts of trees and plants photosynthesize.
This chemical process uses sunlight to convert
carbon dioxide to food and energy so trees and
plants can grow. Oxygen, which is essential for life,
is released as a by-product.
‘pleasing, admirable or satisfying
the senses or mind’
People throughout the ages have both appreciated
and held an affinity for trees and plants. They are
beautiful in both kind and function. They provide us
with food and wood, biodiversity, soil, water and a
pleasant landscape. We cannot do without them.