Download Sequestering carbon in soil grazing systems gets

SOIL CFI
The information contained in this article is of a general nature. The Clean Energy Regulator has
developed a useful guide which steps through how to run a soil carbon project and sets out the
different materials available to support landholders in undertaking a project
(see www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Farming-Initiative/Fact-sheets-FAQs-andguidelines/Publications/Pages/Default.aspx#Sequestering-carbon-in-soils-in-grazing-systems).
Additionally the Department of the Environment has produced guidance material to explain key
aspects of the methodology (see www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/carbon-farminginitiative/methodologies/sequestering-carbon-soils-grazing-systems). Anyone interested in initiating
a soil carbon project should read through this information and contact the Clean Energy Regulator
for further clarification if required. This article has been reviewed by Norton Rose Fulbright
Australia. This project is supported by funding from the Australian Government.
Sequestering carbon in soil
grazing systems gets tick of approval
The world of carbon farming has seen a major milestone, with the ‘sequestering carbon in soil in grazing systems’
methodology determination being made available for use under the Australian government’s Carbon Farming Initiative.
Jessica Strauss spoke with CSIRO agricultural flagship research scientist Jeff Baldock to find out how farmers and
landholders could benefit from adopting this methodology.
THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE
METHODOLOGY
This methodology essentially involves
increasing the carbon levels in soils
producing pasture for grazing.
According to the Department of the
Environment’s fact sheet (see www.
climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/
files/files/reducing-carbon/cfi/
methodologies/determinations/factsheetsoil-carbon.pdf) soil carbon stocks can be
increased by management practices that
either increase the amount of biomass (such
as plant material) incorporated into soil and/
or reduce losses of soil organic matter that
occur through decomposition or erosion.
Within broad parameters, to undertake
a project using this methodology,
landholders will have a choice of which
land management activities to implement
to increase soil carbon stocks in grazing
systems. Activities must include at least one
new management activity.
Types of activities that could potentially
be implemented include, but are not limited
to, converting cropped land to permanent
pasture, rejuvenating pastures, or changing
grazing patterns.
Some activities, including permanent
destocking, are not eligible.
Site specific factors such as soil type,
climate and management history all
influence the potential for soil carbon
sequestration (an increase in soil carbon
stocks over time).
Project proponents should seek expert
advice on the management actions that will
best suit their project area. See www.mycfi.
Farming Ahead September 2014 No. 272
com.au/who-do-i-contact for a range of
organisations who can provide information
or practical assistance regarding projects.
Advice on both the technical nature of the
project should be sought from an adviser
while financial advice should come from
someone with an Australian financial
services (AFS) licence.
Landholders participating in the scheme
must measure soil carbon stocks at the
project site at the beginning of the project
and then at regular intervals, calculate the
amount of carbon sequestered over time and
prepare reports documenting the findings.
Emissions of greenhouse gases from
other sources that have changed as a result
of the project (for example emissions from
livestock, tillage events and applications
of lime or synthetic fertiliser) must be
calculated and used to derive the net
abatement provided by the project.
Landholders need to submit an audited
report to the Clean Energy Regulator to
receive carbon credits within one to five
years of the project being declared eligible,
and every one to five years thereafter.
Each subsequent reporting period begins
immediately after the previous reporting
period.
The first report to the Clean Energy
Regulator is due within one to five years
of the project being declared eligible,
and every one to five years thereafter.
Each subsequent reporting period begins
immediately after the previous reporting
period.
Sequestration projects will not have
to submit project reports once they are
in a maintenance phase and no longer
sequestering additional carbon, for
example once forests are fully grown.
The maintenance phase will commence
automatically at the end of the crediting
period, if the proponent does not apply for a
subsequent crediting period.
The project proponent can also request
the commencement of a maintenance
phase, for example if the costs of reporting
would outweigh the benefits of additional
credits. Notification and permanence
obligations will continue to apply during the
maintenance phase of the project.
THOSE WHO SHOULD CONSIDER
THIS METHODOLOGY
All farmers should be thinking about how
to maintain or increase soil carbon stocks,
irrespective of the existence of a carbon
trading framework. CSIRO agricultural
flagship research scientist Jeff Baldock
said that the organic matter existing in the
soil and the carbon that it contains was
important for soil health.
He said that organic matter content,
and thus organic carbon stocks, were both
important soil components that helped to
increase productivity and sustainability of
agriculture systems.
“From my point of view, all farmers
should be thinking about how to maintain
or increase soil carbon stocks, irrespective
of the existence of a carbon trading
framework.”
Baldock said that the methodology in
question was the first to be approved for
soil carbon sequestration in Australia. It has
been set up for farmers and landowners who
are considering making a change in their
www.farmingahead.com.au
“From my point of view, all farmers should be thinking about
how to maintain or increase soil carbon stocks, irrespective of
the existence of a carbon trading framework.”
– CSIRO agricultural flagship research scientist Jeff Baldock
grazing management practices. It represents
the first step in allowing farmers to be
rewarded for increasing soil carbon stocks
and mitigating emissions of greenhouse
gases.
He said anybody who could demonstrate
that the potential existed for a management
change to increase soil carbon stocks could
consider using the grazing methodology.
“In essence, anyone who is operating
a grazing system that has been in place
for over five years and can show that a
change to their management practices has
the potential to increase in soil carbon
stocks should be able to use the soil grazing
methodology.”
“With regard to continuous croppers
(defined as someone who has been cropping
their soil continuously for five years or
more) those who are prepared to switch
a portion of their land permanently into a
grazing system could also potentially use
this methodology on the part of the farm
converted.”
Baldock said the methodology was
designed to be relatively generic and that
no previous knowledge of how soil carbon
stocks varied across the project area was
required. So everybody who meets the
criteria should look at the options presented
by the methodology.
According to Baldock, the methodology
may be better suited to some situations than
others, depending on management history.
“Farmers add carbon to the soil by
growing plants, through their roots and any
residues remaining after grazing or harvest.
However, at the same time soil carbon is
continually being decomposed and respired
www.farmingahead.com.au
back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide by
micro-organisms and other animals which
live in the soil. Soil carbon can also be lost
through erosion,” he said.
“If a very productive grazing program
has been implemented for the last 10 to 20
years, the soil may already be close to its
potential upper limit of carbon storage that
location.”
“Under such conditions, implementing
a change in grazing management that
can be demonstrated to result in a further
increase in soil carbon stocks through direct
measurement, beyond that already attained,
may be difficult”.
“Alternatively, if the soil has been
intensively managed such that soil carbon
stocks have been depleted, opportunities
to increase soil carbon stocks may exist
through adoption of appropriate pasture
management practices.”
CAN CROPPERS CONSIDER
USING THIS METHODOLOGY?
Baldock said this methodology applied to
grazing systems and to croplands that were
converted to grazing systems as part of the
project.
Croppers wanting to adopt this
methodology would have to convert a
portion of the land they manage to pasture.
Subsequent methodologies based on
increasing soil carbon, covering other land
use types and activities, will be developed
and are planned to become available for
use from late 2014 if approved by the
government.
These subsequent methodologies will
take account of the numerous research trials
taking place across the country to improve
our understanding of the types of activities
that can result in the sequestration of carbon
in soil.
WATER USE EFFICIENCY IS
IMPORTANT
Water use efficiency, refers to the kilograms
of dry matter produced per millimetre of
water available, with the water available
typically being defined by the amount of
annual rainfall.
For most unirrigated pastures in
the Australian crop/pasture zone, the
availability of water is a principal dictator of
potential pasture production.
Where the pasture growth achieved
corresponds to low water use efficiency
and management practices exist that can
improve pasture growth, the potential
to enhance both pasture growth and soil
carbon stocks exists.
As a general rule when assessing an
opportunity to increase soil carbon, Baldock
said one of the conditions that he looks
for is what water use efficiency is being
achieved within the current agricultural
production system, and is there a
management practice or practices that could
be used to increase water use efficiency
towards 100%.
As an example, if a management practice
change in a pasture production system can
increase water use efficiency from 50% of
maximum regional water use efficiency to
70%, implementation of the practice may
capture more carbon from the atmosphere,
resulting in higher productivity and add
more carbon to the soil.
No. 272 September 2014 Farming Ahead
SOIL CFI
Organic matter content,
and thus organic carbon
stocks, were both important
soil components that helped
to increase productivity and
sustainability of agriculture
systems.
Where possible, farmers could achieve a
win-win scenario of higher productivity and
potentially increased soil carbon stocks.
“One constraint to this approach that
needs to be acknowledged occurs where
the low water use efficiency results from
factors not under management control of the
farmer,” Baldock said.
“For example, where high salinity, pH
and boron concentration exists in subsoils,
plants may not be able to access the water
that enters or is held in the subsoil.
“Farmers faced with such soil conditions
may not be able to achieve high water use
efficiency without considering significant
alterations to their agricultural system.
“As a result, where constraints beyond the
control of the farmer exist, the potential to
increase soil carbon stocks would be more
limited and in these conditions a CFI project
using this methodology is not likely to be
successful.”
STEPS TO PARTICIPATING
For detailed guidance, farmers should
consult the guide produced by the Clean
Energy Regulator (see the fact file
referenced on page 27).
In summary, the first step when
considering this methodology is to define
and map out the area of land to be included.
This area is referred to as a carbon
estimation area and a project can have
several within a soil carbon project.
Next, soil samples need to be collected
to define a baseline value for soil carbon
stocks. These samples must be taken prior
to implementing the proposed change
to grazing management. The measured
baseline soil carbon stock sets the value
against which any change over the first
sampling period is evaluated.
“Soil samples then need to be collected
at regular intervals through time. Currently
a requirement exists to report measured
changes in soil carbon stocks at least once
every five years. You can sample more
frequently if desired (at frequencies of
between one and five years), but of course
Farming Ahead September 2014 No. 272
every time you sample, it’s going to cost
money to collect and analyse soil,” Baldock
said.
Landholders can earn credits with each
report, provided that the calculations
undertaken in accordance with the
methodology show that the project has
achieved a net abatement. With repeated
sampling of soil through time, say after
3, 6 and 9 years, the methodology uses
a mathematical trend approach to define
whether or not a consistent trend in soil
carbon stock change exists over the duration
of the project.
BUSINESS DECISIONS
Project proponents need to consider the size
and value of the potential gain in soil carbon
stocks against the costs involved in setting
up and monitoring a soil carbon project.
However, Baldock reiterated that if soil
carbon stocks were increased, a number
of positive changes affecting other soil
properties could also occur that may lead to
productivity gains.
“It is important to consider what those
gains might be, in addition to the value of
the change in soil carbon stocks in a carbon
trading system, to get a full picture of the
benefit obtained by increasing soil carbon
stocks.”
“If a management change is invoked
simply on the basis of the rewards
associated with a soil carbon stock change,
it’s going to be economically more difficult
to justify it than when the potential
productivity and sustainability benefits are
also considered.”
A challenge that Baldock said researchers
currently have, is to develop clear and
quantitative relationships that define how
productivity gains and future resource
sustainability varies as soil carbon stocks
increase.
Ultimately, the business decision of
whether or not to undertake a soil carbon
sequestration project needs to be based
on the potential value and risks of the
accumulated soil carbon, how much it
would cost to document the baseline and
ongoing changes in soil carbon stocks, and
the value of any other ancillary benefits that
might be achieved.
Consideration should be given to
the long-term business strategy and the
influence of adopting this methodology
might have on this strategy.
SET UP COSTS, ON-GOING
COSTS, POTENTIAL RETURNS
The costs associated with undertaking a
project using this methodology will vary,
since each project will have different soil
types, land sizes, inherent variability across
the defined project areas and different
rates of soil carbon change. All of these
factors will influence the ability to detect
statistically valid changes in soil carbon
stocks.
APAL laboratory managing director Ryan
Walker said he could give an idea of some
of the base costs project proponents would
have to consider in terms of soil sampling.
There are two methods of soil sampling
which project proponents can decide to use:
•High temperature dry combustion method
– which measures total carbon and total
nitrogen together as a one off cost of $25,
but with a reasonable number of samples
could go as low as $15, or even $10 per
sample; and
•Wet oxidation – the Walkley and Black
method – which is a standard measurement
and costs $10 per sample when conducted
by APAL, based in South Australia.
In addition to these analytical costs,
there would be costs associated with soil
sampling and preparation of the samples on
site.
Baldock indicated that a minimum of
three samples from each of three equal
area regions within a carbon estimation
area must be collected each time the
soil is sampled. Under these minimum
sampling conditions, nine samples would be
collected, but mixed together in a defined
manner so that three samples would then go
to the lab at each sampling time.
www.farmingahead.com.au
FACT FILE: From the ‘CFI method sequestering carbon in soil in grazing
systems’ fact sheet. Go to www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/
files/files/reducing-carbon/cfi/methodologies/determinations/
factsheet-soil-carbon.pdf to download.
“It is important to note that this is the
minimum requirement. Dividing the area
up into more than the minimum regions
and collecting additional samples is highly
recommended, because as the number
of regions defined and samples collected
increase, more accurate and precise
estimates of the soil carbon stock present
in the carbon estimation area will be
obtained.”
“Particularly for the first baseline
sampling, where the variability in
soil carbon stocks is not known, it is
recommended to take as many samples as
can be justifiably afforded.
“Once the variability between samples is
defined by the baseline samples, informed
decisions about the number of samples
required to achieve a desired accuracy and
precision can be estimated and used in
subsequent soil sampling.”
Baldock said farmers should consider a
number of questions when trying to decide
on the number of soil samples collected,
including:
•How accurate do you want the
measurements to be?
•How variable soil carbon stocks are across
the area(s) to be included in the project?
•What is the cost of sample collection and
analysis?
•How much money do you have available
to allocate to that task?
“So if a farmer was to invest more in the
sampling, then the accuracy and precision of
the values generated will be better and they
would be able to detect soil carbon stock
changes more efficiently,” Baldock said.
Ongoing costs will depend a lot on
the number of samples collected and the
sampling frequency used.
“It’s difficult to make generalisations
regarding costs and level of soil sampling
required. An important point is that each
farmer needs to each consider their own
situation and work out the numbers for their
own business.
“They should not adopt a change in
management practice or methodology
unless they’ve thought about how it would
work in their own farming system.”
Specialist advice is recommended in
making the decision to proceed with the
methodology. See www.mycfi.com.au for
contacts including advisors.
“This is particularly the case when
examining the adoption of management
practices developed in other regions.
Although the practices might work well
where they were developed, they may not
be applicable in other parts of the country
due to variations in soil type and climatic
conditions.
“Generally in published research,
www.farmingahead.com.au
increases in soil carbon stocks under carbon
friendly management scenarios compared to
more traditional approaches vary from 0.1
to 0.3 t C/ha/y (t of soil carbon per hectare,
per year). However, an average soil carbon
stock change of 0.9 t C/ha/y was measured
under Kikuyu pastures in the south east of
Western Australia.”
Baldock said soil carbon sequestration
was an evolving area and an important one
for farmers and landholders to be mindful
of. There could be some new practices
developed in the near future.
“Farmers are an innovative group
and they could be coming up with some
practices which just haven’t been quantified
yet,” he said.
It is important to also recognise that
any accumulation of soil carbon will not
continue forever. The size of the annual soil
carbon stock change will generally diminish
with time as the soil reaches the carbon
saturation point.
Baldock additionally suggested that there
was of course the risk of not obtaining a
gain in soil carbon levels and resultantly
no carbon credits despite investing in
monitoring.
The main exposure is around the time and
cost requirement in initial and ongoing soil
sampling and analysis with no guarantee of
an increase in soil carbon.
Auditing costs also need to be considered
when evaluating the potential value and
risks and benefits a project under this
methodology may present.
ALLOCATION OF CARBON
CREDITS
Once the second soil sampling has been
completed and the change in soil carbon
stocks across the carbon estimation area has
been estimated, a report needs to be created
and submitted by a registered Greenhouse
and Energy Auditor. The cost of an audit
will vary according to the size of the
project.
Using calculations documented in the
methodology, the audit report might say for
example that a total of 500t of additional
soil carbon had been accumulated over the
carbon estimation area.
Once audited, the report is submitted to
the Clean Energy Regulator for assessment
and for credits to be issued.
By further direct sampling and
submission of audited reports, where soil
carbon stocks can be shown to continue to
increase through time using the approach
defined in the grazing methodology,
additional carbon credits will be awarded.
details will be entered into a registry and
an obligation to maintain soil carbon stocks
into the future will exist.
Maintenance of carbon stocks will
most likely require the continuation of the
management practice implemented.
However, if a project has not been
awarded any carbon credits from the
scheme, it will be possible to opt out of the
scheme with no liability or penalty.
FINAL THOUGHTS
To increase soil carbon stocks, the net flow
of carbon into the soil needs to increase.
This can be achieved by increasing plant
production (e.g. increasing water use
efficiency) and residue retention and/or
reducing rates of soil carbon loss due to
decomposition or erosion.
Locations where pasture production is not
optimised and management practices exist to
enhance production offer a win-win scenario
in which both productivity and soil carbon
stocks have the potential to be increased.
Careful consideration of individual
circumstances and environmental conditions
(e.g. climate and soil type) as well as the
specific business position of the farm
enterprise is required to when considering
undertaking any carbon farming methodology.
If considering undertaking a project,
seek advice from an organisation providing
information or practical assistance relating
to the Carbon Farming Initiative. See www.
mycfi.com.au/who-do-i-contact for a listing
of service providers.
More information visit: www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/
climatechange/files/files/reducing-carbon/cfi/methodologies/
determinations/factsheet-soil-carbon.pdf
Free one-day workshops designed to assist farmers who want
to learn about the business opportunities presented by the
Carbon Farming Initiative will be held in Western Australia,
South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales in 2015.
Visit www.kondiningroup.com.au or www.farmingahead.com.au.
Farming Ahead with the Kondinin Group,
Australia’s farm improvement group
© Kondinin information services pty ltd.
Copyright in this work is licensed under the creative
commons attribution 3.0 Australia licence. To view a
copy of this licence, visit www.Creativecommons.Org/
licenses/by/3.0/Au/. You are free to copy, communicate
and adapt the material, so long as you attribute kondinin
information services pty ltd and the authors as required
by the licence. The use of the words farming ahead
with the kondinin group is a trademark of kondinin
information services pty ltd and without limiting the
foregoing is protected under the australian trade mark
registration no. 570676. All rights reserved.
RETAINING CARBON CREDITS
After carbon credits have been awarded, the
Kondinin Group
No. 272 September 2014 Farming Ahead