SUBSCRIBERS
Complimentary Resources
Carbon Edge Dictionary, previous edition
Grow Trees To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Garnaut (11 Apr 2011)
“The natural processes of biosequestration must be central to any ambitious global effort to meet targets for limiting temperature increase, and are the only known channel for actually reducing concentrations after emissions targets have been exceeded.”
That’s the considered view of Professor Ross Garnaut’s fourth update to his 2008 climate change review. Garnaut’s paper goes to some challenging land use considerations – food versus fibre, relative water use of various options and land pricing to name but a few.
But the key point of immediate relevance is his proposal that projects not be required to demonstrate ‘financial additionality’ to be eligible for carbon credits under the Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI). It seems this position was heeded with the consensus being that the CFI legislation that entered the House of Representatives on 23rd March does not require this condition to be met.
Garnaut brings to light the opportunity for Australia in biosequestration. In the fourth update in Australia’s climate change review, specific to chapter four, Transforming Rural Land Use, Garnaut endorses biosequestration in Australia, which includes the role of forestry, as the only the only known channel for actually reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
The land sector is greatly affected by climate change and has a large part to play in its mitigation. Referring to the forestry sector in particular, Garnaut’s timely note that the international rules developed within the Kyoto process overlook many potentially important areas of land sector mitigation was heartening to read. These Kyoto omissions are especially important in Australia, as Australia has a major role to play in developing alternative and efficient rules governing incentives for mitigation in the land sector.
Emissions from the land sector account for 20 per cent of Australian emissions (2008) and around 26 per cent of global emissions (2005). Yet the opportunity of the land use sector to increase its carbon sink capacity is significant. In this report, Garnaut sees that the natural processes of biosequestration must be central to any ambitious global effort to meet targets for limiting temperature increase.
A carbon price may benefit forestry and help Australia meet its mitigation targets
Garnaut says that full coverage of the land sectors under a carbon pricing mechanism would help to reduce the cost and raise the ambition of mitigation for Australia. The movement toward comprehensive coverage of all land sectors is considered to yield economic and environmental benefits. Going further, the case for allowing voluntary coverage of reforestation from commencement of a carbon price remains strong.
A carbon price will provide incentives for increased biosequestration activities, but Garnaut cautions that such activities need to be supported by other incentives and regulatory safeguards. For instance, improvements to emissions estimation methods and mechanisms for monitoring permanence of sequestration remain critical requirements for further developing and realising mitigation strategies in rural Australia.
Agriculture vs forestry
In painting a balanced picture, the pros and cons of advantaging biosequestration activities via a carbon price were weighed in some part against the issue of food security. Some emphasis was placed around issues well known to the forestry sector, such as the effects, perceived or otherwise, of converting prime agriculture land into plantations.
Garnaut claims that most new commercial timber plantations are likely to be attracted to locations also highly suitable for agriculture. Whilst this is true in terms of rainfall, it is not true in consideration to soil and terrain, where forestry in many circumstances can be a sensible option for steep rocky slopes. Perhaps leaving well alone, Garnaut states that competition between forestry and agriculture will depend on relative returns, including the effects of any carbon price.
Garnaut points out that all permanent carbon forest investment has occurred to date in semi-arid locations, well away from ‘prime agriculture land’. In this respect, less caution and need for regulatory safeguards is placed on the effects of carbon sink forests as opposed to commercial timber plantations.
A place for the Carbon Farming Initiative
Garnaut reports positively of the Government’s proposed Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) to break new and productive ground for offset schemes in Australia and internationally. Offset schemes, such as will be provided through the CFI coupled with a carbon price could be the catalyst for significantly increased biosequestration.
In relation to the CFI model as it currently stands, Garnaut sees a case for reconsideration of the financial additionality requirement of the scheme. This goes some way to referring to the limitation the CFI will have to voluntary participation of production forest managers, under proposed scheme arrangements. At least to some extent, this issue was resolved in the legislation that went to the Parliament in the last week of March.
Land use, water and forestry
Garnaut states that carbon pricing will change land and water management practices, and places caution to the risks associated with plantation impacts on water resources, however warranted. The impact to water by large scale plantations was used to illustrate that some negative effects of carbon mitigation practices on rural land may occur, although not mentioning the benefits of forests in maintaining water quality and regulating catchment water flows.
An exception to generally singling out commercial tree growing as a significant water user and interceptor was placed on the role of farm forestry. Garnaut discussed the benefits of biosequestration through farm forestry, where plots of trees are integrated into farming landscapes and a careful balance of water yield and carbon sink benefits can be gained.
Local Government to play a greater role in land use planning
Garnaut advises that with the potential for expanded forest establishment in response to a carbon price, greater progress toward implementation is warranted to help avoid negative impacts. Garnaut goes on to advise that Local Government should play a key role through landscape-scale assessment and planning to help maximise benefits and limit negative regional impacts.
Garnaut cautions for greater land use decision making processes, particularly zoning of land use changes through planning approval at the Local Government level. The overall aim of policy and planning should be to achieve a balance between agricultural and forestry land uses that is appropriate to each local community, noting that the relevant area for planning and coordination will often be the catchment area of a river systems.
Bioenergy
Garnaut acknowledges that first-generation bioenergy production has been limited to date, and second-generation technologies using resources that do not have a large effect on food production offer greater potential for significant expansion. Second-generation technologies could use lignocellulosic (woody) biomass from plants grown on less productive land, although failed to mention the existing woody biomass resource available from the by-products of wood processing and forest harvest residues.
Subject to constraints such as proximity to processing locations, growing forests for bioenergy production can improve on mitigation benefits of forests grown only for carbon sequestration. Garnaut sees that the appropriate incentives to biofuel production are a carbon price and fiscal support for research, development and commercialisation of new technologies.
RECENT ARTICLES
Australian energy flows show the industrial integration of renewable electricity (May 2012)
Australian energy projections to 2035 (May 2012)
Few surprises in latest Australian energy consumption data (May 2012)
Time to engage - carbon price is just around the corner (May 2012)