Isra-Mart news:
THE CPRS might be dead — or at least in deep freeze —but carbon trading opportunities for farmers are likely to emerge as Australia opens up a voluntary emissions trading scheme.
The Federal Government is backing the voluntary market with its National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS), due to begin on July 1, which will establish government-endorsed benchmarks for trading in emissions credits, but without the strings of heavy government regulation.
For agriculture, the most significant aspect of NCOS is that it allows emissions brokers, research agencies and other interested parties to suggest new approaches to creating tradeable emissions offsets.
Greg Combet, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, told the Voluntary Carbon Markets Association in a recent address that “given the ingenuity of stakeholders in this arena”, he expected plenty of proposals to be put on the table.
“Australian businesses, particularly farmers, will have the opportunity to develop offset credits from a range of activities that reduce emissions while providing other resource management benefits — such as the management of native vegetation and soils, and rehabilitation of rangelands,” Mr Combet told the association.
Michael Kiely of the Carbon Coalition said he was aware of several proposals for trading soil carbon due to be put before NCOS.
After talking with farmers across the country during a series of workshops, he has some of his own criteria for an effective soil carbon offset credit.
“Farmers won’t consider a contract that’s any longer than five years, and if the money is inconsequential, they won’t play at all,” Mr Kiely said.
He believes the success of the voluntary emissions market, and of a market for farm-derived offsets, is of some importance to the government after the political killing of its mandatory trading scheme.
“Penny Wong described the voluntary market as the mandatory market on trainer wheels,” Mr Kiely said.
“The government needs this voluntary market to work as a gateway back to the CPRS, or another version of it. They are asking for the same level of scientific rigour, but without the same rules.”