Edition 01 2012
Carbon Farming Initiative case study
13.3 Severely degraded property
Environmental plantings of native tree species
Case study snapshot
•
Theoretical properties in Western Australia
•
Average rainfall less than 800 mm per annum
•
Severely degraded land with high salinity and acid soils
•
Direct seeding vs tubestock planting
Acknowledgements
The Australian Government Department of Agriculture
acknowledges the work of AECOM in preparing this
case study.
This case study was produced with funding from the
Australian Government Department of Agriculture
as part of the Carbon Farming Futures Extension and
Outreach Program.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Ownership of intellectual property rights
Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth
of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).
Creative Commons licence
All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, save for content supplied by
third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit
and adapt this publication, provided that you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode.
This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: Carbon Farming Initiative case study—environmental
plantings of native tree species: 13.3 Severely degraded property, Department of Agriculture, Canberra, 2013.
Cataloguing data
Department of Agriculture 2013, Carbon Farming Initiative case study—environmental plantings of native tree species: 13.3 Severely
degraded property, Canberra.
ISBN: 978-1-760030-16-2 (printed)
ISBN: 978-1-760030-17-9 (online)
CFI case study: 13.3
Internet
Carbon Farming Initiative case study—environmental plantings of native tree species: 13.3 Severely degraded property is available at
daff.gov.au/climatechange/resources.
Contact
Department of Agriculture
Postal address GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601
Switchboard +61 2 6272 3933
Email [email protected]
Web daff.gov.au/climatechange/resources
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document should be sent to [email protected].
The Australian Government acting through the Department of Agriculture has exercised due care and skill in the preparation and
compilation of the information and data in this publication.
The Commonwealth is not providing any advice, whether professional, financial or otherwise, in respect of the material in this
publication. The Commonwealth disclaims that it owes any duty of care, including any fiduciary duty, to any person who uses or relies
upon the material. Persons who use or rely upon the material do so at their own risk. Before relying upon any material, users should
carefully evaluate its accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance for their purposes and should obtain any appropriate professional
and/or financial advice relevant to their individual circumstances.
In some cases, the material may incorporate or summarise views, guidelines or recommendations of third parties. Such material does
not necessarily reflect the considered views of the Commonwealth, or indicate a Commonwealth commitment to a particular course of
action. The Commonwealth has no knowledge of, or liability for, the use of third party intellectual property in the material, if any.
References to commercial entities, and their products, services or websites, do not constitute endorsement by the Commonwealth.
Links to other websites are inserted for convenience and do not constitute endorsement of material at those sites, or any associated
organisation, product or service. Persons who utilise these commercial entities, or their products, services or websites, do so at their
own risk.
Contents
Purpose of this case study
The Carbon Farming Initiative
Australian carbon credit units
2
2
3
1 Introduction
Reforesting degraded land
4
5
2 Land-use implications
8
3 Case study details and key decision points
Species selection
Planting methods
Ongoing maintenance
Determining the project area
Spatial mapping requirements
Identifying Kyoto eligible land
Estimating carbon storage
Other benefits of environmental plantings
9
9
11
13
13
13
14
14
15
4Pre-project needs
16
5 Resources and skills required
18
6Australian carbon credit units
Do you hold the rights to the carbon?
Do you have the consent of everyone else with a legal interest in the land?
What type of offsets will the project generate?
How much carbon will my project store?
19
19
19
20
20
7 Potential costs
Planting cost
Administrative costs
22
22
22
8Risk analysis
Will my project generate enough income to make it worthwhile?
How many ACCUs will I receive and when will I receive them?
What are the implications of the permanence arrangements?
Will third-party assistance be needed?
24
24
25
25
26
Abbreviations
27
References
28
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
1
Purpose of this case study
This document is a case study of a potential offset project under the Carbon
Farming Initiative (CFI). The case study describes a potential project that could, in
principle, satisfy the requirements to be an eligible CFI project, but it is not currently
an eligible CFI project.
The purpose of this case study is to illustrate:
• the applicability of the environmental plantings methodology determination
• matters considered in determining the choice of technology, site selection, and implementing
and operating the physical characteristics of a CFI project
• the project monitoring and record-keeping requirements of the methodology determination
and the establishment of project monitoring and record-keeping systems
• the financial and non-financial costs and benefits of a potential CFI project.
You should not take action in relation to a CFI project or Australian carbon credit units (ACCUs)
purely on the basis of the scenarios presented in this document. Before you take any action, you
should get further information or advice relevant to your individual circumstances.
This case study does not claim to comprehensively cover all the above matters and does not
necessarily do so. It may use estimates, forecasts and assumptions, and these may be simplified for
the purposes of illustration. This case study also does not cover all the matters you could or should
consider in implementing a CFI project of this type.
The information in this case study is not necessarily applicable to any other case. Again, you should
obtain any appropriate professional and financial advice relevant to your individual circumstances
and not rely solely on the information in this case study.
The Carbon Farming Initiative
The CFI is an Australian Government scheme that allows farmers and other land managers to
earn ACCUs by reducing greenhouse gas emissions or storing carbon (also known as carbon
sequestration) in the landscape. These ACCUs can be sold to people and businesses wishing to
offset their emissions.
The CFI also helps rural communities and the environment by supporting sustainable farming by
creating incentives for landscape rehabilitation.
2
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
Purpose of this case study
Participation in the CFI is voluntary; farmers and land managers can choose whether or not to
be involved.
For more information about the CFI, visit www.daff.gov.au/climatechange/cfi.
Australian carbon credit units
Subject to satisfying the monitoring, auditing, reporting and other requirements under the CFI for a
particular reporting period, an eligible CFI project can apply for ACCUs. Each ACCU represents one
tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) net abatement (through either emissions reductions or
carbon sequestration) achieved by eligible activities.
From 17 May 2013, two types of ACCUs can be generated under the CFI; Kyoto and non-Kyoto
(voluntary) ACCUs1 .
Kyoto ACCUs:
• are created by Kyoto offsets projects with a reporting period that occurs from 17 May 2013 until
30 June 2020
• can be sold to companies (liable entities) to meet their obligations under the carbon
pricing mechanism
• can be sold on the voluntary market to individuals or businesses who voluntarily want to offset
their emissions.
Non-Kyoto (voluntary) ACCUs:
• are created by non-Kyoto offsets projects
• can be sold on the voluntary market to individuals or businesses who voluntarily want to offset
their emissions
• are unable to be sold to companies (liable entities) to meet their obligations under the carbon
pricing mechanism
• are unable to be exchanged for international emissions units.
The table below summarises the characteristics of each type of ACCU.
Table 1 ACCU characteristics
Characteristic
Kyoto ACCUs
Non-Kyoto (voluntary) ACCUs
Able to be sold on the voluntary market


Can be surrendered under the carbon
pricing mechanism


Any reference to a value of an ACCU in this case study should be taken as an example of a value,
which may or may not occur in the future. The Commonwealth of Australia, nor any of its officers
or related bodies, cannot make any representation or provide any guarantee concerning the future
values of non-Kyoto (voluntary) ACCUs.
An ACCU is a ‘financial product’ under the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission Act 2001. This means people who provide financial services in relation to
ACCUs and related financial products and services in Australia may require an Australian Financial
Services (AFS) licence, which authorises them to provide those services.
You should obtain your own professional advice about the trading of ACCUs, having regard to your
own situation.
For further information on the characteristics of ACCUs, please refer to the descriptions of the Clean
Energy Regulator at www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ANREU/Concise-description-of-units/
Pages/default.aspx.
1
There is a third type of ACCUs called non-Kyoto (eligible) ACCUs. This type of ACCUs was only able to be generated by Kyoto eligible
projects between 1 July 2012 and 16 May 2013. These credits are the same as Kyoto ACCUs with the exception that they cannot be
exchanged for international emissions units.
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
3
1Introduction
This case study explores undertaking a potential CFI project using the
environmental plantings methodology determination, Carbon Farming (Quantifying
Carbon Sequestration by Permanent Environmental Plantings of Native Species using the
CFI Modelling Tool) Methodology Determination 2012.
The environmental plantings methodology determination covers the establishment and
management of permanent native forests through the planting and/or seeding of native species
on cleared or partially cleared land. This achieves greenhouse gas abatement by removing carbon
from the atmosphere and storing (sequestering) it in trees by growing a native forest.
This methodology determination can be applied Australia-wide to CFI projects that meet
requirements, such as:
• The native forests are established through direct planting or seeding; native forest regrowth
through existing natural seed banks is not eligible.
• The native forests are established on land that has been clear or partially clear of forest for the
five years before tree planting or seeding.
• The native forests consist of Australian species that are native to the local area. They may be
a mix of tree and understorey species, or one single species if the species naturally occurs as a
monoculture in the area.
• The trees have the potential to attain a crown cover of at least 20 per cent and a height of at
least 2 m.
• The project does not involve harvesting of wood products—you can remove a maximum of
10 per cent of debris per year for personal use (e.g. firewood).
• Grazing by livestock is prevented in the first three years after tree planting or seeding.
• The carbon stored in biomass (vegetation) is stored permanently for at least 100 years.
Established permanent environmental plantings may be eligible to participate in the CFI using
this methodology if they meet the above requirements and were planted on or after 1 July 2007.
Plantings established before 1 July 2007 could still be eligible if there is documentary evidence
that they were planted for the purpose of generating carbon credits. ACCUs will only be issued for
abatement from 1 July 2010.
The complete methodology is available at www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L01340.
4
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
Introduction
Reforesting degraded land
Large sections of Australia’s agricultural regions are degraded as a result of salinity, erosion,
acidity and water logging; consequently, these areas have little production value for farmers. If you
are a farmer or other type of landholder who owns degraded land, establishing permanent native
environmental plantings under the CFI provides you with the opportunity to turn unproductive
land into an income-generating asset. Reforesting unproductive areas will also help to control
degrading processes, provide important biodiversity benefits and assist in maintaining the
productivity of the surrounding landscape.
There is potential for large-scale reforestation throughout much of Australia’s agricultural
landscape. A recent survey in the North Eastern Agricultural Region of Western Australia found
that 75 per cent of farmers were willing to revegetate unproductive land (Clarke & Blake 2011).
Furthermore, there has been significant advances in reforesting agricultural landscapes in the past
two decades, meaning there is considerable expertise to assist landowners in this process.
If you are interested in establishing an environmental planting project on unproductive areas of
your property, there are a number of issues that you will need to consider. For example, there
are a number of challenges associated with reforesting severely degraded land. While the CFI
environmental plantings methodology determination requires the use of native species adapted to
local conditions, CFI projects established using traditional vegetation techniques on land suffering
from degrading processes, such as water logging, salinity, soil acidification and erosion, are highly
likely to fail. Even where species that are tolerant of saline and waterlogged soils are used, CFI
projects are unlikely to be successful unless adequate measures are taken to redress the poor soil
condition first.
This case study provides important information about establishing environmental planting projects
that comply with the environmental plantings methodology determination. It demonstrates the
benefits that the CFI offers and a range of issues and risks that need to be considered and addressed
before establishing an environmental planting project under the CFI. Information regarding
relevant planting techniques and the cost involved to successfully establish environmental plantings
on degraded land are also provided.
What is meant by severely degraded land?
In a farming context, severely degraded land is land that has soils that are so badly affected by
processes, such as salinity, acidity, water logging and erosion, that they are no longer capable of
supporting agricultural production.
Dryland salinity
Dryland salinity is caused by highly concentrated groundwater rising within the root zone of
plants. It has emerged as a serious issue in Australia’s agricultural regions because of the extensive
clearing of deep-rooted perennial vegetation. This practice occurs throughout southern and eastern
Australia, and up into the northern tropics. The most recent estimates are that 5.7 million ha of
Australia’s agricultural land is at risk to dryland salinity, which is expected to rise to 11 million ha
by 2050 (NLWRA 2001).
The planting of deep-rooted perennial vegetation, including environmental plantings, is considered
a potential solution to control salinity both locally and at the landscape scale. It is estimated that
$200 million is lost annually across Australia in agricultural production as a result of dryland
salinity (DNRW 2006), and $100 million in the Murray-Darling Basin alone (Wilson 2003).
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
5
Introduction
Acid soils
Soil acidity caused by the leaching of soil nitrates is a major threat to Australia’s agricultural
landscapes. It affects eight to nine times more land than dryland salinity, and requires the
addition of significant amounts of lime to control (approximately 2 million t annually).
Nearly half of Australia’s productive land (approximately 50 million ha) has surface acidity of
pH ≤ 5.5 (the tolerance limit for most agricultural plants) and 12 million ha has a surface acidity of
pH ≤ 4.8 (Beeton et al. 2006). In the absence of remedial action, it is estimated that 29–60 million ha
of land will have a surface pH ≤ 4.8. Soil acidity is estimated to cost Australia $1 billion annually in
lost production (Beeton et al. 2006). The CFI enables remedial action to be taken on acid soils while
providing a potential revenue source.
Water logging
Excess water in the root zone prevents successful plant growth due to poor gas exchange and
anaerobic conditions (Moore & McFarlane 1998 in McFarlane & Williamson 2002). This typically
occurs in high rainfall areas, and periodically in drier areas during years with above average
rainfall. Water logging often occurs with salinity. There is little information on the cost of water
logging across Australia, but estimates in Western Australia point to a cost of $20 million annually
in lost production for individual shires in higher rainfall regions (Kingwell et al. 2003).
Erosion
The erosion of soil by water and wind is a major threat to the sustainability of Australia’s
productive landscapes and semi-arid and arid ecosystems. It is estimated that the cost of erosion in
Australia is five times the cost of dryland salinity (DEH 2011). Erosion occurs throughout Australia’s
agricultural regions but is most severe in areas that receive intense rainfall, do not have continual
soil protection from vegetation and have significant topographical relief.
What land is available for environmental plantings?
This case study is best suited to areas of cleared land that were originally covered by rainforest,
forest or woodlands before the introduction of European vegetation (see Figure 1). As
environmental plantings must include ‘Australian native species that are native to the local area
of the plantings’ and must ‘have the potential to attain a crown cover of at least 20 per cent and
a height of at least 2 m’, cleared land originally covered by heathland, shrubland and grassland is
not suitable for CFI environmental plantings as these vegetation communities do not reach the
minimum benchmarks for height and crown cover.
The environmental plantings methodology determination allows for land that receives more than
800 mm annual rainfall, as long as pasture-dominated soil disturbance does not exceed more than
10 per cent of the planting area (the carbon estimation area) due to unacceptable losses of soil
carbon. In areas that receive more than 800 mm annual rainfall, environmental plantings would
need to occur at a low density and/or established with techniques that only disturb the soil in the
direct zone of planting.
6
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
Introduction
Figure 1 Pre-European vegetation of Australia
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
7
2 Land-use implications
Given that the CFI requires plantings to remain in place for 100 years, it is essential
that a decision to establish a project under this scheme is part of a broader land-use
management plan.
It is assumed that agricultural land degraded by salinity, water logging, erosion and/or acidity
has little, if any, production value. Therefore, establishing environmental plantings in these
circumstances under the CFI should not have any significant land-use implications in terms of loss
of productive land. There may, however, be some negative implications to farms if the location and
configuration of environmental plantings is not properly considered. For instance, local outbreaks
of salinity, erosion and water logging could be in close proximity to important water resources,
such as rivers, dams, creeks or bores, that may form an important part of the farm’s operation
(e.g. stock watering, irrigation, firefighting). As such, the design of the planting should take into
consideration access to water resources and associated infrastructure, and whether the planting
should be redesigned or infrastructure relocated.
Planting design will also need to consider impacts to surrounding land uses. Whereas most
intensively used paddocks are square to be compatible with land and cropping practices, land
degradation is not confined to these boundaries. You will need to consider whether including all
degraded land into the planting area maximises the overall profitability of the farm. For example,
excluding some sections of degraded land from the planting area may allow greater integration
with cropping/grazing areas and generate more profit across the entire property.
There is potential for environmental plantings to increase the availability of land for production by
alleviating the land from degrading processes. For example:
• A ‘cone of depression’ in the groundwater table will develop following environmental plantings
on land dominated by exotic pasture, ensuring that areas outside the immediate planting zone
will benefit from a reduction in groundwater, with the ancillary benefits of salinity and water
logging mitigation. Thus, the productivity of land outside the planting zone is likely to increase
following establishment of environmental plantings.
• The improvement of soil condition in areas established under environmental plantings
may improve growth of herbaceous grasses, which can be grazed by stock three years after
planting, providing that tree regeneration is not restricted.
• Environmental plantings will alter the microclimate of the surrounding area by reducing wind
and providing shade, improving conditions for stock and also reducing evaporation.
8
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
3Case study details and
key decision points
You will need to ensure that you comply with the environmental plantings
methodology determination.
Species selection
Environmental planting projects must use species that are native to the local area. Species must be
a mix of tree and understorey species. A single species can be used if monocultures occur naturally
in the area. Reforestation projects have been incorporating indigenous species over the past
15 years, so there is sufficient knowledge available to help you select species.
Vegetation mapping is available from all state and territory governments and can point you in the
right direction for finding out what species may naturally occur in the project area. Consulting
local species guides for your area is also recommended. These usually list plants by locality and
land system or soil type, as well as by their location in the landscape—for example, along creeks
or gullies or on dry ridge tops. Contact your local relevant government department or natural
resource management office for help in identifying the vegetation types that occur (or were likely
to have occurred) on your project site, and the constituent species that are suitable to use for
reforestation. Greening Australia, Landcare groups and nurseries can also provide valuable advice.
Bell (1999) provides an extensive list of Australian overstorey species that are tolerant to water
logging and salinity, categorised as:
• very highly tolerant, withstanding less than 400 mM of sodium chloride
ሲሲCasuarina equisetifolia
ሲሲC. glauca
ሲሲC. obesa
ሲሲMelaleuca acuminata
ሲሲM. bracteata
ሲሲM. aff. calycina
ሲሲM. cardiophylla
ሲሲM. cuticularis
ሲሲM. cymbifolia
ሲሲM. decussata
ሲሲM. eleuterostachya
ሲሲM. glomerata
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
9
Case study details and key decision points
ሲሲM. halmaturorum
ሲሲM. lanceolata
ሲሲM. lateriflora
ሲሲM. leucadendra
ሲሲM. subtrigona
ሲሲM. squarrosa
ሲሲM. styphelioides
ሲሲM. thyoides
ሲሲM. uncinata
• highly tolerant, withstanding less than 300 mM of sodium chloride
ሲሲAcacia stenophylla
ሲሲCasuarina cristata
ሲሲEucalyptus camaldulensis
ሲሲE. campaspe
ሲሲE. cladocalyx var. nana
ሲሲE. halophila
ሲሲE. kondininensis
ሲሲE. occidentalis
ሲሲE. sargentii
ሲሲE. spathulata
ሲሲE. intertexta
ሲሲE. microtheca
ሲሲE. raveretiana
ሲሲE. striaticalyx
ሲሲE. tereticornis
• moderately tolerant, withstanding less than 200 mM of sodium chloride
ሲሲAcacia ampliceps
ሲሲAcacia aff. lineolata
ሲሲAcacia auriculiformis
ሲሲAcacia mutabilis subsp. stipulifera
ሲሲAcacia salicina
ሲሲCasuarina cunninghamiana
ሲሲEucalyptus aggregata
ሲሲEucalyptus argophloia
ሲሲEucalyptus camphora
ሲሲEucalyptus cladocalyx
ሲሲEucalyptus drepanophylla
ሲሲEucalyptus leptocalyx
ሲሲEucalyptus leucoxylon
ሲሲEucalyptus maculata
ሲሲE. moluccana
ሲሲE. ovata
ሲሲE. patens
ሲሲE. platypus var. heterophylla
ሲሲE. redunca
ሲሲE. robusta
ሲሲE. rudis
ሲሲE. tereticornis
• mildly tolerant, withstanding less than 100 mM of sodium chloride
ሲሲAcacia cyclops
ሲሲA. brumalis
ሲሲA. patagiata
10
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
Case study details and key decision points
ሲሲA. redolens
ሲሲCorymbia citriodora
ሲሲEucalyptus angulosa
ሲሲE. grandis
ሲሲE. melliodora
ሲሲE. paniculata
ሲሲE. pellita
ሲሲE. urophylla
ሲሲGrevillea robusta
ሲሲMelaleuca quinquenervia
• mostly intolerant
ሲሲAcacia aulacocarpa
ሲሲCasuarina decaisneana
ሲሲEucalyptus cloeziana
ሲሲE. intermedia
ሲሲE. pilularis
ሲሲE. polycarpa
ሲሲE. saligna.
Species from these lists that are indigenous to the planting area should be included to ensure the
plantings are resilient to the stresses of salinity and water logging. In addition to these species,
it is also important to include understorey species that are tolerant to salinity (halophytes) and
water logging.
Planting methods
Direct seeding or planting are the only methods that can be used to establish environmental
plantings. Any reforestation achieved through assisting natural regeneration by removing
grazing removal or undertaking weed control, is not included as part of the environmental
plantings methodology determination. However, these activities may be covered by other
methodology determinations.
Planting typically involves establishing tubestock material that was germinated up to 12 months
before planting in the ground. Planting can be done using either conventional garden tools
(e.g. shovels, mattocks), specialised planting equipment (e.g. Pottiputki, Hamilton Tree Planter) or
a mechanical planter (e.g. Bushplanter, Waikerie Tree Planter, Youman Tree Planter).
It is important to note that the CFI Reforestation Modelling Tool (RMT) recognises only three
planting densities or stocking rates for environmental plantings: low (<800 stems/ha), medium
(~1000 stems/ha) and high (>1200 stems/ha). Planting considerably more than 1200 stems/ha will
not result in a greater income return because the maximum modelled stored carbon will be based
on 1200 stems/ha.
Machines available for direct seeding all essentially have the same functions of scalping to remove
weeds, cultivating the soil bed, sowing the seed and backfilling. In situations where direct-seeding
machines cannot be sourced or are not suitable, such as on steep terrain, seed may be mixed with a
bulking agent and broadcast by hand.
You should consider the advantages and disadvantages of tubestock planting versus direct seeding
when determining the reforestation methods to use (see Table 2). Generally, direct seeding is more
economical for large-scale plantings. Tubestock planting has greater success and establishment
rates, but can be more costly.
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
11
Case study details and key decision points
Table 2 Advantages and disadvantages of tubestock plantings versus direct seeding
Planting material
Advantages
Disadvantages
Tubestock
Faster establishment rates = faster
income return
Planting is labour intensive
Costs involved in germinating and caring for
tubestock
Greater survival rates
Greater control of planting density
Can use tree guards, which greatly assist in
controlling grazing pressure
Direct seeding
Significant time required to revegetate
large areas
More expensive for larger projects
Can have lower soil disturbance
Lower total carbon storage = less income
generated over life of project
Less labour involved in establishing large areas
(10–15 km in one day)
Slow establishment rates = slower
income return
Less costs involved in revegetating large areas
Significant amount of seed required
(approximately 10× more seed than tubestock
to establish same amount of seedlings)
Seeds remain viable in the soil after planting
Cheaper for larger projects
Greater total carbon storage = greater income
generated over life of project
Low germination rates
Little control over final planting density
Tree guarding not suitable
Mixed success with groundcover species
The guidelines for determining the planting density of overstorey species to achieve a minimum
of 20 per cent crown cover under the environmental plantings methodology determination are
shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Minimum planting density to reach minimum benchmark for crown cover
12
Mature crown diameter (m)
Minimum number of trees per hectare
5
102
4.5
126
4
159
3.5
208
3
283
2.5
407
2.0
637
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
Case study details and key decision points
Ongoing maintenance
Project areas will need to be continually monitored and managed to ensure the ongoing viability
of environmental plantings. In particular, the first three to five years are critically important to
the establishment of these plantings. Pay particular attention to species of plant and animal pests
in these early years. Monitoring should be used to inform whether the following maintenance
activities are required:
• pest and animal control—improve fencing, apply insecticides, install tree guards
• weed control—apply herbicide, remove manually, crash grazing if planting is older than
three years
• watering in case of drought.
Monitoring and maintenance of the project over its life should be considered in your budget to
account for the permanence requirements of carbon storage projects under the CFI.
Determining the project area
The first step in estimating the amount of carbon stored by the CFI project is to determine the
Project Area. That is, the area of land on which the trees will be planted and managed over the life
of the project. A single CFI project can be made up of a number of Project Areas but each one must
be a contiguous area on a single land title.
Each Project Area must be divided into two areas: Carbon Estimation Areas (CEAs) that have
uniform site characteristics (e.g. soil, aspect, position, slope) and management routines (i.e.
established using the same methods, at the same time, with the same mix of species and managed
over time in the same manner), and Exclusion Areas (e.g. rocky outcrops or roads where trees
cannot grow). Dividing the Project Area in this way is important because the rate at which
plantings store carbon differs according to the site characteristics and the management practices
used, and therefore must be modelled separately. Throughout the project, CEAs may need to be
divided further if you change management practices over time.
When considering how to define the Project Area, it’s important to remember that it will be subject
to CFI scheme obligations, such as Carbon Maintenance Obligations. You may want to consider
including the entire land title as the Project Area if you want to maximise the flexibility to be able
to add to the area of planting in the future—or relocate it to another part of the property—without
having to seek approval from the Clean Energy Regulator. Alternatively, you may consider it more
advantageous to define the Project Area as precisely as possible in order to limit the area of land
that the Carbon Maintenance Obligations will apply to.
A Project Area may include land features such as creeks, fire breaks, tracks or access roads. As a
guide, land features less than 5 m wide do not need to be excluded if they are unlikely to affect the
calculation of the amount of carbon stored. Features more than 5 m in width must be defined as an
exclusion area.
Spatial mapping requirements
As part of establishing your environmental planting project and meeting your obligations under
the CFI, you will need to provide geospatial mapping to identify the boundaries of your CEAs and
Exclusion Areas within the Project Areas. There are a range of approaches to determining the
boundaries of CEAs, but at a minimum you must include at least one of the following:
• field surveys and sampling
• aerial photographs
• satellite imagery
• soil, vegetation and landform maps.
You can meet the spatial mapping requirements by using the CFI Mapping Tool (CMT), which
allows you to map CEAs using a range of satellite imagery. Alternatively, you can use your digital
mapping system. Use of GPS mapping is recommended, but not required, when identifying CEA
boundary locations.
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
13
Case study details and key decision points
Identifying Kyoto eligible land
The CMT provides an indicative Kyoto land map to assist you to separately define Kyoto and
non‑Kyoto project areas. Note, however, that the Clean Energy Regulator will make final
determinations about the Kyoto eligibility of a project area. You may wish to pay attention to how
much of your plantings will be Kyoto compliant, as credits earned from these lands are likely to
earn a greater premium in the market.
Estimating carbon storage
You must use the latest version of the RMT to calculate carbon storage. The RMT will be updated
regularly to incorporate new scientific information; therefore, you should check for updated
versions of the software for each accounting period. Revisions to the RMT software may cause
increases or decreases to the amount of stored carbon. No other calculation methodologies can
be used. Additionally, note that in the case of degraded land the RMT is likely to overestimate
stored carbon.
To calculate the carbon stored by the CFI project, you will need to undertake the following steps
for each CEA:
• Use the most recent version of the RMT to determine the initial carbon stock (for projects that
were established before 1 July 2010). The initial carbon stock for projects established after this
time is considered to be zero.
• Use the RMT to calculate carbon stock for the given month ending the current reporting period
(reporting periods are determined at project commencement).
• Determine the change in carbon stock since the previous report.
• If there has been a disturbance event (e.g. fire, pest or disease), use the RMT to calculate the
reduction in stored carbon.
• Collect data about fuel used (e.g. diesel, petrol, LPG) in establishing and managing the project.
Projects should retain records of fuel use such as fuel invoices, logbooks of machinery hours
or kilometres travelled on project activities, and other records such as invoices for contract
works specifying machinery hours. If the records include fuel use on activities other than the
environmental planting, estimate the portion attributable to the project.
• Use the Reforestation Abatement Calculator (RAC) to incorporate this fuel data and calculate
and report on the net abatement for each CEA, and total net abatement for the project.
The total amount of greenhouse gas abatement from environmental plantings is calculated using
CO2-e. Table 4 provides information that is included or excluded when calculating carbon abated
using the environmental plantings methodology determination. The information to be included
also needs to be documented for reporting.
Table 4 Information used to calculate carbon storage
Included
Excluded
Location of each carbon estimation area
Live and dead above and below-ground biomass before planting
Initial carbon stock
Soil carbon
Fuel use (after project commencement)
Fuel use (before project commencement)
Removal of vegetation (thinning)
Removal of non-forest vegetation
Removal of firewood <10% of debris
Burning of firewood
Prescribed fire
Nursery operations (preparation and care of seedlings)
Uncontrolled fire
Fertiliser and lime use (if same or lower than under previous land
use)
Emission from grazing of livestock in project area
14
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
Case study details and key decision points
Other benefits of environmental plantings
In addition to storing carbon, environmental plantings will provide a number of important
biodiversity benefits, including:
• improved hydrological function of the landscape
• improved water quality through reduced sedimentation
• improved soil condition
• contributing to salinity control by
ሲሲreducing water infiltration
ሲሲexploiting groundwater resources
ሲሲplanting species that can remove salt from the soil
• reducing wind and water erosion by
ሲሲbuffering winds
ሲሲprotecting the soil through litter and root development
ሲሲreducing rain energy
• improving habitat for species by
ሲሲconnecting isolated patches of vegetation
ሲሲproviding food and shelter
ሲሲincreasing range of habitat types.
Regional natural resource management bodies will be able to assist in the design of environmental
plantings to maximise the biodiversity benefits.
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
15
4 Pre-project needs
Site preparation is crucial to the success of environmental plantings in degraded
areas. The use of traditional planting methods that do not address the issues of soil
condition will most likely fail. A common method for increasing planting success
in saline and waterlogged areas is raising the soil bed to reduce exposure to water
logging and salinity.
This method is successfully used in the M-mouldboard ploughing technique, and in the M-profile
mounding technique, which also channels water and salt away from the planting area. Both
techniques also have the added advantage of scalping away weeds during ploughing, and creating
a soil bed that can be planted straight into.
On steep slopes where erosion may be an issue, bulldozing may be used to terrace the hill to
control water runoff and prevent plantings or seeds being washed away. This technique must be
thoroughly investigated because it causes significant disturbance, requires specialised machinery,
and should only be used where direct seeding cannot occur.
Ripping soils improves the success for tubestock plantings by aerating soils, and increasing water
infiltration and root penetration.
It is important to remember that the environmental plantings methodology determination
stipulates that in areas receiving more than 800 mm annual rainfall, significant soil disturbance
(such as ploughing) cannot exceed 10 per cent of the planting area because of the risk of significant
loss of carbon from the soil. Given the necessity for ploughing and other soil disturbance to
improve the chance of planting success, environmental plantings in areas receiving more than
800 mm annual rainfall will need to reduce planting density to avoid exceeding 10 per cent soil
disturbance. Alternatively, you could use planting techniques that restrict soil disturbance to the
planting area, but still address salinity and water logging issues.
In most agricultural practices, acid soils have been redressed by applying lime. However, there has
been limited success in using lime in reforestation projects, and there is no overwhelming evidence
that lime application and reforestation reduces soil acidity (Reid & Butcher 2011; Rosicky et al.
2006). In addition, many eucalypt species are tolerant of acid soils (Symonds et al. 2001) and hence
planting may occur without significant inputs to alter soil conditions. Denuded river and creek
beds have a serious risk of mass failure and are likely to be already showing signs of significant
erosion. Highly eroded areas may be difficult to access and it may not be suitable to use machinery
to revegetate them.
16
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
Pre-project needs
It is important to note that each state and territory has its own legislative framework that
regulates the clearing of vegetation, defines what is considered ‘native vegetation’ and outlines
what activities require a permit to clear. As such, it is likely that all remnant native vegetation,
including isolated trees, will need to be incorporated into the planting designs. This will improve
the biodiversity benefits of environmental plantings.
If weeds are likely to be a problem, the area should be sprayed and/or scalped before planting.
However, if using mouldboard ploughing or M-profile ploughing, weed removal preplanting is
already taken care of.
The CFI also requires that you have obtained the necessary state water, planning and
environmental approvals, including taking account of regional natural resource management plans.
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
17
5Resources and
Chapter
Head 1
skills required
The kinds of resources and skills required for an environmental planting project on
degraded agricultural land will depend largely on the scale of the project and the
planting method used.
Contractors will probably need to be engaged for mouldboard ploughing, M-profile ploughing
and direct seeding. For small-scale plantings (<1000 trees), much of the planting can be
done by 2–4 people over two weeks on the assumption that one person can plant and guard
50 –100 plants per day.
Conventional garden tools (e.g. mattock, shovel) are suitable for small-scale tree planting.
For larger scale plantings (>1000 trees), it would be worth contracting a revegetating company,
because more technical equipment such as tree planters and direct seeders may be required.
Fencing contractors may also be needed.
If you are considering doing most of the work, it is important to remember that you are likely to
require skills in animal and weed management, operating farm machinery and fencing. In addition,
you will need to be confident that you can meet the carbon accounting milestones required as part
of the environmental plantings methodology determination. The online tools (CMT, RMT and RAC)
have been developed so that landholders with no prior experience in carbon accounting should be
able to perform this task. However, specialised skills in carbon brokering and aggregating may be
required and an audit report undertaken by a certified auditor will also need to be provided at the
end of each reporting period.
Although the approved environmental plantings methodology determination is designed to provide
broad geographical coverage and be easily implemented at comparatively low cost, you may decide
that you need additional skills and expertise to successfully participate in the CFI. It is also important
to remember that the necessary skill sets may not be available in some areas and locations.
In addition to the online tools and resources provided by the Australian Government for you to
determine your eligibility, project areas and carbon estimation, a consultant or aggregator can be
engaged to help you prepare documentation for a Declaration of Eligible Offsets Project.
You may also require reforestation specialists to help you select appropriate local species, and
give you advice on how to grow and care for the plants so that they meet the height and cover
requirements of the CFI regulations for environmental plantings.
The online tools and reporting systems are publicly available and designed to be used by landholders.
You will need access to a computer and the internet, and may consider seeking assistance from
someone familiar with the CFI’s supporting tools during the initial stages of the project.
18
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
6Australian carbon
credit units
Do you hold the rights to the carbon?
When thinking about whether to participate in an environmental planting project under the CFI,
you will need to consider whether you can demonstrate that you hold the ‘carbon sequestration
right’ for the project area. For the purposes of the CFI, a carbon sequestration right is the exclusive
legal right to obtain the benefit of sequestration of carbon in the relevant vegetation or soil carbon
pool on the relevant land.
The arrangements for creating and recognising carbon sequestration rights vary across Australia,
and these rights may be separate from land ownership. On freehold land, the situation is usually
straightforward, with the carbon sequestration right generally held by the landowner unless a
separate carbon property right has been registered and sold to someone else. For pastoral and
other types of leases, whether or not the lessee has exclusive rights to the carbon will depend on
the conditions of their lease.
Where the project area covers Crown land, such as leasehold land, the Carbon Credits (Carbon
Farming Initiative) Act 2011 requires that you obtain certification from the responsible
minister that you hold the carbon sequestration right and permission to undertake a carbon
sequestration project.
Other issues that need to be considered with leasehold land—particularly pastoral leases—are
how many years are left on the lease, and the willingness of others to take on the obligations
that go with the land. In certain jurisdiction, there is also some uncertainty about whether
environmental plantings are considered ‘permissible activities’ that are consistent with the
pastoral purpose of the lease.
Do you have the consent of everyone else with a legal interest in
the land?
In addition to holding the carbon sequestration right, you will also need to make sure that you have
the consent of all persons who have an interest in land on which the project will occur. Examples
include registered interests, mortgagees, easement holders, owners of leased land and holders
of a mining lease. If the project is on Crown land, you may need the consent of the relevant state
government minister (see above). If there is a native title determination with respect to the land,
you will need to obtain consent from the registered native title body corporate.
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
19
Australian carbon credit units
As with the holder of the carbon sequestration right, an obligation to maintain carbon may also
affect these other interest holders; therefore, it is important that they are made fully aware of the
scheme requirements and obligations.
What type of offsets will the project generate?
The CFI provides two classes of ACCUs to differentiate between activities that count towards
Australia’s Kyoto obligations (Kyoto ACCUs) and those that do not (non-Kyoto (voluntary) ACCUs).
Environmental planting projects under the CFI can generate both types of ACCUs, depending on
whether the plantings are established on land that was cleared before 1990 (Kyoto-compliant
land) or on land that was cleared during or after 1990 (non-Kyoto compliant land). You will need
to determine the type of offsets that the project is likely to generate and the potential price and
demand differences for them. It is also possible that a single CFI project could generate Kyoto
ACCUs and non-Kyoto (voluntary) ACCUs. The type of ACCUs will influence who will buy them and
how much they will pay for them. Generally, Kyoto ACCUs are expected to have a higher value than
non-Kyoto (voluntary) ACCUs.
How much carbon will my project store?
Figure 2 shows the estimated amount of carbon that can be stored from a hypothetical
environmental planting project on land in south-west Western Australia that is prone to
dryland salinity. The graph shows that over the life of the project the total amount of stored
carbon is approximately the same regardless of the planting technique used (direct seeding,
>1200 stems/ ha, ~1000 stems/ha or < 800 stems/ha). Approximately 41 t of carbon are stored
per hectare of environmental plantings. For a 10-ha environmental planting, this means you could
expect about 410 t of carbon to be stored over the life of the project. However, Figure 3 shows that
the rate of carbon storage reaches a peak about 10 years after the plantings are established.
Figure 2 RMT estimate of total stored carbon over the life of a hypothetical environmental planting on
land prone to dryland salinity, south-west Western Australia
20
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
Australian carbon credit units
Figure 3 RMT estimate of the rate of stored carbon over the life of a hypothetical environmental
planting on land prone to dryland salinity, south-west Western Australia
Each tonne of stored carbon will generate one ACCU (minus 5 per cent to cover the risk of reversal
buffer). The value of the ACCUs will depend on a number of factors, including level of demand.
The potential price a project could receive is something that needs to be considered when deciding
to undertake a project.
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
21
7 Potential costs
Planting cost
Because severely degraded soils require intervention above and beyond reforestation, extra
costs are involved. Although remediation is expensive, additional income from ACCUs may
make restoring some land that would otherwise remain abandoned worthwhile. The costs
of establishing an environmental plantings project include site preparation (e.g. ripping and
mounding), weed and pest management, purchase of tubestock or seeds, fertiliser application,
fencing and the labour required for planting. Although these costs will vary from site to site,
as a general estimate they can range from $1000 per hectare for low-cost direct seeding to
$3000 per hectare for a planting method that involves ripping and mounding of soil, planting of
tubestock and fencing.
Reforestation costs will vary significantly between sites depending on the characteristics of the site
and size of the project. However, based on a comprehensive review of typical reforestation costs
(Schirmer & Field 2000) the following rules generally apply:
• Fencing, seedlings and labour are the most expensive component of reforestation.
• Tree guards, if used, are a significant portion of the total costs.
• The costs of fencing, site preparation (ripping, mounding), spraying and direct seeding reduce
on a per hectare basis for larger projects.
• Transport costs are greater for reforestation projects in remote regions.
• Moist, tropical regions; central arid regions; and warm, moist, temperate regions with hot
summers are more expensive to revegetate because of the special techniques required.
• Direct seeding is generally cheaper than tubestock planting.
• Significant savings in seedling costs can be made by making large orders in advance.
Administrative costs
There are likely to be a range of administrative and transaction costs associated with every step
of setting up a project. Some may be one-off and others ongoing. It may be possible to rationalise
some of these costs by using the services of a carbon aggregator.
At this stage there are no costs associated with registering a CFI project with the Clean Energy
Regulator. Other costs may include:
• cost of engaging a registered greenhouse gas and energy auditor to prepare audit reports,
which must accompany most project reports during the crediting period.
22
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
Potential costs
How can I reduce the costs involved?
In many cases, larger projects (i.e. greater areas of land covered by a planting project) are likely to
make more sense than smaller projects given the relatively significant capital costs to establish an
environmental planting project and ongoing costs to maintain the project. Some costs, such as seed
and tubestock, are directly proportional to the number of hectares being planted, while others,
such as registration and other administrative costs, have a large fixed component. Larger projects
will enable these fixed costs to be spread across a reasonable area.
For smaller scale project, engaging a project aggregator may reduce these fixed costs. Project
aggregators pool multiple projects and handle some or all of the project management and
reporting requirements. In certain circumstances this arrangement may make an otherwise
unviable project viable.
For environmental planting projects, you may be able to claim a deduction for the expenses of
establishing the trees. Detailed information about the tax deduction for carbon sink forests is
available from the Australian Taxation Office website.
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
23
8 Risk analysis
Although CFI projects provide you with the opportunity to generate an additional
income stream from selling ACCUs, there are a number of potential risks and key
factors on which project viability depends. Some of these are discussed below.
Will my project generate enough income to make it worthwhile?
The answer to this question will depend on why you are considering the project in the first place.
If the main driver for your involvement in the CFI is to generate income and make a profit from
carbon farming then the most important consideration will be whether it makes sense from an
economic point of view. You will need to weigh up the income that you may be able to generate
from the sale of ACCUs against the costs of setting the project up (including establishment,
administrative and reporting costs), and the opportunity cost associated with the previous use of
the land (i.e. the income you could have made from agricultural activities). Although you are not
required to take the land completely out of production forever, you will need to prevent grazing by
livestock in the first three years.
For some, the decision to participate in the CFI may not simply be a matter of comparing calculated
economic returns. Establishing environmental plantings on severely degraded land offers you an
opportunity to generate income from land that would otherwise generate none—and which would
become more degraded over time without significant intervention. Although there are likely to be
costs involved with remediating the site—and in some cases these may be significant—the ability
to participate in a carbon market can offset some or all of these costs. This will be an attractive
proposition for those looking to reap the benefits that come with restoring the landscape and
reversing the impacts of salinity, erosion and other issues.
The amount of revenue that can be generated from Kyoto ACCUs will depend on their value.
The value of ACCUs will depend on a number of factors, including level of demand. The potential
price a project could receive is something that needs to be considered when deciding to undertake
a project.
24
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
Risk analysis
How many ACCUs will I receive and when will I receive them?
You will need to consider the impact of the crediting and reporting periods on your cash flow and
ability to fund the ongoing management of the project. The crediting period is the length of time
that the project is guaranteed to receive ACCUs, if the activity remains on the positive list beyond
this period than the project owner can apply for a subsequent crediting period. For environmental
plantings the crediting period is 15 years. To receive ACCUs, you need to submit a report. Under
the CFI, you are able to choose when to report on the project, as long as the reporting period is not
shorter than 12 months or longer than five years. The amount of ACCUs you receive will be the total
abatement from the project (in CO2-e) since the previous reporting period less the risk of reversal
buffer (5 per cent).
A risk of reversal buffer of 5 per cent of the carbon stored by the project is applied to all carbon
storage projects. This means that for every 100 t of carbon stored by a project, only 95 ACCUs will
be issued. The remaining 5 per cent will insure the entire scheme against short term losses due
to natural disturbance. The risk of reversal buffer ensures that individual projects affected by
disturbance events do not have to return ACCUs for the lost carbon. Instead the project owner is
required to take reasonable steps to restore lost carbon and will not be able to earn further ACCUs
until the carbon lost since the last reported level is restored.
You will also need to take into account the emissions from fuel used to establish and manage the
environmental plantings. For example, you may use machinery to prepare the site before planting.
By reducing the amount of emissions from the machinery, you could maximise the ACCUs that
you receive.
The reporting flexibility under the CFI also means that you can decide when it is most cost effective
to submit a report and claim the ACCUs. Since environmental planting projects store relatively
small amounts of carbon in the first years following their establishment, you may consider
delaying your first report until five years after planting, but then report annually while the trees
are at their maximum growth phase. This is illustrated further in Figure 3.
What are the implications of the permanence arrangements?
The permanence arrangements for the CFI have been designed to ensure that carbon stored by
CFI projects is maintained for at least 100 years, while being flexible to allow change in land use
in the future. You will need to weigh up the risks and benefits involved in a multi-generational
commitment.
This means that if carbon is lost through natural disturbance (e.g. bushfire, drought, disease),
action to manage fire (e.g. establishing a firebreak) or vandalism, you will not have to return
the ACCUs. However, you will need to take reasonable action to ensure that carbon stores are
re‑established. In many cases, carbon stores may recover naturally after drought or bushfire
without much intervention, however, depending on the scale of damage you may need to re
establish plantings. The costs of re-establishing the plantings following disturbance should be
factored into your initial business case to determine its effect on profit.
It is also important to understand that you will not be able to receive any ACCUs while the carbon
stores are recovering. The risk buffer will not insure you against the potential loss of income
following a disturbance or for the costs of re-establishing carbon stores. To manage these risks,
you may want to consider other mechanisms such as private insurance, or carbon pooling and
diversification.
Under the permanence arrangements, you do not need to enter into a contract with the Australian
Government that commits you to maintain carbon for 100 years. In fact, you can choose to cancel
the project at any time (e.g. because you want to sell the land without the project or use the land
for something else) by handing back ACCUs to the Clean Energy Regulator. However, unless you
have ‘banked’ ACCUs or can use ACCUs from another project you will need to purchase them at
the prevailing market price. If ACCUs are purchased, there is a risk that you will be buying them at
price higher than what you initially paid.
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
25
Risk analysis
Will third-party assistance be needed?
Although the environmental plantings methodology determination has been designed to be easily
implemented, you may find that you need the services of a third party to help you—such as a
consultant, carbon broker or aggregator—particularly if you think you may lack the administrative
skills and capacity to undertake the necessary carbon accounting and reporting. The costs
of these services may be significantly higher in remote areas owing to the costs of travel and
local monopolies.
Given that environmental planting projects on degraded land are likely to have lower rates of
carbon storage, the use of an aggregator may be warranted as they are able to ‘pool’ smaller
projects. The use of an aggregator may help you to reduce some of your transaction costs.
Based on experience in markets overseas, you are likely to have the choice of aggregation
services from your farmers’ association, natural resource management bodies such as catchment
management authorities, agents or agronomy services, and dedicated aggregation services.
Carbon aggregation allows for small-scale projects to be viable under the CFI by reducing
transaction costs and increasing market efficiency through economies of scale. Natural resource
management groups, grower groups or primary production companies could provide a pooling
mechanism for you.
26
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
Abbreviations
ACCU
Australian carbon credit units
CEA
carbon estimation area
CFI
Carbon Farming Initiative
CMT
CFI Mapping Tool
CO2-e
carbon dioxide equivalent
LPG
liquid petrolium gas
GPS
global postitioniung system
RAC
Reforestation Abatement Calculator
RMT
CFI Reforestation Modelling Tool
Units
ha
hectare
km
kilometre
m
metre
mm
millimetre
mM
millimole
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
27
References
Beeton, R J, Buckley, K I, Jones, GJ, Morgan, D, Reichelt, RE & Trewin, D 2006. Australia state of the
environment. 2006—independent report to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment
and Heritage, Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities, Canberra.
Bell, T 1999, Australian trees for the rehabilitation of waterlogged and salinity damaged landscapes,
Australian Journal of Botany, vol. 47, pp. 697–716.
Clarke, M & Blake, M 2011, ‘Alternative uses for unproductive soils examined in the North Eastern
Agricultural Region’, in J Paterson & C Nicholls (eds), 2011 Agribusiness crop updates, 23–24
February 2011, Perth, Western Australia.
DEH 2011, Gully erosion, New South Wales Department of Environment and Heritage,
www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soildegradation/gullyerosion.htm.
DNRW 2006. Impacts and costs of dryland salinity, Facts land series, Queensland Department of
Natural Resources and Waters.
Kingwell, R, Hajkowicz, S, Young, J, Patton, D, Trapnell, L, Edward, A, Krause, M & Bathgate, A 2003,
Economic evalutation of salinity management options in cropping regions of Australia, Grains
Research & Development Corporation.
McFarlane, D.J. and Williamson, D.R., 2002, An overview of water logging and salinity in
southwestern Australia as related to the ‘Ucarro’ experimental catchment, Agricultural Water
Management, 53:5–29.
Moore, G. A. and McFarlane, D.J., 1998, Water logging: In: G.A. Moore (Editor), Soil Guide –
A Handbook for Understanding and Managing Agricultural Soils, Agriculture Western Australia,
South Perth, pp.94–108.
NLWRA 2001, Australian dryland salinity assessment 2001, National Land & Water Resources
Audit, Canberra.
Reid, RJ & Butcher, CS 2011, Positive and negative impacts of plant on acid production in exposed
acid sulphate soils, Plant Soil, vol. 349, pp. 183–90.
Rosicky, MA, Slavich, P, Sullivan, LA & Hughes, M 2006, Techniques for reforestation of acid sulfate
soils in the coastal floodplains of New South Wales, Australia: ridging, mulching and liming in the
absence of stock grazing, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, vol. 46, pp. 1589–1600.
28
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
References
Schirmer, J & Field, J 2000, The costs of reforestation, final report to the Natural Heritage Trust,
ANU Forestry and FORTECH, Canberra.
Symonds, WL, Campbell, LC & Clemens, J 2001, Response of ornamental Eucalyptus from acidic and
alkaline habitats to potting medium pH, Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 88, pp. 121–131.
Wilson, S., 2004, Determining the full costs of dryland salinity across the Murray-Darling Basin:
Final Project Report, Wilson Land Management Services report to the Murray-Darling Basin
Commission and National Dryland Salinity Program.
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.3 Severely degraded property
29
Edition 01 2012
The ‘Biosphere’ Graphic Element
The biosphere is a key part of the department’s visual identity.
Individual biospheres are used to visually describe the diverse nature
of the work we do as a department, in Australia and internationally.
Department of Agriculture
Postal address Switchboard
daff.gov.au
GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601
+61 2 6272 3933