Edition 01 2012
Carbon Farming Initiative case study
13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation®
(WOPR) plantings
Environmental plantings of native tree species
Case study snapshot
•
Cattle grazing property
•
1300 mm average rainfall per annum
•
Sedimentary, clay and sandy clay–loam
•
Direct seeding
Acknowledgements
The Department of Agriculture acknowledges
the work of Greening Australia 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: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings, Department of Agriculture, Canberra, 2013.
Cataloguing data
Department of Agriculture 2013, Carbon Farming Initiative case study—environmental plantings of native tree species: 13.12 Whole of
Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings, Canberra.
ISBN: 978-1-760030-37-7 (printed)
ISBN: 978-1-760030-38-4 (online)
CFI case study: 13.12
Internet
Carbon Farming Initiative case study—environmental plantings of native tree species: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR)
plantings 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
1Introduction
Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation
4
5
2 Land-use implications
10
3Case study details and key decision points
Potential to attain a crown cover of at least 20 per cent and a height of at least 2 metres
Establishment of environmental plantings through direct seeding or planting
Prevention of grazing by livestock in the first three years after tree planting or seeding No use of ripping or mounding for site preparation that affects more than 10 per cent of the area Establishment on land that has been clear or partially clear of forest for five years
12
12
13
13
13
13
4Pre-project needs
14
5Resources and skills required
15
6Australian carbon credit units
18
7 Potential costs
20
8Risk analysis
Types of risk
Risk management
21
21
22
Abbreviations23
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
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: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
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) ACCUs.1
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-ofunits/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: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
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: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
Introduction
Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation
This case study involves the Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) system, which integrates
belts of environmental plantings into commercial grazing or mixed grazing–cropping enterprises.
Native trees and large shrubs are sown in widely spaced belts on the contour, establishing about
25 per cent of the paddock to deep-rooted native vegetation. The remainder of the paddock is
rotationally grazed once the environmental plantings are tall enough to be above the browse
line of livestock. The belts of native trees and shrubs provide multiple benefits, including carbon
sequestration, livestock shelter, highly nutritious fodder, restoration of biodiversity, enhanced
groundcover and a reduced risk of dryland salinity.
The WOPR style of environmental planting was developed in the early 1990s by Leon Gary,
with support from his late wife Bubbles. Leon had a problem with salinity on his land. His
first WOPR paddock was oozing with salt and supported little pasture. Salt levels across his
30-hectare (ha) paddock had reached between 2 and 3 decisiemens per metre (dS/m) (about
1600 parts per million [ppm] or 2500 electrical conductivity units [EC]). Salt-tolerant grasses and
rushes had replaced desirable pasture grasses. Leon knew that deep-rooted plants were needed
to capture and use rainfall that was otherwise running to the bottom of the paddock and leading
to a rising saline watertable. Perennial pastures would not achieve this, but Leon did not want to
convert the entire paddock to a tree block. Instead, he developed his own direct seeder, collected
some local eucalypt and wattle seeds, and sowed widely spaced belts of trees.
This innovative thinking and practice has transformed the least productive paddock on the
farm to one of the most important, particularly for lambing (Photo 5). Survey results show that
native grasses have recolonised the paddock, which is now dominated by wallaby and corkscrew
grass. Desirable native grasses such as red-leg grass, kangaroo grass and weeping grass are also
present. Despite the stocking pressure (about 5.8 dry sheep equivalents per hectare [DSE/ha] or
2.3 DSE/ acre), there are very few weeds.
By 1996, salt levels had started to decline, and by 2001 the salinity problem had all but disappeared.
Final soil tests showed salt levels of only 0.05–0.07 dS/m (about 40 ppm or 60 EC), less than
5 per cent of the original levels. This result was so impressive and surprising that CSIRO retested
the salinity readings three times, obtaining the same results each time. The salt scalds present
in 1990 have all disappeared, replaced by a dense cover of desirable native pasture grasses. Old
eucalypts, which were almost dead from the salt and insect attacks, are once again flourishing.
Leon’s WOPR paddock is also alive with birdlife. In a typical WOPR site, 20–30 different species
of birds can be expected to be using the revegetation at any one time. Many of the birds in the
paddock are small insectivorous species that perform important pest control services around
the farm. Healthy bird communities remove half to two-thirds of leaf-eating insects within tree
patches, thereby keeping vital vegetation growing on farms.
After hearing about Leon Gary’s innovation and success, Greening Australia developed a WOPR
program in central New South Wales, with support from the Australian Government’s Caring For
Our Country program and the Lachlan Catchment Management Authority. To date, more than
1000 ha of WOPR paddocks have been established in central New South Wales, and the program
has recently been extended to the Western Australian wheatbelt.
WOPR plantings have been implemented on a range of soil types across south-east New South
Wales, including red clays, red clay–loams, decomposed granites and quartz (Photo 1). WOPR has
also been successfully trialled in the central wheatbelt of Western Australia (Photo 2). Rainfall
varies from 300 to 850 mm across these landscapes.
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
5
Introduction
Photo 1 WOPR in New South Wales
Photo 2 WOPR in Western Australia
6
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
Introduction
Working within existing farm plans and farm infrastructure (fencing), WOPR sites vary from 10 to
85 ha, based on current paddock sizes. Ten hectares is the minimum size for a project established
with the assistance of Greening Australia.
WOPR offers a solution to ‘tired’, degraded or overcleared paddocks. With the return of approximately
25 per cent of the paddock to 3–4 row belts of native trees and shrubs, many land managers
consider their WOPR paddocks ideal shelter and pasture for lambing, recently shorn sheep or
livestock protection during extreme weather events.
Because conservation, production and carbon outcomes can be achieved on the same paddock,
rather than being mutually exclusive, many managers are now establishing a number of WOPR
paddocks across their farms. Adding one paddock to the program every few years reduces the
impact on the farm business of temporarily having land out of production.
Direct seeding of a diversity of locally native trees and tall shrubs is the proven establishment
method for WOPR (Photos 3 and 4). It is highly cost-effective (about $800/ha), since direct seeding
is suitable for large areas, and uses significantly less labour and resources than tubestock plantings.
For example, the mechanical seeding of a 20 ha paddock, including seed preparation and mixing,
takes less than a day. WOPR plantings may be more difficult to establish by direct seeding on more
fertile sections of farmland that have received regular inputs of fertiliser, improved pastures or
regular cropping. In this situation, a tubestock planting, although more costly, is likely to be a more
viable option for plant establishment.
Photo 3 Direct seeder
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
7
Introduction
Photo 4 Local trees and shrubs used in revegetation
Although the environmental plantings methodology determination requires grazing to be
eliminated only for the first three years, a five-year rest from grazing, coupled with the strategic
sowing of native trees and shrubs on the paddock contours, maximises water infiltration, reduces
wind and water erosion, and reduces the risk of dryland salinity. WOPR plantings are a proven
way to reintroduce young trees into paddocks that are losing their existing paddock trees to
old age and disease. These multiple benefits from WOPR plantings are achieved with little or no
additional fencing.
Production benefits include the return of groundcover and productive native perennial pastures
between the belts of WOPR plantings. Native pastures tend to rapidly recover during the five years
that WOPR paddocks are spelled from grazing. Other positive outcomes are shade and shelter,
reduced wind speed, and creation of paddocks for livestock lambing and sheep that have been shorn.
8
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
Introduction
In addition, seed pods and foliage from Acacia species (wattles) sown within the WOPR belts
provide high-protein fodder for livestock. Recent research has shown that consumption of Acacia
seed pods by sheep can increase resistance to internal parasites. These species also improve soil
fertility by fixing nitrogen, in the same way as clovers and medics.
WOPR-style environmental plantings are an effective way to provide new habitat for wildlife
and improve connectivity on a large scale. Scientific surveys have shown that a diversity of small
woodland birds use WOPR plantings for food and shelter. There are also farm amenity benefits
in establishing widely spaced belts of differently shaped trees and colourful tall shrubs—WOPR
paddocks look attractive (Photo 5).
Photo 5 WOPR paddock with a mix of vegetation
Although many projects have been established under WOPR that meet the CFI eligibility criteria of
consisting of locally native species and planting after 1 July 2007, these projects have not yet been
registered with the CFI to realise their ACCU potential.
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
9
2 Land-use implications
Livestock must be temporarily excluded from WOPR paddocks to allow the belts of
locally native trees and shrubs to establish from seed and to meet CFI requirements.
The length of time before these plants are tall enough to withstand damage by
livestock depends on growing conditions, but is generally around five years. Some
WOPR sites under Australian Government programs have received stewardship
payments (e.g. $50/year/ha) to partially compensate for the loss of grazing income
during this critical period of paddock resting.
Sites with some native pasture grass species are preferred. The rest period from grazing allows
a suite of native grasses and wildflowers to regenerate from the seed bank, stolons (runners),
or windborne seed. Although the perennial pasture component of the WOPR system does not
contribute any ACCUs under the environmental plantings methodology determination, it will help
improve soil health. Once the belt plantings are well established, livestock can be reintroduced into
the paddock, preferably under a rotational grazing system to maintain quality pastures between
the belts. Rotational grazing will also ensure that impacts of grazing on the tree belts are minimal,
and allow natural regeneration of the plantings.
Under the WOPR design for environmental plantings, no land is permanently taken out of
agricultural production, but the belts of trees and tall shrubs are managed for long-term
persistence. WOPR is a novel land-use system that reverses a century of overclearing of native
grassy woodlands and improves sustainable agricultural productivity (Photo 6).
10
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
Land-use implications
Photo 6 WOPR in grassy woodland
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
11
3Case study details and
key decision points
A range of up to 20 tree and shrub species native to the local area are seeded into
each tree belt.
The species mix usually consists of eucalypts, casuarinas, paperbarks, bottlebrushes and wattles.
Wattles and pea species are used to help repair the soil as they fix nitrogen. The direct seeding
design takes into account paddock shape, slope, topography, landmarks, access and management.
Tree belts and blocks of seeding are designed to maximise wind and soil protection, erosion
control and ease of management. Tree belts generally consist of 3–5 tree lines, with a variable
spacing of 30–50 m. Clumps of up to 1 ha can be used in rocky areas and to avoid wind funnels
along contours. The distance between belts or clumps can be designed to suit farm machinery and
stock management, while maximising shade, shelter and landscape function.
For each WOPR paddock, direct seeding is carried out on the contour. This slows or eliminates the
movement of water along the seeding lines, reducing the chance of washouts to near zero. During
rainfall events, some rain is absorbed into the soil profile, and the remainder runs off the soil
surface into gullies, creeks and dams. By direct seeding on the contour, run-off can be collected or
‘harvested’ within the trench, allowing it to soak in. This greatly increases the amount of rainfall
that finds its way to the sown seeds and newly emerged woody plants. Such rainfall harvesting can
be especially important in environments where moisture is limiting to germination and growth.
When using a single disc on the Burford III direct seeder (Photo 1), it is best to direct the topsoil
from the disc downhill to ensure that it does not wash back into the trench.
The following sections describe how the WOPR planting design complies with the requirements of
the environmental plantings methodology determination.
Potential to attain a crown cover of at least 20 per cent and a
height of at least 2 metres
Under the WOPR design, 25–30 per cent of the paddock is sown to widely spaced belts or clumps of
native trees. Belts are often 30–60 m apart, depending on paddock conditions and layout. Each belt
is typically four rows wide, with a canopy cover of at least 20 m in width once mature. Since the
paddocks are subject to livestock grazing, the species chosen for sowing directly into the belts
have the potential to grow to more than 2 m in height. All WOPR environmental plantings have
a mixture of long-lived species of eucalypts and shorter lived small trees and tall shrubs, such as
Acacia species. The long-lived eucalypt component will usually comprise at least 100 stems/ha; this
density will meet the 20 per cent crown cover requirement within each belt.
12
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
Case study details and key decision points
Each belt should be recognised as an individual carbon estimation area (CEA) in accordance with
the environmental plantings methodology determination. For project registration, either the
entire paddock or the aggregation of the planted areas can be registered. The implications of this
registration choice are discussed below.
Establishment of environmental plantings through direct
seeding or planting
The environmental plantings methodology determination does not apply to projects that involve
the promotion and management of natural seed sources that result in regrowth; rather, the native
forests must be established through direct planting or seeding. Environmental plantings are
plantings that consist of Australian native species that are native to the local area of the plantings;
they may be a mix of tree and understorey species, or a single species if monocultures occur
naturally in the area.
WOPR sites are established by sowing native tree and shrub seeds directly into the soil. For each
paddock, a list of species is devised, based on current and historical observations of native vegetation
in the project area. A suite of up to 15 midstorey shrubs and small trees—including from the genera
Acacia, Dodonaea, Callistemon and Melaleuca—are sown in conjunction with several tall trees
consisting of local Eucalyptus, Brachychiton and Allocasuarina species. The species list for each
WOPR site is tailored to local soil, slope and drainage conditions and based on species that establish
well by direct seeding.
Prevention of grazing by livestock in the first three years after
tree planting or seeding
Any grazing after this time must not prevent tree regeneration in the project area.
To allow locally endemic trees and shrubs to establish from seed, temporary exclusion of livestock
is required. The length of time before these plants reach ‘escape height’ will vary with the soil type,
rainfall, and competition from grasses and weeds. Excluding livestock for five years is typically
sufficient. Monitoring the impact of livestock on plantings is important to ensure that there is no
detrimental effect on either biodiversity or carbon within the planted areas. Monitoring by Greening
Australia of a WOPR site that is mature (more than 15 years since establishment) has shown that
rotational grazing can promote natural regeneration of shorter lived species (e.g. Acacia species) if
seasonal rainfall is suitable.
No use of ripping or mounding for site preparation that affects
more than 10 per cent of the area
This requirement only applies in areas receiving more than 800 mm average annual rainfall.
Wherever possible, WOPR-style environmental plantings are established through direct seeding.
This causes minimal soil disturbance. In addition, Greening Australia recommends that the belts
of direct seeding are placed along the contour of slopes. Contour sowing slows or eliminates the
movement of water along the seeding lines, thereby reducing the chance of washouts and erosion.
Establishment on land that has been clear or partially clear of
forest for five years
WOPR-style environmental plantings are used in landscapes that have been cleared and intensively
managed for agriculture for many decades. These landscapes have lost the capacity to naturally
regenerate a woodland cover of trees and shrubs. Direct seeding and cessation of livestock grazing
for up to five years is needed to re-establish a diversity of locally native woody species.
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
13
4 Pre-project needs
WOPR is applicable to dryland grazing, or mixed grazing and cropping enterprises,
in low to mid-rainfall grassy woodlands stretching inland from southern
Queensland to Victoria, the agricultural zone of South Australia, the wheatbelt of
Western Australia, and the midlands of Tasmania. WOPR is probably best suited
to undulating country that typically supports at least some native pasture grasses.
It is more difficult to establish direct seeding on paddocks that have been heavily
fertilised and weed infested.
New fencing is seldom required for the WOPR design for environmental plantings because existing
paddock fences are used to control livestock. This greatly reduces the cost and time needed to
establish plantings.
Once a suitable paddock has been selected, it is prepared using non-residual herbicides or shallow
cultivation (scalp) to remove weed competition, which hampers germination and growth of the
native plantings within each belt.
After sowing, follow-up weed control using a combination of mowing, shielded sprayers and
grass‑selective herbicides will improve establishment and tree growth. Ongoing weed and feral
animal control is required, particularly during the early establishment and growth phase.
14
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
5Resources and
skills required
Successful direct seeding requires specialist skills and experience, including:
• botanical expertise to select a suite of locally native tree and shrub species most suited to each
WOPR site
• expertise in knowing which local species establish well by direct seeding
• access to a native seed bank that excels in seed collection, storage and processing
• knowledge of pretreatment, dormancy and germination requirements for seeds of native trees
and shrubs (e.g. scarification of Acacia seed)
• extensive experience in the use of direct seeding techniques, machinery and seed placement
• knowledge of herbicides, including potential adverse impacts from residual or
selective herbicides
• skills in record keeping to carbon accounting standards, including global positioning system
(GPS) mapping, aerial imagery, and maintaining a database of activity details.
Ideally, WOPR projects should be tracked and mapped using a GPS that is mounted with the
direct seeder. Accuracy of the GPS must meet the requirements described in the CFI Mapping
Standards (which can be accessed at www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/carbonfarming-initiative/methodology-development/spatial-mapping-guidelines.aspx). Very detailed
location maps can be produced for each WOPR project (Figure 1). The GPS data captures the
location of each direct seeding row; these data should be aggregated to map each four-row belt of
planting (Figure 2). The GPS also captures time-stamped data, allowing a very accurate picture of
establishment timeframes to be built. This is particularly useful if projects across a region are to be
aggregated. Time-stamped mapping also enables proponents to identify CEAs by date of planting,
as well as by the site’s soil and landscape conditions.
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
15
Resources and skills required
Figure 1 A
GPS can track each row of direct seeding as well as map the gully excluded (top of image);
this mapping can be easily overlaid on a Google Earth image
16
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
Resources and skills required
Figure 2 D
rawing polygons around tree belts can be complex, but is easier with the aid of a GPS and
an image from Google Earth (note that the belts have been drawn wide enough to allow for
future canopy cover)
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
17
6Australian carbon
credit units
When landholders are considering implementing WOPR-style environmental
plantings under the CFI, they need to understand the economics and risks of each
project. However, CFI projects should be considered in the context of the whole
farm enterprise because they have additional environmental and agricultural
benefits. It is worth considering a CFI project even if carbon returns are marginal.
Considerations for registering a WOPR project with the CFI should include the following:
• Recognised Offsets Entity—consider who is going to be the registered party for the CFI
project. This party takes on the obligations for reporting and data management under the CFI.
The registered party does not have to be the landholder.
• Project finance—consider who will fund the project. Up to 70 per cent of project costs are
likely to be incurred in site preparation and vegetation establishment, whereas the majority of
carbon revenue will be generated over the following 20–40 years. Up-front capital investment
is needed. Investigating funding opportunities under regional natural resource management
organisations and Australian Government programs could be worthwhile.
• Long-term obligations—consider the ongoing maintenance requirements. When any
environmental planting project is registered with the CFI, there is an obligation to maintain
the carbon stock for 100 years. This requires ongoing management of weeds and pest animals,
and mitigating other disturbance events, such as fire. Greening Australia’s 30 years of
experience and research indicate that, once they are well established, environmental plantings
require minimal maintenance and recover quickly after wildfire.
• Marketing and carbon sales—consider who is responsible for ensuring a return from carbon
sales, the likely carbon price and the timing of these sales. A number of options are possible,
including locking in an up-front payment for the future supply of ACCUs, and sales into the spot
market when prices are favourable for carbon that has already been grown (sequestered).
Landholders may opt for a guaranteed return from a third party project developer or
aggregator via a lease or annuity payment in exchange for the transfer of the carbon property
right to that third party.
A landholder with a WOPR planting who individually registers with the CFI is responsible for all
aspects of project delivery, including reporting obligations. Alternatively, a landholder may wish
to outsource some or all project activities to a third party aggregator, in return for a variable
or guaranteed income stream from the project. An aggregator can hold many projects and can
18
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
Australian carbon credit units
therefore offset losses (or underperformance) at some sites with above-average performance at
others. In addition, an aggregator may be able to take out insurance or hold a buffer of ACCUs to
manage the risk of loss. An aggregator may be in a better position to negotiate on project finance
directly with ACCU purchasers, eliminating the need for a third party lender.
An aggregator also has the ability to maintain one project reporting system that applies across
many projects. This can make establishing and managing reporting systems more cost-effective.
The ability to centralise these aspects of the project may ultimately mean the difference between a
viable and a non-viable project—particularly at scales that are typical of individual WOPR projects.
WOPR-style plantings should be able to generate Kyoto ACCUs. To date, all WOPR sites have been
established on land cleared before 1990. WOPR plantings also meet the requirements of a forest
with regard to species and vegetation structure.
However, important considerations relating to planting configuration may affect how projects are
designated under the CFI. It is possible to designate the entire paddock as the project area, and
then spatially exclude non-planted areas when quantifying the carbon outcomes using the CFI
Reforestation Modelling Tool (RMT). This is done by mapping each tree belt as a separate CEA.
Alternatively, you could designate individual planted areas as project areas.
Through research funds under the Australian Government’s Filling the Research Gap and Action
on the Ground programs, much work is being done on quantifying soil carbon outcomes across a
range of situations, including improving the quantification of soils under reforestation and with
changes to pasture management. This research will have a significant impact on methodologies
that could enable WOPR projects to account for all carbon pools that they improve.
Using the RMT, WOPR projects in the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales near Crookwell
yield a conservative estimate of 122 t of CO2-e/ha over 20 years and 216 t CO2-e/ha over 60 years.
Since WOPR projects are generally 25–30 per cent of a paddock area, estimates of the entire
paddock need to be reduced by this proportion. For example, a typical 40 ha WOPR-style paddock
could yield about 1500 t of CO2-e (37.5 t/ha) over 20 years or 2500 t of CO2-e (62.5 t/ha) over
60 years in this region. Each t of CO2-e will generate one ACCU (minus 5 per cent to cover the risk of
reversal buffer). At a carbon price of $10/t CO2-e, this yield of carbon could generate a gross income
of $15 000 for a 40 ha paddock over a 20-year period. Net income would depend on many factors,
including the cost of tree belt establishment, maintenance and project registration; the actual price
of carbon at the time of ACCU sales; and other costs (summarised below). The value of ACCUs will
vary depending on a number of factors, including the level of demand. The potential price a project
could receive is a factor that needs to be considered when deciding to undertake a project.
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
19
7 Potential costs
Planning costs include engagement of professional expertise to assist with:
• locating and mapping appropriate paddocks for WOPR plantings
• species selection of appropriate locally native trees and shrubs suitable for direct seeding.
Establishment costs include:
• land preparation (e.g. weed control) at about $500 per paddock
• direct seeding with specialised equipment (about $200 per kilometre of seeding, including
seed, labour, fuel and machinery costs)
• additional fencing if required for paddock subdivision (about $3000 per kilometre)
• replanting, if required because of seasonal conditions.
Ongoing management and reporting costs include:
• weed control during the establishment phase (1–3 years)
• grazing management
• reporting and auditing under the CFI.
20
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
8 Risk analysis
Long-term risk needs to be actively managed for any CFI environmental planting
project because of the requirement to maintain carbon that has been credited by
the Clean Energy Regulator for 100 years. This requirement ensures the integrity of
the scheme and that the ACCUs going to market are representative of carbon that is
stored within the vegetation.
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.
If carbon loss is caused by non-natural disturbance (e.g. clearing), a proponent will have to
relinquish an equivalent amount of ACCUs, either from within project ACCUs that are unsold or by
purchasing off-project ACCUs from the market. If a proponent wishes to change to an alternative
land use on land where a CFI project is registered, they will need to relinquish all ACCUs issued
before they are allowed to cancel the project.
In addition to these financial risks, a suite of environmental and climatic risks are inherent in this
type of project; these are discussed below.
Types of risk
A typical risk register for a WOPR-style planting includes:
• risks to safety, health and wellbeing of personnel, particularly at the time of planting, such as
ሲሲslips, trips and falls
ሲሲmanual handling
ሲሲexposure to heat, cold and the sun
ሲሲroad travel accidents
ሲሲvehicle movement on site
ሲሲvenomous wildlife
ሲሲunderground services disruption
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
21
Risk analysis
ሲሲprickly and allergic irritation caused by plant contact
ሲሲexposure to pollutants
ሲሲfalling braches or trees
ሲሲfires
ሲሲfloods
• environmental risks, such as
ሲሲintroduction of weed species to the site
ሲሲchemical spills
ሲሲinappropriate species selection, leading to establishment failure
ሲሲerosion and its impact on soil health and catchment water quality
ሲሲdamage to plantings by livestock
ሲሲintroduction of pathogens
ሲሲdamage to plant populations through excessive seed collection
• operational risks (timeliness, quality, deliverables), such as
ሲሲfailure to deliver contracted services in a timely manner
ሲሲfailure of installed plant material to establish and survive
ሲሲchange in landholder expectations and personal circumstances.
Risk management
These risks can be proactively assessed and managed through a variety of means, including
training and outsourcing of professional services. Long-term (100-year) risks are associated
with the potential loss of carbon as a result of fire, drought, hail, flooding, and damage by insects
and wild herbivores (e.g. hares). These risks are particularly high when plantings are less than
three years old. Once the plantings are well established, the risk of lost carbon is less because of the
resilience of a diversity of locally native plantings. Even intense wildfire has been shown to have
only a short-term impact on environmental plantings. Recently published research by CSIRO and
Greening Australia in the Canberra region shows that environmental plantings less than 15 years
old fully recovered within 5–8 years of the firestorm that hit this region in 2003. This research
found that a diversity of planted species was key: some species recovered from epicormic
shoots off burnt trunks (most eucalypts), whereas others recovered from seed or root plates
(most acacias).
One strategy to manage administrative and financial risks is for a landholder to engage an
aggregator or project developer. Typically an aggregator will offer a fee for access to land in
exchange for the carbon right. This right is then registered on title in the aggregator’s name.
Where an aggregator is engaged to hold the carbon right, the project risk of ensuring delivery
and maintenance of ACCUs falls to the aggregator, and the aggregator is responsible to the
Clean Energy Regulator for ACCUs claimed as part of the project. In addition, the aggregator may
hold contracts with customers for carbon supply and similarly hold the risk associated with
nondelivery on these contracts.
Alternatively, an aggregator may take a fee or commission from carbon sales in return for
managing financial and reporting aspects of the project. In this case, the landholder may be left
holding the risk associated with underperformance or carbon loss, and with this a financial loss
associated with lower than projected carbon stocks. It is likely that the landowner will hold some
financial responsibility for the up-front establishment costs. Consideration needs to be given to the
ability of the aggregator to secure sales, and whether there is some type of guarantee associated
with this service. Consideration of the sale price will also be important in this instance.
In summary, unlike traditional agricultural systems where most risks are managed annually until
the crop is harvested or livestock are sold, a CFI environmental planting comes with long term risk
based on some very important up-front decisions.
22
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
Abbreviations
ACCU
Australian carbon credit units
AFS
Australian Financial Securities
CEA
carbon estimation area
CFI
Carbon Farming Initiative
CO2-e
carbon dioxide equivalent
EC
electrical conductivity
GPS
global positioning system
RMT
CFI Reforestation Modelling Tool
WOPR
Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation®
Units
dS
decisiemens
DSE
dry sheep equivalents
ha
hectare
m
metre
mm
millimetre
ppm
parts per million
t
tonne
Department of Agriculture
Carbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.12 Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation® (WOPR) plantings
23
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