The
requirement that sequestration projects permanently store carbon (i.e. for at
least 100 years) is a concern in fire prone environments. Project proponents
would not need to return credits after a fire so long as they take reasonable
steps to recover the lost carbon (e.g. maintain management practices already
being employed). However, risks to the permanent storage of carbon presented by
fire may affect the confidence of potential buyers and the marketability of the
carbon credits.
The
workshop heard that sequestration in the soil through rehabilitation of
degraded parts of landscapes may present the least risky option. However, soil
carbon is patchy and difficult to measure, and may require significant research
and development of models.Emission reduction methodologies such as savanna burning and enteric methane reduction in livestock don’t come with permanence requirements so may be easier to engage with. However, there is not enough knowledge to accurately measure or model methane reductions in cattle, and issues around additionality and leakage still need to be overcome. Also, savanna burning projects may not be feasible in arid zones with below 600mm annual rainfall.
There is a
sense of frustration that the Carbon Farming Initiative is not ready to use,
unless you are in an area with an annual rainfall greater than 1000mm and wish
to conduct a savanna burning project. The concern is that this frustration will
lead to political pressure to rush methodologies onto the market. Methodologies
need to be conservative and based on peer review science to maintain market
confidence. Therefore, patience is required to allow the research to be
conducted so that rigorous methodologies can be developed.
Listen to
Tim Moore (Northwest Carbon), who spoke at Tennant Creek, speaking to ABC's Caddie Brain after the
Alice Springs workshop in May 2012.
Acknowledgements: Ashley Sparrow and Ed Charmley, CSIRO, and
Tim Moore, Northwest Carbon.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.