-
Source: ONE News -
Related
Australian armers struggling to make a dollar from planting wheat or canola could soon try a new crop - carbon.
Conservation groups are scouting out farmland to turn into forests, or "carbon factories", to counter climate change.
Up to 40 million hectares of land could be converted to forest under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), due to start next year.
Advocates say the scheme would provide a much-needed second income to farmers as well as absorb greenhouse gases, boost biodiversity and prevent erosion.
But is the scheme too good to be true?
Farmers have been warned they could lock up their land for a century and lose money if they hurry into the scheme.
Here's the logic behind the tree-planting push: Scientists say increased greenhouse gas emissions are causing the climate to change and Australia, among other countries, is trying to reduce its emissions.
Anything that soaks up greenhouse gases could be a part of this. Trees consume carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas, as they grow, storing it as carbon.
Australia's ETS, the main weapon in reducing emissions, will give carbon credits for tree planting. That means polluting companies might end up paying farmers to plant trees - and lots of them.
Greening Australia wants to jump on board, with its carbon director Rick Humphries seeing huge potential.
"It's a massive opportunity to work with landscapes to restore vast areas of this country, if we target it correctly," Humphries told farmers this week on a field trip near Canberra.
"The carbon market will be worth tens of billions a year."
How it would work
Greening Australia will start talking to farmers about the scheme in the second half of this year.
Farmland may be bought outright, or farmers might be paid to plant trees. Native trees would be planted. Greening Australia would act as a broker, handling accounting and compliance.
Here's the rub - the trees have to stay in place for 100 years.
It's not clear whether farmers would be paid in one or several lump sums; they might get an annual tree fee instead.
Younger trees absorb more carbon, so payments might be bigger right after planting.
Concerns
The scheme will not work for everyone, Humphries says. It depends on the cost of accessing the land and planting the trees, and the potential to grow trees.
Farmer Mark Corcoran is interested in the scheme - but wants to hear more before he signs up.
"I think we've got to look at it, another income stream is the main (attraction)," Corcoran says.
"You've got to keep learning and listen to what everyone else is saying and see if it fits into your management area."
He has been part of a similar scheme. Greening Australia paid him about 70% of the cost of planting 17,000 trees on his cattle and wheat property at Boorowa, an hour's drive northwest of Canberra.
Greening Australia wanted to revegetate the banks of the struggling Boorowa river, while Corcoran wanted to provide shelter for stock.
It's worked well, but Corcoran has some concerns about planting more trees under the ETS.
Holding onto the land and signing a tree contract would have its own issues; access to the land, and maintenance requirements. A century was a serious commitment.
"You've got to work it for generation after generation, that's going to be very difficult," Corcoran said.
Planting trees was not as easy as it sounded, he cautioned. The site had to be prepared, and trees could die if it was too dry.
But he got an unexpected joy from his new trees.
"I enjoy watching the birds come in, I take a lot more notice now there are different varieties of birds around."
Thomas McGrath, paid by Greening Australia, Landcare and the local catchment management authority to plant trees on his farm up the road, was also interested in the ETS.
"Any form of alternative income is great, but I don't know about the whole farm, just parts of it," McGrath said.
It might be best for organisations to buy land for trees outright, he said - but who would manage it?
"Maybe the farmers will continue on owning the land and managing the carbon factory."
The National Farmers Federation is worried about the ETS tree-planting plan, while noting it would be welcome income to some farmers.
NFF manager of economics and trade Charles McElhone warned that planting more trees could cut agricultural production and jobs.
The trees wouldn't employ people or feed the world, he said.
"Those trees would be in the ground for about 100 years, we're talking about trees being planted and left."
A proliferation of plantations of single tree species would be bad for biodiversity and suck up water, he said.
Farmers had to realise that locking up land in long-term tree plantations could reduce their farm's sale price.
They might be better off waiting, McElhone said.
At some stage farmers might have to pay to pollute under the ETS.
They might be wiser to plant trees for themselves and claim the credits directly against their emissions, instead of contracting out their trees early on.
And tree-planting rewards would depend on the ETS carbon price, so it was not clear how much farmers would get paid, McElhone said.
