Carbon Farming Initiative Research Articles

Carbon farming initiative: a national-scale public-private partnership to promote regenerative agriculture in Brazil

Summary Climate change (CC) challenges food and climate through reduced crop yields and increasing production risk. Regenerative agriculture (RA) emerged as a pivotal strategy for enhancing crop productivity and soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration, contributing to agriculture’s CC mitigation and resilience. Nevertheless, expanding RA’s main challenges is providing sufficient science-based decision support for farmers and other stakeholders. In this context, we present herein the largest public-private partnership in Brazil to conduct research in a multidisciplinary collaborative scientific network on RA and describe the Carbon Farming Program approaches. Bayer SA leads the initiative, which also includes 11 partner institutions (i.e., Universities, Research Institutions and Foundations, and Farmers organisations). The programme aims to assess the benefits of improvement of cropland management, intensified and biodiverse crop rotation plans on SOC, soil health, crop productivity, and profitability in a no-till system. The programme has a multi-scale approach with three main steps (‘Research Partners’, ‘On-Farm Research Sites’, and ‘Carbon Program at Scale’). In total, it encompasses 1,906 farmers and 232 000 hectares across the Brazilian edaphoclimatic conditions. The programme has gathered a large database, integrating SOC and fertility determinations, and crop yields, to derive a quantitative evaluation of the impacts of sustainable agricultural land management practices adoption. Moreover, the programme enabled breaking through the gap of quantitative knowledge for the development of a novel mathematical model to predict SOC dynamics for tropical agroecosystems. This is worth supporting assertive decisions along the specific planning to promote scalability in the insertion of Brazilian agriculture in the global C market.

Overcoming legal barriers to coastal wetland restoration: lessons from Australia's Blue Carbon methodology

Globally, there is a recognized need for widespread restoration of coastal wetlands. Despite this recognition, progress in many places has been slow, for reasons including legal and policy barriers. In Australia many of these legal barriers have been overcome in the development of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative ‐ Tidal Restoration of Blue Carbon Ecosystems) Methodology Determination 2022, which allows for certain coastal restoration projects to be accredited and ultimately receive Australian Carbon Credit Units. This paper describes the new methodology, outlines the key legal barriers which had to be addressed in its development, and analyzes the legal solutions utilized. It concludes with some general observations for fucoastal wetland restoration projects. Despite the jurisdictional focus on Australia, it is anticipated that these lessons will be of broader relevance to other countries grappling with restoration projects in the intertidal zone.

Development and Assessment of Carbon Farming Solutions

Abstract In the light of the Green Deal and its ‘Farm to Fork’ and ‘Biodiversity’ strategies, the EU aims to find new ways to decrease GHG emissions through the EU Carbon Farming initiative stating that farming practices that remove CO2 from the atmosphere should be rewarded in line with the development of new EU business models. The Carbon farming initiative is a new approach and concludes that carbon farming can significantly contribute to climate change mitigation. As European Commission acknowledges that carbon farming is in its infancy and there is a lot to be addressed, in the years towards 2030, result-based carbon farming plots and schemes should be settled by the Member States and local governments; therefore, the existing solutions for reducing emissions through improved farming practices should be defined for each region. The research identifies carbon farming solutions in the agriculture sector – minimal/zero tillage, carbon sequestration in soils, biogas and biomethane production, perennial plant growing, and agroforestry and described.

Assessing the value of ecosystem services delivered by prescribed fire management in Australian tropical savannas

The savannas of tropical northern Australia, covering 1.9M km2, are relatively unmodified and support a very sparse human population (0.5 person/km2). Largely marginalised and impoverished Indigenous communities are key stakeholders in the region with legal rights to >60% of the land. Colonisation in the late 19th century significantly impacted long-standing Indigenous land management practices, resulting, until recently, in fire regimes dominated by extensive wildfires emitting, on average, >16Mt of greenhouse gases (GHG) per annum. To manage these emissions, the Australian Government in 2013 enacted an incentivised scheme—the Savanna Burning Methodology (SBM) under the Carbon Farming Initiative Act (2011)—to reduce wildfires through strategically applied prescribed burning. This paper assesses the value of ecosystem services (ES) delivered by fine-scale fire management under the SBM that is now applied to 25% of the 1.2 M km2 regulatory eligible savanna area, abating >7 Mt of GHG emissions per annum. While this scheme delivers and maintains a diverse range of ES supporting (i) the well-being of local Indigenous people, estimated at $189 million/yr (using a substitute value of government expenditure on Indigenous welfare), and (ii) many off-site ES for regional and global populations, the realised market value for GHG emissions abatement represents < 1% (i.e. USD 74.6 million since 2013) of the total value of ES. This assessment emphasizes the: (i) need to recognise the many benefits derived from SB; (ii) challenges associated with valuing ES for regional savanna stakeholders; (iii) further development of incentivised mechanisms for maintaining the flow of ES across sparsely settled northern Australian savannas. This assessment has broader implications globally where Indigenous and local communities aspire to sustainably manage their lands

Farmer perceptions of the opportunities and constraints to producing carbon offsets from Australian dryland grain cropping farms

ABSTRACTThe Australian Government is attempting to use a market-based mechanism to involve agriculture in activities that reduce emissions and sequester carbon. The initiative, known as the Carbon Farming Initiative, represents a significant investment as part of the government’s climate change and land-use policies. To examine the potential opportunities and constraints faced by Australia’s grain farms to engage in these carbon farming activities, we interviewed 31 grain farmers and five industry professionals. Our analysis suggests that a lack of project methodology development and the current project approval processes pose significant constraints to engagement. A particular concern for farmers is the extent of the permanence obligation requiring long-term maintenance of the carbon possibly more than 100 years and the additionality requirement regarding the common practice test that if too many others are doing the practice it will not get the required for project approval. Given the requirements of the processes and the associated transaction costs, producing offsets from dryland grain cropping operations in Australia is currently not a profitable endeavour for farmers and therefore fails to act as an incentive to participation.

Motivations and barriers for Western Australian broad-acre farmers to adopt carbon farming

Carbon farming policies aim to contribute to climate change mitigation, but their success strongly depends on whether landholders actually adopt desired practices or participate in offered programs. The Australian Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative and Emissions Reduction Fund policies were designed to incentivise the adoption of carbon farming practices. Although these policies have been active since December 2011, farmer engagement has been limited, and net emissions reductions low as a result. We surveyed broad-acre farmers in the Western Australian wheatbelt to explore their drivers and barriers to adopting carbon farming practices and participating in carbon farming policy programs. Drivers of adoption included knowledge and perception of co-benefits (for yield, productivity, and the environment), knowing another adopter, and believing that changes to farm management are an appropriate method to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Barriers to adoption included lack of information, uncertainty and costs. The key barrier to participation was policy and political uncertainty. The determinants of adoption and participation that we identify in our study offer important insights into how to best ensure the success of Australia’s land sector-based climate change policies. We conclude that, to increase landholder engagement, the co-benefits and climate change benefits of carbon farming practices must be actively promoted, and additional information is needed about the costs associated with adoption. Information diffusion is best achieved if it actively leverages landholder social networks. Finally, our results indicate that landholder buy-in to carbon farming could be greatly enhanced by achieving more continuity in Australian climate change policies and politics.

National carbon model not sensitive to species, families and site characteristics in a young tropical reforestation project

Reforestation and restoration offer critical contributions to addressing climate change and biodiversity decline. Enabling carbon credits to be derived from these activities is important for reforestation, particularly since reforestation does not come cheaply. Australia’s Carbon Farming Initiative is a world-leading policy that allows carbon credits to be obtained by using published methods-based approaches. Here we apply two different approaches to a young mixed species reforestation project in the wet tropics of Queensland, Australia. One approach assesses carbon sequestration from published allometric equations requiring direct field measurements, and the other applies a national carbon accounting model, FullCAM.Using allometric equations, we found above-ground biomass was influenced significantly by family, species, size class, and the interaction of family and size class. Species in the family Proteaceae out-performed species in other families. Selection of species according to soil nutrient status could enhance growth rates, but if soil nutrients and species responses are not known, then a bet-hedging strategy using mixed species from a variety of families is probably the best option.For three year old forest plots, FullCAM modelled significantly more carbon mass of trees than published allometric models for mixed tropical forests, suggesting that FullCAM needs adjustment to more accurately reflect species, families, local conditions and small-scale sites.Current policy settings are at odds with the needs of carbon farmers, considering the importance of forests and landscape restoration in fighting climate change and biodiversity decline. Legislated national methods allowing the development of species-specific allometrics for small mixed plantations do not account for the costs of developing these allometrics, especially in markets that are marginal.

Towards a Regulatory Design for Reducing Emissions from Agriculture: Lessons from Australia’s Carbon Farming Initiative

The land sector is essential to achieve the Paris Agreement’s goals. Agriculture and land use contribute between 20 and 25 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris Agreement’s aim to keep the average global temperature rise between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius implies that drastic emission cuts from agriculture are needed. The sequestration potential of agriculture and land use offers an important mechanism to achieve a transition to net-zero carbon emissions worldwide. So far, however, states have been reluctant to address emissions from, and sequestration by, the agricultural sector. Some states that have or are setting up a domestic emission-trading scheme allow for the generation of offsets in agriculture, but only to a limited extent. Australia is the only country that has a rather broad set of methodologies in place to award credits to farmers for all kinds of carbon-farming projects. This article reviews the experience with the Australian model so far, with the objective of articulating transferable lessons for regulatory design aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. It finds that it is possible to regulate for the reduction of emissions from agriculture and for increased sequestration in agricultural soils and in vegetation on agricultural lands, provided that certain conditions are met. Regulation must focus on individual projects at farms, based on a long-term policy that has a wider focus than just emission reduction. Such projects must comply with climate-smart methodologies that ensure the delivery of real, additional, measurable, and verifiable emission reductions and also foster long-term innovation and create economic, social, and environmental co-benefits. Moreover, a robust and reliable mrv system must be put in place.

The Costs and Benefits of Approved Methods for Sequestering Carbon in Soil Through the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund

&lt;p class="1Body"&gt;This paper investigates the net benefits of sequestering carbon in soil from a biophysical and economic perspective. This study is important because sequestering carbon (C) in soil is a key component of the Australian government’s Direct Action Policy to offset the nation’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The biophysical potential for sequestering C using one of four permitted project management activities (new irrigation, managing soil acidity, stubble retention and converting cropland to permanent pasture) was calculated according to the Methodology Determination - Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Estimating Sequestration of Carbon in Soil Using Default Values, 2015. The economic prospects of those activities that show a net C abatement were then evaluated to determine whether they were profitable for a farmer to implement. Finally, the costs and benefits from society’s perspective of those activities found to be profitable were calculated. Of these activities only stubble retention and liming provided net benefits to a farmer, although there were limitations as to how widely these activities could be implemented nationally. We estimated a cost to government of approximately $35 M annually to achieve a net abatement of 2.84 M t CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-e. Because this represents only 0.52 percent of Australia’s annual GHG emissions of 549 M t CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-e, the policy is both expensive and relatively ineffective as a C offset policy alone. However, if viewed as an investment in farmland sustainability, this payment to farmers could be good public policy.&lt;/p&gt;

Fire management business in Australia's tropical savannas: Lighting the way for a new ecosystem services model for the north?

Fire management business in Australia's tropical savannas: Lighting the way for a new ecosystem services model for the north?

Numerical Investigation on Gas Emission from Three Landfill Soil Covers under Dry Weather Conditions

The design of existing soil landfill final covers, e.g., a single clay layer cover or a cover with capillary barrier effect (CCBE), aims at limiting water infiltration rather than minimizing landfill gas emissions. We propose an alternative three‐layer capillary barrier landfill cover with an added clay layer underneath a CCBE to improve the effectiveness of limiting gas emission. Finite element analyses of coupled water and gas flow were performed to investigate and compare the performance of these three types of soil covers regarding gas emission under a continuous duration of 34 dry d. Due to evaporation, suction in the single clay layer cover increased larger than its air‐entry value, causing a significant increase in the air coefficient of permeability. For the CCBE, evaporation also led to water loss in the silt layer, which cannot serve as a gas barrier. On the contrary, the bottom clay in the alternative three‐layer capillary barrier cover system was protected by a relatively dry sand layer, which acts as a barrier, minimizing water loss from the clay layer. This is because the dry sand layer has a very low water permeability. As a result, the gas emission rate through the alternative three‐layer capillary barrier cover was the lowest among the three types of covers. This rate was lower than the criterion set by the Carbon Farming Initiative, indicating that the alternative three‐layer capillary barrier cover is a possible barrier to minimize gas emission even under dry weather conditions.

The cost effectiveness of a policy to store carbon in Australian agricultural soils to abate greenhouse gas emissions

Data for cropping and pastoral enterprises in south eastern Australia were used in a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the feasibility of abating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through storing soil carbon (C) as soil organic matter under the Australian government's Carbon Farming Initiative. We used the C credit value for 2013-14 of $24.15 per tonne of CO2- equivalent (CO2-e) and a C storage rate of 0.5 tonne C/hectare/year for conversion of cropland to pasture. Given that a change of enterprise is driven primarily by farmer returns, we found that none of the changes were feasible at current prices, with the exception of wheat to cattle or sheep in an irrigated system, and dryland cotton to cattle or sheep. Given that our model scenario assumed the most favourable economic factors, it is unlikely that increased soil C storage through a change from cropping to pasture can make a significant contribution to abating Australia's CO2 emissions. However, of greater concern to society is the methane emissions from grazing cattle or sheep, which would negate any gain in soil C under pasture, except for a switch from dryland cropping to sheep.

An analysis of the socio-economic factors influencing the adoption of conservation agriculture as a climate change mitigation activity in Australian dryland grain production

The cropping sector in Australia contributes 2.5% of national greenhouse gas emissions, not accounting for the historical loss of soil carbon. The Australian Government is developing policy initiatives targeted at farmers to encourage changes in management practices that aim to reduce emissions from the agricultural sector. The main policy proposal being developed is a market-based mechanism to pay farmers from an Emissions Reduction Fund using methodologies specified under the Australian Carbon Farming Initiative. The adoption of conservation agriculture practices in the dryland grain sector in Australia shows the potential to achieve emissions reductions in the order of three million tCO2e annually. This paper presents a series of systems models that describe the process of how Australian dryland grain farmers decide to change and adopt conservation agriculture practices. Results indicate that a number of economic and social factors drive the rate of practice change, and change seems to be motivated mostly by the pursuit of productivity benefits rather than environmental benefits. We postulate that it may be more effective for climate policy to directly target the adoption of conservation agriculture practices amongst Australian dryland grain farmers by promoting the crop productivity benefits likely to be achieved by such practices, rather than attempting to develop a market-based mechanism for carbon payments. Under this approach, emissions reduction outcomes and carbon payments would not be the primary driver for changing farming practices, but rather a concurrent benefit.

Baseline and greenhouse-gas emissions in extensive livestock enterprises, with a case study of feeding lipid to beef cattle

For accurate calculation of reductions in greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, methodologies under the Australian Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) depend on a valid assessment of the baseline and project emissions. Life-cycle assessments (LCAs) clearly show that enteric methane emitted from the rumen of cattle and sheep is the major source of GHG emissions from livestock enterprises. Where a historic baseline for a CFI methodology for livestock is required, the use of simulated data for cow–calf enterprises at six sites in southern Australia demonstrated that a 5-year rolling emission average will provide an acceptable trade off in terms of accuracy and stability, but this is a much shorter time period than typically used for LCA. For many CFI livestock methodologies, comparative or pair-wise baselines are potentially more appropriate than historic baselines. A case study of lipid supplementation of beef cows over winter is presented. The case study of a control herd of 250 cows used a comparative baseline derived from simple data on livestock numbers and class of livestock to quantify the emission abatement. Compared with the control herd, lipid supplementation to cows over winter increased livestock productivity, total livestock production and enterprise GHG emissions from 990 t CO2-e to 1022 t CO2-e. Energy embodied in the supplement and extra diesel used in transporting the supplement diminished the enteric-methane abatement benefit of lipid supplementation. Reducing the cow herd to 238 cows maintained the level of livestock production of the control herd and reduced enterprise emissions to 938 t CO2-e, but was not cost effective under the assumptions of this case study.

Modelling the potential of birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) to reduce methane emissions and increase production on wool and prime lamb farm enterprises

In Australia in 2011 the Federal government introduced a voluntary offset scheme called the Carbon Farming Initiative, which allows farmers to receive carbon credits when they reduce or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. Various mitigation options have since been explored for their potential to reduce on-farm greenhouse gas emissions. Among these is the use of alternative pastures that lower methane (CH4) production of grazing animals such as Lotus corniculatus, a legume that contains condensed tannins that inhibit the formation of CH4 in the rumen. Lotus has other benefits for sheep production such as increased wool growth, liveweight gain and fecundity. This study modelled the potential emission, production and economic outcomes for wool and lamb enterprises that incorporate lotus in their pastures, evaluating the impact of existing farm productivity, lotus intake and carbon price. Depending on the amount of lotus consumed and the CH4 reduction rate, CH4 emissions fell by 0.02–0.38 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e)/ha and 0.05–0.48 t CO2e/ha on wool and prime lamb enterprises, respectively. At a price of $6/t CO2e potential offset income attributable to use of lotus across all enterprises was $0.12–2.91/ha. Increases in income from increased productivity were 15–30 times greater than from potential carbon offset income. Income was driven by the amount of lotus dry matter intake and the subsequent production benefits. Over a 10-year period prime lamb enterprises generated up to $50/ha in profit by using lotus, due to increased liveweight gain and fecundity. In most modelled scenarios wool enterprises would not cover the cost of lotus pasture establishment. This research demonstrated that 18–23% and 37–46% of lotus intake within the diet was required to generate production enough to cover pasture establishment costs on prime lamb and wool enterprises, respectively. Potential carbon offset income would not be sufficient for farmers to establish lotus without the productivity benefits. While extra profit may be gained on prime lamb enterprises through the use of lotus, problems with persistence must first be overcome for lotus to be adopted on farms.

Analysing governance of Australia's system of landscape-based greenhouse gas abatement

Healthy governance systems are key to delivering effective outcomes in any broad domain of natural resource management (NRM). One of Australia's emerging NRM governance domains is our national framework for greenhouse gas abatement (GGA), as delivered through a wide range of management practices in the Australian landscape. The emerging Landscape-Based GGA Domain represents an innovative governance space that straddles both the nation's broader NRM Policy and Delivery Domain and Australia's GGA Domain. As a point-in-time benchmark, we assess the health of this hybrid domain as it stood at the end of 2013. At that time, the domain was being progressed through the Australian government's Clean Energy Package and, more particularly, its Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI). While significant changes are currently under development by a new Australian government, this paper explores key areas of risk within the governance system underpinning this emerging hybrid domain at that point in time. We then map some potential reform or continuous improvement pathways required (from national to paddock scale) with the view to securing improved landscape outcomes over time through widespread GGA activities.

Can animal genetics and flock management be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also maintain productivity of wool-producing enterprises?

Farm intervention strategies that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the livestock industries may reduce global emissions associated with agriculture, though farmers are unlikely to adopt new practises unless they also improve farm profitability. Here our objective was to explore the effect of manipulating enterprise management or animal genotype on whole-farm production, profitability, enteric methane emissions and wool emissions intensities of sheep enterprises in southern Australia. Two enterprises that differed in lamb sale age were simulated using the model GrassGro; surplus animals were sold at either 18 weeks (weaner) or 12 months old (yearling). We examined the influence of lambing time (LT), joining maiden ewes at 7 months instead of 19 months of age (JA), increasing lamb weaning rates (WR), or superior genotypes with 10% improvement in fleece weight (FW), feed efficiency (FE) and/or methane yield (MY).Annual wool production, methane emissions, wool emissions intensities and profitability averaged across the baseline enterprises were 55 kg clean wool/ha, 3.2 t CO2-eq/ha, 31 kg CO2-eq/kg clean wool and $569/ha. Relative to these values average profitability increased by up to 18%, 15%, 10%, 9%, 8% and 0% for the JA, WR, FW, FE, LT and MY strategies; associated changes in wool production were 0%, −3%, 11%, 0%, 2% and 0%, and wool emissions intensities changed by −4%, −8%, −5%, −7%, 0% and −10%, respectively.Increasing weaning rate and introducing genotypes with lower methane yield afforded the greatest reductions in wool emissions intensities. Divergence between the relative effects of alternative strategies on farm economics, production and wool emissions intensities suggests that farm adaptations will depend on the goal of the individual farmer. If the goal is to increase profitability, flock management interventions are most beneficial; if the goal is to reduce emissions intensity, superior breeds containing improvements in several genetic traits have the greatest potential. We demonstrate that no intervention – to farm management, animal genotype or otherwise – is likely to achieve simultaneous improvements in all of production, profitability, net farm emissions and wool emissions intensity. Under current carbon prices, subsidies greater than $150/t CO2-eq would be required if economic returns from GHG abatement were to equal those from increased productivity, suggesting there would be little incentive for wool producers to participate in the Carbon Farming Initiative under the intervention strategies modelled here.

Does producing more product over a lifetime reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase profitability in dairy and wool enterprises?

Australian agriculture generated 15% of national greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) in 2011, with CH4 and N2O accounting for 12 and 3% of national emissions, respectively. In 2011, the Australian government introduced a voluntary carbon offset scheme called the Carbon Farming Initiative, which enables farmers to earn carbon credits by lowering GHGE or sequestering carbon. One way of reducing emissions is to decrease the number of replacement animals required on-farm and increase the amount of product that animals produce across their lifetime. This study explores two options for reducing GHGE over an animal’s lifetime: (1) changing from an annual calving system to extended lactation system on dairy farms; and (2) increasing the longevity of ewes on wool enterprises to produce an extra year of wool and offspring. The biophysical models DairyMod and GrassGro were used to simulate the dairy and wool enterprises, respectively, and GHGE were calculated using the Australian National Inventory methodology. Extended lactation produced lower total emissions and emissions intensity (t CO2e/t milk fat plus protein) than annual calving and also resulted in higher operating profits. The GHGE from increasing longevity on sheep enterprises was similar to the baseline scenario, largely as a result of similar stocking rates. Extended lactation had greater potential of reducing emissions than increasing longevity on wool enterprises because there was a larger increase in the production of milk fat plus protein across cows’ lifetimes, as well as greater reductions in the number of replacement animals required on the enterprise. This research demonstrated that the profitability of farm enterprises would be driven more by productivity than claiming carbon offsets from these management changes.

Opportunities for fire and carbon on pastoral properties in the savanna rangelands: perspectives from the Indigenous Land Corporation and the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association

Understanding both the carbon dynamics within Australia’s northern savannas and the opportunities presented through diversification into carbon markets is of relevance to pastoral land managers both in Australia and globally. The Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC), through its role in assisting Indigenous people to acquire and manage land for cultural, social, environmental and economic benefits, has operated in the carbon market and is keen to continue working with its partners to explore the opportunities to develop and broaden this further. The Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, as the major industry body for the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory, has been actively involved in assessing the opportunities which may be presented through greenhouse gas abatement where these are compatible with sound resource and economic management. In recent years, Australian governments have considered and developed diversified carbon abatement opportunities for farmers, particularly through the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI). Australian Carbon Credit Units generated through the CFI can contribute to meeting Australia’s commitments under international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The opportunity for economic diversification into carbon farming on marginal land where the primary land use is pastoralism is of particular interest, particularly where it can lead to strengthened economic returns, jobs and other benefits for Indigenous people. Lessons learnt from the ILC’s Fish River Fire Project demonstrate the potential, but also emphasise the need for further research into the practicalities of introducing carbon projects into predominantly pastoral landscapes in Australia and internationally. It is suggested that several issues require further assessment by pastoralists who may be considering engaging in the CFI or other carbon markets.

Carbon projects and Indigenous land in northern Australia

Land activities contribute ~18% of total greenhouse gas emissions produced in Australia. To help reduce these emissions, the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) was implemented in 2011 to encourage land projects, which reduce the production of greenhouse gases and/or sequester carbon in the land. Prospective projects include savanna fire management and rangelands management, which have high relevance in northern Australia where Indigenous landholding is strong. This paper explores the land-tenure requirements necessary for these kinds of carbon projects to be approved by the Clean Energy Regulator. It provides an introduction to the CFI before discussing the land tenure requirements in the states of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia with respect to both emissions reduction and carbon sequestration projects. Potential issues with the current framework are highlighted, especially in relation to native title.