News 
 Australian Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 CarbonSmart goes up in smoke 

CarbonSmart goes up in smoke

16 Jul, 2010 12:51 PM
A PIONEERING attempt to provide landholders with a new income stream through forestry offsets, Landcare CarbonSmart, has fallen foul of the Canberra stalemate over emissions regulation.

Set up by Landcare Australia Limited, in part to help landholders put in smaller biodiverse plantings that could provide a carbon credits income stream, CarbonSmart has been killed off because the forestry offsets market and regulatory environment failed to mature as expected.

Landcare Australia chief executive, Heather Campbell, said CarbonSmart was a “brilliant concept” that may have been ahead of its time.

“We went in very early on, and developed up great capability with businesses, but didn’t fully recognise the administrative burden of such a system and the immature nature of the market.

“The administrative processes just kept changing, and the burden on the organisation was huge. One week you would go to register carbon on title, and the titles office in that State would accept it; the next week they would want them filled out in a different way.

“Add to that the fact that we are a small not-for-profit organisation, and we got to the point where we decided that continuing as a carbon broker wasn’t worth the risk it posed to Landcare Australia Limited.”

CarbonSmart did not forward sell carbon, so the broking business will wind up with all participating landholders paid up for carbon their plantings have sequestered to this point.

Ms Campbell said Landcare Australia hopes to continue to use the skills of CarbonSmart assessors as advisors, with an eye to redeploying them if the forestry offsets market gets on a more steady footing.

An architect of the CarbonSmart program, Ben Keogh, managing director of Australian Carbon Traders, said Landcare is a victim of Canberra’s policy vacuum on forestry offsets.

“CarbonSmart was set up with the best of intentions, a lot of thought and effort went into it to establish it as a long term project, and it was definitely established for the landholders’ benefit,” he said.

“Some of the people on that team worked through some extraordinarily difficult times and put in some extraordinary hours, and to see it all vapourise within a political vacuum is a disgrace.”

Policy uncertainty is wreaking havoc on businesses established in the belief that some form of emissions trading policy would now be in place.

“If we had a start date, or even a definite ‘no’, we’d know what to do,” Mr Keogh said.

“But for forestry offsets, we’ve been told it’s a ‘no’ under the voluntary scheme and ‘maybe’ under the mandatory scheme. What are we supposed to do with that?”

A former forester, Mr Keogh is doubly perplexed that the government has on the one hand delivered so much rhetoric on the need to address climate change, while on the other it has “hung out to dry” those who want to tackle the issue through trees - a proven, quantifiable technology.

“We’ve watched people with investment money just walk away. It beggars belief.”

Administrators have also been called into 10-year old carbon management company Carbon Planet, AdelaideNow reports.

Carbon Planet apparently has $5 million in debts, and has asked administrator KordaMentha Adelaide to help revive the business.

According to AdelaideNow, chief executive Dr Ross Williams and executive director Jim Johnson have blamed the Federal Government's decision to abandon the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until 2013 and the global financial crisis for its trading trouble.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Yeah, this is what happens when you have to start paying for breathing in and breathing out. "We didn’t fully recognise the administrative burden of such a system and the immature nature of the market. The administrative processes just kept changing, and the burden on the organisation was huge." Mark, read, and inwardly digest and be very aware. Roughly translated it should read: "This is a minefield and beauracratic nightmare in the making."
Posted by Will, 16/07/2010 3:56:09 PM
Any market based on political whims, is a disaster waiting to happen.
Posted by Qlander, 17/07/2010 10:29:32 AM
Economics 101 fellas, a market exists when a willing buyer of a product that meets a real need agrees on a valid price with a willing supplier of the required volume. If it has to be initiated and subsidised by government, with the only real incentive for both parties provided by that government then it is not a market, it is a rort at the expense of the tax payer. Landcare was conceived in ignorance of the true state of vegetation, designed by departmental shonks and built by spivs on the make. About all it has ever done is subsidise the landscaping of driveways on hobby farms. There are Currawongs down my way that have planted more trees via their droppings than some of these clowns.
Posted by Ian Mott, 19/07/2010 11:25:49 AM
Mott - you obviously know nothing about landcare , your comments are ill conceived, nefarious and downright insulting to many landcare participants. I assume you were in the loop and aware of how Landcare was formed, how it was funded and how it operated otherwise your comments are nothing more than speculation. I am waiting for the farm tour of your property so you can show us all how to do it, you must truly have all the answers and it must be very difficult to be you, to be right all the time and to see everyone else doing ti so wrong.
Posted by landcarer, 19/07/2010 11:53:24 AM
Good on you Ian Mott. Telling the story as it actually is.
Posted by Len, 19/07/2010 1:45:18 PM
Oh yeah - good on Ian Mott for telling it how it is through his paranoid, myopic self interested prism. Now Mott is a voice of reason to listen to. Uh Huh yep - gunna go with him and his balanced views!
Posted by the lorax, 19/07/2010 6:33:03 PM
I had the misfortune to spend a large part of the decade from 95 to 2005 in rooms full of Landcare tossers and departmental spivs. And when we got around to talking about how many trees they planted they never talked hectares or acres. It was always actual numbers, and not hundreds. And too many times a close look revealed more money spent on a bloody big sign than they did on seedlings. And all of it full of the most boorish self congratulation for their legendary planet salvation. But try and get a few of the old forest families into the policy process, yep, the ones who maintained thousands of hectares all through the years when they could legally have flattened it, and it was gee wiz, got to go, is that the time? And maybe Lorax and landcarer would care to tell us what sort of outrageous growth and return claims they made to the suckers, eh boys?
Posted by Ian Mott, 19/07/2010 7:52:45 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
13 July, 2010
POLL
Q: When do you think the next Federal election will be held?

August
(54.4%)

September
(20.7%)

October
(12.1%)

November
(5.2%)

December
(0.7%)

2011
(6.9%)

Total Votes: 421
Poll Date: 11 July, 2010



 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...