CATTLE Australia (CA) has condemned the Federal Government’s decision today to suspend the Beef Herd Method for accounting carbon emission reductions as yet another sneaky, short-sighted betrayal of an industry that is the largest sustainable land manager in Australia.
The Emissions Reduction Assaurance Committee, which is responsible for approving carbon methodologies, announced via the Department of Environment’s website that it was cancelling new registrations for the methodology because it does not believe it complies with integrity standards.
The beef herd methodology allowed producers to claim carbon credits by making their herds more efficient, through either breeding efficiency or increased daily weight gains – the idea being that producing more with less reduced emissions intensity. Scale was always needed for the methodology with most of the participants signed up to the program being corporate cattle companies in north – many of them using it to dip their toe in the carbon market.
According to the Australian Carbon Credit Unit register, the three companies to be credited under the scheme have been AA Co, Consolidated Pastoral Company and Paraway Pastoral Company. Those companies and the others already signed up will be able to keep their projects going.
The methodology has had its administrative, with the calculator used to measure credits changing. The changes the calculator had delayed credit issuances and created concern from some of the participants who believed the proposed changes were inaccurate.
Adam Coffey
CA Deputy Chair Adam Coffey said Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen had used the distraction of the upcoming Christmas period to divert attention away from his decision to prevent new applications to use this high-impact and successful method of incentivising sustainable agricultural management practices.
“The decision today can only be described as duplicitous and ill-considered, given the deadline for submissions to the Government’s own review of carbon accounting methods does not close until the end of January next year,” Mr Coffey said.
“Clearly our Federal Government has no interest in achieving genuine outcomes that enhance emission offsets otherwise this ridiculous decision would never have been made.
“Of the 19 recognised methods for accounting for carbon mitigation, the Beef Herd Method has delivered the fourth biggest volume of Australia Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) – a total of 953,241 ACCUs which equates to an offset of more than 1 million tonnes of emissions.”
Mr Coffey said this significant contribution had been delivered from just 11 projects, demonstrating the potential of the system to have an even greater impact as participation increases.
“While a few large producers have led the way in understanding and implementing the Beef Herd Method, there are many more cattle producers ready to participate in this vital carbon market once the value of ACCUs rises to a point to make it viable for smaller operations in to invest in long-term projects.
“Closing off the Beef Herd Method is short sighted in the extreme and fails to take into account future market changes. This decision intentionally takes commercial opportunities away from beef producers and misses an opportunity for larger-scale carbon abatement through regional and rural Australia.”
Mr Coffey said the fact registered participants would be free to continue utilising the method to accrue ACCUs, further demonstrated the value of the Beef Herd Method and the nonsensical decision of the Government at a time when they are purportedly encouraging agricultural land owners and managers to invest in emission offset programs.
“The decision also ignores the massive investment the Australian beef industry has made in research and development projects that have delivered new pasture species, nutritional additives and genetic technologies to help us achieve our goal of climate neutrality,” he said.
“The grazing sector has been proactive in responding to calls to implement practices that minimise climate impacts – we urge the Federal Government to repeal its decision and open access for increased participation in the Beef Herd Method as an effective financial incentive for climate abatement.”
Source: Cattle Australia
This will be the first of many methods to get axed.
Standing projects that used existing established vegetation should be next.
Can’t see the sense in paying people for credits that occur regardless of management techniques.
Focus on methods that improve soil health and in turn we’ll see a lift in soil carbon and properties carrying capacity. Win win
So if I buy a paddock that had cattle in it and do not put cattle in it, I should be able to claim carbon credits for the cattle I did not put in it? Because I am not creating emissions that I could create.
Or if I go buy a Mazda 121 rather then a Dodge Ram to get around in. I should equally get carbon credits because I could in theory drive around in a Dodge Ram and have more emissions.
From what I gather that is essentially what this is all about. Paying people money for not doing something they in theory could. Pretty absurd.
Although strange they would kill this off, while still saying carbon credits for savannah burning is A1. An equally ludicrous scheme.
Disagree with Cattle Australia. Why should large cattle farmers be paid for best practice management the industry has known about and promoted for decades which reduces methane emissions intensity per LSU or per dse and produces its own business financial rewards in terms of production per hectare and per 100mm rainfall while at the same time improves environmental outcomes across the farm? I don’t think the Beef Herd method should have been introduced by CER in the first place.
They are making a big mistake by repealing this methodology. The biggest hurdle is adoption, Yes the big corporates might be the early adopters, but arnt they always, then when proven wider adoption happens. But not now apparently!
What is the word which describes what happens to people who are lured by the almighty dollar to participate in continually questioned schemes, which shift industry focus from traditional industry goals to ideological fantasy, but which those people are assured is not fantasy because the dollars are actually being made, or are available to be made, if the fantasy game is played?
Perish the thought that the rules of the fantasy game can be changed at the whim of the government. Perish the thought that a change of government might create questions about the value of the fantasy game to the nation, and indeed the planet
Perish the thought that the world is shifting away from the urgency and alarm which spawned schemes like the fantasy game.
What is the word? Are they beguiled? Being misled? Conned? Misguided? Exploited?
Alternately, would they argue they are informed, engaged, partnered, and appreciated, indeed vital to the nation, despite the decision to change the rules (suspend the BHM) at whim?
A typical response from a Minister with blinkers on… not wanting to listen to a responsible organisation covering all Australia, who have a proven program in place to help address the issue