carbon farming initiative case study 13.2 yarrabee library/images/daff/__data/assets... · the...

Edition 01 2012

Case study snapshot

• Drylandcroppingandgrazingproperty

• 500mmaveragerainfallperannum

• Deepfreedrainingsandysoils

• Directseeding

Carbon Farming Initiative case study13.2 YarrabeeEnvironmental plantings of native tree species

© Commonwealth of Australia

Ownership of intellectual property rights

Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).

Creative Commons licence

All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, save for content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication, provided that you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode.

This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: Carbon Farming Initiative case study—environmental plantings of native tree species: 13.2 Yarrabee, Department of Agriculture, Canberra, 2013.

Cataloguing data

Department of Agriculture 2013, Carbon Farming Initiative case study—environmental plantings of native tree species: 13.2 Yarrabee, Canberra.

ISBN: 978-1-760030-14-8 (printed)

ISBN: 978-1-760030-15-5 (online)

CFI case study: 13.2

Internet

Carbon Farming Initiative case study—environmental plantings of native tree species: 13.2 Yarrabee is available at daff.gov.au/climatechange/resources.

Contact

Department of Agriculture

Postal address GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601 Switchboard +61 2 6272 3933 Email [email protected] Web daff.gov.au/climatechange/resources

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document should be sent to [email protected].

The Australian Government acting through the Department of Agriculture has exercised due care and skill in the preparation and compilation of the information and data in this publication.

The Commonwealth is not providing any advice, whether professional, financial or otherwise, in respect of the material in this publication. The Commonwealth disclaims that it owes any duty of care, including any fiduciary duty, to any person who uses or relies upon the material. Persons who use or rely upon the material do so at their own risk. Before relying upon any material, users should carefully evaluate its accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance for their purposes and should obtain any appropriate professional and/or financial advice relevant to their individual circumstances.

In some cases, the material may incorporate or summarise views, guidelines or recommendations of third parties. Such material does not necessarily reflect the considered views of the Commonwealth, or indicate a Commonwealth commitment to a particular course of action. The Commonwealth has no knowledge of, or liability for, the use of third party intellectual property in the material, if any.

References to commercial entities, and their products, services or websites, do not constitute endorsement by the Commonwealth. Links to other websites are inserted for convenience and do not constitute endorsement of material at those sites, or any associated organisation, product or service. Persons who utilise these commercial entities, or their products, services or websites, do so at their own risk.

AcknowledgementsThe Australian Government Department of Agriculture acknowledges the work of Sinclair Knight Merz and South Coast Natural Resource Management in preparing this case study.

This case study was produced with funding from the Australian Government Department of Agriculture as part of the Carbon Farming Futures Extension and Outreach Program.

1Department of AgricultureCarbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.2 Yarrabee

Contents

Purposeofthiscasestudy 2

The Carbon Farming Initiative 2

Australian carbon credit units 3

1 Introduction 4

Yarrabee 5

2 Land-useimplications 10

3 Casestudydetailsandkeydecisionpoints 11

Is the project eligible to apply the approved CFI methodology determination? 11

How was the project implemented? 11

What project approvals were required? 14

Project environmental benefits 14

How is carbon storage calculated? 14

4Pre-projectneeds 19

5 Resourcesandskills required 20

Establishing and managing the project area 20

Management as an eligible CFI project 20

6Australiancarboncredit units 22

Right to ACCUs 22

Eligibility requirements 22

How many ACCUs may be generated by the Yarrabee project? 22

7 Potentialcosts 23

Costs of establishing and managing the project 23

Cost of managing an eligible CFI project 24

Potential returns from the sale of ACCUs 24

8Riskanalysis 25

Phytophthora outbreak 26

Property sold or offered for sale 26

Drought 27

Locusts and other defoliating insects 27

Frost 27

Fire 28

Low market price for carbon 28

AppendixASpeciesusedinrevegetationatYarrabee 29

Abbreviations 33

References 34

2 Department of AgricultureCarbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.2 Yarrabee

Purpose of this case study

This document is a case study of a potential offset project under the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI). The case study describes a potential project that could, in principle, satisfy the requirements to be an eligible CFI project, but it is not currently an eligible CFI project. The purpose of this case study is to illustrate:• the applicability of the environmental plantings methodology determination• matters considered in determining the choice of technology, site selection, and implementing

and operating the physical characteristics of a CFI project• the project monitoring and record-keeping requirements of the methodology determination

and the establishment of project monitoring and record-keeping systems• the financial and non-financial costs and benefits of a potential CFI project.

You should not take action in relation to a CFI project or Australian carbon credit units (ACCUs) purely on the basis of the scenarios presented in this document. Before you take any action, you should get further information or advice relevant to your individual circumstances.

This case study does not claim to comprehensively cover all the above matters and does not necessarily do so. It may use estimates, forecasts and assumptions, and these may be simplified for the purposes of illustration. This case study also does not cover all the matters you could or should consider in implementing a CFI project of this type.

The information in this case study is not necessarily applicable to any other case. Again, you should obtain any appropriate professional and financial advice relevant to your individual circumstances and not rely solely on the information in this case study.

The Carbon Farming InitiativeThe CFI is an Australian Government scheme that allows farmers and other land managers to earn ACCUs by reducing greenhouse gas emissions or storing carbon (also known as carbon sequestration) in the landscape. These ACCUs can be sold to people and businesses wishing to offset their emissions.

The CFI also helps rural communities and the environment by supporting sustainable farming by creating incentives for landscape rehabilitation.


Purpose of this case study

Participation in the CFI is voluntary; farmers and land managers can choose whether or not to be involved.

For more information about the CFI, visit www.daff.gov.au/climatechange/cfi.

Australian carbon credit unitsSubject to satisfying the monitoring, auditing, reporting and other requirements under the CFI for a particular reporting period, an eligible CFI project can apply for ACCUs. Each ACCU represents one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) net abatement (through either emissions reductions or carbon sequestration) achieved by eligible activities.

From 17 May 2013, two types of ACCUs can be generated under the CFI; Kyoto and non-Kyoto (voluntary) ACCUs1.

Kyoto ACCUs:• are created by Kyoto offsets projects with a reporting period that occurs from 17 May 2013 until

30 June 2020• can be sold to companies (liable entities) to meet their obligations under the carbon

pricing mechanism• can be sold on the voluntary market to individuals or businesses who voluntarily want to

offset their emissions.

Non-Kyoto (voluntary) ACCUs:• are created by non-Kyoto offsets projects• can be sold on the voluntary market to individuals or businesses who voluntarily want to offset

their emissions• are unable to be sold to companies (liable entities) to meet their obligations under the carbon

pricing mechanism• are unable to be exchanged for international emissions units.

The table below summarises the characteristics of each type of ACCU.

Table1ACCU characteristics

Characteristic KyotoACCUs Non-Kyoto(voluntary)ACCUs

Able to be sold on the voluntary market

Can be surrendered under the carbon

pricing mechanism

Any reference to a value of an ACCU in this case study should be taken as an example of a value, which may or may not occur in the future. The Commonwealth of Australia, nor any of its officers or related bodies, cannot make any representation or provide any guarantee concerning the future values of non-Kyoto (voluntary) ACCUs.

An ACCU is a ‘financial product’ under the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. This means people who provide financial services in relation to ACCUs and related financial products and services in Australia may require an Australian Financial Services (AFS) licence, which authorises them to provide those services.

You should obtain your own professional advice about the trading of ACCUs, having regard to your own situation.

For further information on the characteristics of ACCUs, please refer to the descriptions of the Clean Energy Regulator at www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ANREU/Concise-description-of-units/Pages/default.aspx.

1 There is a third type of ACCUs called non-Kyoto (eligible) ACCUs. This type of ACCUs was only able to be generated by Kyoto eligible projects between 1 July 2012 and 16 May 2013. These credits are the same as Kyoto ACCUs with the exception that they cannot be exchanged for international emissions units.


1 Introduction

This case study explores undertaking a potential CFI project using the environmental plantings methodology determination, Carbon Farming (Quantifying Carbon Sequestration by Permanent Environmental Plantings of Native Species using the CFI Modelling Tool) Methodology Determination 2012.The environmental plantings methodology determination covers the establishment and management of permanent native forests through the planting and/or seeding of native species on cleared or partially cleared land. This achieves greenhouse gas abatement by removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing (sequestering) it in trees by growing a native forest.

This methodology determination can be applied Australia-wide to CFI projects that meet requirements, such as:• The native forests are established through direct planting or seeding; native forest regrowth

through existing natural seed banks is not eligible.• The native forests are established on land that has been clear or partially clear of forest for the

five years before tree planting or seeding.• The native forests consist of Australian species that are native to the local area. They may be

a mix of tree and understorey species, or one single species if the species naturally occurs as a monoculture in the area.

• The trees have the potential to attain a crown cover of at least 20 per cent and a height of at least 2 m.

• The project does not involve harvesting of wood products—you can remove a maximum of 10 per cent of debris per year for personal use (e.g. firewood).

• Grazing by livestock is prevented in the first three years after tree planting or seeding.• The carbon stored in biomass (vegetation) is stored permanently for at least 100 years.

Established permanent environmental plantings may be eligible to participate in the CFI using this methodology if they meet the above requirements and were planted on or after 1 July 2007. Plantings established before 1 July 2007 could still be eligible if there is documentary evidence that they were planted for the purpose of generating carbon credits. ACCUs will only be issued for abatement from 1 July 2010.

The complete methodology is available at www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L01340.


Introduction

YarrabeeThis document is a case study of the potential application of the CFI methodology determination for quantifying carbon storage by permanent environmental plantings and of the associated process for generating ACCUs. It is based on Yarrabee, a 923 ha former farming property.

Yarrabee is located approximately 480 km south-east of Perth, in the Shire of Jerramungup, in Western Australia’s south-west region. The south-west region of Western Australia began to be developed for agriculture in the 1880s. Clearing of Yarrabee for dryland cropping and grazing commenced in the 1950s. About two thirds of the property was developed for agriculture and farmed until 2006. The remaining 300 ha retains relatively intact and diverse native vegetation that provides habitat for a variety of native fauna.

The property was purchased by Bush Heritage Australia and Greening Australia in 2006, with the aim of restoring native vegetation to cleared areas and managing the existing 300 ha of remnant vegetation (Figure 1). The property is one of several major private conservation areas that are part of Gondwana Link. Gondwana Link is a major natural resource management (NRM) initiative to restore ecological connectivity across southern Western Australia—an internationally recognised biodiversity hot spot (Figure 2).

Figure1Yarrabee property layout, showing areas planted in each year of the establishment period and the large area of retained native vegetation

Yarrabee is currently being divided into two properties, with the 300 ha of remnant vegetation being owned and managed by Bush Heritage Australia. The remainder of the property (~620 ha) is owned and managed by Greening Australia and was revegetated during 2006 and 2007 using over 600 kg of seed and 150 000 seedlings from over 120 different local native plant species. Only this part of the property—the part that has been revegetated since 1 July 2007 (about 30 per cent of the total revegetation area)—is potentially eligible for the generation of ACCUs and associated revenues under the CFI, although only carbon stored since 2010 can be considered. Any carbon credits that are generated will be Kyoto-compliant and could be sold to companies liable under the carbon price.


Introduction

Modelling tools that are used for this CFI methodology determination estimate that Yarrabee’s plantings will store approximately 21 t of carbon per hectare over the first 15-year crediting period (not including the carbon stocks present in 2010). Assuming the Yarrabee project was assessed by the Clean Energy Regulator to be eligible to generate ACCUs, the sequestered carbon could generate 72 ACCUs per hectare. Establishment and early management costs at Yarrabee, not including land purchase, were approximately $800/ha.

Further carbon would be stored and, if the project remained eligible, additional ACCUs would be generated over subsequent crediting periods.

Access to revenue from the sale of ACCUs has considerable potential to improve the cost effectiveness of large-scale revegetation and nature conservation projects such as Yarrabee.

Figure2Location of Yarrabee and other conservation areas forming part of Gondwana Link

Source: Bush Heritage Australia 2012.

Climate and soils

Average annual rainfall at Yarrabee is approximately 500 mm. More than half of the annual rainfall is received during the five cooler months of May to September. Temperatures are moderated by proximity to the coast. Average summer maximum temperatures are 25–28 °C and average winter maximum temperatures are 15–17 °C.

The property has deep, free-draining, sandy soils that are interspersed by minor lateritic ridges. Five major soil groups have been identified: sandy gravel, gravel loam, deep sand and clay loam. Some of the sands are deep, non-wetting sands, which provide a considerable challenge for revegetation. The property also includes areas affected by dryland salinity.

Revegetation

Yarrabee was extensively surveyed prior to commencing the planting program. The surveys considered existing flora and fauna, dam catchment, water quality and soils. The flora survey (Hickman 2006) provided a species list for the property and its environs and was used as the basis for selection of the species used in revegetation (see Appendix A).


Introduction

Revegetation commenced in 2006 and was completed in 2007. Herbicide was used to control weeds prior to planting and an extensive rabbit baiting program was undertaken using 1080 tablets. Yarrabee was revegetated using both direct seeding and seedlings. A total of 600 kg of seed and 150 000 individual seedlings were used. Plants of 122 different locally-occurring native species were established on the property.

Direct seeding was undertaken with a modified Chatfield seeder. The seeder was set up to scalp the seeding line before sowing and planting to remove topsoil containing the weed seeds and create a relatively weed-free environment for germination and establishment.

Greening Australia was able to access volunteers to plant the seedlings by hand, which helped to reduce planting costs.

Figure3Planting of Yarrabee in 2006

Best fit for project

The Yarrabee project involves the reforestation of former farming land with locally-occurring, native species.

Western Australia’s south-west region is one of 25 internationally recognised, global biodiversity hot spots. It is home to over 1500 plant species, most of which are endemic to the region, and to a large number of native fauna species. Land clearing for agriculture has led to the fragmentation of native vegetation. This fragmentation, together with dryland salinity, weeds, feral animals and the root rot fungus, Phytophthora cinnamomi, threatens the region’s unique biodiversity values (DSEWPaC 2009).

Gondwana Link is an ambitious nature conservation project that is seeking to restore and reconnect fragmented native vegetation habitats located between the Stirling Ranges and Fitzgerald River National Park (stage 1). Its long-term objective is to develop an extensive belt of ecologically-linked native vegetation across the south-west Western Australia biodiversity hotspot, from the karri forests of the south-west to the Great Western Woodlands around Kalgoorlie. Restoration of habitat connectivity is achieved through both protection of significant patches of remnant native vegetation and the restoration of native vegetation cover to land that was formerly cleared for agriculture.


Introduction

Prior to the CFI there were few opportunities for landholders to generate ongoing income from land to which native vegetation cover is permanently restored. While funding could be obtained to defray some of the establishment costs for permanent environmental plantings, there were few income-generation opportunities. Approval of the CFI methodology determination for quantifying carbon storage by permanent environmental plantings has changed this situation. It means that it may now be possible to generate ACCUs as revegetated areas grow and store carbon and then to obtain revenue from their sale.

Is a large-scale revegetation project a good fit for my property?

Revegetation projects at the scale of Yarrabee are uncommon. Most farm revegetation projects are significantly smaller in scale (up to 10–20 ha) and are structured to achieve conservation objectives with minimal impact on farm operations. This is partly because there have been few opportunities to generate income from land on which permanent environmental plantings were established.

With the CFI, there are now opportunities for landholders to generate income from land managed for biodiversity and other conservation objectives. This may make larger-scale projects like Yarrabee more attractive.

Key factors to consider before commencing a large-scale revegetation project include:• Is the project consistent with regional conservation priorities? If the project is located in a

regional priority area, there may be funding available to support the actual revegetation work and improve the project’s overall financial viability.

• Am I able to permanently reserve this land for conservation purposes? For CFI projects involving permanent environmental plantings, the trees (which hold the carbon) must be maintained for at least 100 years. Farm operations and business must work around the revegetation area. If the revegetated land is sold, the liability to maintain carbon stocks goes with it, which may affect its value.

• Are there local government or other planning barriers to the project? Some local councils choose to regulate large-scale revegetation and other tree plantations projects. If large-scale plantations are not a ‘by right’ use of land, there may be costs or delays in obtaining planning approvals and projects may need to be revised through the planning process.

• Do the economics add up? Income expected from the sale of ACCUs should be compared with the value of agricultural production from the land to be revegetated. Upfront revegetation costs should also be calculated. If carbon farming is less profitable than agriculture, landholders must be prepared and financially able to make the trade-off between financial and conservation outcomes. If the cash flow from carbon farming is too unfavourable, then the project may be scaled back, implemented over a longer period or part-funded by another investor (e.g. via the regional NRM organisation).


Introduction

Figure4View from one of the photo monitoring points established on Yarrabee; the top photograph shows the property 12 months after planting, the bottom photograph shows the same site four years after planting

10

Chapter Head 1

Department of AgricultureCarbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.2 Yarrabee

2 Land-use implications

Yarrabee was purchased with the specific intent of restoring native vegetation coverage and improving ecological connectivity between the Stirling Range and Fitzgerald River National Parks. Permanent environmental plantings were to be established on the entire 620 ha of the property that had previously been cleared and used for agriculture. However, some 50 ha was set aside to establish a sandalwood (Santalum spicatum) production plantation that might also generate revenue from the property.

Since Yarrabee was transformed from an agricultural property to a private nature conservation reserve, most of the farm infrastructure (mainly internal fencing) was removed prior to revegetation. Yarrabee is currently being subdivided into two main parcels, comprising the approximately 300 ha of remnant native vegetation (to be owned and managed by Bush Heritage Australia) and the over 620 ha revegetated area (to be owned and managed by Greening Australia).


3 Case study details and key decision points

The approved CFI methodology determination applicable to this project is the Carbon Farming (Quantifying Carbon Sequestration by Permanent Environmental Plantings of Native Species using the CFI Modelling Tool) Methodology Determination 2012. This CFI methodology determination was developed by the Australian Government and uses web-based mapping, modelling and calculation tools to enable project proponents to define project and carbon estimation areas (CEAs), estimate carbon stock changes that result from the project and report on project emissions and net greenhouse gas abatement.

Is the project eligible to apply the approved CFI methodology determination?The environmental plantings methodology determination is applicable to projects conducted within Australia that increase landscape carbon stocks by permanently establishing local native vegetation species (hence permanent environmental plantings) on land that has been cleared for at least five years. Projects must have the characteristics described in Table 2.

Revegetation areas at Yarrabee meet all of the applicable eligibility requirements of the environmental plantings methodology determination. The methodology determination does not apply to the 300 ha area of remnant native vegetation on the property or the 50 ha sandalwood plantation. While the remainder of the project is potentially eligible to generate ACCUs under the approved CFI methodology determination, the Clean Energy Regulator ultimately makes decisions as to whether or not individual projects are eligible to generate ACCUs.

Under the CFI, only areas of Yarrabee that were planted after 1 July 2007 can be used to generate ACCUs (see section 7). Only where there is documentation stating that the plantings were established for carbon storage purposes can environmental plantings established before 1 July 2007 be potentially eligible for ACCU generation. As there is no such documentation, the parts of Yarrabee that were planted in 2006 are ineligible for ACCU generation under the CFI.

Any new plantings do not require specific documentation to state that they have been established for the purpose of carbon storage.

How was the project implemented?The Yarrabee project has restored native vegetation coverage to largely cleared farmland through direct seeding and planting of seedlings. Plantings include 120 locally-occurring species from 32 genera and comprise tree (or overstorey), shrub and herb layer plants (Appendix A). The planting list was developed from a flora survey of the property and adjacent areas.


Case study details and key decision points

Plants were established from seed or seedlings based on local knowledge of the requirements for successful establishment, the availability of seed and suitability of soils for direct seedling. Species were targeted to soil types and landscape positions based on local understandings of their natural distribution (Figure 5).

Table2Eligibility requirements of CFI methodology determination and compliance check for Yarrabee; a similar table could be used to assess whether other large-scale revegetation projects meet the eligibility requirements of the environmental plantings methodology determination

Eligibilityrequirementsofenvironmentalplantings

methodologydetermination ApplicationtoYarrabee

Plantings are established through direct seeding or

planting of seedlings.

Complies for the revegetation areas. Revegetation was

established using direct seeding and seedlings.

The remnant native vegetation areas cannot be

considered under this methodology.

Wood products will not be harvested from the plantings,

with the exception of firewood for personal use (to 10% of

debris per year).

Complies for all but the 50 ha of sandalwood plantation

which is to be harvested. This area cannot be included in

the project.

Species are used that are native to the local area of

the plantings, potentially including a mix of tree and

understorey species. Single species plantings are eligible,

provided monocultures occur naturally in the project area.

Complies. Species selection for revegetation based

on flora surveys of Yarrabee and adjacent areas. Over

120 local species used in regeneration.

Livestock are prevented from grazing for the first 3 years

after establishment.

Complies. The property has been converted from

agricultural use to a private nature conservation reserve.

No livestock grazing has taken place since establishment.

Plantings were established on land that was clear

or partially clear of forest for at least five years prior

to revegetation.

Complies. Revegetation areas were formerly farming

land. The land was cleared for farming in the 1950s. Some

scattered trees and small patches of remnant vegetation

have been retained within the revegetation areas. The

latter would be excluded from the CEAs.

Establishment does not involve ripping and mounding of

more than 10% of a CEA (only for pasture areas receiving

greater than 800 mm average annual rainfall).

Not applicable. Yarrabee’s annual rainfall is only about

500 mm. In any case planting did not involve ripping and

mounding.

There is no requirement for invasive native scrub species

or woody biomass to be cleared prior to establishment,

unless these species are proclaimed as weeds and their

removal is legally mandated.

Complies. Non-woody weeds were sprayed prior to

establishment. Scalping was used to provide a weed seed

free environment for direct seeding.

The plantings have the potential to attain a crown cover of

at least 20% and a height of at least 2 m at maturity in the

place where they have been established.

Complies. The density of planting/direct seeding will

achieve more than 20% crown cover at maturity. Current

stocking is estimated to be 15 000 plants/ha. Some

of the local native species that form the overstorey of

the plantings are projected to grow to 20 m or more at

maturity (see Appendix A).



Figure5Germination results from direct seeding on different soil types at Yarrabee

Light soil Heavy soil

Deep sand Saline area



Pasture grasses and agricultural weeds were sprayed before planting using registered chemicals at recommended rates. Scalping was used at sowing to provide a suitable weed-seed-free environment for germinating seeds in direct seeding areas. Livestock were removed from the property prior to planting. Rabbit populations were controlled using 1080 baits to reduce the risk of grazing and browsing damage.

Once the establishment phase was completed (2006–07), site maintenance has been minimal and confined to inspection and spraying of weeds and maintenance of fire breaks.

What project approvals were required?At the time at which Yarrabee was revegetated (2006 and 2007), approvals from local government and regional NRM bodies were not required. However, the Shire of Jerramungup has amended its planning scheme to require that all revegetation areas (including agroforestry areas and commercial timber plantations) that are larger than 10 ha have planning permits prior to commencement. Additional planning approvals are required where more than 35 per cent of a property is planted to trees (as is the case at Yarrabee). Applications must be supported by:• land capability studies• farm management plan• soil or water test results demonstrating areas are not suitable for agriculture• photographs showing shallow soils or rocky areas which visually demonstrate that the land is

not suitable for agriculture• demonstration that planting areas will have environmental benefits for the specific location

(e.g. protection or restoration of riparian land, dryland salinity mitigation)• fire management plan.

Specific approvals are not required by the regional NRM body, South Coast Natural Resource Management Inc. They are unlikely to be required for similar projects unless the organisation is contributing funding for revegetation activities or associated fencing. Planning approval for revegetation activities is not required in all local government areas in Western Australia or in most other states.

Project environmental benefits In addition to storing carbon from the atmosphere, the project provides several other important environmental benefits. These include helping to improve local biodiversity, strengthening ecological connectivity between the Stirling Range and Fitzgerald River National Parks and mitigating local dryland salinity and related water quality issues. Yarrabee provides an important new food source for Carnaby’s black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris), which is nationally listed as endangered under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Nearly 50 per cent of the species used in the plantings provide a food source for these birds (Heydenrych 2012).

How is carbon storage calculated?The approved CFI methodology determination describes how carbon stored from permanent environmental plantings at Yarrabee is calculated. There are five main steps in the process:• determining the project area and stratifying it into uniform CEAs• calculating the initial carbon stocks in each CEA, as of July 2010• determining the change in carbon stocks resulting from the environmental planting project for

a reporting period• calculating project-related emissions for the reporting period (resulting from wildfires or use

of vehicles in maintaining the project)• calculating the net emissions or sequestration resulting from the project over the

reporting period.



The environmental plantings methodology determination also requires ongoing monitoring, periodic reporting and the keeping of records that support and verify calculations. These records may be audited.

Reporting periods extend between one and five years and are the periods over which ACCUs are generated for any carbon stored.

Carbon storage calculation toolsCarbon storage calculations for the environmental plantings methodology determination are made using the reforestation tools, which are available from http://ncat.climatechange.gov.au/cfirefor/. Users must first register to create a user account. This provides access to the Reforestation Modelling Tool (RMT; Figure 5), the CFI Mapping Tool (CMT) and Reforestation Abatement Calculator (RAC). The RMT and RAC must be downloaded onto a local computer before use. The RMT and CMT both require broadband internet access during use.

Figure6Front page of the Reforestation Modelling Tool, set up for carbon estimation area Y1 at Yarrabee

Outputs from the RMT may be imported into the RAC. The RAC is a spreadsheet which is used to convert carbon stocks in the revegetation areas (in t of carbon per hectare; t C/ha) into carbon dioxide equivalents per hectare (t CO2-e/ha), calculate non–carbon dioxide emissions from wildfires, calculate emissions from vehicle use and determine the net emissions or storage from a permanent environmental planting project. It is used to meet the project reporting and record keeping requirements of the environmental plantings methodology determination.

For pre-existing environmental planting projects, the RAC should only be used to track emissions and storage from July 2010 onwards.

The RMT may also be used to estimate the anticipated storage of carbon over the life of a permanent CFI project. This information may be used by landholders to assess the financial viability of a project.

Landholders without broadband internet access and/or who think they might need support with the reforestation tools should contact their regional NRM organisation or farm consultant for reference to an advisor who is able to provide the necessary assistance.



Determining the project areaThe project area is the area of land on which the CFI project is carried out; which is the Yarrabee property in this case study. The geographic boundaries of the project area must be defined when seeking to have the project declared as an eligible offsets project under the CFI, which is a key step in obtaining ACCUs (see section 6).

Project areas are stratified into exclusion areas and CEAs, as follows:• Exclusion areas are parts of the project area that have not been revegetated (e.g. the retained

native vegetation on Yarrabee) or are otherwise ineligible to apply the approved methodology (e.g. sandalwood plantation, any areas that due to soil or drainage constraints will not achieve 20 per cent canopy coverage and/or 2 m mature height of vegetation). Areas within Yarrabee that were revegetated prior to 1 July 2007 do not comply with the requirements of the CFI ‘positive list’ (see section 6, below) and are ineligible for generating ACCUs.

• CEAs are eligible areas that have common site characteristics (e.g. soil types) and management routines (year of establishment, species mix, planting method).

Figure 2 provides an initial basis for defining CEAs and exclusion areas. Further subdivision may be required based on site conditions. Boundaries of CEAs (and exclusion areas) would preferably be defined using global positioning satellite (GPS) survey techniques. A model point location, specifying latitude and longitude, must be defined within each CEA.

The CFI Mapping Tool (CMT) may also be used to define project areas and CEAs. It is used on-line and provides high resolution satellite imagery to help define boundaries. Information from other geographic information system (GIS) tools may also be incorporated.

Calculating the initial carbon stocks in existing environmental plantingsACCUs can be generated for pre-existing permanent environmental planting projects, such as Yarrabee. However under the CFI, only the carbon stored after July 2010 is eligible for crediting. This means that the initial carbon stocks (those present as of 30 June 2010) must be calculated, so that they can be deducted from the carbon stocks present at the time ACCUs are to be generated.

The RMT is used to calculate carbon stocks. A model point location is entered for each CEA (in latitude and longitude), which enables site information to be loaded into the model. The ‘Management’ tab is used to set the model up to reflect the species mix, the permanent nature of the planting, the establishment method and planting density. The start date (date of establishment for that CEA) and end date (30 June 20101) for the model are entered and the model is then run by selecting the ‘Results’ tab. Monthly changes in carbon stocks can then be viewed in either graph or tabular form. This model run may then be saved and further runs undertaken for each of the CEAs.

A preliminary modelling run with the RMT suggests that initial carbon stocks were approximately 1.2 t C/ha.

Estimating the change in carbon stocksCarbon storage is calculated over a reporting period, which may be between one and five years. The initial reporting period extends from 1 July 2010 to when the first claim on ACCUs is to be made (say 30 June 2015). Model runs to determine the initial carbon stocks may be extended by amending the end date to that or any other suitable date.

The change in carbon stocks for the first reporting period in each CEA is the difference between the initial carbon stocks and the estimated stocks present as of 30 June 2015 (in this example). The change in carbon stocks are then summed across the CEAs and converted to CO2-e using the RAC.

The RMT estimates that carbon stocks of revegetation areas at Yarrabee will have increased to about 8.5 t C/ha by the end of this first reporting period (i.e. 30 June 2015) or 7.3 t C/ha if the initial carbon stocks are subtracted. The total carbon stocks comprise 6.8 t C/h stored in trees and 1.7 t C/ha stored in debris. ACCUs cannot be sought for these projected stocks of carbon in advance of the end of the reporting period.

1 As the RMT reports results on a monthly basis, the end date may be set to the end of the first (or any other) reporting period or to the end of the crediting period (see discussion in next section). Carbon stocks at any intermediate time may be determined from the tabulated results.



Over the first 15-year crediting period, the RMT estimates that carbon stocks may accumulate to as much as 22.1 t C/ha, or 20.9 t C/ha if initial carbon stocks are accounted for.

The value of ACCUs generated by revegetation areas and the costs involved in obtaining them through the CFI will influence the frequency of reporting. For larger projects, such as Yarrabee, shorter reporting periods than five years may be financially viable. However, for small projects, the costs involved in obtaining ACCUs may exceed their value if reporting periods are shorter than five years.

Estimating project emissionsProject emissions are those occurring as a result of:• Wildfire or fuel reduction burning within one or more of the CEAs—only non–carbon dioxide

emissions (i.e. of methane or nitrous oxide) from fire are considered as project emissions. The loss of carbon as a result of fire is determined as part of the carbon stock modelling by the RMT.

• Use of liquid fuels to maintain the plantings over the reporting period—fuel use in establishing the Yarrabee plantings is not considered as this occurred before the 1 July 2010 starting date for project greenhouse gas accounting under the CFI. Establishment-phase fuel usage would be considered for any plantings established after 1 July 2010.

To calculate the effects of any fires on carbon stocks, wildfire is added as an ‘event’ in the rotation in the RMT ‘Management’ tab. The percentage of the CEA burnt and whether the trees are killed or not are specified. Non–carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from RMT estimates of the change in carbon stock using the RAC.

Emissions from liquid fuels used in maintaining the project during the reporting period are determined from records of the amount and type of fuel used. The RAC may be used to collate these records and calculate the associated emissions. They are determined for the eligible CEAs as a whole. Fuel use for ineligible areas on Yarrabee (e.g. 2006 plantings, remnant vegetation areas) is not considered.

Estimating net abatement or storageNet abatement or storage for the project area is determined from the difference, over the reporting period, between carbon stock change in the eligible environmental plantings and emissions due to wildfire and vehicle use in maintenance. The RAC will provide this summary if all of the relevant data are entered correctly.

Project monitoring and reportingOngoing monitoring is required to ensure the project continues to meet the eligibility requirements of the environmental plantings methodology determination. The timing, location, extent and impact of any wildfires must also be recorded, as must the type and usage of liquid fuels in maintaining the CEAs. Any adjustments to the CEAs (e.g. due to areas being affected by fire) must also be recorded.

If a project proponent is seeking ACCUs, they must prepare a project report at the end of each reporting period. The requirements are listed in Table 9 of the environmental plantings methodology determination and include information on: establishment and management of the plantings; project area and its breakdown into CEAs and exclusion areas; and abatement estimates.

Auditable records must also be retained to support any abatement claims. The requirements include:• evidence of fuel use (e.g. invoices)• evidence of the data collated to support the stratification process for each project area• evidence of that the land was cleared for at least the five years prior to establishing the

environmental plantings• evidence of species and species mix noting that species must be native to the local area• evidence of the applicability of the RMT (i.e. forests have the potential to reach at least 2 m in

height and 20 per cent canopy cover in situ)



• RMT input data and description, including the timing of management events (e.g. planting, thinning, weed control, any fertiliser application) and the timing and extent of disturbances such as fire

• date-stamped CMT reports showing CEAs (locations, size and boundaries) and the location of the modelling point for each CEA; where the CMT is not used, other date stamped records of locations, size and boundaries must be maintained

• date-stamped RMT output files (.rmd file) for each CEA.


4 Pre-project needs

Several surveys and studies were undertaken prior to Yarrabee being revegetated. They included flora and fauna surveys, a dam catchment and water quality assessment and a soil survey. The surveys all helped inform the design of the planting.

Only limited physical site preparation was required for this project. Activities were mostly directed at improving the success of revegetation and included treating weeds and pasture grasses with herbicide and controlling rabbits with 1080 baits. The property’s external fencing was maintained, however internal subdivisional fencing was removed.

Contour lines were also mapped. Seeding of relevant parts of the property followed these lines.

Pests and drought affected the success of planting. In 2007, 50 ha were replanted due to the effect of low rainfall and locusts.

Any new project of this scale undertaken in the Shire of Jerramungup would also require a planning permit. The planning permit application would need to be supported by the studies and information specified under ‘Project approvals’ in section 5.


Establishing and managing the project areaLocal technical expertise was utilised to complete the flora surveys. The surveys ensured that the species mix used for the project was appropriate for the site.

External project management services were engaged for this project due to the large scale of planting and the desire to complete all of the work within a single planting season. These services were provided by a contractor with knowledge in native species and revegetation techniques. Weed control and fire breaks are maintained by Greening Australia field staff, although management inputs are minimal.

Investment in the project by the landholders (Bush Heritage Australia and Greening Australia) was supported by funding through South Coast Natural Resource Management Inc.

As any new project of this scale (in the Shire of Jerramungup) would require a planning permit, additional expertise would be required to assist with or undertake the land capability study, farm and fire management plan preparation, soil and water testing and documentation to demonstrate the environmental value of the revegetation activities.

Management as an eligible CFI project Yarrabee is not currently an ‘eligible offsets project’ (see below) and is not specifically managed to generate ACCUs through application of the approved environmental plantings methodology determination (or any other methodology). Were this to occur, additional resources would need to be mobilised to determine how much carbon is stored, prepare relevant reports and engage in the process of obtaining ACCUs. The key areas of resourcing would include:• Carbon accounting—an initial project report would need to be prepared that was consistent

with the environmental plantings methodology determination. That report would specify the initial carbon stocks, changes to the end of the first reporting period, project emissions and net storage. It would require moderate-level GIS and spreadsheet skills and a broad familiarity with the concepts underpinning plant growth modelling in RMT.

• Monitoring, reporting and record keeping—a systematic monitoring and record keeping process is required to ensure that abatement calculations can be verified. Project reports must be produced at the end of each reporting period to support claims for ACCUs. Moderate-level GIS, data management and report writing skills are required for these activities.

• Auditing—claims for ACCUs must be reviewed by an approved greenhouse and energy auditor, whose services would need to be engaged each time a claim is made.

5 Resources and skills required


Resources and skills required

If the full 570 ha of environmental plantings were eligible offsets, the Yarrabee project may be large enough to generate ACCUs in its own right. The project would not need to be aggregated with other projects to provide the scale required for ACCU transactions to be cost-effective. Even with only one third of that area being established after 1 July 2007 and potentially eligible, the project may not require the services of a carbon project aggregator. The cost and value of this service should be assessed before any decision to engage a project aggregator is made.

22

Chapter Head 1

Department of AgricultureCarbon Farming Initiative case study: 13.2 Yarrabee

Right to ACCUsAs owners of the revegetation areas on Yarrabee, Greening Australia has the right to apply for ACCUs generated by the project. To do so they will need to complete all of the registrations and approvals required under the CFI and also hold a Carbon Right for the property under the Western Australian Carbon Rights Act 2003 (Government of Western Australia 2005).2 Greening Australia may engage a third party to apply for the rights to carbon generated by the Yarrabee project on its behalf.

Eligibility requirementsThe eligibility of projects to generate ACCUs is determined by the Clean Energy Regulator according to the processes established by CFI legislation and regulations. Key requirements of projects are that they meet ‘additionality’ requirements and represent activities included on the CFI ‘positive list’ (DCCEE 2012b). All permanent environmental planting projects established after 1 July 2007 are included on the positive list and meet the additionality requirements. Environmental plantings established before this date require documentary evidence to demonstrate that the primary purpose of the plantings was the generation of carbon offsets to be considered to be eligible.

Only about one third of the revegetation area at Yarrabee was established after 1 July 2007 and therefore meets this requirement. Earlier plantings were not primarily established for the generation of carbon offsets.

How many ACCUs may be generated by the Yarrabee project?The RMT estimates that carbon stocks of eligible (post 1 July 2007) revegetation areas at Yarrabee will have increased to about 8.5 t C/ha by 30 June 2015, or 7.3 t C/ha if the initial carbon stocks are subtracted. As 5 per cent of the carbon stocks must be retained as a buffer against reversal (e.g. due to fire), this corresponds with about 25.4 t CO2-e/ha. From 1 July 2015 Greening Australia could apply for ACCUs to be generated on this amount, less greenhouse emissions resulting from management of the 2007 environmental plantings.

Over the first 15-year crediting period, the RMT estimates that carbon stocks may accumulate to as much as 20.9 t C/ha if initial carbon stocks are accounted for. This corresponds with 76.6 t CO2-e/ ha, not accounting for the 5 per cent buffer or project emissions.

2 Registered through the WA Department of Land Information at www.landgate.wa.gov.au/corporate.nsf/web/Freehold+Land+Registration+Forms

6 Australian carbon credit units


Costs of establishing and managing the projectRecords from the Yarrabee project show the areas in which costs were incurred and their scale. Excluding land purchase, the cost to establish the over 620 ha of environmental plantings was approximately $498 000 (Table 3). At about $800/ha, the Yarrabee project’s vegetation establishment cost is quite low. This reflects that no new fencing was constructed, as the property was being converted entirely from agriculture to nature conservation.

Only the approximate one third of the Yarrabee revegetation project that was established in 2007 is potentially eligible for generation of ACCUs. The total cost to establish that part of the project area was approximately $150 000.

Table3Type and scale of expenditure to establish the Yarrabee project

Item Cost

Seed, seedlings and other non-capital expenditure $222 000

Equipment hire $17 000

Capital expenses (equipment for site establishment) $21 000

Consultancy and contracting services (surveys, revegetation contractors) $159 000

Employment costs $27 000

Other costs $49 000

Financial audit (for grant to establish project) $3 000

Total $498 000

Ongoing maintenance costs, associated with weed control and firebreak maintenance are approximately $4500/year for the entire project area (about $1500 for the part of the property potentially eligible to generate ACCUs) or about $5/ha.

Establishment costs of any new planting of the scale of the Yarrabee project within the Shire of Jerramungup would also include costs associated with obtaining a planning permit. These would include costs in making the application as well preparing the supporting plans and studies (some elements of which are included in the cost estimates in Table 3). For a project of Yarrabee’s size, this is estimated to be $3000–$5000 on a one-off basis.

7 Potential costs


Potential costs

Cost of managing an eligible CFI projectTo date, Yarrabee has not been managed as an eligible CFI project and so no comparable data on the costs of doing so are available. Areas in which costs may be incurred include:• legal or administration or management costs associated with registration as an Recognised

Offsets Entity (ROE); registration of ownership of carbon rights under the Carbon Rights Act 2003; gaining consent of any other parties with an interest in the land to establishing the eligible CFI project; applying for and (potentially) selling the ACCUs generated by the project, if it is approved

• technical support associated with carbon accounting, project monitoring and preparation of reports

• administrative or management costs associated with record keeping• auditing of project or offsets report that are submitted at the end of reporting periods with the

application for ACCUs.

Registration as a ROE would be a one-off cost and would apply to Greening Australia’s entire Australian operation. Other costs would be incurred in each reporting period. Based on the time required by professional services providers, recurrent costs associated with these tasks are estimated to be $3000–$5000 per reporting period for the whole project.

If the project engaged the services of an aggregator to parcel Yarrabee abatement with other projects, then additional costs would be incurred. However this would be offset by reduced direct legal, management or administrative costs.

Potential returns from the sale of ACCUsOver the first 15-year crediting period, environmental plantings at Yarrabee are projected to accumulate 20.9 t C/ha in carbon stocks in addition to those initially present. This would yield 72 ACCUs/ha (based on 72.8 t CO2-e/ha), allowing for the 5 per cent buffer required by CFI regulations (but not accounting for project emissions).

The value of ACCUs will depend on a number of factors, including level of demand. The potential price a project could receive is something that needs to be considered when deciding to undertake a project.


8 Risk analysis

The Yarrabee project forms part of the larger Gondwana Link project, the first stage of which seeks to restore ecological connectivity between the Stirling Range and Fitzgerald River National Parks. As opportunities for the sale of carbon offsets from such projects were limited at the time of establishment, the development of landscape carbon stocks and generation of income from ‘carbon farming’ were only secondary objectives.

As a result, the project’s key risks arise from hazards that have the potential to prevent it from achieving its ecological objectives. However, these same hazards may also reduce carbon storage and the project’s capacity to generate financial returns from the sale of ACCUs.

This section provides an analysis of the risks to the ecological and carbon farming objectives of the Yarrabee project. The analysis considers various environmental, management and market hazards, their potential impact and risk controls that have been incorporated into project design or, for carbon farming objectives, existing through the design of the CFI. An overall assessment of the level of risk that exists for project objectives, with current risk controls, is also provided.

Most of the key risks to the ecological and carbon farming objectives of the Yarrabee project are environmental factors (drought, fire, frost, defoliating insects) whose greatest potential to jeopardise project objectives occurs in the early years of the life of the permanent environmental plantings. At their current age and stage of development, most of the trees and shrubs are expected to be relatively resilient to such disturbances. The main risk to both the ecological and carbon farming objectives for the Yarrabee project appears to be from a widespread outbreak of fungal disease caused by P. cinnamomi. While the plantings include both sensitive and resistant species, a large-scale outbreak of the disease could have a significant and almost irreversible impact on carbon stocks.

Sale of the property to a landholder that does not share Greening Australia’s conservation objectives also presents a risk to project objectives. If the new landholder neglected the revegetation areas, carbon stocks and biodiversity values may decline, possibly to a level below that for which ACCUs were credited. As there would be no specific event (e.g. clearing) to trigger the requirement to surrender ACCUs the site’s carbon stocks may inadvertently and unknowingly fall below the crediting level. However, given the size of the Yarrabee property and the revegetation areas, sale to a landholder that does not share Greening Australia’s management objectives seems unlikely.


Risk analysis

Phytophthora outbreakMany species established in the permanent environmental plantings are vulnerable to Phytophthora root rot and may be killed if an outbreak occurs. Potential consequences include:• loss of sensitive species and diversity in plantings; reduction in ecological gain on Yarrabee• loss of carbon stocks and income generation capacity from sale of ACCUs• limited capacity to restore sensitive species once fungus is present• reduction in carbon stocks and loss of income generation capacity• potential loss of capacity to reinstate lost carbon through replanting and for project to

be closed• carbon modelling overstates growth in carbon stocks as it does not account for

non-fire disturbances.

Existing risk controls include:• the use of diverse plantings comprised of a mix of sensitive and resistant species. Whole

revegetation area is unlikely to fail• quarantine procedures. The site is closed to the general public• potential purchase of ACCUs in the market if a major disease outbreak leads to closure of an

eligible CFI project.

If there was a reduction in carbon stocks, no ACCUs would be generated until carbon stocks recovered above pre-disease damage levels.

Risk to project objectives: High

Property sold or offered for saleGreening Australia may decide for financial or other reasons to sell Yarrabee. Potential consequences include:• low sale price due to potential buyers wanting to develop the land for agriculture but unable to

because of carbon maintenance obligation on revegetation areas subject to sale of ACCUs• new landholder clears revegetation areas and destroys carbon stocks so that land can be used

for other purposes• new landholder does not actively manage land to protect carbon stocks and/or biodiversity

values; carbon stocks may decline by attrition or neglect rather than deliberate action.

Existing risk controls include:• the potential to covenant areas of revegetation to prevent clearing. This would ensure the

property was unattractive to a purchaser looking to develop the land for agriculture and may help to attract buyers interested in the site’s conservation outcomes

• the permanence requirements under the CFI, which mean that the revegetation areas for which ACCUs were generated either could not be cleared or could not be cleared unless the new landholder purchased and surrendered an equivalent number of ACCUs to those credited against the project area.

If there was a reduction in carbon stocks, no further ACCUs could be generated until stocks recovered to at least the previous level.

The project’s conservation objectives are more likely to be threatened by change of ownership than carbon storage objectives. Permanence requirements of the CFI mean that even if the carbon stocks were destroyed, the new landholder would need to surrender an equivalent number of ACCUs to that previously credited to the project.

Risk to project objectives: Moderate


Risk analysis

DroughtProlonged and/or intense drought may slow the growth of permanent environmental plantings and result in the death of some trees, shrubs and herbs. Potential consequences include:• loss of diversity in plantings and reduction in ecological gain on Yarrabee• slower growth of trees reduces carbon sequestration and income generation capacity from

sale of carbon credits• extensive tree death resulting in carbon stocks falling below the level sold into carbon markets• delay or reduction of the success of efforts to replace dead trees and shrubs.

Existing risk controls include:• the use of a diverse suite of local species that were matched to soils and landscape position

helps to ensure environmental plantings are well adapted to local soil and climatic conditions. The diversity of plantings reduces the likelihood of widespread tree deaths

• replanting. Plantings are most vulnerable in their early years. Areas of the property with poor establishment in 2006 were replanted in 2007. At 5–6 years of age, these and successful 2006 plantings are now less vulnerable to drought

• the fact that project viability is not critically dependent on the sale of ACCUs. ACCUs are generated retrospectively, based on modelled growth over the reporting period. The effects of drought would be taken into account in abatement modelling and calculations. If there was widespread tree death, no ACCUs would be generated until carbon stocks recovered above pre-drought levels.

Risk to project objectives: Low

Locusts and other defoliating insectsLocusts or other defoliating insects may periodically affect the permanent environmental plantings, resulting in reduced growth. Potential consequences include:• loss of carbon stocks and income-generation capacity from sale of ACCUs• carbon modelling overstates growth in carbon stocks as it does not account for


Existing risk controls include:• the use of a diverse suite of local species that are adapted to local climate and therefore likely

to be less prone to some insect outbreaks. As the Yarrabee plantings are now 5 and 6 years old, most plants and hence carbon stocks are likely to survive future insect attacks.

If there was a reduction in carbon stocks, no ACCUs would be generated until carbon stocks recovered above pre-insect damage levels.


FrostFrost affects permanent environmental plantings, resulting in the death of trees and shrubs. Potential consequences include:• loss of sensitive species and diversity in plantings; reduction in ecological gain on Yarrabee• loss of carbon stocks and income generation capacity from sale of ACCUs• carbon modelling overstates growth in carbon stocks as it does not account for


Existing risk controls include:• the use of diverse suite of local species that are adapted to local climate. As the Yarrabee

plantings are now 5 and 6 years old, most plants and hence carbon stocks are likely to survive future frosts


Risk analysis

• the potential to identify frost-affected areas as separate CEAs and treat their carbon stocks differently to other revegetation areas

• replanting of trees in frost-affected areas.

If there was a reduction in carbon stocks, no ACCUs would be generated until carbon stocks recovered above pre-frost damage levels.


FireWildfire affects permanent environmental plantings, resulting in the death of trees and shrubs. Potential consequences include:• loss of fire sensitive species and diversity in plantings; reduction in ecological gain on Yarrabee• loss of carbon stocks and income generation capacity from sale of ACCUs.

Existing risk controls include:• the use of a diverse suite of local species that are adapted to fire. As the Yarrabee plantings are

now 5 and 6 years old, most trees and hence carbon stocks are likely to survive future fires• construction of fire breaks to reduce the likelihood of fire affecting the whole of Yarrabee• regional arrangements for the early detection and suppression of wildfires• potential replacement of any fire-killed trees and shrubs replanting. Natural regeneration

from seed or lignotubers may occur for some tree or shrub species. Some species may actually require periodic fire for recruitment and regeneration.

ACCUs are generated retrospectively, based on modelled growth over the reporting period. Fire is a disturbance that is included in modelling calculations.

If there was a reduction in carbon stocks, no new ACCUs would be generated until have stocks recovered.


Low market price for carbonThe price for Kyoto ACCUs will fluctuate over time and could fall. Potential consequences include:• reduced income from sale of ACCUs makes generation and sale process unviable financially• low income from sale of ACCUs leads to insufficient resources for management of property to

achieve ecological objectives.

Existing risk controls include:• the fact that the primary project objective is restoration of ecological connectivity, not

generation of returns from carbon. The key project objective is not at risk if the returns from carbon are low

• the limited resources required to manage the property to achieve ecological objectives • the potential to extend the reporting period to up to five years to improve cost-efficiency of

credit generation process or wait for price recovery• the potential for the biodiversity values associated with the carbon project to enhance the

value of ACCUs.



Genus Species Maximumheightatmaturity(m)

Acacia cyclops 4

Acacia drummondii/elegans 2

Acacia myrtifolia 3

Acacia subcaerulea 3

Agonis theiformis 1.2

Allocasuarina huegeliana 10

Allocasuarina humilis 2

Allocasuarina thuyoides 2

Anarthria scabra 1.5

Anigozanthos rufus 1

Banksia armata 3

Banksia attenuata 10

Banksia baxteri 4

Banksia dallanneyi 3

Banksia gardneri 0.5

Banksia grandis 10

Banksia mucronulata 2.5

Banksia nivea 1.5

Banksia nutans 1.3

Banksia obovata 2

Banksia plumosa 2.5

Banksia pteridifolia 0.5

Appendix A Species used in revegetation at Yarrabee




Banksia sessilis 8

Banksia sphaerocarpa 4.4

Beaufortia micrantha 1

Beaufortia schaueri 1.2

Bossiaea eriocarpa 1

Bossiaea linophylla 2.2

Bossiaea rufa 2

Callitris drummondii 3

Calothamnus gracilis 1.5

Calothamnus montanus

Calothamnus preissii 0.4

Calothamnus sanguineus 2

Calothamnus quadrifidus 2

Calytrix acutifolia 2

Calytrix flavescens 0.8

Chorizema rhombeum 0.5

Conothamnus aureus 1

Corymbia calophylla 60

Cyathochaeta clandestina 2

Eucalyptus cornuta 25

Eucalyptus decipiens 15

Eucalyptus decurva 5

Eucalyptus falcata 6

Eucalyptus incrassata 10

Eucalyptus marginata 40

Eucalyptus marginata × pachyloma 5

Eucalyptus occidentalis 20

Eucalyptus pachyloma 4

Eucalyptus pachyphylla 5

Eucalyptus phaenophylla 6

Eucalyptus pleurocarpa 4

Eucalyptus pluricaulis subsp. pluricaulis 9

Eucalyptus preissiana 5

Eucalyptus rudis 20

Eucalyptus tetraptera 3

Eucalyptus talyuberlup 12

Eucalyptus thamnoides 6




Gompholobium capitatum 1

Gompholobium knightianum 0.5

Gompholobium marginatum 0.4

Gompholobium polymorphum (yellow) 0.6

Gompholobium preissii 0.4

Gompholobium scabrum 2.3

Hakea baxteri 5

Hakea ceratophylla 2

Hakea corymbosa 2

Hakea falcata 4

Hakea laurina 6

Hakea lissocarpha 3

Hakea pandanicarpa/crassifolia 3

Hakea ruscifolia 3

Hakea smilacifolia 2

Hakea trifurcata 3

Hovea chorizemifolia 0.6

Hovea pungens 1

Hovea trisperma 0.7

Hypocalymma strictum 1.5

Isopogon baxteri 1.5

Isopogon buxifolius 1.7

Isopogon formosus 2

Isopogon heterophyllus 1.2

Isopogon longifolius 1.5

Isopogon teretifolius 2

Isopogon trilobus 2

Jacksonia condensata 0.6

Jacksonia furcellata 4

Jacksonia spinosa 2

Kennedia prostrata

Leptospermum erubescens 1.3

Leptospermum spinescens 1.5

Lomandra hastilis 1.5

Melaleuca bracteosa 1.5

Melaleuca calycina 2

Melaleuca carrii 1




Melaleuca cuticularis 7

Melaleuca hamata 4

Melaleuca pritzelii 1.6

Melaleuca scabra 1.5

Melaleuca striata 1.8

Melaleuca suberosa 2

Melaleuca thymoides 2

Melaleuca societatis 1.8

Melaleuca spathulata 2

Melaleuca strobophylla 12

Melaleuca subfalcata 2

Melaleuca viminea 5

Melaleuca violaceus 1

Microcorys sp.

Neurachne alopecuroidea 0.5

Patersonia occidentalis 1.5

Petrophile aff. divaricata 2

Petrophile aff. ericifolia 1.5

Petrophile longifolia 0.5

Petrophile media 0.6

Petrophile serruriae 1.5

Petrophile squamata 3

Phyllota barbata 1.5

Taxandria spathulata 2

Verticordia densiflora subsp. densiflora 0.9

Xanthorrhoea platyphylla 3


ACCU Australian carbon credit units

CEA carbon estimation area

CFI Carbon Farming Initiative

CMT CFI Mapping Tool

CO2-e carbon dioxide equivalent

GIS geographic information system

NRM natural resource management

RAC Reforestation Abatement Calculator

RMT CFI Reforestation Modelling Tool

Units

ha hectare

km kilometre

m metre

mm millimetre

t tonne

Abbreviations


Bush Heritage Australia 2012, Gondwana Link. www.bushheritage.org.au/what_we_do/conservation_partnerships/gondwana_link, accessed 6 June 2012.

DCCEE (Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) 2012a, The Carbon Farming Initiative handbook. www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au.

DCCEE (Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) 2012b, The positive list. www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/carbon-farming-initiative/activities-eligible-excluded/additional-activities-positive-list.aspx, accessed 07 June 2012.

DSEWPaC (Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) 2009, International biodiversity hotspots. www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/hotspots/international-hotspots.html, accessed 12 July 2012.

Government of Western Australia 2005, Carbon rights in WA—a new interest in the land. www.agric.wa.gov.au/content/sust/carbon_rights.pdf.

Heydenrych BJ 2012, A preliminary investigation into restoring landscapes for Carnaby’s black cockatoos in the Fitz–Stirling area of Gondwana Link on the south coast of Western Australia. Greening Australia.

Hickman EJ 2006, Yarrabee Flora Survey. A report prepared for Jack Mercer as part of the Gondwana Link Project.

References

Edition 01 2012

The ‘Biosphere’ Graphic ElementThe biosphere is a key part of the department’s visual identity. Individual biospheres are used to visually describe the diverse nature of the work we do as a department, in Australia and internationally.

daff.gov.au

Department of Agriculture

Postal address GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601Switchboard +61 2 6272 3933

carbon farming initiative case study 13.2 yarrabee library/images/daff/__data/assets... · the...

Documents