Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 8:00:48 to 8:05:52
The hearing concludes with a debate on the coexistence of carbon farming and traditional agriculture. Officials discuss the potential for $9 billion in sequestration profits by 2050 versus the risk of complete removal of agricultural production in certain regions.
Topics: Carbon farming, Agricultural productivity, Emissions reduction
Speakers: Speaker 5, Speaker 14, Speaker 12, Speaker 21
>> Okay. All right. I'll take that on notice for me. Thank you. Um, all right. Uh so um I've I just wanted to confirm these figures I suppose as well. Uh you say that uh 50 Well, I'll read it out. The quote in the art in in the report says the remaining 55% is estimated to occur in the wheat sheep and high rainfall zones where sequestration rates are generally the highest. Is that 55% of the land area or 55% of the sequestration occurring? So it' be 55% of the land area and so it would account
for a disproportional amount of
sequestration. So that when and how do you define how
high rainfall? >> So it's the Abears zones um which are on that map. You'll see the kind of interior zone, pastural zone. There's the blacked out little line which has the wheat sheep zone and the high rainfall zone is towards the coasts of
of >> what's the annual rainfall? What what is c what how much rain do you need per year to be classified as high rainfall? >> It would be something like we'd have to check for take that on >> notice. Exactly. >> Okay. But the fact is that more than half of this are incurring in in agriculturally productive areas of the
country. >> Yes. In in those those zones. That's
>> okay. Um I meant to ask I've got to go back. Sorry. For these eight council areas, eight local government areas, is there any assistance for them to adjust to lower production levels as we go to net zero? So this is >> that's probably more for the department I suppose but >> under the net zero plan that you have done have you put aside any any funding to help those local government areas adjust to lower production levels I mean some of them are getting a 10% odd reduction in output that's massive
>> so I think it's important to take the kind of the analysis that Abear has done um at a holistic level um first of all their model it's a modeled It's a modeled outcome and and Dr. Greenville and Mr. Galliano can talk about that in more detail. But in terms of support, I guess what we'd acknowledge is that um the shift could also result in a potential $9 billion of profits per year to landholders from sequestration. >> 9 billion >> dollars by 2050. Um and and as as we've
discussed previously, >> that doesn't go to the local economies. it doesn't go to the councils. My question is about the I mean that that 9 billion the farmers that are lucky enough to to to get that money that there's nothing stopping them obviously packing up and moving and going somewhere else and taking that money elsewhere in the country. So what what is provided for those these particularly impacted areas from an increase in carbon farming?
>> Well, maybe if I could just address that that question about where it goes and so forth. So one of the findings that we have in this report is that there's a significant coexistence occurring. though there's around 59% of all that land that's that's playing in in carbon sequestration markets is occurring either through methods that allow agriculture to continue. Um so that's after an exclusion period you're allowing kind of grazing to come back in or it's on a partial scale. So it's like adding adding sequestration activities into an existing enterprise. So you're continuing to do agriculture, but
>> 40% then by by your numbers and it's in your report. 40% >> we're seeing more >> completely shutting down their farm
production. >> We're seeing Yeah. more like the entire
cell that we looked at. >> That's right. So So to explain to everyone, correct me if I'm wrong, just so everyone's on the same page. When you these 40% areas, you've you've got cells of the country, right, that are, I believe, and I read roughly equivalent to an average farm size, few thousand hectares or so. Mhm. >> per cell. And in the in the areas, so just so I'm clear, in the areas that are doing carbon farming, 40% of those cells completely remove agricultural production. >> That's correct. >> And and can and revert to carbon farming. I mean, that to me doesn't seem like a high level of coexistence. That's almost half, that's a lot, are not coexisting. Uh they're completely
getting out of farming. >> Yeah. Well, and and that's there's a mix of activities that are going on. And so for those landholders, right, there's a change and so because it's an on an average farm size those cells, you know, in reality it could be partial, you know, with farms and the like. And there there will be and that's what we point out with there will be regional impact. So there is an opportunity cost >> in terms of agriculture production
around that 2%. >> It's a good piece of work. Um, yep.
>> But on the context of a growing agricultural base as well. So we still expect agriculture to grow. Um and it's one of those things that you know obviously you shift from one agricultural practice to another you do less of one and do more of the other. So there's always an opportunity cost.
>> So where would agricultural grow if you've just taken out 40% of the productive land out of the high areas