Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 3:42:58 to 3:53:22
Officials clarify the division of labor between the Department and the Clean Energy Regulator regarding agricultural production history and carbon credit assessments.
Topics: Carbon farming, Agricultural productivity, Land management
Speakers: Hon Richard Colbeck, Matt Lowe, Nick Blong, Senator Glenn Sterle, Heather McGilvray
>> Sorry. Sorry. Senator C. I was just getting indication half hour till lunch. Have you got many more in this area?
>> I've got a bit more on on this assessment process. Yes.
Sorry.
>> Sorry. Heather McGill, assistant secretary, climate policy. U I think that the issue you're getting to which is about the assessment of the project in terms of its capacity to deliver on the ACUE obligations, that's an assessment that's done by the clean energy regulator as part of its registration process. So the the assessment that the department does is is different from that. There's the agriculture minister's assessment, but then that when the project's ready to be registered, the proponent will take it to the CER and the CER does the assessment against the requirements of
>> So you don't you don't look at what the productivity for in respect of ACTUS is going to be. That's done by the clean energy finance corporation. So all you look at
>> clean energy regulator.
>> Sorry. Clean
>> Okay. Um I might have to go and chase some further information in respect of that. So um so the the baseline assessment is basically just looking at the what's reported to you in terms of what's on the property now rather than actually having a look at what the propert is capable of doing.
>> That's correct Senator where we have to work within the parameters of the the carbon farming initiative rule. uh and what you see there in terms of what was released in the OPD is is sort of is the boundaries of which uh
>> so as far as you're concerned it's carrying capacities 1,800 dairy cattle 300 3,300 meat cattle >> which translates to 4.52% of dairy cattle in the region and 4.65% 65% of
>> That's correct, Senator. It uses historical data. Uh so your average
>> so you've I've seen in the document it goes back a fair way in terms of what the carrying is back to 201011. But why don't you look at what it's actually been doing rather than what it's just doing now in in effectively a rundown estate because it's being managed as an estate. So it's it's a pretty cursory look at the capacity. So even the sale the the the the documents promoting the project the the site for sale talks about its capacity to run 4,000 dairy cattle and 8,500 meat cattle. So it's running at the moment at a very rundown state which we all get because it's a been an estate and the issue has been trying to sell the estate. um clear the estate rather than invest in the property. But why wasn't that looked at? What the actual capacity of the place is? Because if you look at that, you're talking about 10% of the dairy cattle in the region and close to 10% of the meat cattle in the region. And that's substantial.
>> Senator, uh the CFI rule uh limits us. Sorry. the CFI rule which sort of governs how we uh undertake this process stipulates a fiveyear production history has been the uh the the data that we rely on
>> that stipulates sorry I'm have really having
>> sorry the CFI rule stipulates 5year history in terms of agricultural production five years >> uh so that is the information the proponent is required to provide to us and that is the parameters in which we make our assessment
>> but the report's basically done on what the current is rather than so the proponent reported an average. Okay. So there's nothing looked at in forestry side of things at all. That's all done by the CFC.
the the ACU side of things and done by the clean energy regulator.
So I've spoken to a number of forestry professionals including some that are carbon projects now both here and on the mainland and and in Tazzay. Um it's a reasonable rainfall. puts over but the soil types uh and the structure is of a concern and everyone that I've spoken to like every single professional forester that I've spoken to about this talks about this having an MI of 10 to 15 me cubic meters of per hectare per year which was described to me by one forester who's actively involved in here in New South Wales as non-commercial. um, and that's because of the structure of the site. I'm I'm genuinely concerned about the for this project to deliver these very qualified advice that I've had. M >> and so there's I mean there's a bloke up in in that region who has a business taking out failed plantations because of the attributes of the location of the region. >> That's his business. So, I mean, how do we have confidence in this project the the the documents that I've received talk about 3.2 million tons of CO2 being provided as a part of it, but an MI of 15 is not going to get anywhere near that. So, how do we understand that we're getting what we're paying for? Which is goes to the point why I'm asking all those questions about how you assess the >> if the MI is being considered so low. And this is what one of the foresters has said to me 10 to 15 year which is about a third to a half of a productive plantation on good soil with rainfall above 600 mm. The soil is sand over clay. So that's why it's so good for irrigated pasture because you're effectively using aquaponics. It's >> irrigated as we know. The trees will dry out the sand layer. The roots won't penetrate the heavy clay which is relatively shallow. If there's heavy rain, the trees will be sitting on swampy ground which kills the roots root systems and then they have to try and recover and the risk of sire wasp infection is real as well. M a highly qualified professional forester in Tasmania who knows the country >> his assessment of this and yet there's there's nothing in the application process that actually interrogates the of the site in terms of either timber um acuse
>> and Senator uh what you're pointing to is obviously um uh someone with expertise and capability um in forestry management and giving you an opinion um about the potential productivity of the site. So so we absolutely appreciate that. Um I I guess um as Mr. Iversal has outlined the premise of um the [clears throat] way in which we um require information from proponents is on the same premise. um a forest management professional who um is highly qualified um undertaking a detailed assessment of the site and um and providing that assurance back to the department that the that the project um offers a productive um and economic investment. I I guess it's in no one's interests um including the proponents for the project to fail um as well. So there are a range of different um I guess checks and balances that we put in place to assure our
>> but I'm I'm genuinely concerned that there has been no checks and balances and it's not just one forester that's told me this. three or four >> who are Tasmanians who understand the country and know what's going on >> and and and we're and the taxpayer is a 50% or 49% shareholder in this project. We're told we'll get a return and yet >> the information that we I'm being given is that it's not commercial. So what is the return?
>> So on that just we do Senator I'm going to have to share the call around. We've been quite generous. So do you want to just answer that question and I'll go across? You don't want to answer it? No, that's
>> I I think I think we're in a brilliant um I I I think kind of Senator where we're in dueling dueling experts territory. We've relied on on expert expert advice in terms of the the basis on which the forest
>> uh >> the information that was provided to us >> people who know the country are telling me >> just one several of them
>> we are going to have to pull this up
>> assuming that this doesn't stack up
>> I'll get you to put the rest on on notice if you wouldn't mind Senator Brown we are running short of time Senator Colbeck sorry Senator B I'm surrounded or Tazzy. So, you're all the same. >> Senator Bayer,