Ref: GS/AR/GG24071
11 October 2024
ACCU Engagement and Implementation Team
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment & Water
John Gorton Building, King Edward Terrace,
PARKES ACT 2600
By Email: ACCU_Scheme@dcceew.gov.au
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Amendment to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Rule 2015
Introduction & Background
AgForce is a peak organisation representing Queensland’s cane, cattle, grain and sheep, wool & goat producers. The cane, beef, broadacre cropping and sheep, wool & goat industries in Queensland generated around $10.4 billion in on-farm value of production in 2021-22. AgForce is the leading voice for Queensland producers and strives to ensure the long-term growth, viability, competitiveness, and profitability of these industries. Over 6,000 farmers, individuals and businesses provide support to AgForce through membership. Our members own and manage around 55 million hectares, or a third of the state’s land area. Queensland producers provide high-quality food and fibre to Australian and overseas consumers, contribute significantly to the social fabric of regional, rural and remote communities, as well as deliver stewardship of the state’s natural environment.
AgForce appreciates the extension to the consultation period on the proposed ACCU Scheme transparency changes, which closed on 7 October. In addition to this submission, we commend for your consideration the materials provided by Justin O’Connor (emailed 8 October).
Farmers (inclusive of croppers and pastoralists) are a key group of data originators. In addition to being business owner/operators, farmers are also producers of critical food and fibre relied on by people both in Australia and overseas. Added to this, farmers are major custodians of natural capital which in many cases has been carefully stewarded over multiple generations. With the shifting awareness in value of Natural Capital, farmers’ ability to retain ownership of these critical assets requires control over farm data. Moreover, farms are usually homes, places where families reside and must feel safe, without infringement on their data privacy or security. For all these reasons, farmers are not just another carbon trading business. A respectful approach to managing farm data is essential.
Feedback topics (as per the Have your Say Website)
Item 1: Improved description or detail of project activities for all projects under all methods.
If the detail of any eligible actions/activities that are conducted are written into the method used and if the method itself is identified under the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) scheme, this would be sufficient to demonstrate that the project is compliant – because all projects are audited.
The details around the management actions conducted as part of eligible activities under the method are a landholder’s IP and should not become public. This management action information forms the basis of a landholder’s Natural Capital and having this data freely available will take it out of the agricultural supply chain, since it is more likely to go with the sale of the ACCU. For example, if a high biodiversity ACCU is sold, the purchaser would have the information needed for claiming the management actions that contribute both to the ACCU and high standards of biodiversity. This means that the purchaser could claim these actions for their supply chain. Due to the principle of additionality, the landholder could not then claim that management action or natural capital with their own supply chain. This could also compromise the ability of landholders to participate in Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), Science Based Targets initiative (SBTI), biodiversity offsets, Nature Plus, Reef Credits and other future opportunities.
Item 2: Description of any suppression mechanisms identified and removals of suppressors relating to the project.
Again, this pushes the focus from agents and carbon companies back onto individual landholders. If more detail is required about suppression activities this needs to be captured at the start of the project. It is very unfair to landholders to produce this after project registration and completion of the initial audit.
Note, suppression evidence is often collected from cash books and tax returns. Even public companies do not have their cashbooks and old invoices freely available online – it is not appropriate to expect this of farmers.
A further concern is that this freely available information opens the door to anti-agriculture activism, with increased vulnerability of individual farmers.
Item 3: Type of estimation approach used.
This needs to be put back on the agent or carbon company. They need to detail how often they are inaccurate and by what degree (ie, from estimates to actual). This gives potential project partners (farmers) and the purchaser of credits, a mechanism to validate the parties they deal with. Estimation approaches are particularly critical for especially for projects with heavy reliance on modelling.
What proportion of an estimation process is accurately reflected in a carbon project? For example, something that is reported to be extremely complicated with a multi-week turnaround, may in fact be no more than an educated guess.
Items 4 & 5: Nil.
Item 6: Start date for the chosen tool or modelling approach used to calculate abatement for each carbon estimation area (CEA) of a project.
There is an issue around backdating, which once again needs to be put back onto the agents and carbon companies. Questions should be asked around how accurate dates have been in the past, has the agent/company had any backdating declined by the regulator etc?
If the matter is a Carbon Estimation Area (CEA), the information collected is without a clear purpose or practical application. This unnecessary information becomes especially cumbersome for projects with hundreds of CEAs.
Item 7: Published link in the Project Register to any enforceable undertakings.
No, landholder breaches should not be in a project registry. This could have multiple unforeseen ramifications, including but not limited to diminished property value, on-going sales etc.
This sets a dangerous precedent and opens the door to creating a public register for disclosing all breaches in the agricultural space – this scenario is not difficult to imagine and would depress the sector. Already producers are under a significant regulatory burden eg, VMA (Vegetation Management Act), Reef Audits, LPA (Livestock Production Assurance), the European Union Cattle Accreditation Scheme (EUCAS) etc.
Rather, we propose that the public register should be limited to agents and carbon companies, documenting matters including breaches in contracts, failure to deliver services agreements and delivery fees for no service.
Item 8: The names of all agents involved in a project's management.
Yes, in terms of details of agents and carbon companies, their ownership structures and any conflicts of interest.
No, to providing landholders names. Most farmers were promised a degree of anonymity when entering these contracts. Additionally, this risks the privacy and security of individuals and their families.
Other Issues
AgForce is concerned that the integrity of data collected from primary to analytical stages is at risk due to the involvement of the same entities at each point. The current vertically integrated operation, where the same service providers are involved at multiple stages of data collection and project management, raises concerns about the transparency and reliability of the data published by the Clean Energy Regulator (CER).
Another key issue is the transfer of all operational pricing and strategic risk onto proponents (farmers), with service providers often avoiding accountability. The carbon companies, which earn a significant percentage from carbon projects, need to take on their fair share of responsibilities.
Moreover, this imbalance, coupled with the protective stance of carbon companies over the data they amass, creates a scenario where landholders’ data is beyond their control and potentially vulnerable to misuse.
Suggested Solutions
- To address these issues, we recommend exploring the following actions:
- Ensure clear attribution of data at each stage to maintain its integrity and transparency.
- Balance operational responsibility by reevaluating the distribution of operational risks and responsibilities between service providers and farmers.
- Develop and implement robust security frameworks for agriculture to protect ownership of natural capital and associated IP.
- Mandate that the CER adopts transparent practices and genuine data presentation to build trust within the carbon market.
- Ensure data policies are in alignment with the recently introduced Cyber Security Bill 2024. In addition, as farmers are crucial to food security, managers of essential natural capital like land and water and hosts to critical energy infrastructure, there is value in considering management of farm data under the Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024.
Additional options to be explored through diligent consultation could include:
The federal government to re-enter the market as the primary purchaser of ACCUs, buying them at market value. It will have the option to resell ACCUs, but without selling the associated data.
Verification of ACCUs by the Federal Government through a two-stage process:
- Utilise AgCarE1 to ensure rigorous data practices, including the use of one-way blind reports to ensure data privacy and integrity and mandatory third-party data management risk plans to secure and manage data across the entire supply chain. An important bonus of this approach is that it recognises the co-benefits of strong ESG practices, while retaining natural capital and associated IP with the landholder.
- Secondly, implement mandatory third-party data management risk plans and policies similar to other industries, but focusing on the entire ACCU supply chain, from landholders to agents or carbon companies.
Further, AgForce is a member of the National Farmers Federation, who have developed the Australian Farm Data Code. To ensure that data management policies meet best practice, it is recommended that service providers who manage farm data should be assessed and certified against the Australian Farm Data Code. If the Carbon Market Institute (CMI), representing carbon service providers, ensures all service providers are assessed and certified under the Australian Farm Data Code, this will assist to earn the trust of farmers – who are essential to the success of carbon projects.
Concluding Comments
Thank you for considering our submission. We look forward to continuing a productive relationship with the ACCU Engagement and Implementation Team to ensure that data management practices are fair, secure and transparent for all stakeholders involved.
Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact Dr Annie Ruttledge, Senior Policy Advisor for Biosecurity & Sustainability (ruttledgea@agforceqld.org.au or 0429 062 852).
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
Yours faithfully
Georgie Somerset
General President
1 AgCarE Technical Report, June 2022.