Comparison of major carbon offset standards for soil carbon projects in Australian grazing lands

Abstract

Despite the potential role of soil carbon offset schemes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are concerns that the rules for assessment, monitoring, and operation are barriers to engagement. This may explain why there is low participation of Australian landholders in soil carbon projects. This study reviews the literature on three leading voluntary carbon standards and methods to assess their suitability for developing soil carbon projects in grazing systems in Australia. The soil carbon method of each standard was analysed based on several criteria: scope, eligibility/applicability, newness and additionality, permanency, baselines and quantification methodology, environmental sustainability, safeguard mechanism, and crediting period. A hypothetical grazing case study in Central Queensland, Australia’s premier beef cattle region, was used to model the cost-effectiveness and potential returns from establishing soil carbon projects under the three standards. Results show that credits created under the Emissions Reduction Fund in Australia generate higher returns for soil carbon projects compared to the Verified Carbon Standard and Gold Standard. This is largely due to a higher market price for soil carbon credits in the Emissions Reduction Fund, reflecting more robust standards of assessment and verification. While assessment costs for credits were higher in the international schemes, returns were lower because prices reflected less rigorous standards.

Keywords:

• Soil carbon
• grazing land
• cost-effectiveness
• Emission Reduction Fund
• Verified Carbon Standard
• Gold Standard

Acknowledgments

The contribution of Louisa Kiely (Carbon Farmers of Australia) has been important in developing the study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The collated and generated data for comparison of standards is available subject to commercial terms on a subscription basis. Should researchers want access to the data for reasonable non-commercial purposes, the authors will consider the request, and if reasonable, make it available.

Additional information

Funding

Funding support from Carbon Farmers of Australia and the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (Grant ICG001537) is gratefully acknowledged.