Soil Carbon Sequestration Policy in Australia: The Additionality Dilemma

IF 2.4 3区 经济学 Q2 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY
David J. Pannell
{"title":"Soil Carbon Sequestration Policy in Australia: The Additionality Dilemma","authors":"David J. Pannell","doi":"10.1111/1467-8489.70076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>The Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) Scheme provides opportunities for farmers to benefit financially from sequestering additional carbon in their soils. The Scheme assesses additionality using a ‘newness’ test; if one of a list of eligible farming practices was not used by a farmer in a 5-year baseline period, its use within the project is considered to be additional. However, this approach is unable to detect non-additionality in cases where farmer adoption of the eligible farming practice is increasing in the absence of carbon credits. This analysis uses parameters from the actual scheme, combined with soil carbon sequestration rates informed by scientific research, and calculates net financial benefits to farmers from participation in the soil carbon method of the ACCU Scheme. In most scenarios modelled in this study, the net benefits to farmers from participating in the soil carbon scheme are small relative to other costs and revenues from farming (assuming that a recognised existing design problem with the scheme that is causing over-crediting is corrected). As a result, the area of additional projects is relatively small and can easily be outweighed by non-additional projects. Therefore, the expenditure on ACCUs required to achieve a tonne of genuine CO<sub>2</sub>-e mitigation can be extremely high: up to 80 times higher than the cost of an ACCU in one of the scenarios explored. The prospects of developing a system that accurately assesses the additionality of soil carbon projects seem remote.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55427,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","volume":"70 3","pages":"597-609"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8489.70076","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) Scheme provides opportunities for farmers to benefit financially from sequestering additional carbon in their soils. The Scheme assesses additionality using a ‘newness’ test; if one of a list of eligible farming practices was not used by a farmer in a 5-year baseline period, its use within the project is considered to be additional. However, this approach is unable to detect non-additionality in cases where farmer adoption of the eligible farming practice is increasing in the absence of carbon credits. This analysis uses parameters from the actual scheme, combined with soil carbon sequestration rates informed by scientific research, and calculates net financial benefits to farmers from participation in the soil carbon method of the ACCU Scheme. In most scenarios modelled in this study, the net benefits to farmers from participating in the soil carbon scheme are small relative to other costs and revenues from farming (assuming that a recognised existing design problem with the scheme that is causing over-crediting is corrected). As a result, the area of additional projects is relatively small and can easily be outweighed by non-additional projects. Therefore, the expenditure on ACCUs required to achieve a tonne of genuine CO2-e mitigation can be extremely high: up to 80 times higher than the cost of an ACCU in one of the scenarios explored. The prospects of developing a system that accurately assesses the additionality of soil carbon projects seem remote.

澳大利亚土壤固碳政策:附加性困境
澳大利亚碳信用单位(ACCU)计划为农民提供了从土壤中吸收额外碳的经济利益的机会。该计划使用“新颖性”测试来评估附加性;如果一名农民在5年基准期内没有使用一项符合条件的耕作方法,则该方法在项目内的使用将被视为额外使用。然而,当农民在缺乏碳信用额的情况下越来越多地采用符合条件的耕作方式时,这种方法无法检测到非附加性。本分析采用实际方案中的参数,结合科学研究所得的土壤固碳率,计算了参与ACCU方案土壤碳法对农民的净经济效益。在本研究模拟的大多数情况下,与农业的其他成本和收入相比,参与土壤碳计划给农民带来的净收益是很小的(假设该计划中一个公认的、导致过度信用的设计问题得到纠正)。因此,额外项目的面积相对较小,很容易被非额外项目所抵消。因此,实现一吨真正的二氧化碳-e减排所需的ACCU支出可能非常高:在所探讨的一种情况下,ACCU的成本最高可达80倍。开发一个准确评估土壤碳项目附加性的系统的前景似乎很遥远。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
>24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (AJARE) provides a forum for innovative and scholarly work in agricultural and resource economics. First published in 1997, the Journal succeeds the Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics and the Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, upholding the tradition of these long-established journals. Accordingly, the editors are guided by the following objectives: -To maintain a high standard of analytical rigour offering sufficient variety of content so as to appeal to a broad spectrum of both academic and professional economists and policymakers. -In maintaining the tradition of its predecessor journals, to combine articles with policy reviews and surveys of key analytical issues in agricultural and resource economics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书