PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR ACCOUNTING REDUCTION IN SEDIMENT RUN-OFF THROUGH GULLY REHABILITATION
This proposed methodology was open for public comment from 15 October 2019 until 14 November 2019. Public comments are closed. Thank you to everyone who contributed a written submission. All your input is extremely valuable.
We are currently processing all the feedback received during the public consultation and peer review process and will update the website with the results in due course.
Summary description of proposed methodology
This methodology describes the approach to achieve and quantify reductions in Fine Sediment (FS) from rural landscapes through gully rehabilitation, within the catchments of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA).
The scope of this methodology includes the design and implementation of landscape rehabilitation measures to reduce the amount of sediment loss from gully erosion. Gully rehabilitation interventions may include:
1) Engineered rock-chute head control structures;
2) Engineered grade control structures;
3) Gully reshaping and capping with rock or mulch, or both;
4) Gully catchment drainage diversion structures (contour-banks and flow-spreaders);
5) Soil amelioration (i.e. with gypsum and other non-toxic chemical stabilisers);
6) Revegetation of treated gullies and gully catchments;
7) Livestock exclusion;
8) Grazing management;
This methodology is not limited to the above interventions and activities to rehabilitate gullies but the project must provide a Gully Rehabilitation and Management Plan that describes the proposed gully rehabilitation interventions, management and monitoring activities for the project duration.
Proposed methodology for accounting reduction in nutrient run-off through managed fertilizer application
This proposed methodology was open for public comment from 4 June 2019 until 4 July 2019. Public comments are closed. Thank you to everyone who contributed a written submission. All your input is extremely valuable.
The Reef Credit Interim Steering Committee approved this methodology on 11 March 2020.
Summary description of proposed methodology
This methodology quantifies the reduction in Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) lost from agricultural land through improved soil and nutrient management practices within the catchments of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA).
The scope of this methodology includes reducing DIN loss through more efficient soil and nutrient management practices from agricultural enterprises including (but not limited to) sugarcane, bananas, grains and fodder. The methodology allows for a range of practice changes, that lead to a reduction in DIN loss across the project area.
There are a number of ways a farmer may reduce DIN loss within the project area. For example:
• Matching nitrogen application rate to expected crop yields at farm or paddock scale;
• Reduce nitrogen fertiliser application rate;
• Increase areas under fallow;
• Improve fertiliser delivery practices; or
• Conversion to land use with a lower or zero nitrogen surplus
This methodology is not limited to the above management practices, but the project must provide a Land Management Plan that describes the proposed land management activities for the project duration.
Reef Credit Standard and Guide Public Consultation Summary – March 2019
Thank you to everyone who contributed a written submission or comment and to all those who attended a meeting. All your input is extremely valuable.
Where appropriate, revisions have been made to the draft Reef Credit Standard and Guide which are now available in final version for use during the Beta phase (next 12months):
Compilations of all written submissions received by the Secretariat during the public consultation process for the draft Reef Credit Standard and Guide are available now. These documents include detailed responses to each suggestion, comment or question and are available below:
The Consultation Process
On 12 November 2018, the Reef Credit Secretariat published the draft Reef Credit Standard and Guide on the website (www.reefcredit.org) and invited comment on the draft documents. A series of public consultations were held over the ensuing four weeks in Canberra, Brisbane, Yeppoon, Rockhampton, Mackay, Townsville, and Cairns. Meetings were held with representatives from state, federal and local government, agricultural industry, environmental non-government organisations, and research institutions.
The Secretariat received a total of 22 comments on the draft Reef Credit Guide and 116 comments on the draft Reef Credit Standard, from multiple organisations.
Summary of submissions and responses
Some common questions raised in submissions related
1. Additionality test (content and application);
2. Verification (auditing) process;
3. Process for establishing equivalence between different types of pollutants; and
4. Process for establishing baselines.
These comments were dealt with as follows:
1. Additionality test (content and application). The content of the additionality test is clarified
to provide that “All Reef Credit generated pollution reductions and removals
must be over and above:
1) a business as usual scenario;
2) legal requirements (e.g. regulatory standards threshold for compliance, or activities required by a conservation covenant); and
3) what is already funded to occur ( i.e. satisfy the financial additionality test).”
The definition of ‘business as usual’ has been revised to refer to “water pollutant reductions that would have occurred in the absence of the Reef Credit Project”. This is to make it clear that the change must be attributable to the incentive provided by the Scheme.
In a situation where there are overlapping programs (such as carbon projects), the financial additionality test will be applied by the independent verifier to determine whether the project is eligible to receive Reef Credits.
Further, Methodologies may adopt any of the following further approaches to the assessment of additionality: a. Implementation barriers (investment barrier, technology barrier or institutional barriers); b. Common practice; or; c. Performance benchmark.
2. Verification (auditing) process. The verifier must meet the eligibility requirements set out in the Standard for accreditation. The verifier attests that the requirements of the Standard and Methodology have been met in relation to the Reef Credit Project.
3. Process for establishing equivalence between different types of pollutants. The DIN amount is used as the base unit of measure or reference to create proportional equivalence or relative value (rather than functional equivalence) between pollutants in relation to the targets.
4. Process for establishing baselines. The process for establishing baselines will be dealt with in the Methodologies. A project must describe the project baseline scenario in accordance with the requirements of the relevant Methodology and must be reasonably assured during validation and verification.