Turlough Guerin’s Post

Agricultural Science Journal (Vol 34) https://bit.ly/3QT8kB1 (requires subscription) Matt Warburton-Edgerton's article, "Carbon Project Agreements – Landholder Risks and Recommendations," offers a detailed analysis of the considerations and risks involved in carbon project agreements in Australia, specifically for landholders. The article sheds light on the role of Carbon Service Providers (CSPs) and their various business models, underlining potential conflicts of interest and emphasising the need for landholders to maintain control and flexibility in land management. Key considerations for landholders highlighted in the article include: 1. Understanding Permanence Obligations: Awareness of long-term commitments in carbon sequestration projects, which may last 25 or 100 years, is crucial. 2. Business Models of CSPs: The article describes three primary business models used by CSPs, advising landholders to ensure agreements allow them to retain maximum benefit and flexibility. 3. Control over Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs): Managing ACCUs is critical, impacting the landholder's ability to manage their property and future sales. 4. Legal and Financial Implications: Seeking legal advice before entering these complex agreements is essential to avoid potential disputes and financial burdens. For land managers considering carbon farming agreements, the article points out several critical aspects: Risk Assessment and Contractual Terms: It's important to evaluate the risks associated with different CSPs and the terms of contracts to avoid binding long-term commitments that may be unfavorable. Flexibility in Land Management: Agreements should allow flexibility in land management, avoiding overly restrictive land use. Financial Viability and Market Risks: Assessing financial implications, including risks associated with ACCUs and potential costs in buying back ACCUs, is essential. Legal Advice and Contract Negotiation: Professional legal advice is recommended to negotiate terms that protect landholder interests and ensure fair distribution of benefits from carbon sequestration.

Agricultural Science Journal (Vol 34) https://bit.ly/3QT8kB1 (requires subscription) Matt Warburton-Edgerton's article, "Carbon Project Agreements – Landholder Risks and Recommendations," offers a detailed analysis of the considerations and risks involved in carbon project agreements in Australia, specifically for landholders. The article sheds light on the role of Carbon Service Providers (CSPs) and their various business models, underlining potential conflicts of interest and emphasising the need for landholders to maintain control and flexibility in land management. Key considerations for landholders highlighted in the article include: 1. Understanding Permanence Obligations: Awareness of long-term commitments in carbon sequestration projects, which may last 25 or 100 years, is crucial. 2. Business Models of CSPs: The article describes three primary business models used by CSPs, advising landholders to ensure agreements allow them to retain maximum benefit and flexibility. 3. Control over Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs): Managing ACCUs is critical, impacting the landholder's ability to manage their property and future sales. 4. Legal and Financial Implications: Seeking legal advice before entering these complex agreements is essential to avoid potential disputes and financial burdens. For land managers considering carbon farming agreements, the article points out several critical aspects: Risk Assessment and Contractual Terms: It's important to evaluate the risks associated with different CSPs and the terms of contracts to avoid binding long-term commitments that may be unfavorable. Flexibility in Land Management: Agreements should allow flexibility in land management, avoiding overly restrictive land use. Financial Viability and Market Risks: Assessing financial implications, including risks associated with ACCUs and potential costs in buying back ACCUs, is essential. Legal Advice and Contract Negotiation: Professional legal advice is recommended to negotiate terms that protect landholder interests and ensure fair distribution of benefits from carbon sequestration.

Agricultural Science Journal (Vol 34) https://bit.ly/3QT8kB1 (requires subscription) Matt Warburton-Edgerton's article, "Carbon Project Agreements – Landholder Risks and Recommendations," offers a detailed analysis of the considerations and risks involved in carbon project agreements in Australia, specifically for landholders. The article sheds light on the role of Carbon Service Providers (CSPs) and their various business models, underlining potential conflicts of interest and emphasising the need for landholders to maintain control and flexibility in land management. Key considerations for landholders highlighted in the article include: 1. Understanding Permanence Obligations: Awareness of long-term commitments in carbon sequestration projects, which may last 25 or 100 years, is crucial. 2. Business Models of CSPs: The article describes three primary business models used by CSPs, advising landholders to ensure agreements allow them to retain maximum benefit and flexibility. 3. Control over Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs): Managing ACCUs is critical, impacting the landholder's ability to manage their property and future sales. 4. Legal and Financial Implications: Seeking legal advice before entering these complex agreements is essential to avoid potential disputes and financial burdens. For land managers considering carbon farming agreements, the article points out several critical aspects: Risk Assessment and Contractual Terms: It's important to evaluate the risks associated with different CSPs and the terms of contracts to avoid binding long-term commitments that may be unfavorable. Flexibility in Land Management: Agreements should allow flexibility in land management, avoiding overly restrictive land use. Financial Viability and Market Risks: Assessing financial implications, including risks associated with ACCUs and potential costs in buying back ACCUs, is essential. Legal Advice and Contract Negotiation: Professional legal advice is recommended to negotiate terms that protect landholder interests and ensure fair distribution of benefits from carbon sequestration.

Agricultural Science Journal (Vol 34) https://bit.ly/3QT8kB1 (requires subscription) Matt Warburton-Edgerton's article, "Carbon Project Agreements – Landholder Risks and Recommendations," offers a detailed analysis of the considerations and risks involved in carbon project agreements in Australia, specifically for landholders. The article sheds light on the role of Carbon Service Providers (CSPs) and their various business models, underlining potential conflicts of interest and emphasising the need for landholders to maintain control and flexibility in land management. Key considerations for landholders highlighted in the article include: 1. Understanding Permanence Obligations: Awareness of long-term commitments in carbon sequestration projects, which may last 25 or 100 years, is crucial. 2. Business Models of CSPs: The article describes three primary business models used by CSPs, advising landholders to ensure agreements allow them to retain maximum benefit and flexibility. 3. Control over Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs): Managing ACCUs is critical, impacting the landholder's ability to manage their property and future sales. 4. Legal and Financial Implications: Seeking legal advice before entering these complex agreements is essential to avoid potential disputes and financial burdens. For land managers considering carbon farming agreements, the article points out several critical aspects: Risk Assessment and Contractual Terms: It's important to evaluate the risks associated with different CSPs and the terms of contracts to avoid binding long-term commitments that may be unfavorable. Flexibility in Land Management: Agreements should allow flexibility in land management, avoiding overly restrictive land use. Financial Viability and Market Risks: Assessing financial implications, including risks associated with ACCUs and potential costs in buying back ACCUs, is essential. Legal Advice and Contract Negotiation: Professional legal advice is recommended to negotiate terms that protect landholder interests and ensure fair distribution of benefits from carbon sequestration.

Agricultural Science Journal (Vol 34) https://bit.ly/3QT8kB1 (requires subscription) Matt Warburton-Edgerton's article, "Carbon Project Agreements – Landholder Risks and Recommendations," offers a detailed analysis of the considerations and risks involved in carbon project agreements in Australia, specifically for landholders. The article sheds light on the role of Carbon Service Providers (CSPs) and their various business models, underlining potential conflicts of interest and emphasising the need for landholders to maintain control and flexibility in land management. Key considerations for landholders highlighted in the article include: 1. Understanding Permanence Obligations: Awareness of long-term commitments in carbon sequestration projects, which may last 25 or 100 years, is crucial. 2. Business Models of CSPs: The article describes three primary business models used by CSPs, advising landholders to ensure agreements allow them to retain maximum benefit and flexibility. 3. Control over Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs): Managing ACCUs is critical, impacting the landholder's ability to manage their property and future sales. 4. Legal and Financial Implications: Seeking legal advice before entering these complex agreements is essential to avoid potential disputes and financial burdens. For land managers considering carbon farming agreements, the article points out several critical aspects: Risk Assessment and Contractual Terms: It's important to evaluate the risks associated with different CSPs and the terms of contracts to avoid binding long-term commitments that may be unfavorable. Flexibility in Land Management: Agreements should allow flexibility in land management, avoiding overly restrictive land use. Financial Viability and Market Risks: Assessing financial implications, including risks associated with ACCUs and potential costs in buying back ACCUs, is essential. Legal Advice and Contract Negotiation: Professional legal advice is recommended to negotiate terms that protect landholder interests and ensure fair distribution of benefits from carbon sequestration.

Agricultural Science Journal (Vol 34) https://bit.ly/3QT8kB1 (requires subscription) Matt Warburton-Edgerton's article, "Carbon Project Agreements – Landholder Risks and Recommendations," offers a detailed analysis of the considerations and risks involved in carbon project agreements in Australia, specifically for landholders. The article sheds light on the role of Carbon Service Providers (CSPs) and their various business models, underlining potential conflicts of interest and emphasising the need for landholders to maintain control and flexibility in land management. Key considerations for landholders highlighted in the article include: 1. Understanding Permanence Obligations: Awareness of long-term commitments in carbon sequestration projects, which may last 25 or 100 years, is crucial. 2. Business Models of CSPs: The article describes three primary business models used by CSPs, advising landholders to ensure agreements allow them to retain maximum benefit and flexibility. 3. Control over Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs): Managing ACCUs is critical, impacting the landholder's ability to manage their property and future sales. 4. Legal and Financial Implications: Seeking legal advice before entering these complex agreements is essential to avoid potential disputes and financial burdens. For land managers considering carbon farming agreements, the article points out several critical aspects: Risk Assessment and Contractual Terms: It's important to evaluate the risks associated with different CSPs and the terms of contracts to avoid binding long-term commitments that may be unfavorable. Flexibility in Land Management: Agreements should allow flexibility in land management, avoiding overly restrictive land use. Financial Viability and Market Risks: Assessing financial implications, including risks associated with ACCUs and potential costs in buying back ACCUs, is essential. Legal Advice and Contract Negotiation: Professional legal advice is recommended to negotiate terms that protect landholder interests and ensure fair distribution of benefits from carbon sequestration.

Are there any experts in Agrivoltaics here on LinkedIn? I have some questions I would like to discuss with someone that is experienced with this practice.

Help map out the current and future capacity and capability of Agricultural Extension in Australia.    The survey is to benefit all extension managers and practitioners, in both private and public sectors - they'll even send you the results of the report if you select this option. Personally am very passionate about irrigation extension. Two decades ago we had more than 50 development and extension personal working in the irrigation space in NSW, with a National Program for Sustainable Irrigation that finished in 2012. Public sector extension cuts have greatly reduced the number of extension officers, with privatisation and fragmentation of extension. Whilst there are some great extension programs out there, there is much duplication of certain activities, and total gaps in others (particularly in the irrigation performance assessment space) and sometimes a lack of independent advice as a result of privatisation. I see the need for greater (long-term) investment in irrigation extension to protect our natural capital assets and continue to improve on farm water productivity.    What do you see as the future Extension needs? Local Land Services Southern NSW Innovation Hub SQNNSW Innovation Hub Ricegrowers’ Association of Australia Graeme Kruger, GAICD Mark Groat Janelle Montgomery Louise Gall, GAICD Irrigation Research and Extension Committee Iva Quarisa OAM Irrigation Farmers Network Cotton Australia Berries Australia Grains Research and Development Corporation Wine Australia Dairy Australia Hort Innovation AgriFutures Australia Irrigation Australia Limited

Vertical bifacial vs. stilted agrivoltaics: Scientists in Austria have conducted a life cycle assessement of vertical bifacial agrivoltaic systems and stilted agrivoltaic facilities. Their analysis revealed that vertical installations have lower environmental impacts in wide range of scenarios. #CommercialIndustrialPV #ModulesUpstreamManufacturing

I am happy to announce my first publication of my groundbreaking research to contribute to the growing body of knowledge on eco-friendly agricultural practices using giant kelp extract. This milestone marks a significant achievement in my academic journey, and I am eager to share it with the scientific community. If you're interested in learning more about the potential use of giant kelp extract as a biostimulant, I invite you to access the full publication via [https://lnkd.in/dY7qSKPC]. This article has far-reaching implications for farmers, policymakers, and environmental stakeholders seeking innovative methods to boost crop yields while minimizing environmental impact. #Biostimulants #Sustainability #Macrocystis_pyrifera Kelp Blue