Western Australian Pastoral Observations

Over the past three years I have been fortunate to speak with, learn from, and support many pastoralists around Western Australia with their renewable energy and carbon strategies. While I always come away from these relationships a wiser person in regard to agriculture, caring for country and life within the WA Rangelands there has been some consistent takeaways:

1.????? Apathy towards the “science” of carbon: I am yet to meet a pastoralist who fully believes that their project is producing the carbon credits and benefits they are being rewarded for. Sure the “ACCU carrot” has aided the change in focus, education and delivery of better land management which is great. But truly helping to save the planet? No. Helping to fund a better living in a remote and difficult environment? Absolutely.?

2.????? Concerns over Native Title process and influence: a broad and important topic but holistically I am seeing the following major concern - the process to obtain consent is too long and costly for many pastoralists. I know of at least six projects that have not progressed through a consent process due to the cost (>$250k) and time (1-3 years). Ultimately this impacts everyone as projects do not commence and benefits are never shared with all stakeholders. Add to this the lack of consistency throughout WA – e.g. ILUA required for some areas but not others, or offtake agreements ranging from 5% to 35% etc. resulting in co-benefits never being realised or maximised.?

3.????? Frustration with carbon developers: where do I start! Easily the most vocal feedback to me is the lack of transparency, engagement, and service by carbon developers with pastoralists. Not surprisingly, the carbon sign up race over the last five years has seen many promises not fulfilled by developers and/or contracts with pastoralists that are prohibitive and unbalanced in terms of risk and cost.?

For example - there are eight projects in the Gascoyne area that are four years into their relationship with a developer and are no closer to consent and a live project state. Considering the cost to these pastoralists to adhere to the project requirements understandably their anger is palpable. Overall though I am seeing growing retaliation by pastoralists who are now starting to push back and demand better service and contractual accountabilities and outcomes. I hope this continues.?

4.????? A two-speed economy in the bush – for those pastoralists who own early issuance projects carbon has been good to them and assisted with a better life and regenerative strategy. But many neighbours have not been so fortunate. Delays or prohibitive costs in obtaining live projects mean their properties are a fraction the value of their neighbour. Tension across the fence line is not uncommon.?

5.????? Stay or sell – over the past three years I have facilitated sale contracts for a number of off-market pastoral properties in the Rangelands area of WA. On average I am seeing a carbon project providing a sale value range 10-20 times the value of the property if it was agriculture only. It is satisfying to assist pastoral families through carbon to find an exit or succession strategy from the sale of their properties. However, many hold off from a sale believing the price of carbon is going to rise and their HIR projects will deliver the ACCU’s projected. For these pastoralists to cash out now would be the wrong move. Time will tell who has made the right decision.?

As always in country Western Australia not everything is as it seems. Carbon developers and investment funds – both Australian and International – are chasing the carbon commodity hard. Where the management of the land for protein ends up is not clear but the role of the Clean Energy Regulator, WA Pastoral Lands Board and other pastoral sector bodies will be pivotal to ensure balance and transparency.

As for the impact of mining and renewable project leases on pastoral properties – that is an emerging issue and for discussion at another time.