ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND

A public landowner can require a company to undertake or pay for carbon removal as a condition of leasing its land. The condition applies to the tenant's right to use a public asset, whether the main activity is farming, industrial production or property development. The lease might require specified carbon-removal practices on the site, or require the tenant to buy verified removals to balance an agreed share of the activity's remaining emissions. The landowner must state which duty applies before selecting a tenant. Access to a commercially useful site gives the tenant a reason to meet that duty, with continued compliance written into the lease.

The landowner must establish whether its leasing powers allow the proposed climate condition and whether it can apply to a new lease, a renewal or a negotiated amendment. Existing tenants cannot simply be given new duties outside the agreement and applicable law. Terms should specify the required activity or removal quantity, deadlines, eligible methods and evidence. Where purchases balance site emissions, the lease must define those emissions and preserve a separate duty to reduce them. On-site work needs suitable land, protected existing rights and clear responsibilities for monitoring and reversals. Transfer, expiry and insolvency clauses must identify who fulfils outstanding commitments.

Public ownership gives an authority influence over businesses that want to farm, build or operate on its land. Adding a removal condition can turn a lease that would otherwise earn rent alone into a continuing commitment to climate action. Suitable holdings can support verified changes in land management; other tenants can pay specialist suppliers to provide removals elsewhere. Applying clear conditions across successive leases can create recurring demand while allowing tenants to choose how to fulfil a defined obligation. Longer agreements can support practices that require sustained management, provided performance is checked throughout.

Conditions may exceed the owner's powers, conflict with existing tenure or be weakened once a tenant occupies the site. Applicants can promise removals without arranging delivery. Demanding terms can deter bidders, reduce rental offers or shift activity to other land. Unsuitable planting or other on-site practices may displace existing users, reduce food production or damage ecosystems. A tenant may sell the same carbon benefit it has promised to the landowner. Lease expiry or business failure can leave removals undelivered or stored carbon without an accountable manager.

The owner should compare each tenant's lease commitments with completed practices, verified removals and any units cancelled for purchased removals. Site inspections and registry records should test the evidence and prevent conflicting claims. Bid participation, rental offers and tenant costs show whether conditions deter suitable users. Missed milestones, poor carbon outcomes or unresolved rights should inform enforcement, renewal and the terms offered in later leases.

Public landowners and legal advisers should settle which conditions can be included and how they will be enforced. Prospective tenants and removal suppliers should test the cost and practicality of both on-site work and purchased removals. Existing users, Indigenous rights-holders and affected communities should shape any changes to land management. Carbon specialists should define credible evidence, while environmental regulators identify approvals needed for the proposed activity.

National, regional, state and municipal authorities can set lease conditions where they own or administer public land and the law permits those conditions. The landowner selects the tenant, agrees the required carbon-removal performance and enforces the lease. Higher-level legislation may restrict lease terms or protect existing users. Environmental regulators still decide whether an activity may operate, even when the public owner has agreed to lease the site.