We can help, but beyond Kyoto
Opinion Editorial for The Land Newspaper
Published: 13 August 2009
by
David Crombie
President
National Farmers’ Federation
AGRICULTURE can play an important role in cutting carbon emissions but only if the rules are changed, writes DAVID CROMBIE.
ONE minute you hear that burps from cows will herald the end of civilisation, the next you read about how soil carbon will save us all.
Confused about agriculture's place in this emissions trading debate? If the answer is "yes", you're one of many - including Australia's 150,000 farmers caught trying to plan for a low emission food and fibre future while also trying to remain an efficient supplier to our expanding domestic and world markets.
While the debate rages about a changing climate two things are crystal clear: governments, globally, are looking to act on reducing pollution and the policies they put in place to achieve this will lift costs including that of food production.
So what actions and policies are appropriate for agriculture?
Our farmers have already made a big contribution to reducing net greenhouse emissions and, given the right policy settings, can do more.
Reducing emissions is not new to agriculture. Primary industries have reduced emissions by 40 per cent since 1990 through a range of farm measures.
Farmers have voluntarily captured and stored soil carbon by better farming practices and tree planting. In addition, potential carbon loss has been reduced through vegetation management restrictions, and it is widely acknowledged that these contributions are responsible for Australia meeting its Kyoto carbon emission protocol commitments.
This has been at a considerable cost to many farming families. Put simply, our farmers already have a big investment in cutting pollution.
The Government concedes that covering direct emissions from agriculture within its planned cap and trade system can't work at this time.
It's hard to measure net emissions in a biological system where carbon is emitted but also stored in soils, pastures, crops and trees. It's hard to trade what can't be measured.
Fitting agriculture into a neat little box that is the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) is impossible. Yet we know the sector can contribute more to reducing emissions.
The National Farmers Federation (NFF) has been working with the Government on ways that coverage may be possible, but it's clear the solution is not within the confines of inflexible Kyoto rules.
The solution is to develop alternative routes or complementary measures that give farmers incentives to manage and reduce net emissions, while ensuring that we do not compromise food production - in efficiency or food quality.
Greenhouse Best Management Practice programs, environmental quality assurance programs, stewardship programs and certification schemes, transport infrastructure improvements and utility level renewable energy development are all avenues we should develop.
The extent to which agriculture can contribute is a work in progress everywhere, not just in Australia.
The emissions policy debate has shifted for agriculture. Food security is a priority, particularly in the face of projected 50 per cent world population growth - to nine billion people by 2050.
Food production and food security needs to be sensibly balanced against the need for cut net agricultural emissions. Developed countries, including the United States, Europe, Canada and Japan, say they will exclude agriculture from their emissions trading cap and, instead, adopt a carrot approach in encouraging mitigation outcomes.
Australia exports two-thirds of its total farm produce, so what happens overseas in our competitor countries has important implications for our farm sector.
It would be perverse, indeed, to lose markets to competitors with a cheaper price and a heavier carbon footprint.
Even if agriculture here is not covered it does not mean we are not affected.
Farmers, as price takers, will be vulnerable to the higher costs under a broad based CPRS.
With an Australian decision for agriculture's CPRS inclusion scheduled for 2013 (for coverage by 2015), the NFF wants the Federal Government to categorically remove the uncertainty over Australian agriculture's future and permanently exclude the sector's direct emissions.
Instead, we propose exploring alternative routes that recognise and measure on-farm sequestration and storage, so agriculture can continue to play a positive role in reducing net emissions.
We can be part of a real solution to reducing pollution, not by ramming a square agricultural peg into the round CPRS hole, but by ensuring the policies the Government pursues encourage the desired outcomes.
This can be done without compromising our important role in food production, but Canberra must look beyond its Kyoto rules-bound CPRS model.
For more information on the NFF’s position, visit:
[ENDS]
NFF Feature Articles – We can help, but beyond Kyoto- 1 -