CPRS not the answer for agriculture
Opinion Editorial for The Australian Financial Review
Published: 17 August 2009
by
David Crombie
President
National Farmers’ Federation
ONE minute burping cows will be the end of civilisation. The next, soil carbon will save us all. Confused about agriculture’s place in the emissions trading debate?
Spare a thought for Australia’s 150,000 farmers balancing a low-emission future with the need to remainefficient food suppliers to growing Australian and world markets.
Australian farmers are already major contributors to reducing greenhouse emissions and, given appropriate policies, can do more.
Our farmers have led the way with primary industries slashing emissions by 40% since 1990 by capturing and storing carbon through activities such as new farming practices and tree plantings.
This contribution is universally accepted as the major reason Australia has met its Kyoto targets. So farmers already have a heavy investment in pollution reduction.
The Rudd Government concedes covering direct agricultural emissions under its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) does not work at present. It’s hard to measure a biological system that emits carbon but, at the same time, absorbs it in soils, pastures, crops and trees.
Fitting agriculture into a neat CPRS box is futile. Yet, we know farming can continue to contribute to emissions reduction.
The answer is not a ‘big stick’, but complementary policies that would see 150,000 farms actively pursue net emission reductions, without compromising food supply.
Proactive programs including new genetics, environmental quality assurance, stewardship and certification schemes, improved infrastructure and renewable energy should be explored.
The United States, Europe, Canada and Japan have announced that agriculture will be excluded from their emissions caps in favour of encouraging mitigation from their farm sectors.
The Rudd Government must come to grips with the reality that global emissions policies and their relationship with food production have shifted. Our Government must adjust accordingly.
Food security has emerged as a global priority. That’s not surprising with a world population set to grow 50 percent by 2050 – that’s nine billion mouths to feed. Food production must be sensibly balanced with net emission reductions, not traded-off against one another.
Australia exports65 percent of farm produce. Our food producers are exposed to global competition, which has critical implications for Australian jobs, economic activity, export markets, food supplies and net global emissions.
Imagine the irony of losing our export markets to countries with heavier carbon footprints than ours – the world would be worse off.
The Government acknowledges farming does not fit its CPRS. That’s why it has delayed a decision on coverage until 2013. But international moves excluding agriculture permanently make domestic coverage even more untenable.
The Government must eliminate the uncertainty it has created over Australian agriculture’s future, permanently exclude agriculture’s direct emissions now and give farmers the same certainty with which our competitors are making future plans.
With Australian farmers stranded in no man’s land and one-in-six of all Australian jobs hinging on agriculture, the Government must explore options outside the CPRS that recognise carbon sequestration and storage so agriculture can play a positive role in reducing emissions.
We must not try to shoehorn food production into a Kyoto-constrained CPRS. Rather, we must develop new pathways to reduce net emissions.
To do so, the Government must be flexible and, for agriculture, look beyond its CPRS.
For more information on the NFF’s position, visit:
[ENDS]
NFF Feature Articles –CPRS not the answer for agriculture- 1 -