Download Towards Climate-Friendly Farming

Towards Climate-Friendly
Farming
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Discussion Paper
The Climate Institute
October 2009
DISCUSSION PAPER >
> Oct 2009
ISBN: 978-1-921611-01-8
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
For more information, please contact Corey Watts, Regional Projects Manager
The Climate Institute
179 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000
[email protected] (03) 9600 4039
The Climate Institute is seeking comment before 6 November, 2009.
PAGE 2/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
Executive Summary ____________________________________________4
Key Proposals_________________________________________________5
1. Introduction_________________________________________________6
2. Agriculture and climate: exploring the links_________________________6
2.1. Agriculture’s role in a rapidly changing climate______________________6
2.2. Farming, food security and abrupt climate change___________________11
3. Towards a national strategy and action plan for agriculture____________14
3.1. A Decade of Climate-Friendly Farming___________________________15
3.2. Developing policy strategies for abatement________________________16
4.1. Sequestering carbon in the landscape___________________________17
Box 2. Soils, pastures and biochar____________________________________20
4.2. Reducing Livestock and Fertiliser Emissions: The CPRS and alternatives__21
4.2.1.
Hybrid coverage of agriculture under the CPRS______________22
4.2.2.
Levy agricultural emissions and invest in change_____________23
4.2.3.
Regulation and co-regulation___________________________24
Box 3. Competitiveness and leakage issues_____________________________25
4.3. Complementary and interim measures___________________________25
4.3.1.
Leveraging private investment in climate-friendly industries_____26
4.3.2.
Direct investment in abatement on-farm___________________26
4.3.3.
Exploring demand management issues____________________26
Endnotes______________________________________________________30
> Oct 2009
5. Conclusions________________________________________________28
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
4. Key policy strategies__________________________________________17
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Box 1. Abatement measures in agriculture______________________________17
DISCUSSION PAPER >
Contents
PAGE 3/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
Australia’s production landscapes are both a sink and a source of emissions. The carbon sequestration potential of farmland is strong, but accepting the rewards that the
carbon market offers agriculture means accepting responsibility for agriculture’s carbon
footprint.
The recent experience of the US car industry shows how risky and irresponsible it is to
seek delays or exemptions to climate policies that reward innovation and drive the investment needed to prosper in a rapidly changing world. This is as true for agriculture
as it is for any other sector.
Agriculture is the country’s second largest source of emissions after electricity generation. Proportionally, Australian agriculture emits more than the farm sectors of almost
any other developed country. Ignoring farm sector emissions while demanding reductions from others is shortsighted, unsustainable and irresponsible policy. Nor is a ‘do
nothing’ or weak approach likely to be met with approval from the community, other
businesses, or the rest of the world. It is almost certain that governments - of all persuasions - will move to address agriculture’s emissions, sooner or later, one way or another.
To help move the policy discussion forward, The Climate Institute has prepared this
Discussion Paper complete with a number of proposals for which we are seeking a bipartisan commitment. Chief amongst these are:
From 2011, a new Decade of Climate-Friendly Farming programme and strategy,
complete with resource support for farmers and time-bound targets for action.
2.
An amendment to the CPRS legislation to extend current carbon forestry provisions and allow landholders to be rewarded for any credible, measurable and internationally compliant sequestration activity; while ensuring land clearing is properly regulated and priced, and carbon forestry benefits landscapes.
3.
No later than 2013, the introduction of a package of measures – either emissions
trading, alternative measures such as levies and regulations, or some mix of
these - to send strong and clear price signals to agriculture to invest and innovate, and contribute its fair share to national emissions targets.
> Oct 2009
1.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
In the right policy environment, farmers and other landholders who are part of the global
solution to global warming will emerge as winners in a low-carbon economy. There will
be new income and regional development opportunities from clean energy and carbon
farming, diversification, innovation, efficiency savings, and better risk management in
an increasingly hostile climate. Excluding farmers from the low-carbon economy risks
shutting the door on these possibilities.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Early climate action – both mitigation and adaptation - represents prudent risk management. Australian farmers have a proud tradition of innovation and adapting to a harsh
and variable climate. Unmitigated climate change, however, threatens to undo these
efforts and successes in the decades ahead. Adapting agriculture to a rapidly changing
climate is essential but will fail if we fail to rein in emissions. Nothing short of our longterm food security is at risk.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PAGE 4/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
We seek and encourage discussion and comment on the issues and proposals put forward in this paper.
DETAILED PROPOSALS
A Decade of Climate-Friendly Farming
Proposal 1.
Beginning in 2011, the Australian Government and Opposition should
commit to a Decade of Climate-Friendly Farming complete with resource support,
policy measures and time-bound targets to:
c. Support regional and rural Australians’ preparation for the impacts of climate
change, and increase social, economic and environmental resilience.
Sequestering carbon in the landscape
Proposal 2.
The Australian Government and Opposition should agree to develop
the potential of Australia’s production landscapes to deliver rapid, deep and sustainable cuts in carbon pollution by:
a. Agreeing to extend the current opt-in provisions for forestry under the Carbon
Pollution Reduction Scheme to include any kind of activity where sequestration
is measurable, internationally compliant, permanent, additional to business-asusual, independently verifiable, and transparent.
b. Placing a carbon price on land clearing - either as a liability under the CPRS or
as a levy - and seeking a new commitment from the States and Territories to
strengthen their land-clearing regulations.
d. Encouraging all levels of government to ensure their land-use planning is properly equipped to cope with a rapid expansion in carbon forestry and carbon
farming.
> Oct 2009
c. Agreeing to amend the proposed CPRS legislation to prevent perverse outcomes from carbon forestry, and instead promote important environmental and
social co-benefits.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
b. Drive credible, long term carbon sequestration in the landscape while delivering
important co-benefits, such as improved ecosystem resilience and sustainable
regional development;
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
a. Drive the innovation, investment and other adjustments needed to ensure the
sector has long term sustainability, manages risks and contributes its fair share
to national and global climate efforts;
OPTIONS
POLICY REPORT
PAPER >>
DISCUSSION PAPER >
While there is still room for discussion as to the most cost-effective measures, there is
no question that government must act to reduce farm emissions. Crafting a climate policy for agriculture is challenging but, to reduce uncertainty and enable timely action, a
decision should be made sooner rather than later. While there is a case for providing
direct financial assistance to farmers, especially to those who have already made significant emissions reductions, it should be made clear that this will not be open-ended.
Broad political support is essential if we are to see a new, sustained national effort that
adapts agriculture to a warming world and makes the step-change to climate-friendly
farming.
PAGE 5/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
Agreeing to provide assistance to regional/catchment management organizations
so that they may establish themselves as co-ordinators and aggregators of carbon sequestration activities in the landscape.
Strategies for reducing farm emissions: The CPRS and alternatives
Proposal 3.
The Australian Government and Opposition should agree to introduce,
by 2013 at the latest, a policy package that sends strong and clear signals to the
farm sector to contribute its fair share to national emissions targets. The package
should consist of:
a. Coverage of emissions upstream/downstream from the farm under the CPRS,
while allowing farms with lower abatement costs to choose liability directly; or
b. An emissions intensity levy on nitrogen fertilisers bought and livestock/milk sold
– with all revenue raised reinvested in R&D and, for a limited time, incentives for
best practice; or
c. Co-regulatory agreements with industry groups, backed up by a clear commitment to regulate fertiliser products and selected farm activities directly if industry
performance does not meet agreed goals in a reasonable timeframe; or
Proposal 4.
Using a fraction of the revenue raised through the auctions of emissions permits in the CPRS, the Australian Government should:
a. Introduce a package of incentives to leverage large-scale private investment in
climate-friendly farming and new land-uses; and
b. Establish a pool of funds to which farmers may - for a limited time and on a competitive basis - apply to help them establish proven abatement and adaptation
measures.
Proposal 5.
The Australian Government should establish a programme and forum
for dialogue between industry, the non-government sector, researchers and policy
specialists to:
a. Fill in the knowledge gaps with respect to livestock production, consumption, and
climate change;
b. Explore the role that demand management strategies might play in reducing
sectoral emissions and promoting high-value, climate-friendly production;
> Oct 2009
c. Develop a vision and strategy for a prosperous livestock sector in a low-carbon
world.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
Complementary and interim measures
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
d. The most cost-effective mix of these.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
e.
PAGE 6/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
Farmers have proud history of innovation and efficiency in Australia’s highly variable
climate. They have been so successful that, despite the odds, Australian agriculture
now supplies scores of millions with good quality, affordable food and fibre. Many producers have made considerable progress in responding to changing consumer expectations and environmental deterioration.
At the same time, no one could have known that agriculture’s success would come at a
cost. While scientists have studied climate change for over a hundred years, it is only in
the last two decades that they have confirmed that human activity is warming the globe
at a rate unprecedented in recorded history1. Burning fossil fuels, clearing land and raising livestock have undoubtedly contributed to our prosperity, but all are now recognised
as among the major causes of climate change. Unmitigated, climate change threatens
to undo agriculture’s successes and undermine Australia’s food security.
The overriding challenge for governments, industries and the whole community is to decouple economic prosperity and food production from the growth in carbon pollution.
Crucially, we do not have the luxury of time. As a society, the costs of early action on
climate change on Australia’s standard of living and economic activity are likely to be
modest and manageable but the longer we delay action the higher the cost2. For agriculture, delay means insulating farmers from the inevitable transition to a low-carbon
economy, and hindering opportunities for new income, better risk management and new
efficiencies.
This paper outlines the interplay between agriculture and climate change. It sets out
some of the key challenges for abatement policy in the rural sector, and discusses a
package of options for moving forward. The Climate Institute welcomes discussion on
the proposals sketched here. In so doing, we hope to move the debate forward towards
strategies that are effective and receive broad support.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
All sectors of society, urban and rural, need to do their fair share to avoid dangerous
climate change. No one sector should shoulder the whole burden nor hitch a free ride
on the efforts of others. With much of the continent managed for primary production and
almost one-quarter of the nation’s emissions stemming from production landscapes,
farmers obviously have a crucial part to play.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
However, production landscapes both absorb and release greenhouse gases— they
serve as sinks as well as sources of carbon pollution. This presents farmers, Indigenous communities and other land managers with some unique opportunities. It challenges policy makers to craft strategies that, where possible, reward landholders for
their efforts, encouraging smart innovation and regional investment. It also means that
making real, lasting and significant emissions abatement in the land sector is essential,
and that current policy signals and market drivers will need to change.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
1. INTRODUCTION
> Oct 2009
PAGE 7/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
2.1 Agriculture’s Role in a Rapidly Changing Climate
According to the Department of Climate Change, Australian agriculture directly accounts for 88 Mt CO2-e (‘carbon dioxide equivalents’), or around 15 percent of the national carbon pollution load3. When land clearing and savannah burning are added, this
figure rises to greater than 25 percent. Agriculture is Australia’s second largest nett
source of carbon pollution, after only the stationary energy sector (Fig. 1). By comparison, the agriculture sectors of the United States, Europe and Canada contribute around
7, 9 and 10 percent to their national loads respectively4.
Ruminant animals like cattle and sheep emit methane as a by-product of fermentation
in the gut and as manure. Australia’s livestock emissions dropped by 7.5 percent between 1990 and 2007 as sheep numbers halved due to market forces and prolonged
drought, though beef cattle numbers rose by around 14 percent during the same period.
Even so, livestock generates nearly 70 percent of Australia’s methane emissions and
20 percent of our nitrous oxide from animal urine and fertiliser use.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
It has been knows for decades that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas5. Up to onethird of the warming during the twentieth century may be attributable to methane6. Since
the eighteenth century, methane concentrations have risen 2.5 fold7 even as natural
sources such as wetlands and wildlife declined8. According to ice core analyses, concentrations are the highest they have been for around 650,000 years9. For reasons
poorly understood, methane levels stabilised for several years during the late 1990’s
and early 2000’s, possibly as a result of a decline in the rate of tropical deforestation10.
In recent years, however, methane concentrations have resumed their rapid rise11.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
2. AGRICULTURE AND CLIMATE CHANGE: EXPLORING THE LINKS
> Oct 2009
PAGE 8/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
> Oct 2009
Other significant agricultural sources of emissions include soils, which in 2007 released an estimated 15Mt CO2-e, up more than 11 percent since 1990. The burning
of Australia’s tropical savannah country is also thought to have released nearly 12Mt
CO2-e, up more than 75 percent and linked to deliberate changes in the burning regime. Preliminary estimates show savannah emissions continuing to escalate. A more
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
While it is true that atmospheric methane is short-lived, it is continually being ‘topped
up’ and, even more significantly, is some seventy-two times more potent than carbon
dioxide when measured in a twenty-year timeframe. Suggestions that methane from
livestock is not a significant greenhouse gas15, while comforting to vested interests,
are not based in science16.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Of the global anthropogenic sources of methane, ruminant livestock is one of the biggest. ‘Fugitive’ emissions from coal mining, vegetation burning and other industries, as
well as landfill sites, are also significant sources13. It is worth noting that, globally,
numbers of ruminant livestock continue to climb as world population and incomes and hence demand – rise14.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
Figure 1: Australia’s estimated greenhouse gas emissions by sector in 2007. Note the continuing
significance of agricultural and land-based emissions 12
PAGE 9/34
www.climateinstitute.org.au
In the Commonwealth’s 2007 estimates, land clearing – predominantly for beef cattle
grazing, and, to a lesser extent, for cropping, logging and urban sprawl— accounted for
around 77Mt CO2-e, down 42 percent since 1990. This drop demonstrates the importance of State controls on the clearing of native vegetation.
In comparison, around 22Mt CO2-e were removed from the atmosphere as a result of
afforestation; overwhelmingly monocultural plantations established on once-forested
land and destined for the timber or pulp mill. The potential to simultaneously reverse the
loss of biodiversity and raise the resilience of Australian landscapes to an increasingly
hostile climate through biodiverse carbon forestry remains largely untapped (see below).
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
Landholders’ voluntary efforts (which governments often rely upon in the agrienvironmental policy arena) are far from worthless, but alone they are highly unlikely to
be a match for the scale and urgency of the task. Based on the experience of the Chicago Carbon Exchange, a voluntary market for farmland sequestration is likely to produce a very low carbon price; producing neither a strong enough stimulus for change at
scale nor decent rewards for producers. (Prices for CCX financial instrument contracts
dropped from an already relatively low US $2 to around 25 cents in September of this
year)19. In the absence of the right policy signals and market drivers, enterprise-level
innovation and structural change will likely prove slow and piecemeal.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Clearly, reducing deforestation and changing burning regimes are likely to yield rapid
and deep cuts in emissions at relatively low cost to the public purse. Others, such as
constraining emissions from ruminant animals, will require more time, as well as the research, development, extension and adoption of new processes, infrastructure, production mixes, industries and consumption habits. Given that atmospheric methane only
lasts a decade or so, however, a lot of pressure could be taken off the global climate in
a short space of time if agriculture and other sources of methane could be addressed18.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
appropriate use of fire in these landscapes, including changes in the timing of burns,
would lead to improved conservation, community and climate outcomes17.
> Oct 2009
PAGE 10/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
Even with the best will and effort, the sheer momentum of the global warming already
‘in the pipeline’ means the world is almost certain to see further climatic changes20,
some of which may be irreversible21.
A rapidly changing climate will affect different industries, enterprises and regions in
varying ways. Some producers may see nett benefits, at least for a time, while others
struggle. On balance, however, projections for the coming decades suggest unmitigated
climate change leaves little room for celebration22. Indeed, one of the most comprehensive studies to date of agriculture’s prospects in a changing climate suggests that, with
more than approximately two degrees average global warming above pre-industrial levels, productivity will decline sharply if not catastrophically (Fig. 2). The world has already warmed 0.7 degrees, and the IPCC predicts that another 0.7 degree rise is all but
locked in.23In light of this it would seem imprudent to bank on a ‘boom’ in agriculture as
a result of climate change24.
Figure 2: Projected agricultural output on a warming planet, clearly showing a long-term negative
impact25.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
> Oct 2009
For Australia, the Garnaut Climate Change Review highlights agriculture as one of the
economic spheres likely to be hardest hit if global warming continues unabated29. The
review points to scenarios suggesting that, in a world of unmitigated climate change,
irrigated production in the Murray-Darling Basin could all but cease to exist by century’s
end. Indeed, the nett result of no action is that production of high quality food and fibre
in many parts of the country is, in a few decades, likely to contract.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Various studies suggest that agriculture would strongly benefit from both concerted efforts to rein in emissions26 as well as investment in adaptation27 with important global
staples - such as maize, wheat and barley - already feeling the first impacts28.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
2.2 Farming, Food Security & Abrupt Climate Change
PAGE 11/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
A more hostile climate, weather events such as flood and fire increasing in occurrence
and severity, creates an environment in which pests, weeds and diseases may have a
competitive advantage. Indeed, there is an emerging concern that so-called ‘sleeper
weeds’ – those that today are limited in their range to small areas and present few
problems for producers – may emerge as major threats as conditions change in ways
suited to their needs33.
Depending upon the extent and speed of change, and their own adaptive capacity,
farmers and their communities may need to:
change products, styles and/or varieties/breeds;
•
change land, livestock and crop management practices;
•
change land-uses (e.g. irrigation to dryland cropping, cropping to agroforestry, etc.);
•
shift regions39;
•
give up farming altogether.
> Oct 2009
•
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
It is important to understand that the effects of climate change will not be felt by farming
communities in isolation from an assortment of other economic, social and environmental factors. For instance, the future of Australian agriculture in a warming world is
tied to the capacity to adapt of our export markets, as well as our competitors’38. The
complex interaction of factors such as this adaptation ability, declining water availability, oil price volatility and an aging farmer population are likely to render forward planning still more complex.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
The influence of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is expected to yield mixed
results for crops and pastures34. Some crop and pasture yields may rise because of the
‘fertilisation effect’ of CO2 (though weed pressures may similarly increase). Moreover,
the nutritional quality of some cereal and other crops is likely to suffer with high CO2
levels35. Beyond these generalised conclusions, however, scientific understanding of
how the rising CO2 levels might interact with other projected changes (such as weather
extremes, weeds, etc.) is still in its infancy36. At some point, however, we can expect
that the fertilisation effect will be overwhelmed by the full effects of a changing climate37.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
Collaborative efforts by the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology have established a
strong link between drying conditions and rising emissions30. On current projections,
climatic conditions in agricultural regions that would today meet the criteria for an
‘Exceptional Circumstances’ declaration are set to increase in frequency, plunging
much of southern Australia into drought once in every two years, on average31. Linked
to this rapid drying and warming trend is an increase in the intensity and frequency of
fire32.
PAGE 12/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
“[R]esponse strategies need to focus on developing more resilient agricultural
systems (including socioeconomic and cultural/institutional structures), to cope
with a broad range of possible changes. Enhanced resilience is likely to come
with various types of costs or overheads that are often overlooked but that need
evaluation. Additionally, given the uncertainties, there is a need for directed
change in management, science, and policy that in turn is monitored, analyzed,
and learned from, to iteratively and effectively adjust to actual climate changes
that will be experienced in coming decades. Consequently, adapting agriculture
to climate change will be much more systemic than simply a farm-level activity.”40 [emphasis added]
The longer we wait to turn global emissions around, the closer we get to a dangerous
level of climate change and the higher the risk that agriculture faces wholesale structural changes. Adaptation is essential but has real limits in a still warming world.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
Left unabated, however, rising emissions will make maintaining even today’s levels of
productivity extremely difficult, let alone the increases necessary to supply rising global
demand. Global and domestic food security – i.e., or the capacity of communities to
produce and purchase adequate, safe and healthy food— are threatened unless trends
in emissions, and hence global warming are reversed42. Without action, Australia could
become a nett importer of wheat as soon as 2050, and by 2070 there is a significant
(26 percent) chance of our wheat surplus dwindling to zero without adaptation43. (With
adaptive measures the risk is more than halved.)
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Fortunately, many adaptive and abatement strategies dovetail41. Improving land management, for example, is likely to improve carbon storage and improve farm resilience
in a increasingly variable climate. The opportunity to diversify income that carbon markets present may help to buffer climate-related impacts. This also suggests that policies
aimed at mitigating farmland emissions are likely to win more approval if they can show
an adaptation benefit also.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
Investment in adaptation should address all of these possibilities and not be limited to
changes at the level of the product or even the enterprise. Mark Howden and colleagues summarise the agricultural adaptation process thus:
> Oct 2009
PAGE 13/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
Proposal 1. Beginning 2011, the Australian Government and Opposition should commit
to a Decade of Climate-Friendly Farming complete with resource support, policy
measures and time-bound targets to:
a. Drive the innovation, investment and other adjustments needed to ensure the
sector has long term sustainability, manages risks and contributes its fair share
to national and global climate efforts;
b. Drive credible, long term carbon sequestration in the landscape while delivering
important co-benefits, such as improved ecosystem resilience and sustainable
regional development;
c. Support regional and rural Australians’ preparation for the impacts of climate
change, and increase social, economic and environmental resilience.
Sooner rather than later, Australia will need to enact a concerted climate strategy for
agriculture; to provide certainty, to avoid the costs of delay, to live up to our global responsibilities, to enable adaptation to now-inevitable changes, and, of course, to reduce our emissions.
A simplistic approach to policy-making runs the risk of undermining national abatement
efforts, either by triggering carbon leakage from one region, industry or enterprise to
another, or by undermining mitigation in other sectors through, say, the over-provision
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
> Oct 2009
First and foremost, any strategy, plan and policy package adopted to reduce emissions
from agriculture and other land-uses should do just that. That is, nett emissions must
be reduced at source, and across the sector as a whole, not just per unit of production,
as important as this measurement also is. Carbon sinks in soil and vegetation can and
should play a powerful role, though they must have integrity (see below). Policy mechanisms should aim to minimise the overall burden on farmers and the economy as a
whole, while driving the transition to a low-carbon economy and building the capacity to
adapt to a changing climate. And, as far as possible, synergies with adaptation strategies should be sought. Policies for mitigation in agriculture should not be developed in
isolation but rather as part of an integrated approach to sustainable landscape management, rural development and agriculture.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
Traditionally, however, agriculture’s role in climate change received comparatively little
attention from policy makers. While the Natural Resources Management Ministerial
Council adopted a National Agriculture & Climate Change Action Plan in 200645, it
lapses this year with no sign of a successor. In any case, the Plan puts forward no
strong drivers of change and no targets for abatement. Given both the risks and opportunities, a plan of type is arguably too weak to signal the kind of investment and innovation required to reduce agricultural emissions in line with national targets.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
To its credit, the Australian Government has begun a process of working with the food
and farm sector to inform agricultural climate policy44. A decision on how to address
agricultural emissions in the context of a national emissions trading scheme has been
delayed pending consultation. This partly reflects the fact that crafting climate policy for
agriculture is, perhaps, uniquely difficult. Certainly, policies and strategies that suit
electricity or manufacturing may not deliver the best outcomes in the farm and land
sectors. State governments have also made early funding commitments to help agriculture adapt to a warming world and to calls for mitigation.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
3. Towards a National Strategy & Action Plan for Agriculture
PAGE 14/34
www.climateinstitute.org.au
3.1 A Decade of Climate-Friendly Farming
With these points in mind, The Climate Institute proposes a Decade of Climate-Friendly
Farming, including a national strategy and action plan complete with time-bound targets for investment, abatement and adjustment. The long-term vision of the strategy is
a matter for deliberation, but we would expect it would include the following elements:
Substantially improved farming and landscape resilience, risk management and the
capacity to adapt to a rapidly changing climate
•
The widespread adoption of new farming practices, and the development of new
industries and new income streams, fuelled by the mobilisation of new capital;
•
Amongst farmers and allied industries, an improved climate and carbon literacy;
•
Substantially better and cheaper monitoring, reporting and verification of agricultural
emissions and sequestration;
•
The emergence, in every industry and community, of leaders and networks that are
transforming the sector;
•
Benefits and synergies between climate change adaptation, mitigation and other
social goals, such as improved public health and regional development;
•
The establishment of fair and effective processes to minimise and manage tradeoffs;
•
Industry and regional strategies and targets— based on a mix of co-regulation,
regulation, levies, direct investment, research & development and extension—
nested within the national strategy would be— all tailored and adapted to meet the
variable motives of and constraints faced by farmers in different parts of the country;
•
Large-scale private capital mobilised for innovative low-emissions farming systems
and other commercial land-uses; and
•
A sophisticated understanding of consumption issues, and accordingly, a set of demand-management measures deployed to best effect.
Such a strategy would supersede the current Plan and, allowing good time for strong
stakeholder engagement, should commence no later than mid-2011. The remainder of
this paper explores abatement strategies, both alternative and complementary to the
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
> Oct 2009
•
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
A significant reduction in the emissions intensity of food and fibre production, together with an overall reduction in the sector’s emissions;
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
•
DISCUSSION PAPER >
of offsets. The interplay between food security, landscape health, resource constraints,
innovation, social change, demand and abatement potential will need careful attention.
Conversely, there exists the opportunity to inject new capital into rural and regional
communities, to diversify farm incomes, to deliver improved productivity, to develop
new industries, and to reduce the risks associated with climate change.
PAGE 15/34
www.climateinstitute.org.au
At the outset, there are six overriding questions that should be asked of any policy proposed to reduce emissions from the agricultural sector. These are same as for other
parts of the economy:
•
Does it help or hinder the rapid transition to a clean economy? Economies that
delay action on climate change will increasingly be a relative disadvantage to
those that act early. The longer that economies delay action, the greater the cost
of action. The key to a lasting, low-cost reduction is innovation, and the widespread adoption of new practices and the development of new industries.
•
Is it the least-cost approach? As far as applicable, policy solutions should promote least-cost solutions. This implies a predisposition towards market-based
mechanisms, and towards the concept that early investment in innovation and
driving learning by doing will drive long-term cost reductions.
•
Is it fair? Approaches that are perceived to be fair across the wider community
are likely to be more sustainable as risks of political backlash are minimised. This
implies that agriculture needs to play an active role in reducing national emissions
and not be seen – rightly or wrongly – as free riding on the efforts of other sectors.
•
Does it allow flexibility for prudent risk management? Emphasising rapid early reductions helps to manage the economic risks to Australia from uncertainty about
climate impacts and the pace of global action in response to it. It is much more
difficult and costly to accelerate emissions reductions than to decelerate them in
response to improved climate science or changing international circumstances.
•
Is it scientifically credible? To provide the community and investors with confidence of emissions reductions in the agriculture sector, strong, enforceable and
internationally consistent accounting frameworks need to be in place to ensure
additionality, permanence, measurability, transparency and verifiability.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
Does it help or hinder the development of an effective global response to climate
change? Ultimately, only global action can bring global emissions to the level required to avoid dangerous climate change, and Australia’s policy response needs
to be geared towards leveraging global solutions. Policies should be consistent
with international legal frameworks to ensure a fair and effective global response.
Implementation of policies that are inconsistent with international rules will at best
undermine global action and at worst, distort global markets, increase the economic cost of meeting emission targets and lead to punitive trade measures
against Australia.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
•
DISCUSSION PAPER >
3.2 Developing Policy Strategies for Abatement
> Oct 2009
PAGE 16/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
A wide range of abatement measures, with varying efficacy, is, technically at least, available immediately, with several others under development.
Best practice fertiliser, manure, vegetation, soil and livestock management will all help to reduce emissions from the sector, and may also yield efficiency savings for the farmer. Carbon forestry, herd and
flock management, and switching to renewable energy are likely to yield some of the biggest abatement
benefits, as will avoiding native vegetation clearance and modifying fire management.
Developing new fertiliser (e.g. nitrification inhibitors) and animal husbandry techniques and technologies (e.g. rumen manipulation, vaccinations) may also deliver emissions reductions in the longer-term,
but the marginal costs of implementing these might remain high for some time to come.
Marginal costs are also likely to vary significantly between enterprises and industries. Some, such as
the feedlot sector, are likely to face comparatively lower costs when it comes to changing feed, administering methane-reducing vaccinations (should these become readily available) or establishing anaerobic digesters to manage manure. On the other hand, pasture-fed livestock operations may, with the right
signals and support, have a comparative advantage in terms of sequestration in the landscape.
Any abatement policy will have distributional impacts; both winners and losers will emerge in the new
market conditions. Success in the transition to a low-carbon economy will depend, in part, on the extent
to which a range of enterprise-level attributes is cultivated46, including:
·
A good understanding of climate and carbon issues;
·
A preparedness to pursue new opportunities;·
·
A readiness to talk with others in the value chain; and
·
A willingness and ability to identify and invest in suitable infrastructure and management systems.
4. Key Policy Strategies
4.1 Providing a market incentive for sequestration
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
> Oct 2009
Proposal 2. The Australian Government and Opposition should agree to develop the
potential of Australia’s production landscapes to deliver rapid, deep and sustainable
cuts in carbon pollution by:
a. Agreeing to extend the current opt-in provisions for forestry under the Carbon
Pollution Reduction Scheme to include any kind of activity where sequestration
is measurable, internationally compliant, permanent, additional to business-asusual, independently verifiable, transparent, and appropriately risk-managed.
b. Placing a carbon price on land clearing - either as a liability under the CPRS or
as a levy - and seeking a new commitment from the States and Territories to
strengthen their land-clearing regulations.
c. Agreeing to amend the proposed CPRS legislation to prevent perverse outcomes from carbon forestry, and instead promote important environmental and
social co-benefits, such as improved ecosystem resilience and climate-friendly
regional development.
d. Encouraging all levels of government to ensure their land-use planning is properly equipped to cope with a rapid expansion in carbon forestry and carbon
farming.
e. Agreeing to provide assistance to regional/catchment management organisations so that they may establish themselves as co-ordinators and aggregators
of carbon sequestration activities in the landscape.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
The general quality of business management, including risk management;
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
·
DISCUSSION PAPER >
Box 1. Abatement Measures in Agriculture
PAGE 17/34
www.climateinstitute.org.au
Table 1. CSIRO estimates of the potential for biosequestration in the landscape, together with
the potential for bioenergy to displace fossil fuel emissions. Note the conservatism of the estimates compared to earlier estimates made in the Garnaut Report. Even so, the overall potential
continues to be very high for several decades before it is saturated48.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
The technical potential for biosequestration in Australia is staggering: A recent study by
the CSIRO for the Queensland Government estimates that a combination of rangeland
regeneration, savannah fire management, soil carbon, new forestry and avoided clearing has the potential, nationally, to soak up over 1,000 Mt CO2-e/yr between 2010 and
205047 (Table 1). Indeed, the authors suggest that as much as 77 percent of Queensland’s current annual emissions could be offset and mitigated by substituting fossil
fuels with bioenergy. Again, this represents the technical potential and, as CSIRO is
quick to point out, is limited by a range of factors including international and national
frameworks. Nevertheless, even allowing for some uncertainty, the potential is barely
tapped.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
> Oct 2009
PAGE 18/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
Measurable: scientifically robust methods of measuring sequestration are used;
Internationally Compliant: only sources and sinks that meet with Australia’s international treaty obligations should be permitted. (This should not be taken to mean that
Australia should not actively pursue changes to the rules, but that a rules-based
international effort is of paramount importance.)
Additional: any abatement generated should go beyond what would have been
done as part of business-as-usual and the regulatory baseline;
Permanent: abatement should be guaranteed over the long-term and with appropriate risk-management;
Transparent: project information should be open to public scrutiny; and
Verifiable: independent third parties should validate the project and the abatement
achieved.
Biodiverse native vegetation is self-regenerating and inherently more resilient to pests,
diseases and extreme weather, having evolved to cope with Australia’s highly variable
climate. Hence, not only do biodiversity plantings have the potential to deliver important environmental co-benefits, but they are likely to provide greater surety of permanence than monocultures in many cases. The ‘co-benefits’ of biodiversity plantings
could increasingly come to be seen as core benefits; in a world already undergoing
rapid climate change, adaptation and shoring up landscape resilience will be crucial.
Whether monocultures or biodiverse carbon forestry is most appropriate should be determined on case-by-case basis within the standards outlined above.
An essential precondition of fungible carbon sink credits is that these risks are either
reflected in a discounted price, by establishing a ‘reserve pool’ of carbon, or establishing some kind of insurance commensurate with the risks.
> Oct 2009
Another risk, given that Australia’s sequestration potential is so high, is that the CPRS
may be flooded with offsets, driving the carbon price down, and removing much of the
incentive to modernise industry and cut emissions at source. On the other hand, Australia is a price-taker in the global carbon economy and our carbon price will be set
largely beyond our shores. Additionally, the supply of sink projects will probably be
curbed somewhat by the transaction costs involved in assuring credibility. Should the
risk still prove too high, however, a ‘cap’ on the offsets supply-able could be explored
through the Minister’s administrative review provisions under the CPRS legislation.
Emissions trading legislation currently before the United State Congress – the so-called
Waxman-Markey Bill - places a tonnage limit on the availability of offsets49.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
As valuable as it is, carbon sequestration in vegetation is inherently risky with fire,
drought, disease and pests potentially compromising long-term storage. Indeed, these
risks are set to intensify in a warming world. The risk of a sudden and large-scale reversal of sequestration should be properly accounted for at the outset of any carbon
sink project.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
These principles can best be guaranteed through a national, enforceable set of standards, with project verification and management properly resourced.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
To provide confidence to the community and investors in sink projects, sinks will need
to be credible, that is:
PAGE 19/34
Committing to an emissions reduction target of at least 25 percent below 1990 levels
by 2020 will also help to ensure a strong price signal to industry.
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
There is a great deal of enthusiasm amongst landholders for soil carbon as a new commodity.
Indeed, it sometimes seems touted as something of a panacea. Avoiding dangerous climate
change means we will need every tool at land managers’ disposal, but the best available science on the subject of soils, pasture and biochar suggests clear thinking is needed before the
real potential can be tapped.
Globally, the theoretical potential of soils to sequester carbon is significant50. Moreover, the
productivity benefits of soil carbon can make a powerful case for encouraging practices that
improve soil health, though this is not always straightforward. In practical terms, however, the
soil’s capacity to permanently store carbon is limited by a host of factors, most especially rainfall. Given Australia’s erratic conditions together with declining rainfall in southern regions,
substantial long-term soil carbon management is generally less reliable here than in North
America or Europe51. Accurately measuring soil carbon can be very expensive and very tricky,
and there are significant risks of inadvertent release. Table 1 shows the potential for improved
pasture management to store carbon in the landscape exceeds even that of soils.
Another interim option is the establishment of a voluntary market for non-compliant activities,
such as soil carbon. There is nothing wrong with this in principle, but landholders need to understand that the prices such a market is likely to generate will be low. On the other hand, it
may help to build the rigour needed for the formal market.
Given these issues and uncertainties but also the potentially large and manifold benefits of
soils, pasture and biochar, R&D and a ‘learning-by-doing’ approach should be emphasised.
Various landholders and State governments are already trialling soil sequestration and investigating the potential of biochar on a broad scale. These R&D efforts should be backed and
boosted where necessary, and the results used to forge future policies and inform international negotiations.
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
> Oct 2009
The opportunity to quickly make deep cuts in carbon pollution from avoided deforestation remains substantial. Indeed, the biggest abatement gains in the rural sector to-date
centre on the reduction of land clearing, particularly in Queensland. Effective legal
sanctions against broadscale and indiscriminate land clearing should be maintained, if
not strengthened, in order to properly protect the country’s natural stocks of carbon.
Where clearing is permitted the ‘polluter pays’ principle should apply. That is, the cost
of carbon pollution should be borne by the landholder or land developer, with the full
cost folded into the price of a clearing permit.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
As the international rules stand, however, including soil carbon in our emissions trading
framework would see the taxpayer wearing the cost for sequestration efforts that are not recognised internationally. As frustrating as it is, however, the success of the global effort to
avert dangerous climate change relies on a rules-based system. Australia can and should
lead negotiations to establish new rules, underpinned by sound science, that allow landholders to be rewarded for measurable carbon sequestration in soils, pastures and biochar. In the
meantime, our guiding principle ought to be: If a sequestration project meets with the key
tests of credibility, especially measurability and internationally compliance, then it should be
permitted under the CPRS.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Biochar - the stable carbon by-product of pyrolysis of crop, wood and food waste - is often
seen as a climate change solution and an excellent farm productivity booster. Certainly,
where it is based on good life cycle analyses of emissions, and with a better understanding of
how different biochars work under different conditions, it is likely to become a powerful tool.
The evidence from small-scale studies to-date does not yet support an industrial scaling up of
biochar production, however, with key environmental and economic questions outstanding52.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
Box 2. Soil, Pasture and Biochar
PAGE 20/34
www.climateinstitute.org.au
Poorly planned, however, the kind of rapid expansion in carbon forestry indicated by
Table 1 risks exacerbating stresses on waterways and food producing areas. The Income Tax Act was recently amended to stipulate that, in order to be eligible for taxpayer subsidies, carbon forest projects must be aligned with regional natural resource
management goals. Given the consternation and damage caused by current Managed
Investment Schemes it seems unlikely that existing natural resource management programmes can be relied on to ensure a benign expansion of carbon forestry. Instead,
the proposed CPRS legislation should be amended to provide the necessary checks
and balances.
4.2 Reducing livestock and fertiliser emissions: The CPRS and Alternatives
Proposal 3. The Australian Government and Opposition should agree to introduce, by
2013 at the latest, a policy package that sends strong and clear signals to the farm
sector to contribute its fair share to national emissions targets. The package should
consist of:
a. Coverage of emissions upstream/downstream from the farm under the CPRS,
while allowing farms with lower abatement costs to choose liability directly; or
b. An emissions intensity levy on nitrogen fertilisers bought and livestock/milk sold
– with all revenue raised reinvested in R&D and, for a limited time, incentives
for best practice; or
c. Co-regulatory agreements with industry groups, backed up by a clear commitment to regulate fertiliser products and selected farm activities directly if industry performance does not meet agreed goals in a reasonable timeframe; or
d.
The most cost-effective mix of these.
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
> Oct 2009
Agriculture will have to account for its emissions, especially as it seeks rewards for carbon sequestration. Ignoring agricultural emissions while demanding reduction from
other sectors is not an economically sustainable option. Australia will be able to make
the necessary cuts in carbon pollution only if we manage methane and nitrous oxide
from farming, and carbon dioxide from landscape degradation. It is reasonable and far
more equitable to spread the cost of carbon across the economy, minimising the burden on each sector and maximising the effectiveness of policy. Other sectors and the
public at-large are unlikely to permit agriculture to be insulated from the price of emissions for long. Indeed, shielding agriculture is likely to make the inevitable transition to
a low-carbon economy much harder for farmers.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
Many regional or catchment management organisations seem best placed to aggregate and coordinate carbon sink projects on private land. The example set by the Terrain NRM regional group in Queensland Wet Tropics shows how landscape carbon sequestration can be achieved with economies-of-scale, reduced compliance costs, in
line with international best practice, and delivering multiple benefits and attracting the
support of many landholders and other stakeholders54.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Planning laws may also need to be reviewed to protect prime agricultural land and the
natural environment. Moreover, local governments, catchment management organisations and state planning authorities need to start preparing now for a rapid expansion of
carbon forestry, including biodiversity plantings, if we are to get the best and not the
worst from biosequestration.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
While the primary goal of climate change mitigation policies like the CPRS is to cut carbon pollution, governments should be working with landholders, Indigenous communities, catchment authorities and conservation groups to find ways of delivering cobenefits from carbon sinks, such as habitat restoration and landscape repair53.
PAGE 21/34
www.climateinstitute.org.au
Even so, most developed countries are actively looking at ways and means to reduce
agricultural emissions, including regulations, levies and other alternative mechanisms.
Australia cannot ignore the fact that such a large proportion of its emissions stem from
primary production. Apart from anything else, to do so holds the risk of undermining our
diplomatic efforts, including efforts to ensure farmers are rewarded for sequestration in
soils and pastures.
As with other industries, there is no silver bullet that will slash agricultural emissions.
Instead, we need to think in terms of a package of flexible, effective and mutually reinforcing measures, both ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’. It is likely that the best approach will be
one that combines, in a cost-effective way, elements of market-based, levy-based and
regulatory strategies.
Ideally, a new carbon economy would see the emergence of one seamless market with
one set of rules. Theoretically, the efficient and effective running of the market would
be made all the more likely by broad coverage of all relevant actors, including farmers.
Indeed, it is sometimes argued that the only way to successfully reduce agricultural
emissions and stimulate new technologies is to treat agriculture no differently than any
other polluter55.
A principal advantage of an emissions trading scheme is that it encourages firms to
reduce emissions at least cost. The market and not the government decides the price
of emissions permits, and the cap assures the trajectory of emissions.
There are, at this stage, significant technical and practical barriers to cost-effective
measurement and monitoring of farm emissions. Emissions trading for agriculture
would mean a high administrative burden, both on the public purse and the shoulders
of farmers themselves56. Moreover, emissions trading would probably require substantial investment in education and training for farmers coming to grips with a radically
new system, though it might be argued that this is required under any approach.
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
> Oct 2009
One approach that minimises the overall transaction costs while driving innovation,
might be to allow farms or groups of farms that meet a certain emissions threshold to
enter into emission trading voluntarily. This has the advantage of reducing the total burden on the farm sector and the economy as a whole. It would see those companies
with low marginal costs of abatement entering the market while providing an incentive
for investment in researching and developing new, low cost abatement measures. Just
how much abatement it would achieve, however, is unknown. However, this approach
alone might be implemented for a limited period, say five years, before full coverage of
the sector via the hybrid option described above. This time could serve to ready the
sector for fuller coverage, although it may be best and simplest to employ the hybrid
approach from day one.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
4.2.1 Hybrid Coverage of Agriculture under the CPRS
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
The following options are canvassed roughly in order from most to least economically
efficient and most to least certainty of abatement:
DISCUSSION PAPER >
At the same time, crafting a fair and effective policy for agriculture is particularly challenging: It is, for instance, still difficult to measure and verify emissions on-farm, particularly livestock emissions that are sensitive to changes in factors such as breeding
and diet. Moreover, most Australian farms are small-to-medium sized enterprises and
in the absence of new sources of finance, such as a carbon market is likely to provide,
they may find available abatement strategies costly to implement. The paperwork and
policing involved in keeping track of emissions from the country’s 130,000 plus farms
also suggests some sizeable transaction costs.
PAGE 22/34
www.climateinstitute.org.au
Moreover, any policy signal needs to be sufficiently sensitive to farm management
practices such that it encourages, say, best practice fertiliser use, or changes in livestock management. An emissions trading scheme of this kind may yield blanket
changes in prices that will effect broad structural changes in agriculture, but seems to
provide little incentive to modify existing farming systems and productivity mixes. This
is less than ideal, both from the point of view of emissions abatement and community
acceptance. Indeed, it may raise structural adjustment costs unnecessarily.
A hybrid option, where liability is placed on chemical suppliers and meat/dairy processing facilities, but where large farms (or perhaps aggregates of many smaller farms)
have the option to opt-in with both credits and debits, would seem to deal with these
problems58. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how agriculture could be cost-effectively
covered entirely under the CPRS, as attractive as this is in theory.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
Liability for emissions might be shifted upstream (e.g. fertiliser manufacturers and importers) and/or downstream (meat and dairy processors) from the farm gate, as New
Zealand intends to do57. Even here, though, the measurement rigour demanded by
emissions trading schemes seems to present a barrier.
4.2.2 Levy agricultural emissions and invest in change
A relatively simply excise-like charge such as this would be calibrated according to the
emissions intensities of urea and livestock, or kilolitre of milk and kilogramme of meat.
On the other hand, a levy could conceivably be designed to influence production practices and mixes, though this might be more difficult to achieve.
> Dec 2008
To begin with, effectively signalling behavioural change without unfairly burdening producers requires careful attention. Nevertheless, charges of this kind have been used
quite effectively in Europe to reduce the pressure nitrogen pollution on waterways61.
Like the CPRS cap itself, we can envisage a “rolling five-year levy”, reviewed every financial year and re-calibrated in light of new information, changes in the sectoral target, the price elasticity of demand (of fertiliser), and the consumer price index. Rebates
or discounts could be made available for certified on-farm abatement practices, such
as best-practice fertiliser application or manure management. Though not without
drawbacks, a properly designed farm emissions levy could prove an effective tool for
catalysing innovation, reducing the emissions intensity of key farm practices, and encouraging broader structural change.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
At their simplest, emissions levies might be used just to raise revenue, without any expectation that fertiliser application rates or livestock numbers, for example, would
change. A broadly based livestock levy would likely not curtail production, though it
might serve to counter expansion in production over the longer term60. (That they do
not ‘penalise production’ is likely to translate into less resistance to levies of this nature.)
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Unlike coverage under the CPRS, a levy on nitrogenous fertiliser and livestock emissions would not demand the same degree of measurement rigour but could still deliver
the right price signal. Moreover, farmers and administrators are familiar with levies for
rural R&D bodies and assorted other purposes. Strengthening policy by modifying existing levies and employing existing administrative arrangements should help to keep
transaction costs down. Levies are more likely to be seen as fair and efficient than runof-the-mill taxes, especially if revenue is recycled directly into services in farmers’ interests, such as incentives and research59. The fairness and acceptability of a new emissions levy might be further improved by relieving farmers of some existing charges.
PAGE 23/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
If, however, the voluntary uptake of such programmes proves lacklustre, then more direct approaches will have to be considered.
4.2.3 Regulation and Co-regulation
Should levies or prices on farm-related emissions prove unworkable, the mandatory
use of low-emissions techniques and technologies should be strongly considered.
Co-regulation, like public regulation, is not without its drawbacks and limitations, but in
certain cases, co-regulatory strategies help to minimise resistance while still achieving
significant emissions reductions. Co-regulation is particularly suited to those industries
that are reputation-sensitive, intensive and/or relatively close-knit, like say dairy, beef,
rice and wine.
From the outset it should also be made very clear that direct regulation will be used
should industry performance prove lacklustre. The key to effective co-regulation lies in
ensuring that ongoing public support and the freedom to self-manage rests on demonstrated progress against key indicators and standards, including binding targets.
To make this effective, government should enact default legislation such that if industry
fails to achieve a satisfactory level of performance by a particular date (say, two years
from the commencement of the strategy) then it will automatically be regulated. This
approach proved successful in New Zealand when that country sought to phase-out
ozone-depleting substances64.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
Moreover, done well — i.e. properly targeted, resourced and enforced — regulation is a
proven and powerful motivator of behavioural change, and it provides an essential underpinning to most other policy tools63. In any case, a prerequisite for the use of regulation is a careful appreciation of the specific industry and/or region in question.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Regulations are generally less preferable both from a public and private perspective:
They can incur substantial compliance costs, are usually inappropriate for heterogeneous groups like farmers, and likely to be sub-optimal in dealing with pollution from diffuse sources. Nevertheless, if other approaches prove unacceptable or unworkable,
then some form of regulation may be the only option.
DISUCSSION PAPER >
Levy revenue could (by itself or combined with a fraction of CPRS permit auction revenue) be put to good use funding a package of incentives for low-emissions production,
such as grants or interest-free loans for new infrastructure, and rewards (i.e. compensation payments) for the use of low-emissions products (e.g. nitrification inhibitors).
Then there are more novel instruments: The American Farmland Trust, for instance,
has had success in using insurance products to modify the commercial risk (or perceived risk) associated with adopting best-practices across an enterprise62. Extension
and training packages could also be funded from levy revenue. The key point here is
that while the tendency is to focus on R&D, a range of more direct instruments should
also be considered.
> Oct 2009
PAGE 24/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
The Climate Institute supports the need for limited assistance for trade-exposed industries to
prevent carbon leakage. However, this assistance must be commensurate with the actual risk
for an industry, so as to avoid over-compensation. Moreover, assistance decisions must also
take into account the costs for the rest of the economy; shielding one sector of the economy
simply pushes the abatement burden (and cost) onto the rest.
Ultimately, the effective management of carbon leakage will come from stronger co-operation
internationally. As more countries agree to implement domestic abatement measures, including in agriculture, the case for assistance for Australian industries will diminish.
As part of its role in monitoring, facilitating and enforcing compliance with the CPRS, the regulator (or the Productivity Commission) should be empowered to report annually to Parliament
on real and shadow carbon prices in competitor countries. This would help to drive an evidence-based conversation and evidence-based solutions to any leakage problems.
A clear and realistic assessment of the impacts on the competitiveness of Australia’s different
food and fibre sectors is needed. Measures can then be developed to minimise any shortterm impacts and help the sector with transitional assistance if necessary.
4.3 Complementary and Interim Strategies
Proposal 4. Using a fraction of the revenue raised through the auctions of emissions
permits in the CPRS, the Australian Government should:
a. Introduce a package of incentives to leverage large-scale private investment in
climate-friendly farming and new land-uses; and
b. Establish a pool of funds to which farmers may - for a limited time and on a
competitive basis - apply to help them establish proven abatement and adaptation measures.
a. Fill in the knowledge gaps with respect to livestock production, consumption,
and climate change;
> Oct 2009
Proposal 5. The Australian Government should establish a programme and forum for
dialogue between industry, the non-government sector, researchers and policy specialists to:
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
There may be a genuine case for providing some assistance, for a limited period, to help cut
farmers’ and processors’ electricity bills, modernise their operations and make the transition
easier on farming families. Grants or tax credits might be provided to upgrade machinery and
operations for greater efficiency. To be eligible for assistance, businesses would have to provide ongoing evidence that all economically viable abatement opportunities had been exhausted. Levy revenue or a small percentage of revenue generated by the auctioning of
emissions permits could be used for this purpose.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
While the cost of farm inputs is likely to rise as a result of emissions trading, this needs to be
kept in some perspective: Firstly, with world demand for Australian farm exports continuing to
rise, agriculture – like the economy as a whole – is set to grow strongly in coming decades,
even with a carbon price65. Secondly, fuel and fertiliser price increases are likely to be modest
against the backdrop of recent global and ongoing volatility66. And thirdly, there will be new
opportunities for new and more stable sources of income from services, like managing carbon
sinks.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
Box 3. Competitiveness and Leakage Issues
b. Explore the role demand management strategies might play in reducing sectoral emissions and promoting high-value, climate-friendly production;
PAGE 25/34
c. Develop a vision and strategy for a prosperous livestock sector in a low-carbon
world
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
Financial crises notwithstanding, there exists a large and largely untapped pool of patient capital in superannuation firms and other financial institutions, much of which
heads offshore every year for want of domestic investment attractions.
Instruments such as bonds and tax concessions, and investment vehicles like pooleddevelopment funds, have already been trialled and tested and used in a wide range of
other settings to deliver both a private return and a public good (e.g. health care, education, roads, etc.). This ‘leveraging’ approach to advancing environmental enterprise
is described by the Allen Consulting Group in a 2001 proposal prepared for a business
roundtable. Since then, elements of the model have been discussed widely and successfully trialled67.
Beyond simple co-investment, a package of tax offsets and concessions to the finance
sector would help to top-up market drivers for innovative farming systems and rural development projects that generate environmental as well commercial returns. The model
is well-suited to projects such as tree cropping for bioenergy that are ‘near commercial’
and otherwise ineligible for stock-standard grants and tax concessions because their
primary aim is profit.
There is a case for providing direct financial assistance to farmers, for a limited time
and on a competitive basis, to secure early abatement and ease the transition to emissions trading, levies or regulations. At the outset, it should be made very clear that
such assistance is not open-ended and that a comprehensive climate policy for agriculture – including liability for emissions - will be commence by 2013.
Governments, state and federal, have already deployed relatively modest packages for
research, development, training and extension. Additional assistance should be derived
from the Climate Change Action Fund using revenue raised by the auctioning of pollution permits. Measures might include interest-free loans and grants to set up new infrastructure to capture methane from animal effluent, or low-cost insurance against loss of
income where fertiliser use is modified.
4.3.3 Exploring demand management issues
The question of whether or not technical on-farm measures are sufficient to reduce
emissions from the farm sector is an open one. A report on abatement measures released this year by the European Union’s Joint Research Centre68, for example, concludes that on-farm measures alone will not result in the emissions reductions needed,
not without changes in consumption patterns as well.
For instance, if red meat prices were to rise substantially, would we see a switch from
more expensive, healthier products to cheaper and less healthy ones, undermining the
health of lower income consumers? Would an uncontrolled shift away from red meat
put extra pressure on fisheries? Or increase demand for poultry and pork, raising
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
> Oct 2009
Conversely, without careful thought, discussion and preparation, demand-side measures could result in unintended health, welfare and environmental consequences, not
to mention a backlash from producers. A blanket “eat less red meat” policy, while wellintentioned, could, potentially, do more harm than good.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
4.3.2 Direct investment in abatement on-farm
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Funding for incentives could be drawn from a fraction of CPRS permit revenue and the
whole package might aim for revenue neutrality.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
4.3.1 Leveraging private investment in climate-friendly industries
PAGE 26/34
www.climateinstitute.org.au
Doubtless there are many more questions along these lines, though this is not to imply
that demand-side measures do not have a place in the policy toolkit, only that they
need to be properly researched and clearly thought through to minimise inefficiencies,
avoid perverse outcomes and manage trade-offs. In short, the issue of demand management is not a simple one.
Unsurprisingly, the debate can get very emotional and ‘eat less meat’ campaigns are
already meeting with stiff resistance from the livestock industry70 who complain,
amongst other things, that they take no notice of the differences between production
systems and other particulars. It is not surprising, therefore, that Australian governments have not even entertained (publicly at least) the idea of managing demand of
food and fibre to meet public good goals.
“In 2050 meat and dairy products will still be a vital component in a healthy balanced diet for the majority of consumers. ...livestock production will be a smaller
industry but producing higher quality, welfare friendly and environmentally
friendly products.75”
A paper produced recently by the UK Food Ethics Council for the World-Wide Fund for
Nature76 outlines a comprehensive framework for constructive dialogue on the issue.
Industry, civil society and the Australian Government should see this as a useful
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
> Oct 2009
Rather than seeing demand management as a threat, industry too could benefit from a
better understanding of consumption issues, from being better prepared to meet
changing expectations, and from the chance to properly inform policy. It might also
seize the chance to craft a new vision and strategy. A livestock sector that can demonstrate high-value environmental credentials is likely to find itself in a much stronger position in a low-carbon world, as Richard Lowe, former Chief Executive of the UK Meat
and Livestock Commission implied when asked where he saw his industry mid-century:
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
Following Britain’s lead, the Australian Government ought to bring the various stakeholders and experts together to fill in the knowledge gaps, and explore the challenges
and opportunities, without making irreversible policy commitments at this stage. The
products that might emerge from such a ‘roundtable’ of ideas, views and interests
would serve to cut through conjecture and inform all parties, including government, of
the case for and best design of demand management policies.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Australia lags well behind others — such as the United Kingdom, Sweden and other
countries — in developing either demand management strategies for the food sector or
even the evidence base upon which to build them71. Food and climate research and
discussion in Britain, for example, is already well down the track, with policy development by private industry and the public sector quite advanced72: Multi-stakeholder
roundtables on sustainable consumption have been at work for several years73, information on consumer behaviour is rich, and the public sector is committed to a ‘green’
food procurement policy74. By comparison, Australian governments and industry are illprepared to respond to calls for sustainable food and fibre consumption. Compare this
situation to the relatively advanced state of policy development in the fields of electricity
and transport demand management.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
additional animal welfare and environmental concerns? Will a switch from pastoralism
to cereal cropping result in the release of soil carbon and the loss of remnant native
vegetation as land is tilled and trees are removed to make way for more efficient landuse? On the other hand, would a shift to a “low-emissions” diet lead to lower public
health costs69? What is the price elasticity of meat and dairy products in an affluent
country like Australia, and hence how high would prices have to have any significant
effect on demand?
PAGE 27/34
www.climateinstitute.org.au
5. Conclusions
Early climate action – both mitigation and adaptation - represents prudent risk management. Australia’s food and fibre industries are amongst those who stand to lose the
most from unmitigated climate change. Adapting agriculture to a rapidly changing climate is essential but will fail if we fail to rein in emissions. Nothing short of our longterm food security is at risk.
Success in the new low-carbon economy will depend, in no small part, on cultivating a
professional, progressive business culture. Avoiding clearing, regenerating native
bush, improving fire management, improving herd management, retiring marginal land,
optimising fuel and fertiliser use, switching to clean energy, and improving soil condition – all help the world avoid dangerous climate change. More and more landholders
are taking part in the clean energy revolution, and many are already finding smart ways
of farming in an increasingly volatile climate.
At this early stage of the debate, it is understandable that concern and uncertainty is
widespread in rural communities77. The challenges and many of the opportunities remain unclear to many people, and the transition to a low-carbon world will not be without difficulty. However, avoiding essential and inevitable reforms will make it much
more difficult for farmers in the long run. Pretending a problem does not exist does not
make solving that problem any easier. The notion that agriculture’s emissions can be
ignored while society demands reductions from other sectors is not good policy. Indeed, the rest of the business community is unlikely to accept a minimal role for farming in climate policy. The Business Council of Australia’s position, for instance, is for
“policies which ensure commensurate reductions” if CPRS coverage is not practical78.
It is highly likely that governments, regardless of political persuasion, will eventually
introduce just these sorts of policies. In New Zealand, for instance, the conservative
National Party government recently upheld its predecessor’s decision to bring agriculture into that country’s emissions trading scheme, albeit at a slightly later date.
The growing imperative to cut global emissions is inexorable, with the international
trend towards stronger, broader action.
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
> Oct 2009
Evidence suggests that delaying or avoiding responsibility may not be an industry’s
best interests. The United States auto industry opposed tougher fuel-efficiency standards for many years and thus had no drive to invest in cleaner vehicles, only to find
themselves falling behind their Japanese competitors as oil prices and public concern
about climate change rose sharply79.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
Without supportive policies, markets and leadership, progress will be slow and piecemeal, and the full potential of landholders to make a big difference will remain unrealised. In the right policy environment, farmers and other landholders who are part of the
global solution to global warming will emerge as winners in a low-carbon economy.
Conversely, excluding farmers from the low-carbon economy risks closing the door to
new possibilities.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
While much of the responsibility for this progress falls to producers themselves, there is
clearly a role for government in providing information, resources, training, incentives
and direction where the marketplace and communities cannot. So far, that role remains
unfulfilled.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
starting point.
PAGE 28/34
www.climateinstitute.org.au
“There is no ‘do nothing’ option on the table... Agriculture, along with the rest of
the economy, is looking at a major departure from the status quo in coming
years - even if it remains outside of a formal emissions market as such.”80
All countries will eventually have to attend to the carbon pollution from their food and
farm sectors. By taking early action, Australian farmers will assume the lead, with all
the opportunities that being a first mover in a competitive global economy brings.
Rural Australia has faced and prospered through change before. As unprecedented as
it is, there is good reason to believe that farmers and agribusinesses are up to the climate challenge. The world, Australia included, must begin to de-couple the future of
farming from rising carbon pollution, and soon. The future of Australian farming and our
way of life itself hangs in the balance.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
In sketching key policy issues and ideas, this paper aims to catalyse discussion with
communities, industries and government, about the best way forward. All paths have
their pitfalls, uncertainties and advantages. And while there is still room for discussion
as to the most cost-effective measures, there is no question that government must act
to reduce farm emissions - either via emissions trading, alternative measures such as
levies and regulations, or some mix of these. Bipartisan support is needed for a new,
sustained national effort to adapt agriculture to a warming world and make the stepchange to climate-friendly farming.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Climate change is a global problem requiring a global, rules-based effort. The alternative is a breakdown in the co-operation and trust so urgently needed. It is crucial that
the international rules for carbon management in farming landscapes complement and
not conflict with efforts to cut emissions in other sectors. This means establishing clear
and credible scientific thresholds to differentiate between natural and managed
changes in landscape carbon. In this, Australia can play a strong leadership role but
only if we are also making every effort to reduce farm emissions. Once new international rules are agreed, then Australia can begin to extend rewards to more ‘carbon
farmers’. It should be noted, however, that CSIRO suggests that Australia’s current
Kyoto Protocol commitments already open the door to nearly 80 percent of the carbon
sequestration potential of the continent, mainly in the form of forestry. 81
DISCUSSION PAPER >
A recent ACIL Tasman paper on climate policies for agriculture aptly captures this
point:
> Oct 2009
PAGE 29/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
1
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Fourth Assessment Report.
URL: http://www.ipcc.ch/
2
Hatfield-Dodds, S, E.K. Jackson & W. Gerardi (2007) Leader, follower or free rider? The
economic impacts of different Australian emission targets. The Climate Institute, Sydney.
3
Australian Government (2009) Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Accounts, Department of Climate Change, Canberra. URL: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/
inventory/2007/pubs/nggi_2007.pdf
4
United States Department of Agriculture, URL: http://www.usda.gov/oce/global_change/
AFGGInventory1990_2005.htm ; European Commission, URL: http://ec.europa.eu/
agriculture/climate_change/index_en.htm Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, URL: http://
www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1186578200124&lang=eng (All URLs
accessed 10/08/09)
5
Richard Eckhard, Personal Communication, 14/08/09
Spahni, R., et al. (2005) Atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide of the late Pleistocene
from Antarctic ice cores. Science 310, 1317-1321.
8
It should be noted that Australian native wildlife, like kangaroos, typically emit relatively
low levels of methane. That Australia produces so much of this pollutant is a recent development coinciding with a dramatic rise in the number of introduced ruminants since European settlement. Worldwide, it is estimated that emissions from domesticated animals
accounts for around 94 percent of total annual methane emissions by animals (Milich, L.
(1999) The role of methane in global warming: where might mitigation strategies be focused? Global Environmental Change 9, 179-201.) Moreover, the proportion of terrestrial
vertebrates that is ruminant livestock has undoubtedly risen sharply since the advent of
pastoralism and livestock farming.
9
Spahni, et al. (2005) Op cit.
10
Keppler, F. et al. (2006) Methane Emissions from Terrestrial Plants under Aerobic Conditions, Nature, 439: 187-191.
11
Thorpe, A. (2009) Enteric fermentation and ruminant eructation: the role (and control?) of
methane in the climate change debate. Climatic Change 93, 407-431.
12
Australian Government (2009) Australian National Greenhouse Accounts: National Inventory by Economic Sector 2007, Department of Climate Change, Canberra.
13
Denman, K.L., et al. (2007) Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. In Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. S. Solomon, et al. (eds), pp499-587. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
UK and New York, USA.
14
Dawson & Spannagle (2009) Op cit.
15
Jones, C. (no date) Adapting farming to climate variability, URL: http://www.amazing carbon.com (accessed 01/09/09)
> Oct 2009
7
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
Dawson, B. & Spannagle, M. (2009) The Complete Guide to Climate Change, Routledge,
Milton Park, UK.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
6
DISCUSSION PAPER >
REFERENCES
PAGE 30/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
18
“Because the lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is relatively short, a small reduction
in methane emissions will quickly lead to its stabilisation…” Houghton, J. (2004) Global
Warming: The Complete Briefing (3rd Ed.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK,
p254
19
Prices for CCX financial instrument contracts dropped from an already relatively low
US$2 to around 25 cents in September of this year. See http://www.reuters.com/article/
latestCrisis/idUSN08284675
20
IPCC (2007) Op cit.
21
Solomon, S., et al. (2009) Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions,
PNAS, 106: 6, 1704-1709.
22
Smith, P., et al. (2007) Agriculture. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Metz, et al. (Eds)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK and New
York, USA.
23
IPCC 2007 Opposite.
24
Keogh, M. (2008) Agriculture to boom with a changing climate, Farm Institute Insights,
Vol.5, No.2, April.
25
Cline, W. (2007) Global warming and agriculture: Impact estimates by country. Centre for
Global Development and Peterson Institute for International Economics. Washington D.C.
26
Tubiello, F.N. & Fischer, G. (2007) Reducing climate change impacts on agriculture:
Global and regional effects of mitigation, 2000-2080. Technological Forecasting & Social
Change 74, 1030-1056; Preston, B.L. & Jones, R.N. (2005) Climate Change Impacts on
Australia and the Benefits of Early Action to Reduce Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
A consultancy report produced for the Australian Conservation Foundation Business
Leaders’ Roundtable, CSIRO.
27
Howden, S.M., et al. (2007) Adapting agriculture to climate change. PNAS 104 (50),
19691-19696.
28
Lobell, D.R. & Field, C.B. (2007) Global scale climate-crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 2: 1-7.
29
Garnaut, R. (2008) The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Melbourne, etc.
30
Larsen, S.H.N. Nicholls (2009) Southern Australian rainfall and the subtropical ridge:
Variations, interrelationships and trends. Geophysical Research Letters, 6, L08708.
31
Hennessy, K., R. Fawcett, D. Kirono, F. Mpelasoka, D. Jones, J. Bathois, P. Whetton, M.
Stafford Smith, M. Howden, C. Mitchell & N. Plummer (2008) An assessment of the impact of climate change on the nature and frequency of exceptional climatic events. Bureau of Meteorology/CSIRO. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
> Oct 2009
Murphy et al. (2009) Fire management and woody biomass carbon stocks in mesic savannas. In: Russell-Smith et al. (2009) Culture, ecology and economy of savanna fire
management in northern Australia: rekindling the Wurrk tradition. CSIRO Publications,
Melbourne.
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
17
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Two recent papers provide excellent reviews of the science underlying the role of livestock in the global methane cycle: Thorpe (2009) Op cit. and Lassey, K.R. (2008) Livestock methane emission and its perspective in the global methane cycle. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 48, 114-118. The latter is particularly useful for its focus
on Australian and New Zealand situation.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
16
PAGE 31/34
www.climateinstitute.org.au
Karoly, D. (2009) Bushfire and extreme heat in south-east Australia, URL:
www.RealClimate.org, 16th February 2009; Lucas, C. et al. (2007) Bushfire Weather in
Southeast Australia: Recent Trends and Projected Climate Change Impacts. A Consultancy Report prepared for The Climate Institute of Australia by the Bushfire Co-operative
Research Centre (CRC), the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research. URL: http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/images/stories/bushfire/
fullreport.pdf
33
Brinkley T & Bomford M. 2002. Agricultural Sleeper Weeds in Australia. What is the Potential Threat? Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
34
Steffen, W. and Canadel, P. (2005) Carbon Dioxide Fertilisation and Climate Change Policy, prepared for the Australian Greenhouse Office. URL: http://
www.climatechange.gov.au/agriculture/publications/carbon.html
35
See, for example, Högy, P., et al. (2009) Effects of elevated CO2 on grain yield and quality of wheat: results from a 3-year free-air CO2 enrichment experiment Plant Biology,
11:s1, 60-69.
Long, S.P., et al. (2006) Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation
with Rising CO2 Concentrations. Science, 312: 5782, pp. 1918 – 1921.
38
Howden, M., et al. (2009) Can adaptation stop climate change making food-rich countries
like Australia food-poor? Poster presentation in Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 6,
372019; Gunasekera, D., et al. (2008) Climate change: Opportunities and challenges in
Australian agriculture. Proceedings of the Faculty of Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources Annual Symposium 2008, University of Sydney.
39
Given the relative abundance of water in northern Australia, a whole-scale shift of agriculture northwards has long held great appeal. The most recent report of CSIRO’s Northern
Australia Sustainable Yields project strongly suggests, however, that for various reasons
the potential of northern Australia to sustain a level of production anywhere near that of
the south is small. (URL: http://www.csiro.au/partnerships/NASY.html)
40
Howden, S.M., Soussana, J-F, Tubiello, F.N., Chhetri, N., Dunlop, M. & Meinke, H. (2007)
Adapting agriculture to climate change. PNAS 104(50), 19691-19696. p. 19695
41
Rosenzweig, C. & Tubiello, F.N. (2007) Adaptation and mitigation strategies in agriculture: an analysis of the potential synergies, Mitig Adapt Strat Global Change 12: 855-873.
42
Schmidhuber, J. & Tubiello, F.N. (2007) Global food security under climate change.
PNAS, 104:50, 19703-19708.
43
Howden, et al. (2009) Australian agriculture in a climate of change. Keynote presentation
to Greenhouse 2009. URL: http://www.greenhouse2009.com/downloads/
Keynote_090326_0900_Howden.pdf
44
Australian Government (2009) Terms of Reference for a Technical Options Development
Group to Assess Alternative Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Policies for Australian Agriculture, Department of Climate Change, Canberra URL: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/
emissionstrading/agriculture/pubs/technical_options-developmen_group.pdf
45
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2006) National Agriculture & Climate
Change Action Plan 2006-2009. NRMMC.
46
Paul Martin, Personal Communication, September 2009.
47
Eady, S., et al. (eds) (2009) An Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Carbon Biosequestration Opportunities from Rural Land Use. CSIRO, St Lucia, QLD. (At this rate,
CSIRO estimate that the potential is likely to become saturated in forty years.)
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
> Oct 2009
37
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
Steffen & Canadel (2005) Op cit.
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
36
DISCUSSION PAPER >
32
PAGE 32/34
www.climateinstitute.org.au
50
Lal, R. (2007) Carbon Management in Agricultural Soils. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12: 303-322.
51
Bruce, S. , et al. (2009) Soil Carbon Management and Carbon Trading. Science for Decision Makers. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
52
Sohi, S., et al. (2009) Biochar, climate change and soil: A review to guide future research.
CSIRO Land and Water Science Report 05/09.
53
A vegetation sink that is biodiverse suggests that it is self-regenerating and tends to be
more resilient to climatic variability than a monoculture, raising the likelihood of long-term
sequestration.
54
The Australian Wet Tropics Region Biocarbon Sequestration Project based on Regional
Natural Resource Management: http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html.
55
Metcalf, G.E. & Reilly, J.M. (2008) Policy Options for Controlling Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Implications for Agriculture. Choices, 23(1), 34-37.
56
Sanderson, T. Ancev, T. and Betz, R. (2008). Optimal coverage of installations in a Carbon Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics
Society 52nd Conference, February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia, URL: http://
ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/6047/2/cp08sa01.pdf
57
New Zealand Government (2008) Agriculture in the New Zealand Emissions Trading
Scheme. New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. URL: http://www.maf.govt.nz/
climatechange/agriculture/ (accessed September 20th 2009)
58
Lazarowicz, M. (2009) Global Carbon Trading: A framework for reducing emissions. The
Stationery Office, Norwich UK.
59
Martin, P & Verbeek, M. (2006) Sustainability Strategy. The Federation Press, Sydney.
60
Bruce D. White Consulting Ltd. (2006) Climate Change Policy Measures to address Agriculture Sector GHG Emissions, Report to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
61
Frelih-Larsen, A., et al. (2008) Climate change mitigation through agricultural techniques:
Policy recommendations. A report produced for Ecologic as part of the Policy Incentives
for Climate Change Mitigation Agricultural Techniques (PICCMAT).
62
AFT (2008) A new tool to protect farm income while keeping the land healthy. American
Farmland Trust - Agricultural Conservation Innovation Center. http://www.farmland.org/
resources/ACIC.asp
63
Ruhl, J.B., et al. (2007) The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services. Island Press, Washington, DC; Martin & Verbeek (2006) Op cit.; Gunningham, N. & Sinclair, D. (2005) Regulating Intensive Agricultural Pollution. Australian Journal of Environmental Management,
12, 221-231.
64
Neil Gunningham, personal communication 21st September, 2009.
65
Australian Treasury (2008) Australia’s Low Pollution Future: The Economics of Climate
Change Mitigation. Australian Government, Canberra.
66
Note that agriculture is already to be provided with fuel tax credits to offset price rises.
> Oct 2009
Larsen, J. (2009) The American Clean Energy and Security Act: Key Elements and Next
Steps (May 28) URL: http://www.wri.org/stories/2009/05/american-clean-energy-andsecurity-act-key-elements-and-next-steps
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
49
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
Eady, et al. (2009), p12.
DISCUSSION PAPER >
48
PAGE 33/34
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au
MacMillan, T. & Durrant, R. (2009) Livestock consumption and climate change. A framework for dialogue. WWF (UK) and Food Ethics Council. URL: http://www.wwf.org.uk/
research_centre/?3308/Livestock-consumption-and-climate-change---A-framework-fordialogue
69
McMichael, A.J., et al. (2007) Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and
health. The Lancet, 370, 1253-1263.
70
For example: Meat & Livestock Australia (2009) Reasons to feel good about eating red
meat. Media Release August 6th. http://www.mla.com.au/TopicHierarchy/News/
MediaReleases/Reasons+to+feel+good+about+eating+red+meat.htm
71
Campbell, A. (2008) Paddock to Plate: Food, Farming & Victoria’s Progress to Sustainability, The Future Food & Farm Project Background Paper, Australian Conservation
Foundation, Melbourne. URL: http://www.acfonline.org.au/futurefoodfarm; Larsen, K.,
Ryan, C. & Abraham, A.B. (2008) Sustainable and Secure Food Systems for Victoria:
What do we know? What do we need to know? VEIL Research Report No.1, Victorian
Eco-Innovation Laboratory, Australian Centre for Science, Innovation & Society, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
72
Garnett, T. (2008) Cooking up a storm: Food, greenhouse gas emissions and our changing climate. Food Climate Research Network. Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey. UK. URL: http://www.fcrn.org.uk/frcnPubs/index.php?id=6
73
For more information see the Sustainable Development Commission website at http://
www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/sustainable-consumption.html In particular, the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable’s 2006 report I will if you will: Towards sustainable consumption offers a useful starting point. URL: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/
publications/downloads/I_Will_If_You_Will.pdf
74
For more information see the Department of Environment, Farming & Rural Affairs website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/procurement/index.htm
75
Lowe, R. (2007) Response to: ‘How should we farm animals in 2050?’ p12 in: Meat: Facing the Dilemmas, Food Ethics, Winter 2007, 2:4.
76
MacMillan, & Durrant 2009, Op Cit.
77
Milne, M., Stenekes, N. & Russell, J. (2008) Climate Risk and Industry Adaptation. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
78
Business Council of Australia (2007) Strategic Framework for Emissions Reduction, p4.
URL: http://www.bca.com.au/Content/101042.aspx
79
The Climate Institute (2009) Clearing the Air: Clean energy investments to power a low
carbon future – and the myths polluters use to stall progress
TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY FARMING:
68
Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions
Agriculture & Rural Land Use
See ‘Pilot Land Innovation Fund, Greening–CSIRO Australia’ at http://
marketbasedinstruments.gov.au/MBIsinaction/MBItypesinaction/Usingexistingmarkets/
Leveragingprivateinvestment/tabid/229/Default.aspx
DISCUSSION PAPER >
67
Policy Report. URL: http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/images/clearingtheair.pdf
ACIL Tasman (2009) Agriculture and GHG mitigation policy: options in addition to the
CPRS. Prepared for the Victorian Department of Primary Industries and the NSW Department of Industry & Investment, p. 13.
81
Eady et al, 2009, Op Cit.
> Oct 2009
80
PAGE 34/34
ISBN: 978-1-921611-11-7
THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE
www.climateinstitute.org.au