GHG EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE

KEY MESSAGES

•       Focus on optimising productivity to reduce emissions intensity.

•      Be wary of soil Carbon projects which sound too good to be true. Be sure to understand the details of these projects and responsibilities as a landholder.

•      Carbon offsets from farms cannot be sold twice. Businesses may need Carbon credits in the future to offset their own emissions, or for market access and should be wary of selling Carbon credits to third parties in the short term.

•     Very few new abatement options are available to those cropping enterprises already operating at best practice, at a price which will see significant adoption.

•      Major sources of cropping emissions are likely to be addressed at an industry level, rather than by individual growers.

Background

Various countries, corporations and industry groups have pledged to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 2030 is considered the initial reference year for agricultural emissions, to assess progress on those commitments.  

In preparation for a time when landowners will be required to calculate their GHG footprint, many clients are seeking advice on calculating their emissions, plus ways to mitigate or offset them.

Calculators

•  Several Carbon calculator tools have been developed for Australia. Many are specific to single industries or enterprises.

•   Agricultural Innovation Australia has developed an online, integrated calculator which seeks to include crop and livestock emissions, plus relevant offsets from the farm. This calculator is still in development but is expected to be available soon.

•  Growers involved in the Cool Soils Initiative can access a calculator developed as part of that project.

•  Clients interested in calculating their GHG footprint should speak with their consultant about the data required and which calculator would best suit their situation.

• Commencing the process of data collection from 2025 would provide five years of data by the initial 2030 assessment year.

Abatement vs Sequestration (and other offsets)

•  Where possible, abatement of emissions is preferred as these emissions, once avoided, are avoided permanently.

•  Offsets through tree planting or soil Carbon sequestration, can be lost through adverse weather conditions such as fire or drought.

•  Some emissions in Agriculture will be very difficult to abate. Maximising productivity will reduce the emissions intensity of those commodities produced and may provide a relative advantage over producers with lower productivity and higher emissions intensity.

Considerations for Soil Carbon Projects

•   The ability of a soil to store Carbon is influenced primarily by the clay content and the annual rainfall at that location.

•   70% of year-year variation in soil Carbon is explained by rainfall, limiting the potential for soil Carbon sequestration in medium and low rainfall areas.

•   Many of the strategies for increasing soil Carbon have already been adopted in modern farming systems.

• The direct and indirect costs of a project can be considerable.

•   Reporting and auditing requirements can be onerous and expensive. These are often managed by project coordinators but will ultimately come from the revenue generated (if any) by the project. 

• Consider if the landholder or project manager retains ultimate control of the project.

•   Consider project duration. Most Carbon projects require 25-100 years permanency.

•   The obligations for increased soil Carbon remain with the farmland, even if sold. 

•    Encumbrance for ACCU’s sold could be a major land value liability.

Future research and development

• CSIRO research at Harden found that soil Carbon could be increased by supplying additional nutrients to stubble and soil microbes.

•   This research is being expanded to lower rainfall environments, to see if the results can be replicated under those conditions.

•   These trials will measure soil Carbon in relation to above ground stubble and nutrient management, plus consider varying incorporation/non-incorporation options.

•   The Zero Net Emissions Agriculture CRC has been established and is assessing methods for reducing GHG emissions in the cropping sector, which may be addressed at an industry and government level, rather than falling to individual growers to implement. Examples include:

1.      Develop local manufacturing of “Green Urea” using green Hydrogen in place of gas to reduce pre-farm emissions.

2.      Encouraging governments to invest in treatment of all fertiliser with urease inhibitors to improve Nitrogen use efficiency and reduce Nitrous Oxide emissions.

3.      Updating the estimations of emission factors used in international emissions calculations, which will improve the emission footprint of Australian grain producers in comparison to competitor countries.

4.      For livestock, high tannin legumes are being developed as a method for reducing methane emissions.

Improving reproductive efficiency and other productivity improvements in livestock systems will ultimately result in lower emissions intensity.