Chapter 3
Challenges and opportunities for current and future farm enterprises
Introduction
3.1
Submissions and evidence to the Inquiry emphasised the innovative nature
of Australian farmers in working with a variable climate:
The Australian agricultural sector is one of the most efficient
and well-managed in the world. Australian farmers, given the volatility of
climatic conditions and the landscape have become highly experienced at land
and water management practices. They continue to innovate in terms of land
management practices, with due consideration of their operations towards
sustainable and environment best practice.[1]
3.2
This chapter discusses the opportunities and challenges that climate
change presents to the Australian agricultural sector. The chapter starts with
a discussion of adaptation by Australian agricultural enterprises to climate
change. The discussion then turns to opportunities and challenges for the
agricultural sector in relation to mitigating and offsetting greenhouse gas
emissions. The chapter concludes with a brief consideration of assessing
mitigation and adaptation strategies to avoid perverse outcomes.
Adapting to climate change
3.3
During the course of the Inquiry, the committee was told of the prospects
of the Australian agricultural sector to adapt to climate change. The
submission of the Agricultural Alliance on Climate Change (AACC) noted that
'some production activities will be better able than others to respond;
generally speaking it will be the more intensive activities that are more
capable of adapting to a changing climate'.[2]
The AACC's submission went on to state:
Policies that support farmers to adapt to and build in
resilience to climate change impacts are preferred to those that prescribe
certain areas of the landscape unsuitable for agricultural industries.[3]
3.4
In contrast, Mr Ian Bowie noted that the Australian agricultural sector
'has gone so far already in adapting to climates that are normally dry, often
hot and subject to extremes of drought, flood, fire and plagues and it is hard
to see where further it may go'.[4]
3.5
In its submission, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
(CSIRO) highlighted that the uncertainty associated with projecting future
climate means that adaptation to climate change will need to take a flexible,
risk-based approach that incorporates future uncertainty and provides
strategies that will be able to cope with a range of possible local climate
changes:
Initial efforts in preparing adaptation strategies should focus
on equipping primary producers with alternative adaptation options suitable for
the range of uncertain future climate changes and the capacity to evaluate and
implement these as needed, rather than focussing too strongly yet on exactly
where and when these impacts and adaptations will occur.
Adaptation measures will have to reflect and enhance current 'best-practices'
designed to cope with adverse conditions such as drought. Marginal production
areas are amongst the most vulnerable and will likely be amongst the first areas
in which the impacts of climate change will exceed adaptive capacity.[5]
3.6
The joint submission of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry (DAFF) and Department of Climate Change (DCC) outlined some of the
decision making tools being developed to assist farmers to manage climate
risks. For example the Managing Climate Variability Program (MCVP) which
aims to enhance adaptation responses to a variable climate:
The program's top priority is to provide more accurate and
reliable climate information, forecasts and tools to enable farmers and natural
resource managers to reduce their exposure to risk from climate change ...
The MCVP has contributed to the development of seasonal climate
forecasting tools that assist managers to make decisions which maximise climate
opportunities and reduce costs in poor seasons.[6]
3.7
In its Interim Report the committee noted the need for downscaling of
climate projections to a local level to be of greater use to farmers. The
committee also noted the need for improved communication of climate projections
to farmers and others in the agricultural sector.[7]
As the committee heard during the course of the Inquiry, the availability of
this type of information is a key factor in assisting farmers to manage the
risks of climate change. Mr Hamish Munro, a Councillor of the Cattle Council of
Australia described for the committee the importance of being able to access
reliable long term projections:
Some of the climate models that you can readily access on the
internet at the moment are quite good for one or two days, but I think we need
more research into longer term models because, for websites, anything that is
seven to 10 days is merely speculative for them. They are not close to what
actually happens within that short time frame. I think we need to be able to
progress having these short-term models and work through to longer-term models
so that we can actually predict some of these impacts on pastures, animal
production and also what ramifications climate change is going to have for
consumers as well as producers.[8]
3.8
To this end, the committee was also told about the development of
better information systems which would provide farmers with a more
comprehensive suite of information on which to make management decisions. The
Bureau of Meteorology discussed the concept of a 'Climate Projections Online' database, which could be a key resource in
improving risk management:
Such a database would have the ability to provide a wealth of
information from several models, enabling better estimations of risk than by
using one model alone, and hence improve risk management. Such a future climate
database is a key to planning adaptation in the longer term for all primary
industry and natural resource managers. Such a detailed database has already been
developed for the United States.[9]
3.9
Ms Nicolette Boele of the AACC suggested the establishment of an agency
to coordinate the types of data farmers will require for making management
decisions:
To give one example, the Bureau of Meteorology is a fabulous
organisation that is permanently funded to provide data about weather – and now
they have the carriage of some water issues. What we do not have is a bureau of
environmental observation and forecasting or something which looks at
permanent, ongoing methodologically consistent soil sampling, as an example,
across the jurisdictions – a central data repository, something which could
even assist in the delivery of drought assistance. It could help farmers with
information about the commodities or their sectors, how the soils are changing
over time and how the ecosystems are working in their areas. We do not have
that. We would actually come in line with most [Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development] countries in having something like that. I have
looked at the system in the Netherlands; it could be something we could use
here in Australia. That sort of body would be invaluable to helping those
agricultural industries ... understand what is happening on their land and how
they should be changing what they do and over what time period.[10]
3.10
The committee was told of a number of approaches that are available to
farmers in order to adapt to changing climate conditions. For the purposes of
discussion, the committee has divided these approaches into three categories:
-
adapting current farming enterprises to suit new climate
conditions;
-
building resilient farm management systems; and
-
diversifying farming options.
3.11
Each of these strategies is discussed below.
Adapting current farming
enterprises to changing climate conditions
3.12
There are a number of adaptive strategies available to agricultural
enterprises to assist in adapting to changing climate conditions. Some examples
put before the committee include: increasing water use efficiency; selecting
cultivars, species and breeds to suit changing climate conditions; and moving
production as climate shifts.
Increasing water use efficiency
3.13
Increased competition for water resources means that farming enterprises
will need to improve water use efficiency in order to adapt to climate change.[11]
3.14
Horticulture is a prime example of an industry which will need to
improve water use efficiency in order to remain viable in a changing climate.
The CSIRO highlighted this point in its submission:
Water demand will increase for most crops growing under warmer
conditions. Changes in rainfall and evaporation are likely to reduce soil
moisture and runoff in much of southern and eastern Australia. Increased water
demand combined with reduced water supply poses significant challenges. Increasing
water use efficiency practices will be paramount.[12]
3.15
Improving irrigation systems is one means by which farmers can increase
water use efficiency. Members of the committee visited 'Jedburgh' the farm of Scott
and Jo McCalman at Warren in western NSW, an area that receives highly variable
455 mm average annual rainfall which has been well below average for the last
seven years. Mr McCalman told members of the committee how water use efficiency
at the property had been improved by replacing flood irrigation techniques with
the use of an overhead lateral move irrigator. The overhead lateral move
irrigator offers a number of advantages over previous flood irrigation
techniques, primarily the control in the application of water to a field. While
water needs to be applied more frequently with the overhead lateral move
irrigator, a smaller volume of water is required. The lateral move irrigator is
automated and can be programmed to water at the most advantageous times, such
as at night or to supplement rainfall. In addition, as the soil is not being
waterlogged, as is the case with flood irrigation, there is less nutrient loss
from the soil. Mr McCalman also described how being better able to control
water application, and improved water use efficiency, also increased cropping
options, for example, with the possibility of introducing crops which are not
amenable to flood irrigation. Mr McCalman also noted that at times there are
difficulties in regional areas in finding staff, so the fact the overhead
lateral move irrigator is automated and reduces staffing requirements is an
advantage. Finally, the amount of infrastructure and preparation for putting in
crops is greatly reduced with the overhead lateral move irrigator compared with
flood irrigation.
3.16
Dr Ian Johnsson of Meat and Livestock Australia, outlined for the
committee some of the research work being done to identify genes in plants that
assist water use efficiency:
...we are looking at trying to increase drought tolerance in a number
of species, seeing whether we can find gene markers to help select and increase
the rate of genetic progress in that area. All of the pasture breeding programs
and forage breeding programs in Australia these days have water use efficiency
as one of their major selection criteria.[13]
3.17
The committee also notes the evidence of Professor Michael Young of the
Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists:
I would add a caution around increases in water use efficiency.
At the moment we allocate water to water supply systems and to farmers in gross
terms. We do not require them to account for the amount they return to a
system...When you increase water use efficiency then people use more water.[14]
3.18
Professor Young explained that as irrigators improve water efficiency it
stops leaks and seepages back into the system. Inefficient systems may result
in half an irrigators' allocation draining back into the system, and, as a
result, that water is then available for other downstream users. Improvements
in efficiency mean that irrigators would use all of their water allocation
without any being returned to the system, and as a result, downstream users are
deprived of the use of that water.[15]
Selecting cultivars, species and
breeds to suit changing climate
3.19
A number of submissions highlighted the importance of selecting crop
cultivars and species, and livestock breeds which suit new climatic conditions
as a means for agricultural industries to adapt to climate change.[16]
3.20
Apple and Pear Australia Limited (APAL) noted that the main adaptive
strategy of the pome fruit industry will be to move to fruit varieties with a
lower chilling requirement.[17]
3.21
Growcom stated that the number of vegetable cultivars available is an
important factor in making vegetable production more adaptable to climate
change:
considerable difference exists in tipping points of fruit versus
vegetable production, the many varieties/cultivars and short maturing time of
vegetable species makes vegetable production more adaptable to climate change
than fruit production.[18]
3.22
The Victorian Department of Primary Industries also noted that changing
livestock breeds could be an adaptation option for the livestock industry.[19]
Moving production as climate shifts
3.23
Several submissions discussed the prospects for moving agricultural
industries as climatic zones shifted. In general, it appeared that this may be
a viable option for some industries, but not necessarily for all agricultural
industries. The AACC indicated that some agricultural activities would be able
to relocate, effectively moving as the climate does, but they will be in the
minority.[20]
3.24
Mr Ian Bowie noted the CSIRO predictions for a southward shift in
climate, but stated that there may not be a corresponding shift in agricultural
zones:
...a climatic shift equivalent to Albury coming to have a climate
similar to Tamworth's present climate may have little impact on potential
temperate pasture production around Albury because potentials for this are
already depressed by temperature and moisture limitations.
Similarly ...for (the few) areas in the north which have soils and
terrain that might be suitable for more intensive agriculture, it appears that
even in the limited areas where rainfalls might increase, seasonality will not
decrease. The prospects for more intensive agriculture in the north remain very
limited and very localised.[21]
3.25
APAL explained in its submission that there was very little scope for
the industry to move regions as climate change impinged on its growing areas:
...the overall effects on horticultural production in Australia
may be greater than in many temperate regions of the northern hemisphere due to
the marginal nature of some fruit growing areas and the lack of extensive
higher altitude or higher latitude regions where chilling requirements may
continue to be met under warmer conditions.[22]
3.26
The Queensland Government also noted the impact that warmer temperatures
would have on the production of temperate fruits and some vegetables which
required winter chilling. While noting that rising temperatures are a
constraint to moving horticulture north, the Queensland Government submission
did note that there are opportunities in relation to tropical and subtropical
crops:
For tropical and subtropical crops such as avocadoes, mangoes
and bananas, increasing temperatures will provide opportunities for production to
occur in regions which are currently too cold for economic yields and quality.[23]
3.27
The CSIRO indicated that there is potential for relocation within the
viticulture industry:
The water demand of winegrape vines will increase in a warmer
climate while rainfall and, more importantly, runoff to water storages is
projected to decrease. Shifting to cooler sites can alleviate some of the
warming impact. As vineyards have a life of 30+ years, planning for this should
begin now.[24]
Resilient farming systems
3.28
The committee received evidence and submissions about changing farm
management practices as a means of agricultural industries adapting to climate
change:
Farmers have become much more adept at managing and preparing
for extreme conditions, such as drought or floods. They are employing practices
which include conservation till, zero or minimal tillage, direct drilling,
geo-positioning, stubble retention and a variety of on-farm water management
strategies.[25]
3.29
To this end, the committee spent a significant amount of time during
this Inquiry investigating the use of perennial cropping and grazing systems as
a means of agricultural enterprises adapting to climate change. As the
committee learnt, some farmers have been using these systems for many years,
but in recent years there has been a growing interest amongst farmers in
perennial systems.[26]
Perennial cropping and fodder
shrubs
3.30
The committee was told of the potential for perennial systems to improve
soil conditions, and hence agricultural productivity. The committee also
arranged for subcommittees to visit 'Pine Crest', the farm of Murray, Jenny and
Kyle Carson in the Binnu district of Western Australia, and the McCalman's
property 'Jedburgh' to see first hand the perennial pastures systems that have
been introduced on those properties and to report back to the committee.
3.31
The committee also heard substantial evidence about the potential of
these systems as a way of creating permanent carbon sinks from agricultural
soils. The potential for agricultural soils is discussed at length in the next
section of the chapter on Mitigating and offsetting greenhouse gas emissions.
3.32
The submission of the Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme
(ASCAS) detailed how traditional farming practices have degraded agricultural
land and reduced the organic carbon content of soil:
In little over 200 years of European settlement, more than 70
percent of Australian agricultural land has become seriously degraded. Despite
efforts to implement 'best practice' in soil conservation, the situation
continues to deteriorate.
On average, 7 tonnes of topsoil is lost for every tonne of wheat
produced. This ratio has most likely worsened in recent years due to an
increased incidence of erosion on unprotected topsoils, coupled with declining
yields.
Over the last 50 years, the organic carbon content of Australian
agricultural soils has declined between 50% and 80%.
Soil carbon is the prime determinant of agricultural
productivity, landscape function and water quality. Carbon losses of this
magnitude therefore have immeasurable economic and environmental implications.[27]
3.33
The ASCAS submission went on to explain how perennial groundcover
improves soil conditions and increases the carbon content of soil:
The soluble carbon exuded into the rhizosphere by perennial
groundcover plants and/or transported deep into soil by mycorrhizal fungi,
provides energy for the vast array of microbes and soil invertebrates that
produce sticky substances enabling soil particles to be glued together into
lumps (aggregates). When soil is well aggregated, the spaces (pores) between
the aggregates allow the soil to breathe, as well as absorb moisture quickly
when it rains. A healthy topsoil should be 'more space than stuff'...[28]
3.34
Mr Bob Wilson provided evidence to the committee about his own
experience in working with perennial species in Lancelin in Western Australia:
As a farmer, in 1985 I realised that the traditional annual
based agricultural system that we were working with was failing. I moved to
trial some new and innovative perennial systems that were based around a fodder
shrub called tagasaste, which is a deep rooted perennial shrub. Over a period
of years we planted around 1,000 hectares on the farm. By 2003 we started
planting some subtropical perennial grasses, again to try and adapt what was happening
with our past system so as to move from an annual based system to a more
perennial based farming system.[29]
3.35
Mr Tim Wiley provided evidence to the committee about preliminary work
being done in the Binnu district of Western Australia comparing perennial
pasture systems to annual systems:
We had a project that started in 2006 in the Binnu area, the
worst affected area, where we got the farmers to record the actual stock
movements so we could work out exactly how much each paddock carried for a 12-month
period. We picked farmers who were just starting to put in the perennials – the
first innovators. It turned out to be the mother of all droughts. What that
data said was that it did not matter what we did, any traditional annual
pasture would not have grown enough to prevent the wind erosion we saw over the
10-month period. Even I was surprised how good the perennials were. We were
actually carrying four to six sheep per hectare equivalents and had ground
cover and had no erosion. So these innovations carried more stock in the worst
drought ever than those farmers carried on annual pastures in a normal year.
That gives us hope for the farmers but even for me. The only thing that kept us
sane during that drought was to go out and see those patches of green.
One of the other innovations we did only last year was to do
with approaches to cropping. There is a farmer over here doing pasture cropping
and growing wheat over these summergrowing perennial pastures...I came over and
saw it last year and we went back and put a trial in and, remarkably, we found
that the wheat on certain perennials out-yielded the wheat on annual pastures.[30]
3.36
The committee also notes the work by Scott and Jo McCalman on their
property, 'Jedburgh' in Warren, NSW, an ASCAS soil monitoring site:
... that farm had been conventionally zero tilled for 15 years
prior to the rain this summer. It was then miraculously covered in perennial
grasses that just appeared. Scott McCalman ... decided that he was not going to
kill his grasses, that he was actually going to crop into them. He had heard
about pasture cropping, and he just decided that he was going to do that. He
saved $70 a hectare by not spraying out those grasses. When we measured the
nutrient levels in his paddock this year prior to him sowing his crop, the
phosphorous levels had gone up by a factor of five. The agronomist actually
thought there was a laboratory error in the data. We relooked at that and at
bare areas compared with areas under the grass, and it was correct that
available phosphorous had gone up by a factor of five.
... Phosphorous fertilisers had been used over time, under 15
years of zero till in that area, and they just formed a phosphorous bank that
had been inaccessible.[31]
3.37
The committee also heard evidence from Mr Kevin Goss of the Future Farm
Industries Cooperative Research Centre (Future Farm Industries CRC) on the work
that organisation is doing investigating the role of perennial plants in
cropping and grazing systems, and also the potential for new woody crops:
We are well advanced with a prime lamb livestock production
system called EverGraze, which is for the high rainfall environments...between
500 and 600 millimetres...we bring in perennial pasture plants in unique
combinations – including perennial legumes, summer active perennial grasses,
winter active perennial plants like chicory – we bring in much improved animal
genetics capable of lambing percentages way above current levels and we introduce
a tall perennial grass or shrub to provide a much better nursery environment
for the many more lambs that are involved so that we do not see the deaths of
twins and triplets. The management system is a much tighter rotation that
matches the livestock's nutritional requirements with the feed availability...
Our benchmarking in western Victoria demonstrates that it is running at about
50 per cent above best practice in production in the district and it is also
making a major reduction in leakage to groundwater in that environment, which
is a very good thing from a dryland salinity viewpoint.[32]
3.38
Mr Goss also told the committee about two other programs that the Future
Farm Industries CRC is conducting: EverCrop, which is looking at the
introduction of drought tolerant perennials in the non-crop phase of a cycle;
and Enrich, which is looking at the potential of new perennial forage plants on
marginal soils where cropping is probably not going to be an option.[33]
3.39
Meat and Livestock Australia indicated to the committee that it is
investing in research in pasture management systems, and particularly perennial
pastures because of the sustainability of those systems.[34]
3.40
The committee was told of the success of perennial grasses in areas of
low rainfall:
Our crop yields are the same or better than under conventionally
managed farming, and the improvement in yield is better the more marginal the
area because perennials provide so much change to soil biology.[35]
3.41
The committee also heard evidence that perennial pasture systems are
likely to reduce the need for herbicides:
...most of these crops are grown with no herbicide whatsoever
because perennial grass prevents weeds from coming through; you have complete
ground cover. The better the ground cover, the better the crop. So we find that
the thicker the perennial grasses, the more vigorously they grow, the more they
condition the soil and the better the crop grows – that is, the annual crop
that you plant into the perennial pasture.[36]
3.42
Mr Goss of the Future Farming Industries CRC also noted the benefits of
using legumes in perennial pasture systems as a means of improving the nitrogen
content of soil:
In the wheat belt we have started a program called EverCrop...it
is particularly looking at broadening the footprint of legumes, which we
increasingly see as being important because farmers at some point may have to
substitute legume generated nitrogen to some extent for applied nitrogen if oil
prices stay the way they are.[37]
3.43
When questioned as to the challenges presented by perennial pastures
systems, the committee received the following impressive response from Dr Jones:
I am going to give you an emotional response and say that for
some of the farmers I have worked with it is almost like a love affair, because
they get so excited. They send me amazing emails saying: 'Christine, you would not
believe what is happening on our place. We are so excited and we have not been
this happy for a long time.' ...We have now got children in a lot of these
families going out and collecting grasses that they find on the side of the
road and sending them to me in the mail to ask what they are because they want
to plant them on the farm. They say: 'Will this be good for Dad to plant wheat
into? Is this one a weed or is it a good grass?'[38]
3.44
Mr Wiley emphasised that one of the real issues for farmers wanting to introduce
these systems is the input costs:
We see some hope and systems that could work in the future. The
problem is finance – the equity is shot; the banks' nerves are shot. So if
these things work, how do we actually redevelop agriculture? How do we fund it?
I cannot see that government would pay the bill for what is required to totally
redevelop agriculture even in our little part of the world.[39]
Diversifying agricultural
enterprises
3.45
Another option for farmers to adapt to climate change is to diversify their
enterprises to provide more options in the face of climate change. One example
of diversification that the committee received evidence on is the role that
forestry can play as part of an integrated agricultural enterprise.
Forestry
3.46
The submission from the National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI)
described the forestry industry as generally less susceptible than other
agricultural enterprises to climatic variation:
At the landscape level, forestry can provide a valuable
complementary land use to other forms of agriculture, which may be at greater
risk from the effects of climate change. As a long term crop, trees are
generally not as susceptible to seasonal and long term climatic variations as
certain types of agriculture.
Recent drought conditions throughout Australia have resulted in
dramatic reductions in agricultural production, yet the level of impact on
production forestry has been far less severe.[40]
3.47
The Victorian Department of Primary Industries detailed the benefits
that forestry may have in improving the adaptive capacity of agricultural
enterprises:
Adaptive capacity can be enhanced through synergies between
forestry and agricultural land uses. For example, shelterbelt tree planting can
reduce heat stress for livestock and climatic exposure for pastures and crops,
and tree canopies can provide a feed source for livestock during the summer
months and drought conditions, usually as a last resort.[41]
3.48
NAFI's submission outlines other benefits of using plantations as a
complement to agricultural industries:
The strategic placement of plantations on farms can lower saline
water tables to limit salt loading into watercourses, as well as to filter and
absorb excess nutrients from other agricultural activities (i.e. dairying and
cropping) prior to entering waterways. The deep rooted characteristics of
plantations established in appropriate locations on the farming landscape, is a
key tool in managing stream water quality.[42]
3.49
The committee notes that the National Association of Forest Industries'
claims in relation to susceptibility to climate variation did not adequately
acknowledge the water interception of plantations, the impacts of plantations
on ground water or the water needs in plantation establishment as reasons to
support their claim. The committee is concerned about the impact that forestry
plantations will have on water run-off in catchment areas and the committee
notes the evidence of Mr David de Jongh of NAFI, that in terms of the CSIRO's
research on salinity impact and water uptake, the best accepted convention on
the proportion of a catchment that should be planted under trees before it
affects water run-off is 20 per cent.[43]
3.50
Committee members are also concerned about the potential competition
between forestry and agriculture in the design of an emissions trading scheme.
This issue is discussed in Chapter 4 of the report.
Other diversification options
3.51
The submission of Mr Tim Wiley and Mr Bob Wilson described research the
Western Australian Department of Agriculture is undertaking into the potential
of diversified farm enterprises in the north east wheat belt of Western
Australia:
Caroline Peek and Megan Abrahams from DAFWA in Geraldton have
been modelling the economic consequences of climate change on a north east
wheat belt farm...They find that cropping will not be commercially viable in the
near future under the climate change predicted.
...Abrahams et al also considered alternative enterprises that
could keep farms profitable. Their modelling suggests that a grazing enterprise
based on fattening and trading station cattle could be economically viable if
the stocking rate and animal growth rates were high enough...
Abrahams et. al....also analysed future farming systems that
included oil mallees, carbon trading and opportunistic cropping in wetter years
as well as station cattle...All of these enterprises can contribute to improving
farm profit. However cattle production is the main driver of profit.[44]
3.52
Another option for diversification could be the development of farming
enterprises around alternative energy generation. This is discussed later in
this chapter in the section on 'Alternative energy sources'.
3.53
The mitigation and offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions also presents
a number of opportunities and challenges for the Australian agricultural
sector. This section of the report gives a brief background on the amounts and
types of agricultural emissions and then goes on to discuss some of the options
in relation to mitigating those emissions, as well as offsetting emissions from
the agricultural sector and other sectors within the economy.
Greenhouse gas emissions from the
agricultural sector
3.54
In 2006, Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions were 576.0 million
tonnes of CO2-equivalent (Mt CO2-e). The agricultural
sector was the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, contributing
15.6% of emissions. Land use, land-use change and forestry sectors contributed
6.9% to Australian's greenhouse gas emissions. Compared to other countries, the
Australian agricultural and forestry sectors make a relative large contribution
to total net greenhouse gas emissions.[45]
3.55
The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change breaks agricultural emissions down into six sources: enteric
fermentation in livestock; manure management; rice cultivation; agricultural
soils; prescribed burning of savannas; and field burning of agricultural
residues.
3.56
Agriculture is the dominant source of methane, primarily from livestock
(enteric fermentation and manure management), and nitrous oxide, mainly from
agricultural soils. In 2006, there was 69.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide
equivalent (Mt CO2-e) of methane emissions from agricultural sources.
These emissions accounted for 59.0% of Australia's net methane emissions. In
2006, there was 20.3 Mt CO2-e of nitrous oxide emissions from
agricultural sources accounting for 83.9% of Australia's net nitrous oxide
emissions.[46]
3.57
The Green Paper outlines how agricultural emissions are highly variable
in response to management strategies:
For example, cattle breeds and feed types in tropical and
subtropical regions differ from those in temperate regions, and have methane
conversion rates that are significantly different. Nitrous oxide emissions from
soils in major cereal-growing regions vary geographically and over time,
according to different rainfall, soil types and fertiliser application rates.[47]
3.58
The committee was provided with evidence of the potential for the
agricultural sector to mitigate its emissions, and also opportunities for
offsetting emissions from agriculture and other sectors. These opportunities,
and some associated challenges, are discussed below.
Mitigating agricultural emissions
3.59
The joint submission of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry (DAFF) and the Department of Climate Change (DCC) indicated that the
Australian Government is funding research in the area of mitigation of
agricultural emissions:
Through the Greenhouse Action in Regional Australia (GARA)
program, established in 2004, DCC has provided leadership and coordination for
greenhouse action in agriculture and land management. About $25 million has
been spent over five years to support development of methods and technologies
for measuring greenhouse emissions from agriculture and, in partnership with
industry, to identify and support implementation of cost-effective abatement
strategies.
The GARA program has facilitated strategic climate change
research to build the capacity of the agricultural and land management sectors
to manage greenhouse gas emissions and response to climate change. Research
areas include livestock and emissions from soils, emissions from savannas and
forests, and climate change responses in farming systems and natural resource
management.[48]
3.60
In evidence to the committee, Ms Nicolette Boele of the Agricultural
Alliance on Climate Change (AACC), referred to some preliminary results from
studies showing over a 25 per cent reduction in methane output in sheep eating
saltbush. The committee notes Ms Boele's comment that the work is yet to be
peer reviewed.[49]
3.61
The submission of the Victorian Department of Primary Industries
outlined the work of the 'Greenhouse in Agriculture' program, which is 'an
ongoing program of research, development and extension aimed at delivering measurable
abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from farming systems in Victoria, whilst
maintaining profitable and viable production systems':
This program has already made significant breakthroughs in
developing more accurate benchmarks for agricultural emissions of methane and
nitrous oxide. Mitigation opportunities for the dairy farm sector now being verified
include selective cattle breeding, use of dietary supplements and extended
lactation management.[50]
3.62
In a joint submission, the Cattle Council of Australia and Meat and
Livestock Australia (MLA), were cautious as to the overall effect that research
into the mitigation of agricultural emissions would have:
MLA is supporting research into mitigation of emissions of methane
from livestock and nitrous oxide and methane from animal waste, but the options
are likely to take considerable time to operationalise, produce relatively
small reductions, and be costly.[51]
3.63
The committee is also aware of the discussion in The Garnaut Climate
Change Review about the potential for a reduction in agricultural emissions
through shifting of meat production from sheep and cattle to kangaroo, which
emit negligible amounts of methane through enteric fermentation.[52]
3.64
Voiceless provided the committee with a submission outlining the role
that increasing global meat consumption plays in contributing to climate
change:
It has recently been observed that while coal is often seen as
the major threat to the environment, it is actually cattle that will have the
biggest impact on the climate during the next 20 years...
The livestock sector has emerged as one of the most significant
contributors to the more serious environmental problems, with farmed animals
now producing more greenhouse gas emissions than the world's entire transport
system.[53]
3.65
Voiceless' submission concluded that 'only a reduction in meat
consumption and intensive livestock production can effectively address the
issue of global warming and slow the pace of climate change'.[54]
3.66
While Voiceless makes valid points in relation to the impacts that
livestock production and meat consumption has on increasing greenhouse gas
emissions, calls to reduce meat consumption obviously concern those in the
agricultural sector. MLA made the following submission on the impacts of
decreased meat consumption:
A shift away from meat-based diets towards vegetable-based diets
will have important ramifications for the economic viability of livestock
producers and processing industries. It will also have impacts on landscape
health if more fragile lands are cropped rather than grazed, especially under
irrigation. There is also good evidence that a decline in intake of the
nutritional benefits of meat will have long-term implications for health.[55]
3.67
In its consideration of evidence and submissions about perennial pasture
and fodder systems, the committee was particularly interested in the potential
of these systems to act as permanent carbon sinks through the sequestration of
carbon in the soil. The committee received evidence from a number of witnesses
who are very enthusiastic about the potential of agricultural soils to act as a
carbon sink. However, the committee notes there appears to be little support in
the scientific community.
3.68
Dr Mark Howden of the CSIRO, while noting that there was no 'single
CSIRO view' of soil carbon sequestration, was cautious as to prospects of soil
carbon sequestration:
Soil carbon is essentially a function of how much carbon goes
into the system, so it is really a function of the ecosystem production, and
how much goes out of the system, which is a function of various breakdown
rates, degradation rates – which can be caused by people using, say, windrowing
or burning, or just part of natural processes. The balance between those is
what is left in the system, and that is the soil carbon. It can go up or go
down. We know with a great deal of certainty that certain conversions of
agricultural land from one form to another have significant carbon implications
in the soil. Within each land use, the flexibility to improve carbon content is
often small, but sometimes it can be larger. There is a need to be cautious
about the prospects for incorporating soil carbon into some systems, because
that carbon can be quite labile, which means it can be easily lost, and there
can be significant overestimates of how much carbon can be incorporated into
agricultural systems as well.[56]
3.69
According to Dr Jones of ASCAS, soluble carbon entering soil from plant
roots is rapidly humified if appropriate microbial associations are in place,
and this humified carbon is not labile and is not easily lost.[57]
Dr Jones went on to explain to the committee how conventional cropping
inhibits the sequestration of carbon in soil:
What happens in a conventional zero-till type cropping is you
would have stubble that would break down into the soil and form what they call
labile carbon, which is very readily decomposed, and within 12 to 18 months
most of that goes back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. So it is a very rapid
cycling of carbon, and the reason that that happens is that the microbes
necessary for humification are not there because the chemicals used in zero
till have knocked them out of the system. This is why we have experts across Australia
telling us we cannot build soil carbon because they are looking at conventional
zero-till systems where the microbes that you need to build the carbon simply
are not there. They are actually quite correct that you cannot build carbon in
those systems. But if we go to perennial based agriculture and change the soil
biology and get the microbial associations, we can build carbon at rates faster
than people will actually acknowledge is possible.[58]
3.70
In terms of how governments view the potential of this area, the joint
submission of DAFF/DCC states that 'the management of soil carbon is one
opportunity that requires further research'.[59]
To this end, in March 2008 the Prime Minister announced that the Federal
Government would be investigating soil carbon as part of the Australia's
Farming Future initiative.[60]
In contrast, the assessment in the Green Paper of the potential of
sequestration of soil carbon in agricultural soils is more muted:
There are likely to be important opportunities to increase the
carbon stored in agricultural soils. However, scientific research conducted in Australia
suggests that, while there are opportunities for increasing and retaining
agricultural soil carbon, Australia does not have the same sequestration
potential as other countries, and there is significant risk of loss of soil
carbon in times of drought or changed management practices. Nevertheless, Australia
should continue to investigate opportunities for improving soil carbon
retention...[61]
3.71
In their submission and in evidence to the committee Mr Wiley and Mr Wilson
provided some preliminary data they have about the ability of agricultural
soils to sequester carbon. Soil carbon sequestration by perennial pasture
systems has been calculated to be 5-10 tonnes CO2-equivalent/hectare/year
(CO2-eq/ha/yr), compared to sequestration of less than 1.5 tonnes CO2-eq/ha/yr
by annual systems.[62]
3.72
In evidence to the committee Mr Wiley acknowledged that he was 'not
totally certain' that this data was correct:
...we are right at the point at trying to collect good, vigorous,
scientific data to find out whether we are really right although I myself have
some uncertainty about that. Once we have that data, that will create a whole
pile of challenges for the scientists to try to figure out how it is happening.[63]
3.73
Dr Jones also gave evidence to the committee that in some areas the
sequestration of carbon by soils was 'far more' than could be sequestered in
trees. Further, the perennial pastures had an advantage over trees as a carbon
sink because it could be grown in 'marginal areas' where trees would not
receive sufficient rainfall to grow.[64]
3.74
When questioned about the response from the scientific community about
these findings, Mr Wiley noted that he has had discussions with a scientist at
CSIRO who indicated a willingness to further investigate what is occurring with
perennial pastures in Western Australia in terms of the amount of carbon being
sequestered.[65]
In contrast, Dr Jones told the committee she had been applying for funding in
this area for at least 10 years:
I have folders full of reject letters saying that it was an
extremely well worded application, that it has possibility but the current
science does not support it and it is not possible to actually increase carbon
to the levels that we were documenting on farm. I would have to say that that
has changed very quickly recently. In fact in the last week even, there have
been huge changes. I think we have just finally got to the tipping point. We
have 2,000 farmers involved in this. It is a huge grassroots revolution that
the scientific establishment for some reason seems to be completely unaware of
or, if they are aware of it, have totally discounted as irrelevant.[66]
3.75
Dr Michael Robinson of Land & Water Australia, and Chair of the
Joint Strategy Team of the National Climate Change Research Strategy for
Primary Industries (CCRSPI), told the committee that the CCRSPI process had
identified approximately 26 research projects that are directly related to soil
carbon, however, those projects are part of a broader suite of work around agricultural
production and sustainability, and carbon accounting or nitrous oxide
emissions.[67]
3.76
The committee received some evidence as to the role that the
agricultural sector could play in the production of alternate energy sources as
a means of reducing emissions from other sectors of the economy. Much of the
evidence considered by the committee related to the role of biofuels and the
impacts that this would have on food production.
Biofuels
3.77
Submissions highlighted the potential for biofuels production in Australia.
The Agricultural Alliance on Climate Change (AACC) referred the committee to
research it had commissioned the CSIRO to undertake. The resulting report, Rural
Australia providing climate solutions, made the following comments
on the expected expansion of biofuel production in Australia:
Biofuel supply is expected to exceed ...
350ML by 2010, and significant further expansion of domestic biofuel production
in the medium term would be possible with step changes in production
technologies or specific policy action in addition to the introduction of
emissions trading. Realising the benefits of increased production and use of
biofuels will require all stakeholders to be involved in developing practical
pathways for commercialising biofuels that are environmentally sustainable and
do not disrupt food and fibre production, along with significantly increased
research and development into prospective second generation biofuels that are
relevant to Australia...[68]
3.78
This statement touches on the concerns raised in submissions about the
expansion of biofuel production, specifically the delicate balance between production
for food and fibre and production for biofuels. The Australian Landcare Council
noted this challenge in its submission:
The role of biofuels in [greenhouse gas] strategies presents
some challenges to policy makers. Dedicated agricultural production of biofuel
feedstocks can compete with food production with resultant upward pressure on
food prices, leading to social and economic impacts. Secondly,
whole-of-lifecycle analyses often reveal little net emissions benefit from
existing biofuel production systems.[69]
3.79
The Sydney Centre for International Law outlined concerns in relation to
mitigation of climate change, and the impact that this might have on food
production:
Australia must be cautious not to aggravate other serious
international problems through its mitigation measures. For example, the World
Bank recently reported that global food prices rose by 83% in the past three
years, in part due to demand for bio-fuels and the consequent conversion of
food crops to energy crops, driving up basic food prices. The consequence is
chronic food insecurity in some parts of the developing world, which both
infringes the basic human right to food, and generates social and political
instability and even violent conflict.[70]
3.80
In response to a question on notice, the CSIRO provided the following
information about the expansion in global biofuel production:
[Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development-Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations] estimates of world wheat and
coarse grain (maize, sorghum, barley and oats) production for 2007 amount to
1,661 million tonnes. Of this 761 million tonnes was used for feed and industrial
purposes, including an estimated 93 million tonnes for biofuels (dominated by
maize in the USA). In other words, approximately 6% of wheat and coarse grain
was used for biofuels in 2007. World production of rice amounted to 660 million
tonnes in 2007 and no diversion of rice to biofuels is taking place – hence
overall percentage of grain (wheat, rice and coarse grains) going to biofuels
appears to be approximately 4% in 2007.
In terms of rates of growth in grain demand, biofuels are an
important driver. Wheat and coarse gain usage globally is estimated to have
increased 80 million tonnes between 2005 and 2007. Over this time, biofuel use
of grain increased by 47 million tonnes, amounting to approximately 60% of the
increased global wheat and coarse grain consumption.[71]
3.81
The submission provided by A3P, the peak body for Australian plantation,
plantation products and paper industries, and representatives from the National
Association for Forestry Industries highlighted the role that forests could
play in biofuel production.[72]
3.82
A3P pointed out in its submission that using plantation products could
avoid the 'perverse outcomes associated with other biofuel opportunities such
as more intense harvesting or conversion of natural forests, reduced food
production, or reduced fibre for timber and paper production.'[73]
3.83
However, the committee also received evidence from Dr Mark Howden of the
CSIRO stating that there is a 'technological hurdle' to be overcome in relation
to using wood products for biofuels, namely the lignocellulosic breakdown of
wood products to produce ethanol or similar products. Dr Howden indicated that,
to his knowledge, no research is currently being undertaken in Australia to
overcome this 'technological hurdle'.[74]
The committee is also aware that conversion of native forests is still
practised in some parts of Australia and biofuel production may pose the same
risks domestically as it does overseas.
3.84
The committee also notes the comments of Associate Professor Christopher
Preston of the Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management, in
relation to the 'weediness' potential of prospective biofuel crops.[75]
Other forms of alternative energy
generation
3.85
The committee was disappointed that it received very little evidence or
submissions about the potential for using agricultural land as a means of
'farming' alternative energy sources.
3.86
The AACC's paper, Rural Australia providing climate
change solutions, states that '[r]enewable energy offers significant
financial and other benefits to landholders and rural communities'. The report
goes on to speculate on the value of renewable energy:
Previous reports imply wind and bio-electricity could generate
total annual revenues of $300-1000 million by 2020 with an ambitious emissions
reduction target or other policy support for renewable energy. Estimates
undertaken for this report suggest potential wind royalties of up to $150
million a year, or more.[76]
3.87
The committee questioned Dr Mark Howden of the CSIRO as to the whether in
its research the CSIRO is looking at wind and solar thermal energy options as a
feasible farming option. Dr Howden indicated that he had spoken to farmers
about this issue and that some were 'thinking constructively along those
lines'.[77]
3.88
The joint submission from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry and the Department of Climate Change provided information on the Methane
to Markets Program, which 'seeks to lower agricultural greenhouse gas
emissions by capturing and using methane for energy generation':
The program will adapt for Australian conditions technology
already in use in intensive animal production in a number of other countries,
including he United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. The captured methane
generated from the waste can be used for industrial heating and drying or,
alternatively, for electricity generation to supply power grids.[78]
Committee view
3.89
The committee was pleased to hear about the many potential opportunities
that climate change may present to the agricultural sector, particularly in
relation to issues such as perennial pastures and soil carbon sequestration.
However, the committee is also concerned about the many challenges presented to
the Australian agricultural sector by climate change, not least in terms of
competition for water resources and reduced water availability.
3.90
The committee is very concerned about what it perceives to be a disconnect
between the Australian agricultural sector and those in the scientific area.
The committee noted this disconnect in its Interim Report in relation to the
communication of climate projections. The committee heard evidence about the
'very strong relationship' that farmers have with the land, and its natural
cycles.[79]
For this reason, the committee is disappointed that, at times, it appears that
the scientific community and the Government take a dismissive view of
adaptation and mitigation possibilities which have strong support in the
agricultural sector. The committee urges those researching and investigating
climate change adaptation and mitigation opportunities and risks to fully
engage with those in the agricultural community.
Recommendation 1
3.91
The Government should significantly increase the research effort in
relation to the potential of soil carbon as a climate mitigation measure, as a
means of reducing the capital input costs to agriculture as a means of
increasing resilience in agricultural systems.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page