EFFORTS to change the international carbon accounting rules for land use, which Australian farmers have been advocating for years, have triggered deep divide in this week's Copenhagen negotiations, including accusations that Australia is tyring to fudge its emissions figures.
A story in Fairfax newspapers has triggered major controversy at the COP 15 UN negotiations, suggesting pressure from the Australian, Canadian and American Governments to change accounting rules so emissions from natural catastrophes like bushfires and droughts were left out was seen by some countries as "cooking the books".
Farmers, particularly from developed nations, have been arguing for the changes in accounting rules so there is appropriate recognition of the contribution of the agricultural sector to reducing emissions through improved land management practices.
A change in rules would enable soil to count as a carbon sink, which would be a huge boon for Australia and its farmers.
While Australia has been a signatory to the Kyoto protocol since 2007, it was excluded from certain clauses on land use because they would have counted emissions from droughts and bushfires.
Now Australia and other big countries want those rules changed before they agree to a deal in Copenhagen, but the move is being reported as a conspiracy to enable Australia, and others, to commit to major new greenhouse gas reduction targets without lifting a finger.
Green groups are arguing that there would essentially be no need for these countries to reduce their industrial pollution because it could all be offset in well-managed farmland.
The agricultural and land use negotiations in Copenhagen have been painfully slow and this division over the accounting rules could bring the whole deal apart.
But National Farmers Federation President, David Crombie, who was in Copenhagen last week, said the rules must change if agriculture is to play its part in helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
He said firstly the Kyoto rules exaggerate agriculture's contribution to global warming, and treat agricultural emissions in the same way emissions from coal-fired power stations.
"They take no account of the natural carbon cycle that occurs within agriculture," Mr Crombie said.
"We would therefore be arguing that it is misleading to report that agriculture is creating 16 per cent of Australia's carbon emissions."
Mr Crombie said the world's farmers were concerned about the Kyoto clause, article 3.4, which would hold farmers liable for events "beyond their control" like bushfires and droughts.
"This issue goes against the core principle of why the Kyoto Protocol was developed," Mr Crombie said.
"That is to bring about a reduction in human-induced climate change.
"Why, then, are farmers being penalised under this treaty for natural events that are outside their control."
Mr Crombie said a third reason why the accounting rules must change is that the only option currently available for farmers to reduce their carbon footprint is to produce less or plant more trees.
He said while planting trees was important and valuable, there needed to be a balance, especially if farmers were to continue producing food for a growing world population.
Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, told journalists in Copenhagen that the concerns raised in the story were "an old issue and a criticism that has been around for a very long time".
"…and not one the Government accepts," Senator Wong added.
"In terms of some of what’s reported in the papers, I’d make the point that Australia’s inventory is public, it's transparent, it's on the website, it's been considered by the UN and has been in the public arena, I think, I can’t recall for how many months now, but for some time.
"The issue of land use is an issue of the negotiations.
"The Australian Government’s view is that we can improve, the world community can improve, the accounting rules to better reflect the reality of how you need to manage the land sector.
"Our position is that we should ensure that governments can manage emissions from those sectors but obviously not all of the emissions are capable of management in terms of human activity.
"This is a complex area, it’s an area where we’re working to improve the accounting rules internationally, but it’s an important area in terms of the environmental outcome."
Email a friend