Scientists worldwide recognise the very real opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere through storing carbon in biological systems.
The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, Professor Ross Garnaut (in his report on Climate Change) and, indeed, the Australian Government have all confirmed carbon capture including through soils, crops and pastures is a reality.
One problem is realising the potential. How do we monitor, measure and evaluate the net emissions and/or storage of carbon, let alone, across Australia's 155,000 farms?
Federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke recently announced $32 million to study the role soil plays in storing greenhouse gases.
Biosequestration occurs naturally through the process of photosynthesis. Farmers facilitate photosynthesis literally daily as they plant crops, encourage pasture re-growth and sustainably manage vegetation to ensure their land continues to be productive. In fact, over 94 per cent of Australian farmers actively employ natural resource management practices as a matter of course.
However, the international carbon accounting rules, set by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, misguidedly focus on carbon emissions and fail to recognise biosequestration through agricultural or any other means.
This is not only short-sighted but, frankly, ignorant. If governments are serious about tackling carbon pollution, then they need to fully understand the total carbon cycle; how much is being emitted and how much is being sequestered. This then needs to be fully accounted for in any carbon trading regime.
Globally, agriculture makes up around 12 per cent of all emissions in Australia, around 16 per cent. Australia's farm systems are among the lowest emitting of any on Earth, while producing food and fibre for everyday human existence, but we're told it's still too high. But what of the other side of the ledger? How much carbon is agriculture absorbing? What is the ''net'' carbon effect of this biological release and capture on the environment? Nobody knows, and this is where Australia can truly lead the carbon debate.
We've seen grossly misleading assertions by those with an ideological, sometimes zealot-like, positionregarding agriculture's major contribution to global warming.
However, such claims come from a factual vacuum, ignoring carbon being removed from the atmosphere through farm practices.
In effect, when it comes to carbon and agriculture, the public is only getting half of the story.
While opportunities through biosequestration are real there are variables. Different farms will have varying capacities to store carbon in their soil, depending on soil types, rainfall patterns and production systems.
Nevertheless, for those with the right preconditions, building soil carbon can have additional positive spin-offs through improving water retention capacity of soils and enhancing vegetation's ability to soak up nutrients.
Thats why the NFF is calling for an ''opt in'' approach, alongside the Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
It is universally agreed agriculture cannot be covered by the proposed CPRS, and may never be. But there must be capacity for the sector to contribute to carbon reduction in a positive way.
Through research and development on soil carbon, we can explore human-induced sequestration opportunities throughout the complete biological system.
From what we already know, farmers can start designing appropriate, voluntary, market-based means that incentivise maximising soil carbon and other forms of biosequestration through complementary activities to the CPRS.
As new research findings and opportunities come to light, these activities can, and should, expand to reduce atmospheric carbon levels.
David Crombie is president of the National Farmers Federation
Email a friend