Vegetative sinks on farmland can't be used as a free pass for polluters: NFF

Producers, country towns and the environment itself would wear far too heavy a cost: diminished earnings and business resilience, reduced regional employment, greater fire risk, the creation of safe harbours for invasive plants, weeds and animal species and compromised availability of productive land to name just some.

Over all that, however, is that fundamentally vegetative offsets are not a long-term solution for polluting sectors, the National Farmers' Federation argues.

Chief executive officer Tony Maher said if those sectors were simply balancing their emissions by creating offsets, "we very quickly run out of land and the permanence of the sequestration via woody perennials exacerbates that problem."

The NFF believes it is likely vegetative sinks will be one of several mechanisms of choice to support the federal government's ambition towards a national 2050 net-zero target.

It sees the intersection between offsets and agriculture as a major concern.

Speaking at a field day focusing on carbon farming in agriculture, held at Wilmot Cattle Company near Armidale, Mr Maher provided a snapshot of what is coming down on Australian agriculture in the climate solution space both from a global and Australian Government sense.

The federal government has identified six sectors across the economy for a plan to reduce emissions. Agriculture and land is one. The others cover industry, electricity, transport, resources and the built environment.

Mr Maher said it was likely the government would roll those six plans into one to take to COP29 at the end of this year.

He said the wheels were turning on the Australian Government's agenda with climate change.

"One of the key platforms the Albanese Government was elected on was sustainability and climate so we can expect the trajectory to continue," he said.

Alongside those six plans, other federal government action in this space includes the Nature Repair Act 2023, with its national voluntary biodiversity market which awards activities that protect or enhance biodiversity with certificates.

"We see this as a positive," Mr Maher said.

"What it might do is create a market to recognise and remunerate farmers for managing natural capital.

"But we need to get the methodology right."

Meanwhile, in January, draft legislation for mandatory Climate Related Financial Disclosures were released.

The NFF wants agriculture exempt from Scope 3 reporting.

And the government is also re-writing the nation's environmental laws, Mr Maher said.

On a global level, the Taskforce for Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and the Taskforce for Nature-Related Financial Disclosures are initiatives being adopted by major food manufacturers, banks and governments.

The European Union Deforestation Regulation, which requires operators to ensure products were not produced on land subject to deforestation, is another that will affect Australian agriculture, particularly given the EU's definition of forest differs from Australia's.

And ISCC Certification, which enables Australian growers to access markets, is being expanded beyond legal requirements, with zero-deforestation included.

"Europe might not be our number one market but they are influencing other markets such as Asia and the United States," Mr Maher said,

As all these movements unfold, agriculture must maintain a prominent seat at the table, Mr Maher said.

"It's important to take a whole-of-agriculture approach," he said.

The Australian Agricultural Sustainability Framework was an example of being on the front foot, he said.

"This will allow us to demonstrate and prove that we are clean and green," Mr Maher said.

"We can say to international governments and businesses - you don't need to regulate us because here's what we are doing."

NFF president David Jochinke said the first thing asked of Australian agriculture in trade negotiations was its sustainability credentials.