WA red meat producers urged to hold on to low-carbon credentials

WA livestock producers have been urged to rethink selling carbon credits to big polluters like fossil fuel companies, with a sustainability expert spruiking the benefits of keeping climate claims within the agriculture supply chain. Nicole Buckley Biggs, sustainability director for agtech company AgriWebb, made the comments in the wake of a recent independent review into the nation’s Australian Carbon Credit Unit scheme arrangements. Dr Buckley Biggs said sweeping recommendations made in the review report — intended to boost transparency and confidence in the market — would lead to important improvements to the scheme. “The real question for the red meat industry is whether carbon credits from grazing lands should be sold to fossil fuel companies and other big polluters outside the agriculture industry,” she said. “Another question is whether these climate-related improvements should be reported by meat companies and retailers to support low carbon or Net Zero claims.” Dr Buckley Biggs said by selling carbon credits outside the industry, producers were “selling away the right to describe their meat as low-carbon”. “Without price premiums for low-carbon beef being offered to producers, they will turn to carbon credit markets to improve operational income,” she said. “But for the long-term outlook of the meat industry and acceptability of meat by the public, it may benefit the industry to keep those climate claims within agricultural supply chains.” WAFarmers president John Hassell agreed there were benefits to keeping climate claims within the agricultural sector but said the rest of Dr Buckley Biggs’ argument was “flawed”. “I think the fundamental flaw in her whole argument is that livestock are polluting,” he said. “There’s been a very small increase in numbers of livestock since industrialisation, and on that basis, the level of methane is static. “We’ve absolutely got to educate people. All the evidence shows that livestock emissions are static, so why would we sell ourselves down the drain for a little bit of glory?” The review of the ACCU scheme was carried out after its integrity was called into question by a key architect of the framework, Andrew Macintosh, who labelled it a “fraud on the environment”. A panel of four experts led by Ian Chubb found the scheme arrangements were essentially sound, but recommended a number of changes to “clarify governance, improve transparency ... and enhance confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of the scheme”. Mr Hassell said the scheme lacked confidence and integrity, adding that there were “too many carpetbaggers trying to tap in and make a profit out of it”. “We need to set the baseline first and foremost… and the growers need to hang on to their ammunition until they get a lot more clarity around it,” he said. “The industry needs a lot of sorting out before anybody goes selling their souls. There’s a lot of people out there trying to make a quick buck out of the farmers and I think farmers should be very careful about it.” Demand for carbon credits from big emitters has been rising in recent years as more resource companies strive to become carbon-neutral. In October 2021, Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue Metals Group pledged to eradicate customers’ carbon emissions — equivalent to 250m tonnes — by 2040. The announcement followed FMG’s promise in 2020 to become carbon-neutral, involving the offset of 2.2m tonnes.