THERE was not a single mention of agriculture or its potential to help reduce global greenhouse emissions in the Copenhagen Accord agreed to after marathon climate change negotiations last week.
In particular there was no change to the international accounting rules which govern agricultural emissions and currently exclude agriculture from mitigation opportunities like bio-char and soil carbon sequestration.
The new Copenhagen Accord was finally agreed to in the early hours of Saturday morning and at best is a weak document which includes no targets or legally binding commitments despite the immense political will and huge expense of the COP 15 negotiations of the past fortnight.
It recognises the need to reduce emissions so temperature increases are held at no more than two degrees Celsius.
Mitigation and adaptation details were sketchy and non-committal and it is still unclear now what targets Australia would be using now this "deal" has been reached.
The Government is committed to a 5 per cent reduction in emissions on 2000 levels, rising to 25pc depending on the deal struck at the conference.
At worst this deal now means more months and years of political negotiations now to try to build on the loose agreement if countries are to be bound to any global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Those negotiations won't be easy given a deal on even this weak accord was close to collapse at many times during the final days of the Copenhagen conference.
One of the main areas for agriculture – the natural disturbance issue and how this is accounted for in the texts on land use – did make some progress during the two week conference but the final document is still very unclear with little resolution or outcome to report at this point.
The last minute accord was struck between the two main protagonists – the United States and China – with support from leaders in Brazil, South Africa and India.
Basically it was a deal cut between developing nations and the US, all of which (until now) have not been part of any agreement to reduce emissions.
Europe and Australia were all-but sidelined from the final talks, despite Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's appointment as a "friend of the chair" to help close a deal.
Mr Rudd was a member of a specially formed 11th hour group of 26 nations which helped hold the talks from collapse on the final day of negotiations.
Despite an obvious lack of meaningful ambition or action, Mr Rudd refused to call the deal a failure, instead saying "we prevailed" at the close of talks early on Saturday.
He did however admit that a huge task lies ahead for countries if global emissions are to be cut.
"This is the first time that both rich countries and poor countries have both agreed on actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Mr Rudd said.
"This is the first time that there is agreement between rich countries and poor countries on international verification mechanisms on actions taken.
"And this is the first time that we have an agreement between rich countries and poor countries on the finance necessary to support mitigation efforts, the adaptation efforts of the most vulnerable countries of the world.
"Much more work is still to be done, and we’ll be putting our shoulder to the wheel to make sure that work is done."
Despite a huge agricultural lobbying presence in Copenhagen, and an entire day devoted to the sector and its capabilities in reducing emissions, agriculture did not rate a mention in the final accord texts.
There was significant acknowledgement of the forestry sector and the need for incentives for reductions in emissions through trees.
In one of the final addresses to the conference on Friday, Danish Agriculture and Food Council chairman, Michael Brockenhuus-Schack, spoke to delegates on behalf of the international farm lobby on the last day of the climate change negotiations and urged recognition of the close connection between agriculture, climate change and food security.
"Agriculture is central to food security and climate change," Mr Brockenhuus-Schack said.
He said the number one priority for farmers was for food security to be integrated into the shared vision of the text on long term co-operation.
This would have opened the door to adaptation and mitigation incentives for the agricultural sector, as well as to increased investments, he said.
He also told the conference of the critical need to overhaul the accounting rules and adapt them to agriculture.
"Even though the Kyoto Protocol takes into account most types of land based greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sinks, it does contain limitations in practice.
"Farmers acknowledge the substantial progress achieved by the Contact group on agriculture during these last few months."
While still waiting for further information on the land use texts, the National Farmers Federation is very concerned about the emphasis given to forestry in the Copenhagen Accord and how this could further exacerbate land use distortions in Australia.
The Kyoto Protocol already contains what NFF describes as "undue bias" towards forestry and says it hopes further meetings on land use next year can resolve the many outstanding issues on the accounting rules.
Email a friend