NFF president David Crombie says it is essential the Government's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties conduct a "full and sober analysis of how Australia will be impacted" by the Kyoto protocol.

"Australian farmers support an appropriately designed Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) as the most economically responsible way of dealing with climate change," Mr Crombie said yesterday.

"Yet, Australia needs to make doubly-sure when signing-up that we do not carry a disproportionate load.

"We already know that the current Kyoto pact fails to adequately account for the 'life cycle' of agricultural emissions.

"That is, while farming's emissions are counted, the provisions to acknowledge our sequestration are completely insufficient.

"We also acknowledge that agriculture cannot be initially included in an ETS, but transitional policies to mitigate agricultural emissions are on the table.

"As such, we need to recognise sequestration – through soils, crops and trees – due to our on-farm systems."

Mr Crombie says the key to reaping the benefits of agriculture's opportunities under the Kyoto rules is "de-linking" natural causes of emissions, such as droughts and bushfires.

"In effect, this linkage (under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol) is unrealistic and would see Australia bear disproportionate risks, to the extent that Australia would not sign-up to that particular clause," he said.

"However, it would also mean we get no recognition for our world-renowned low emission and environmentally sustainable farm systems.

"As a result, the current Kyoto accounting rules emphasise reforestation as the primary tool for sequestering carbon.

"Under this rigid and short-sighted framework, agriculture's enormous sequestration capacity goes untapped.

"As the need for food production grows exponentially, we must ensure farming is not hamstrung in the process.

"The Kyoto accounting rules need to accommodate the unique characteristics and needs of agriculture, otherwise our future contribution will be in serious jeopardy.

"Not only would agriculture – with its benefits for off-setting carbon emissions – be carved out of the national and international pool, the costs imposed by such a scheme would likely see farmers forced to reduce food production."