The Commonwealth Government’s release of the 2035 climate target in September set a clear trajectory for the economy and the agricultural sector. Agriculture accounts for almost 20% of Australia’s emissions, not including those from off-farm production and transport. Despite technological advances, agricultural emissions have remained relatively steady since 2004–05, primarily driven by methane from livestock and nitrous oxide from soils.

Embedded emissions accounting, the measurement and reporting of greenhouse gases which result from processes required to create a product, is rapidly becoming a cornerstone of both public and private climate initiatives to reduce emissions in many sectors, including, at last, agriculture.

However, the rush to measure emissions has created a chaotic landscape of guidelines, calculation tools, and verification mechanisms, which is causing serious problems. Without shared definitions and consistent methodologies, carbon footprints become difficult, if not impossible, to compare reliably. This variation leads to wildly divergent estimates for identical products or farm operations, making it difficult for stakeholders to trust the data and make informed choices. This could also have trade implications, particularly if the European Union expands its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism to include agricultural products.

While emissions accounting began in manufacturing and industrial products, where measurement is relatively straightforward, agriculture presents a different set of challenges. Agricultural emissions are cyclical, harder to quantify, and fragmented across thousands of farm enterprises. Yet, agricultural production is critical to meeting climate targets, with the majority of emissions in agrifood value chains originating on farms.

Over the past two years, ANU researcher Dr Saulé Burkitbayeva has examined a variety of farm-level tools to see if they measure scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions and to evaluate the transparency of their calculation methods. The results were varied. Tools differ significantly in their methods and outputs- the same farm data can lead to different results. Some tools clearly state their methodology, while others do not. For example, Canada’s Holos tool has made its methods and calculations fully available on GitHub, whereas New Zealand has developed a government-standardised methodology and API to support consistent agricultural emissions reporting. Australia is set to follow with the Agriculture Innovation Australia Environmental Accounting Platform, designed as a definitive carbon calculation engine for agriculture, fisheries, and forestry.

This research has turned into policy advice beyond Australia. A piece co-authored with the OECD, Measuring Carbon Footprints of Agri-Food Products: Eight Building Blocks, examines how emissions are measured and reported along agri-food value chains, serving as a key resource for academics and policymakers globally. As part of further OECD collaboration, Saulé is currently building a database of more than 200 emissions calculators worldwide. This research will inform policy discussions on the harmonisation of farm-level tools in OECD countries.

One critical gap persists in our understanding – farmers themselves are rarely consulted on how they use and interpret emissions accounting. Tools must balance accuracy with usability and help producers understand what their emissions mean for their livelihoods and on-farm activities. The next step is achieving critical mass in adoption, turning fragmented tools into trusted, farmer-informed standards that can drive real change in agriculture’s climate footprint.

Partner with us to future-proof your operations. Whether you're seeking strategic insights, technical solutions, or collaborative innovation, we’re here to help you lead in a climate-smart agricultural future.

Work with us