The farmers were told at a Clearing the Carbon Confusion' seminar in Warrnambool recently that they should become informed about carbon saving options but should not rush into any deals.
A panel of experts told the seminar that farmers should only pursue carbon offsets if they complement and enhance their core business of producing food and fibre.
The audience heard that a carbon policy had been brewing for several years and would become a reality, but farmers would not be forced to enter in the Carbon Farming Initiative.
They were also told that many of the savings needed to reduce a farm's carbon footprint made good business sense and would improve production and result in cost savings.
About 100 farmers and service providers attended the seminar which was presented by the Department of Primary Industries, Glenelg Hopkins CMA, Heytesbury District Landcare Network, Dairy Australia and the Australian Governments Climate Change Research Program.
It featured presentations by DPI Climate Extension Specialist Graeme Anderson, Glenelg Hopkins CMA Regional Landcare Facilitator Bruce Knee and DPI Policy Manager David Griffin.
Griffin says that the Federal Coalition is unlikely to repeal the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI), but reserved the right to amend the legislation. "The focus for farmers will be on productivity gains mainly through input efficiencies. However, anything that detracts from the core business of producing food (and fibre) should not be part of your main game," he said.
The seminar was told that agriculture is exempt from a direct carbon tax obligation but could experience indirect increases in input prices.
He says the CFI is ambitious but voluntary. "Farmers should hasten slowly and adopt a watch and wait attitude. There will be costs and potential risks and if farmers go into it they should have their eyes open."
The pathways to achieving offsets were explained, including the need for offsets to be underpinned by scientific research and the option for aggregators to develop the methodology for projects on behalf of individual farmers.
Knee explains about the high levels of emissions from farms in the form of methane and nitrous oxide and says that while it was important for farmers to know about the CFI they should approach it with caution. "Trust no-one, there will be a lot of sharks out there trying to make money out if it," he warned.
He says farmers could be a project proponent but would need to adopt a methodology and be responsible for its development. "The other option, which might be best for farmers, is to go with an aggregator but be sure you know and trust them."
Farmers were warned that to claim offsets for tree planting they would have to lock up land for a century.
Anderson says farmers were anxious about carbon legislation. "It has been brewing for a long time. There will be uncertainties along the way but it is not going away and we have to deal with it."
He said farmers were already active in many of the areas that would lead to increased milk production per cow and emissions efficiency. These include energy efficiency, farm forests, soil carbon, nitrogen efficiency and improving livestock and methane performance.
"The least profitable farms have the highest emissions intensity. There are efficiency drivers that make good business sense for farmers and a lot of work is already being done in these areas," he said.
"We are all on the same path of trying to find ways to reduce emissions."
Anderson says farmers "can sleep easy tonight" because the CFI is voluntary. "But you should stay tuned and stay informed, and look closely before signing a contract for carbon storage".
