The South Australian Farmers' Federation has welcomed an extension of the deadline for agriculture's coverage under the Federal Government's emissions trading scheme, saying industry needs every minute possible in order to prepare.
The Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was detailed in the green paper released yesterday by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong.
SAFF believes that the five years leading up to a crucial "reassessment" in 2013 of farming's status in the emissions trading regime must be used to iron out the many uncertainties, unknowns and difficulties surrounding agriculture’s role.
Sharon Starick, chair of the SAFF's natural resources committee, wants "significant investment" by governments to research these issues in the time available.
"Neither government nor farmers can afford to be complacent about what looks like a seven-year delay for agriculture in the carbon scheme," Ms Starick said.
"A firm decision will happen in 2013, and we will need every minute before then to devise realistic ways of measuring, monitoring and verifying emissions as they apply to agricultural processes, as well as accounting rules."
She also says it will be essential to research whether farming participation would have a significant adverse impact on trade in agricultural products.
"The green paper suggests compensation for energy-intensive trade-exposed firms in order not to undermine Australia's competitiveness, but over the next seven years agriculture will receive no compensation as a trade exposed industry because it is not included in the scheme," she said.
"Meanwhile, farmers will still face higher input costs."
Ms Starick is pleased the paper recognises significant effort and resources are required in the transition of agriculture to becoming a covered sector, believes Government and farmers can work together, but warns the SAFF does not support the inclusion of farming without first solving the practical aspects of an emissions trading scheme.
"The paper has no discussion of economic impact on rural communities, nor evidence as to whether agriculture as a covered sector is the best option or if there could be other ways," she said.
"If petrol consumers are compensated dollar-for-dollar through a reduction in the fuel excise, what does this mean for farmers, whose industry is not covered in the scheme?"