FARMERS should not think the weekend's announcement to exclude agriculture from an emissions trading scheme means they are off the hook just yet, with clarity and details being sought to determine just how far the exclusion really stretches.
The National Farmers' Federation has only cautiously welcomed the exclusion they fought so hard for, waiting for specific details on the alternative offsets which would be allowed in the scheme, whether they would be Kyoto-compliant and what treatment would be given to the food and fibre processing sector.
NFF chief executive officer, Ben Fargher, said there has so far only been clarity on one of its four main concerns: that is, agriculture will be excluded, and that exclusion will be legislated.
In the next 24 hours the farm lobby is looking for greater detail on the exclusion announcement, and says while the exclusion is a major win the Government "has not ticked" all of the boxes concerning agriculture.
Mr Fargher admitted the exclusion will mean farmers will still be affected by rising costs from the scheme, namely through the indirect costs from dearer power, fertiliser, fuel and freight.
Labor sources announced through Sunday's Fairfax newspapers that the Government would deliver a "significant concession" to the Coalition by agreeing to exclude agriculture from the scheme "indefinitely".
This is instead of a previous decision to leave agriculture out of the scheme until a review in 2013 with a likely inclusion by 2015.
The Government is said to also be examining opportunities and incentives for farmers to generate carbon credits and voluntarily opt-in to the scheme to make extra money while reducing emissions at the same time.
NFF and the Opposition urgently want to know whether the Government will commit to more generous options for generating carbon credits because the only opportunity at the moment is for new trees planted since 2008.
NFF also want clarity on whether assistance to cover rising fuel costs will still be available now farming is excluded.
Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, said a long list of amendments had been put forward by the Opposition but it had always been clear "agriculture was something they had to have".
"There’s obviously other things on their list," Senator Wong told the ABC on Sunday.
"We have said to them - economically responsible, environmentally effective. They are the tests we’ll apply.
"But in terms of agriculture, this is an offer that is made by the Government on an issue that we know is important to the Opposition because we are serious about getting this legislation through."
Senator Wong said excluding agriculture "doesn’t mean that farmers can’t be part of the solution".
"We have to work through how that will be the case. Where we were a few months ago was that we needed to do more research and that we wanted to review this issue in 2013.
"The Opposition put to us that they wanted more certainty than that, they wanted specific exclusion in the legislation and we are prepared to do that in the interest, in the national interest, of getting up the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, getting that through the Parliament."
Mr Fargher acknowledged an ETS would never be a "cost-free exercise", especially for agriculture, but says the decision to exclude the sector would definitely minimise costs.
"If agriculture had been covered, the numbers would have been off the scale. Farmers would have been cruelled," Mr Fargher said.
"We now want to see how this scheme will link to the international rules and whether there will be any flexibility for farmers to generate offsets.
"We shouldn't be hamstrung by rules which are flawed.
"That will depend on the Government's intent in terms of design of the offset rules."
The weekend's news was welcomed by Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull, but he has been cautious about commenting much further on the negotiations, arguing there is still a way to run with them yet.
An amendment to agriculture alone is believed to be not enough to get The Nationals over the line.
"The Government's announcement is still well short of an exemption of agriculture from Labor's CPRS," Nationals leader Warren Truss said.
"Farmers will still face higher CPRS imposed costs on all farm inputs, including fuel, fertilizer, chemicals, electricity and machinery,” Mr Truss said.
"The food processing sector does not appear to be covered by Senator Wong's announcement, and this was a key demand by the Coalition in the negotiations.
"Labor's CPRS will add greatly to the costs of dairy processing, sugar refining, abattoirs and food processing making Australian food less competitive on export markets."
Email a friend