Farm groups and The Nationals are publicly backing the Federal Government's decision to permanently exclude agriculture from its emissions trading scheme.
The decision came as a result of Climate Change Minister Penny Wong's on-going negotiations with her Liberal counterpart Ian Macfarlane, as they try to reach consensus on a package acceptable to both sides of politics.
"There's obviously other things on their list," Sen Wong said. "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."
Sen. Wong said that while farmers were excluded from having to reduce emissions, they would be able to sell credits for offsets they create via soils or forestry.
"We have to work through how that will be the case," she said.
It is that lack of detail which has farm groups like the NSW Farmers' Association and Queensland's AgForce worried.
However, both groups have welcomed the move as a win for producers after lobbying by the National Farmers' Federation.
The Nationals have also backed the change in stance by the Government, which had previously only committed to excluding agriculture until 2015.
However, Nationals Leader Warren Truss said agriculture would still bear the brunt of higher input costs as a consequence of the ETS and that the party was still opposed to the policy.
"Farmers will still face higher CPRS imposed costs on all farm inputs, including fuel, fertiliser, 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.
"The flood of cheap foreign food coming into Australia will accelerate because it will not be subject to emission taxes.
"The Government's announcement that it will work towards allowing farmers to claim credits for carbon abatement and sequestration achieved on their properties is unconvincing."
Meanwhile, green group, Humane Society International wants the Government to ensure credits created by on-farm works include stewardship to protect native forest and other natural habitats on their land.
Rod Holesgrove, HSI consultant on biodiversity and climate change, said native forest and other natural habitats had higher levels of biodiversity than forest plantations and were a more secure store of carbon than that attained by planting of trees - an activity already covered under the CPRS.
"HSI has been long been promoting the inclusion of native vegetation protection in the CPRS, going as far back as our submissions to the Garnaut Enquiry," Mr Holesgrove said.
Email a friend