Five key messages from the discussion

1. Farmers are prepared to do their share – but not carry the whole burden

Farmers around the table were clear that agriculture has a role to play in Australia’s emissions reduction effort.

There was support for carbon farming and other land-based projects where they are well suited to individual farms and regional landscapes, with some farmers in attendance already hosting carbon projects. But there was also a strong view that carbon projects cannot simply become a substitute for reducing industrial emissions.

As one participant put it, “carbon farming projects can fit in really nicely” within a sustainable farming business, but the core business of producing food and fibre remains fundamental.

The question is therefore not whether agriculture should contribute. It is how much, where and in what form, and whether the overall policy settings support agricultural production while encouraging industrial decarbonisation.

2. Carbon markets need to work with farming

Participants recognised the significant opportunity for farmers to participate in emerging carbon and nature markets. However, the economics of carbon farming need to be understood in the context of the underlying agricultural business. Carbon income will not, in most cases, replace the value of productive farming. The most useful approach is likely to be one that considers carbon, nature and agricultural production together at a regional and landscape scale.

This requires better coordination and planning about which projects are appropriate in which places, rather than treating every hectare as interchangeable.

3. Trusted regional organisations have an important role to play

A recurring theme was the importance of organisations that already have trusted relationships with farmers and regional communities.

Participants highlighted the Landcare movement and NRM Regions as organisations with established local knowledge and the capacity to support farmers through practice change, landscape planning and adaptation.

There was concern that reductions or changes in funding for these organisations have weakened their ability to play this role at precisely the time when farmers are being asked to navigate increasingly complex decisions about climate, carbon, nature, environmental legislation and land use.

There was a strong case for rebuilding this regional capability.

4. Farmers need simpler pathways to finance and better information

Farmers are being asked to make increasingly complex investment decisions, often involving long timeframes and significant upfront costs.

Participants called for simpler and more direct pathways to green finance, using trusted organisations and regional networks to help farmers navigate available opportunities.

Better information is equally important. Farmers need reliable information about climate risks, carbon markets, farm economics and emerging policy settings to make sound long-term decisions. Poor or inaccessible information increases the risk of poor investment decisions and contributes to distrust of policy processes.

5. Policy stability matters, but so does moving with urgency

The discussion highlighted a difficult balance.

Farmers and industry need confidence that policy settings will remain sufficiently stable to support long-term investment. At the same time, the physical impacts of climate change are already being experienced and delaying action can increase the scale of future adjustment.

The answer is clear, coherent frameworks that improve over time and give businesses confidence about the direction of travel.

For the Safeguard Mechanism Review, this means maintaining a clear long-term trajectory while ensuring that the burden of adjustment is fairly distributed.