There is an old saying that you can't hit the target if you don't know what it is.
In my farming business, financial obligations provide very clear performance targets and timeframes.
They don't always account for the less tangible environmental performance metrics though.
On the other hand, government policies and social license pressures on climate and the environment provide contradictory performance targets and unclear - or even undefined - timeframes.
I run a pretty robust farming system utilising minimum tillage, controlled traffic farming and regular rotations.
After 20 something years, I am on the cusp of harvesting consecutive bumper crops and my farm is as financially comfortable as it has ever been.
I have been hitting my primary financial targets.
Here is the conundrum.
Greenwashing and tokenism aside, where is the real incentive for me, or any other farmer, to change anything about what I/we currently do?
At the farm level, there is a constant tug-of-war between what I need to do to keep my bank manager happy and my commitment to being a responsible global citizen acting in the interests of my - and others - children's future.
There is much talk about the need to prepare and evolve in the face of climate change, including the increasing risks from drought, flood and fire.
I am an ardent proponent of the need to be aware of what is coming and for the nation to prepare.
It seems there is an overwhelming belief that farmers can and will do what is in the national/global interest because it is somehow going to be better for farmers.
On a generational basis, the payback for climate action is probably real. But individually and in real time, the payback is far less real.
If I take my eye off the short-term financial drivers of profit, in good and bad years, my business simply won't survive.
This logic is reinforced by the policies of successive governments that effectively chastise farmers by suggesting that they should be better prepared when they struggle to survive worsening droughts, floods and/or fires.
Even with significant practice change and emerging technologies, Australian agricultural production is unlikely to be able to mitigate or adapt to the impacts of climate change viably on its own.
There is a lot of hope being placed in carbon farming and regenerative agriculture.
But it is just as likely that, even with these farming systems that are focused on soil health, we can't fully combat the impacts of climate change.
I am not suggesting that focusing on soil health and building organic carbon aren't important things to do.
I am saying that they, in themselves, are not a guarantee of successful climate mitigation or even adaptation - particularly in traditionally lower rainfall zones of the country.
Completely shifting our farming focus from seasonal viability to soil carbon, with inconsistent outcomes and potentially decades long paybacks isn't going to fly in the current policy and market framework around agriculture.
At some point, Australia needs a genuine strategic plan for agriculture.
This plan needs to be founded on a new set of paradigms about the strategic importance of a climate resilient agricultural sector - to the entire nation - with a clear understanding that climate resilience can't be fully funded by commodities.
If we are to optimise agricultural production in the face of climate change, we need tools to better align management timeframes with climate and environment aspirations and our financial obligations to underpin financial success and environmental best practice simultaneously.
This is the key to developing realistic targets for agriculture that are consistent in policy and practice.
- Peter Mailler is a grain and cattle farmer on the NSW/Queensland border.
