Such offsets, if they could be sold in an emissions market, should be attractive to non-agricultural firms wanting to offset emissions. An emissions market would provide farmer and forester income enhancement, but would also likely raise farm and forest production costs. Also actions to offset gasses would likely reduce food and fiber production causing higher food prices and lower levels of exports. However, provision of such a market would promote significant other benefits such as improved water quality and lessened erosion. Farmer and forester reaction to a market would likely involve a mix of strategies.
Different strategies dominate in different parts of the country.
However, we feel that substantial implementation issues exist with respect to these items. Principally we feel the geography of agriculture and forestry introduces significant differences from the successful environmental market stories reported by other speakers today. Many such differences could be discussed but not in the time allotted. Unequal generation of co benefits across strategies. In closing we think the topics of today offer significant potential for agriculture and forestry but feel we need to do considerable work on implementation issues.