Back in 2002, Australia's coal industry was badgering for government funding to help it address greenhouse emissions; in 2006, it received $50 million in Federal funds for a low-emissions project, and another $125m that was later withheld because of project problems.

The agriculture industry is only just starting down the same path.

With the initial draft of Australia's ETS on a deadline for early 2009, the farming sector has little time to decide where it will stand in the scheme, and scant information to inform the decisions it must make.

"We are very underequipped, even to analyse the decisions that will potentially have to be made," said Mick Keogh, executive director of the Australian Farm Institute.

"There is little work done by bodies like ABARE that can help us, and while the scientific community is starting to gain momentum, we're a long way from being able to use whatever research is produced."

Dominic Devine, of Queensland-based Devine Agribusiness, a veteran of the infant carbon trading business, says the industry is currently "in a twilight zone" on tackling emissions trading.

"There's a lot of guesswork going on at the moment," Mr Devine said.

"What is agriculture's position? What obligations are we going to have to meet? What opportunities are there for agriculture?

"It's very important that our industry doesn't stick its head in the sand on this one.

"We'll just get ourselves in a position where regulation will be imposed from above."

Mr Devine's company was involved in Rio Tinto's landmark 2006 purchase of 12,000 hectares of Queensland grazing land, which will be protected from clearing for 121 years to supply the mining giant with emissions credits.

But now, Mr Devine said, he is advising clients against taking up new voluntary emissions trading schemes because of uncertainty about the price of carbon under an ETS.

Mr Keogh said last week's AFI summit on emissions trading "was a wake-up call to those who had the issue in the back of their mind, but didn't see any urgency in it".

The summit resulted in a communique outlining the broad consensus of the 100 participants, who represented the spectrum of the industry, from lobby groups and farmers to retailers and agribusiness.

The communique has become a de-facto position statement for agriculture, outlining for the first time how the industry might best engage with emissions trading.

Importantly, the document is clear that agriculture should actively be involved in emissions trading, and that responsibility for farm-generated emissions should be at the "point of generation", the farm business—not at the "point of sale", like dairies or meat processors, as some have suggested.

A "point of generation" arrangement will provide direct incentives to farmers to act on reducing emissions, and to be innovative in our they offset the costs of emissions they can't avoid.