But he also concedes that an emissions trading scheme is going to cost farmers money.

Mr Crombie said NFF was still "working through the detail" of the package agreed to between the Government and the Coalition to introduce an emissions trading scheme in Australia from 2011.

He says there are some positives for agriculture from the deal reached this week.

"We believe there are some positives for agriculture in the proposed amendments," Mr Crombie said.

"Certainly excluding direct emissions from agriculture is a real positive and it's a positive to include compensation for our trade exposed processing sectors, and the commitment to develop alternative pathways for offsets are fundamentally the points that we put forward.

"Subject to working out the detail we think that agriculture is probably pretty sensibly positioned, but there's still some work to do."

Mr Crombie said there was a real priority now to change the Kyoto rules which were "flawed" and "restrictive" so there were more abatement opportunities recognised for agriculture.

"It's a framework and it's a positive framework as far as agriculture's concerned but we just now need to work through the detail to understand exactly how it will work and how it can work for the benefit of farmers," he said.

"The one thing we do know is that the emissions trading scheme is going to cost everybody in Australia and farmers aren't exempt from that.

"The exemptions that we have are for our direct emissions and for the treatment of our trade exposed processors and the ability to develop alternative pathways for offsets – that's where the benefits are.

"But there'll still be that baseline cost for our and other inputs."

Mr Crombie said he wouldn't try to engage those people who don't believe in climate change or hated the idea of an emissions trading scheme.

"I think there's a general concern throughout the whole community about the cause and effect of climate change.

"I think what we need to do is put that debate to one side and get the science right and understand it.

"The fact is we had draft legislation in front of us that would have crippled agriculture and what we focused on was in the interests of Australian agriculture to get amendments to that draft legislation."