One of Greenpeace’s examples of recent deforestation in Queensland. Photo: Greenpeace
CATTLE Australia has been urged to go “toe-to-toe” with environmental groups on deforestation targets, as the organisation works towards developing a definition of deforestation in the Australian context.
Later this year, the European Union is set to bring in non-tariff trade barriers banning the import of goods linked to deforestation. Banks and supply chain companies like McDonald’s, supermarkets and processors are set to follow with their own “deforestation free” targets.
CA has responded by putting together a “land management commitment” which aims to put an Australian industry definition on what is land management and what is deforestation. It put out an information paper on the policy three-weeks-ago, with submissions closing at the weekend.
Josie Angus
Central Queensland beef producer and processor Josie Angus took to social media on the weekend to rally submissions to the proposal – with a post explaining her position and urging CA to go “toe-to-toe” with the environmental groups.
Ms Angus, who was part of the technical working group for the ‘land management commitment’ and exports beef to Europe, said she was mostly supportive of CA’s work.
“I am very happy that CA has undertaken this work and I think it has brought the industry to a point where we can call the environmental groups out,” she told Beef Central.
Ms Angus has been calling on the industry to adopt the international definition of deforestation, which excludes land used for grazing cattle.
She said many of the international definitions recognise land management practices that are used in Australia – which has the potential to inspire global collaboration on the issue.
“I think we have overcomplicated the process by trying to put an Australian context to everything. A lot of our land management practices are similar to practices overseas – for example pulling brigalow is similar to the way they manage mesquite in Texas,” she said.
“If we adopt the international definitions, which accept these practices, and the World Wildlife Fund or McDonald’s want to argue it, then they are not just taking it up against a couple of producers in Qld – they are taking it up with the United Nations.”
Ms Angus said she felt the process has become about pitching a policy to producers, rather than producers explaining land management to the supply chains and environmental groups.
“The people that need the understanding here are the banks and McDonald’s and those other groups who want answers to these questions,” she said.
“What we have to highlight to them is the importance of managing trees for biodiversity and agricultural production and the extraordinary level of protections that exist from state and federal legislation.”
PRA raises concerns about environmental groups
Lobby group Property Rights Australia says it has concerns about the influence of environmental organisations over the policy being set for the industry.
Joanne Rea
In a submission to CA, PRA’s Joanne Rea said the organisations have been attacking the industry for a long time and will never be satisfied.
“Banks who have or intend to have “deforestation-free” products, need to be aware that WWF and other ENGOs are not the experts on this topic. They are activist groups with activist agendas and do not care about unintended consequences,” Ms Rea said.
“CA’s reactionary and rushed attempt at a definition of ‘deforestation’ will not stop them continuing to undermine our industry. To believe so is to be naïve. Once they have a win, they lift the bar.”
Ms Rea said she was particularly concerned about the tiered system proposed in CA’s information paper – especially the classification of a “regenerated forest” which would cover land that meets height and canopy cover thresholds and that was last cleared before 1990.
“It will stop any prospect of development in Northern Australia, including effective weed management. Many Native Title areas will not be able to be put to productive use. Landowners who have carbon farming projects involving woody vegetation, with grazing excluded, will be unable to return to grazing after their contracts expire.
“CA is spending far too much time on bureaucracy which is doing nothing to reduce red and green tape and not enough on public communication and advocacy.”
CA welcomes producer feedback
CA chief executive officer Chris Parker said the paper was about representing producers and not environmental groups.
“The eNGOs have clearly shown they are opposed to this paper, however CA is committed to representing the interests of all grass-fed cattle producers on this issue,” Dr Parker said.
“This is about equitable outcomes for our producers, not the views of eNGOs.”
Dr Parker said CA had received plenty of feedback from producers since it released the information paper.
Cattle Australia CEO Dr Chris Parker
“We will continue to fight for the rights of Australian grass-fed cattle producers to maintain and grow their businesses,” Dr Parker said.
“This is a genuine effort to resolve a difficult issue for Australian beef producers – one that is becoming increasingly important to our supply chain and requires an industry-led solution. The Land Management Commitment information paper received fantastic engagement and we have been very encouraged by the responses.
“Stakeholder consultation is integral to achieving our goal of equitable outcomes for all producers, and we believe this latest round of consultation will ensure the best policy position can be developed. We extended the timeline to ensure we were able to incorporate as many views as possible, recognising the initial two-week consultation period was going to be insufficient.”
Asked why CA is not just adopting the international definition of deforestation, Dr Parker said the international definitions were important the land management commitment but needed to be adapted to Australia.
“There is a range of definitions currently in existence, all of which would require measurement and verification for use in supply chains,” he said.
“Any definition applied to Australian producers should account for the specific nuances of the Australian production system and be formulated with Australian beef producers front of mind.
“It is for this reason we are developing the Land Management Commitment. International definitions will form an important part of the final policy.”
Great read and subject that is affecting all industries. I recently read an article how Santos are taking environmentalists,their supporters,their financial backers and their lawyers to court to recover their court/legal costs from failed court cases. REFER:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-30/Santos.
WWF has an objective to wipe out all beef production worldwide. Through The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, WWF and members (including McDonalds, Costco, Walmart, JBS, Cargill, Tyson and many other such companies across the world) are working to realise the WWF objective. Most do not understand the real purpose of GRSB as WWF lie and mislead in generating their support.
Now we read about methane tax being levied on European cattle producers. It will come here, and it is a large amount per head.
WWF aim to restrict members’ suppliers to be certified to meet actions to make beef production sustainable. So, they are building hurdles they need us to jump over to supply our cattle to our processors. Not taking cattle off rainforest country is one such hurdle. Of course they raise the hurdle as high as possible.
Unfortunately, CA are duped by this process and are aligning themselves (and their members) with WWF and others seeking to eliminate grass-fed cattle producers.
Australian Cattle Industry Council
Agree John. Some pretty extreme ideology at the top is driving much of this, & too many people are naive to it.
I would like to know how CA plan on implementing, administering & policing all this?
And how they justify that claim that it will be “voluntary”? Will it be hitched to the LPA system?
If it is impossible to sell your cattle without being in the system, the system is not voluntary.
Good on CA for doing the work, the hard work will be getting Gov to accept. I hope the NFF is on board.
I agree that it is time to go ‘toe to toe’ with environmental groups.
For too long, Australian primary industries, including grass fed cattle producers, have bent unwillingly to the whims of these groups. Recent decisions to ban certain fishing grounds around our coastline and to ban live sheep exports, are an example.
What is good for the EU and the USA agricultural sector, should be good for Australian agricultural sector. We should be hitching our wagon to the same set of rules that apply to the EU and USA.
We already have a raft of State and Federal laws around tree clearing, regrowth control and water and soil management.
Do corporations like McDonalds and our banks ban products made in China? Products such as building materials, machinery, promotional products and toys, restaurant and office furniture and packaging? When I visited China I saw plenty of McDonalds restaurants and I would presume China doesn’t sing to anybody else’s songbook? Why should we be treated differently?
Jo Rea and Josie Angus have been fighting for Primary Producers for many years. They scrutinise actions that effect our industry. They also post and interact with us on Facebook. I would not have even known about this deforestation agenda without them. I would like to know who Cattle Australia are asking and interacting with. Are they individual landholders, people with their livelihoods in the balance or other industry groups? Jo Rea and Josie Angus have raised valid points.
We are tired of being told that international definitions “need to be adapted to Australia” – always meaning more restrictive for Australia than any other country – without any explanation.
Why? Where is this coming from?
Who is this coming from?
If there is an actual practical explanation that benefits Australian producers, please explain it to us?
The “specific nuances of the Australian production system” is that we already operate under some of the world’s most stringent environmental & forest protection government regulations.
What possible advantage could there be to yet another layer of tree beurocracy brought upon us from CA??
How to CA intend to manage & police this policy?
CA’s role is to represent it’s members, regardless of any board members personal opinion, & regardless of any external opinions.
CA got a long way down the road of developing their “land management commitment” paper & listened to many many external voices BEFORE trying to sell it to producers.
A lot if time & face could have been saved if they just ASK their producer members FIRST.
I hope they have taken this lesson on board.
The original event which led to this process was what is referred to as the ‘Rockhampton Round Table’, the event was first proposed by members of the AgForce Cattle Board who then collaborated with Cattle Australia to make it happen. The suggestion that this process has been reactionary and rushed is a nonsense, this should have been done at least as far back as 2012 which was when I first heard about McDonalds deforestation commitment.
Michelle I too am tired of this industry supposedly having to continually high bar ourselves, price is the determining factor at the end of the day. Price isn’t a competitive advantage for us and high baring ourselves hasn’t demonstrated a value return previously in my opinion. McDonalds are not looking to pay a premium for Australian trim, they want to tick their environmental commitment box and stay away from the negative propaganda campaigns of the likes of Greenpeace and WWF. During the original Rockhampton event there was some local producers that got out of their comfort zone and told their stories around what they thought was environmentally and profitably sustainable in their family operations, I can assure you that those stories were the conversation pieces at dinner that night and what those that attended that I have talked to since remember about the event.
Ours is a small family operation, we got some MSA feedback this morning that showed our grassfed cattle have the ability to be above the national MSA index average, when I first became involved in MSA I was told not from grassfed and not from northern Australia. I could say a lot more and usually do, but I believe we have a unique story to tell and I am sick of being reliant on someone else to tell it. Our property is over 50% remnant, currently we can’t claim any of that in our carbon account, regardless of the fact that our land tenure was removed with no compensation by a federal coalition government so they could meet their Kyoto commitments with no cost to the Australian tax payer.
The future viability of our business is largely based on our ability to continue to manage regrowth, I can assure you that myself and the others producers who were initially involved gave that message in spades. I won’t resort to defending myself and others who currently volunteer our time to lobby for this industry but I will say that this was the first time I thought we had enough collaboration to see an outcome. My only concern was whether we would resource it appropriately, when you consider what eNGO’s are able spend to pass themselves off as the subject matter expert’s compared to what this industry does you might consider as I do where the root cause of our frustration lies!
Great comments David.
Ah yes, the AgForce Cattle Board are not well known for engaging with producers either.
A round table in Rockhampton obviously grossly inadequate consultation to canvas members of an Australia-wide organization. Member producers should have been much more involved in the development of this “plan” & “commitment” well before it got this far, before it went public, & before so many outside groups were given consideration.
Hopefully that lesson has now been learnt.
Surely pointing the fact that we already operate under some of the world’s most stringent environmental & forest protection government regulations would be enough assurance for McDonalds … besides, what other “more green” competitor are they going to source their beef trimmings from? Brazil? It would be hard to make a case that any competitor is more environmentally conscious than Australia, without any “land management commitment” from CA.
Perhaps there is a justification for it, but if so, it has not been well explained.
Well said David. I well and truly share your frustration. Enough is enough. Being dictated to by ignorant extremists often funded by our tax dollars via weak governments simply makes it almost impossible for a modern food producing grazing businesses to work in harmony with nature. A huge area of Australia is already locked up and can’t be touched. Much of it was snatched from the hands of good management. Most of it decreasing in health every day. Mother nature cant afford to have anymore forcibly taken to appease the ignorant!
When I was working at AMH in the 1980s, one of the businesses we managed was FJ Walker Foods who manufactured patties for McDonalds and distributed all supplies to their stores nationwide. McDonalds then had a policy of not taking beef raised on deforested country. It goes back well before WWF got involved.
Hi John,
It would be interesting to know how McDonalds demonstrated compliance to their commitments in those days?
On another note, how did we get to this point? You would obviously know more of the history than I would, but for me amongst other things I often wonder where the federal and state regulatory authorities are in this space also? Surely they need to be active in this area, but I suppose if they can’t stop the public broadcaster using tax payers money to be part of the lies and propaganda machine you would doubt they would try and hold anyone else accountable!
Hi David
Last millennium McDonalds were understanding of deforestation definition. We were aware of areas where there had been deforestation and so stayed away from these producers. AMH purchased and processed their turnoff but not used for grinding at Blacktown. Supplies of beef came from a number of third party processors. McDonald’s audit included the source of beef. They were tough on performance. Temperature and CL were carefully measured and reported. We had a declaration no beef came from cattle reared on deforested country.
Hope that helps David. We face a treacherous future as lines are moved by The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef and other activists to stop beef production. Hope your season is going well. Still very dry in western Victoria and SESA.
Australian Cattle Industry Council
Congratulations to Josie and Joanne , You have mirrored my thoughts on this subject. I have a real problem with the 1999 time line. Once the country has been cleared it cannot grow back to what it originally was.
We are finding a similar things with reef management, if country has not been cultivated for three out of the last ten years you need to have a reef assessor to inspect and approve your country for commercial use. if the area is over a given acreage, you must pay an application fee. (reef tax for mine)
Whether country has been historically cleared, rung bark or pulled or been ploughed since settlement then that should be it. The government (dept) or any others can use satellite photos to tell how much erosion is occurring and then have a conversation about the situation.
I visited Japan recently and I think they have a limited diet due to overpopulation I wrote an email to the mayor of melbourne suggesting ground floors of city sky scrapers might be renovated as gardens for threatened species with bilbys and critters and birds competing with feral animals and.. As such tazzie devils liveing under 40 floors of people with restarants and cafes for viewers hopefully makeing population controle policy more digestible with Aussies and hippys Japan has a high rice and wheat diet and less protein or vegetables amazing infrastructure and I think China could do with some urban pandas people work from home more now than before covid and this makes a statement for future generations on population controle I think sometimes hippys can be a little extream in their views but Japan was an eye opener I think urban sky scraper gardens for threatened species makes sense of it all and I don’t see cows or goats eating little marsupials