While Australia’s beef industry has been debating how deforestation should be defined in Australia, conservation groups have claimed a major victory by influencing one of the industry’s single largest customers to commit to buying only “deforestation free” beef by the end of 2025.
The seeds of yesterday’s decision by Woolworths were effectively sown four years ago.
In 2020, Woolworths signed up to the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), binding the supermarket giant to several commitments which include setting ‘zero deforestation targets’ by no later than 2025.
Since then Woolworths has come under increasing pressure from conservation groups to publicly commit to that pledge.
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) greeted yesterday’s deforestation-free commitment from Woolworths as “fantastic news” on social media while simultaneously stepping up pressure on Coles to do the same.
Hypocrisy at the centre of deforestation debate
One of the many things that are frustrating Australian cattle producers as conservation groups and mainstream media drive this debate is the apparent hypocrisy in the way in which cattle production is being singled out and publicly villified.
Is there a single food produced at scale that has not come from ‘deforested’ land as environmental groups would define it?
Certainly none of the major plant-based foods produced from monocultures could claim to be “deforestation free”.
The ACF has recently been attempting to position itself in media articles and social media posts as a “friend” of Australian farmers, stating that problematic deforestation activity is limited to only a small number of landholders.
But contrasting with that apparent charm offensive to the rural sector have been its public release of reports and investigations in which it suggests Australian farmers are contributing to wildlife extinction.
Just a few days before Woolworths announced its deforestation-free commitment in its 2024 annual report yesterday, an ABC news article also gave full voice to another ACF campaign implying that illegal and reckless deforestation is widespread in Australia’s beef industry.
“There’s one industry that destroys more forests than any other — beef,” the article began.
It then presented numerous satellite images of land clearing on various properties since 2020, without mentioning that landholders can only carry out clearing under stringent planning and regulatory regimes and at risk of severe penalties for any breaches.
Definitions are an important for deforestation policy
The coining of the catch-all term “deforestation” has been an exceptionally successful strategy for environmental groups.
It evokes immediate images of bulldozers crashing through virgin Amazon rain forest regardless of the type of clearing actually involved, such as regrowth control on Australian cattle properties where many natural habitats remain intact.
It has been the use of this term by environmental groups that has left the Australian cattle industry with little choice but to work to develop a clear definition of what deforestation is and what it is not.
Cattle Australia has been leading that process and has been doing so in an inclusive way, working with groups such as the World Wildlife Fund which, like the ACF, have been long-term vocal critics of the Australian beef industry.
Yet these efforts were portrayed in the ABC article as attempt by the cattle industry to use the dictionary as “a weapon” in a bid to avoid its responsibility to the environment.
The ABC article also failed to point out that other jurisdictions and major bodies around the world including Europe and the United Nations have also developed definitions of deforestation, and that those exclude agricultural land from deforestation because of the industry’s essential role in assuring food security.
Nor did it provide any balancing context on the reality of woodland thickening.
Woolworths indicates support for CA’s definition
While publicly committing to deforestation-free beef by the end of 2025, Woolworths also stated it will “continue working with beef producers and suppliers to develop appropriate sustainability definitions in the Australian context”.
It is worth noting that the same conservation groups that have pushed Woolworths towards a deforestation-free beef committment have also campaigned against Cattle Australia’s efforts to create a definition for deforestation in Australia.
They are lobbying for their own definitions which would effectively prevent clearing of any regrowth aged 15 years and older.
For its part Cattle Australia released a statement yesterday putting a positive spin on Woolworth’s announcement, welcoming its “acknowledgement and support to continue working with beef producers and suppliers to develop appropriate sustainability definitions in the Australian context”.
“It is vital the fog of confusion that has been created by some environmental groups around misleading deforestation perceptions is refuted and ignored,” Cattle Australia CEO Chris Parker said.
“The continued focus on their interpretation of international frameworks, in which these groups ignore or downplay the land use assessment requirement of the predominant agricultural use, is disingenuous at best.
“We strongly encourage all major supermarkets and other industry stakeholders to not fall for this trap.”
There was no ‘one size fits all’ approach to environmental policy, he added, and it was “vital we ensure definitions recognise and respect the intricacies of responsible and sustainable beef production in the unique Australian landscape”.
“It is ludicrous to believe the policies and definitions adopted by other nations can be transposed onto us here, and we acknowledge the commonsense now being shown by some significant linkages in the beef supply chain in their approach to supporting both ecological health and Australia’s role as a key contributor to global nutrition and food security,” Dr Parker said.
In response to Beef Central’s inquiries yesterday Cattle Australia said the release of the Australian deforestation definition is ‘imminent’.
The conservation groups and committees that are driving retail food corporations towards unreasonable and unrealistic carbon targets for beef producers are a very small proportion of the Australian population. The end result of this will be a lower income for beef farmers via higher and unsustainable production costs. The corporations will use these “goals” as a lever to pay farmers less for their product. Beef producers will be forced out of the supply chain which is the aim of the conservation movement. Less beef production equals less supply and higher prices for the consumer. Perhaps the food retailers should have a very hard look at backing away from these commitments to a few activist groups and concentrate on lowering the cost of living for their customers beef protein requirements by working with MLA and the National Farmers Federation instead.
A lot of land was allowed to be cleared by lls as fireclean up and they let farmer clear right to the water line in creeks because they where toldthey could. lt needs a good shake up.
Woolworths need to be brought to account.
Their retail merchandising of beef products is a disgrace. Price gouging was exposed recently with comparisons to Japanese beef prices. Now they are joining our industry’s enemies whose sole aim is to stop beef production worldwide.
Unfortunately, Cattle Australia, through inexperience and lack of policies, has fallen for the trap of supporting those that would destroy us.
We need to bang on the desks of Woolworths’ executives making these critical mistakes, pointing out they will have no beef unless they adopt a program to correct their past errors.
Australian Cattle Industry Council
Thank you John. The retail food corporations do not exist without farm supply. Playing with conservation activists to gain a price leverage for their beef inputs may come back to bite them when the consumer realises the game being played. There may be a very small price increase for those few producers able to meet completely unrealistic carbon targets purely through their farm location, but there will surely be a price decrease for the majority of beef producers who absolutely cannot meet unreasonable targets. This equates to more profit for the corporations, less for the farmers and probably a higher cost of living for those families who enjoy beef as a staple protein food source.
Solar and wind farms also require deforestation, whatever the definition. They should also be banned then, or it is another double standard.
The ABC with it,s communist ,green, gay,labor alligned approach to everything should be treated with the contempt it deserves. Humans have evolved as omnivores, not bloody vegans. Can,t argue with nature. Beef producers are’ nt the enemy. Hard working people producing an essential, ethical product. Plus, it tastes good.
Andy
Well, if you understand the process of desertification and the consequences then stopping deforestation and restoring the evapotranspirational water cycle is a desirable outcome for anyone that likes fresh water to drink. Any agriculture that contributes to the desertification of the land is to be implicated, so beef people are exactly correct.
Yes, James Nason and Eric Barker, hypocrisy writ large.
Given the effort and hope invested in creating CA, it is difficult to imagine producers being happy about CA cheering on Woolworths and rubbing shoulders with the likes of WWF and ACF. Producers might not consider that to be a commensurate return on investment.
Some might ask if the initials CA more appropriately represent Compliant Acquiescence.
Incredible hypocrisy. Woolworths should be ashamed to be jumping into this – totally uninformed.
In CQ much of the tree clearing is for solar and wind projects – seemingly unrestricted. One question I have- if I am a cattle farmer and clear 5000 acres for a solar farm – does that count as deforestration when I sell my cattle?
A very good question. I would suggest it would be counted at present but needs a resolution. If councils start calling such land industrial, the landowner may also lose their land tax exemption.
The Issue of “Cattle” and “Deforestation” is Just Part of the Poor Socio-Economic Structure in Regional Australia.
Transportation is the Largest Industry Created by Regional Australia.
However, What Sort of Regional Australia are We Building ?.
Regional Australia Should be Absolutely Amazing, It is Not.
Why is rural deforestation, which is mostly done to feed and clothe the urban populace, worse than the Urban Sprawl deforestation, which actually does deforest our country of the rainforest type of flora and threatens the environments of protected fauna, like the Koala.
Until we get rid of our stupid Preferential Voting system, we will be governed by minorities, who unlike the majority, as in the hard-working Aussie taxpayer, have the time and nothing better to do, than to protest anything progressive while destroying this beautiful country with their green environastie’s agendas.
In the USA corn belt pioneer settlers cleared the land for food production
And I’ll say it again!
Absolute hypocrisy. Woolworths need to stay in their lane!
Let’s quickly evaluate the resources that Woolworths employ to operate their business and make money! Buildings and parking lots- complete deforestation. Electricity for lighting, refrigeration, cleaning, cooking- If it’s green energy, massive swathes of deforestation for solar, wind and electricity network. Freight network- deforestation for truck and transport depots. All food, accept wild caught seafood- deforestation for all meats including cattle, sheep, pigs, chicken. All dairy products including milk, butter, cheese, yoghurt, cream. All land-farmed fish and prawns. All vegetables, fresh, frozen and tinned including grapes and berries. All wheat and other grain products including bread, biscuits, cakes, pastry products. All tinned food- peas, corn, pineapple, beetroot, olives and fruit. All wine and alcohol products sold at Woolworths owned Liquor stores, Dan Murphys and BWS.
The list is massive.
In summary, Woolworths wouldn’t exist without clearing native vegetation on a massive scale. I’ll say it again, they wouldn’t exist!!
So answer me this. Where does conservation australia get to override lawfully obtained clearing permits gained through a rigorous vetting process by a democratically elected government?
By stealth and lies and blackmail – greenfare.
You know they say you must have people inside the tent, but Greenfare built the tent.
Where on earth is Cattle Australia in this debacle? Don’t they know that it is folly to let the radicals inside the tent that they have made
Has anyone ever seen a market garden growing vegetables with its original trees in place? Do mung bean crops get grown in paddocks with all the original trees in them? How many wheat fields are studded with native trees? Some people’s capacity to make up nonsense without considering the facts is simply frightening.