Environmentalists have accused Cattle Australia of trying to use ‘loophole’ in international definitions to gain deforestation a free status. Cattle Australia has argued that clearing forests which have grown after 1990 should not be considered deforestation by international supply chains. Source: The Guardian
The peak body for producers of grass-fed cattle put forward the suggestion in a consultation paper outlining a proposed industry-led land management policy in response to growing global demands for deforestation-free products.
The paper has already drawn strong criticism from Australia’s leading environment groups, who say the cattle industry is trying to develop a watered-down definition of deforestation.
Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation released their own policy guidance on deforestation for businesses in the beef supply chain, in response to the Cattle Australia position.
Dr Don Butler, an ecologist at the Australian National University, said that based on the position outlined in the Cattle Australia land management information paper, “it appears they are seeking to leave as broad an avenue as possible for their membership to continue to do what a lot of other people would see as deforestation in the management of their land”.
Cattle Australia has said it is attempting to develop an industry definition of deforestation that could allow farmers to gain a deforestation-free credential, which it hopes would be recognised by the supply chain.
The Australian government is seeking to protect the Australian beef industry from new laws in the European Union which will ban the import of goods produced in areas where land clearing occurs. Those laws are due to come into effect in January 2025.
The consultation paper proposes a 1990 baseline be established, using old satellite imagery, to determine whether land is under agriculture use. This means regrowth forest that is more than 30 years old could be cleared without it being considered deforestation.
“It’s really an attempt to leave those areas of regrowth open to clearing,” Butler said.
International forest definitions used in supply chains do not include forests on land predominantly used by agriculture. When applied in an Australian context, Butler said those definitions could be used as “a big loophole” because 44% of Australia’s forests lie within agriculture properties.
“[The paper] is an attempt to use the concept of agriculture as a big loophole. I would encourage Cattle Australia to avoid that outcome … it would be a mistake.”
The consultation paper said the “unclear” international definitions make it challenging to delineate between areas of primary forest and agricultural land.
“A key focus of this work is to provide clarity in a way that is internationally credible and fit-for-purpose in Australia,” it said.
Nathaniel Pelle, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s business and nature lead, said the proposed definition of deforestation would be “little better than business as usual”.
“Continuing to bulldoze native forests and woodlands and trying to label it ‘deforestation-free’ is nothing but greenwashing, plain and simple,” he said.
“Banks and supermarkets should not buy into it.”
Gemma Plesman, a senior campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said the proposal was a “complete farce” and “nonsensical”.
“This is just yet another brazen attempt to deny deforestation is a problem.”
The World Wildlife Fund has identified Queensland, home to about 45% of Australian beef cattle, as the only global deforestation hotspot in the developed world and says the beef industry is one of the major drivers. That claim is rejected by the beef industry.
The chief executive of Cattle Australia, Dr Chris Parker, said the consultation paper demonstrates a “commonsense approach” to allow farmers access to deforestation-free markets in a way that is “cognisant of our unique Australian landscape”.
He said the 1990 baseline was selected based on factors including data availability and historical vegetation management laws and is open for consultation.
The paper takes a “balanced view” of classifying land under agriculture and does not take advantage of agricultural land loopholes, Parker added.
“We would much prefer to have a sensible dialogue … rather than waste time on the entirely unworkable ideologies purported by extreme groups,” he said.
Cattle Australia is also advocating the red meat industry drop its net zero by 2030 target in favour of a “climate neutral” goal that would require far more modest reductions in methane emissions.
The organisation will release its formal draft policy next month.
