Farmers and environmentalists at loggerheads over deforestation definition

Graziers who fear being locked out of global beef markets have come up with a definition of deforestation that’s been rejected by environmentalists.

Deforestation? Mulga trees are pushed over as last resort to feed livestock during drought. Picture: David Martinelli

Environmentalists have hit back at the cattle industry’s definition of deforestation and urged big supermarkets, fast food chains and banks to adopt a stricter interpretation that could have serious ramifications for Australia’s $10bn beef exports and the wider agriculture sector.

Graziers are pushing back against the European Union’s moves to lock up Australian farmland and trying to rebuff claims from environmental activists of rampant deforestation in Australia.

Industry body Cattle Australia on Monday released definitions of deforestation and agriculture that align with state and federal laws and the farming methods used on the country’s vast grazing properties.

Cattle Australia wants the government to adopt the definitions in its ongoing discussions with the EU, which is preparing to introduce a deforestation regulation that will require traders to prove that certain commodities they import – soybeans, beef, coffee, cocoa, palm oil, rubber and timber – are sustainably sourced.

The issue was raised as a “matter of urgency” in a bipartisan Labor and Coalition motion in the Senate last week.

While beef exports into the EU are relatively small at $130m, the beef sector fears the EU’s regulations could set a precedent for other countries and corporations to follow.

The Australian Conservation Foundation on Monday called on businesses in the supply chain and financial sector to reject the Cattle Australia definitions.

“Most graziers are not engaged in broadscale bulldozing of bushland, but it’s very difficult for consumers to choose deforestation-free beef from those responsible farmers, or for export markets to have certainty they are not importing deforestation, because of poor traceability and transparency,” ACF business and biodiversity lead Nathaniel Pelle said.

“Most of the beef industry is already deforestation-free by the internationally accepted definition; what’s missing is market recognition of those credentials.”

In August, Woolworths announced a zero deforestation policy and Westpac last year said its zero deforestation target would be consistent with “existing law in most states”.

Cattle Australia chief executive Chris Parker said forests were well protected by legislation.

“Australia has more than 136 existing vegetation laws embedded in state, territory and federal legislation that protects the environment and biodiversity, representative of the complexity of the 89 bioregions within the Australian landscape,” Dr Parker said.

Cattle Australia chief executive Chris Parker.

While Cattle Australia’s definitions would rule out tree clearing that complies with state and federal legislation as deforestation, environmentalists say removal of native forest is deforestation whether it is conducted legally or not.

“Natural forests include primary or remnant forests and regrowing forests and woodlands that have been subject to major human impacts in the past,” Mr Pelle said.

“In Australia, a forest that is at least 15 years old is likely to have regained much of the structure, composition and functions of a natural forest and is often a haven for biodiversity.”

Greenpeace campaigner Gemma Plesman said “any meaningful definition of deforestation should include threatened species habitat and regenerated forest”. The World Wide Fund for Nature-Australia also criticised Cattle Australia’s definitions, saying they would fall foul of international frameworks.

“Over 6000 companies globally have signed up for the Science Based Targets initiative, which requires companies to remove products linked to deforestation from their sales,” WWF-Australia’s Sustainable Beef Program Manager Vanessa Keogh said.

“This includes beef retailers in Australia.”