CATTLE Australia has extended the feedback period for its land management commitment and deforestation definition, with grassfed producers given to the end of the month.
The organisation said it has extended the feedback deadline to June 30, with a webinar to be held at 5pm next Tuesday.
CA released an information paper on the document last week, which outlined a series of case studies showing what it believes is land management and a proposed definition and assessment framework for what is deforestation.
The work is being done in response to looming “deforestation-free” targets being set by large-supply chain companies and banks, along with deforestation aligned non-tariff trade barriers from the European Union.
Since releasing the document last week, CA has received criticism from several environmental organisations about its definition only applying to land that had been cleared before 1990. Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation have been calling for regrowth 15 years and older to be protected.
Joining the list of organisations criticising the 1990 baseline is the World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund).
WWF Australia’s senior manager for sustainable agriculture Sharelle Polack while the organisation welcomed CA’s proactive work, it did not agree with the 1990 baseline.
“It’s simply not credible to be clearing 30-year-old trees while claiming this is deforestation-free,” said Ms Polack.
“These forests often provide homes to native animals and should be protected. In its current form, the consultation paper blurs the lines between what CA would like to see as requirements and what the markets are actually demanding.”
In some ways the market is demanding what the WWF is demanding companies to do.
WWF is a founding organisation of the Science Based Targets initiative, which has 3000 companies signed up and is requiring them to have deforestation-free commitments in place by next year. WWF is also a founding member of the Accountability Framework Initiative, which is aiming to set the standard of corporate environmental targets.
Ms Polack said the WWF believes it can work with the industry on meeting the deforestation targets, while allowing producers to manage land.
“While there are some issues to resolve, starting these conversations and seeking feedback is a step in the right direction.
“WWF believes there is a way forward where producers can undertake land management activities suitable for the unique Australian landscape while also meeting market requirements.
“Parts of the CA paper need further work to strike this balance.”
- To learn more about the land management commitment, send feedback or get involved in the webinar click here
Hang on a minute!
Cattle Australia policy needs to be LED by its grass roots members, cattle producers, NOT by WWF or ACF !!
It does not matter what ‘WWF believes’, they are an extremist political organisation who has been embroiled in multiple controversies.
Appeasement NEVER works with these groups, they are never happy & the goal post keeps getting shifted, & our farmers keep getting shafted!!
The membership need to send a clear message to CA that WE want to set the direction for our own industry!
STOP letting extreme activists of all kinds drive the rhetoric!!
Who does CA work for?
Who does CA represent?
Time to get clear on this!
One would have to question how it is that organisations such as WWF get to pass themselves off as subject matter experts? My family run a small beef breeding and fattening operation in Central Queensland, we have a freehold property that has a PMAV. The property was 54% remnant at the time the PMAV was established, a recent assessment considered that we had allowed an extra 6% to return to forest, this was done by leaving shade lines and corridors. We also have a preference for having scattered trees in the more productive brigalow and softwood country. My parents drew our property in the Brigalow Area 3 ballot of 1970. To comply with the requirements of the scheme the brigalow and softwood country had to be broad scale cleared, with the only trees being left were the blackbutts the machines couldn’t push, large areas of open iron bark country that should have been left untouched had to be tordoned. Our land tenure was taken away from us as part of the coalition government’s LULUCF program to meet Australia’s Kyoto commitments, there was supposedly a compensation scheme to be part of process which never happened. I recently read a paper that claimed that due to baseline being established in 1999, the emissions intensive industries of this country where actually able to increase emissions by up to 22% due to what happened.
I find it hard to accept that the likes of WWF, Greenpeace and the Wilderness Society get to peddle absolute lies claiming there is widespread illegal clearing going on in Queensland or any other states of Australia. The vegetation laws are strict, we have considered that we have been unable to clear remnant vegetation since the year 2000 for the purposes of beef production. I find it extremely frustrating that the regulators in this state allow the illegal clearing claims to go unchallenged, are we now expected to accept that these Environmental NGO’s are the regulator. Seriously, I read an article recently titled 25 interesting facts about Australia, one of them was that 91% of Australia was covered in native vegetation.
If Sharelle Polack and those like her get their way our small family business is done and the land that I had hoped my children would one day have the ability to have as much pride in as their parents and grandparents did will become the unmanaged mess that a lot of government land is becoming.
I was one of those that organised the initial industry meeting now referred to as the Rockhampton Round Table, almost all of those that participated did so at their own expense, the cost of running the event was left to The AgForce Cattle Board and Cattle Australia. The Australian Beef Industries reliance on volunteers is embarrassing, I have said for years I am happy to stay at home and let the experts deal with these types of issues, there is a lot of noise around about what should be happening, which is nothing new obviously! Does anyone seriously think that the resources being put towards this are appropriate, I would be pretty sure Sharelle Polack doesn’t have to worry how fund her lies and propaganda campaign!
And on the other hand, hardly a murmur criticising the clearing undertaken to construct wind turbines!