OPINION: AFTER 31 years in Federal Parliament, I believe I can spot a truly 'big' issue when it comes along, particularly affecting primary producers.
The campaign to establish and empower international organisations referred to as 'global roundtables' for sustainable primary production is such an issue.
The problem is not sustainability. Everyone wants sustainable primary industries.
It is about the obligations imposed on primary producers to prove to the satisfaction of environmental groups that they are indeed sustainable.
In a number of primary industries such as forestry and fishing in Australia, plus palm oil and soy overseas it has involved certification and auditing by extra-governmental organisations at considerable expense to producers.
Driving this third-party certification are threats, both implied and real, that producers simply will not be able to sell their products without such a stamp of approval.
The apparent growing power of environmental non-government organisations and corporations raises fundamental questions about the future role of government, science and rational resource management in Australian primary production. To me, that is indeed a 'big' issue. It is one that should be addressed not only by primary producers scattered across our nation, but also by everyone concerned with Australia's sovereignty to manage its own production systems, and concerned with open trade between nations.
The latest roundtable to come to public attention is the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB), which on March 17, released a draft set of principles and criteria. The GRSB anticipates having national or regional standards that must be met by cattle producers.
Who is going to verify that those standards are being met? And how much will Australian cattle producers be charged for the privilege?
The GRSB was initiated by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the McDonald's food chain, probably the world's largest single purchaser of beef.
McDonald's argues that its customers are clamouring for assurance the beef in their Big Macs is sustainable. From a casual study of Maccas customers, I find this hard to believe.
Try this test: stand in a queue at Maccas and see if you hear anyone ever once mention "sustainability" and "quarter-pounder" in the same sentence.
What exactly is the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef? Here is an explanation of how round-tables work by WWF US senior vice-president Jason Clay, one of the people behind formation of the GRSB.
"We convene roundtables ((xFB))û meetings of all the members of a commodity's value chain ((xFB))û everyone from producers, traders and manufacturers to brands and retailers, as well as scientists and non-governmental organizations.
"Together, we agree on the key impacts of producing a commodity deforestation, water use, and so on then design standards to minimise these impacts, which are ultimately certified by an independent third party.
"The participants publicly commit to producing, buying and selling within these standards, to be part of the commodity roundtable, forming a chain of sustainability."
The important words from that statement are these: "We design standards to minimise these impacts, which are ultimately certified by an independent third party."
Jason Clay was clear that round tables ultimately lead to third-party certification.
Two of the six objectives listed for the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef include: provide a baseline to evaluate the relative credibility and effectiveness of third-party standard systems; and, second, ensure accountability of systems claiming to be sustainable.
Now, clearly, third-party standards and verification are part of the plan. So, the question cattle producers should be asking again is: how much will this cost?
Indications from similar existing schemes are that it could cost at least $1750 to $2000 or more per farm in the first year, and, with 77,000 cattle properties in Australia, that would see the industry being forced to pay some $135 to $154 million.
WWF, a prime mover in the process to establish the Global Roundtable on Sustainable Beef, has waged a campaign against the land and regrowth clearing practices of Queensland farmers, and denigrated the cattle industry's sustainability record.
WWF also argued in a submission to a state parliamentary inquiry that compulsory standards must be implemented.
With the excuse of having to meet so-called international sustainability principles, WWF in Australia would have even greater leverage to continue trying to force our cattle producers down the path of more and more restricted on-farm practices and compulsory standards.
There is another question that should be asked: is there any possibility these sustainability principles could be used to restrict export of Australian beef to certain markets, particularly the United States?
The US is Australia's second-largest market for beef, last year buying some 200,000 tonnes worth a billion dollars.
This is not far-fetched. We already have a precedent. In 1996, the United States banned imports of prawns from Australia and several other countries, because these countries did not insist that their fishing industries must use turtle excluder devices, or TEDs, in their nets that were equivalent to those TEDs used by American fishermen.
It took seven years before all Australian prawns were once again allowed to be exported to the United States. Even now, to maintain that access to the United States market, Australia must accept US officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the State Department flying over here and inspecting Australian prawn trawlers every two to three years.
Now, don't think that, if you are not a beef producer you will escape a process like this. Right now, beef is the focus, but other roundtables already exist for soy and palm oil, and similar bodies, called "stewardship councils", for timber and seafood. Once beef is tied up, sugar, cotton, wheat and all our other agricultural commodities may follow.
What happens if Australian cattle producers do not sign up to the sustainability principles determined through the Global Roundtable process, and allow a third party to certify or verify their sustainability?
Will McDonald's refuse to purchase beef locally? Will environmental activists like WWF campaign to ban the sale of Australian beef on overseas markets?
While I don't doubt that devotees of environmental organisations may have been mobilised to voice such an opinion via the McDonald's website and other electronic media, I find it hard to imagine this is a genuine concern for anything like the vast majority of the chain's customers.
Well, on its website, the GRSB website describes itself this way: "It is a global, multi-stakeholder initiative developed to advance continuous improvement in sustainability of the global beef value chain through leadership, science and multi-stakeholder engagement and collaboration. The GRSB envisions a world in which all aspects of the beef value chain are environmentally sound, socially responsible and economically viable."
