Deforestation and beef: EU laws, Greens claims and whether woody weeds are forest

New European Union trade restrictions are due to kick in from the start of next year but that's only the headline act against a backdrop of strong pressure coming external to agriculture from heavy hitters from the world of corporate, finance and regulation pushing for an end to deforestation.

How Australian beef should respond to demands for deforestation proof was one of the most discussed topics at the big industry expo Beef Australia at Rockhampton this month.

Prominent beef producer Josie Angus told audiences to expect towns like Rockhampton to shrink if the beef industry doesn't get its response to deforestation right.

That's how serious this is.

Multi-national businesses around the world are signing up to the Science Based Targets Initiative to play their role in addressing climate change. Among many measures, the initiative advocates setting zero deforestation targets no later than 2025.

That means companies like McDonald's want proof the beef they are buying is deforestation-free. By next year the global burger giant will be satellite monitoring farmland which grows the meat it buys to identify land use changes.

At the same time, the new EU deforestation trade regulations will require companies trading in cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soy and wood, as well as products derived from these commodities, to conduct extensive diligence on the supply chain to ensure the goods do not result from post 31 December 2020 deforestation.

Regardless of whether Australian beef is collateral in a move aimed at other nations, and despite the comparatively small volumes of Australian beef shipped to the EU, there is no argument this regulation will set a precedent globally that has the potential to significantly impact Australia's ability to trade.

The challenge sits in the fact that both definitions of forest, and criteria for how deforestation-free status is proven, are not clear.

Australian trade authorities and industry leaders are battling furiously to get clear direction from the EU.

Farm sector environmental specialist, Dr Stephen Wiedemann, IntegrityAg, said most countries and sectors were referring to the Accountability Framework Initiative, an international coalition set up to give companies guidelines on how to produce and source commodities while protecting forests.

It was in the interpretation of regenerated forest that the ambiguity arises, he said.

"One view is that a regenerated forest has the features of a natural forest - the ecological benchmarks for the particular region it is in," he said.

"Another view is the technical definition of a forest - 2m high trees, 20 per cent canopy cover and at least 0.2 hectares of it.

"These two views, of course, are vastly different in the Australian context."

In large swathes of Australia, particularly in Queensland, where the country was cleared years ago there are enormous seedbanks that constantly regenerates trees.

There are also enormous seedbanks of woody weeds, which are long-lived introduced species like mesquite and parkinsonia that dominate pastures if left uncontrolled.

Farmers control those trees which means they are removing vegetation. It's routine management, legal and necessary to maintain pastures.

"It's a powder keg because there are millions of hectares in Australia managed this way," Dr Wiedemann said.

"It is legal to clear this type of vegetation but these producers might still fall foul of regulations coming down if that vegetation is determined to be regenerated forest, and so they won't be able to sell beef produced on that country.

"In a nutshell, there are definitions and criteria around deforestation yet to be hammered out but where this falls will have big implications to the beef industry."