For Like minded people who like to see-
The Queensland Country Life today carried a story entitled “WWF sinks hooks deeper into beef industry” by Brad Cooper which makes it beyond doubt that WWF is to project manage beef sustainability courses at the behest of Mc Donalds and with the full co-operation of CCA and MLA.
WWF, through their influence with the Greens in Queensland have been responsible for Vegetation Management laws implemented without ‘just terms’ and with no carbon credit for avoided deforestation. Those were stolen by the government to meet its Kyoto commitments.
An early task force reviewing damage to the Great Barrier Reef wanted to say that the reef was in good shape. However they bowed to the protests of the WWF representative and highlighted the small areas that appeared slightly damaged. WWF have claimed ever since that farming and grazing are damaging the reef in spite of lack of research and knowledge that urban centres are actually causing more alleged pollution.
All green groups have been involved in Wild Rivers legislations and declarations and possible World Heritage listing claiming on the one hand that the areas are either pristine or retaining most of their natural values and on the other denigrating the cattlemen who have lived there for more than 100 years for degrading the landscape and it therefore needs protection.
This legislation has put those graziers in a time warp whose effects will not be felt immediately but over time as it becomes impossible to adopt the results of modern research they will start to bite. One of the great lies told is that declaration will protect the areas from mining and CSG exploitation.
The greatest harm of all has been to our reputation, our self esteem and sense of worth that comes from knowing that you are doing a worthwhile job-feeding the people of the world.
WWF and others have taken the flawed findings of ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow” and publicised them to the point where vegetarian celebrities, authors, journalists, governments and research organisations including our own National Health and Medical Research Council have urged limited or zero meat intake on environmental grounds.
The upshot is that our credentials have been damaged as part of a campaign by environmentalists to discredit those of us who live by the land in order to set themselves up as the environmental gods and the only people deserving of dictating policy and receiving funding and even big business has fallen for the scam.
Be aware that when you respond to that beautifully worded invitation to an Ausgraze workshop your presenter will be in the employ of WWF and the “voluntary” course will soon become mandatory.
Have CCA and MLA let us down once again by not highlighting the science that is on our side instead of responding to the dark green Mob.
The table below is found at page two of the document, Naked extortion? Environmental NGOs imposing [in]voluntary regulations on consumers and business found at the IPA web site. To read the entire document click on this link.
PRECEDING DISCUSSION - http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/international-green-group...
Beef Central article, WWF: To engage or not to engage?
Follow up article by Brad Cooper published at farmonline, Sustainable beef plan under wraps
This is a bit O.T., but I didn't know where to file it:-
It came off a post that Dale S. put up from SOS News, in the side column.
Bluddy Bob Hawke selling more of Australian farming land to the Chinese.
Chinese to build a huge abbatoir in WA.
And on the same page, but further down, selling breeding stock to the Chinese.
I'll let you guys examine it, but I was angry when I read it.
I thought the "silly old bu&&er" should have taken up residence in a nursing home along with Bleach Blanch by now.
I have written in another thread about the Pangasius (catfish) fishermen of Vietnam. When WWF, with whom they had signed up, took them off the desirable list and put them on the undesirable list there was only one thing they wanted to know. "On what basis have we been judged?" There was no science behind the listing and they were never told. A German TV programme really tore them to bits with the Vietnamese unanble to respond as there was no translator.
This was done purely to soften them up to accept an upgrade of standards.
Did someone earlier mention extortion?
This case has become notorious worldwide with even the Alaskan salmon farmers weighing in on their side.
World Growth has also included them in their paper.
WWF’s Seafood Guide – A Lesson in Risk for Vietnamese Fisheries
The way in which WWF recently managed its consumer seafood guide demonstrates the risk its approach
to voluntary sustainability schemes presents to producers.
WWF recently removed catfish from the yellow list and placed it in the red list for its 2010-2011 Consumer
Seafood Guide. The guide advises consumers in six European countries - Germany, Austria, Switzerland,
Belgium, Norway, and Demark - to purchase fish only from its green and yellow lists.
WWF was forced to admit, following an industry uproar, that it acted without scientific evidence. The
Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (VASEP) deputy chairman Nguyen Huu Dung
warned “the decision by the WWF could cost both producers and consumers heavily and impact WWF’s
prestige and transparency.”
A fisheries official said WWF had incurred significant losses on the Vietnamese fishing industry. European
markets reportedly make up almost 37 percent of catfish exports from Vietnamese fishing companies. The
EU reportedly accounted for $423 million worth of catfish exports in the first 10 months of 2010.
This illustrates the risk of giving de facto-regulatory authority to non-governmental organizations.
For me, most significant, is the warning given by World Growth about regulatory power not being in the hands of government. Once more "unaccountable" comes to mind.
A very good article from Dale in Beef Central and Tony you are spot on with your points above.
This is just another sucking parasite we have to get rid of from the industry just as we have to get rid of sucking parasites in our stock.
Why should we BE FORCED ( because it won't be voluntary for long ) to have to be certified to do something we are already doing quite well and have been doing quite well for a long time.
We are told we have one of the lowest costs of production in the world with our grassfed beef production, and we would have to have as we receive about the lowest returns in the world for our product. If that weren't the case then we wouldn't have the markets that we have. So luckily we are able to produce at low cost, then we have these leeches coming along wanting to suck out some of the little profits we may have for nothing.
Our spinless 'Industry Organisations' should be telling them to get stuffed and point out in very strong and public terms that we are doing just fine and that we don't need their paid for pat on the back and add with examples for the public to see how the likes of WWF are stuffing their 'Partners' around the world after taking their extortion fees.
Are we not afterall as grassfed producers one of the most sustainable and one of the most 'RENEWABLE' industries in the world. We use a renewable product, grass, and turn it into an edible consumable product, meat, to help feed an ever increasing world population.
Instead of jumping into bed with these groups we should tell them when other industries can catch up with our level of sustainability and percentage of renewables utilised in production then the whole world will be better off. Our 'industry organisations' should be stating this and telling our government to state this also. Our government, labor/greens, is always pushing this sustainable renewable barrow so here is an ideal opportunity for them to use our industry as as a benchmark example instead of wrongly denegrating it as one of the polluters through 'SUPPOSED EMMISSIONS'. Our industry organisations should be working for us pressuring the government with the evidence of these ridiculess emmission claims, but instead they take the payoffs and erode away our competitive advantage with extra costs.
Congratulations to Dale Stiller, Property Rights Australia (PRA) and the team for getting the write-up in Beef Central (7/5/12). and also in Donna Laframboise's 'No Frakking Consensus' (Canada)
A damn good write up.
From your post above:
"Much of its work there is carried out under a UN climate change policy known as REDD+ (“reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation”), which is part of the UN’s £17 billion Fast Start programme. Britain, giving £1.5 billion, is that programme’s second largest contributor after Japan"
Last year, Australia's contribution to the 'Fast Start' Financing Programme was $599million AUD.
And they're working towards the Green Climate Fund, which will cull 10% off the top of any carbon tax contributions, for the UN fund, annually.
Jeff if you go the very last box and also tick the terms and conditions box it should let you in without any details.
Jeff Hutcho said:
Thanks for that link, but they want your details to subscribe. I really don't want to be on another damn data base.
So far I have got near real time, moving images from Landsat 7, as it scans the US. The definition is only fair, but it appears to be showing different types of ground cover (false colours - still have to sort that out).
Australia looks like another kettle of fish altogether - so far.
Landsat appears to have a problem, a notice indicated the platform camera had pixels missing, edges are a bit choppy.
Yeah Geoff B.
That's a bit further to the post I put up last Tuesday 8/5/12, congratulating Dale Stiller and the PRA group, for getting the coverage in the English media and in Canada and the world via Donna la Framboise's "No Frakking Consensus " blog.
It's all good.
A week away from the computer and so much has happened.
I will come back to the seminar on the Roudtable for Sustainable Beef over the next couple of days but my first, very pleasant job is to congratulate our very own Dale Stiller on getting a more than passing mention in Donna LaFramboise's blog "No Frakking Consensus".
Ten thousand miles away, a thoughtful opinion piece has also just been published by BeefCentral.com, which describes itself as a “news and market intelligence service dedicated to the Australian beef industry.”
Titled Can producers trust WWF to be accountable?, it was written by Dale Stiller, a spokesperson for those who raise cattle in that country. He points out that while the WWF is in the business of telling other people what to do, this organization is itself “not accountable to anyone.”
Rather wisely, it seems to me, Stiller’s piece contains a warning for businesses that think that cozying up to/engaging in partnerships with the WWF is a great way to enhance their public image. The plan may backfire:
"WWF is developing an unsavoury reputation that will ultimately devalue its panda brand name…"
Dale very modestly neglected to mention that he had been published in a forum other than "Beef Central" which we at PRA all knew about.
The whole of Donna LaFramboise's article as already linked by Geoff T Hutcho and Geoff Brown can be found here:-
The panel of the Roundtable for Sustainable Beef was left in no doubt after Thursday's seminar at Beef Expo that Queensland cattlemen have a very deep mistrust of WWF.
It is my belief that the overseas panel members had no prior knowledge of that mistrust. Perhaps the McDonalds representative did not either.
Rob Cairns fron WWF conceded, when challenged over their demonisation of farmers re the Reef based on no publicly available science, that they had not always relied on the best science but they wanted a fresh start.
Several speakers, including four PRA board members spoke out strongly against WWF but they were not totally alone with even Agforce voiceing concerns.
Only time will tell whether CCA and the various supply chain businesses take our concerns on board.
A very good summary of the meeting can be found on Beef Central.
Can anyone point me at the "requirements" of WWF et al for their Sustainability guidelines, that they are pushing down everyone's throats (or trying to) ?
From my simple interpretation of what's going on, WWF are trying to hang meat producers on a gallows labelled Sustainability, and once they are hung there, start hanging weights (more conditions) on the meat producers. End result - the end.
I think I've read just about everything here, but may have missed something relevant.
If the WWF rep. has been caught out, it is logical that he may concede being at fault.
If you've ever read the Delphi principle, basically a training manual for negotiators (and propagandists), you would see that by backing off strengthens his position, allowing action in another direction, it keeps him in the "game."
Alternatively by being belligerent, would switch him off to the audience, putting him out of the "game."
It's also similar to the good guy, bad guy approach by WWF and the certification question.
Every participant at the seminar stressed that they did not want to send producers broke but we know from past experience that all pleas about financial hardship to WWF have fallen on deaf ears.
These are the requirements as we have seen them so far. In my opinion we have fulfilled most completely already. The one we really need most help on is profitability and the statistics support this but it is the one that is constantly under attack. I am at a loss to know what role WWF have in this process and would rather we negotiated directly with McDonalds et al.
Dr Fitzhardinge said the Roundtable "envisions" a sustainable beef supply chain that will:
- Provide value and is profitable for all participants in the supply chain.
- Provide affordable, safe and nutritious beef.
- Conserves or enhances biodiversity, clean air and clean water, healthy soils and natural ecological processes.
- Support local and indigenous communities and their people.
- Deliver good animal welfare outcomes.
- Build social, economic and ecological resilience to climatic change.
- Ensure that the diversity and productivity of the natural environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.
I understand what you are saying about backing off to stay in the game. Cattle producers are very trusting people.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Yes Dale, the "mushroom treatment".
I may not be a cattleman, but I'm sure used to seeing this with the AGW crap.