Does the UN definition of forest include livestock country? FAO's answer here

Against a backdrop of extreme concern about how new European Union deforestation trade regulations will affect beef produced on Australian properties where woody weed is regularly controlled, the push from many cattle producers has been to run with the UN definition of what constitutes a forest.

There has been confusion about the official definition with green groups arguing the UN's definition does include agricultural land and indeed, there are numerous UN websites where that definition is quoted. There are other UN websites which say the opposite.

In response to a request from ACM Agri for clarification, the forestry division of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN provided this definition of forest: "Land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10 per cent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. Land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use is not included."

A top priority for Australia's beef industry right now is responding to the global demand for deforestation-free credentials.

Prominent Queensland producer Josie Angus, whose family's Signature Beef supplies the European Union market, said if Australia gets its response to deforestation wrong, "we can kiss the Australian beef industry powerhouse of central Queensland goodbye and, in fact, a very large portion of the Australian cattle herd".

"If we get this wrong, our ability to treat regrowth, encroachment, thickening or even to build simple farm infrastructure is lost," she said.

Ms Angus said the definition of forest and deforestation adopted by the UN and by Australia's major beef competitors excluded agricultural land for good reason.

"Agriculture is little more than the management of vegetation," she said.

"Whether it be coppicing in the United Kingdom, silvopasture in Europe, controlling mesquite in Texas or halting woody encroachment to protect the prairies in Oklahoma, agriculturalists and true naturalists the world over realise the importance of managing vegetation, not only for production but for improved biodiversity."

Green groups, however, maintain their interpretation of the UN definition is that it does include agriculture.

They say a definition that didn't include deforestation on agricultural land would miss the point because that is where the majority of deforestation was occurring.

Cattle Australia, the peak industry group for grassfed cattle producers, is working on pulling together a definition for deforestation that aligns to Australia's unique needs in land management and the biodiversity it boasts on livestock operations.

This is in line with the Accountability Framework Initiative, an international coalition set up to give companies guidelines on how to produce and source commodities while protecting forests.

The AFI has become the internationally-accepted authority on deforestation and advocates that country-specific definitions will be both valid and required.

CA's work is largely supported by cattle producers, although many seem to think the first approach should be arguing the UN definition.

"The stark reality is, Australia has never negotiated improved access based on anything individual," Ms Angus said.

The CA move has also come under heavy criticism from Greens groups, who see it as farmers attempting to re-write rules to suit themselves, particularly given the early talk around the definition has bandied about terms like voluntary and promoting producer economic outcomes.

Greenpeace labelled it "the fox guarding the henhouse."