Greenpeace Not "Anti - Farming", PKE Feed Is

A report in today's New Zealand Herald newspaper seems to undermine Don Nicolson's (NZ Federated Farmers President) assertion that Greenpeace's blockade of the ship carrying a cargo of Palm Kernel Extract destined for New Zealand animal feed was because Greenpeace is "anti-farming"

"....Protests continued outside Ports of Tauranga gates, with some New Zealand farmers weighing into the argument against importing the feed.

Greenpeace New Zealand said several maize and grain farmers had offered donations and support for the protest, saying their product had been undercut by cheap imports.

"We've had farmers who say they've never donated to Greenpeace but want to now because they are going out of business," said spokesperson Suzette Jackson."

If Greenpeace is "anti-farming" why are some farmers supporting them?

The Green party has evidence to show that farmers have been damaged by PKE imports into New Zealand and that continuing to do so was damaging the country's 'Clean and Green' brand image. This from a Scoop article back in August :

“Importing massive amounts of palm kernel undermines the priceless ‘clean and green’ brand that underpins our economy and most New Zealanders’ jobs,”said Green Party Co-leader Russel Norman.

“Stopping this sort of economic sabotage requires strong leadership from the Government.”

The Green Party warned about the alarming rise in imported PKE in April 2008, releasing statistics that showed a thousand-fold increase from 0.4 tonnes in 1999 to 455,000 tonnes in 2007. Statistics released today show imports more than doubled in the past year to 1.1 million tonnes in 2008, one-quarter of global PKE production.

“New Zealand’s palm kernel addiction is already costing our economy, and farmers, due to lost sales of our own grain and maize feeds,” said Dr Norman.

“Just this week members of the NZ Grain Council wrote to the Green Party concerned about large-scale PKE imports because it is environmentally destructive, is a biosecurity risk, and is leading to the 'demise of the NZ domestic grain industry'.”

So how long has PKE been a problem for the domestic grain industry? Well, concerns were raised back in early 2007, an article in NZ Farmers Weekly stated:

"Discontent is simmering among grain growers over the standards applied to the huge volumes of palm kernel extract (PKE) supplement being bought into New Zealand.

The MAF phyto-sanitary requirements for PKE are “a joke” and the ministry’s certainty over product quality is based on one arranged visit to several Malaysian plants, Whakatane maize grower Colin Mackinnon says.

“You need to make several visits on purely random, unannounced basis, not go along on an arranged trip to be sure standards are being adhered to,” he says.

He rejects Biosecurity New Zealand claims grain growers are concerned about heavy metals in PKE shipments.

“That is rubbish. The point is we don’t know what unseen contaminants are in PKE when it gets here because they are not checking. That is our whole point.”

Growers who have seen a confidential AgResearch report on PKE are fuming over Biosecurity NZ claims grower support for further research is based on fear of competition from PKE imports.

“We require a strong dairy industry and if it shoots itself in the foot with contaminated feed, we will all be in trouble,” Mackinnon says....

....Canterbury grain grower Gary Wilson says growers are not afraid of competition, but want a level playing field.

Growers here have strict requirements on spray use and standards, keeping diaries and logs on all applications.

He doubts the same applied to imported product.

Wilson also questions the environmental consequences of using a feed sourced from plantations planted in rainforest areas.

Ross Hyland of Seales Stockfood, Morrinsville, says PKE is probably here to stay.

Due to the large volumes being imported, he believes there may be grounds to establish a testing regime for it here."

And by January of this year maize farmers were really doing it hard because low PKE feed prices were causing dairy farmers to cancel contracts for silage. This too from Farmers Weekly:

"Dairy farmers are earning few friends among maize growers this summer as they walk away from silage deals, leaving some contractors with as much as a third of their crop now unsold.

"The dairy industry is really letting us down big time this year. It is hard to see how some contractors are going to be able to survive with portions of their crop now unsold despite contracts being signed," Bay of Plenty contractor Bill Webb told The New Zealand Farmers Weekly....

....Historically low palm kernel prices coinciding with payout slide was also accounting for contracts being cancelled. With prices under $200/t, the lure had proven too great for some of Webb's customers.

He had longtime buyers who had cancelled orders for as much as 200t of maize silage, after he had spent $3000/ha getting the crop planted for them.

Economics aside, Webb has questioned the future integrity and health of relationships between dairy farmers and the maize industry.

"It is a damn good question. What do we do next year, do you go back to these guys and do business with them, or risk simply not having enough buyers if you avoid them?"

So there you have it, which is "Anti-farming" - Greenpeace, or using PKE to make animal feed?

See also: World Bank breaks rules in lending to palm oil companies

Palm Kernel Feed - World Bank Review Of Funding And RD1/Fonterra

Greenpeace NZ is today blockading a ship in the port of Tauranga that is attempting to dock a cargo of Palm kernel animal feed, allegedly bound for Fonterra's rural merchandising company RD1. RD1 have been quick to state say the shipment wasn't theirs. (Another Tui moment?) but you can bet your bottom dollar a lot of the animal feed produced from it will end up in RD1 outlets.

RD's John Lea, chief executive of RD1, also said in a quote in today's Herald:

" Fonterra's RD1 did import palm kernel as a small (about 1 per cent), but important, feed source for New Zealand dairy cows.

"However, prior to commencing shipments of PKE (palm kernel extract) we went to considerable lengths, including my personal visit to their operations, to find a sustainable supplier" he said.

RD1's supplier, Wilmar, was a founding member of the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil. A recent audit by the World Bank found that Wilmar was managing its operations in accordance with the roundtable's principles, he said.

"We're continuing to work with Wilmar to do everything we can to ensure that every tonne of PKE, which is a waste product of the palm oil industry, is truly sustainable."

Mr Lea, would do well to read the press release by Forestpeoples.org and he'd know that Wilmar subsidiaries are alleged to have both illegally used fire to clear land and seized indigenous people's lands. The statement "managing its operations in accordance with the rountable's principles" seems rather naive. But perhaps Mr Lea didn't read the Forest Peoples press release? it's easy to miss these things so we have it here:

http://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/ifi_igo/ifc_wilmar_cao_fpp_press_rel_aug09_eng.pdf: link

Press Release 10 August 09

"World Bank violates its own standards in palm oil sector in Indonesia"

"The World Bank’s private sector arm – the International Finance Corporation (IFC) – has allowed commercial interests to override its social and environmental standards in making major loans to the oil palm sector in Indonesia, an internal audit reveals.

Oil palm has become synonymous with widespread clearance of forests and peatlands massive CO2 emissions and the theft of indigenous peoples’ lands.

Although the IFC knew about all these risks, due to its experience with prior projects and the warnings of non-government organisations, it went ahead with loans to the Wilmar palm oil trading group, in violation of its own standards, according to the report. The IFC failed to assess the supply chains or look into the damaging impacts of the company’s subsidiary plantations that were taking over community lands and forests in Borneo and Sumatra.

The findings have major implications for the IFC: not only must it apply its standards more carefully but it must check out concerns about where the companies it funds are sourcing their raw materials. Palm oil is only one example of commodities produced in violation of norms.

These findings come from a highly critical audit report just issued by the Compliance Advisory Ombudsman of the IFC which looked into a detailed complaint filed by the Forest Peoples Programme and a coalition of 19 Indonesian civil society and indigenous organisations, including SawitWatch and Gemawan.

Norman Jiwan of the Indonesian monitoring NGO, SawitWatch, notes:
When we filed our complaint we noted that Wilmar subsidiaries were illegally using fire to clear primary forests and high conservation value areas and seizing indigenous peoples’ lands without their free, prior and informed consent, triggering serious conflicts.

This report shows that the IFC overrode its standards and ignored our previous warnings.

In response to the report Lely Khainur of the NGO Gemawan says:
Development is meant to prioritise the needs and rights of local communities. The IFC’s standards require this. Yet they put business interests first and allow peoples’ lands to be stolen for the sake of cheap palm oil in the international market. Our peoples and our forests are being ruined to no good end, and ultimately the whole planet is suffering.

Marcus Colchester the Director of the Forest Peoples Programme adds.
We are satisfied that this report vindicates in great detail our main concerns. Also, the response of the IFC Management to the audit suggests they will now try to do things differently. Still, we remain somewhat exasperated. It has taken us more than five years to get the IFC to take these issues seriously. Given the urgency of halting forest loss and human rights abuses, we call on the IFC President to take personal proactive steps to ensure this never happens again."

The issues are rather more than the IFC not following good lending pratices:

NZ imports a quarter of the world's supplies of PKE: 1.1 million tonnes of palm kernel animal feed in 2008 (which contributed to the release of up to 20 million tonnes of greenhouse emissions) which is worth around $300 million a year, more than just a 'waste product'.

Over 1.5 million hectares of palm plantations planted on previously rain forested land in Malaysia and Indonesia would have been needed to meet the 2008 New Zealand imports of PKE.

The RD1 website has a page advising farmers on the benefits of buying PKE through legally binding contracts, it gives some indication of how much a single vessel may carry:

"From the palm oil plantations in Malaysia to your farm gate, RD1 Nutrition manages
the production, shipping and distribution of our Country Mile Palm Kernel Expeller.
We plan the details with you, the New Zealand dairy farmer, in mind.....

"Having a contract for PKE means surety of supply for that volume, regardless of what is happening with the availability of PKE in the market. Likewise, for RD1 the commitment to bring in a 25,000 tonne vessel of PKE (ed: rather more than 1%) to meet contracted demand comes at a considerable cost and relies on contracted parties honouring their legal contractual commitments"

How do some farmers view the farming of palm oil plantations in Asia? According to Straight Furrow:

"Don Nicolson, president of Federated Farmers, said it was not New Zealand’s place to tell countries like Malayasia and Indonesia how to farm.

As New Zealand had already cleared a lot of its forests for farming, he said it would be “arrogant” of us to say they couldn’t develop, and for a country of our size to tell them how to operate."

After all the protesters had been removed from the ship today he was quoted in the Herald saying:

"I fully respect the freedom of Greenpeace to protest legally but they have crossed the line by interfering with legal commerce and free navigation on the high seas,"

He described the protest as "economic treason".

He claimed Greenpeace was anti-farming: "It's a despicable new tactic that has Greenpeace's loathing of farming written all over that ship."

We think Greenpeace probably loathes the destruction of irreplaceable rain forests and would prefer to see sustainable farming practices in New Zealand. But then, wouldn't we all?

Auckland's Toxic Beaches - 3 More Sick Dogs

A warning sign on a North Shore Beach, Rangitoto Island in the background. Click to enlarge.

Just when you thought it was 'safe' to go back in the water 3 more dogs have shown symptoms of poisoning after visiting beaches in the North Shore area of Auckland. Warnings signs like the one above appeared on most North Shore beaches advising people not to take dogs or children onto the beaches until they were (prematurely?) removed only 11 days ago.

As yet we have no news on the results of tests for 'rat poison' there were supposed to have been carried out on a number of dead dolphins from the area. The islands of Rangitoto and Motu were recently bombarded with toxins to wipe out pests. A comment from a marine biologist about bait in the intertidal zone was left on this blog - see link

One news report today about the current poisoning stated:

"Three more sick dogs have prompted Auckland health authorities to renew warnings to take care on the city's beaches.

The seriously ill dogs showed symptoms of tetrodotoxin poisoning.

One dog became ill after walking on Narrow Neck beach and another two became sick after walking on Takapuna beach. Authorities believe they they have the same toxin that killed five dogs and made at least 10 others ill last month.(Ed. this has yet to be confirmed)

The toxin, found in vomit from one of the dead dogs, is known as TTX and was traced to sea slugs found on Cheltenham and Narrow Neck beaches in Devonport.

"If you go back to the beach please, please keep children and pets under close supervision," said Auckland Regional Public Health Service spokeswoman Sally Young.

Emergency doctors have been advised that the TTX found in one small slug on Narrow Neck beach could, if eaten, be enough to kill a dog or a child."

No news yet as to whether the original warning signs (see photo above) will be re-erected, it's a difficult choice to be made now that summer is on its way and pressure is on for people to use the beaches freely, one may only hope that a child does not fall ill, or worse.

For the background to this story please see blog posts:
Questions surround DOC poison drops
Sea Life deaths continue in Hauraki Gulf - spike in dolphin deaths
Auckland beaches' poison - another 30 dogs sick, sea slugs poisoned, dog death in Stanmore Bay.
Mass poison drops scheduled to wipe out pests (first published 24 June 09)

Keisha's Castle-Hughes' Response To John Key

After John Key publicly stating that Keisha Castle-Hughes should 'stick to acting' over her stance on climate change she published a very articulate reply (on signon.org.nz) and Key has asked to to meet over a cup of tea to chat about her concerns. Here's Keisha's reply, aired on 6 August:

"I think it's derogatory to state that it's not okay for New Zealanders to stand up and take interest in the world around them.Climate change is a global issue that affects our country as a whole. Before being anything else in my life, I am a mother, and that is why I am a part of this campaign. And as a mother i believe i have a right to speak up if i have concerns about the future of my daughter. Discouraging New Zealand youth to participate, think and speak out is not on for the Prime Minister of NZ.

I'm not claiming to be a scientist nor a climate expert. I am just doing what I can as a good global citizen.

John Key's climate change Minister Nick Smith has spent the last two weeks running a public consultation on what NZ should do on climate change. I was under the impression that the NZ Government was therefore interested in what the public had to say. Is the PM all of a sudden NOT interested in public input?

This week is the Pacific Island Forum, where low lying states are calling clearly for help on climate change from countries like New Zealand. The Alliance of Small Island States is asking for developed countries to cut emissions by 45% by 2020. John Key should spend less time commenting on a Kiwi Mum's right to free speech, and more listening to our Pacific neighbours."

100% Pure NZ - You Can't Be Half Pregnant, You Have to Go All The Way. The Age of Stupid

A bit more effort is needed if NZ stands any hope of living up its 100% Pure marketing aspirations. A robust commitment to reducing carbon emission would be a good start in establishing NZ's green credentials. The issue is being taken very seriously indeed by other Pacific Island Nations. many of whom are low-lying and will be devastated by sea level rises.

from: http://www.signon.org.nz/sites/default/files/08/12/Eco2_Bonn-III_can-talk.pdf

"Yesterday’s target announcement from New Zealand’s had one – and only one – positive aspect. It surpassed the ‘extremely low’ expectations that ECO announced yesterday, by a whole 5%. Now it’s just ‘really really low’ instead. And still below the Bali range.

Think of it this way: imagine that you have a giant chasm to cross. Call it a ‘grand climate canyon’, if you will. Your entire population lives on one side of the canyon, but scientists warn you that floods, famines and food shortages will cause unimaginable suffering, unless you can find a way to cross to the other side. Your best scientists, lawyers and engineers conference together, do the measurements, and determine that you need to build a bridge exactly 1,000 metres long, to enable your fellow citizens to cross safely to the other side.

But for some unknown reason, your social and government leaders decide to build a bridge that only goes 500m. (And even this might be too high a figure, considering current progress in the LCA.) Citizens see the government making ‘progress’, they celebrate, and they are lulled into the false sense of security that they will be safe. Their leaders happily shepherd them onto the bridge, and they happily march forward, towards their impending doom. And that’s not hyperbole.

In the same way that you can’t be half pregnant, you can’t reduce emissions by only 20% by 2020 and miraculously expect the climate to stabilise below 2 degrees C. You need to go all the way.

It is well known, from various analyses by the UNFCCC and others, that the targets put forward by Annex 1 nations, in sum, amount to only a 10-16% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. No wonder the IPCC scientists – and some here at CAN – are being driven to drink these days. On the outside, even the youth climate campaigners look hopeful, but under their youthful, happy veneer, even they are getting desperate. The New Zealand target completes a rather dismal Annex I picture.

The same ‘threshold problem’ applies not only to carbon reduction targets, but also to climate finance, technology transfer, adaptation, and REDD/LULUCF. To be safe, you can’t just build half a sea wall. You can’t halftrain a renewable energy engineer. You can’t plant half a tree. You can’t give someone half a course of anti-HIV medicines. You can’t use half a condom. You can’t fly half a plane. You can’t use half a parachute. And you can’t reduce carbon emissions by half the amount that science demands. That’s why they call it ‘runaway’ climate change.

So, here at ECO, our message is this: we fully expect that, by Copenhagen, the idiotic targets put forward thus far by Annex 1 nations will be more than doubled. More than 40%, or bust."

For those who remain unconvinced about climate change (yes, there are many in New Zealand) perhaps this film will change their minds

Australia & New Zealand Trailer HD from Age of Stupid on Vimeo.

NZ Eco-tourism Industry Damaged by 1080 Use

Following on from today's other article about the "Poisoning Paradise" documentary I thought it would be useful to see how the eco-tourism industry has been affected by the use of 1080 in NZ.

This article is a report from a recent Eco-tourism New Zealand conference near Greymouth.
Source: Stuff

New Zealand's eco-tourism industry is trying to establish its green credentials internationally but the effort is being put at risk by the aerial distribution of 1080 poison, an industry pioneer has warned.

The Eco-tourism New Zealand conference near Greymouth has been told that internationally recognised national credentials such as Qualmark Green, announced in May, are helping attract international tourists.

However, Kea Heritage Tours managing director Matt Lysaght says that is being damaged by the controversial use of 1080, which threatens New Zealand's clean-and-green reputation in key markets.

"I think it's time to call for a moratorium on the aerial spread of 1080," he said.

"At the end of the day, if word (of aerial 1080 distribution) becomes common talk amongst our clients in North America and Europe ... I think my concession would be worth next to nothing if I don't get any visitors."

Lysaght, who sits on Te Tai Poutini Polytechnic's eco-tourism programme advisory board, also called on the Department of Conservation (DOC) to prosecute tourism operators who worked in the conservation estate without a concession.

West Coast MP and Tourism Minister Damien O'Connor said eco-tourism was at the forefront of the $20 billion tourism industry, New Zealand's biggest export earner. "You could say eco-tourism is New Zealand tourism," he said.

"If we're going to protect 100 per cent Pure New Zealand, then eco-tourism is the only apparent option for each and every tourism operator.

"If each and every tourism operator doesn't embrace these values, then we won't deliver 100 per cent Pure New Zealand."