Palm Plantations — Key products from palm plantations are:
Palm oils mainly used in foods, cosmetics, and now biofuels.
Palm kern expeller (PKE), used for animal feed and biomass electricity generation. (Malaysian Pam Oil Board describes palm animal feed as an important economic part of the palm industry).

Wastes from the Palm Oil Industry are:
Palm Kernel Shells (PKS)
Empty Fruit Bunches (EFB
Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME)

Who are the main importers of palm kernel expeller (PKE) into NZ?
RD1 (50% owned by Fonterra)
Hunter Grains NZ Ltd
J Swap Ltd
ABB Grains Ltd
Ravensdown and Winton Stock Feed

Why are we picking on FONTERRA?
Almost all of the PKE imported into NZ ends up on dairy farms, 95% of which are part of FONTERRA. 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 NZ imports of PKE.

FONTERRA’s association with Wilmar, one of the most ruthless exploiters of the worlds rainforest heritage. FONTERRA owns 50 per cent of RD1, which has formed a joint venture with Wilmar International — a palm company with a terrible reputation for destroying rainforest to make way for palm plantations. This joint venture is called International Nutritionals Limited, incorporated on 22 July 2008. Two thirds of Wilmars 573,000 hectares is still to be cleared, some on land once home to the critically endangered Sumatran Tiger and Orang-utan. The growing demand for palm kernels as animal feed in NZ is a key contributor to the problem,

Since FONTERRA was established in 2001, imports of PKE have leapt by over 700 per cent. We are now the second top importer of PKE after the European Union.

FONTERRA is using supplementary feed to drive the increasing industrialisation and intensification of dairying in this country. It is being used as a cheaper supplementarily feed to increase milk production. (A small fraction is being used for poultry and pigs). Almost a quarter of the worlds PKE is coming into NZ. NZ imported 1.1 million tonnes in 2008 of a global output of 4.4 million tonnes.

FONTERRA Myth — PKE reduces the production of methane from dairy cows.
Forest destruction, fires lit for land clearance & conversion of rich peat lands completely wipe out any marginal reduction in methane from dairy cows fed PKE.

FONTERRA claim — PKE is certified as sustainable.
The Sustainable Palm Oil Organisation, of which Wilmar purports to be a member, means nothing. These people still destroy forests, there is no paper trail and the RSPO has failed to deliver on anything. Only a bare maximum of 16% of all PKE imports into NZ could even be considered to claim an RSPO certification. Ninety nine percent of all imported PKE is highly likely to come from suppliers engaged in destructive practices.

FONTERRA claim — Cows will starve if we don’t feed PKE.
Federated Farmers quote “There was a surplus of NZ maize silage this season — available to feed cows during the recent drought. Dairy farmers walked away from silage deals leaving some contractors with a third of their crop now unsold. The rapid intensification and industrialisation of dairying in NZ, driven by Fonterra, is causing the increased use of PKE as a supplementary feed.

FONTERRA claims — our cows are 100% pasture fed.
This is clearly untrue.

FONTERRA claims — all of its PKE comes from Malaysia and is therefore sustainable.
Records show that in 2008 46% of imports were from Indonesia. The devastation of rainforests and carbon-rich peat lands for the palm industry occurs both in Indonesian and Malaysia.

FONTERRA’s focus on the commodities market is a main driver of this intensification of farming. More than 4000 small farms, the stuff of rural communities, have disappeared between 1994 and 2005. There were 164 cows in the average dairy herd in 1990, today’s run an average of 350 with some industrial scale farms miking 2000 cows. Daily excretion of sewage waste is now equivalent to 78 million humans. (And if one thinks about that, the excreta is so full of chemicals and biologically unsustainable materials, that it cannot even be re cycled).

FONTERRA’S action as an international cooperative is trading on NZ’s clean green image — it is vital that Fonterra lives up to this otherwise there will be wholesale destruction of what the farming sector help create. Our clean green image is estimated to be worth $5000 million per year to the dairy industry alone.

FONTERRA passes the buck — The dairy industry only appears profitable because it does not pay for its significant environmental impact. Farmers who have adopted best farming practices to reduce emissions are not able to get any reward for their more sustainable approach. The taxpayer will fork out some 1.31 billion dollars by 2013 for the Emissions Trading Scheme.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM THE BEHIVE
The following is an uncorrected transcript dated 27th August 2009.

Sue Kedgley to the Minister of Agriculture:
Does he share the concerns of the NZ Grain Council that NZ’s use of a million tonnes of palm kernel to feed dairy cows is ‘aiding and abetting the destruction of the South East Asian jungle habitat’ and the concerns of Federated Farmers that ‘palm kernel is also threatening the viability of New Zealand maize production for stock feed', if so, what course of action will he take to address these concerns?

Hon Tim Groser (Minister of Trade) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture:
The Government is extremely concerned about the destruction of rainforests and indigenous forests, whether in Sumatra or in any other place on the planet. The short–term surge in the waste product palm kernel as a consequence of the drought is functionally irrelevant to any long-term solution. The long term solutions lie in careful diplomacy internally around illegal logging, sustainable certification procedures, which are — a plethora of them — lacking robustness, and, most interestingly of all, progress on the United Nations Collaborative Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in developing countries, which will give developing country economies an alternative stake in their forests.

Editor to reader: Did you feel that the Hon Tim Groser’s reply actually answered Sue Kedgley’s question?

Sue Kedgley:
Does the Minister agree that NZ dairy exports are sold overseas as being clean and green, with cows being fed on grass pastures, and that if consumers realise that our dairy herds are one of the largest consumers — consuming a quarter of the world’s supply last year — of a product that is causing the destruction of the last great rainforests in the world, and that is destroying the habitats of endangered species such as the Orang-utan, it will seriously damage the image of NZ dairy and other agriculture exports?

Hon Tim Groser:
Ninety nine percent of the feed of the dairy industry, according to the advice I have received, is still pasture. There was a temporary blip because of the drought. But the one thing of which I can assure the member is that the Government and I absolutely agree that the long-term sustainability-branding image of New Zealand needs further work. This is a work in progress.

Editor to reader: Did you feel that the Hon Tim Groser’s reply actually answered Sue Kedgley’s question?

Sue Kedgley:
Can the Minister confirm that we imported 3400,000 tonnes — equivalent to 800 million packs of butter, or 73,000 large elephants — in 2007 BEFORE THE 2008 DROUGHT, and that, whatever way we look at it, we are importing huge amounts of a feed that destroys the rainforest and the habitats of endangered species like the orang-utan, poses a biosecurity risk in NZ and hurts kiwi farmers?

Hon Tim Groser:
I cannot confirm, without further advice, the exact ratio for converting kernel imports into elephant-tonne equivalents, but I can certainly confirm that we are encouraging the industry to continue to move towards greater sustainability, and working on the underlying problems that the member is concerned about, through the proper international processes.

Editor to reader: Did you feel that the Hon Tim Groser’s reply actually answered Sue Kedgley’s question?

Hon Damien O’Connor:
Does the Minister consider that contaminated containers of palm kernel, and the other 600,000 containers that passed through NZ ports WITHOUT ANY PHYSICAL INSPECTION over the last year, pose a serious risk to NZ biosecurity; if so, how does the sacking of 60 skilled front-line people from his department help reduce that risk?

Hon Tim Groser:
I can confirm that the advice I am receiving is that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s biosecurity division investigate those imports. There was fumigation, and the situation is fully under control.

Editor to reader: Did you feel that the Hon Tim Groser’s reply actually answered the Hon Damien O’Connor’s question?

Sue Kedgley:
Is the Minister aware of an AgReasearch report from May 2008 that concluded that TOXIN-PROCUING MOULDS IN PALM KERNEL SHIPMENTS could ‘affect the health of animals if consumed over extended periods of time, BE PASSED INTO MILK, therefore pose a threat to human health', and ‘even small quantities of mycotoxins present in dairy and meat products could lead to difficulties in exporting primary produce and create an export issue for NZ’s dairy industry?

Hon Tim Groser:
I am personally not familiar with that particular toxic mould, but I am confident that our scientists are.

Editor to reader: Did you feel that Tim Groser’s reply actually answered Sue Kedgley’s question.

Sue Kedlegy:
Given consumer’s strong reaction to the news that Cadbury’s was using palm oil in its chocolate, is the Minister concerned that the international reputation of Fonterra, and indeed of NZ’s ‘100% Pure New Zealand' image, could suffer if it is known that our dairy farmers are one of the largest consumers of palm kernel, and consumed a quarter of the world’s palm kernel last year; if not, why not?

Hon Tim Groser: No, I am not familiar with what goes into Cadbury’s chocolate. But I must congratulate the company on its adoption of fair trade policies recent in respect of its cocoa.

Editor to reader: Did you feel that that Tim Groser’s reply actually answered Sue Kedgley’s question?

Sue Kedgley sought and was granted leave to table the following documents:
Internal report from AgReasearch dated May 2006, showing that fungi in palm kernel is harmful to cows, and humans who consume milk products, as well as containing biosecurity risks.

A letter from Biosecurity NZ to Federated Farmers dated 17 February 2009, showing that palm kernel imports into Bluff contained maize seed that had to be destroyed, which has prompted a review of biosecurity risks from palm kernel.

A second letter from Biosecurity to Federated Farmers dated 14th April 2009, confirming that 106 insect identifications were found in palm kernel, including biosecurity risk organisms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sue Kedgley is to be congratulated on a fine effort in perseverance.

The Hon Tim Groser is to be knighted for a fine rendition of the Artful Dodger.

The reader is to be congratulated on having to answer the same question several times, when one answer probably would have sufficed; but as this is a government document sourced directly from parliament, we need to keep to the rules.

FORWARD WITHOUT FONTERRA
More and more NZ farmers are showing that there is another way — smart farming — the more traditional way of farming by caring for the soil and maintaining the health of pastures, using lower stocking rates.

Results from AgResearch trial farms show that this low input technique produces more milk per cow, is more profitable for farmers when milk prices are low.

It also gives greater security to farmers (their farms are more profitable as they have less input costs, and less impact on the waterways and climate).

In 1990, a hectare of dairy pasture produced 351 kilograms of milk fat.

In 2007, it produced 534 kg.

That only happened because NZ’s fertiliser application increased by 113% between 1986 and 2002 to 4.3 million tonnes.

The fallout — a 15% increase in agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. This could rise by 40,5% by 2010.

Agriculture now accounts for 49% of all NZ's greenhouse gas emissions.

Farming pollutes 90% of lowland rivers, either with animal effluent or fertiliser run-off.

One third of NZ's agricultural emission comes from nitrous oxide (impact on soil from livestock urine, manure and chemical fertiliser use). Two thirds comes from methane when cows burb.

Nitro oxide is 300 times more climate-damaging than carbon dioxide.

Emissions s from the on-farm use of chemical fertilisers now exceed the emissions from NZ’s road transport sector.

In Fear or Free of Fonterra?

What do you want for your children, the animals and the land?

Thanks to Suzette Jackson, Greenpeace and my good friends down south for background information.

RIP COWS.
EDITOR.