Cotton industry's secret anti-environment campaign plan released

Friday, 26 June 1998 10:00

The cotton industry's secret plan to manage environmental conflicts, which also contains candid admissions about severe environmental and community problems, was released today by Total Environment Centre.
 
"The plan gives a clear picture of big brother putting 6 country regions under the microscope in order to manipulate local opinion. The plan sets out a script and this has been used in recent debates in Gunnedah, NSW and Dalby in QLD. Self regulation is a core part of the script, but it's meant to defuse controversy, not solve environmental problems," said Jeff Angel, Director TEC.
 

"Total Environment Centre, along with other rural-based environment groups, have been lobbying government to introduce regulatory controls to protect people and the environment from pesticide pollution generated by the cotton industry due to their heavy use of pesticides. It's now blatantly obvious the cotton industry can't stop pesticides trespassing onto other people's properties or the environment," Mr Angel said.

"The document systematically details the level of community concern in each of the cotton growing towns and suggests action plans to contain the damage. Gunnedah is described as a 'hot-bed of intrigue'; Moree 'an area requiring urgent attention'; Mungindi '..some anti-cotton elements in the town'; Dalby 'Sympathy could dissipate with rapid expansion [of the cotton industry] in the area. Pre-emptive communications are important' and, Emerald '...the town is in a maintenance phase'.

"The aerial applicator industry, the document states, '...is not always as environmentally conscious as it would like to claim' and '...they [aerial applicators] acknowledge the sprays are not always accurately applied'. The document admits that 'Gunnedah is a very difficult area to spray'".
 
"As an antidote to negative information about the cotton industry that moves through a strong informal network including schools, retail and various groups in towns the document suggests that, wherever possible, the industry should 'participate in these groups and control the discussion agenda'. The cotton industry's controlling agenda is of no surprise to environment groups who have had to constantly battle just for equal representation in mediation and consultation processes'.
 
"The real intentions of the cotton industry have now been revealed - make money and protect access to resources at all costs with little regard for the negative impacts of their industry on the community or environment. The government has pandered to the cotton lobby for far too long; the community can longer be put at the mercy of such a calculating industry," concluded Mr Angel.


EXCERPTS FROM THE DOCUMENT:
Investigation and monitoring of community attitudes toward the cotton industry: initial summary, Stollznow Research Pty Ltd, 1995

Page 1: "The community (apart from activists and non-related agricultural industry groups affected by problems in the cotton industry) is still open-minded and can be reached. They are open to persuasion".

Page 13: "Cotton growers should be presented as family farmers who for the most part have long-term interests in the area. They should be encouraged to participate in town activities but not be arrogant about their economic status".

Page 13: "Growers are experienced farmers. They do not use sprays because they like using sprays. They are trained. They are responsible. The only problem here is that the behaviour of some cotton farmers makes such a proposition difficult to sustain in the community at large".

Page 17: "...It is not conducive to establishing good relations to refer to withholding advertising from newspapers or support from various groups if they dare to criticise cotton. If this is done it should be done subtly".

Page 17: "In the Gunnedah area the way the land is being developed affects other farmers and small acreages, which perhaps should not be in the area anyhow. Neighbour problems are of critical importance and a source of great disharmony in Gunnedah".

Page 18: "Farm workers are a strong source of information in towns as to how cotton farmers behave and how cotton farms are managed, and the safety issues on cotton farms. They therefore should not be looked upon as casual labour but should be developed as apostles for the industry".
 
Page 19: "The term conservationist or environmentalist should always be applied to cotton farmers".

Page 21: "Farmers should be seen as 'conservationists', the environmentalists as 'extremists'. Practical versus professional conservationists".

"Environmentalists do not come from the land. They do not have solutions, only complaints. In many instances they are not part of the community, they are outsiders".
"Environmentalists do not practice what they preach. They are hypocritical, self-centred, publicity seekers not involved in agriculture. They are dangerous and invite political subversion".

Page 23: "There is acceptance of the fact that Gunnedah is a very difficult area to spray. In prevailing atmospheric conditions it is not always possible to spray under ideal circumstances".
*Full report available on request