Posts Tagged ‘end factory farming by 2050’

Land Grabbing

Friday, May 20th, 2011


Think of the phrase “land grabbing” and if you’re like me you conjure up images of Britain’s colonial past. But land grabbing is more than just a chapter in our history. It is very much a current international problem with far-reaching consequences impacting our goal to end factory farming by 2050. 

                                                                                                                                   

Land grabbing today is when countries buy or long-lease vast tracts of land in other countries and often in other continents for their own purposes to satisfy their home markets. It is done mostly by wealthier countries which are described as “food-insecure” and private investors.

 

Who are they and why do they do it?

 

There are several reasons why. First, food-insecure nations want to ensure their food supply is protected at a time when food riots increasingly take place. According to news reports food riots have already occurred in Greece, Haiti, North Korea, Algeria, Mogadishu, Zimbabwe and Iran. Recent social unrest, particularly in North Africa and the Middle East, was prompted in part by concerns over access to food and fuel. Particularly vulnerable food-insecure countries are those with an overwhelming dependence upon imported food (e.g. the Gulf States). Other food-insecure countries are those experiencing rapid economic growth, increasing populations, growing middle class or social instability (e.g. China, Japan and South Korea). Further, as the demand for oil continues and its cost increases, there is growing demand for plant-based alternative fuels (e.g. ethanol) which, of course, needs land for growing the “fuel” crops. Due in part to the recent economic downturn triggered by the international banking crisis, previously undesirable land is now an attractive financial investment.

 

Which countries are at risk from having their land grabbed?

 

They are countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the former Soviet Union.

 

According to Shepard Daniel who wrote “Land Grabbing and Potential Implications for World Food Security” in Sustainable Agricultural Development, which is a new book co-edited by my colleague Joyce D’Silva,

 

“Qatar, with only 1% of its land suitable for farming, has purchased 40,000 ha in Kenya for crop production, and recently acquired holdings in Vietnam and Cambodia for rice production, and in Sudan for oils, wheat, and corn production.”

 

This is just one example of land grabbing. The problem is much larger.

 

The Guardian reported recently on the International Conference on Global Land Grabbing. The conference estimated that more than 80 million hectares of land had been acquired by land grabbing. This is about 300,000 square miles, which is nearly twice the size of California, the third largest state in the United States.

 

So, what’s all this got to do with factory farming?

 

Demand for meat, eggs and dairy, which is produced by factory farming and other industrial methods, is growing among increasingly affluent countries, including food-insecure nations. Foreign-controlled land is used to grow food for animal feed for export to those countries which hold the land rights. But, as Shepard Daniel explains,

 

“Countless studies have challenged the conventional wisdom that industrial farms are more efficient by demonstrating the virtues of small farms as “multi-functional” – that is, more productive, more efficient, and able to contribute more to economic development than larger farms.”

 

Factory farming has an insatiable appetite not only for crops for animal feed but also for oil, water and chemicals used to grow what’s fed to the animals. Two out of three farm animals worldwide are now factory farmed. Ironically, land grabbing exacerbates the reasons why food-insecure nations are taking this action in the first place. It will not guarantee food supply but instead will perpetuate the problems of factory farming, environmental degradation, hunger and food riots.

 

As Shepard Daniel concludes,

 

“Much of the global food system, from seed and fertiliser supply to trade and retail, is in the hands of a few large corporations whose interests are first and foremost economic gain, not feeding the millions of the world’s hungry. The land grab trend is extending the control of the private sector over food production in a way that provides little transparency, few safeguards, and shows little concern for political, (local) economic or humanitarian consequences.”

 

What is needed – and what Compassion calls for – is an international agricultural policy which recognises factory farming as the wrong model for feeding the world. As we stated in our report, Beyond Factory Farming

  

“In the next decades, we need to halve the environmental footprint of food production and free-up grain to feed people. A reduction in animal production, combined with lower-input, extensive farming, is the most effective response that farmers and policy makers in developed countries can make to achieve this goal. A reduction in consumption of animal products is also one of the most rapid and effective responses that an individual can make to the global problems of climate change, over-exploitation of the global environment and to free up natural resources for the use of the world’s poor.”

 

It’s again time to confine the practice of land grabbing to the past.

Convergent Campaigning

Thursday, March 3rd, 2011

Question: What is the most important lesson to learn from the successful campaign which stopped the proposed US-style mega-dairy in Lincolnshire, England?

Answer: Strength in diversity. It was the key which unlocked the door to making things happen.

Look at how the mega-dairy campaign united a cross-section of people and organisations. Foodies, environmentalists, animal welfarists, family farmers and local people were united in their opposition. Each one had their particular perspective. Some cared about animal welfare. Others were concerned about the environment. Still more were alarmed for the future of Britain’s dairy industry. No one was compelled to agree with anyone else. Not everyone involved cared about animal welfare as much as we do. Nevertheless, they were united in their opposition for reasons that mattered to them. It was this diversity which made the campaign a success. The combined pressure from a coalition of interests, reflecting the community’s concerns, made all the difference. The Environment Agency delivered the knock-out blow.

The threat of industrialisation to dairy farming persists and the campaign against mega-dairies must continue. Dairy farmers, retailers, milk processors, consumers, government officials, animal welfarists and other key stakeholders now must determine how to establish a market which supports sustainable, human-scale dairying that otherwise we face losing.

Notwithstanding this challenge, to my mind, the mega-dairy campaign is a model of how campaigning could and should be in the future. I call this approach of strength in diversity, ‘Convergent Campaigning’. It consists of stakeholders coming together to work cooperatively toward achieving a shared objective. It is a multi-faceted approach which enables people and organisations to participate for reasons that matter to them.

Our long-term strategy to end factory farming by 2050 is an example of convergent campaigning. This initiative need not, and should not, be exclusively about animal welfare, although this is, of course, hugely important to us. Opposition to factory farming can also be motivated by its threat to the food we eat, the environment we protect and our public health. Also, factory farming holds us back from feeding the world’s growing population. This is why we partnered with Friends of the Earth to publish Eating the Planet. This report showed it is possible to feed the world’s population without factory farming and simultaneously provide environmental benefits, including promoting biodiversity and reduction of pollution. We also published Beyond Factory Farming which demonstrated the cost factory farming causes to the climate, the environment and our health.

The huge global impact of factory farming is increasingly understood by the public. Examples of this impact include two out of every three farm animals worldwide now being factory farmed. An area of land equivalent to the size of the European Union is used to grow feed for farm animals. More than ever before there are incredible opportunities to mobilise people against factory farming on aspects that matter to them. Our task is to inspire action, regardless of whether they are consumers, advocates, teachers, policy makers, legislators, doctors, veterinarians, celebrities, food manufacturers, etc.

But there is one door we must find the key to unlock. How do we reach out to those in society most likely to be in positions of influence in 30 years time? How do we educate future leaders like policy makers, opinion shapers and culture creatives so that they understand why we must bring about a paradigm shift in public policy to end factory farming by 2050?

Generally, society’s leaders emerge from distinct professions or social groups. Although this is not always the case as there are, of course, notable exceptions. Nevertheless, it should be possible to identify the educational tracks which many of them take before they move into positions of authority. Some professions (e.g., lawyers, economists, journalists) and those associated with agriculture (e.g., veterinarians, ethologists, agriculturalists) often have shared educational experiences and particular leadership streams. Further, it should be possible to examine geo-political trends and identify those countries or regions that generate their leaders. In short, we seek to identify tomorrow’s leaders today to educate them about animal welfare and its importance to the global sustainability of human society.

We are currently working on first thoughts for our ‘future leaders’ program. It aims to identify and educate the 2050 generation before they become adults and take positions of authority and influence. Our focus is on the end goal of ending factory farming. Our strategy is based on the new approach of convergent campaigning. We aim for an educational strategy designed to get the right message at the right time to the right people.

This approach is, in part, prompted by my own experience. I recall when I was a teenager at school; a speaker from Compassion explained factory farming to my class. I was already an enthusiastic birdwatcher and was outraged when I learned about chickens kept in battery cages. Little did the speaker know the profound impact he made on me. Nor did I know at the time it would become my life’s calling. Fast forward to 2009 and a blog I wrote here, “A paradigm shift in thinking.” I reported on a meeting of representatives from the international animal welfare movement. We discussed what was required to happen to create a paradigm shift in global policy thinking at all levels to move beyond factory farming. The question is no longer what can we do practically to oppose factory farming? The question is what must we do to end factory farming by 2050?

Today, the mid-twenty-first century feels a long way off. But those born this year will only be 39 in 2050. This is the generation which must celebrate the end of factory farming. It is our responsibility to ensure they accomplish this and understand why it is so important.

3rd March 2011

Flickr

Caged laying hensNocton bus advertisementFace of sow in barren pen with piglets behindLabel Rouge broiler chickens of both sexSow and piglets foraging and one piglet sucklingCute lambs running and jumpingMontbeliard cows on pasturePhilip at FAIBarren veal calf pens

Compassion videos

Commenting Guidelines

I want a lively blog and actively welcome comments - both for and against. Please keep them clean and respectful of others' views. We will delete any comments that contain swearing, advocate any forms of violence, are defamatory, or for legal reasons. We reserve the right to correct any misspellings/typos, and may edit comments for reasons of space.