Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance

Fair food for all Australians

  • Home
  • About
    • History
      • Origins of AFSA by Russ Grayson
    • Our Team
      • National Committee 2017-2018
      • Past committees
    • Governance
    • President’s report
    • International
    • Become a Member
  • Press
    • In the News
    • Media Releases
  • Farmers
    • Fair Food Farmers United
    • Legal Defence Fund
      • Our Services
      • Who we support
      • Past efforts
      • Campaigns
      • Other assistance for farmers
      • Our Vision
    • Community Supported Agriculture
    • Workers’ Rights
    • Fair Food Forum
    • Farmer Directory
      • Place listing
  • Support Fair Food
    • Legal Defence Fund
      • Our Services
      • Who we support
      • Past efforts
      • Other assistance for farmers
      • Campaigns
      • Our Vision
    • Find Fair Food
    • Community Supported Agriculture
    • Right to Food
    • Join us
  • Events
    • Fair Food Week
  • Resources
    • Research
    • Submissions
    • Peoples’ Food Plan
    • Themes
      • Agroecology
      • Community Supported Agriculture
      • Food Waste
      • GMO
      • Indigenous
      • International
      • Right to Food
      • Solidarity Economy
      • Women
      • Workers’ Rights
  • Join us/Renew
  • Get in touch

We Want Water Sovereignty for Australia!

February 24, 2018 by Tammi Jonas

The Murray Darling Basin’s capacity to provide water to all its communities is at risk. The Federal Government last week put forward an amendment to allow 70GL more than the 2012 Murray Darling Basin Plan (MDBP) recommended be withdrawn for big irrigators’ consumption in the Northern Basin, an amendment that was voted down in the Senate. The Government rather confusingly refers to the amendment as an ‘adjustment to the Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDL)’ in the Northern Basin – ‘recovering water’ from ‘environmental flows’ rather than ‘allowing irrigators to use it for commercial gain’.

While the process of formulating the MDBP was long and fraught with governance issues, the four affected states (QLD, NSW, VIC & SA) agreed to implement it in 2012 for the health of the river and its many and diverse communities and uses.

It appears that lobbying from Big Ag – in particular the cotton industry, which by its own admission uses a staggering 26% of all Australian agricultural irrigation water and then exports 99% of their product – resulted in the proposed amendment to take 70GL out of the system further upstream instead of retaining this resource downstream as environmental flows.

Withdrawing more water upstream against community sentiment is deeply flawed and a rejection of the tenets of water sovereignty because it’s allowing commercial use to quite literally ship our scarce water resources overseas for profit.

When we export cotton, rice, beef, wine – any agricultural product – we are exporting our water.

Environmental flows control the timing, quality, and volume of water flows to sustain river ecologies and the communities that depend on them. Calling them ‘environmental’ seems to be part of the problematic discourse that allows governments and the media to pit ‘greenies’ against ‘farmers’, instead of enabling a holistic discussion that acknowledges the importance of healthy river ecologies to all life, including that sustained by farmers.

Removing a further 70GL of environmental flows for the benefit of cotton farms and other big water users (I’m looking at you, rice farms) is a threat to the very existence of those downstream. Broken Hill is running out of clean drinking water – the issue is critical, and not even about the more complicated questions around water rights for commercial activities and how to balance these with ecological health, recreational use, and basic human needs – it’s the basic human need at stake here.

In a related but separate current issue around the MDBP, works have commenced to run a pipeline from the junction of the Murray and Darling Rivers at Wentworth 300km north to supply fresh drinking water to Broken Hill – which for more than 60 years has obtained its water via a pipeline from the Menindee Lakes, part of the Darling River system, a lake system which is now often empty or nearly empty.

The pipeline from Wentworth will cost half a billion dollars, and travel through the traditional lands of the original owners without regard for songlines or other intangible cultural heritage, though there is surveying being undertaken to identify sacred sites, which are meant to be avoided. When I met with some of the original owners from diverse parts of the vast region at the protest in Wentworth, they were adamant that while the government said the original owners had been “consulted,” they had not in fact given consent for the pipeline to disrupt and divide their land.

I’m not an expert on water systems, but I do understand the fundamental principles of water security and sovereignty. All peoples have a right to clean, safe water – water should be distributed and used equally and on a sustainable basis.

Water should not be privatised, commodified, and sold back to people – we all need water to survive – it is a public good.

The Darling River’s flow is famous for being ‘extraordinarily irregular’ – much of its storage, such as the shallow Menindee Lakes, is highly prone to evaporation – and it dried up at least 45 times between 1885 and 1960. But in the face of climate change and what appears to be ongoing mismanagement, it doesn’t stand a chance of reaching South Australia for much longer (and not at all at the moment). Such a fragile ecosystem must surely be supported to enable flows to persist, and that will not happen if over-allocation of water rights to big irrigators up north continues.

On a panel in Mildura we heard from the Federal Assistant Minister for Water and Agriculture, Liberal Senator Anne Ruston from South Australia, who told us that ‘sustainability is not what Sarah Hanson Young thinks it is – she thinks it’s returning the river to its natural state.’ Senator Ruston told us that actually sustainability ‘is not leaving it any worse than we found it’ – an aim I called out for being depressingly unambitious.

As with regenerative agriculture, which seeks to leave the land healthier than we found it, we must do more than sustain our sickly river systems. We must regenerate them to ensure we have a future where everyone has access to clean, safe, nourishing and delicious food and water.

Without water, humans can survive about three days. We need water sovereignty now!

~ Tammi Jonas, 24 Feb 2018

Filed Under: Indigenous Tagged With: Murray Darling, water sovereignty

You know it’s women’s work when everyone is working together

February 4, 2018 by Tammi Jonas

 

You could see our diversity in the hodge podge, mismatched layers of clothing worn to protect us from the record-setting temperatures that never climbed above -8C, and later in our dorm rooms at night as the layers came off, leaving us as we were, stripped back to basics and a dozen tongues.

We gathered from 10 countries, with more than 10 languages, in the frozen heart of Seoul to share experiences, to globalize the struggle and to globalize hope, and while some of what we heard and saw caused collective despair, our solidarity rang of hopefulness and joy.

We farm, we cook, and we feed the world. We are peasant women farmers** of Asia Pacific.

This meeting was the second women’s workshop of La Via Campesina (LVC) in Southeast and East Asia*. We gathered in recognition of the struggles women particularly face as peasants – women are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic and institutional violence, have shamefully low rates of land ownership—in spite of constituting more than 50% of the farmers in the region—and earn as little as half what our male counterparts earn. Women bear the burden of the vast majority of domestic labour, in addition to our labour on farms and in other forms of employment.

 

In solidarity with the women who shared their stories, some will not be named here, as they are targets of military governments.

We heard that in Thailand, whole villages have been displaced by the current military government. One village is trying to re-group so that they might go back to producing food collectively as they used to do, and where food is produced collectively, all profits go towards their shared struggle. When the military confronts them, their strategy is to put the women in front, as it reduces the incidence and levels of violence. Women are therefore the first to be injured, but fewer are hurt if women lead the way.

We listened as our Filipino sister told us that their current President openly endorses rape as a tool of war, telling Filipino soldiers he would back them up if they raped women while enforcing martial law.

Every woman present had stories of unfair division of domestic labour – it was probably our biggest commonality – and it is so endemic that the Korean Women Peasants Association (KWPA – our wonderful hosts for the week) have been lobbying for free school lunches to support female farmers who struggle to find time to make lunch for their children.

The 60-year-old farmer from Taiwan Huang Hsiang told us that while she loves her mother dearly, she doesn’t want to be like her because she would rise at 3am every day to cook and feed chickens and cows, before going out to work in the fields with her husband, who woke at 5am after the domestic chores were done. Hsiang has done incredible work against land grabbing with the Taiwan Rural Front, and her own son now rises early to sweep the floor and feed the baby.

In addition to our struggles as women farmers, we heard many organisations share that women are leading the way in saving seeds and preserving genetic diversity in agriculture across our region. And they are collectivizing and working together for change – not only for feminist reform, but also for food sovereignty and particularly agroecology.

On the third and final day of our meeting we trundled three hours southwards on a bus to visit Sisters Garden – a women farmers’ producer cooperative that’s been operating for nearly a decade. As we feasted on the regional specialty of dried persimmons, we listened to the story of how they came together to grow food that is clean, safe and good to sell directly to people in the cities. They coordinate their growing as best they can to maximize diversity in their boxes (a seasonal box for a family of four is USD$100/month), and make a range of ready-to-eat dishes for inclusion in the boxes, such as tofu, kimchi, dried persimmon and sticky rice cakes. A commission is taken from each farmer based on their profits to pay one staff member, and for maintenance and upgrades.

Once a week they gather at the processing and packing facility built with government support, and enjoy a communal lunch while planning next week’s boxes for 140 households. They also provide donation boxes for organisations such as those providing support for victims of sexual violence. The deep camaraderie and sheer joyfulness of the 13 female farmer members was palpable, strongly affirming the benefits of working as a community towards a common and noble goal.

On our field trip we also visited a community that is both devastated and galvanized by the US military’s presence established through the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-missile system. The elders of Seongju have been leading the fight against the military installation for these past two years, rising early to form a human blockade by 6am every day – even in temperatures as low as the -20C we experienced during our visit. The military police have intervened on multiple occasions, leading to injuries that included smashing one woman in her eighties’ teeth to the extent that she chose to keep her face mask on during our visit.

Most of the women we met are in their eighties – tiny, hunched, but fierce and committed women – who told us that ‘it doesn’t matter much for us, but what about our sons and daughters?’ These women have lived through the horrors of war, deaths of loved ones and abuse as ‘comfort women’, and they are certain that THAAD can only bring more war to their peaceful village. THAAD is ostensibly being built to protect South Korea and US interests from North Korea, but the villagers say it’s really to give the US another facility close to China and Russia as they gain power in the new world order.

There wasn’t a dry eye in the room as these brave women told us their stories and thanked us for bearing witness to their struggle, asking that we return home and share it with our countries.

While we are doing that, we are also thinking about how better to engage the elders of our own communities in our struggles – these powerhouses of experience and demonstrated will – something to work on in 2018.

Our Action Plan included a few very concrete items, such as a media release to promote and support the villagers fighting against THAAD, and a social media campaign to highlight and promote the work of women farmers on International Women’s Day on 8 March. We also spoke of the need for our organisations to do more to train women in food processing and better control of value chains – something we’ve taken seriously here at Jonai Farms for some years now with my regular training of female butchers and #meatgrrlsmonday. Another focus is to keep stepping up our work around agroecology, and acknowledge and support women’s efforts to save seeds, while promoting this work as essential for a food sovereign and delicious future.

For me personally, the week in South Korea with these remarkable women was a powerful motivator to do more to support the work of women farmers – explicitly and joyfully. And to speak out more against the ills of patriarchy’s contributions to capitalism and the subjugation of women in all walks of life.

United we stand, divided we fall. Or as Zainal reminded us, ‘unorganised good people will be marginalized by organized bad people.’

We farm, we cook, and we feed the world. We are peasant women farmers and we build the movement to change the world!

* Fair Food Farmers United is attached to this region until LVC sorts out our region now that we’ve joined the global movement of peasant farmers.

** The term ‘peasants’ has very different meanings around the world, but is the preferred label of smallholder farmers in the food sovereignty movement. I use the term respectfully here in a politics of solidarity – not appropriation – as advised by my comrades across the global south. I’ll write more on this in future.

La Via Campesina Regional Women’s Workshop in Seoul – 24-26 January 2018

Tammi Jonas, AFSA President

Filed Under: Fair Food Farmers United, International, Women Tagged With: La Via Campesina, peasants

AFSA calls out biased reporting on Victorian planning reforms

December 6, 2017 by Tammi Jonas

Peter Hunt, a Weekly Times reporter, has treated the concerns of Victoria’s pastured livestock farmers over proposed planning reforms with total contempt, calling them ‘delusional.’

This seems unsurprising given Hunt spent many years in a policy role with the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF), a body whose reputation for attacking small-scale farmers is increasing.

Pastured pig and poultry farmers have rejected factory farming and are instead growing animals outside in the fresh air. They devote their farms to growing healthy animals in ethical and ecologically-sound ways.

In an op ed in last week’s Weekly Times, Mr Hunt trotted out the drivel the Victorian Government is seeking to rectify when he called pastured livestock farms ‘intensive’.

Hunt went on to make spurious claims about the biosecurity risks of free-range poultry and pigs. However, it is sheds full of thousands of animals living with their own excrement that are the real source of a massive public health threat – those sheds are ‘food for flu’ as evolutionary biologist Rob Wallace states.

The Government’s attempt to reform the planning provisions has fallen short of the 2016 recommendations of the Animal Industries Advisory Committee (AIAC). The AIAC called for the scheme to recognise the lower risk small-scale pastured pig and poultry farms pose, and for planning controls to be commensurate with that risk.

The AIAC called for small-scale pastured pig and poultry farms to be treated like other grazing production systems.

The AIAC went through an independent public consultation. However, once handed to Agriculture Victoria, the ongoing consultation was limited to peak bodies for intensive agriculture – Australian Pork Limited (APL), Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA), and the VFF, and a handful of cattle farmers. There was no representation for pastured pig and poultry farmers, and Ag Vic came back with a draft that sees all pig and poultry farms with more than 200 birds or three sows needing a permit.

The Government, the VFF, and the likes of Hunt keep repeating that all pig and poultry farms have always needed to get a permit, however, they fail to acknowledge that requirement was only recently established by a VCAT case in 2015. This was a trigger for the need to reform the planning scheme. Calling a farm with 100 pigs on 40 acres ‘intensive’ was deemed inappropriate, and the controls applied incommensurate with the risk.

Hunt’s track record of sloppy and inaccurate journalism does the public interest no favours, and his disdain for pastured pig and poultry farmers tells where his allegiances lie.

Tammi Jonas, President

Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance

Filed Under: Fair Food Farmers United, Legal Defence Fund, President's report Tagged With: free range, pastured, planning, Weekly Times

MEDIA RELEASE: The future of free-range farming endangered by NSW Planning review

December 5, 2017 by Tammi Jonas

The Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) is calling on the NSW Government to secure a future that encourages regenerative farmers by ensuring regulatory burdens on small-scale pastured livestock producers are commensurate with the low risk they pose to their communities.

The Government states that the aim of its proposed planning reforms are to ‘support the development and management of intensive livestock agriculture’ through:

  • Exemptions for small-scale livestock operators in non-sensitive locations; and
  • Clarification of the definitions and thresholds for intensive livestock agriculture requiring development consent.

The Government claims that the ‘proposed amendments will illustrate a clear difference between extensive and intensive agriculture land uses, making it easier for industry and applicants.’

And yet by conflating all sizes and types of pig and poultry farms into one category, the package of reforms released by the NSW Government presents a major risk to the future of small-scale free-range pig and poultry farming.

Under the new reforms, all pig and poultry farms, regardless of size or production model, will be considered ‘intensive livestock agriculture.’ A farm with 25 sows on pasture will be called ‘intensive’ just like a shed with 2000 sows inside.

While the Government has retained thresholds that enable an exemption from the requirement for development consent – for those farms with less than 1000 birds or 200 pigs or 20 sows – the introduction of a 500m setback from neighbouring dwellings or environmentally sensitive areas that triggers a Development Application is a major barrier for pastured pig and poultry farming on small acreages.

AFSA supports regulation of farming that protects human and animal health and preserves environment and amenity. We call on the NSW Government to amend the proposals to address the following key concerns:

  • Revise the definitions around extensive (outdoors on pasture) as opposed to intensive (confined in sheds) animal husbandry. Small-scale, low-risk farms should be excluded from the definition of ‘intensive’ or allowed in the definition of ‘extensive.’
  • Reduce the proposed 500m setback (buffer zone) between animals and neighbouring dwellings to allow the operation of a pastured pig or poultry farm on a smaller or narrow block without requirement for a Development Application. Any setback should take into account stocking rates and rotational grazing practices undertaken by most small-scale regenerative farmers.
  • The definition of intensive pig or poultry farms should only apply to farms with a stocking rate that clearly presents a higher risk to environment and amenity, not an arbitrary number of animals unassociated with land size or production model.

Pastured pig and poultry farms must be unshackled from the negative environmental and social consequences[1] of their industrial counterparts and treated independently, because they simply do not pose a significant risk to environment or amenity.

Penny Kothe, pastured pig and poultry farmer and owner of Caroola Farm in Mulloon, notes that, ‘a 500m buffer means that almost all small-scale pig and poultry farms would require costly council approvals. This could cause the death of truly free-range pig and poultry farmers. It will place limits on our future ability to farm in a more sustainable and ethical way. These reforms will definitely be a deterrent to new farmers, at a time when we desperately need to be encouraging people to enter the industry.’

Cameron Mynott of Australian Pasture Fresh says, ‘it is imperative for the future of sustainable, ethical, regenerative farming, that small-scale farmers be able to run under a common-sense, outcomes-based legislation. From a risk mitigation perspective, applying measures and controls to all farms irrespective of their actual size and operations is both counter-intuitive and counterproductive. It has been proven, globally, that animals raised in a pastured environment, with rotational grazing and mobile infrastructure, create none of the issues or risks that the proposed legislation seeks to mitigate.’

‘Applying a simple to understand head to hectare ratio to further define "intensive" is not only fair and reasonable, but will ensure NSW does not see the devastation to Australian family farms that Victoria is currently experiencing. It's heartbreaking to speak to other farmers who are having to close their operations down due to legislative burdens.’

State governments must take heed of increased community expectations for ethical and ecologically-sound produce, and support those who farm this way to meet the growing demand. This is especially pertinent at a time when Australia faces a changing climate and dwindling resources. The current draft policies would deter future farmers from entering farming, at a time when Australia has fewer farmers than ever before.

AFSA President Tammi Jonas states, ‘A food sovereign and secure future depends on appropriate planning controls that preserve farm land in perpetuity. Legislation should also protect the rights of all people to access nutritious and culturally-appropriate food produced in ethical and ecologically-sound ways, and their right to democratically determine their own food and agriculture systems.’

CONTACT:

  • Tammi Jonas, President   M: 0422 429 362
  • Sarah de Wit, Paralegal M: 0449 128 992

E: admin@afsa.org.au

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/

Filed Under: Advocacy, Fair Food Farmers United, Legal Defence Fund Tagged With: free range, pastured, pigs, planning, poultry

Open Letter from AFSA to Australian Pork Ltd (APL)

October 18, 2017 by Tammi Jonas

Andrew Spencer

CEO, Australia Pork Ltd

18 October 2017

Dear Andrew,

Small-scale pastured pig farmers have concerns about whether Australia Pork Limited (APL) genuinely represents them. It is a matter of material interest to all pig farmers given the compulsory levy paid per carcass directly to APL. We have been alerted to a number of farmers (in addition to me) who have asked APL to please show how the organisation is actively supporting small-scale farms, but to date we have had only platitudes.

For some years now, the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) has been monitoring APL’s support for small-scale farmers, and what we have witnessed is in fact a systematic campaign to undermine the efforts of the growing number of small-scale pastured pig farmers.

Examples of APL’s efforts against small-scale growers include:

  • APL has given evidence in multiple VCAT cases against small-scale pastured pig farms, and in some cases taken the side of large-scale intensive pig producers against small-scale pastured farms, such as in the case of intensive producer and former head of the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) Pig Group John Bourke brought against small-scale free-range growers Freeland Pork. Given APL’s claims that it represents all Australian pig producers, there is an obvious conflict of interest where it supports one producer against another in legal proceedings.
  • APL has made unsolicited phone calls to local councils, urging officers to pursue small-scale growers and require them to apply for permits for intensive animal husbandry.
  • Since the 2015 VCAT ruling against Happy Valley Free Range which was heavily influenced by APL’s testimony against the small-scale farm, APL has taken the position that all pig farms should be treated the same under state planning provisions in spite of small-scale pastured pig farmers’ stance that they should be treated as other grazing systems with supplemental feed. In the case of the recent work to revise the Victorian Planning Provisions by the Animal Industries Advisory Committee (AIAC), the Committee noted:

Australian Pork Limited supported all pork producers being required to obtain approvals to ensure operations can benefit from ‘good siting, design and management’. It considered that departing from the current definitions of extensive and intensive animal husbandry is seen as a step towards transparency and planning certainty.

In taking this position, APL advocated to remove the label ‘intensive’ from large-scale intensive growers as well as from small-scale extensive growers, rendering them nearly indistinguishable in the proposed new provisions.

The Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) is a membership-based organization working for everyone’s right to access nutritious and culturally-appropriate food grown in ethical and ecologically-sound ways, and their right to collectively determine their own food and agriculture systems. We have over 700 individual and organisational members, at least a third of whom are small-scale farmers.

We call on APL to explain:

  1. Why it is actively working against the interests of small-scale pig farmers in its work around planning and regulation; and
  2. Why small-scale pig farmers should be forced to pay a levy to a body working actively against their interests.

In the interest of transparency and accountability, we write this demand in public, and ask that APL make a public response.

Sincerely,

Tammi Jonas

President

Filed Under: Advocacy, Fair Food Farmers United Tagged With: APL, free range, pastured, pigs

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next Page »

Search

Recent Posts

  • We Want Water Sovereignty for Australia!
  • Small-scale, regenerative grain growers not supported by the GRDC
  • MEDIA RELEASE: Government draft poultry standards fail to meet international standards
  • Let’s put an end to the battery cage
  • STOP the sale of GM Golden Rice in Australia

Read more about…

  • Advocacy (12)
  • Agroecology (16)
  • Community Supported Agriculture (4)
  • Events (31)
    • Fair Food Week (20)
  • Fair Food Farmers United (50)
  • Fair Food Film (6)
  • Farmer profiles (11)
  • Food Waste (3)
  • GMO (7)
  • Governance (16)
  • Homepage feature (1)
  • Indigenous (6)
  • International (18)
  • Legal Defence Fund (27)
  • Peoples' Food Plan (49)
  • President's report (18)
  • Press (52)
    • In the News (10)
    • Media Releases (42)
  • Research (6)
  • Right to Food (6)
  • Solidarity Economy (7)
  • Submissions (19)
  • Uncategorised (108)
  • Women (3)
  • Workers' rights (4)

Newsletter

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin
  • Twitter

Become a member

Join or renew

Recent posts

  • We Want Water Sovereignty for Australia! February 24, 2018
  • Small-scale, regenerative grain growers not supported by the GRDC February 23, 2018
  • MEDIA RELEASE: Government draft poultry standards fail to meet international standards February 20, 2018
  • Let’s put an end to the battery cage February 19, 2018
  • STOP the sale of GM Golden Rice in Australia February 8, 2018

Copyright © 2018 · Outreach Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in