Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance

Fair food for all Australians

Response to the Proposed Draft Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Poultry

by

View AFSA’s entire submission here. 

The current review of the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry offers the first opportunity in 15 years to improve the minimum welfare standards for domestic poultry in Australia. It provides the chance to modify Australian standards to reflect current animal welfare science and equivalent international developments.

The Proposed Draft is significantly more comprehensive than the previous welfare standards in the 4th Edition, as well as in other welfare codes for ostriches and emus, some of those standards dating back to mid-20th century management practices. We commend the collective and lateral efforts of the Animal Welfare Task Group (AWTG), the Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) and Animal Health 9 Australia (AHA), and welcome the opportunity to comment on the Draft during the 90 day public comment period.

It is necessary for Australia to lead a fundamental reshaping of animal welfare standards that meet international standards and community expectations, and that is based on scientific research and available data from Australian farms. Many farmers give ethical reasons for changing towards pastured poultry production methods because of the maximum animal welfare and provenance it offers if well managed.18

This submission aims to contribute on behalf of small-scale, pasture-based poultry producers so that best animal welfare standards can be achieved more readily and regulated appropriately.

In this submission, AFSA will primarily make comment relating to the standards and guidelines for domestic poultry due to scope of our representation of poultry farms extending to small producers of layers, broiler chickens and ducks. As principle, we support best animal welfare practices in the industry as a whole.

What the Proposed Draft means for Farmers- Farmers employing pasture-based practices will lose a once in a generation opportunity to be heard in the decision-making process relating to poultry welfare. Continued large-scale production of poultry will further dominate the market and drive small-scale farmers into ‘niche markets’.

What the Proposed Draft means for Eaters- It will turn a blind eye to popular demand for higher standards of welfare and eaters will continue to have low access to sustainably produced meat and/or eggs that positively impacts quality. Consumer quality perception when purchasing poultry will be informed by perceived standards of welfare and environmental factors that do not in fact meet their expectations.

What the Proposed Draft means for Poultry- Domestically raised poultry in conventional systems will continue to suffer from worse physical and mental states than those in countries with advanced animal welfare standards such as all nations of the EU, various states of the US, New Zealand and Canada.

What AFSA Members want- We demand that the Agriculture Ministers of all states and territories, Premiers and Local MPs support best examples of animal welfare standards using data relating to pasture-based systems. We urge that they back research into better solutions for livestock welfare to meet community expectations and public health interests. We support the development of a more inclusive, science-based system for setting animal welfare standards where an independent body monitors the animal welfare standards and investigates regulatory behaviour.


List of Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Phase out battery systems in the next 3 – 5 years and phase out all cage systems in the next 10 years. This should be done using a strategy to transition the industry such as that used in Austria (where battery cages were prohibited in 2009)19, and supporting long-term management of cage-free systems as done across the EU.

Recommendation 2: Transition poultry systems to free range over 10 years and during that transition reduce the maximum stocking density in barns or sheds (as they are phased out) for non-cage layer hens to 2 birds per metre squared and meat chickens 15kg per square metre. (Option E suggests reducing maximum stocking densities in barns or sheds for non-cage layer hens to 9 birds per m2 and meat chickens 30kg/m2)

Recommendation 3: Current practice of rearing poultry outdoors on pasture for egg and meat production be considered with the updated or new Regulatory Impact Statement and be added as a supporting paper to reflect the absent data on Australian poultry farms.

Recommendation 4: Establish an independent non-governmental body that oversees the development of animal welfare regulation and represents all relevant stakeholders including small-scale farm businesses.

Recommendation 5: Directly source data from Australian pasture-based farms and genuine free-range farms by visitation or by extended consultation in order to obtain correct information about the quality of alternative poultry production.

Recommendation 6: Explore research on alternative agricultural production occurring internationally in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the benefits of pasture-based poultry systems. Recommendation 7: Australia primarily sign the Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare.

View AFSA’s entire submission here. 

Administration Assistant required!

by

The Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) is a collaboration of organisations and individuals working towards a food system in which everyone has the opportunity to access, create, and manage their food supply from paddock to plate. AFSA is seeking an enthusiastic and organised administration assistant to help us build a food sovereign future in Australia. Passion for food sovereignty and agroecology is a must!

Commitment: 8 hours a week (flexible) working from home. You’re also expected to attend two retreats with the AFSA Committee through out the year.

Remuneration: $25.00/hour

Skills:

  • Strong communication skills
  • Very organized & able to work independently
  • Experience managing social media platforms
  • Website management desirable but not essential
  • Finance savvy
  • Basic graphic design skills desirable but not essential

Responsibilities:

  • Respond to admin emails & forward to committee members as appropriate
  • Organise committee meetings, write agendas, and take minutes
  • Manage facebook, instagram and twitter
  • Manage membership database, provide monthly membership reports and communicate with members as needed
  • Assist with events and fundraising
  • Manage the wordpress website, email domains and create content for blog
  • Collate monthly newsletter in Mailchimp
  • Assist treasurer in managing finances- reconcile accounts in Xero and generate financial reports
  • Invoice and send receipts as required

Please email your cover letter and resume to admin@afsa.org.au by Monday 21st May.

IPC Statement from Paarl (Cape Town)

by

This statement was written by the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC) in Paarl (Cape Town), South Africa, at the General Meeting in March 2018.

We, the representatives of peasants and family farmers, landless, rural women and rural youth, fishers and fish workers, agricultural workers, hunters and gatherers, pastoralists and herders, Indigenous Peoples, and food consumers from all over the world and who are all members of the IPC, met in Paarl, South Africa to take our struggle for food sovereignty and agroecology forward. Our meeting took place during the worst drought in Cape Town ever recorded, only a few weeks ahead of Day Zero, which marks the day when the taps run dry. We stand in solidarity with the masses of poor and marginalized people in Cape Town whose health is at risk as access to clean drinking water is jeopardized – just as in many other territories. The water crisis marks just one of many of the serious threats we are confronted with all over the world because of neoliberal policies, extractivism and other disrespectful relations with nature leading to the protracted climate crisis.

We pay tribute to our comrade and fellow fighter Kuria Gathuru who passed away in September 2017.

We, as small-scale food producers and consumers – including urban poor, marginalised communities, refugees, displaced peoples, and those living in occupied territories – rely on our land and water territories as well as on access to and control over land, water, native seeds and our animal breeds to produce and access healthy, affordable and nutritious food and to maintain our cultures and livelihoods. We also need special focus to protect the open pollination of seeds and for bees and other insects and protection for our bee keepers. The multiple crisis we are facing today – including degradation and loss of our lands, pollution of oceans, dwindling access to water, and the advancement of reactionary governments , corporate capture of institutions and governance structures, capitalist patriarchy, extractive industries, xenophobia and anti-migrant policies, growing economic inequality and climate change – is a threat to our human rights and to the planet.

Over the past few years the food sovereignty movement has made many achievements. We played a key role in the reform of the United Nations (UN) Committee on World Food Security (CFS). We have succeeded in ensuring the endorsement of UN instruments: In 2012, the CFS endorsed the International Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forest, and in 2014 the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) endorsed the International Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. 2014 was also the year when FAO decided to establish a department to advance the agroecology agenda, and in 2016 the CFS adopted an innovative monitoring mechanism to follow the implementation of all policy decisions taken at the CFS. We, the members of the IPC played a critical role in all these processes and we remain committed to work with FAO and the CFS in good spirit and on a non-negotiable human rights basis, especially for the right to food and nutrition, to ensure continued implementation of these instruments while defending their true meaning .

The rights of women to participate in decision making spaces remain compromised in a world that is still dominated by patriarchal forces. We recognise the central role of women in food sovereignty and agroecology in all our constituencies, and we commit to fight for women’s equal rights with emphasis on the right to participate in decision-making process at all levels. Feminism is at the core of our struggle to end all forms of violence against women and to eliminate patriarchy. In a similar vein, rural youth remain largely politically marginalized in society. We commit to strengthening the autonomy of women and youth and continue our struggle for equity and equal participation.

The rights of Indigenous Peoples are inherent and inalienable. They cannot be taken away by new laws, yet, we witness increased violation of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous territories are unlawfully seized by transnational corporations – often with the consent and complicity of state authorities – to satisfy their greed for nature for profit. We stay committed to defend the rights of Indigenous Peoples and continue our struggles in the spaces where we are present, including the United Nations.

Transnational corporations (TNCs), including agribusinesses, finance corporations, extractive and energy companies, continue the plunder of nature and heating our planet. Their capitalist and extractivist business models are transforming nature into economic and financial assets. TNCs are fueled by the WTO and Free Trade Agreements, opening the door for exploitation and destruction of nature in foreign countries, and to land and ocean grabbers. Together with governments pursuing fast economic gains at the expense of the people, the road is paved for dispossession of people from their territories. Witnessing criminalization, imprisonment and even assassination of human rights and environmental defenders, we stand in solidarity with all those who face violence when defending their communities and nature.

Climate change is one of the major challenges of our time and it compels us to action. We experience more frequent droughts but also severe flooding due to heavy rains, and both have tragic effects on our ability to produce food and feed our peoples and maintain our cultural traditions and livelihoods. Diminishing access to water is both the result of climate change and the enormous volumes of this precious resource used by agribusiness and energy corporations. The solutions to mitigate climate change put forward by our governments fail to address the underlying causes and continue to allow the biggest polluters – including agribusinesses, energy and mining companies – to continue heating our planet. The mitigation mechanisms of the the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – including REDD+, Blue Carbon and Climate Smart Agriculture that are also promoted by FAO – are false solutions. Real solutions to stop climate change are rooted in peoples’ access to and control of land and water and promoting agroecology, nature restoration and water retention landscapes. We will continue our struggle to advance our solutions in all the spaces where we are present, including the FAO, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Human Rights Council.

As a last resort, when life offers no alternatives because of dispossession from our territories or climate disasters, we have to resist through migration. However, even under these circumstances, we are being criminalized in the countries where we seek shelter and better lives. Justice is urgently needed, and we condemn the policies and inhumane treatment of immigrants all over the world who endure sexual harassment, slavery and imprisonment.

To ensure that our voices from the grass roots level are heard and our experiences are taken into consideration in decision-making, we will combine our struggles at the global level with increased focus on governance at local, national and regional levels. To take on these challenges, we commit to empowerment and improved communication in and between our movements on our concrete existing solutions. Real alternatives to the current food system already exist both locally and internationally through agroecological production, social solidarity economy that includes territorial markets, direct relationships between producers and consumers, cooperatives and participatory community-led governance mechanisms and policies.

We are acutely aware, that many governments around the world reduce their funding to the UN institutions and that many of these, including the FAO and the CFS, are working under increasing pressure. We are also aware that corporations and philanthropic foundations take advantage of this situation by supporting UN programmes financially and thereby buying political influence. It is therefore no surprise that funding for social movements is dwindling and that our space for participation is shrinking. As a response, we commit to advance our efforts to mobilize resources and push governments to implement public policies that are rooted in human rights, in particular the right to food and nutrition, as well as the extension support for agroecological production.

We commit to building our food sovereignty movement and to empowering our front line communities to be stronger and take their struggles to all spaces where key political decisions are taken. To address the challenges we are confronting, we will continue to work with FAO, the CFS and the Convention on Biological Diversity and to work together in other institutional and strategic spaces, including the Human Rights Council and the Alternative World Water Forum.

Amandla! Awethu! – Power to the people!

Signatory organisations:
HIC/HLRN
WFFP
WFF
IITC
LVC
MIJARC
Urgenci
FIMARC
Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance
IPACC

IPC General Meeting Report

by

Tammi Jonas, AFSA President

Katarina Munksgaard, International Liaison

The International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC) consists of a plethora of civil society organisations from all over the world that are all social movement led. They are representatives of peasant and family farmers, landless, rural women and rural youth, fishers and fish workers, agricultural workers, hunters and gatherers, pastoralists and herders, indigenous peoples and food consumers. Since 2003, the role of the IPC has been to provide the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) with expert advice, general input as well as demands relating to the FAO mandate on the right to food. The IPC does this through the principles of food sovereignty.

The various working groups within the IPC have successfully partnered with the FAO in developing voluntary guidelines for member countries on topics such as sustainable small scale fisheries, agroecology and land tenure. In the past decade, the IPC has supported civil society’s engagement with other processes as well, such as the Civil Society Mechanism (CSM) that relates to the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS), and with the UN Human Rights Council on a Declaration on the Rights of Peasants. IPC members across the globe have worked for many years to secure recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and their right to self-determination.

The IPC emphasise the fact that food sovereignty is a prerequisite for true food security. Agroecological farming is promoted as the practical solution that can aid in achieving this. The goal of the IPC is to influence local and global policies, forge networks and solidarity among allies within the movement, and to have strength in numbers. AFSA has been a member of the IPC since 2013 and has attended the last three general meetings.

The 2018 general meeting of the IPC was held near Cape Town in the regional town of Paarl, South Africa from the 12th to the 17th of March 2018 and attended by delegates from all regions of the globe. AFSA President Tammi Jonas and International Liaison Katarina Munksgaard attended the meetings on behalf of AFSA. The FAO’s commitment to supporting civil society’s engagement extends to funding delegates’ travel and accommodation to attend the general assemblies as well as the FAO conferences and symposia, such as the Asia Pacific Regional Conference coming up in Fiji this week.

At the meeting in Paarl we heard harrowing reports from our comrades in Cape Town and surrounding areas on the imminent water crisis they are facing and the tight water restrictions currently enforced. The issue is complex, but a three-year drought and mismanaged water allocations for water hungry export industries are largely to blame for dams being at a record low. Poor and rural people are expected to suffer most when the town runs out of water. We discussed the parallels between countries such as egregious government support for export commodity crops – cut flowers in South Africa and cotton here in Australia – that are literally running our rivers dry.

We also listened in horror and quiet shame to accounts of how African livelihoods are being destroyed by extractive industries mining sand, minerals and coal run by Australian companies. One comrade told us in detail how their traditional fishing grounds have been ruined by sand mining. Others told us of gas and oil exploration with seismic testing on shorelines that ruin marine life and ecosystems. Destruction of wetland and restrictions on estuary access areas directly impact coastal communities as do desalination plants. Gold mines and plantations disrupt ecosystems and the traditional livelihoods that depend on them. These stories seldom reach Australia. Our comrades in Africa urge us to bring attention to these issues of corporate (ir)responsibility of Australian companies operating overseas through our channels and put pressure on the responsible parties whenever we can.

During the five full days of meetings, everyone sat in a semi-circle and live translation was made available in English, French, Korean and Spanish by the tireless effort of purely volunteer interpreters committed to the food sovereignty agenda. Microphones were passed around and equity was ensured between men and women speaking.

Each morning a different group was tasked with performing the “mística” –a ritual of sharing of our different cultures in song, dance, theatre and music, but also a ritual of acting out current food and land related issues and their solutions through community and food sovereignty. It is an excellent way to prepare for full days of seated meetings, and a tradition of all meetings of La Via Campesina that was a welcome addition to the IPC’s schedule.

The discussions at the meetings largely centred around the topics of communication, the strengthening of the existing working groups and formulating strong strategies for continued effective engagement with – and influence of – the FAO and other processes where food sovereignty can be promoted. The successes of the IPC were celebrated and highlighted but the group also voiced concerns over conservative voices getting stronger in governments and other policy spaces.

For the IPC organisationally, there were discussions of gender and age balance, internal communication, skill development, a women’s declaration and the need for a separate Women’s Assembly as well as the urgency of including water and climate change into the discussions of every working group.

All the regions had separate meetings discussing their internal functioning and how they are planning on cooperating with the central secretariat for the next two years. The Asia Pacific group committed to improving communication through trialling the project management app Slack, which the AFSA National Committee already uses to great effect. Tammi was nominated to sit on the Asia Pacific regional facilitating committee to represent the Pacific for the next two years.

On the last day of the meetings, the official statement of the IPC was workshopped democratically in a plenary with over 50 activists, and is currently being ratified by member organisations before being released for public distribution.

On day six, the delegates went on a field trip to learn about the fisher community in Hout Bay. Here, they are facing various challenges including restrictive fishing regulations that largely favour the big commercial fishing industry (fishing permits and quotas, but also the establishment of a Marine Protection Area that severely hinders small-scale traditional fisheries); discrimination and exploitation at the fish markets; limited access to surrounding natural resources; high unemployment; lack of decent accommodation and high cost of hiring fishing boats. Women also face challenges within the fisher community as most of them are not allowed by men to fish. In cases where men allow them to fish, women are limited to permits for low value fish.

We came away from the meetings mentally and physically exhausted, but full of a joyful sense of solidarity and active optimism. We renew AFSA’s commitment to raise awareness of the seriousness of the struggles of our global comrades, and also of shared struggles relating to food sovereignty that are happening everywhere to varying degrees. Australian companies abroad are having severe negative impacts on the livelihoods and food sovereignty of small-scale farmers and fishers, and indigenous people around the world, especially in the Global South. Our government is considered one of what they call ‘the evil three’ in UN processes (along with the US and Canada) as it serves to protect corporate interests over the rights of the people. We see a major part of our role in the international movement is to put pressure on our government and Australian-owned companies to be better global citizens, and to do that we need all of you to join us and work collectively for radical food system transformation.

Viva la revolución!

 

Small-scale, regenerative grain growers not supported by the GRDC

by

The Australian Government’s Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) recently released their Research, Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan for the next five years. The GRDC’s purpose is to ‘invest in research, development and extension to create enduring profitability for Australian grain growers’.

AFSA provided some feedback to the plan to ensure the plight of small-scale, regenerative grain growers are heard. It appears that the GRDC is only concerned with helping large-scale, industrialised and export oriented grain growers.

It was disappointing to find that the plan is solely focused on export markets and fails to address untapped domestic market potential. For example, there is a lack of ‘heritage’, single origin grains suitable for stoneground milling, wholegrain flours, sourdough baking and craft beer and whiskey production, among other uses. There’s a shortage of Certified Organic and Biodynamic grains (such as cereal rye) for human consumption and stock feed (particularly for poultry and pigs). There is also an unmet demand for native grains like kangaroo grass and native millet. Native grains could provide a great opportunity for the industry to engage with the Indigenous community and contribute to a food system that empowers our country’s Traditional Owners. Investing in native grains and other perennials is obviously also important for the health of our soils.

Rather than focusing purely on exports, Australia would benefit from fostering local grain economies, like what’s happening in the States and parts of Europe. Similar to wine regions, we could be celebrating the regionality of our grains, the hard work of our farmers, and exploring the potential for a terroir. It would revitalise our rural grain growing areas by encouraging tourism and creating a sense of pride through the farm to table connection. The local food movement provides a great opportunity for growers to get a better price for their produce. CSAs and other alternative economic models could be explored to ensure security for growers.

Disappointingly, the GRDC’s plan ignores the impact of various social issues that are prevalent in grain growing regions. For example, the loss of the family farm, gender imbalances, increasing farm debts, struggling towns, and community health issues, particularly mental health problems. These issues influence and are influenced by the grain industry which means the GRDC is obligated to address them in order ensure ‘enduring profitability’.

The GRDC barely mentions climate change. This is extremely concerning as grain growers are likely to be severely impacted in a worst case climate change scenario. While they briefly talk about ‘climate variability’, it is not enough to prepare farmers for an uncertain future. The GRDC is obviously in a prime position to inform growers about climate change and assist in adaptation and mitigation efforts.

The plan fails to acknowledge the lack of small-scale machinery and equipment in Australia and the small number of processors available. Small-scale and entry level growers need access to appropriate machinery, lease and rental opportunities, storage solutions, and processors. The current system is clearly set up for large scale operations which means Australia is closing the door to a lot of innovation and growth in the industry.

The threat that GM and other technologies pose to Australia’s growing organic sector have also not been recognised in the plan. The GRDC needs to be engaging with growers on these issues as they will continue to be on the radar in the future. There is growing consumer awareness of GM and pesticide contamination, particularly glyphosate, in Australia and abroad. With their focus on exports, it’s surprising that the GRDC is not concerned about countries considering to block imports containing GM and glyphosate residues.

More attention needs be paid to reducing costs to the farmer rather than the current productivist focus on ever larger yields in increasingly input heavy systems. The plan acknowledges that the cost of inputs have increased but fails to recognise that the use of inputs have increased too. The high cost of fertiliser and pesticides per tonne of grain produced in Australia, compared to other countries, suggests that R&D needs to be looking at ways to help growers move away from such a dependency on inputs instead of supporting cheaper products and innovation in the input sector.

The GRDC’s plan is clearly technocratic and does not recognise low cost, low tech alternatives that would benefit organic, regenerative and small-scale grain growers. Research needs to be geared towards value adding and closed loop systems, with extension services to help growers take control over their supply chains so that they are price makers rather than price takers.

Unsurprisingly, the GRDC aren’t too concerned with diversification. Many growers are moving away from keeping livestock but this age old system of integrating crops with animals has many benefits if managed appropriately. The GRDC should invest in extension services to help farmers better integrate livestock within cropping systems through the use of holistic management techniques and pasture cropping. Research is also required to look at diversification of crop varieties over a rotation and also in situ. For example, mixtures of ‘heritage’ wheat varieties grown together can lead to increased yields, better resilience and enhanced soils.

Growers should be encouraged to consider ‘heritage’ and ‘ancient’ varieties for their marketable potential in terms of flavour and health benefits, and also the ecological benefits they provide on farm with increased biomass and extensive root systems. The greater the variety of grains grown in Australia, the more resilient our farmers and the industry at large will be.

With diverse seed in the hands of farmers, the GRDC could assist with the development of landrace varieties that are suitable for specific regions, rather than just investing in the current centralised, one-size-fits-all model of plant breeding. The GRDC could help facilitate relationships between small-scale growers, plant breeders, millers and chefs/bakers to work on developing varieties that tick all the boxes.

More research is required for no-kill and pasture cropping so that regenerative crop farmers can restore carbon in the soils and maintain soil structure without the use of pesticides. This will ensure stable yields over a long term and allow farmers to move away from costly, input heavy systems. Research and extension services are also required for organic pest management, with a focus on building resilient, biodiverse systems that prevent pest outbreaks.

It’s clear that the GRDC is only concerned with creating ‘enduring profitability’ for industrial, export oriented, large scale growers. But with more and more small-scale farmers proving that you can run a viable business growing grain to feed your local community and regenerate the land, the GRDC may soon realise the consequences of its limited vision. Through collectivism and transparency, we’ll have to build a local grain economy ourselves.

 

Courtney Young

Newsletter

Become a member

Join or renew

Already a member?

Login
Update your membership details

Recent posts