Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance

Fair food for all Australians

Why the food movement is unstoppable!

by

What makes an ethical food future? What kind of agriculture can our planet sustain? How can we reduce demand on global resources? How can you be a change-maker in the unstoppable food movement?

Industrial food systems are key drivers of environmental destruction, from rainforests to reefs, and water supplies to climate change. Farmer and author of Call of the Reed Warbler Charles Massy, US crop scientist and director of the Poison Papers, and farmer, meatsmith, and president of AFSA Tammi Jonas discuss how regenerative agriculture can turn Australia’s ecologies and economies around, revitalizing rural communities while nourishing land, animals, and people.

Join us in Daylesford on Thursday 30 August for an inspiring and activating evening, or if you can’t make it to the central highlands of Victoria, catch Jonathan and Charlie elsewhere on The Food Equation tour of Australia.

Statement from the National Committee of the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance

by

Over the past two days the National Committee of the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) met for our annual mid-year retreat, an important gathering where we come together to review progress and renew commitments to our work as active optimists in the local and global food sovereignty movement. We are farmers and allies from across Australia, all committed to working collectively to democratically determine our own food and agriculture systems, and for everyone’s right to nourishing and culturally-appropriate food produced in ethical and ecologically-sound ways.

We reviewed our strategies to continue working with state governments to reform the planning schemes to better enable small-scale agroecological farming. We celebrated our victories in Victoria, where we are nearing agreement on much-improved land use guidelines that acknowledge the lower risk of small-scale pastured livestock farming compared with our industrial intensive counterparts. We also celebrated the Victorian Government’s recognition of AFSA as the voice for small-scale farmers, and their public commitment to working with us, as well as to the new Artisanal Agriculture and Produce program launched by Minister for Agriculture Jaala Pulford at Cloud 9 Winery recently, which will provide $2 million in funding to support small-scale farms.

We also look forward to working more closely with the NSW State Government as they work through their planning reforms, and by participating in the upcoming hearings for the Parliamentary Inquiry into Fresh Food Pricing.

Internationally, we have been very busy with our comrades in the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC) at the General Assembly in South Africa in March, renewing our solidarity and global strategies to radically transform the food system. We were delighted to have the Director General of the Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) request a copy of the 2015 book Fair Food, which has contributions from many of our current and former committee members, and his subsequent gracious expression of appreciation for our contributions at the Asia Pacific Regional Conference in Fiji in April. And we look forward to participating in the regional conference of La Via Campesina in Timor Leste at the end of July.

The Committee developed positions on the increasingly topical subjects of high tech food such as lab-grown meat and a sugar tax that we will test with all members at our annual Food Sovereignty Convergence in Canberra on 15/16 October 2018. We reject the productivist paradigm and specious ‘feed the world’ narratives from philanthrocapitalists such as Richard Branson and Bill Gates (and their partners – Cargill and Tyson – two of the biggest industrial meat producers in the world) that there is a need for technocratic solutions to technology-driven problems.

We renewed our strength to fight all undemocratic false solutions to the problems of industrial food systems, including the continued rise of genetic modification, and our commitment to promote seed sovereignty and water sovereignty for all.

The Committee discussed and lauded the efforts of small-scale livestock farmers across Australia who are taking control of the means of production and building micro-abattoirs to close the loop on the entirety of a highest welfare system of raising animals. From Queensland to Victoria, Tasmania to WA, farmers are building abattoirs on their farms and cooperatively in their regions to regain control of the value chain and ensure their animals are slaughtered in the most humane way possible.

Some of the AFSA National Committee members are today enroute to the annual gathering of small-scale agroecological farmers and allies – Deep Winter – where hundreds will come together to share knowledge farmer to farmer, and nourish each other as we feast on the collective bounty of delicious ethical and ecologically-sound produce.

We look forward to the second annual Slow Meat Australia Symposium to be held in Daylesford, Victoria again in September, where farmers, chefs, butchers and allies will discuss, debate, and devour the movement to help everyone eat better meat, less often.

The year will culminate with the fourth annual Food Sovereignty Convergence in Canberra on 15/16 October, where Australia’s leading activists will share their successes and failures, their worries and wishes, and again renew our commitment to working democratically towards a food sovereign future.

It is no longer enough to simply vote with your dollar, nor even to grow food ethically and ecologically. We must be more than connected to food production – there is so much at stake that we must collectivise, mobilise and act for the future we want to see and be. Join us!

Viva la revolución!

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

MEDIA RELEASE: Government draft poultry standards fail to meet international standards

by

MEDIA RELEASE- 20 February 2018

Animal welfare advocates, farmers, academics and consumers are disappointed that the government department responsible for draft industry standards for poultry welfare released in late 2017 colluded with the industrial livestock industry before the release, and failed to meet expectations to phase out battery cages.

Consumers and animal welfare advocates are appalled by the Draft Standards. Already more than 100,000 submissions have been made, triple the number submitted for other livestock welfare reviews.[1]

The draft was widely expected to follow international moves to ban the battery cage. But in the face of this global trend, Australia has shied away from a once-in-a-generation chance to secure better welfare for poultry since the last review in 2001.

The integrity of the process undertaken by the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) was put into question after research by animal welfare scientists was distorted by the drafting group to appear in favour of conventional caged egg production. Industrial caged egg farmers were accused of engaging in ‘systemic collusion’ with the DPI to thwart moves to outlaw battery hens.

One suggested alternative is ‘furnished’ or ‘colony’ cages, which are larger and provide perches, nests and litter for pecking and scratching. But the research on furnished cages was provided by an industry body and only done on 12 flocks, calling into question the independence and comprehensiveness of the studies accompanying the proposed standards.

The European Union announced a ban on battery cages in 1999 and witnessed the completion of that ban in 2012, 20 years after Switzerland became first to phase out battery cages.[2] Alongside them are Canada, New Zealand and the states of California, Michigan and Ohio in the US, where cage-free egg products are a requirement in many retail outlets.

In Australia, major retailers such as McDonald’s, Coles & Woolies have agreed to phase out caged eggs. More than 40 IGA stores have stopped stocking cage eggs.[3] The proportion of caged eggs sold in supermarkets has fallen from 75% to 49% over the past decade and the RSPCA says that 84% of consumers do not want cage eggs.

Clearly consumer awareness and demand for cage-free products are on the rise, and Australian governments are wildly out of step with community sentiment.

AFSA President and free-range pig and cattle farmer Tammi Jonas said, ‘Industrial farmers are understandably worried about the costs of transitioning to cage-free systems, but if farmers are given a reasonable time frame for the transition such as five years, there is no defensible reason not to join the move to improve the ethics of how we treat animals in the food system.’

 

Media Contact

Tammi Jonas, President                                  0422 429 362

 

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-02-20/protests-over-caged-eggs-have-farmers-worried/9461064

[2] December 1 2017, Clive Phillips, The University of Queensland, Proposed poultry standards leave Australia trailing behind other industrialised countries https://theconversation.com/proposed-poultry-standards-leave-australia-trailing-behind-other-industrialised-countries-88302

[3] http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/manufacturing/do-cage-eggs-have-a-future-in-australia/news-story/a4ead13d4f0cb5f540c21695b8f9ccef

Newsletter

Become a member

Join or renew

Already a member?

Login
Update your membership details

Recent posts