Disruption is coming to the agriculture sector. Around the world, livestock farmers are leaving the land, policymakers are targeting the harmful environmental and social effects of industrial meat production, and consumers are shifting away from meat to embrace healthier, more sustainable alternatives.
With the sector approaching a crossroads, decisionmakers in government, industry and civil society need to heed the lessons gained from major transitions in other industries and start preparing.
Preparation requires a careful inventory of farmers, workers and consumers’ needs. While farmers are growing older and leaving the land for other pursuits or retirement, the agriculture sector is struggling to attract new entrants — and not just in richer industrialized countries.
Illustration: Yusha
For every farm manager under the age of 40 in Europe there are three over the age of 65. From sub-Saharan Africa to Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, the number of older people living in rural areas is increasing while the number of young people declines.
At the same time, farms are becoming larger and small farm operations are being squeezed. Owing to the challenging economics of farming and the power of a small number of giant industry incumbents, farms are being consolidated in the name of efficiency and economies of scale.
As a result, the EU lost more than one-third of its farms and 40 percent of its livestock farms from 2005 to 2020.
Policymakers are thus left to consider whether and how to protect family farms, and how to avoid the risks of animal welfare violations, poor working conditions and diseases that are inherent in industrial livestock farming.
Policymakers are also waking up to the compelling body of evidence about industrial meat production’s environmental harms. While agriculture accounts for nearly one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions, livestock alone (particularly cattle) contribute nearly 15 percent.
Moreover, animal agriculture is the main cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss. Forests are razed to free up land not just for animal grazing, but for the additional crops needed to feed those animals. Beef production alone takes up about 60 percent of land used for agriculture, even though it contributes to less than 2 percent of total calories consumed globally.
In Spain, factory-farm pollution has become so pervasive that pig manure has contaminated nearly one-quarter of all ground and surface water in the country. No wonder regulators are urgently seeking ways to target livestock pollution and produce more on less land.
Given the increasing risk that infectious diseases could spread from animals to humans through industrial livestock farming, the impetus for tighter regulation can only grow.
While livestock and agriculture have traditionally been excluded from most emissions reduction schemes, policymakers in Denmark, the Netherlands and New Zealand are already working to close the gap, and many other countries are soon expected to follow suit.
The question is not whether there will be increased regulation of the livestock industry, but what shape and form it will take. Farmers and companies alike should be prepared to adapt to changes that are inevitable.
Finally, consumers, too, are shifting away from meat and dairy. Over the past decade, the average person’s meat consumption has decreased by almost 17 percent in the UK and 11 percent in Germany.
Notwithstanding a recent slowdown, there is still growth in the uptake of alternative proteins — a food source that produces only a tiny fraction of the negative environmental and animal welfare effects of traditional meat products. Plant-based meat and milk sales are already trending up across the board in the EU, but also in countries such as Thailand and South Africa.
When these products reach taste and price parity with meat, their uptake by consumers could accelerate quickly.
Public policy also has a role to play. Livestock farming tends to be heavily subsidized in many countries, owing to the sector’s low margins and high levels of debt. As sales fall, declining revenue is likely to have significant welfare implications for farmers and other workers tied to industrial meat production systems.
Given the complexities of these interacting trends, policymakers and corporate leaders need to start getting in front of the issue now. The experience of other sectors that have begun decarbonizing — not least energy — shows that a planned and guided transition is always better than an unmanaged ad hoc process.
One need look no further than last year’s farmer protests in the Netherlands or New Zealand to see how abruptly climate policies can be disrupted when workers and communities feel left out. Unfortunately, there is still only a limited understanding of how best to integrate policy and corporate action to reduce food system emissions while also protecting livelihoods.
Since resisting change is not an option, policymakers and corporate leaders would do well to start thinking about how they can manage it in the coming years.
Robin Willoughby and Nico Muzi are managing directors of Madre Brava.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS