Economists at Large have a keen interest in animal welfare and economics, having worked for all of the world’s biggest animal welfare organisations. We’re concerned that some of the recent debate around live cattle exports doesn’t take into account the complexity of the role livestock plays in global and developing economies.
The most misleading claims relate to food security and development in Indonesia. Typical are these claims from AAco CEO, David Farley on Lateline Business:
“This is an issue of national significance, it’s an issue of national security, both national security, biosecurity, it’s an issue of food security within Indonesia itself.”
“(Indonesian politicians will have to explain to the Indonesian public) within the next 90 to 100 days of where our protein will come from.”
And the Herald Sun wrote:
“We feel a great sense of responsibility to give protein to these people on our doorstep”
“Cutting meat supplies at this time will make the Indonesian people angry,” he says. “They will not forget the insult easily.”
The idea that there is a serious food security issue, or the idea that the Indonesian masses will rise up against their government as a result of the temporary ban on live cattle exports to Indonesia, are wrong. The mention of protein suggests that this is an issue relating to the nutritional needs and welfare of the Indonesian people. This shows a lack of understanding of the role livestock play in developing countries.
Almost all meat imports in developing countries are consumed by the urban middle classes. These people have access to any number of protein substitutes. If anything, a rise in beef prices in developing countries is a positive thing for the rural poor.
Livestock and nutrition play an important role in developing economies, but most literature points out that programmes such as live cattle exports are not usually positive:
“(The) most effective way of increasing poor people’s consumption of livestock protein is likely to be not by increasing market supplies of products that the poor cannot afford to buy, but rather by increasing poor people’s production of livestock for their own consumption. We consider that programmes that, for example, increase the ownership of livestock amongst the poor are likely to have a greater impact on consumption than programmes that increase market supplies of livestock protein. “ (Livestock in Development 1999)
“The industrialisation of livestock production in developing countries can harm the welfare of the poor if other policies artificially reduce the costs … and otherwise frustrate the participation of small farmers.” P4 (Delgado et al. 1999)
The live cattle debate is a complex issue, with implications for animal welfare, communities in the Northern Territory, rangeland management, and equity within Indonesia. The debate should continue, but should be free of false claims about food security, nutrition and welfare.
References:
Delgado, Christopher, Mark Rosegrant, Henning Steinfeld, Simeon Ehui, and Claude Courbois. 1999. Live stock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution. Discussion Paper for the International Food Policy Research Institute.
Livestock in Development. 1999. Livestock in Poverty-Focused Development. Livestock in Development, funded by Department for International Development (DFID) and Natural Resources Policy and Advisory Department, Crewkerne, UK. http://www.theidlgroup.com/documents/IDLRedbook_000.pdf.
