26 February

UPDATE 26/02 14:25 - Nocton Comments - The role of social networking

In the wake of Nocton Dairies’ latest planning withdrawal, many in the farming industry have been quick to lay blame for the mega-dairy’s failure at the feet of environmentalists and animal welfare organisations. However, despite successful local and national campaigns against the proposed dairy, it was the Environment Agency’s insistence that such an operation would pose an unacceptable risk of pollution that precipitated Nocton Dairies’ withdrawal earlier this month.

Although upon withdrawing the plans on 16 February, Nocton Dairies cited the Environment Agency’s objection as the “sole reason” for doing so, Nocton Dairies farmer Peter Willes was quoted in January as claiming the discussion over planning had been, “dragged down by vegetarians and activists each with their own agenda.” Neither explanation appears to be entirely accurate, for while a coalition of environmental groups were involved in the campaign against the dairy plans, North Kesteven District Council revealed in a statement, also on the 16 February, that plans would have been rejected on six separate grounds had they not been withdrawn.  

Furthermore, local people in the area mounted a campaign that focused on a diverse range of issues and the level of support garnered by local group CAFFO (Campaign Against Factory Farming Operations) attests to its transcending “vegetarians and activists” and involving a cross-section of concerned people. Groups involved in opposing the Nocton plans (as well as other large scale farms in the planning stages in the UK) sought to highlight the negative effects of factory farming, which they said would lead to environmental degradation, with an increase in smell, noise and the threat of water pollution, and air wider concerns that wealth does not stay in the communities where factory farms operate.

Campaign groups reject ‘anti-farming’ label

Representatives of the many non-governmental organisations involved in campaigns against intensified systems such as Nocton reject claims from the pro-factory farm lobby that they are anti-farming, they say that environmentalism and support for farmers are not mutually exclusive and maintain that they seek to promote rational debate. Simon Pope, a spokesperson for WSPA, himself the grandson of a dairy farmer, explained, "This wasn't just an animal welfare campaign - it was about much wider issues too. There should be much more support for small-scale dairy farming.”

Katherine Mansell of WSPA said the charity had consulted farmers throughout the ‘Not in my Cuppa’ campaign, and that WSPA had always focused on positive debate and promoting viable alternatives to industrialisation. Mansell told Farming Online, “The future of farming is not about gleaming machines, you can’t knock the value of the good herdsman.”

“A majority of Britain’s dairy farmers do farm on pasture and they should be allowed to feel like they have a voice that is anti-intensification without being made to feel that they are romantics.”

The role of social networking

Claims that the use of social networking and PR by non-governmental organisations and campaigners against the plans helped secure their premature demise is a romantic notion. While the organisations did raise awareness of the debate, North kesteven’s planning committee did not number the plans’ unpopularity amongst their six reasons for rejection. What these actions demonstrate in turning the nation’s attention to North Kesteven is the public’s attitude towards factory farming. Both sides of the debate invested in PR and used social networking, however, while the ‘Not in my Cuppa’ Facebook page has almost 10,000 members, the Nocton Dairies page can lay claim to just 8. However, Amy Jackson of Oxtale, told Farming Online today (Sat 26 Feb) that “We have set up no facebook page for Nocton Dairies – the one on Facebook seems to be an extension of Wikipedia and nothing to do with us.” Nocton Dairies, Amy says, decided not to engage on social media for two reasons – 1) planning permission is not a popularity vote and the most important audience are local and industry – both reached more effectively through other means, and 2) the resources needed to sustain a social media campaign are significant – just look at the resources WSPA used and the combined might of all the press offices of all the organisations involved in campaigning against large dairies. 

Amy says she agrees that there needs to be a social media strategy to deal with lack of public understanding, but given the resources required and the fact that this isn’t about individual farms – rather a direction of travel (as pointed out several times by WSPA and CIWF campaign groups who said they didn’t have issue with Nocton specifically) is it appropriate or even possible for individual farmers to take social media campaigning on themselves?  Amy feels that farmers themselves are not afraid of social media, it’s just not within their gift – and neither should it be – that they pick up these campaigns.  This is about bigger issues than single planning applications, and only a combined effort from the industry as a whole will provide the resources and expertise to start really engaging people on social media platforms. Maybe an overarching strategy from the industry would be that more individual farmers should sign up and spread more information about what life is like on a daily basis, but that would only be effective if lots were doing it.

The success of internet campaigns such as WSPA’s ‘Not in my Cuppa’ and Compassion in World Farming’s ‘Cows Belong in Fields’ clearly demonstrate that public support behind a campaign can have a positive effect. If a successful social networking campaign, which allows people to share information and unite behind a cause, can see members of the public uniting in opposition to a factory farm, surely that shows potential for a campaign supporting the alternative; support for existing dairy farmers.

There is huge potential appeal in the concept of supporting dairy farmers in their struggle against supermarkets’ artificially low prices. If awareness were raised, the public were motivated and farming groups united as campaigning groups did in objection to the Nocton proposal, the weight of public opinion could translate into a break in supermarket’s stranglehold on farmgate prices paid for milk.

Currently, NFU’s ‘The great milk robbery’ group has nearly 1,000 Facebook members, the National Dairy Producers Organization, a group of farmers struggling under similar conditions in the USA, have just 315 members, but the unifying effect of a common campaign could see members of the public pledging to support dairy farmers and eliminating the perception that industrialisation is the inevitable future of farming. The National Pig Association’s banner campaign, which the association claim has raised both awareness and support, is already having similar effects in the struggle to secure better prices for pork for producers in the UK.