Political Campaigns on Mulesing in Australia - Case Study Example

1.0 Introduction Political campaigns related to animal rights have been one of the most active in advanced economies such as Australia, United Kingdom and United States (Duncan, 1996). Animal welfare is attracting increasing interest globally, primarily in advanced economies who now have the knowledge and resources to be able to improve the welfare of farm animals i.e. lamb, cows, pigs etc (Harrison, 1964). There has been increased attention and rules & regulations for animal welfare in advanced economies such as Australia, United States and United Kingdom attributed to the relentless pursuit of financial reward and efficiency has led to the development of intensive animal production systems that disturb the conscience of many consumers (Harrison, 1964). In advanced economies, however, arguments have been made, particularly by Descartes and Kant (1600 and 1700s), for the uniqueness of humans and this has held to justify the use of animals by human being for any purpose (Dawkins, 2002). On global scenario, the Office International des Epizooties (OIE, also known as the World Organisation for Animal Health) identified animal welfare as core priority area of development in 2001 enabling establishment of Working Group on Animal Welfare in 2002 (Dawkins, 2002). Thus from the above discussion it could be seen that there has been constant improvement in animal welfare in form of rules & regulations, establishment of specialised working groups to enhance strategies and tactics to improve the concept and campaigns (Duncan, 1996). In our research note we would be emphasising on political campaigns on mulesing in Australia for past 2 years. The understanding of political campaigns and impact on Australian lamb mulesing rights is important due to the fact: Australia is the world’s largest producer of wool, contributing 27% of the world’s greasy wool in 2006 (www.woolinnovation.com.au). In 2006 there were 107 million lambs shorn across Australia producing 461 million kg of greasy wool. Australian wool exports are estimated at U$2.64 billion in 2006 (www.woolinnovation.com.au). Thus lamb mulesing is the primary animal rights issue faced by Australia. In the next few sections we would be highlighting few campaigns against mulesing and analysing the impact and cause-effect scenario. 2.0 Cases-Political Campaigns 2.1 Compassion in World Farming Mulesing is a painful surgical procedure which, if it were performed on beloved companion animals such as lamb, would take place in a sterile operating theatre (www.nqr.farmonline.com.au). Compassion in World Farming is deeply disappointed by the recent decision by Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) to abandon its commitment to phase mulesing out by 2010. On July 2009, Australian Wool Innovation rejected the mulesing phase out deadline due to economic downturn in 2007 and 2008 (www.nqr.farmonline.com.au). The association plans to implement scientific fact-based approach to ensure the optimal health, welfare and productivity of Australian lamb portfolio, and to ensure that they are protected from the risks of disease and death due to mulesing (www.nqr.farmonline.com.au). There has been counter theories related to lamb mulesing such as that the short-lived pain of a lamb after mulesing is nothing when compared with the agony of a slow death caused by flystrike. This was standalone campaign of Compassion in World Farming via traditional print media such as newspapers and magazines in Australia on August 2009. The organisation was standalone involved in the campaign and used media freedom of speech as the core platform to protest against lamb mulesing and Australian Wool Innovation decision of rejecting abolishing of mulesing process (Fraser, 2009). The further development of campaign was short article published in Sydney Morning Herald stating by Chief Executive of Compassion in World Farming “Search for mulesing on Google Images and think about how you might feel if such butchery happened to you at a few weeks old without anaesthetic. I don't think it would be unreasonable to imagine it would hurt a lot (Fraser, 2009). Add to that a life of arid misery, a cramped, fetid trip from Australia to the Middle East at the end of your productive life, then slaughtered in a pit, and you might gain an insight into the plight of these poor sheep. It's called humanity and we can all have it” (Fraser, 2009). The strategies used by Compassion in World Farming were driven by print traditional media and word of mouth marketing. On the other hand, indirect brutal statements such as butchery etc helped spread the aroma of the political campaign against lamb mulesing and Australian Wool Innovation divestment practice in 2010 across the country. The small campaign seen in isolation could be treated as failure. 2.2 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Animal rights activists vowed to intensify calls for boycotts of Australian wool in July 2009 (www.wool.com). People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have campaigned for years against mulesing -- the Australian practice of cutting a slice of flesh from a sheep's rump to prevent the animal dying of flystrike (www.wool.com). PETA established permanent office to help farmers abolish mulesing practice in Australia and enhance ethical wool manufacturing process in 2009 (www.afp.com). On the other hand, PETA’s political campaigns in 2007 and 2008 has worked to greater extend and large retailers such as Adidas, Hugo Boss, Ambercrombie & Fitch and Victoria's Secret have abolished usage of Australian products with mulesing (www.afp.com). Post Australian Wool Innovation rejection of meeting mulesing discontinuation deadline of 2010, the organisation called for 3-4 months of political campaign in front of Australian Wool Innovation office in Sydney and Melbourne along with publication of aftermath impact of mulesing on global economics on weekly basis in Australia Daily and Herald Sun. On the other hand, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals signed agreement with other animal rights organisations in Australia to further enhance the political campaign against lamb mulesing. This was standalone initiative People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals via traditional print media such as newspapers and magazines in Australia on July 2009. The organisation was standalone involved in the campaign and used media freedom of speech and public support as the core platforms to protest against lamb mulesing and Australian Wool Innovation decision of rejecting abolishing of mulesing process (www.abc.net.au). The campaigns highlight was support or partnership with other animal rights organisation to expand the horizon and thought process (www.abc.net.au). On the other hand, establishment of permanent base to work closely with government and third party organisations in Australia for discontinuation of mulesing of lambs showed high strategic commitment on long-term basis. Broadly, the company focussed on dual strategy for its political campaign i.e. media & public agitation along with strategic partnership with local animal rights organisations to enhance the return on investment of the output. The small campaign seen in isolation could be treated as moderately successful. 2.3 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Animal rights group PETA has sent an open letter with signature of 85,000 animal activists across Australia to the new members of the board of Australian Wool Innovation, demanding they agree to a three point plan to phase out mulesing or the group will continue to lobby international retailers not to buy Australian wool (www.dailytelegraph.com.au). The letter was published on 21st November 2008 on 6th page of Daily Telegraph edition circulated to 2-3% of Australian households. The letter consisted of PETA recommendation of clips be dumped as an alternative to surgical mulesing where skin is cut away from a sheep's rear (www.dailytelegraph.com.au). On the other hand the letter was issued to protest against inclusion of four new members on Australian Wool Innovation. The publication of letter in The Daily Telegraph was followed by small rally from Abbotsbury to Avalon of some 80,000 patrons. Majority of this rally was attended by animal activists from diverse third party animal welfare organisations in Sydney. The rally was mainly a protest against international wool processor “Laurence Modiano” receiving the highest number of votes to join Australian Wool Innovation board. This political campaign lasted for 4-5 days including small rallies across majority of suburban’s in Sydney and Melbourne primarily driven by PETA activist. The key issues highlighted in the rallies were: Discontinuation of mulesing and reasons for Laurence Modiano appointment on Board of Director Public agony on progress related to abolishing of mulesing in 2010 This was standalone initiative People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals via traditional print media such as newspapers and magazines in Australia on November 2008. The organisation was standalone involved in the campaign and used media freedom of speech and public support as the core platforms to protest against lamb mulesing and Australian Wool Innovation decision of rejecting abolishing of mulesing process (www.theage.com.au). The campaigns highlight was support of 85,000 activities and unique value proposition of sketching a letter to Board of Directors of Australian Wool Innovation. On the other hand, the campaign brought unique proposition in limelight or in public: If Australian Wool Innovation is planning to abolish mulesing of lambs in 2010 why are they appointing international wool processor “Laurence Modiano” as Board of Director? This contradicts the plan 2010. The regional rallies further enhanced general public awareness related to steps taken by Australian Wool Innovation in meeting the mulesing deadline of 2010. The rallies and hoarding used in rallies specified realistic viewpoint and non biased approach. The lower impact of the political campaign was mainly attributed to regional concentration across Sydney (highly industrialised capital with low word of mouth marketing impact). Broadly, the company focussed on triple strategy for its political campaign i.e. direct contact with Australian Wool Innovation, support of third party animal activists and regional rallies on daily basis to enhance the return on investment of the output. The small campaign seen in isolation could be treated as low success due to localisation of campaign. 2.4 Anonymous animal rights organisation In November 2008, anonymous animal rights organisation called for an embargo on Australian wool after a pro-mulesing farming lobby last night won control of the country's peak wool body (www.theage.com.au). Almost without exception, all our customers overseas, all the retailers and brands that are actually responsible for putting Australian merino wool on the shelves of the major retailers -- all of them have indicated to us the industry must meet its commitment to 2010 (www.theage.com.au). The embargo petition was forwarded to International Wool Textile Organisation on 20th November 2008. The petition consisted of dozens of retailers signed committed in writing not to buy mulesed wool after 2010 (www.theage.com.au). This was unique approach and political campaign carried by anonymous animal rights organisation in Australia via retailer’s value proposition. The ten retailers signed the petition of filing embargo provided insights into benefits and advantages to global economy on usage of non mulesed lamb wool and further enhanced the problem of Australian Wool Innovation from likely rejecting the abolition in 2010. The signed petition was published on internet at animal rights organisation website and five of the retailer’s corporate social responsibility annual report 2008. This route of political campaigning can have higher impact due to involvement of economics and looking at business viability. Indirectly the political campaign stated that usage of non mulesed lamb will enhance economic competitive advantage than primary fear of enhancing financial constraint on farmers in Australia on long-term basis. This was standalone campaign of anonymous animal rights organisation in Australia via strategic alliance and partnership with retail outlets i.e. controlling the distribution channel approach. The lower usage of traditional and digital media platforms reduce the viability of the campaign on broader perspective. On the other hand, the lower visibility of campaign in Australia or drawbacks was: Its initial purpose or objective of embargo i.e. reducing economic health of nation in downturn and finally Lower usage of media support reduced support on long-term basis. The campaigns highlight was support or partnership with retail networks across Australia to expand the horizon and thought process (www.theage.com.au). Broadly, the campaigners focussed on single strategy for its political campaign i.e. support of retailers to enhance the return on investment of the output. The objective of the political campaign of embargo was destructive in nature further reducing the visibility and application on long-term basis. The small campaign seen in isolation could be treated as failure. 3.0 Secondary Notions about political campaigns against mulesing in Australia Animal activist stated on September 2009 “The animal rights campaigns by diverse groups were so successful that international wool buyers started demanding non-mulesed wool and the wool innovation board promised to stop cutting the skin of lambs by 2010 (www.news.com.au). But that may all change tomorrow if new board members are elected who support mulesing” (www.news.com.au). Dr Meredith Sheil appointed as new Board of Director on wool association in Australia believes that the 2010 anti-mulesing deadline can be achieved (www.abc.net.au). Majority of animal rights groups quoted in September 2009 that if the wool board drops its 2010 anti-mulesing deadline, a new international campaign will be launched to stop the sale of Australian wool overseas (www.theaustralian.news.com.au). Alternatives to mulesing include selective breeding programs to produce sheep with less skin folds and the use of plastic clips to kill the skin on lambs without the need for surgery (www.theaustralian.news.com.au). If pro-mulesing candidates win Wool Board ballot, Australia's wool exports may be in for their biggest battle yet with animal rights groups (www.canberratimes.com.au). 4.0 Propositions There have been numerous political campaigns against abolishing of mulesing of lambs in Australia in 2008-2009. PETA was the most active organisation in these political campaigns. The large number of diverse political protests against standalone problem is mainly attributed to democratic structure of Australian marketspace. The high freedom of speech and low media obligation enhanced the penetration of political campaigns related to mulesing of lambs. Print media was the most preferred platform by campaigners against animal rights in Australia. On the other hand, majority of political campaigns sketched diverse strategies such as: Print traditional media and word of mouth marketing Establishment of permanent base to work closely with government and third party organisations in Australia for discontinuation of mulesing of lambs Direct contact with Australian Wool Innovation, support of third party animal activists and regional rallies on daily basis to enhance the return on investment of the output. Support of retailers to enhance the return on investment of the output Thus on broader basis diverse animal rights organisations followed the steps: Campaign Objective: Abolishment of mulesing of lamb by 2010 and Australian Wool Innovation adherence of commitment Stakeholders: The stakeholders involved were highly diversified horizontally and vertically due to higher press and public freedom of speech in Australia. The primary stakeholders involved: PETA, retailers and media (traditional and digital) Development of campaigns: There was unique development of campaigns for individual’s animal welfare groups. Majority of campaign was standalone or for short-term duration and were launched post Australian Wool Innovation rejection of meeting mulesing deadline of 2010. The campaigns were less capital intensive expects few demonstrations and rallies by PETA in down town Sydney. On the other hand few campaigns had direct channel distribution or focus such as letter to the Wool association etc. Other’s had general public awareness approach and spread through word of mouth marketing concept. The economic downturn could have been the reason for low campaign durations (minimum 1-2 days and maximum 4-5 days by PETA in 2009). Short-term Outcome: There was limited success of the campaigns in 2008-2009 related to mulesing of lamb in Australia. The cause effect analysis for the failures is as follows: 5.0 References www.abc.net.au http://www.canberratimes.com.au/ http://www.smh.com.au/ http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/ http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ http://www.theage.com.au/ http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ www.nqr.farmonline.com.au www.wool.com Harrison, R. (1964) Animal Machines. Robinson and Watkins, United Kingdom. Brambell, F.W. R. (1965) Report of the Technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, UK. Dawkins, M. S. (2002) Who needs consciousness? Animal Welfare 10: S19–29. Duncan, I. J. H. (1996) Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavia section A, Animal Science Supplement 27: 29–35. Read More