Living with other people's narratives

This past week a certain country disputed the findings of a United Nations report, saying it rejected the UN's "narrative". It is not the name of the country that is important here, but this: if you lived in that country, what would your response have been been?

Considering its frame of reference (or narrative), every country or person's actions make complete sense to them, and they are horrified that others do not agree with them.  It is not unusual for them to add then to the existing narrative: "People are biased" and "They are out to get us". 

There is a scripture in Proverbs which could be in any religion's holy writ. "A person's report is believed until another comes and gives his side". I remember once asking my mother for a toy pistol while we were waiting in the cashier's queue at a supermarket. She shook her head, and so I summoned what appeared  to be a fair argument. The whole family was aware that I no longer possessed one because my brother had thrown mine out of a moving car. My mother turned to me: "Yes, but you then took your brother's gun to the tool shed and demolished it".

Case dismissed.

In most cases, a narrative does not have a sequence of events which can be reviewed by a mother or a judge, followed by an indisputable verdict. It may have a context, but a look at the chronologies of two conflicting narratives will leave you scratching your head. The two parties could well be living in different universes!

Narratives are hard to correct. And some times, when a narrative has been revised, we wonder what really occasioned the change of heart and dig for motivations other than the explanation offered. This is especially true if it was our own narrative that the person abandoned.

One narrative in agriculture looks at what the population will be in such-and-such a year, usually 2030 or 2050, and then adds what is needed to accomplish feeding such a world (genetically modified crops etc). Now enter what someone has called the "competing narrative". Philip Lymberry in his book Farmageddon shows that we already produce enough food for what we'll need in such-and-such a year. Vast quantities, however, are siphoned off to prop up "factory farming" or "intensive meat producing facilities" (what you call it depends on your narrative). One could also point to the food we throw away, an astonishing 11.3 billion tonnes per year according to Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General. Making changes to our food-chains would make a difference to the 900-million people suffering food shortages now, never mind the year such-and-such.

Having differences in opinion is inevitable. "The further one travels [into multiplicity and away from unity], the less one really knows", sang the Beatles in a song based on the Tao te Ching.

In my experience, the only time a narrative is hushed, though, is when there is a moment of understanding of what it is like for the other side. Have we really considered the anxiety caused by having an empty stomach, and not knowing where the next meal will come from? Or being hungry while also being responsible for a family who depend on you for food? If we don't experience this sort of co-feeling, what are our narratives really worth?

Do penguins eat white maize or yellow maize?

Hats off to Dr Herman van Schalkwyk, CEO of the AMT, for including a contribution by Philip Lymbery, author of Farmageddon and CEO of Compassion in Worldwide Farming, at the AMT Conference in the week just passed.

The book and the presentation pose serious questions to future scenarios of agriculture.

Included in the opening slides by Lymbery was one of penguins, victims of recent trends in agriculture: food which is in their diet has been removed (to feed animals in industrial farming) and this has led to some very hungry penguins.

We were expecting more challenges from the audience which included a prominent GMO activist and several agribusinesses with some stake in intensive meat production enterprises (also referred to as "factory farming" and "industrial farming").

There were two contributions from the floor. The first, a humorous enquiry whether penguins preferred white or yellow maize (corn). The second, a professor from the University of the Free State, thanked Lymbery for his presentation and said he felt agriculture in this country had not reached the same levels of industrialisation as elsewhere in the world, but that the presentation was a welcome marker to be borne in mind for the future.

We don't know if we agree completely with the last sentiment (there are several intensive meat production enterprises is this country). Nonetheless, it is International Animal week this week (4 to 10 October) and the question about how we treat our animals is one the globe faces, not just this week but every week!

2014 AMT programme finalised

The programme for the annual Agrimark Trends (AMT) conference has been finalised.

Amongst the usual analyses of political, economic, financial and climatic data and patterns, this year includes a slot by Philip Lymbery, author of Farmageddon: The True Cost of Cheap Meat.

The AMT is billed as "one of the premier agribusiness networking opportunities where business leaders and policy makers meet to shape the future of the South African agribusiness industry."

There are early bird discounts for booking and payment by the end of June 2014. Find information and a booking form here, or in Afrikaans here.