Encouraging philanthropic support to improve the welfare of farmed animals

EcoS Consultancy This report was produced by EcoS Consultancy Ltd for The Tubney Charitable Trust. September 2008 – May 2009

Authors: Christopher Stopes, Martin Cottingham, Simon Llewellyn, Tom MacMillan

© The Tubney Charitable Trust 15th May 2009 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Acknowledgements 2

Executive Summary 3

1. Introduction 6

1.1 Farmed animal welfare – why it matters 6 1.2 A lasting legacy – the vision of the Tubney Charitable Trust 8 1.3 Feasibility study and prospect research – methodology used 9

2. The donor landscape 10

2.1 Current charitable support for farmed animal welfare – review 10 2.2 Online survey findings 20 2.3 Interview findings 25 2.4 The ethical case for action, and wider issues linked to the way animals are farmed 31 2.5 Obstacles and opportunities for funding farmed animal welfare 38

3. Catalysing change – making Tubney’s legacy count 44

3.1 Foundations for success 44 3.2 Increasing support from existing donors 47 3.3 Expanding the donor community 55 3.4 Priorities for action 59

4. Conclusions and recommendations 63

Annex 1 On-line survey 67 2 Interview questions 75

References 76

1 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for all the help and encouragement we received from so many people whilst we were conducting this research. Without their numerous comments, suggestions and ideas this report would not have been possible.

Members of the Farm Animal Welfare Forum were particularly helpful in providing data, references, contact details and introductions to key individuals and organisations whose views we wanted to canvas. We would also like to thank everyone who gave up their time to be interviewed or to complete our on-line survey.

We have drawn detailed information from a great many reports, books, articles, journals and government publications, and where cited these sources are referenced at the end of this report.

Lastly, we would like to thank Sarah Ridley, Anil Patil and René Olivieri of the Tubney Charitable Trust. They have guided us through this project and the preparation of our report with wisdom, patience and good humour.

ABBREVIATIONS used in this report

BERR Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform DfID Department for International Development DCSF Department for Children, Schools and Families FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation, United Nations FAWF Farm Animal Welfare Forum NGO Non Governmental Organisation BBSRC Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council AHWS Animal Health and Welfare Strategy (Defra) Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs TCT The Tubney Charitable Trust RSPCA Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals CIWF Compassion in World Farming WSPA World Society for the Protection of Animals PETA People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals WTO World Trade Organisation

2 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Executive summary

The Tubney Charitable Trust is the leading UK foundation supporting charitable initiatives to improve the welfare of farmed animals. In allocating its remaining funds, it wants to leave a lasting legacy in the field of farmed animal welfare.

It is hoped that a significant part of this legacy will be the implementation of Farming Tomorrow, a ten-year coordinated strategy developed in partnership between the Tubney Charitable Trust and members of a newly established coalition of organisations called the Farm Animal Welfare Forum (FAWF).

If FAWF members secure sufficient funding to implement the Farming Tomorrow strategy and achieve progress against its objectives, this will represent a major milestone in strengthening the capacity of the farmed animal welfare sector.

A much broader coalition of support will be needed, however, if the Tubney Charitable Trust, FAWF members and other organisations are to move towards a shared vision of a thriving food and farming system in which all farmed animals are reared with compassion, to higher levels of welfare and in ways that respect the environment.

The purpose of this research has been to gauge the potential to secure wider support for farmed animal welfare, and to propose an action plan for securing that support.

EcoS Consultancy Ltd compiled this report using three methods:

• Desk research to assess levels of charitable spending and statutory funding for farmed animal welfare

• A web-based attitudes survey circulated to charitable trusts and foundations, philanthropists, animal welfare charities, policy makers and others

• In-depth interviews with a cross-section of the kind of individuals and organisations upon whose support increased giving for farmed animal welfare is likely to depend.

Key desk research findings

• Animal welfare accounts for only 0.5% of the £33 billion spent each year by the UK’s 3,000 leading charities and only a small fraction of this goes to farmed animal welfare

• Defra spends only 6.2% of its £3.9 billion budget on animal health and welfare, and is planning to cut spending by 22% over three years

• The economic downturn is likely to put further pressure on Defra budgets and to reduce the support that charities receive from companies, public donations and legacies and some charitable trusts. The main fundraising focus, in the short to medium term, should be on high net worth individuals, alternative sources of government funds such as the BBSRC, DFID and BERR; and charitable trusts.

3 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

• In the longer term, funding from individuals could be increased significantly with sustained public awareness and fundraising campaigns.

Key online survey findings Responses were received from 56 of 175 people to whom the survey was sent. Respondents included representatives of 19 charitable trusts and five animal welfare NGOs.

• 82% of respondents believed that farmed animals have the capacity to suffer and should be treated humanely. This indicates a strong base of moral support for farm animal welfare as a cause

• 79% believed that treating farmed animals well has positive links with wider societal benefits. This acknowledgement of such links suggests that organisations and charities with an interest in farmed animal welfare should be able to attract new funds from trusts whose primary interests lie in other issues. Of the 22 trusts we surveyed or interviewed, ten appear to offer scope for securing new funding

• There were encouraging levels of support for the strategic priorities for improving farm animal welfare put forward in the FAWF report “Farming Tomorrow”, although some respondents would like to see more emphasis on tackling transport and slaughter issues.

Key interview findings

Interviews were conducted with 27 individuals representing a broad range of interests, including FAWF members, animal welfare organisations, NGOs, grant makers, high net worth individuals, donor intermediaries, celebrities, regulators and the food industry.

• Interviewees were not surprised by the relatively low level of funding received by farm animal welfare charities, but most were optimistic about the prospects for increasing funding given a clear and well argued case for support

• There was broad support for key elements of Farming Tomorrow: its strategic alliance between FAWF members; its adoption of a three-pronged approach targeting production, consumers and regulation; its species-specific priorities; its proposal for a farm animal welfare charter

• Some favoured the incremental approach to securing change espoused by FAWF but others called for a more radical push for systemic change to bring factory farming to an end. Donor recruitment for FAWF members and other organisations and charities with an interest in farmed animal welfare will depend on finding ways to appeal both to the ‘incrementalists’ and to the ‘radicals’ through a coordinated, well communicated and differentiated strategy

• Interviewees were introduced to five human and environmental issues connected to how animals are farmed: the impact of meat and dairy products on physical health; the part played by livestock production in food security; the environmental pollution caused by agriculture; the extent to which climate change is affected by emissions from farming; and the impact of changes in agriculture on rural livelihoods. All agreed to some extent that these issues provide an opportunity to make the case for farmed animal welfare initiatives stronger.

4 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Our consultations with the donor community and with regulatory, production and retail interests have identified broad acceptance that farmed animal welfare matters; and that efforts to improve it are worthy of charitable and public support. We encountered a variety of views on where farmed animal welfare sits within the hierarchy of philanthropic need, how better farmed animal welfare should be achieved and who is responsible for funding and effecting change. But the good news for the Tubney Charitable Trust legacy is that there is a compelling and realistic case to be made to satisfy these differing views.

To ensure the effective implementation of Farming Tomorrow and optimise support for farmed animal welfare, this report concludes by recommending 12 actions to the Tubney Charitable Trust. It identifies the following as highest priority: i Create a Farmed Animal Welfare Funders’ Network to act as ambassadors for the cause and draw in support from key foundations and philanthropists ii Work towards ensuring that the implementation of the strategy proposed by the Farm Animal Welfare Forum in the report Farming Tomorrow is fully funded iii Work closely with relevant animal charities to encourage them to devote more of their resources to farmed animal welfare iv Commission detailed prospect research in relation both to charitable trusts, organisations and philanthropists already giving to farmed animal welfare, and to those who may be sympathetic but are not already giving v Support the development of the wider case for supporting farmed animal welfare, focusing not only on the ethical imperative of caring for animals but also on making a case – based on sound evidence – that highlights the implications for human health, the environment and climate change in particular. To make a robust case for higher-welfare systems, animal welfare organisations will have to place the better energy efficiency on some factory farms in the wider context of natural resource destruction to support grain-fed livestock farming. vi Support horizon-scanning for new and emerging farmed animal welfare priorities, particularly with regard to the links between welfare and other important issues vii Support the evaluation and implementation of major public awareness campaigning viii Support links with the UN-sponsored Alliance of Religions and Conservation so that farm animal welfare can be included in its seven-year plan linking world faith communities ix Support campaigning for an effective, mandatory, production/provenance labelling regime.

5 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

1. Introduction

1.1 Farmed animal welfare – why it matters

The industrialisation of agriculture has reduced many farmed animals to mere units of production in systems geared to deliver maximum yield at minimum cost. Animal welfare concerns may only register as a pragmatic consideration within such systems – where welfare issues compromise health and well-being to such an extent that productivity and commercial viability may be undermined, for example.

This approach flies in the face of a strong moral imperative to treat animals well. There is a wealth of scientific evidence to indicate that animals are sentient beings and that farmed animals suffer unnecessary pain and distress in industrial farming systems. Public opinion polls highlight animal welfare as an important ethical issue, and the moral codes of many faiths and cultures have a common thread of compassionate concern for sentient life.

Farmed animal welfare matters first and foremost because it is an important ethical issue in its own right. There is a compelling moral case for improving welfare for the well-being of the animals themselves. But addressing welfare issues also matters because of the relationship between how our food is produced and a wide range of other influences on human progress and well-being.

The market-led drive towards industrial farming systems has potentially far-reaching consequences for the welfare of humans and for our environment, as well as for animals.

When we examine some of the knock-on effects of how livestock are farmed, we begin to see that farmed animal welfare is not a separate and marginal issue but one with far-reaching links to wider aspects of environmental, economic and social sustainability.

We elaborate on all these arguments for why farmed animal welfare matters in section 2.4 of this report. We outline the moral case for improving farmed animal welfare and the weight of scientific evidence, eminent thought and public opinion in favour of doing so. We also examine how livestock farming and farmed animal welfare are linked to five important aspects of human and wider societal well-being. The links we highlight, also shown graphically in Figure 1, are:

• The good or ill health we may derive from consuming meat and dairy products, depending on how they are produced

• The food security of an ever-growing world population, many of whom rely on livestock farming for their livelihoods and face severe hardship because of the intensification of agriculture

• The threat posed to our natural environment and biodiversity by pollution from livestock farming and the impact of intensive production on rainforests and grassland

• In the face of potentially catastrophic climate change, the extent to which different forms of livestock production can contribute to sequestering carbon dioxide or significantly increasing emissions

• The impact of changes in agriculture on rural employment, culture, heritage and diversity.

6 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Figure 1 Farmed animal welfare – issues and connections

7 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

1.2 A lasting legacy – the vision of The Tubney Charitable Trust

The Tubney Charitable Trust has a threefold mission:

• To improve the welfare of farmed animals in the UK and internationally • To conserve the natural environment of the UK • To leave a lasting legacy from its work that honours the memory of its founders.

The Tubney Charitable Trust plans to allocate its uncommitted funds (c £26 million) via a small number of large grants to areas where there is the greatest chance of effecting lasting change.

To leave a lasting legacy for the welfare of farmed animals, the Tubney Charitable Trust wants to help increase funding by others to support work that will improve farmed animal welfare. It also aims to strengthen the capacity of the farmed animal welfare sector.

It is hoped that a significant part of the Tubney Charitable Trust’s legacy will be the successful implementation of Farming Tomorrow, the ten-year coordinated strategy of the Farm Animal Welfare Forum (FAWF). This strategy has identified three key constituencies – producers, consumers and regulators – where change is needed to achieve its objectives. It also highlights four ‘species specific’ priority areas for action. The strategy is backed by a Charter to help mobilise support across these constituent groups (including retailers and manufacturers), to reach all parts of the food and farming supply chain.

If FAWF members secure sufficient funding to implement the Farming Tomorrow strategy and achieve progress against their objectives, this will represent a major milestone in strengthening the capacity of the farmed animal welfare sector.

A much broader coalition of support will be needed, however, if the Tubney Charitable Trust and animal welfare organisations are to move towards their vision of a thriving food and farming system in which all farmed animals are reared with compassion, to the highest levels of welfare and in ways that respect the environment.

The purpose of this research has been to gauge the potential to secure wider support for farmed animal welfare, and to propose an action plan for securing that support.

8 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

1.3 Feasibility study and prospect research – methodology used

This report is based on the collection, analysis and interpretation of information and data from three sources.

First, a review of the current donor landscape through desk research (section 2.1). In particular we examined:

• Patterns of charitable spending in the UK, including the proportion of donations devoted to environment, animal welfare and farmed animal welfare organisations

• Levels of statutory funding for farmed animal welfare initiatives • The possible impact of the credit crunch on charitable activity, philanthropic giving and statutory support.

Second, an online survey conducted using the Survey Monkey research tool (see Annex 1 for survey questions). The survey was circulated to 175 contacts, including charitable trusts and foundations, philanthropists, animal welfare charities, policy makers and others. We received 56 responses (a 32% response rate), and 45 respondents (26%) completed most questions. The survey results are presented and analysed in section 2.2.

Our third research method was a series of interviews with key individuals, the results of which are presented and analysed in section 2.3. The 25 people we spoke to were carefully chosen to give us a wide cross-section of the kind of individuals and organisations upon whose support increased funding for farmed animal welfare is likely to depend. All interviews followed a standard format (see Annex 2 for interview questions).

9 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

2. The donor landscape

The donor landscape for farmed animal welfare presents a complex picture of overlapping sources of funds, issues, organisational remits and social priorities. The first section of this chapter reviews the current level of charitable support for farmed animal welfare and sets this in the context of charitable support for other issues.

This background review is then followed by an analysis of the results of our online survey. This has provided a useful insight into how a range of organisations and individuals perceive farmed animal welfare, and the level of priority it attracts.

We also report on the interviews we completed, which develop the themes identified in the online survey and reveal a more detailed picture of how a selection of leading individuals perceive the issues and define the strategic priorities.

This section concludes with an analysis of some of the key obstacles and opportunities emerging from the background review, survey and interviews.

2.1 Current charitable support for farmed animal welfare - review

There are a number of questions of relevance to assessing the resource needs for developing farmed animal welfare and the scope for the Tubney Charitable Trust to increase the level of giving in this area. We asked ourselves three in particular:

• Are farmed animal welfare programmes adequately supported already – through the combined support of government, industry and charitable funding – or is there a need to secure additional funds to address welfare needs?

• Is the kind of collaboration that FAWF members and the Tubney Charitable Trust have initiated likely to help catalyse additional support for farmed animal welfare initiatives?

• What are the likely effects of the financial downturn on FAWF’s hopes and ambitions?

2.1.1 Farmed animal welfare – a Cinderella in charitable giving Animal welfare initiatives currently attract a very small proportion of the funds spent by the UK’s leading charities – see Figure 21:

• Of the £33 billion spent annually by the top 3,000 charities, only £1.7 billion (5%) goes to ‘conservation and protection’ – the category that includes environmental and heritage 2 projects (such as conservation of historic buildings) and animal welfare charities.

• Of this £1.7 billion spent on conservation and protection, only 10% or £175 million reaches animal welfare charities.3 Within this an even smaller fraction goes to farmed animal welfare.

10 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Figure 2 Charitable expenditure in UK

Total spend by top 3000 charities in UK Spend on conservation & environment (includes animal welfare) Spend on animal welfare (includes farm animals)

• Thus, of the £33 billion spent by the top 3000 UK charities, a mere 0.5% goes to animal welfare (Figure 2). An even smaller fraction goes to farmed animal welfare.

• While conservation and protection receives only modest trust funding, the sectors receiving the most support are health and medical charities and those involved in international development, which between them account for £12.9 billion of the £33 billion allocated - see Figure 3.

• The pattern is similar when one focuses on the £1 billion awarded by the 100 biggest grant givers. Only £35 million (less than 4%) went to environmental projects including farmed animal welfare.4

Figure 3 Expenditure of top 3,000 UK charities in 2007-08 (£ millions)

£ million 1 Health and medicine 7,585 2 International 5,340 3 Social services and relief 4,489 4 Culture and sport 3,599 5 Education, training and research 3,446 6 Religion 2,988 7 Conservation & protection* 1,660 8 Philanthropic intermediaries 1,595 9 Housing and community 1,268 10 Business and professional 587 11 Civil rights 455

* Conservation and protection – 5% of total – includes: Environment Animals Historic properties

11 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

Animal causes receive a greater proportion of giving by the public than they do of trust and foundation grants – 5% of the £9.5 billion donated by individuals in 2006-07 went to animal charities5. Once again, however, the main focus of this support is companion animals. And it is worth noting that individual support for charities is volatile – the £9.5 billion donated by the public in 2006-07 was 3% lower than the previous year6, then in 2007-08 public support for charities increased by 8.1% to £10.6 billion.7

Eighty per cent of the giving to animal charities in 2006-07 came from low-level donors, and women are twice as likely to support these charities as men.8 Public support for environmental causes, an area of potential overlap with farmed animal welfare initiatives, accounts for just 3% of individual giving.9

The biggest of the UK charities actively engaged in farmed animal welfare is a FAWF member, the RSPCA, with an income of £114 million. This is nearly double the £61 million combined incomes of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals10 and the RSPCA’s fellow FAWF members Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), the Soil Association and the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) – see Figure 4. The RSPCA’s income is also more than three times the combined incomes of the Brooke and the Donkey Sanctuary – two causes that we have included in Figure 4 for comparative purposes. Their focus on horses and donkeys means one could consider that they are on the boundary between farmed and companion animals.

Figure 4 Income of seven key UK animal welfare charities, 2007-08 (£ million)

RSPCA 114.1

WSPA 23.4

Donkey Sanctuary 20.5

PETA 19.0

Soil Association 15.0

The Brooke 11.1

CIWF 4.3

12 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

An examination of the sources of income of these seven charities shows the extent to which they rely on support from the public – see Figure 511. Individual donations, gifts and legacies account for 83% of incoming resources. Only 1% of funds come from trusts and foundations, and less than that from government.

Figure 5 Sources of funds for seven key UK animal welfare charities, 2007-08 (% of total income)

Donations & gifts £83.2m 43.2%

Legacies £74.8m 38.9%

Charitable activities £14.8m 7.7%

Investment income & interest £8.1m 4.2%

Other £6.1m 3.2%

Trusts £2.2m 1.1%

Membership fees £1.6m 0.8%

Government £0.9m 0.4%

Sales £0.7m 0.4%

When it comes to allocating resources, only 11% of RSPCA spending goes on farmed animal welfare (excluding the Freedom Food initiative)12 - much more is spent on companion animals.

All in all, our analysis indicates that farmed animal welfare is a Cinderella area of charitable funding, little recognised by institutional donors and in need of a boost both to its profile and to its coffers. In this context the strategic collaboration of the Farm Animal Welfare Forum, initiated by the Tubney Charitable Trust, is an important and welcome development.

13 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

2.1.2 Statutory funding for farmed animal welfare The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has a £3.9 billion budget for 2008-09, and £243 million of this is allocated to animal health and welfare – 6.2%.13

The Defra budget as a whole has increased by 1.4% in real terms above 2007-08 levels14, but the animal health and welfare segment has been cut by 12%15. The Department plans to reduce its animal health and welfare budget by 22% against 2007-08 levels over three years16.

It may be that the government will reduce animal welfare funding even further as the recession bites. CCLA Investment Management has predicted that charities will suffer “probable reduction in overall support from the public sector…resulting from a significant increase in public sector borrowing, and a wish by the public sector to reduce its expenditure”.17

Anticipating a spending squeeze (see section 2.1.4 on the impact of recession) may suggest that animal welfare organisations can expect little help from government sources with funding for their activities to improve farmed animal welfare. But there are a number of reasons why it may yet be fruitful to consider routes to funding from statutory sources:

• One former Defra minister we interviewed suggested that there may be government funding potential for the FAWF initiative if ministers and civil servants can be persuaded of the wider societal benefits. This hypothesis is worth exploring with FAWF members’ contacts in the department.

• Because FAWF’s outlook is so wide-ranging – encompassing production, consumption and regulation while also potentially linking to issues such as food security, climate change, environmental protection, consumer education and international trade – there is potential to seek support from other government departments such as international development (DFID), trade and enterprise (BERR) and education (DCSF).

• One fundraiser we spoke to who has experience of seeking support for climate change projects as well as farmed animal welfare compared the position of farmed animal welfare as a charitable cause to that of climate change-related charitable programmes ten years ago – an under funded area with potential to grow once there is a stronger evidence base. The tipping point for climate change funding was the publication of the Stern Review, and a comprehensive and authoritative report linking farmed animal welfare with the wider societal agenda may help make a similar breakthrough. A note of caution needs to be sounded here. It is more difficult to attach a societal cost to animal suffering than it is to assess the economic impact of climate change. But it is also important to challenge aspects of the FAO report Livestock’s Long Shadow18, which throws its weight behind some intensive production systems on the strength of somewhat narrow arguments about direct carbon footprints. The links between farmed animal welfare and climate change are explored in section 2.4.9 of this report.

• A source of funding worth investigating is the £400 million budget of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). Around 16% of its spending is allocated to agri-food research and a further 16% to animal sciences19. A partnership project bringing together academic research institutions and animal welfare organisations could be regarded as an attractive proposition because of its potential to link research and development with extension and dissemination to deliver changes in practice. The UK research councils encourage collaborative work – for example bridging the gap between the natural and social sciences. This is particularly relevant when one considers the importance of changing

14 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

patterns of behaviour (whether production, consumption or regulatory) to achieve better farmed animal welfare.

One pointer to the importance of the preventative and strategic approach that FAWF members are taking to farmed animal welfare is the way it contrasts with Defra’s Animal Health and Welfare Strategy (AHWS), which tends to focus more on fighting animal diseases than on prevention and on welfare initiatives. In 2003-04 when the AHWS was launched, for example, only £113 million of the £288 million budget (39 %) was earmarked for animal welfare and disease prevention20. A total of £146 million was allocated to tackling BSE, scrapie and other disease problems such as bovine tuberculosis.

2.1.3 The value of collaboration There is encouragement for the Tubney Charitable Trust and FAWF members about the approach they are taking according to the verdict of those who have scrutinised environmental funding – another Cinderella area of charitable activity.

One major review of trust funding for environmental charities found “widespread support” among environmental trusts and foundations for the creation of “forums where funders and grant-seekers could meet together to discuss how social change happens and how NGOs work on a day-to-day basis”.21 In this respect the Tubney Charitable Trust is pioneering the kind of collaborative approach that is likely to increase the credibility of the FAWF charities in the eyes of other trust funders.

A guide for environmental donors and funders published by New Philanthropy Capital22 bemoans “an over-reliance on a handful of charitable trusts, which does little to encourage confidence that innovation and ambition will be rewarded by increased support from many donors”. It asserts that “the simple act of joining efforts” will help to increase funding in a sector where “an increase in the number of funders…is the most pressing need”. It adds that “when networks and forums work well, lessons can be learned and absorbed by others, groups can act in concert, and greater progress can be made”.

2.1.4 The impact of recession It would be easy to assume a pessimistic outlook for charitable funding in the face of recession, but the picture is not straightforward. The UK charity sector increased its total income from all sources by 49% in the four years from 2001-02 to 2005-06 alone, and has shown itself to be resilient in tougher times.23 Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the economic downturn is having an impact on fundraising by charities, with many being forced to make budget cutbacks.

Corporate support is one area where charities are almost certain to feel the pinch. One report published last year warned that “at a recent event for community investment professionals, more than half indicated that they expected to feel a squeeze on their budgets”.24 Analysts point to the particular vulnerability of corporate support in the wake of the slump in share values and in the light of the previous dominance of the now-beleaguered financial services industry in corporate donations.25

15 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

A briefing from CCLA Investment Management anticipates a particular reduction in charitable income from investments, trading, the public sector, individual donors and supporters, and legacies.26

For high net worth individuals, however, things may be very different. Wealth advisers anticipate that philanthropy is likely to maintain its importance for the wealthy in the face of current conditions.27

A review of philanthropic giving carried out by the Centre on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that charitable support tended to increase in the wake of crisis events such as the attack on Pearl Harbour, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, the financial meltdown of 1987 and the Arab oil embargo. Another study published by the Giving USA Foundation found that for some organisations, recessions can actually increase the level of donations.28

Rather than assume the worst, it is advisable for charities to refresh their research into the background and assets of potential major donors: “An awareness of how things have changed will enable charities to pitch in an appropriate way, at an appropriate time and at an appropriate level.”29

A survey of UK charities conducted in November 200830 - to which 4% of the 362 respondents were animal charities and 7% environmental causes – predicts that charities are likely to feel the effects of the current recession more quickly and for a more prolonged period than was the case with the previous recession. It reports that “respondents expect trading income to benefit somewhat from the downturn, with 43% of respondents expecting growth” but adds that “with all other income sources, between 70% and 90% of respondents expect a decline or no growth in income”.

The authors of the survey also note, however, that “a significant number of charities see opportunities arising”. They counsel that “recessions can be viewed as similar to pit stops in a grand prix, with those organisations using the time to reassess their position emerging stronger and those that don’t at risk of falling behind”. As the recession deepens, this view may well seem to be overly optimistic.

16 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

2.1.5 Fundraising prospects for organisations interested in farmed animal welfare As part of our background research for this report, we looked at the income and expenditure of seven charities involved in animal welfare – including four FAWF members. We have already highlighted the income breakdown of these organisations in Figures 4 and 5, and Figure 6 shows how that income is spent. It reveals a broad spectrum of activity, from campaigning to welfare inspections.

It also suggests that these organisations do not find it easy to fund their ambitions, given that nearly 30% of their resources are consumed by the combined cost of generating funds and membership development.

Figure 6 Expenditure of seven key UK animal welfare charities, 2007-08 (£ million)

Inspect, investigate, control 62.7%

Animal establishments 9.3%

Cost of generating funds 27.0%

Education and outreach 22.6%

Welfare activities 22.6%

Campaig ns 13.2%

Retail activity 9.7%

Organisational support 2.5%

Membership development 2.3%

Governance 2.0%

17 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

Members of FAWF have much work under way or starting soon that will contribute towards the objectives of the Farming Tomorrow strategy, estimated to cost around £60 million. They have already identified funding to the tune of £40 million to support such initiatives, although this does depend on fundraising meeting income forecasts. The amounts that the FAWF charities currently spend on farmed animal welfare are shown in Figure 731.

Figure 7 Expenditure on farmed animal welfare of seven key UK animal welfare charities 2007-08

CIWF

RSPCA

Soil Association

The Brooke

Donkey Sanctuary

PETA

WSPA

£m 3 6 9 12 15

Farming Tomorrow indicates that a further £20 million needs to be raised, to be allocated as follows:

• Around 64% will be spent on production and producer-focused initiatives (eg developing FAWF animal welfare charter, providing welfare advice on farms, training and education for producers, welfare outcome assessment on pig, poultry and dairy farms)

• Around 24% will go to consumer-facing work and campaigning, including a major public awareness campaign on welfare issues, the food industry engagement work of CIWF, a network of demonstration farms open to the public, the RSPCA's Good Business Awards, and labeling development

• The remaining 12% will go towards regulatory and policy lobbying work at the UK, EU and WTO levels and also in parts of Latin America and Asia that are major sources of imported UK livestock products. The focus of this activity will include switching from long-distance live transport to chilled carcass transportation, WTO reform and the extension of compulsory labeling as to system of production.

This is a bold move for FAWF members to be making in a tough economic climate. Legacy income is likely to be hit hard by the recent slump in share values, while individual giving may be threatened by recessionary belt-tightening and rising unemployment. The Soil Association is the only one of FAWF’s four charity members that does not rely on a combination of legacies, donations and gifts for over 80% of income.

18 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

In such circumstances, however, it makes sense to embrace the sense of ambition, clear vision and the broader, inclusive approach embodied in the Farming Tomorrow strategy. By reaching beyond the established pool of funders for animal welfare, organisations with an interest in farmed animal welfare stand to gain new support and generate new momentum. If their approach is successful in breaking new ground with funders and also proves popular with existing supporters, it may have the knock-on benefit of emboldening key organisations to allocate more of their own funds to farmed animal welfare than is currently the case – see Figure 832. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that the current economic climate presents significant challenges to raising income – many charities are being forced to make cutbacks given the current economic situation.

Figure 8 Expenditure on farmed animal welfare of seven key UK charities, 2007-08 (% of total organisation spend)

CIWF committed – see Figure 8. RSPCA

Soil Association

The Brooke

Donkey Sanctuary

PETA

WSPA

% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Animal welfare organisations can be reassured by the position of the Tubney Charitable Trust in the current climate. It recently reported in Trust and Foundation News: “Following a strategic review…the trustees decided to move Tubney’s assets out of equities entirely…as a result of this action the Trust has been able to reassure all its partners and grant recipients that it is confident of meeting its commitments for all grants made or under evaluation.”33

Another cause for optimism is the possibility of increased trust funding being allocated to agricultural initiatives. Between 2003-04 and 2004-05 the proportion of grants awarded by the top 176 environmental trusts to agriculture projects increased from 8.4% to 17.5%, and the number of trusts making agriculture grants more than doubled to 50.”34 If this increased support for agricultural activities is maintained, then there will be a worthwhile vein of agriculture-related trust funding for animal welfare organisations to tap into.

19 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

2.2 Online survey findings

2.2.1 Overview of respondents The survey (see Annex 1) was circulated by e-mail using Survey Monkey35 to 175 contacts including charitable trusts and foundations, philanthropists, animal welfare charities, policy makers and others. A follow up e-mail asking for responses to be submitted was sent.

A total of 56 responses were received (32%) and of these 45 (26%) completed most questions. A large proportion of respondents (19 or 34%) represented charitable trusts. Five represented organisations directly involved in farmed animal welfare, four other NGOs and five R&D organisations (Q12).

Of the 28 respondents who provide funding for charitable activities, most (19, or 68%) funded environmental activities, with poverty alleviation and wildlife each being supported by 13 respondents – 46% (Q13).

All respondents requested a summary report of the research findings, whilst ten (18%) requested further information about the Tubney Charitable Trust and the leading animal welfare organisations that work with the Trust. One-fifth requested further information on farmed animal welfare.

Both the complete circulation list, and the responses received, represent an important resource for the future work of the Tubney Charitable Trust in further developing and implementing a strategy for increasing philanthropic giving to farmed animal welfare.

2.2.2 Views on animal welfare Forty-six (82%) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that farmed animals have the capacity to suffer and so should be treated humanely, and that their natural behaviour should be respected. This strong support for the respect of farmed animals’ natural behaviour has implications for the relative acceptability of more or less ‘intensive’ (i.e. ‘factory farming’) or extensive production systems (Q1).

Similarly most respondents (44, or 79%) agreed or strongly agreed that treating farmed animals well has wider benefits for the environment and society (Q1). However, the majority of respondents considered five of the specified wider issues to be more important than farmed animal welfare, even though they acknowledged that better farmed animal welfare has wider benefits (Q4). The five wider issues rated as more important than animal welfare were:

• Reducing poverty and hunger (29 respondents answering this question saw this as more important) • Preventing human disease epidemics (24) • Minimising climate change, deforestation, water pollution and other environmental damage (24) • Avoiding superbugs becoming more resistant to antibiotics (16) • Tackling obesity and unhealthy eating (13).

In terms of the priorities for improving farmed animal welfare, there was general agreement that of FAWF’s four species-specific priorities, three (egg laying hens, chickens for meat and dairy cows) were rated as amongst the most important. The avoidance of tail docking pigs was less

20 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

highly rated, and the importance of improving methods of transport and slaughter for all farmed animals was rated as more important (Q2). Neither transport nor slaughter is included in FAWF’s specific priorities, although they are included in the Regulation section of the FAWF strategy.

The high degree of support for the priorities already identified by FAWF is encouraging. It suggests that there is a wide consensus on these issues, which therefore reflects the priority for action. On the basis of responses to this survey, FAWF should further consider the need to prioritise transport and slaughter.

Respondents who identified a reason for their prioritisation agreed that the key drivers were the number of animals (e.g. chickens), the severity of the consequences of poor welfare (e.g. chickens and dairy cows) and the relative neglect of the issue (dairy cows). However, several respondents felt that it was invidious to select only their top four priorities (Q3).

2.2.3 Farmed animal welfare and wider issues The fact that the majority of respondents rated five of the wider issues as more important than animal welfare (see above), whilst acknowledging the link with animal welfare, illustrates the supreme importance of these other issues (Q4). Figure 9 shows the relative importance of each of the issues to the respondents themselves and the relative importance to the public (in the view of the respondents). In both cases this is expressed as the percentage of respondents considering the issue as ‘a little more’, ‘more’ or ‘much more’ important than farmed animal welfare.

This reveals that, for all the areas we asked about except two – biodiversity in the countryside and improving rural livelihoods – the respondents consider that the public would attach greater importance to them than they do themselves. By implication this suggests that the respondents see themselves as more sympathetic to farmed animal welfare concerns in the great scheme of charitable causes than the general public.

It is also noteworthy that the respondents consider that wider issues of human health (disease epidemics, obesity/unhealthy eating and resistance to antibiotics) are more important to the public than to themselves. In terms of rank order, both for the respondents themselves and the views they attribute to the public, all rate reducing poverty and hunger as the most important.

21 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

Figure 9 Relative importance of wider issues compared to farmed animal welfare – number of respondents (39 respondents answered) Q 4 and Q5

Respondent considers more important to self Respondent considers more important to public

* Totals represent the sum of those rating the issues concerned as ‘a little more’, ‘more’ and ‘much more’ important

Preventing human disease epidemics

Tackling obesity and unhealthy eating

Avoiding superbugs becoming more resistant to antibiotics

Reducing poverty and hunger

Improving farmers’ livelihoods and helping rural communities

Preserving landscapes for people to enjoy

Ensuring the countryside supports a wide variety of insects, plants and wildlife Minimising climate change, deforestation, water pollution and other environmental damage

Three other issues linked to animal welfare were considered to be of less or equivalent importance (Q4) – the majority of respondents rated the following as less (or ‘neither more nor less’ important) than farmed animal welfare:

• Preserving landscapes for people to enjoy (27 respondents considered this as neither more nor less important, or less important, than farmed animal welfare)

• Improving farmers’ livelihoods and helping rural communities thrive (24) • Ensuring the countryside supports a variety of insects, plants and wildlife (22).

Respondents were asked to rank the extent to which action to improve the welfare of farmed animals would be likely to help or hinder efforts to pursue resolution of the wider issues (Q6). Figure 10 shows the percentage of respondents considering that there is synergy between farmed animal welfare and the wider issues. This reveals that there is wide agreement that in most cases, action to improve animal welfare would help achieve improvement in the wider issues.

In contrast to the perception of respondents about the relative unimportance of rural livelihoods, landscape and biodiversity, all of these issues are considered important areas where there is synergy. Thus, to a greater or lesser extent, all of the wider issues are recognised to represent ‘win-wins’ that could be regarded as key opportunities. Very few respondents (three or fewer) considered that action to improve farmed animal welfare would actually hinder pursuing the resolution of the wider issues.

22 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Figure 10 Extent to which action to improve farmed animal welfare would help efforts to pursue resolution of wider issues - % of respondents (40 respondents answered) Q6

Preventing human disease epidemics

Tackling obesity and unhealthy eating

Avoiding superbugs becoming more resistant to antibiotics

Reducing poverty and hunger

Improving farmers’ livelihoods and helping rural communities

Preserving landscapes for people to enjoy

Ensuring the countryside supports a wide variety of insects, plants and wildlife Minimising climate change, deforestation, water pollution and other environmental damage

% 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2.2.4 Resourcing the improvement of farmed animal welfare The respondents clearly understood the synergy between farmed animal welfare and wider issues, as presented above. Most (29, or 74% of the respondents answering the question) agreed that the level of funding available was insufficient. Only one respondent considered that it was too much, whilst four felt the level of funding was about right and five did not express a view (Q7).

Turning to the responsibility for taking action to improve farmed animal welfare, the government was perceived to have the greatest responsibility (18, or 47% respondents, rated government as the most responsible). The food industry (farmers, food manufacturers and supermarkets) was considered to be the next most responsible (12, or 32%, rated the food industry as the most responsible). Members of the public as food consumers were rated most highly by 16 (or 43%) as the third most responsible for taking action. Most respondents (21, or 57%) considered that animal welfare charities and campaigning NGOs had either the fifth or sixth greatest responsibility.

Charitable trusts (through their support of animal welfare charities), individual philanthropists and members of the public as donors (e.g. as members of charities) were generally considered to be the least responsible (Q8). It is interesting that almost half of respondents were representing charitable trusts, so that the response to question 8 suggests that they do not consider themselves responsible and are ‘passing the buck’. The response to questions 4 and 5 above (section 2.2.3) suggest that the respondents were more sympathetic to farmed animal welfare (compared to the wider issues) than they thought the general public were, thus it is surprising that they expressed the view that they had little or no responsibility for providing the necessary resources to deliver improvements, reinforcing the conclusion that they are ‘passing the buck’.

23 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

Table 1 in section 2.5 lists the charitable trusts that were interviewed by us or responded to our survey that are not already closely involved in supporting the improvement of farmed animal welfare. The extent to which each recognises the links between farmed animal welfare and their current focus of support, as expressed either at interview or in response to the survey, is summarised in the table. The scope for additional support has also been evaluated.

In terms of the respondents’ judgement of where the power lies to secure more funding to achieve improvements in the welfare of farmed animals, both government and the food industry were rated most powerful. Interestingly, animal welfare charities, charitable trusts and individual philanthropists were rated as relatively more powerful than they were rated responsible (Q9).

Respondents considered that government and the food industry had the greatest level of influence on government policy and farming practice. This suggests that any funding proposition for work on farmed animal welfare is likely to be more credible and compelling with prospective funders if it includes an element of active engagement with regulators and industry. Animal welfare charities, campaigning NGOs and members of the public as consumers were rated as next most influential after government and the food industry (Q10).

2.2.5 Other views of respondents to survey Ten respondents provided additional comments on farmed animal welfare, arising from their completion of the survey. The key issues raised were:

• The consumer is key, since government and food businesses will react to consumer demand. Thus a knowledgeable consumer is a powerful lever

• Unilateral initiatives in one country may be counter-productive and can result/have resulted in import substitution for higher-welfare domestically produced meat. This is partly because in many cases the provenance of food is hidden from the consumer

• It is necessary to distinguish between minimum standards that most (if not all) citizens and consumers would expect to be in place, and a higher standard to which some might aspire

• The issues around farmed animal welfare are complex, involving economics, science, politics and sociology and interaction between organisations, government, business, consumers, citizens etc

• Compulsory higher welfare standards will make meat and dairy products more expensive compared to fruit and vegetables. This could encourage less consumption

• Cutting meat consumption is a necessity, and this will require factual arguments and an understanding of the ‘power relationships of meat’. Anthropological/sociological studies into meat as a symbol of power and privilege could have a subtle but important impact on the future debate

• There is a need to work with the health sector as well as environmentalists • The role of the media is central • The EU could provide more funding.

24 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

2.3 Interview findings

Detailed interviews were completed to provide more depth and detailed insight into farmed animal welfare amongst 27 influential individuals representing the following categories:

• Farm Animal Welfare Forum members • Animal welfare organisations • Generalist NGOs • Ethics or religious based NGOs • Non-animal welfare grant makers • High net worth individuals • Donor intermediaries • Celebrities • Government and regulatory • Supermarkets.

Standard interview questions were were used with each of the interviewees (see Annex 2). Background information was presented on the wider issues, the charitable sector overall, the level of funding going to farmed animal welfare and the key charities involved.

The interviewees represented a good spread of opinion across the targeted sectors. The questions sought their views and knowledge of the following: 1 Funding for farmed animal welfare. Their understanding of the level of funding for farmed animal welfare, whether they thought it was a worthy charitable cause, and what they felt could be done to raise the level of funding 2 Related issues. Which human or environmental issues linked to farmed animal welfare were priorities for them? Which might usefully be promoted to enhance the case for better farmed animal welfare? 3 Farm Animal Welfare Forum (FAWF) strategy. Their views on FAWF’s ten-year strategy, Farming Tomorrow 4 Influence and leadership. Their thoughts on who might be influential in promoting or leading farmed animal welfare as a cause, and how they and/or their organisations might be willing to help.

From the notes of the interviews conducted we have compiled over 130 specific comments. From these we have identified a number of themes, obstacles and opportunities that encapsulate what the interviewees told us, and hence the Tubney Charitable Trust. These are highlighted below and have formed the basis of our analysis and recommendations in sections 3 and 4.

25 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

2.3.1 Level of funding for farmed animal welfare None of the interviewees was surprised by the low level of funding for farmed animal welfare. They gave a variety of responses as to why they thought this was the case and where they, or their organisations, stood on the issue (italics are direct quotes).

As an issue on its own, farmed animal welfare was positioned well below human and environmental concerns on a hierarchy of needs (for example: “compared to cholera in Zimbabwe, tail docking of pigs just doesn’t cut it”) and this helps explain its low level of charitable support.

Some expressed the view that people do care about animals when shown shocking images of cruelty, hence the huge public support for animal rescue charities, but felt that most people are in denial about farmed animal suffering because they consume the produce (for example: “consumers in general are not in touch with agriculture”) and because the food industry is opaque about, or denies, the suffering.

Those who represented or understood the motives of funders who do not currently support farmed animal welfare said that most of them exclude ‘animals’ from their funding criteria, but then added that these same organisations might support farmed animal welfare projects where the impact on humanity and the environment was made clear and was the focus of the project.

These responses tell us that more needs to be done to raise awareness of the importance of farmed animal welfare a) for the welfare of the animals themselves and b) for its impact on a range of human and environmental issues that potential donors care about more. In other words, to push farmed animal welfare further up the hierarchy of perceived needs.

2.3.2 Human and environmental links When introduced to a list of well established human and environmental problems linked to farmed animal welfare, interviewees nearly all agreed that these provided an opportunity to make the case for funding stronger, provided the case was supported by strong evidence and viable alternative solutions that people could buy into (for example: “a farmed animal welfare proposal might get in under wealth creation [in developing countries] if you can prove the economic benefits for human beings”).

Some interviewees felt strongly, though, that the ethical case for better farm animal welfare should be to the fore in any appeal for support (for example: “by far the largest number of animals that are tortured and abused are on farms compared to anything else that we do to animals on the planet”).

Nearly all interviewees were optimistic that more charitable funding could be attracted to farmed animal welfare initiatives with a clear and well argued case. Some suggested that research should be commissioned to make a strong case. Others felt that the case was already well made and a thorough review of existing research and activities would avoid re-inventing the wheel.

26 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Several interviewees felt that the biggest hurdle to achieving better farmed animal welfare was people’s desire for cheap animal products, and the market’s willingness to deliver them. A number of issues were raised that have acted as drivers on price. These included, but were not limited to, people’s disconnection from agriculture and the impact on farmed animals of cheap food; a lack of awareness of the real costs of industrial and intensive systems because of farm subsidies; and the lack of a holistic approach to mainstream food and agricultural research, which was viewed by some as giving poor regard to a range of unintended consequences stemming from highly intensive or factory farming systems.

One major environmental funder found the link made with reduced efficacy of antibiotics in human health particularly engaging. This chimes with the views of some interviewees representing FAWF members who thought that routine use of antibiotics represented a key weakness in factory farming that should be specifically targeted.

A number of interviewees felt that introducing farmed animal welfare issues into the education system would help raise awareness and prompt a change in outlook towards farmed animal welfare among future consumers and decision makers.

Again, these responses highlight the need to raise awareness of the scale and degree of farmed animal suffering; and to make a strong case linking better farmed animal welfare to better human and environmental outcomes.

2.3.3 Farm Animal Welfare Forum ten-year strategy – Farming Tomorrow Not all interviewees had read the full Farm Animal Welfare Forum (FAWF) strategy report, Farming Tomorrow. Most had only seen a two-page summary that we prepared to brief interviewees. All felt that it was good to have a strategic alliance promoting a coordinated international strategy and that it made good strategic sense to focus on four priorities, though a number of interviewees felt unqualified to comment on these priorities. Perhaps due to the brevity of the summary, some felt that its case could be clearer and articulated better.

Of those who had read the report in full, there was strong support for its thoroughness in developing an action plan linked to a clearly defined charter. Including the development and promotion of viable evidence-based alternatives to factory farming was also seen as a positive aspect of the strategy.

One respondent from the field of international development and food security was particularly impressed with the strategic focus the Tubney Charitable Trust has brought to spending out its remaining endowment by bringing leading charities together, and found the concept “brilliant and courageous”. However, other interviewees felt that the strategy could be more ambitious and that “Freedom Foods standards are not high enough”.

Establishing a pioneering network of demonstration farms was well received, and meets interviewees’ concerns about education and connectedness to farming. This could complement existing demonstration organic and higher welfare farms.

27 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

Promoting higher welfare standards in the UK food industry, and incorporating higher welfare into corporate social responsibility performance, were well received. Some concern was expressed about industry resistance to labelling systems that provide enough information on production systems and provenance for consumers to make informed choices.

Two interviewees felt strongly that “better public information and regulated labelling systems are needed as current labelling is very confusing, eg organic produce is certified and regulated whereas free range is not”.

At a policy and campaigning level, divisions between interviewees were apparent. Some favoured a pragmatic approach, arguing that striving for incremental improvements in farmed animal welfare was more likely to keep consumers and the food industry on board and therefore have an impact on a large number of animals. Others called for a more radical and passionate approach, seeing an incremental change approach as an unwelcome diversion from making an urgent push for systemic change to bring factory farming to an end.

These responses highlight the need to recognise that there may be a significant constituency of donors who would hold each of these contrasting views. Some may be willing to support FAWF’s strategy and others may wish to support a bolder position – abolishing factory farming, for example – or a broader set of objectives including aquaculture and the transport and slaughter of animals.

To maximise donor recruitment, it is advisable that the Tubney Charitable Trust and FAWF consider ways to find some common ground with both these positions in their strategy.

2.3.4 Influence and leadership Under this set of questions we were aiming to identify who interviewees thought would be good advocates for farmed animal welfare. Who would help to raise its profile and the levels of funding flowing to it? We also sought to identify how much our interviewees, or their organisations, would be willing to help promote the cause or support it financially.

Most interviewees agreed that high-profile public figures such as Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall play a very important role in changing public opinion by exposing the plight of factory farmed animals. This is reinforced by the Euro-Barometer research36 that found that when people are faced with the consequences of low-welfare production, they would prefer to see standards raised. The challenge is converting this concern into purchasing behaviour.

Many suggested that a concerted public awareness campaign along the lines of Jubilee 2000, Make Poverty History and the NSPCC’s Full Stop campaign could be an effective way to change behaviour. However, such umbrella fundraising campaigns can be difficult to implement and it is not always obvious whether they have reached their objectives. It should also be remembered that the NSPCC Full Stop campaign is owned and run be the NSPCC alone and is built on the back of decades of investment in fund raising and building networks.

Others suggested making use of the internet for campaigning and fundraising. Web support was a big factor in the Obama election campaign and has been used successfully by avaaz.org, a very effective online campaigning concept.

28 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Rather than naming specific individuals who might galvanise fundraising, most interviewees suggested the need for a broad coalition or steering group of influential people – including intermediaries, funders and high net worth individuals – to network among their peers to identify strong leadership and support.

The importance of ensuring that key advocates are fully briefed was stressed, particularly when using celebrities or high net worth individuals to recruit others to the cause.

The importance of conducting detailed prospect research was raised by one NGO as a crucial element of building a cohort of peer-to-peer influencers and givers.

The following individuals were mentioned who could exert influence and/or participate in a high- level advisory capacity, as animal welfare ambassadors: Sir Stuart Rose: M&S chairman and chief executive, with the connections and charisma needed to help broker across-the-board support from industry and retailers Sir Don Curry: Chair of the government’s Sustainable Food and Farming Group, with a good track record in bringing industry, regulators and NGOs together Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall: seen by some as capable of engaging effectively with industry and policy makers as well as spearheading consumer engagement Felicity Fairbairn: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation trustee with a particular interest in the links between food and health AC Grayling: philosopher Prue Leith: Chair of the School Food Trust; a leading figure in campaigning for healthier and more sustainable school meals and a strong potential ambassador Andrew Rowan: Executive Vice President for Operations Humane Society of the United States and CEO of Humane Society International Bernard Mercer: Chair of Coutts’ advisory panel on its Environmental Pilot Jane Kennedy: Defra Minister with responsibility for animal welfare Claire Heffernan: University of Reading academic with wide interests in livestock Sam Roddick: daughter of Body Shop founders and environmentalists Gordon and Anita, and a successful retailer in her own right Temple Grandin: animal behaviour expert Angelika Meier-Ploeger: German food quality researcher.

Very few people were drawn on the level of funding they would be prepared to commit, though several commented that £2 million a year “is not a huge amount” in reference to the outstanding funding for the FAWF strategy. One person suggested that £20m should be able to lever in around £100m, although it must be acknowledged how hard it is to raise funds and how much resource is required to achieve success, particularly during the present economic downturn.

29 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

One foundation representative counselled a focus on work that “lends itself to evaluation” and “influences policy and practice in the long term” – in other words, foundations want their funding to make a measurable difference.

Interviewees made a number of specific proposals, and these have informed our recommendations later in this report: 1 Commission the production of a strong Case for Support highlighting the case for farmed animal welfare in its own right and articulating powerful causal links to the wider issues using referenced evidence 2 Lobby effectively for regulatory change to allow clear and transparent labelling of livestock products to show the source and production system and to enable informed consumer choice 3 Initiate a powerful public awareness campaign that includes schools 4 Identify a cohort of influential people to act as an ‘advisory board’ to take on and promote the Tubney Charitable Trust’s legacy for farmed animal welfare (this could become a formal standing committee serviced by current Tubney staff after the trust is wound up, funded for five to seven years to see the work through). This must include politicians, policy makers and industry leaders as well as philanthropists 5 Invest in detailed prospect research to identify potential donors and selected candidates upon whom to test the Case – initial interviewees from phase one could help this process 6 Support the delivery of bold targets as well as the more incremental FAWF strategy 7 Identify and set up an appropriate organisation to take on the Tubney Charitable Trust legacy as advised by advisory board in 3) above.

30 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

2.4 The ethical case for action, and wider issues linked to the way animals are farmed

In this section we explore the case for supporting farmed animal welfare. With support from desk research and the insights of our interviewees, we summarise the core moral argument for improving farmed animal welfare, and give a flavour of the weight of support offered by scientific evidence, public opinion, religious perspectives and eminent thought.

We also examine how farmed animal welfare is linked to the sustainability agenda and hence to five key issues for human and wider societal well-being. These are human health; global food security; protecting the natural environment; tackling climate change; and protecting rural livelihoods. All these links are presented graphically in Figure 1 on page 7. All have the potential to help secure increased support for farmed animal welfare initiatives from individuals and institutions whose primary interest lies in other issues, such as environmental conservation and international development.

2.4.1 Animal sentience – the duty of care The principal reason to uphold high animal welfare standards is that farmed animals are sentient beings – capable of sensations and emotions, and of experiencing a state of well- being37. Sentient animals are aware of their surroundings and of what happens to them. Because animals are sentient, it matters vitally to them how we treat them.

For Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall38 this duty of care arises from what he refers to as the contract of good husbandry, the outcome of many thousands of years of domestication of farm animals. He strongly agrees with the proposition made by Budiansky39 that the gradual process of domestication of livestock is essentially symbiotic, humans and their farmed livestock supporting each other, with both sides benefitting.

Scientific research is constantly revealing new evidence of farmed animals’ intelligence and emotions40. Some can enjoy learning a new skill, while some appear to show similar emotions to human empathy.

Sentience means that animals can experience pain, fear and frustration41, and they are often exposed to these emotions in industrial farming systems. When pigs are kept in overcrowded and barren spaces, for example, they frequently bite one another’s tails. To combat this a majority of farmers dock piglets’ tails, using either pliers or a hot docking iron – a measure which the European Union’s Scientific Veterinary Committee says can sometimes lead “to prolonged pain”42.

Frustration can occur when animals are kept in the close confinement of cramped sheds and small cages or pens, often in much bigger groups than they would choose to live in. Of the 35 million turkeys bred for the table in the UK each year, for example, the vast majority are fattened in sheds which contain up to 25,000 birds. The birds suffer from a variety of ailments which stem from overcrowding, a lack of dry litter and aggressive behaviour43.

Fear and stress can arise when animals are transported over long distances or slaughtered in an inhumane way44.

31 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

2.4.2 Religious and non-theistic perspectives It is estimated that five out of six of the world’s population adhere to religious faith of some kind45, with 68% following one of the three leading religions – Christianity (33%), Islam (21%) and Hinduism (14%). The leading religions are in a position to hold considerable sway over the moral values of their adherents, and the respect and care for animals is a significant strand in most faith traditions.

In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, human beings alone are seen as being made in the image of God, with animals put on earth for human use. But this is tempered by the concept of stewardship, which holds believers responsible for the care of God’s creation. This makes respect for animals an important facet of Judaeo-Christian faith and practice. A number of other religions – most notably Buddhism and Hinduism – uphold the importance of care, or even reverence, for animals.

Faith communities are important not only because of the attitudes to animal welfare instilled by religious teachings but also because of their capacity to allocate resources, inspire action and effect mass mobilisation. The Church Commissioners for England, for example, own 50,000 hectares of agricultural land46. The Jubilee 2000 Campaign, inspired by the biblical principle of periodic debt forgiveness, played a pivotal role in forging a broad mass movement to lobby successfully for Third World debt cancellation – including aid agencies, pressure groups, churches and trades unions.

The Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC)47, which involves the UN as a co-sponsor, is promoting the development of seven-year plans by all the major faith communities in the world. The plans48 will seek to address environmental challenges, drawing on the tradition of respect and care of the faith communities. They will be launched in November 2009 to attract attention ahead of the Climate Change meeting in Copenhagen the following month. This initiative will harness the enormous power of the faith communities – and the plans should include respect for animals.

Concern for farmed animal welfare in the leading faith traditions is echoed in secular humanist thought. The British Humanist Association asserts that “humanists would prefer not to cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings, and discussion tends to focus on what is ‘unnecessary suffering’…many people are willing to eat less meat, or no meat at all, in order to discourage what they see as the unnecessary cruelty involved in factory farming”49.

2.4.3 Public opinion Extensive consumer research conducted on behalf of the European Commission across 25 EU countries in 200550 found significant concern about farmed animal welfare issues.

Forty-seven per cent of respondents said they thought about the welfare and protection of animals when they bought meat. Only 32% thought the welfare provision for laying hens was good, while 58% said it was bad or very bad. Sixty-two per cent said not enough importance was attached to animal welfare in European Union food and agriculture policy, compared to only 4% who thought too much importance was attached to this area.

32 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Public concern about farmed animal welfare is also increasingly reflected in a growing sense of corporate responsibility. There is a growing ‘ethical literacy’ among the consuming public when it comes to animal welfare issues, magnified by public awareness campaigns fronted by leading celebrities and NGOs.

This is encouraging people to challenge companies to take more account of their customers’ views on animal welfare, acutely aware that the consumer trust invested in their brands is hard won and may be easily lost. McDonald’s, Marks and Spencer and Hellman’s have all stopped using cage eggs as part of a conscious effort to improve their animal welfare credentials and meet consumer expectations.

2.4.4 Scientific and philosophical perspectives Concern for animal welfare is notable in scientific and contemporary philosophical thought as well as in secular humanist thought and leading faith traditions.

The scientist Charles Darwin, father of modern biology, believed that there was continuity between humans and other forms of life and that it was likely that ‘the mental act’ is ‘essentially of the same nature in the animal as in the man’51. His view is endorsed by influential scientists who have closely studied animal behaviour, including the primate specialist Professor Frans de Waal52, and zoology professors Donald Griffin53 and Marian Dawkins54.

The philosopher Mary Midgley argues that if it makes sense “to talk of subjective states in humans, and also to say that other humans can often roughly identify these states”, then “reasons must be found for refusing to say the same about animals…Every day and all around us… people rightly assess the moods of dogs, and dogs of people.”55

2.4.5 Sustainability Animal welfare is becoming a key criterion of the sustainability agenda, which is increasingly influential in shaping the approach of policy makers and industry to issues such as food procurement.

Sustainable development is defined in the seminal report Our Common Future as “improving people’s life-enabling habits to meet our needs in the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”56. In this context, it is essential to acknowledge that livestock production systems must meet welfare criteria as a pre-requisite of sustainable development, currently, sustainable development does not specifically include animal welfare.

2.4.6 Human health The connections between the way meat and other livestock products are produced and a number of human health concerns are of increasing importance, including the use of veterinary medicines (particularly antibiotics) and the increasing risks of pandemics of zoonoses (particularly avian flu).

33 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

Factory farming has facilitated mass production at low cost, making meat relatively cheap and plentiful in many societies. This has encouraged increased consumption of animal products, “the primary source of saturated fat responsible for higher risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and some cancers”57.

The ratios of different fat types to one another in meat and dairy products can be influenced by the rearing methods of animals. Beef from cattle reared outdoors and fed mainly on grass and clover tends to have a lower ratio of saturated to unsaturated fat than beef from those reared indoors and fed predominantly with cereals.58 59 60

A livestock diet high in grass and clover, whether as hay or silage is linked with higher levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in beef, poultry, milk and eggs.61 62 CLA can help prevent cancer, reduce heart disease and support weight control.63

The growth promoting, prophylactic and routine use of antibiotics in agriculture is of mounting concern, and there is growing evidence that it is contributing to increasing antibiotic resistance in human medicine. The World Health Organisation says that “resistant strains of four bacteria that cause disease in humans have been transmitted from animals to humans and shown to have consequences for human health”.64 Factory farming of chickens has been implicated in the development of vancomycin-resistant enterococci that cause severe, hard-to-treat, intestinal infection in humans.65 66

The conditions endured by chickens in intensive poultry production have played a part in the emergence and spread of the H5N1 strain of avian influenza, potentially lethal to humans.67

2.4.7 Food security Livestock farming employs 1.3 billion people and creates livelihoods for one billion of the world’s poor.68 The Thai poultry industry alone is credited by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation with lifting a million people out of poverty.69

But the intensification of global livestock production has the potential to undermine food security in developing countries in a number of ways.

Increased demand for grain to feed livestock means that farmers in the developing world are “striving to generate foreign exchange by exporting animal feed-grains instead of growing food- grains for local human consumption”70. One consequence of this is that “some producer populations are thereby exposed to malnutrition and its many health risks”71.

One commentator warns that “our food supply is now more dependent on globally traded grains than at any time in our history” and that “this makes it inherently unstable and vulnerable to the kind of catastrophic meltdown that threatened the banking industry”.72

The trend towards bigger, more intensive farms creates hardship by squeezing out those who cannot compete with them, such as small dairy farms in Brazil: “This centralisation of production means lost livelihoods and increases in (mostly rural) poverty and, consequently, health problems: nutritional, mental health, exposure to new occupational hazards, and so on.”73

34 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

In many countries levels of economic development are not sufficient to absorb large numbers of displaced subsistence farmers into rapidly expanding cities and other forms of productive labour. The pressure to intensify farming could have grave consequences for food security and economic well-being in countries such as Angola and Rwanda, where agriculture employs over 70% of the population.74

Future food security could be compromised because “valuable breeds are disappearing at an alarming rate” according to Carlos Seré, Director General of the International Livestock Research Institute. Intensive farming relies on a relatively small number of breeds, such as high-yielding Holstein-Friesian dairy cows and fast-growing Large White pigs.

Scientists have predicted that Uganda’s indigenous Ankole cattle could face extinction within 20 years because they are being supplanted by Holstein-Friesians. Yet during a recent drought, “some farmers that had kept their hardy Ankole were able to walk them long distances to water sources while those who had traded the Ankole for imported breeds lost their entire herds”.75

2.4.8 Protecting the natural environment Livestock production has a significant environmental impact, and this is increasing further as production expands and intensifies.

Water pollution from agriculture is a major problem. In the United States livestock factory farms are among the biggest polluters of waterways.76 US factory farms produce enough manure each year to fill 52 million large 18-wheel trucks – a convoy of excrement that would stretch bumper to bumper across the US 148 times.77

Livestock production accounts for over 8% of human water use in a world where 64% of the population are expected to live in water-stressed basins by 2025.78

About 20 per cent of the world’s pastures and rangelands – 73% of rangelands in dry areas – have been degraded to some extent, mostly through overgrazing, compaction and erosion caused by livestock.79

Soil can become severely compacted when grassland is overgrazed by cattle, sheep or pigs. Compaction impedes the infiltration of rain water, and this means top soil and farm chemicals can be washed into watercourses during heavy rainfall.80

Under-grazing can also be environmentally damaging. Grassland wildlife habitats are under severe threat, and most grassland needs grazing as a component of sympathetic management to protect fine grasses and herbs from being crowded out by the tallest plants and toughest grasses.81

Expansion of livestock production is a key factor in deforestation. Seventy per cent of previously forested land in the Amazon is occupied by pastures, and feed crops for livestock cover a large part of the remainder.82

35 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation states that biodiversity is under threat to such an extent that “15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed to be in decline”.83 It contends that “the livestock sector may well be the leading player in the reduction of biodiversity, since it is the major driver of deforestation, as well as one of the leading drivers of land degradation, pollution, climate change, over fishing, sedimentation of coastal areas and facilitation of invasions by alien species”.

Livestock production is responsible for 64% of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and the acidification of ecosystems.84

The trend towards intensive, indoor livestock production has contributed to an impoverishment of the agricultural landscape. Diverse tapestries of small mixed farms have been replaced by large tracts of relatively characterless arable land, much of it producing feed for cattle.

2.4.9 Climate change Livestock production is a major contributor to global warming, responsible for 18% of 85 greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent.

The sector emits 37% of anthropogenic methane and 65% of anthropogenic nitrous oxide – both gases with significantly more global warming potential than carbon dioxide.86

Forests and grassland are in decline as more and more land is devoted to growing grain, much of it to feed factory-farmed livestock. Reducing grassland cover has a negative impact on climate change mitigation because like forests, grassland is an important ‘carbon sink’ that can 87 sequester CO2. In the words of one advocate of a return to mixed farming, “the pasture field acts as a vast solar panel, capturing solar energy in the chloroplasts of leaves and using it to build sugars from atmospheric carbon dioxide”.88 He points out that “the Royal Society has estimated that better management of the world’s farmlands could capture as much carbon dioxide as is accumulated in the atmosphere each year”.89

Consumption of fossil fuels by the transport sector is also a major contributor to global warming. This is exacerbated by the extent to which animal feed and animals are transported over long distances in industrial-scale farming.90

There are at least two alternative approaches to mitigating the climate change impact of livestock production. Animal welfare organisations will have to negotiate a sometimes complex web of argument and counter-argument if they want to put forward climate change mitigation as a reason for supporting higher-welfare systems.

Some, including FAWF members, argue that we should reduce the impact of livestock production on the climate by reducing consumption overall and having higher-welfare systems that maximise grass consumption. As we have seen, this is likely to deliver human health as well as environmental benefits.

But this approach is a potentially unwelcome challenge to those who see controlling meat consumption as a denial of personal freedom or who view prolific meat eating as an indicator of increased affluence and better quality of life. Some contend that reducing consumption

36 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

significantly is an unrealistic prospect, particularly as highly populous countries such as China are showing an increasing appetite for livestock products.

If current or higher per capita consumption of meat is sustained, then it can be argued that increasing intensification will be necessary to mitigate the climate change impact of livestock production. Intensification, some argue, results in more efficient resource use, better feed use efficiency and so on. To make a robust case for higher-welfare systems, animal welfare organisations will have to place resource efficiency on factory farms in the wider context of natural resource destruction to support grain-fed livestock farming.

2.4.10 Rural livelihoods The industrialisation of food production in Europe and North America has decimated agricultural employment and wiped out many small farms. This has caused considerable economic hardship in some rural communities where so many had relied upon farming for their livelihoods. In 2002 it was reported that nearly 20,000 farmers in the United States were going under each year.91

The demise of small mixed farms does not only affect agricultural employment. There is a knock-on effect on the rest of the rural economy, including local independent retailers, abattoirs and butchers. Traditional animal husbandry skills and agriculturally linked crafts such as hedge laying have suffered as mixed farming has declined.

Rearing animals to higher animal welfare standards can be better for rural employment because it is more labour-intensive than factory farming. Research conducted by Essex University and the Soil Association found that organic farming in the UK provides 32% more jobs per farm than equivalent non-organic farms. If all farms in the UK became organic, over 93,000 new jobs would be created.92

The argument linking better animal welfare and rural livelihoods is perhaps even more relevant in developing countries. A Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) expert meeting held in 200893 highlighted the link between animal and human welfare, health and economic development. The FAO recognises the importance of animal welfare practices that lead to benefits for both people and their animals. The workshop concluded that “development agencies that fail to take animal welfare into account may miss important opportunities to improve the lives of people”. According to an animal welfare and veterinary expert in Defra that we interviewed for this report, the link between good animal welfare and development is a ‘hot issue’ and the FAO has “done a good job” in explaining it.

37 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

2.5 Obstacles and opportunities for funding farmed animal welfare

The survey findings and interviews (section 2.2 and 2.3) suggest that animal welfare organisations will need to include bolder aims as well as incremental goals if significant additional support is to be unlocked from some donor communities and from the public. Being bold in some respects, and being seen to be bold, will be a condition of success. Our analysis suggests that leveraging more support will depend in part on:

• Taking a systematic approach that explicitly seeks to end factory farming. Higher welfare is not necessarily high welfare. There is a tension between the ‘incremental’ approach and the ‘step change’ approach, where a system-level change in production, consumption and regulation is encouraged.

• Facing up to the challenge not only of how we farm animals, but also how many of them we farm and how much of their products we eat. For donors and members of the public with other higher priorities than farmed animal welfare, notably climate change and human health, squaring the circle with high welfare will require that we eat less meat and fewer dairy products. Cutting consumption allows a better fit between farmed animal welfare and the wider issues discussed in Section 2.4. There are both obstacles and opportunities to achieving greater philanthropic support for better farmed animal welfare, taking as our starting point the current global food production systems (with all the issues and concerns outlined in section 2.4) and their influence upon consumers’ purchasing behaviour.

The obstacles and opportunities highlighted below are not a comprehensive list, neither are they our considered assessment of all the key obstacles and opportunities facing organisations with an interest in farmed animal welfare and The Tubney Charitable Trust. What they represent, however, is the specific obstacles and opportunities identified by the people we interviewed. Although when listed together they may appear somewhat random, we have captured them because they show the kind of questions potential funders for farmed animal welfare will want answers to, and because some of them have been particularly useful in shaping our recommendations for action later in this report.

2.5.1 Obstacles Several obstacles to increasing the support for improving farmed animal welfare have been identified through this research. 1 Scientific approaches adopted by governments, regulatory bodies and advisors to agribusiness are narrow in focus (eg maximise output for minimal input) and do not consider unintended societal consequences. Such production processes are, in effect, subsidised because they are not bearing the cost of the unintended consequences. Consumers ’believe’ they are cheap because they pay less. The low cost of food, linked to above, is irresistible for most consumers. 2 Poor labelling causes confusion amongst consumers who thus remain unaware of the welfare consequences of intensive farming methods and thus are not motivated to support the issue. Some, such as the Red Tractor and the term ‘free range’, set the bar so low as to be almost meaningless as quality standards for good farmed animal welfare and yet are presented in such a way that they appear to meet consumer expectations.

38 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

3 Governments are reluctant to regulate because of the perceived loss of trade, jobs and tax revenues when big businesses threaten to repatriate (“small is good, but government wants big”, according to one respondent) 4 Globalisation means that pressure for systemic change to farming practices needs to be international. Otherwise the focus of production will move to areas where standards or regulations are less demanding 5 Global growth in demand for meat products, particularly from emerging economies, is a problem that must not be ignored 6 There is a lack of contact between consumers, the countryside and food production systems. When people, particularly generations of people, do not see the animals from which their consumption is sourced, there is no empathy and they are less likely to make the links, eg “Pilgrims to Mecca won’t harm a fly on their journey, but eat factory farmed chicken on arrival!” 7 Some of the widely recognised viable alternative solutions, such as organic production, are perceived to be too expensive and/or anti-industry.

These challenges are very real, but far from insurmountable with a committed and coordinated strategy. Numbers (1) to (4) above highlight the need to engage and mobilise strong international leadership from the food industry, policy makers and research establishments. In parallel with this, there is a need for campaigns targeting multilateral organisations such as the UN, WTO and WHO, and for an approach that engages with environmental and climate change coalitions, global animal welfare networks and faith communities to change the way we think globally about food production and consumption.

In many ways today’s global financial crisis is an opportunity for major cultural shifts in what we need and aspire to in a world of rapidly diminishing resources. With bold, determined, strong and intelligent leadership systematic change could be achieved.

2.5.2 Opportunities There are also opportunities for increasing support for improving farmed animal welfare arising from this research. 1 Publicise the levels of subsidy and make people aware that they, or someone less fortunate, is paying for the unintended consequences of obstacle (1) above through taxes, poor health, environmental degradation, rural poverty etc. 2 Promote widely recognised, advanced and viable alternative solutions such as organic and fair trade systems. Re obstacle (7) above, the case can be made on a level playing field where the full costs of systems and their consequences are considered and consumers and producers accept core moral and ethical standards. 3 Support WSPA’s campaign (and promote the FAWF Charter) to get the UN to issue a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare. 4 Support CIWF’s campaign to ban factory farming.

39 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

5 Build a powerful coalition of movers and shakers to include free thinkers, philosophers, agriculturalists and philanthropists (the ‘big guns’) to mobilise funders, policy makers, producers and retailers behind the scenes (eg Jubilee 2000, Full Stop campaign, anti- smoking and Jamie’s School Dinners). With an adequately resourced and bold initiative, substantial funds could be raised. 6 Use the Humane Society US’s campaigning skills to get a library of Pig Business-type footage of poor practice to support public campaigns. 7 Highlight and promote the aims of the FAWF strategy, currently poorly articulated.

As with the obstacles highlighted in the previous section, these opportunities highlighted by our interviewees have fed into the recommendations that follow later in this report. Opportunities (1), (5) and (7) in particular articulate a point of view expressed in different ways by a number of our interviewees, and have informed our recommendations on making a wider societal case for improving farmed animal welfare, establishing a funders’ network and preparing a compelling Case for Support for farmed animal welfare. Opportunity (3) points to a body of existing work by WSPA that can and should inform FAWF’s development of a farmed animal welfare charter, while opportunity (5) points to an example of work that may engage funders who prefer to support a push for step change rather than an incremental approach.

So far the charitable support enjoyed by animal welfare organisations has come principally from donations by members of the public. It is our belief, in the light of our research, that there are opportunities for attracting new funding from charitable trusts and high net worth individuals in particular. Successful approaches to these funders could pump-prime implementation of the Farming Tomorrow strategy, help engage potential statutory funders, and give the work of FAWF members the higher profile that will be needed to attract increased funding from the public in years to come.

Presently, only 1% of the income of the key farmed animal welfare charities in the UK is derived from trusts and foundations (see section 2.1). Evidence from our research (section 2) suggests that, with the right case presented to them, some of the most important charitable trusts and foundations would open their coffers to improving farmed animal welfare. This support could be both direct and indirect (for example by ensuring that programmes and policies have, as a pre- requisite, meeting the health and welfare needs of animals and the human population that they sustain). The research completed provides evidence that the strategy proposed to the Tubney Charitable Trust for increasing philanthropic support to the charitable cause of improving farmed animal welfare could be successful.

There are no new magic sources of funding, and the current economic climate will continue to present a challenge to improving farmed animal welfare. However, it is clear that by improving messages and clearly presenting the case for improving farmed animal welfare (as outlined in section 2.4) there is scope for increasing the level of philanthropic support for farmed animal welfare. This depends on promoting incremental improvements (for example by achieving the Freedom Food standard as the new baseline in the Assured Chicken Production standards) whilst also being aware of the need for regulatory change (for example by enforcing clear and unambiguous labelling). It also depends on presenting the vision for the step-change that is required to achieve a sustainable food and farming system for the future where less but better meat is eaten and the whole animal valued.

40 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

The table below lists those charitable trusts and foundations whose opinions we have canvassed, together with our interpretation of those that may be willing to fund farmed animal welfare initiatives and what type approach to changing the current system might motivate them (characterised as either incremental change or more radical step changes such as the ending of factory farming).

Charitable trust/ Recognition of link with farmed Type of change - Scope Foundation animal welfare and current focus Incremental or bold for support

Rufford Maurice Recognises links and already Unknown Yes Lang provides some support to farmed animal welfare. £4.5m annual fund. Links with Whitley Fund for Nature and Arcadia

Pegasus Recognises links. Supports Unknown Yes Foundation companion animal welfare, wildlife and education

IFAW Recognises links. Supports Bold Yes companion animal welfare, wildlife, environment and education

Bernard Sunley Some recognition of links. Some Incremental Yes Charitable funding to farmed animal welfare. Foundation Also wildlife, environment, poverty alleviation, rural heritage/local economy, education, social care, health, arts, youth, community. Annual fund of c £2.5m

Regina Bauer Recognises links. Focus on Unknown Yes Frankenberg companion animal welfare, wildlife, Foundation environment

Prince’s Charities Largest multi-cause charitable Incremental and bold Yes enterprise in UK, raising £100m pa

Esmée Fairbairn Arts, education, environment and Incremental and bold Yes social inclusion c £20m pa. Local food and biodiversity c £4m pa

JMG Foundation Supports a range of environmental Incremental and bold Yes advocacy groups

Sainsbury Family Full spectrum of charitable support Incremental and bold Yes Charitable Trusts across 18 family trusts, c £120m pa

Wellcome Trust Scientific research, c £330m pa Incremental Yes

41 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

Charitable trust/ Recognition of link with farmed Type of change - Scope Foundation animal welfare and current focus Incremental or bold for support

Maria Norbury All animal welfare – information and Bold Limited Foundation signposting network

Oxfam International development NGO Potentially bold Limited

Lankelly Chase Recognises links. No current Incremental Possible Foundation support to animal welfare. Focus on poverty alleviation, health and social justice. Funds c £4m pa

River Trusts Recognises links. Focus on wildlife, Incremental Possible environment and poverty alleviation

The Bromley Trust Recognises links. Focus on wildlife, Incremental and bold Possible environment, education, social care, human rights, criminal justice

Arcadia Trust Environmental conservation and Says unlikely to fund Possible cultural knowledge, c £10m pa farmed animal welfare

Garfield Western Generalist funder, giving c £50m pa Incremental Possible Foundation

Islamic Foundation Has interest in farmed animal Bold No for Ecology and welfare. Focus on environment, Environmental sustainable practices. Potential Science advocacy ally only; no resources available

Dulverton Trust Considers funding for farmed Incremental No animal welfare ‘about right’. Sees all other issues as much more important and does not perceive links. Funds c £3m pa. Links with B Sunley and other foundations

UK Women’s Fund Recognises links. Focus on women Bold No and girls (economic justice, equal representation, health and well being, safety)

Oak Foundation Limited recognition of links. Focus Not sufficiently No on environment, poverty, social relevant to mission care, human rights, child abuse, women’s issues

Diana, Princess of Some recognition of links. Focus on Not sufficiently No Wales Memorial health, refugees, asylum seekers, relevant to mission Fund penal reform, palliative care in sub- Saharan Africa

42 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Of the 22 charitable trusts and foundations evaluated through the online survey and interviews, ten show a clear scope for further support to farmed animal welfare, based on their recognition of the importance of the issue and their current funding interests. Five could be persuaded if the right case were put to them. Five are unlikely to provide support for farmed animal welfare on the basis of their lack of recognition of the links; and/or the fact that their funding focus is some way removed from farmed animal welfare; and/or they do not have any funds to disburse. This subjective assessment suggests that there is potential for additional support from existing charitable trusts and foundations, and this could be the subject for further detailed prospect research.

Figure 11 locates the charitable trusts according to their awareness of the issues, and according to their potential as funders for farmed animal welfare. In this figure, those charitable trusts that might also be able to exert influence are highlighted.

Figure 11 UK trusts’ and foundations’ awareness of farmed animal welfare and potential for new funding

It is important to recognise that whilst most trusts and foundations have fairly well defined funding criteria, these are not always set in stone. Many trusts review their criteria regularly, responding to new or emerging issues in which they (via one or more of their trustees) develop an interest. They sometimes act in collaboration with each other in developing proactive approaches to new issues, and some are influenced by their peers’ behaviour.

Where groups of trustees know each other well or their trustees overlap, they may share opinions on a particular charitable application, or support it on the basis that another has (or has not) already done so. These relationships between trusts and their trustees (researched and exploited regularly in major fundraising appeals) provide an opportunity in the field of farmed animal welfare.

43 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

3. Catalysing change – making Tubney’s legacy count

Our review of the donor landscape in section 2, based on an analysis of current funding for farmed animal welfare, the online survey and interviews, has provided the information to define a strategy for Tubney Charitable Trust to ensure a lasting legacy of increased support for farmed animal welfare.

Section 3.1 outlines the foundations for success for the overall strategy and sections 3.2 and 3.3 outline the key strategies to increase funding from existing and new donors respectively.

Section 3.4 proposes an Action Plan for Tubney Charitable Trust and other organisations involved in animal welfare, based on an evaluation of the proposals suggested in sections 3.2 and 3.3.

3.1 Foundations for success

Our consultations with the donor community as well as regulatory, production and retail interests have identified broad recognition and acceptance that farmed animal welfare matters; and that efforts to improve farmed animal welfare is a ‘public good’ worthy of charitable and public support. Even those consulted who were not initially interested in farmed animal welfare understood its importance and relevance to areas closer to their interests once the links were made more apparent.

Whilst there is broad acceptance of this position, there are many and varied views on where farmed animal welfare sits within the hierarchy of philanthropic need, how better farmed animal welfare should be achieved and who bears the greatest responsibility for funding and effecting change. The good news for the Tubney Charitable Trust legacy is that there is a compelling and realistic case to be made to satisfy all the varied views.

Another important factor in significantly raising funds for farmed animal welfare is its low standing within the charitable market place. It is an issue that attracts a tiny fraction of 1% of overall charitable spending but is firmly linked to human health, international development, the environment and climate change, thus we believe it has huge potential for growth. One well informed interviewee said that farmed animal welfare is at the position now, in charitable funding terms, where climate change was a decade ago.

The foundations for success are therefore in place to embark on a major fundraising campaign for the benefit of farmed animal welfare. The best chance of success lies in creating a powerful story with chapters addressing the concerns of multiple audiences and preparing carefully researched, planned and coordinated approaches to each.

FAWF’s ten-year strategy has already achieved this at one level. By identifying and presenting a series of objectives and priorities that appeal to its constituent supporters, it has significantly increased their individual and collective focus on farmed animal welfare.

A successful strategy for the Tubney Charitable Trust would be one that ensures the continued development and strengthening of the farmed animal welfare sector whilst also building a far wider alliance of public, governmental, philanthropic and corporate support for the sector and

44 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

the changes it is striving to achieve. It is particularly important for the more sophisticated donors to see coordinated activities involving all key players in the food and farming supply chain, as this will give them confidence that their ‘investment’ will have a suitable ‘return’ or impact.

The principal sources of funds can be broken down into the following five sectors: 1 Charitable trusts and foundations (including research funders) 2 General public 3 High net worth individuals 4 Government and public bodies (including research councils) 5 Companies

1 Grant making trusts are the mainstay of charitable support, with a total of £3.6 billion awarded annually by 8,800 grant making trusts, £2.7 billion of which is given by the top 500 trusts94. The vast majority do not currently support animal welfare, let alone farmed animal welfare. But our research suggests that if funding requests for farmed animal welfare were to focus on outcomes that reflect the funding criteria of these trusts, then they might be more favourably received. In addition, charitable trusts do not act in isolation. They can be influenced by their peers in the short term and by changing social interests and global needs in the longer term.

2 Among the general public over 50% of adults give regularly to charity, representing 28 million donors giving £10 billion annually95. Animal causes currently receive around 5% - or £800 million96. Public donations and legacies made up 83% of the income of the seven animal welfare charities featured in Figure 5. There is potential to expand the base of individuals who give regularly to the cause of farmed animal welfare, but there will need to be a higher public profile for the issues before this can happen. Significant funds from this source are more likely to be within reach in the second half of the ten-year Farming Tomorrow strategy implementation period, as activities pump-primed by other sources of funding make an impact on public consciousness.

3 High net worth individuals currently make up 50% of public donations to charity.97 One in 12 donors give £100 per month or more and these high-level donors are responsible for half the annual total of individual charitable giving (c £5 billion). There is a core of approximately 2.1 million generous, committed donors upon whom the charitable sector depends.98 We see prospect research on behalf of animal welfare organisations, examining both their own donor databases and the interests and commitments of other major donors, as a key element of building support for farmed animal welfare.

4. Government and research councils’ current funding for farmed animal welfare is hard to estimate. Defra has a budget of around £4 billion of which £243 million goes to animal health and welfare, while BBSRC has a budget of approximately £400 million of which nearly £130 million goes to agri-food research and animal science. The key to unlocking significant levels of funding from government is through winning support from other

45 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

departments covering areas such as trade and enterprise (BERR), education (DCSF) and international development (DFID).

5 Cash support to charities from the top 495 companies was £367 million in 2005-06, a fraction of the support from charitable trusts or individuals99. For fundraising purposes we believe companies should be a low priority for the Tubney Charitable Trust and animal welfare organisations. But when it comes to seeking advocates and allies to support the implementation of the FAWF strategy, it is clear that food retailers and other companies should be regarded as important players.

Strategies and actions for increasing support from existing and new donors are explored in more detail in sections 3.2 and 3.3 below.

The key foundation for success for the Tubney Charitable Trust is to harness those individuals and charitable trusts that have the greatest scope for ensuring that a lasting legacy is achieved. This enthusiasm will rely upon well informed opinion leaders. It is important to remember that the current economic downturn presents a challenge to fundraising with many charities and trusts making cutbacks in their funding.

46 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

3.2 Increasing support from existing donors

3.2.1 Awareness and perception of issues Charitable trusts already giving to farmed animal welfare have some awareness of the issues in general and some of the species-specific priorities. However the links between farmed animal welfare and the wider issues outlined in this report are only poorly understood. Charitable trusts contribute a relatively small proportion of the income of animal welfare organisations, and the Tubney Charitable Trust is the most important.

Among the key organisations involved in animal welfare the awareness and understanding of the issues is not in question, however, those organisations where farmed animal welfare is not their sole concern could give a higher priority and devote more resources to this issue.

Amongst philanthropists and high net worth individuals there is an awareness of farmed animal welfare as an issue, although the links to the wider issues are not well understood. In most cases, other ‘causes’ are typically perceived as more important. Consequently, these issues are prioritised for giving over and above farmed animal welfare.

The income of key animal welfare charities overwhelmingly relies upon individual donations and legacies from members of the public. Public awareness and understanding of farmed animal welfare and the links to the wider issues are very poor. Consequently if further support is to be gained from the public, then public awareness must be raised. This has the potential to provide a double benefit. First – and perhaps most importantly – it will encourage consumption of livestock products from high(er) animal welfare systems (thereby moving the market in this direction). Second, it may lead to more donations and legacies.

3.2.2 Potential for enhanced giving from existing donors – SWOT analysis Taking account of the awareness of issues and the potential actions to increase giving by existing donors outlined above, the tables below present an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) associated with enhanced giving by existing donors. This SWOT analysis looks at each of the different types of organisation – charitable trusts, FAWF members, philanthropists etc.

It is likely that greater success will be achieved by increasing the support from existing donors, at least in the short term, than by expanding the donor community. In section 3.3 we explore the scope for expanding the donor community, and present a SWOT analysis is based around the different themes (human health, environment etc.), rather than the types of organisation, since expanding the donor community will rely upon developing and communicating differentiated message by theme or issue.

An assessment of the opportunities for additional support for farmed animal welfare from the charitable trusts and foundations who responded to the online survey and were included in the interviews is provided in section 2.5.2. This suggests that amongst those charitable trusts, foundations and philanthropists that are currently not primarily focused on farmed animal welfare, there is considerable scope for leveraging additional support.

47 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

The tables below analyse the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of each of the potential sources of support.

Charitable trusts – family trusts and institutional trusts and foundations

Strengths Opportunities Well aware of key issues Better awareness of links with wider issues could result in higher priority and thus more Key individuals understand the links and the giving to farmed animal welfare likely need for system level changes Greater commitment to the need for system Organisations representing the faith level change will drive farmed animal welfare communities have core ethical concerns improvements Faith communities initiative through the UN/Alliance of Religions and Conservation seven-year plan initiative

Weaknesses Threats Small part of current income for main animal The need for system level change is not an welfare organisations easy argument to win and may challenge current orthodoxy Little awareness throughout the charitable trusts of the links between farmed animal Incremental change (e.g. species-specific welfare and wider issues priorities) limits scope for arguing for increased giving

48 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

FAWF members

Strengths Opportunities Aware of issues, closely involved A 50% increase in resources devoted to farmed animal welfare by key organisations Key animal welfare organisations with whose sole concern is not farmed animal significant collective power and reach welfare could provide substantial additional Involvement of academic institutions funding and a leading retailer as well as NGOs International reach of some UK-based animal ensures a ‘broad church’ that will appeal to welfare organisations helps avoid the danger institutional donors of a narrow campaign that fails to tackle welfare conditions in countries exporting to the UK Encouraging a more radical approach to higher welfare systems by some animal welfare charities would impact on others

Weaknesses Threats Some animal welfare organisations do not Potential impact on ongoing work of the key highly prioritise farmed animal welfare organisations with interests wider than relative to other activities farmed animal welfare, by re-prioritising their work towards farmed animal welfare Some FAWF members take a more radical public stance to farmed animal wefare issues than others

Philanthropists and high net worth (HNW) individuals

Strengths Opportunities Often responsive to a more radical agenda HNW can influence organisations and trusts for system change through peer pressure Links with wider issues that Some high-profile HNW individuals are more motivating to some supportive of farmed animal welfare Weaknesses Threats Fickle and hard work to engage with Recessionary pressures may cause a narrowing of philanthropic focus where Messages must be more or less farmed animal welfare needs openness to a individually tailored widening of the agenda The government is unlikely to regulate beyond the ‘EU baseline’ requirements

49 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

Industry and corporate

Strengths Opportunities Power to effect change Consumer awareness and buy-in will provide returns Recognise importance of farmed animal welfare as a CSR issue Good examples of corporate support for higher welfare Improved labelling will allow consumer choice and drive change

Weaknesses Threats Focus on bottom line Impact of recession on share values and CSR commitments Failure of leadership Desire for cheap food and avoiding revealing provenance by better labelling

Policy makers and government

Strengths Opportunities Better regulation is essential; Consumer and industry pressure for government role central regulation can influence government policy Reliant on voter support Links between farmed animal welfare and issues such as food security and trade regulation may open up funding opportunities with DFID and BERR Weaknesses Threats Major focus is in other areas of government Lack of funding available across government, food and agriculture particularly Animal health and welfare focus is on zoonoses

50 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Research Councils and funders – UK and EU

Strengths Opportunities Evidence base for benefits of better farmed Delivering effective multi-disciplinary animal welfare is fundamental projects between research councils and and well recognised across EU priorities is possible with farmed animal welfare System development essential; can be based on strong underpinning Improved production systems have been scientific understanding developed – further potential to deliver better systems There is already a strong science base in farmed animal welfare New animal welfare priorities – e.g. aquaculture, ducks, rabbits

Weaknesses Threats The ‘whole system’ view can be lost with a Shortage of funds available narrow ‘science’ based perspective with declining research budgets Link between natural and social sciences Technocratic and hi-tech solutions weak – some key farmed animal welfare favoured that mitigate against system issues relate to ethical and moral imperative change based on human values and that assume existing patterns of production and consumption will continue

Individual members of the public – consumers and citizens

Strengths Opportunities Primary source of income for animal welfare Significant additional funds possible organisations including FAWF members if successfully motivated Buying power in pocket Enhanced market potential for high(er) welfare products Many citizens recognise the importance of caring for animals Effective signal provided to government and food industry

Weaknesses Threats Hard to engage successfully to change Downward pressure on prices behaviour (whether giving or buying) – low cost seen as essential Effective communication channels expensive Consumers don’t see value in farmed animal welfare Simple messages essential, but farmed animal welfare not a simple issue

51 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

3.2.3 Proposed actions to increase support from existing donors Based on this analysis and drawing on suggestions made by the people we interviewed, we propose the following actions to increase support from existing donors. Some are actions where the Tubney Charitable Trust can act directly whereas in other cases we recommend it supports or initiates action involving other organisations including FAWF members. We have grouped the actions under four headings.

A: Make the case A1 Develop the wider case for supporting farmed animal welfare, focusing on care for animals, human health, the environment/landscape and climate change:

• Outline negative links between the defining features of intensive (‘factory’) production systems and the wider issues, focusing on four key areas: ethics and care for animals (the fundamental moral case), human health and diet, landscape/environment, climate change. Although several animal welfare organisations with an interest in farmed animals are working in some of these areas, we believe that there is further opportunity.

• Analyse and present the challenges for high welfare systems in those areas where there are conflicting objectives and possible outcomes (e.g. zoonoses possibly encouraged by outdoor rearing; potential reduced climate change impact of factory farming systems).

• Propose that farmed animal welfare must be a prerequisite (non-negotiable feature) of socially acceptable and sustainable farming systems, and draw on the strength of the world’s faith communities who share this fundamental principle.

• Include the case for system-level changes to end factory farming. • Support preparation of the report by organisations with an interest in farmed animal welfare (or commission a third party), with the output to be made publicly available as a resource for anyone seeking to raise funds to promote farmed animal welfare.

• Use the analysis in Section 2.4 of this report and the SWOT in Section 3.3.2 in developing the project brief, and provide it as starting point for the work.

B: Reach new audiences B1 Develop audience-specific versions of the case for support:

• Tailor the basic case for support (A.1) to specific donor communities. • Specifically develop the fundamental moral case for a faith community audience (primarily religious due to size and scope for influence, but also non-religious).

• This could be commissioned as part of the project to develop the basic case (A.1) or following detailed prospect research (D.1).

• Use the interview findings in this report and the SWOT in section 3.3.2 as a resource.

52 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

B2 Create a Farmed Animal Welfare Funders’ Network to act as ambassadors to key communities of influence, including large donors:

• Establish a network of funders who are interested in exploring and developing the wider case for supporting farmed animal welfare. The Environmental Funders’ Network offers a model.

• Include in the network funders and opinion formers who are passionate about farmed animal welfare and effective at communicating this.

• Regularly hold events designed to draw additional key charitable trusts, philanthropists and high net worth individuals into the network. It is crucial that the network is open to people who are not already major funders in this area.

• Consider establishing a small organisation to co-ordinate and develop this network beyond the lifespan of the Tubney Charitable Trust.

B3 Support the evaluation of and, if appropriate, the implementation of major public awareness campaigning:

• Critically evaluate with FAWF members individually and collectively the need for more support for the ‘campaigning’ and ‘public awareness’ strategies proposed by FAWF members and whether FAWF is too conservative and ‘close to the farming industry’.

• The wider case (A.1) should provide a constructive stimulus for this reflection. Is there a need to push for a more radical edge? Should FAWF be explicitly promoting ‘system level change’?

• Consider with FAWF and with the architects of campaigns that have successfully linked awareness raising and fund raising (e.g. Make Poverty History, Full Stop) the return on investment from major public awareness campaigning on farmed animal welfare. Examples of success already achieved, such as ending caged poultry and live calf exports, suggest there is an enormous opportunity if public opinion is mobilised.

• Develop and launch a public awareness programme. This could draw on the wider case (A.1) and involve opinion formers who are members of the Farmed Animal Welfare Funders’ Network.

C: Lead by example C1 Directly fund implementation of the FAWF strategy

• The implementation of the FAWF strategy, particularly focusing on the ‘generic issues’ and the promotion of the Charter for Farmed Animal Welfare, which are currently under funded.

• The objectives of the strategy are well articulated, evidence based and generally achievable (i.e. there are solutions). The outcomes are measurable.

53 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

C2 Support animal welfare organisations to campaign for an effective mandatory production and provenance labelling regime:

• Mandatory labelling was identified by many participants in our research as crucial to changing public behaviour and attitudes, and to leveraging donor support.

C3 Work closely with animal welfare organisations to encourage them to devote more of their resources to farmed animal welfare

• A relatively modest increase in the proportion allocated to farmed animal welfare by animal welfare charities (e.g. to 15%) would represent a significant windfall for farmed animal welfare.

• Achieving this may depend on the Tubney Charitable Trust offering support to these organisations for advocacy with their members and other supporters.

D: Provide support for fundraising D1 Commission detailed prospect research with charitable trusts, organisations and philanthropists already giving to farmed animal welfare, and with those not already giving.

• This report identifies strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats associated with different donor communities and considers a number of specific potential donors.

• Fundraising would depend on further in-depth prospect research based on the wider case (A.1).

• As far as possible, charities should be encouraged to work together on this prospect research to avoid duplication.

• The purpose of the Tubney Charitable Trust supporting this work is not only to give a boost to fundraising activity by individual organisations promoting farmed animal welfare, but also to bring a coherence and credibility in articulating the wider case for supporting this cause.

54 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

3.3 Expanding the donor community

3.3.1 Awareness and perception of issues Charitable trusts not currently giving to farmed animal welfare show some awareness of the suffering of farmed animals, but generally do not recognise the links between farmed animal welfare and wider issues. Although there may be some sympathy for the cause of farmed animal welfare, the priorities of these trusts (whether family charitable trusts or institutional trusts and foundations) is clearly focused on other issues (children, poverty, development, health, environment, conservation etc). For these, farmed animal welfare is not motivating as an issue – even though there is an awareness.

The world’s faith communities, as the principal guardians of the ethical and moral values in society, clearly have a perception of the importance of care for animals, although this is not generally translated into high welfare production and consumption. The initiative supported by the UN and implemented by the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (see section 2.4.2) provides a good opportunity to widely promote the underpinning ethical and moral imperative for better farmed animal welfare.

Charities and organisations working in (non-farmed) animal welfare are a specific category of those not currently giving to farmed animal welfare. Their priority is avowedly not farmed animals, and although there may be some awareness of the key farmed animal welfare concerns, and an understanding of the ethical case for better farmed animal welfare, there is little knowledge of the links between farmed animal welfare and the wider issues outlined in this report.

Philanthropists and high net worth individuals not currently giving to farmed animal welfare prioritise their support to other, in their view more pressing concerns. However, there will be some awareness of the key farmed animal welfare concerns.

Individuals (members of the public, consumers, citizens) who are not currently donating to farmed animal welfare and who are not seeking out and purchasing high(er) welfare products have a low awareness of and interest in farmed animal welfare. Even those supporting (non- farmed) animal welfare through donations and legacies are unlikely to have any significant awareness of farmed animal welfare (in common with the general public).

3.3.2 Potential for giving from new donors – SWOT analysis The spend of charitable trusts, philanthropists, high net worth individuals and the general public on all charitable areas other than farmed animal welfare is enormous. It dwarfs the support for farmed animal welfare. However, the urgent imperative in the mind of these individuals is hard or impossible to shift towards farmed animal welfare, regardless of how compelling the case is in our minds.

Nevertheless, what would be small sums relative to overall charitable spending in the UK could make a substantial difference in relation to the current spend on farmed animal welfare. The most motivating issues, whose hierarchy of importance will differ according to the differing

55 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

preferences of potential donors, are likely to be human health (zoonoses, antibiotic use and diet-related disease); landscape conservation and heritage; climate change; the ethical imperative; and extending from pets/companion animals to farmed animals.

The tables below present the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) for each of these issues/approaches. Whereas the SWOT analysis for existing donors to farmed animal welfare examined the different types of organisation currently giving, the SWOT analysis below is organised around the different themes that link to wider issues. This is because expanding the donor community will rely upon developing and communicating carefully crafted messages to different constituencies according to their primary interests.

Human health (zoonoses, antibiotic use, diet-related disease)

Strengths Opportunities The largest proportion of charitable spend is A small percentage shift would make a large on human health contribution Strong link between low welfare systems, Diet related disease can be associated with high meat consumption and health risks ‘eat less but higher quality’ Very high on government agenda Public awareness of antibiotics, bird flu and CHD can be exploited

Weaknesses Threats Outdoor rearing of poultry is considered to Potentially engaging links with a heightened increase the risk of some zoonoses risk of zoonoses and antibiotic resistance in human medicine are in their infancy as far as Most health charitable spend is on cancer; the evidence base is considered weak link with farmed animal welfare

Climate change

Strengths Opportunities The biggest motivating issue for change in Link with ‘eat less but of higher quality’ and production and consumption patterns the health benefits associated with this Grassland and grazing rather than R&D to further explore the link between concentrate feed can mitigate climate change climate change, farmed animal welfare, diet by carbon sequestration and health Weakness Threats Conflict between intensification to reduce The scientific basis for climate change climate change impact whilst maintaining mitigation by high welfare systems is not current levels of production and consumption clear/agreed ‘Eat less but of higher quality’ requires major change of public diet – a big ask

56 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Landscape conservation and heritage

Strengths Opportunities Large membership of organisations with Reveal truth to the public ‘behind the farm interest in countryside gate and factory farming shed’ Traditional food, and foodie heritage Link mixed sustainable farming with an associated with higher welfare attractive countryside and high welfare Traditional grassland agriculture may unite supporters of landscape conservation with those supportive of farmed animal welfare and protecting genetic diversity (e.g. rare breeds initiatives, ‘hefted’ sheep) Attractive to ‘older’ trustees Weakness Threats The countryside looks good; difficult to reveal Too much emphasis on these issues may the low welfare systems behind closed doors make FAWF members appear unscientific, romantic and old fashioned – a definite turn- off for some donors

Ethical imperative

Strengths Opportunities Fundamental case for higher welfare is Bring the ‘faith community’ into animal based on ethics/morals welfare debate – communication potential similar to fair trade ‘Faith community’ share a commitment to environmental stewardship Explore link with UN/ARC and care for creation – large spending power seven-year plan initiative and significant control over land management Huge reach in terms of influence and investment over their followers and their agricultural land ownership Social and natural science research to better understand the way in which moral values can inform technical development

Weakness Threats Religious and non-religious traditions have ‘Shoulds’ and ‘oughts’ are guilt inducing and different ethical basis – not universal thus may not be motivating

57 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

Extending from pets/companion animals to farmed animals

Strengths Opportunities In terms of numbers and suffering, farmed Small proportion re-directed to farmed animal animals are a pressing cause compared welfare could help enormously to companion animals Focus on communication to raise public Large funds from public awareness with animal charity members (donations and legacies)

Weakness Threat Low level of understanding of farmed animal Difficulty of giving pet owners welfare issues, so little motivation personal exposure to poor standards of farmed animal welfare

3.3.3 Actions to get new donors for farmed animal welfare Many of the actions proposed to enhance giving from the existing donor community will also be relevant to expanding the donor community. In addition to the actions proposed in Section 3.2.3, we recommend the following.

A: Make the case A2 Support horizon-scanning for new and emerging farmed animal welfare priorities.

• These should consider priorities that have been hitherto undervalued except by Tubney Charitable Trust and the members of FAWF (e.g. dairy cows, livestock transport and slaughter).

• Consideration should also be given to species that are currently neglected except by the Tubney Charitable Trust and FAWF (e.g. ducks, aquaculture, game birds, rabbits).

B: Reach new audiences B1 Support the establishment of a public commission of inquiry into farmed animal welfare:

• The Pew Foundation enquiry on farmed animal welfare in the US and the Stern Report on climate change in the UK both provide models. B.2 Support effective links with UN-sponsored initiative by Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) to develop the world faith seven-year plans to include farmed animal welfare:

• Engage with key faith communities through ARC to support farmed animal welfare- centred seven-year plans. B3 Support the development of the education curriculum to cover farmed animal welfare:

• Develop education curriculum to cover farmed animal welfare, particularly under Citizenship based on the ethical case.

58 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

3.4 Priorities for action

The previous three sections (3.1-3.3) have identified a large number of measures that the Tubney Charitable Trust could take, or support animal welfare organisations to take, that would contribute to a lasting legacy of increased support for farmed animal welfare. They can be summarised as follows:

A: Make the case A1 Support organisations with an interest in animal welfare to develop the wider case for supporting farmed animal welfare, focusing on care for animals, human health, the environment/landscape and climate change. A2 Support horizon-scanning for new and emerging farmed animal welfare priorities.

B: Reach new audiences B1 Develop audience-specific versions of the case for support. B2 Create a Farmed Animal Welfare Funders’ Network to act as ambassadors to key communities of influence, including large donors B3 Support the evaluation of and if appropriate, implementation of major public awareness campaigning. B4 Support animal welfare organisations, other NGOs and interested parties to establish a public commission of inquiry into farmed animal welfare. B5 Support links with UN-sponsored Alliance of Religions and Conservation and its seven-year plan initiative with world faith communities B6 Support animal welfare organisations and other NGOs to develop the education curriculum to cover farmed animal welfare.

C: Lead by example C1 Directly fund implementation of the FAWF strategy. C2 Support campaigning for an effective mandatory production and provenance labelling regime. C3 Work closely with animal welfare charities not solely involved in farmed animal welfare to encourage them to devote more of their resources to farmed animal welfare.

D: Provide support for fundraising D1 Commission detailed prospect research with charitable trusts, organisations and philanthropists already giving to farmed animal welfare, and with those not already giving.

59 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

In evaluating how to prioritise these different measures, it is helpful to consider four factors: • Cost – up front to the Tubney Charitable Trust and in terms of the demand it makes on others’ existing resources committed to farmed animal welfare.

• Return – the direct potential return on that investment in terms of additional resources to support farmed animal welfare (rather than in terms of direct benefits for farmed animal welfare). Measures to underpin other actions are regarded as having a low direct potential return.

• Risk – likelihood of failing to achieve any potential return. • Spread – measures that would support efforts both to increase support from existing donors and to expand the donor community are regarded as having a high spread.

In the following table, we rate the measures identified above for cost, return and spread on a coarse-grained scale of 1 (poor) to 3 (good). We do not rate them for risk because the likelihood of a return is especially difficult to estimate and, as FAWF members already invest considerable effort in fundraising for farmed animal welfare, we expect most low-hanging fruit (very high likelihood of a return on investment) to have been harvested. The three ratings are estimated and weighted equally, and the combined scores are shown in the right-hand column.

60 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Cost Return Spread Priority 1 = high 1 = low 1 = low Score

A1 Support development of the wider case for supporting farmed animal 3 1 3 7 welfare, focusing on care for animals, human health, environment/landscape and climate change

A2 Support horizon-scanning for new and emerging farmed animal welfare 3 1 3 7 priorities

B1 3 2 1 6 Develop audience-specific versions of the case for support

B2 Create a Farmed Animal Welfare Funders’ Network to act as ambassadors 3 2 3 8 to key communities of influence, including large donors

B3 Support the evaluation of and if appropriate the implementation of major 1 3 3 7 public awareness campaigning

B4 Support animal welfare organisations and other NGOs to establish a public 2 1 3 6 commission of inquiry into farmed animal welfare

B5 Support links with UN-sponsored Alliance of Religions and Conservation 2 3 3 7 seven-year plan initiative with world faith communities

B6 Support animal welfare and other NGOs to develop the education 1 1 3 5 curriculum to cover farmed animal welfare

C1 1 1 2 4 Directly fund implementation of the FAWF strategy

C2 Support campaigning for an effective mandatory production and 1 3 3 7 provenance labelling regime

C3 Work closely with animal welfare organisations to devote more of their 3 3 2 8 resources to farmed animal welfare

D1 Commission detailed prospect research with charitable trusts, 2 3 3 8 organisations and philanthropists already giving to farmed animal welfare, and with those not already giving

61 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

Based on this exercise, we recommend prioritising the measures as follows:

• Those scoring 5 or below: might prove useful in leveraging additional funds to support farmed animal welfare, or they may be essential to pursue because of their direct benefits for farmed animal welfare. But they should not be regarded as the highest priorities.

• Those scoring 6: B.1 depends on prospect research and other activities to define those specific audiences, so should be delayed pending those other activities; B.4 could provide wide-reaching benefits but the cost is expected to be relatively high and the direct return low, and it is perhaps better seen as a potential element of a wider public awareness campaign.

• Those scoring 7: two of these (A.1, A.2) are low-cost pieces of analysis and communication that will have a limited direct return but would support a wide range of other measures; B.3 is potentially the highest cost measure but also potentially the most far-reaching, and further work is needed to evaluate the risks and return on investment in greater detail. B.5 has enormous potential in view of the size and influence of the world’s faith communities and the fact that the Alliance of Religions and Conservation is mobilising via the preparation of seven-year plans. C.2 is similar, and its high score is based on the fact that it is already a FAWF strategy commitment. These measures should all be regarded as high priorities.

• Those scoring 8: we regard these (B.2, C.3, D.1) as the top priorities, promising a high return on investment and a widespread effect.

The next steps we advise to pursue these priorities are set out in our conclusions and recommendations.

62 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

4. Conclusions and recommendations

In this report we have summarised the background to our work, described the donor landscape and identified measures the Tubney Charitable Trust and animal welfare organisations could take to leverage wider support for farmed animal welfare. In Section 3.4 we explained why we considered some of these measures to be higher in priority than others. By way of a conclusion, we wish to recommend the following plan of action for Tubney Charitable Trust to pursue these priorities.

Further information on each recommendation is available in Sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.3, where they were set out in greater detail.

Priority Next step

The big wins Immediate

B2 Develop a costed proposal for this Network as a basis for approaching Create a Farmed Animal Welfare Funders’ animal welfare organisations and Network to act as ambassadors to key potential ambassadors to sense- communities of influence, including large check and garner support. Consider donors long-term support for the Network after the Tubney Charitable Trust is wound up

C3 Discuss this issue directly with animal welfare organisations, indicating the Work closely with animal welfare Tubney Charitiable Trust’s willingness organisations to encourage them to devote to invest in internal advocacy more of their resources to farmed animal (potentially including research, welfare meetings with membership and trustees) in support of this priority

D1 Develop a detailed consultancy brief, including target organisations and Support the commissioning of detailed priority themes for prospect research prospect research with charitable trusts, based on the outcome of this study. organisations and philanthropists already Seek input from animal welfare giving to farmed animal welfare, and with organisations to ensure the prospect those not already giving. research achieves maximum benefits for the sector

63 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

Priority Next step

The groundwork Immediate

A1 Commission a small project to develop the wider case for supporting Develop the wider case for supporting farmed animal welfare, drawing on farmed animal welfare, focusing on care for this report, building on the FAWF animals, human health, strategy. The main project output environment/landscape and climate change should be text and potentially other resources for communicating with prospective donors. It should also recommend any ongoing actions should be taken to identify new and emerging farmed animal welfare priorities

A2 Commission horizon-scanning report to identify new and emerging farmed Support horizon-scanning for new and animal welfare issues emerging farmed animal welfare priorities

B3 Organise a meeting of interested parties (including those currently and Support evaluation of and, if appropriate, previously supporting public implementation of major public awareness awareness campaigns) and architects campaigning on farmed animal welfare of successful non-farmed animal welfare campaigns (e.g. Full Stop) to undertake an initial evaluation of the likely return on investment

B5 Establish links with Alliance of Religions and Conservation and Support links with UN sponsored Alliance of relevant organisations to provide high- Religions and Conservation seven-year plan level input to the seven-year plans of initiative with world faith communities the world’s faith communities

C2 Support campaigning for an effective Invite proposals for funding from mandatory production and provenance animal welfare organisations to labelling regime support campaigns on this issue

64 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Priority Next step

On hold Deferred

B1 Review the need for this once the ‘wider case’ project is near reporting Develop audience-specific versions of the and/or the prospect research is in the case for support early stages of being commissioned

B4 Float informally with organisations interested in animal welfare, but do Support establishment of a public not push as a priority commission of inquiry into farmed animal welfare

Primarily relevant to other objectives Reassigned

B6 Support development of the education Evaluate and pursue according to curriculum to cover farmed animal welfare other Tubney Charitable Trust objectives over and above leveraging C1 additional funding Directly fund implementation of the FAWF strategy

To ensure the effective implementation of Farming Tomorrow and optimise support for farmed animal welfare, we recommend the following key actions as of highest priority: i Create a Farmed Animal Welfare Funders’ Network to act as ambassadors for the cause and draw in support from key foundations and philanthropists ii Work towards ensuring that the implementation of the strategy proposed by the Farm Animal Welfare Forum in the report Farming Tomorrow is fully funded iii Work closely with relevant animal charities to encourage them to devote more of their resources to farmed animal welfare iv Commission detailed prospect research in relation both to charitable trusts, organisations and philanthropists already giving to farmed animal welfare, and to those who may be sympathetic but are not already giving v Support the development of the wider case for supporting farmed animal welfare, focusing not only on the ethical imperative of caring for animals but also on making a case – based

65 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

on sound evidence – that highlights the implications for human health, the environment and climate change in particular. To make a robust case for higher-welfare systems, animal welfare organisations will have to place the better energy efficiency on some factory farms in the wider context of natural resource destruction to support grain-fed livestock farming. vi Support horizon-scanning for new and emerging farmed animal welfare priorities, particularly with regard to the links between welfare and other important issues vii Support the evaluation and implementation of major public awareness campaigning viii Support links with the UN-sponsored Alliance of Religions and Conservation so that farm animal welfare can be included in its seven-year plan linking world faith communities ix Support campaigning for an effective, mandatory, production/provenance labelling regime.

66 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Annex 1 On-line survey

Questionnaire on farmed animal welfare

The Tubney Charitable Trust (TCT) is one of the leading grant-makers in the field of farmed animal welfare (FAW). It wants to ensure that animals farmed for meat, eggs and dairy products are properly cared for. This means (among other things) ensuring that their living conditions allow them the freedom to express their natural behaviour and providing access to adequate food, water, space and protection against pain and disease. These are issues that have come more to the forefront through recent campaigning by Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley- Whittingstall to highlight the suffering caused by close confinement of chickens and the benefits of free-range production.

To inform its future strategy the TCT has commissioned EcoS Consultancy Ltd to research the potential to stimulate greater philanthropic funding to improve the welfare of farmed animals in the UK and internationally. This confidential questionnaire is an important element of the research – inviting views from interested and influential parties – that will feed into a report with recommendations to the TCT as to how to leverage in new funding to secure a lasting legacy in this field.

This questionnaire is an opportunity for you – in strict confidence - to express your own views, concerns and priorities relating to farmed animal welfare; to comment on the need for philanthropic giving in this area; and to influence the TCT’s thinking.

The survey consists of: • Three general questions about your views on animal welfare • Four questions on farmed animal welfare and wider issues • Three questions on who you think has the responsibility and the power to improve welfare • A final section for insertion of information about you/your organisation.

The data collected will be presented in a confidential report to the trustees of the TCT and will not be available to any other organisation. A summary, anonymised report containing no confidential details will be available to all who complete the survey.

Please complete the survey by Monday 8th December.

It is easier for us to process the results if you complete the online version at www.ecosconsultancy.co.uk/fawsurvey, but if you prefer you can use this Word version and return it to Christopher Stopes by email ([email protected]) or by post (EcoS Consultancy Ltd, Wood End, Garden Lane Close, Newbury, Berkshire RG14 6PP).

Thank you for your participation.

67 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

1. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please place one cross in each row. Statement Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Don’t agree agree nor disagree know disagree Farmed animals are sentient beings with the capacity to suffer, and should be treated humanely We should respect farmed animals’ natural behaviour Treating farmed animals well has wider benefits for the environment and for society

2. Organisations that work to improve farmed animal welfare are often forced to support some areas of work ahead of others. If you had to choose four top priorities for improving farmed animal welfare from the following list, which would they be? Please mark X for four options only.

Improvement in farm animal welfare – mark X to indicate your top four priorities Top four

Improving the welfare of egg laying hens – eg by phasing out battery cages Improving the welfare of chickens reared for meat – eg by reducing the painful leg problems and heart failure that can be associated with unnaturally fast growth rates Improving the welfare of pigs – eg by avoiding the need for tail docking Improving the welfare of dairy cows – eg by ensuring conditions and management to reduce problems such as lameness Improving the welfare of cattle reared for beef/veal – eg by allowing freedom to graze outdoors Improving the welfare of sheep – eg by reducing the level of painful lameness suffered by many sheep and lambs Improving the welfare of farmed ducks – eg by providing water facilities that allow expression of natural behaviours such as bathing Improving the welfare of farmed fish – eg by ensuring they have enough space during rearing and that they are killed humanely Improving methods of transport and slaughter for all farmed animals to make them less stressful and more humane

3. What were the main factors (eg number of animals affected, severity of problem) that informed how you chose these priorities?

68 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

4. For the Tubney Charitable Trust, farmed animal welfare (FAW) is an important priority in itself. But a number of wider social and environmental issues have some connection to how animals are farmed. If you had to choose priorities in the public interest, which of the following would you rank as more important or less important than improving the welfare of farmed animals? Mark one cross in each row.

Objective Much More A little Neither Less Don’t more important more more nor important know important important less than FAW important Preventing human disease epidemics Tackling obesity and unhealthy eating Avoiding superbugs becoming more resistant to antibiotics Reducing poverty and hunger

Improving farmers’ livelihoods and helping rural communities thrive Preserving landscapes for people to enjoy Ensuring that the countryside supports a wide variety of insects, plants and wildlife Minimising climate change, deforestation, water pollution and other environmental damage

5. If a cross-section of the public had to choose between the same priorities, which do you think they would regard as more important or less important than improving the welfare of farmed animals? Mark one cross in each row.

Objective Much More A little Neither Less Don’t more important more more nor important know important important less than FAW important Preventing human disease epidemics Tackling obesity and unhealthy eating Avoiding superbugs becoming more resistant to antibiotics Reducing poverty and hunger

Improving farmers’ livelihoods and helping rural communities thrive Preserving landscapes for people to enjoy Ensuring that the countryside supports a wide variety of insects, plants and wildlife Minimising climate change, deforestation, water pollution and other environmental damage

69 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

6. Do you think work to improve the welfare of farmed animals is most likely to help or hinder efforts to pursue each of these other objectives? Please mark one X in each row.

Objective Help Hinder Neither Don’t help nor know hinder Preventing human disease epidemics

Tackling obesity and unhealthy eating

Avoiding superbugs becoming more resistant to antibiotics

Reducing poverty and hunger

Improving farmers’ livelihoods and helping rural communities thrive Preserving landscapes for people to enjoy

Ensuring that the countryside supports a wide variety of insects, plants and wildlife Minimising climate change, deforestation, water pollution and other environmental damage

7. In the light of your responses to questions 4, 5 and 6 above, does action to improve the welfare of farmed animals currently get enough funding and other support? Please choose one option only

Level of funding and support Mark one choice only with an X Too much

About right

Not enough

Don’t know

70 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

8. Rank the following sectors that currently provide support for farmed animal welfare, according to which you believe should bear the greatest responsibility to act. Mark an X in one column only on each row to show your rankings.

Sector Most Second- Third- Fourth- Fifth- Sixth- Least responsibility most most most most most Government eg Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Food industry ie farmers, food manufacturers, supermarkets

Charitable trusts, through their support of animal welfare charities and initiatives Individual philanthropists

Animal welfare charities and campaigning NGOs Members of the public as donors eg as members of charities Members of the public as consumers eg through ethical consumption Other (please specify)

9. Rank the same list again, this time according to the level of power you think they have to secure more funding to achieve improvements in the welfare of farmed animals. Mark an X in one column only on each row to show your rankings. Sector Most power Second- Third- Fourth- Fifth- Sixth- Least to secure most most most most most more funding Government eg Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Food industry ie farmers, food manufacturers, supermarkets Charitable trusts, through their support of animal welfare charities and initiatives Individual philanthropists

Animal welfare charities and campaigning NGOs Members of the public as donors eg as members of charities Members of the public as consumers eg through ethical consumption Other (please specify)

71 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

10. Rank the list again, this time according to their potential level of influence on government policy and on farming practice in relation to farmed animal welfare. Mark an X in one column only on each row to show your rankings.

Sector Most influence Second- Third- Fourth Fifth- Sixth- Least on government most most -most most most policy and on farming practice Government eg Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Food industry ie farmers, food manufacturers, supermarkets Charitable trusts, through their support of animal welfare charities/initiatives Individual philanthropists

Animal welfare charities and campaigning NGOs Members of the public as donors eg as members of charities Members of the public as consumers eg through ethical consumption Other (please specify)

11. Do you have any additional comments you wish to make on the issue of farmed animal welfare in the light of our survey questions up to this point?

72 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

12. Which of the following best describe the sector(s) that you and/or your organisation represent? Please mark with an X all that apply

The public sector Food manufacture or food service Farming and agriculture Retail business Other form of business Research and development NGO directly involved in farmed animal welfare Other NGO Charitable trust Individual philanthropist Other (please specify)

13. If you or you/your organisation are/is involved in providing funding to charitable activities, which areas do you support? Please mark with an X all that apply. Area Mark X for all that apply Farmed animal welfare

Companion animal welfare

Wildlife

Environment

Poverty alleviation (UK or international)

Rural heritage / local economy

Education

Social care

Health

Other (please specify)

73 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

14. Please enter your contact details. All information is strictly confidential.

Name

Organisation or company (if applicable) Job title (if applicable) Direct line telephone number Email

15. Thank you for completing this survey. Please mark an X in the relevant boxes if you would like:

Further information on farmed animal welfare

Further information about the Tubney Charitable Trust and the leading farmed animal welfare NGOs with which we work

A short, anonymised summary – containing no confidential information - of the final report from this research

Other (please specify)

Return completed surveys to Christopher Stopes, either by email ([email protected]) or by post (EcoS Consultancy, Wood End, Garden Close Lane, Newbury, Berkshire RG14 6PP).

Thank you.

74 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

Annex 2 Interview questions

The interviews were conducted using an outline template of questions, presented below. This was varied according to the interviewee. The questions were supported by background information and charts to prompt and inform the interviewee.

INTRODUCTION (Follow introduction of Tubney proposal with quantitative information on current funding attributed to FAW compared to other issues. Emphasise that responses are confidential, comments will be used anonymously) (a) Were you aware that so little charitable funding goes to FAW? (b) What are your views of FAW as a charitable cause? (discuss these and tease out positive or negative view and explore reasons behind them) (c) - if +ve. How would you make the case for more funding? (d) – if –ve. What might change your opinion? (explore underlying objections and obstacles from (d) and see what might help overcome them)

DEVELOP THE ISSUES (The key to changing policy is to help people realise that this issue affects everybody’s life. Introduce prompt cards showing the wider issues, as listed in 4, 5 & 6 of the questionnaire, linked with FAW that go beyond the ethical or emotional reasons that underlie companion animal causes) Of the issues connected to FAW on the following cards: Which, if any, do you agree with? Would you (or your organisation) be more likely to support FAW issues if these links were made more apparent? What challenges or barriers do you think might exist to this line of thinking?

Of the following categories of FAW: What would you (or your organisation) regard as the highest priorities? TCT would like to significantly raise the profile of and funding for FAW. How might you advise them to go about this?

FAWF STRATEGY As background to this interview, we sent a summary of the FAWF’s ten year strategy. (a) Does this strategy appeal to you? (b) To keep the focus tight and use funds effectively, the strategy prioritises four areas of welfare (remind them). Do you think this is a good idea? (c) Would you broaden the priorities if funding wasn’t an issue? If so, what would you include? (d) What do you think could be done to encourage more of this type of work?

LEADERSHIP AND INFLUENCE (Explain the importance of strong leadership and of involving people with wealth or the ability to influence wealth in driving change in charitable activity – Anita Roddick, Elton John, Bill Gates, Bob Geldolf, Hugh F- W, Jamie Oliver as examples) (a) In your opinion, who do you think would be the most influential people for TCT to engage, perhaps on a fundraising committee or as ambassadors for FAW? (b) Do you have any influential contacts who may be keen to support FAW and who you think we should interview? (c) Would you (or your organisation) consider lobbying for or funding FAWF’s ten year strategy? (d) Would you (or your organisation) consider supporting TCT’s ambitions to leverage significantly more funding for farmed animal welfare issues? (e) At what level might you be willing to support them? (advocate, influencer, funder) (f) What sort of funding do you think could be raised with the right approach? (g) Have you any advice that you would like to give us from your own experience?

75 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

References

1 Top 3,000 Charities 2008-09. Caritas Data, 2008. 2 ibid 3 ibid 4 Cracknell J, Godwin H. Where the Green Grants Went 3. Environmental Funders’ Network, 2007. 5 UK Giving 2007. London: CAF/NCVO, 2007. 6 ibid 7 UK Giving 2008. London: CAF/NCVO, 2007. 8 UK Giving 2007. London: CAF/NCVO, 2007. 9 ibid 10 PETA is a US-based international organisation with a fundraising and campaigning presence in the UK. The income figures presented here represent its global incoming resources, not just funds raised in the UK. The other six charities featured are all UK based. 11 Annual reports of charities 12 Information supplied to EcoS Consultancy by the RSPCA for this report. 13 Defra 2008 Departmental Report. London: The Stationery Office, 2008. See http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/deprep/2008/chapter11.pdf 14 ibid 15 iIbid 16 ibid 17 Quicke M. ‘Threats and opportunities for charities and the charity sector that arise from the current financial and economic environment’. CCLA Investment Management, November 2008. 18 Castel V, Gerber P, de Haan C, Rosales M, Steinfeld H, Wassenaar T. Livestock’s Long Shadow. Rome: UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2007 19 http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/organisation/index.html 20 Delivering the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy in England. London: Defra, 2004. 21 Cracknell J, Godwin H. Where the Green Grants Went 3. Environmental Funders’ Network, 2007. 22 Mercer B. Green Philanthropy – Funding Charity Solutions to Environment Problems. London: New Philanthropy Capital, 2007. 23 Voluntary Sector Almanac 2004 and Civil Society Almanac 2008. London: NCVO, 2004 and 2008. 24 Hartley V. ‘Will the credit crunch make the business benefit of CCI paramount?’ Charity Market Monitor 2008. Volume 2. 25 Pharaoh C, Pincher M. ‘Corporate slowdown?’ Caritas, December 2008. 26 Quicke M. op cit 27 The role of wealth advisors in offering philanthropy services. Scorpio Partnership/New Philanthropy Capital, 2008. 28 Hatch D, O’Connor D. Fundraising in a Cold Climate. Dublin: 2into3 Consultancy, 2008. 29 ibid 30 Managing in a Downturn. London: PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2008. 31 FAWF member organisations annual reports and accounts and estimates by project team. 32 FAWF member organisations annual reports and accounts and estimates by project team. 33 ’Views on the ground’. Trust and Foundation News 84, December 2008. 34 Cracknell J, Godwin H. Where the Green Grants Went 3. Environmental Funders’ Network, 2007. 35 Survey Monkey see www.surveymonkey.com 36 Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection. ‘Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals’. Brussels: European Commission, 2005. 37 Turner J. Stop – Look – Listen: Recognising the Sentience of Farm Animals. Petersfield: Compassion in World Farming Trust, 2006. 38 Fearnley-Whittingstall H 2004 The River Cottage Meat Book Hodder & Stoughton 39 Budiansky, S 1992 The Covenant of the Wild Harper Collins 40 Turner op cit 41 Turner op cit 42 The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs. EU Scientific Veterinary Committee. Brussels: European Commission, 1997. 43 Pye-Smith C. Batteries Not Included – Organic Farming and Animal Welfare. Bristol: Soil Association, 2003.

76 CONFIDENTIAL EcoS Consultancy Ltd

44 Turner op cit 45 http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html 46 http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/geneticresources/Access/In-Situ/ChurchCommisioners.asp 47 Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) see http://www.arcworld.org

48 UN/ARC seven-year plans – see http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectId=358 49 A Humanist Discussion of Animal Welfare. London: British Humanist Association, 2007. 50 Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection. ‘Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals’. Brussels: European Commission, 2005. 51 Darwin CR. The Descent of Man. London: John Murray, 1871. 52 De Waal F. The Ape and the Sushi Master. London: Penguin Press Science, 2002. 53 Griffin, D. Animal Minds: From Cognition to Consciousness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. 54 Dawkins M. Through Our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. 55 Midgley, M. Animals and Why They Matter. University of Georgia Press, 1984. 56 Our Common Future – Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. New York: United Nations, 1987. 57 Walker P, Rhubart-Berg P, McKenzie S, Kelling K, Lawrence RS. Public health implications of meat production and consumption. Public Health Nutrition 2005; 8(4): 348–56. 58 Pastushenko V, Matthes HD, Hein T and Holzer Z. ‘Impact of cattle grazing on meat fatty acid composition in relation to human nutrition’, in Alfoldi T, Lockeretz W and Niggli U (eds.), IFOAM 2000 – The World Goes Organic – Proceedings of the 13th International IFOAM Scientific Conference (2000). 59 Enser M, Hallet K, HewettB, Fursey CAJ, Wood JD and Harrington, ‘Fatty acid content and composition of UK beef and lamb muscle in relation to production system and implication for human nutrition’, Meat Science (1996) 41. 60 Marmer WN, Maxwell RJ and Williams JE. ‘Effects of dietary regime and tissue site on bovine fatty acid profiles’. Journal of Animal Science 59 (1984). 61 Flachowsky G. ‘Content of conjugated linoleic acid in beef from organically raised cattle’, Ernahrungs-Umschau 47 (2000). 62 Pariza M. USDA research, University of Wisconsin, New Scientist, 22 April 2000. 63 Cook ME and Pariza M, 1998, ‘The role of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in health’, International Dairy Journal 8 (1998). 64 World Health Organisation. ‘Antibiotic use in food-producing animals must be curtailed to prevent increased resistance in humans’, press release WHO/73, 20 October 1997. 65 Collignon PJ. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci and use of avoparcin in animal feed: is there a link? Medical Journal of Australia 1999; 171: 144–6. 66 JETACAR. The Use of Antibiotics in Food-Producing Animals: Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria in Animals and Humans. Report of the Joint Expert Advisory Committee on Antibiotic Resistance (JETACAR). Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care, 1999. 67 Narrod C, Sims L. Understanding Avian Influenza. Rome: UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2008. 68 Castel V et al op cit 69 Capacity Building to Implement Good Animal Welfare Practices, FAO Expert meeting, 30 Sept – 3 Oct 2008, FAO, Rome. See http://www.fao.org/Ag/AGAInfo/home/documents/AW_Exp-meeting.pdf 70 Bambrick HJ, McMichael AJ. ‘Meat consumption trends and health: casting a wider risk assessment net’. Public Health Nutrition 8 (4), 2005. 71 ibid 72 Harvey, G. ‘Time to go against the grain’. Guardian, November 5, 2008. 73 ibid 74 Tudge C. So Shall We Reap. London: Penguin, 2003. 75 ‘A livestock meltdown is occurring as hardy African, Asian, and Latin American farm animals face extinction’. Press release from the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, 3 September 2007. 76 Shogren E and Fulmer M. ‘EPA widens rules for US farms’. Los Angeles Times, December 17, 2002. 77 Cook C. Diet for a Dead Planet. New York (2006): The New Press. 78 Castel V et al op cit 79 ibid 80 Best Farming Practices – Profit from a Good Environment. Bristol: Environment Agency, 2008.

77 ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT TO IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS CONFIDENTIAL

81 http://www.grasslands-trust.org/page.php?pageid=5 82 Castel V et al op cit 83 ibid 84 ibid 85 ibid 86 ibid 87 Hall DO, Scurlock JMO. ‘The global carbon sink: a grassland perspective’. Global Change Biology Vol 4 Issue 2, 2002. 88 Harvey, G. The Carbon Fields – How our countryside can save Britain. Grass Roots Books 2008 89 ibid 90 Castel V et al op cit 91 Calculations based on data from 2002 Census of Agriculture, USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Cited in Cook C. Diet for a Dead Planet. New York: The New Press, 2006. 92 Organic Works: Providing More Jobs through Organic Farming and Local Food Supply. Bristol: Soil Association, 2006. 93 Capacity Building to Implement Good Animal Welfare Practices, FAO Expert meeting, 30 Sept – 3 Oct 2008, FAO, Rome. See http://www.fao.org/Ag/AGAInfo/home/documents/AW_Exp-meeting.pdf 94 Grant making by UK Trusts and Charities ACF/CAF. January 2007 95 UK Giving 2007. London: CAF/NCVO, 2007 96 ibid 97 ibid 98 ibid 99 Guide to UK Company Giving 2007-08. Directory of Social Change, 2008.

78