Sustainable development and animal welfare in the Dutch livestock production sector : a discourse analysis

i

Sustainable Development and Animal Welfare

in the Dutch livestock production sector:

a discourse analysis

January 2016

Author: Bas Hoitzing

Supervisor: Dhr. Marcel C. Hanegraaff

Second reader (provisional): Dhr. dr. Robin J. Pistorius

i

Preface

Before I begin I'd like to say thanks to all the people who answered my questions by email or on the phone, as well as my supervisor Marcel Hanegraaff and the second reader Robin Pistorius. Special thanks to Eva Fransen, Mark Helmerhorst, Ferry Leenstra, Maarten Leseman, Renske Nijdam and Ruud Pothoven for the time you took to meet up and help me along, and finally my parents for only bothering me minimally while I was busy.

ii

Table of Contents

Preface...i

Abbreviations ...iv

Tables & Figures...iv

1. Introduction

1.2 Research Design...3

2. Theoretical Framework

2.2 Analyzing discourse and power...6

2.2.1 Foucault and discourse...6

2.2.2 Discourse studies...8

2.2.3 Power...9

2.3 Methodology: How to analyze the relevant discourses...11

2.4 Conclusion...15

3. The Dutch livestock sector

3.2 Post-WWII development of the Dutch livestock sector...18

3.2.1 Expansion and Industrialization...18

3.2.2 Political and societal developments...21

3.3 Ecological modernization and Ecologism...24

3.4 Conclusion...26

4 Sustainable Development & Animal Welfare

4.2 Topics: Semantic Macrostructures...29

4.2.1 Secretary of State of economic affairs...29

ii

4.2.3 Interest Organizations...34

4.3 Local meanings: influencing mental models...37

4.3.1 Negative versus positive frames...38

4.3.2 Metaphors, presumptions and implied meanings...40

4.4 Discourse structuration and institutionalization...42

4.5 Conclusion: effects of discourse on policy and agenda...46

5. Theoretical Reflection

6. Conclusion

iv

Abbreviations

FAO...Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations CDA...Critical Discourse Analysis

SCA...Sociocognitive Approach

ADA...Argumentative Discourse Analysis

WUR...Wageningen University and Research Center

Tables & Figures

Table 3.1 Development of agricultural sector 1950-2000...19

Figure 3.1 Volume developments of the agricultural sector (1960 indexed as 100...19

Figure 3.2 Chicken farm...21

1

1. Introduction

Livestock production and agriculture in general are quite boring subjects for a laymen. Thank goodness for the documentary Cowspiracy (2014) (popular on Netflix) which has gotten a lot of views and provoked many people including myself to start paying attention to livestock production. Turns out it is very important for our future (and not even that boring). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) tells us that livestock is the world's largest user of land resources: adding grazing land to cropland for the production of livestock feed accounts for almost 80% of the worlds agricultural land (FAO, 2016). It is a major contributor to deforestation, water use, emission of greenhouse gases and thereby reducing biodiversity (FAO, 2013: 52). Feeding an animal and then feeding on the animal is of course less efficient than eating a primary product. At the same time meat consumption in the western world has long past the level of healthy amounts. Thus I started wondering why we keep producing and consuming so much meat and dairy, and what is going on exactly in the Netherlands?

1.1 Problem definition

What I found interesting in my initial exploration of the subject was that there seemed to be conflicts of interest between two types of interest organization which I instinctively put in the same boat. Animal and environmental activists tend to get along, but concerning livestock there a number of issues that problematize this relation. Animal activists want slow growing breeds and biological feed, unfortunately this requires more land use. Environmental activists want to reduce emissions of ammonia which is doable by installing air cleaners, unfortunately this requires the stable to be closed off so the animals can't go outside. At the same time, the concept of sustainable development kept popping up pretty much everywhere. Both intensive and extensive producers, large scale and small scale, were claiming to be a 'sustainable development', how is this possible? This puzzle initiated my research. Clearly some language game was being played here, and I wanted to figure it out. I'd argue this is an important issue especially for consumers as they need some clarity to

2

make informed choices.

Moreover, I was concerned about the gloom and doom predictions coming from scientists and activists on the future of humanity if we don't radically change our lifestyles. Are we really destroying our environment to the point of no return? Thus my interest moved to the political realm, what is being done about this and why? Combining my two main interests I arrived at the following research question: How does the framing of the issues of

sustainable development and animal welfare influence the political agenda and adopted policies on livestock production in the Netherlands?

In academic literature I found mountains of papers concerning sustainable development. Extensive theoretical reflections on the concept and empirical research on mostly energy use. It is quite rare to see animal welfare as an integral part of sustainable development. Examining both concepts and analyzing how their connection is conceptualized in public discourse will be a good addition to the literature (see e.g. Rawles, 2006; Tanzer and Longoria, 2007; Munasinghe, 2013; Garcia, 2000; Gallopin, 2003). Furthermore, most critical discourse studies are about uncovering social inequalities. The focus is always on revealing inequalities between groups of people (e.g. see Wodak, 2009; Caborn, 2007; Van Dijk, 2003, 2009, 2011; Fairclough, Mulderrig and Wodak, 2011; Phillips and Hardy, 1997). This study will also address the inequalities across species, which opens it up to a different debate entirely. Also, this study will not follow Van Dijk and others in the idea that a critical discourse study has to be critical only on the dominant group/discourse, I think it is more fruitful to take a general critical stance towards all discursive practices and try to reveal their impact on our thoughts and actions so we can make better informed decisions for our own lives.

3

1.2 Research Design

The objects of study in this thesis are the concepts of sustainable development and animal welfare, the use of these concepts by actors who have interest and influence in the Dutch livestock sector, and the effects of this usage on the political agenda and policies concerning the Dutch livestock sector. A qualitative approach is merited because the research is in part on a phenomenon (effect framing has on agenda-setting & policy) on which little research has been done. Qualitative research is often exploratory and useful when the researcher does not yet know the important variables to examine (Creswell, 2003: 22).

Different qualitative methods exist to analyze discursive practices. The research question links language and politics, discourse and power. This makes Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) the obvious choice (Antaki, 2008: 432). Within CDA a number of approaches are available (see Wodak, 2009). A premise of my research is that language influences our perception of reality. When I question the influence of framing, I'm also referring to what it does to people's minds, their cognition. Therefore I have chosen to use Van Dijk's (2003, 2009, 2011) Socio-cognitive Approach (SCA) to analyze the discourses relevant to sustainable development and animal welfare. In order to analyze the effect of discursive practices on political practices I will also make use of Hajer's (1995, 1996) argumentative discourse analysis (ADA), which he developed in order to study discourse in policy and which allows me to analyze the extent to which a discourse is dominant or not. The main idea will then be to analyze the discourse(s) with the SCA in order to get a clear picture of their content and the effects that adopting a specific discourse will have on one's ideas and actions. Then through ADA determine whether a discourse is dominant. Then the outcome can be that there is no dominant discourse, making the influence of framing negligible. Or a dominant discourse which has no real consequences for policy decisions, also making its influence negligible. But a dominant discourse which has elements (frames) that do matter will be expected to have influence and this should then be reflected in adopted policies and the political agenda. I will argue that ecological modernization as a discourse and its frames of sustainable development, animal welfare and their connection is dominant and relevant. Thus policy documents, speeches by government officials and the political agenda will be examined in order to test whether influence from the discourse is present. More on

4

methodology in chapter 2.

For this study I also conducted a number of 'helicopter' interviews (45 min - 2 hours) with people who are all in some way connected to the Dutch livestock sector in order to get a better grip on what is going on at this time in the sector and inquire whether I was thinking in the right direction, asking the right questions, reading the right texts, etc. These were: Eva Fransen (project leader 'food' for Natuur & Milieu), Mark Helmerhorst (policy advisor for ministry of economic affairs), Ferry Leenstra (project manager at Wageningen University and Research Center (WUR) - Livestock Research, Maarten Leseman (Public Affairs at LTO, farmers lobby), Renske Nijdam (advisor environmental and health issues for the GGD West-Brabant, a health authority), and Ruud Pothoven (project leader NGB, a pig and chicken farm under development).

The study is structured as follows. In chapter 2 a theoretical framework will be given where I will discuss discourse, power, and how to study them. In chapter 3 a lot of context will be given by a descriptive history of the Dutch livestock sector, developments in politics and society, and the main two discourses present in the public debate. Chapter 4 is most of the empirical analysis. Both SCA and ADA will be applied to important actors active in the public debate and also policy documents, speeches and the political agenda will be examined. Chapter 5 consists of a short theoretical reflection and Chapter 6 concludes this study.

5

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Introduction

Discourse in this study is defined as "an ensemble of ideas, concepts and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices" (Hajer and Versteeg, 2005: 175). The concepts of sustainable development and animal welfare can be viewed as vital elements of a discourse of livestock production in the Netherlands. A conceptualization translated into a set of words, texts, images and other discursive practices is what is meant with a frame in this study. Different frames of animal welfare and sustainable development correspond to different, conflicting opinions on how to further develop the Dutch livestock sector. The existing frames of animal welfare and sustainable development are part of the larger discourse of livestock production in the Netherlands and a vast amount of overlapping discourses on other issues and general phenomena. This study will use discourse analysis to analyze which discursive practices are dominant and how pervasive they are, and assess the effects they have on the political agenda and policy concerning livestock production in the Netherlands. This chapter gives a theoretical overview of the study of discourse and power and specifies which concrete methods are used and why.

6

2.2 Analyzing discourse and power

2.2.1 Foucault and discourse

The study of discourse could be traced back to classical rhetoric as the study of being a good speaker (ars bene dicendi) and the technique of persuasion (ars persuandendi). Contemporary discourse studies emerged from developments in a variety of fields within the humanities in the sixties and seventies. (Van Dijk, 2011: 1) Many discourse studies build on work from Foucault who argued that discourses emerge due to systems of exclusion, the negative moment of exclusion coincides with the positive moment of production of discourse (Foucault, 1981: 52). Language influences our perception of reality, but discourse is more than just language. Excluding actions, ideas, perspectives/viewpoints, definitions, speech acts, imagery, texts, etc. produces a particular discourse which as a whole structures our perception of reality. And this is never the only valid perception, producing a discourse can thus be seen as forcing one of many alternatives onto social reality. (Foucault, 1981) Which offers us the insight that a particular discourse being studied should not just be analyzed by focusing on its existing elements, but also by scrutinizing what is absent. As what is absent is infinite in size, it is important to have well reasoned arguments why the absence of something is significant, why it should be included in the set of things that could potentially be part of the discourse and its absence be considered the exclusion of a viable alternative.

Foucault (ibid: 52-56) mentions three procedures of exclusion. The first is prohibition, through taboos and exclusive speaking rights. Especially in the areas of politics and sexuality, not everyone can talk about everything. Secondly there is division and rejection (ibid: 53-54), where the discursive practices of one (the madman) are deemed inferior to those of another (man with reason). Those with authority can have great influence by rejecting certain actors for whatever reason, eliminating them from the discourse. When studying the effects of the framing of animal welfare and sustainable development it is therefore important to analyze whether alternative views/actions/ideas/perspectives are rejected and in what way. This rejection may tell us something about what is effectively excluded from the political agenda.

7

Thirdly there is the opposition between true and false (ibid: 54-55). Foucault describes a history of different phases where the range of objects to be known has evolved alongside the functions and positions of the knowing subject, of the material, technical and instrumental investments of knowledge. Basically the 'will to truth' in its contemporary form is the result of this history. This contemporary form (when Foucault was writing) was grounded in the natural, the sincere and in the sciences, the 'true' discourses. But as society keeps changing, we need to extrapolate Foucault's thinking into the 21st century.

I would argue that since the time of Foucault, the situation has evolved again to be significantly different. The sciences are regarded with much more skepticism and sometimes disregarded completely by the public (e.g. climate change deniers, anti-vaccine activists). Information about pretty much anything is available to pretty much everyone (Western world) through the internet. Many issues have a plethora of contradicting information from different sources. This allows alternative discourses to have a greater chance of success in assaulting a dominant discourse. More important to the will to truth has become the argumentative, somewhat trivializing the scientific and academic. This means that the distinction between true and false has become more of a contest between and among politicians and media outlets who often use experts/scientists to back them up to further increase their authority, which arguably reduces them to political tools, especially if experts disagree among themselves and one can 'forum shop'.

Giddens (1991) and Beck (1992) argue along these lines when discussing the reflexive modernity and risk society. Issues are becoming so complex that laymen have no way of grasping all the pro's and con's, all the risks and consequences. "The reflexivity of modernity operates, not in a situation of greater and greater certainty, but in one of methodological doubt. Even the most reliable authorities can be trusted only 'until further notice'; and the abstract systems that penetrate so much of day-to-day life normally offer multiple possibilities rather than fixed guidelines or recipes for action" (Giddens, 1991: 84). This is crucial to take into account when analyzing the discourses of livestock production in the Netherlands, as being the dominant voice which best resounds with the public, can be argued to be of greater importance than scientific findings concerning what is deemed true or false, relevant or irrelevant. Discourse becomes more important in a reflexive society filled with uncertainties.

8

2.2.2 Discourse studies

Alongside the philosophical work of Foucault, Van Dijk (2011: 1-3) describes how different fields started working with discourse around the same time. Anthropologists started including communicative events in general into their ethnographies. Sociologists started analyzing interaction and conversations in detail. Linguists noticed that while studying language one should not limit oneself to the grammatical analysis of isolated sentences, but focus also on the 'structures, strategies and processes of the cognitively and socially situated text and talk of real language users' (ibid: 1). Cognitive psychologists no longer bound by behaviorism gave new importance to the role of knowledge and other mental representations concerning the study of the processes of language production, and grew their scope of research from sentences to discourse. In the eighties some social psychologists argued that psychologists should not just focus on laboratory studies but also study discourse, interaction and the way these construe reality as well as the mind. The students of communication were always interested in dissecting the meaning of messages and their effects on recipients and society, and their approaches have gradually been complemented with more detailed qualitative, discourse analytical, and conversational analytical methods. Semiotics emerged, giving us insights in the importance of non-linguistic aspects of communication, how signs can be transmitted through mediums other then text or speech. Thus today we observe discourse studies using tools such as language use, verbal interaction, conversations, texts, communicative events (speeches etc.) and multimodal messages (combining linguistic, visual, audio, gestural and spatial aspects, e.g. campaign add with specific language, music, images, body language and camera angles) (ibid: 2). Discourse is of course not limited to expression and meaning, but also includes actions. Actions serve as a context which also contributes to meaning and understanding. Studying the influence of context, or 'pragmatics' is increasingly overlapping with discourse studies (ibid). Lastly, developments in cognitive science and artificial intelligence are starting to contribute with more formal analyses of discourse which might end up adding to our comprehension of discourse cause and effects (e.g. human-machine interactions, automatic translation programs). Modern discourse studies are a dynamic cross-discipline represented in 'virtually all areas of the humanities and social sciences, history, literature, and -

9

surprisingly quite modestly as yet - in political science (ibid: 3). For political science discourse is interesting because the way we act, think, and talk about an issue influences and reflects the way we act in relation to that issue (basic premise of discourse theory) (Karlberg, 2005: 1) and as soon as we find that the way we act, think and talk about a particular issue are in part determined by specific people, groups or institutions, a strong connection emerges between power and discourse.

Both Van Dijk and Hajer have put a lot of effort in studying the ways in which a discourse becomes/remains dominant and its causes and effects. Their work will provide the tools for the empirical analysis in this study (more on this in §2.3).

2.2.3 Power

There are many definitions of and perspectives on power. This study focuses on a very particular and narrow sense of power. The main research question concerns the effects of specific frames of animal welfare and sustainable development and associated discursive practices on the political agenda and policy, to which three forms of power are found to be relevant. Firstly the power in discourse, which resides in the constrictions, delimitations and direction that a particular perception of reality imposes on our actions and thoughts. For instance, most people perceive animal welfare as important, but not as important as human welfare. All kinds of discursive practices produce and reinforce this notion. Think of the how we have different words for animal body parts compared to human in Dutch ('hoofd' vs 'kop'), how we brand humans who display unwanted, 'lesser' behavior as 'animals', how we tend to use animals with human interests in mind (pets for comfort and companionship, livestock for food, wildlife for entertainment), how human suffering is deemed worse than animal suffering, etc. This is a valid and dominant perspective. It is part of the reason why we treat animals the way we do, and why we legislate the way we do. This is what I mean with the power in discourse, it is not necessarily wielded by people in positions of authority but they are subject to it like everyone else, it is something people are mostly not consciously aware of.

Because of the power in discourse, people in authority positions and those seeking to be, fight for dominance of their own discursive practices. One could argue that this is a discursive practice itself part of our contemporary 'political discourse' or 'governance

10

discourse' (interesting meta-discourse analysis!), but more than that, as Fairclough, Mulderrig and Wodak (2011: 360) argue, the importance of language in social life has increased and led to a greater level of conscious intervention to control and shape discursive practices in order to achieve economic, political and institutional goals. Think of the spin-doctors and intricately fabricated campaign adds. This results into a form of power from discourse where actors use discursive practices consciously as strategies to further their goals. In essence it is not much different from what I above called power in discourse, but I think it is useful to differentiate between on the one hand power through the effects of a discourse itself of which its users are mostly unaware, and on the other hand conscious strategies where discursive practices are used as tools to gain power. This is relevant to this study also in a different way. When discursive practices are used as a tool by political actors, this means that the ones deploying this tool have a set goal in mind: to influence the perceptions of people in order to win them over to their ideological side, and thus gain support for the their values and associated preferred policies. Expected then, are that the frames that these actors put forward are somewhat hyperbolic and make use of a number of 'discursive tactics' in order to maximize effect. This creates distinct, visible alternatives which are easier to identify.

To make an assessment of the influence of specific frames of animal welfare and sustainable development on the political agenda and policies, it is important to establish which frames are dominant among powerful actors and can thus be expected to be reflected in policy, and juxtapose this with one or a few alternative frames which gives insight into the full spectrum of possible ways of thinking, talking and acting about livestock production which illuminates the constrictions of the dominant frame and lets us infer what is effectively excluded from the political agenda.

Lastly, for this study it is impossible to ignore the power of structure and agency aspects that determine our political agenda and the policy formation process. It is a limited group of people who have the bulk of the influence. There is power in being situated in key positions in our structure of governance, regardless of how one got there in the first place. Therefore it is the discursive practices of these people, groups or parties who are the main focus of this study. And thus the relevant set of actors is all who have influence on the discursive practices of these structurally powerful actors.

11

The power in discourse has its greatest influence through agents in key structural positions. This formal authority can provide actors with a measure of control and influence within the existing institutional frame, while the discursive processes allow them and others with less formal authority (e.g. interest groups, opposition parties, scientific experts) to constitute or reinforce the institutional frame itself. The relevant discourse(s) to analyze are then uncovered by inventorying which actors are relevant to the setting of the agenda and the formation of policy. A pluralist framework like this is also used by others in order to study effects of discursive practices (see Phillips and Hardy, 1997; Caborn, 2007)

2.3 Methodology: How to analyze the relevant discourses

It is not in the scope of this thesis to study the entirety of discursive practices used by all the actors in the livestock sector. The main research question already narrows down the object of study. The focus lies on the frames of sustainable development and animal welfare within the discourses. As described in §2.2.2, discourse analysis/studies is a multi-disciplinary discipline and it has a wide arrange of different methodologies available. None of these fits perfectly with the research question and aims of this study, but I can lend tools from different approaches. §1.2 already mentioned CDA, which makes sense because the object of study is on effects of discursive practices on politics. The common ground between different approaches within CDA is discourse, critique, power and ideology (Wodak, 2009: 4). "Power is another concept which is central for CDA, as it often analyses the language use of those in power, who are responsible for the existence of inequalities" (ibid: 9) and "Most critical discourse analysts would thus endorse Habermas's claim that 'language is also a medium of domination and social force. It serves to legitimize relations of organized power. Insofar as the legitimization of power relations .. are not articulated, .. language is also ideological' " (Habermas quoted in ibid: 10). This fits nicely with described framework in §2.2.3 of power in discourse alongside the importance of structure and agency. Within CDA there are a number of different approaches which range from being more focused on agency or structure, and having a broad or detailed linguistic operationalization (ibid: 22). Of these approaches the SCA of Van Dijk is chosen to be the most useful one for the purposes of this study, supplemented by tools given by Hajer's ADA in order to establish whether a discourse is dominant.

12

The SCA is grounded in social representation theory (Wodak, 2009: 25; Van Dijk, 2003: 354). This theory focuses on the connection between discourse, cognition and society. Cognition meaning the set of functions of the mind, such as thought, perception and (mental) representation (Van Dijk, 2009: 64). Actors are reliant upon collective frames of perceptions or 'social representations' in addition to their individual experiences. Thus we have an overlapping system of discourses which affects the individual cognitive system. This goes hand in hand with power in discourse described above (§2.2.3). Discourse analysis always accounts for some of the structures, functions and strategies of spoken and written language. This can include grammatical, pragmatic, interactional, stylistic, rhetorical, semiotic, narrative, argumentative or similar forms and meanings of the verbal, paraverbal and multimodal structures of communicative events (ibid). What sets SCA aside is taking into account the subjective mental representations of the elements of a discourse and the discourse itself (or: mental models and context models). Other things to take into account are knowledge and its organization, ideology, attitudes (normative beliefs on issues). These together form a context to empirical data in form of text and speech.

The analysis will start with semantic macrostructures; global meanings, topics or themes of sustainable development and animal welfare. It is these that represent the meaning or information most readers/listeners will memorize best of a discourse. They are characteristically expressed in titles, abstracts, summaries and announcements (ibid: 68). Next, local meanings are analyzed. The meaning of words (conceptualizations), the structures of and relationships between propositions, presuppositions, and other semantic aspects. These semantic aspects most directly influences the mental models, and thus the opinions and attitudes of the reader/listener (ibid). Local meanings can be controlled by context models. For instance, not all local meanings are fit to be used in a particular institutional setting (formal discourse is used in parliament, while a casual version is more fit in a bar). Context models are expressed by a schema consisting of a spatiotemporal setting, the participants, their identities, roles, relationships, goals, knowledge, ideologies, and the ongoing social action. For SCA it is interesting to study the many forms of implicit or indirect meanings, such as implications, presuppositions, allusions, vagueness and so on (ibid: 70). Mental models for a discourse include these implicit or implied propositions that are not present in its semantic representation, and need to be inferred from the explicit

13

propositions from empirical data. Part of these mental models is also the interpretation of (communicative or other) events, and considers that different actors can interpret the same event differently. Context and mental models and global and local meaning will together give a description of a discourse that can be then used to infer what (according to followers of that discourse) should be on the political agenda, and what kind of measures and language should be reflected in policy. The extent to which this is translated to the actual political agenda and actual policies, is then a test for the relevance of discursive practices for these political practices. Of course it is still important to assess the positions the discourses under scrutiny have in our political system. Only a discourse that is used by influential actors is expected to be reflected in the agenda and policies. Intuitively a dominant discourse should be more influential than a marginal one. Thus what also needs to be part of the methodology is analyzing the dominance of the discourses.

A previous discourse analysis on the Dutch livestock sector identified one dominant and pervasive discourse and one relatively weak challenger discourse (Bottinga, 2013). Scientific experts advising government and all political parties (except for the animal party) as well as the main agricultural lobby (LTO) are participants of the ecological modernization discourse, which is deemed dominant. Ecologism as an alternative has only been adopted by the animal party and some interest organizations (mostly environmental and/or animal activists). More later on these discourses (§3.3), both are key ideological positions which have associated frames on sustainable development. These two (and the main differences between them concerning sustainable development and animal welfare) are taken as a starting point point. Hajer's ADA provides tools that will be used to analyze whether the situation is still the same or whether significant changes have occurred. This is important because otherwise conclusions on the effect of discursive on political practices might be uninformed. Let's assume hypothetically that no strong reflection of ecological modernization is found in today's agenda and recent policies. It is only when ecological modernization is found to be dominant and pervasive in the political sphere that the conclusion can be drawn that the effect of discursive practices here is insignificant. Because only a dominant or hegemonic (i.e. only one discourse available) discourse would be expected to be reflected in the first place.

14

Hajer views politics as a struggle for discursive dominance, where actors seek to make their definition of social reality prevalent (Hajer, 1995: 59). In this struggle actors try to win over others by producing credibility, acceptability and trust. Only when actors deem a position credible can they accept it, and trust makes acceptance easier and faster. Also important is that a variety of actors can find common ground in a certain storyline which allows for agreement on a specific issue or phenomena and the formation of a discourse coalition. Storylines reduce complex issues and discourses to shallow, short statements often using metaphors, analogies, historical references, clichés, and emotional appeals (ibid: 63). Take for instance the terms 'bio-industry' and 'pig factories' often used by animal activists, in order to draw the analogy between how some pigs are kept in farms and how fabricated products are made in industrial factories. Adopting a storyline positions you in a coalition. The tendency of different actors with a wide range of opinions, values and goals to form coalitions gives the useful insight that scrutiny beyond adherence to a storyline is required.

In order to bring the above mentioned concepts in practice, one should be able to link discourse to power and dominance and also assess its influence (ibid: 303). To determine dominance Hajer uses the concepts of discourse structuration and institutionalization (Hajer, 1996: 71). Structuration is achieved when a discourse is powerful enough to dominate how an actor conceptualizes the world. Institutionalization is achieved when a discourse is solidified in institutional arrangements. An actor then acts in practice according to the tenets of the discourse. If both are achieved a discourse is dominant. Note that this leaves open the question of pervasiveness. For a small group of people in an isolated part of the country a discourse can even be hegemonic, even though it is completely irrelevant for everyone else. In this study a discourse's dominance tells us something about and strength of its effects. Its pervasiveness through society and politics tells us something about the extent to which these effects are present.

15

2.4 Conclusion

This study analyzes discourse and its effects on the political agenda and policies, or: the effect of particular discursive practices on particular political practices. Theory from Foucault, Beck, Giddens, Van Dijk en Hajer on discourse, social reality and power, give a framework that helps do this. Knowledge is socially constructed, as are our perceptions of reality. The context of mainstream sources of information available and consumed by almost everyone creates socially shared perceptions and global meanings. The reflexivity of modernity and contemporary widespread uncertainties concerning risk and global issues enhance the relevance and significance of these shared perceptions. Dominant discourses affect the ideas, opinions and actions of people on a wide range of issues as they confirm a set of beliefs and practices while excluding others. This form of power over thoughts and behavior will have some amount of influence on the political agenda and policy. How a discursive practice influences a political one is strongly dependant on the context and content of the discourse. This will be analyzed using the tools of SCA provided by Van Dijk (semantic macrostructures, local meanings, context models, implicit meanings, presuppositions, ideology, etc.). These will be applied on those actors relevant for the concrete case of the study. Then we have an overview of the important discourse(s) content and context. Where and to what extent discursive practices are expected to be reflected in policy and agenda topics is determined by analyzing the discourse(s)' dominance and pervasiveness, using tools given by Hajer's ADA (structuration, institutionalization, storylines/narratives).

Only then can, by comparing theoretical expectation and empirical reality, an assessment be made on the concrete case of the effects of the framing of the issues of sustainable development and animal welfare on the political agenda and policies on livestock production in the Netherlands. Now hopefully the main research question is completely clear. The framing of the two concepts can be done in a multitude of ways. Doing so in a particular way means using specific discursive practices. Adopting these practices and thereby excluding others, shapes one's perception of reality and influences one's thoughts and behavior, for instance on what can be considered a valid solution for a particular problem and thus be a topic to be placed on the agenda.

16

In the following chapters this will be explored by looking at sustainable development and animal welfare, and the actors relevant to the discursive practices concerning these concepts, as used by the actors relevant to the political agenda and policy concerning the Dutch livestock sector. Before the analysis starts however, first a descriptive history of the Dutch livestock sector will be given to provide necessary context.

17

3. The Dutch livestock sector

3.1 Introduction

As described in chapter 2, context is an important factor in a discourse study. In order to do a thorough and well-informed analysis I need to take into account the history of the Dutch livestock sector. In this chapter a short descriptive history is given to help do this. How did the contemporary livestock sector came to be? What lead up to the heated public debate on intensive livestock production1 _{in 2007 and what has been its aftermath? Approximately}

eight years ago the government initiated a number of studies to research the influence of intensification in the livestock sector on the public, the environment and the animals. The public debate around 2007 is used as an important moment because it forced all parties to reflect on their positions concerning livestock and speak out, show their colors as it were, which made it a useful tool for discourse analysts. This resulted in a debate that was consequently analyzed by students of discourse and gives this study a good point of reference. It also reflects the background landscape developments.

Two landscape developments are important to understand the development of the sector. Industrialization of society and the consequential societal response against it. Mentioned in chapter one were Beck (1992) and Giddens' (1991) notions of modernity and reflexivity. Modernity is the period of time (and associated societal aspects) when agricultural society was replaced by an industrial one. When this was subsequently transformed into the contemporary reflexive system, we entered what Beck called a risk society. This has influenced discursive practices, the way we think and go about organizing society and governing production sectors such as livestock. At the same time we have seen a rise in populism, a public debate which plays on emotions, while not abandoning the typical Dutch 'poldermodel' of governing based on consensus and pragmatism. The culture at the relevant ministries (relevant meaning the one under which livestock falls) has been

1 _{Intensive production is producing as efficient as possible (e.g. use feed that grows animals fastest, more} animals per location, etc)

18

'judicialized' and a wave of liberalization under the so called 'purple cabinets' (social democrats and liberals) has lead to a more independent sector where government has in part pulled out.

3.2 Post-WWII development of the Dutch livestock sector

3.2.1 Expansion and Industrialization

Contemporary issues concerning the livestock sector are completely different from the ones sixty years ago. After being occupied by Nazi Germany the agricultural sector had problems properly feeding the human population leaving little room for concern for animal welfare or environmental issues. Environmental issues weren't even an issue in the late seventies when the sector and scientists (though warnings from environmental activists and other scientists were present) were still in a stage of denial (Van Bruchem, 2002: 13). The main trend since WWII can be seen as expansion. Some numbers and graphical representation are given in table and figure one (next page). Observed are significant increases in gross production, purchased means of production and volume of capital, while at the same time using less land, less labor and having less companies exploiting the land. This results in stark increases of these values per company. Industrialization and technological development have made it possible to produce more, using less (workers, land). The agricultural sector has become more productive and concentrated in a smaller number of companies while larger in size. Figure one shows that this expansion has occurred most strongly between the 60's and 90's and then somewhat curving off afterwards for total production. The amount of means of production is shown to stabilize after the 80's. Throughout this period growth predictions turned out to be underestimates, apparently not sufficiently taking into account the stimulating economic and structural forces (ibid). Other trends can be summed up as intensification and export dependency. The amount of agricultural land has decreased while production and means of production have increased, thus production has intensified. This increase has been greater than that of consumption, resulting in an increase in export dependency. Being dependent on export creates a tricky situation for implementing higher production standards and stricter rules concerning the environment and animal welfare. Because national or local implementations of higher standards and stricter rules tends to

19

increase production costs and thus weaken the competitiveness of Dutch companies. A sector relying on export for approximately 75% of their added value (ibid: 15) will be damaged by stringent regulation if foreign competitors aren't subject to equal measures.

Table 3.1: Development of agricultural sector 1950-2000.

20

These developments have changed the form and image of agricultural companies in general and livestock production companies in particular. They are larger physically, using huge machines and buildings. The production has become more 'rational' (ibid: 16). This follows the trend of industrialization of production in other sectors. For instance the military sector, from trench bayonet warfare to tanks, bombs and missiles. Or the rise of 'Fordism', the automobile industry with its archetype Ford factories. Taking a rational scientific perspective to produce a good as efficiently as possible logically leads to intensification. Economies of scale are true for livestock as much as they are for automobiles. In this setting of modernity, where industrialization was the trend and the social, economic and political context allowed for both intensification and increase in scale of production2_{, the average}

production volume per company (between 1950-2000) increased fifteenfold. The result is that a small amount of companies and people (technology replaced much labor) produce vast quantities and export a large amount. The Central Bureau for Statistics reports all kinds of statistics among which the amount of livestock in the Netherlands. The size of all livestock combined has increased greatly especially from the sixties until the eighties (Statline.cbs.nl, 2016). The development varies greatly between types of livestock. For instance the amount of goats has been greatly increasing ever since 1980 (excluding 1992, and due to Q fever 2010), while the amount of sheep which peeked around 1992 has been decreasing due to government regulations (in 1992 the holding of sheep integrated with manure policies which made them less profitable) (CBS, PBL, Wageningen UR, 2015). Overall the livestock sector has expanded greatly since WWII and became more stable after the eighties with increases or decreases depending on the type of animal. To put it in perspective, in 2014 The Netherlands counted 12.2 million pigs, 103 million chickens, and 4 million cows on a population of less than 17 million people living on approximately 34 thousand square kilometers.

2 _{Intensification is more output with equal input. Increase in scale of production is more animals or more land} per company/location

21

figure 3.2: Chicken farm. Source: Wakker Dier campaign movie (2013)

3.2.2 Political and societal developments

In my interview with dr. ir. Leenstra - a project manager of the Animal Sciences Group (ASG), part of Wageningen UR Livestock Research - an interesting observation was made on political developments concerning livestock production. In the recent past a shift has occurred in the background and nature of the politicians and civil servants who govern the livestock sector. They tended to be white men and former farmers from rural areas, now there is a majority of females from a legal or social geography background who grew up in the city. Less knowledge about the sector, yet I would add also less potential conflicts of interest. More dependency on expert knowledge, but academically schooled. Being raised in a rural area with many farms and animals around, and studying in the city, I would argue that this does have some effect on how open and suggestible people are for ethical arguments based on principles of animal welfare by animal activists. Images like the one above (figure 2) with hundreds of chickens will be a lot less shocking to those who grew up around livestock.

Aside from the individual people, we have seen a broad political development over the past thirty years of government. Very much following Thatcher in the UK and Reagan in

22

the US, a wave of privatization has changed the landscape. Neoliberal policies were adopted and many government tasks were (semi-) privatized (Stellinga, 2012). Government has shrunk and has been transformed into a more regulatory form where operational responsibilities regarding public interests have been increasingly put outside government institutions while at the same time regulation has increased (ibid: 90). Unfortunately for our politicians they are often still the ones accountable for protecting the partially outsourced common interests. It is still the Hague people point their finger at when there are problems in markets which are de facto out of their direct control. This can be somewhat confusing to citizens. In my interview with drs. Eva Fransen, project leader sustainable food for the environmental interest organization Natuur & Milieu, she told me about all the different tactics they use to try and maximize their influence. In the context of a government who leaves much of the development of the livestock sector up to market forces, strategies quickly diversify beyond simply lobbying the government. Focusing ones attention directly towards producers, retailers, consumers as well as different layers of government seems the way to go. The animal activist organization of Wakker Dier let me know that retailers are now their main focus.

One of the most interesting moments in recent Dutch politics was the formation of the animal party in 2002 and their success in entering the national parliament with 2 seats in 2007 and retaining their seats in the 2010 and 2012 elections. They proved to be very influential for a small party, bombarding the government with questions and speaking out against animal unfriendly policies. Even if they haven't been able to abolish the bio-industry in the Netherlands they seem to have forced all the existing political parties in forming opinions and talking about animal welfare. All political party websites3 _{will have a link to}

their ideas on animal welfare and this public debate of which the animal party was one of the instigators is now pervasive throughout politics and society.

One of the issues in the public debate around livestock production is that of biological farming versus intensive livestock production. What makes this debate complex is that both have up- and downsides, and neither can simply be classified as the better option when trying to make our society more sustainable. Because it depends upon ones subjective

3 _{The party 50Plus was the exception here.}

23

understanding of sustainable development and ones subjective views on morality, morality concerning animal welfare. Some people see animal welfare as an integral part of sustainable development while others see them as separate. Someone who values animal life as equal to human life and is convinced that a system can only be sustainable if it is morally just, will prefer biological farming and eating no meat or very little. On the other hand one can view animal life as strongly inferior and be of the opinion that we should exploit them as we see fit, putting human interests ahead. Regardless of whether this person thinks that a system needs to be morally just in order to be sustainable, he will most likely opt to support intensive livestock production, which is more efficient and allows for people to eat more meat than in a system of biological farming. There are also some moderate positions in between these extremes, but everyone uses the same language and terminology while meaning slightly or sometimes completely different things.

Why mention this? Well, the awareness on the issue of animal welfare has increased substantially over the past decades and has gained momentum with the rise of the animal party and successful campaigns by interest organizations such as the 'anti-plofkip' campaign4

where the organization Wakker Dier pressures producers and retailers to stop selling this type of chicken. The result is that politicians, whom are always thinking of their image and reputation, will not ignore animal welfare in the policy making process, they know they will be shamed if they do. It has opened up the dominant sustainable development discourse of ecological modernization (more on this later) for animal welfare issues. It feels as if the sustainability train is unstoppable (who would now advocate against it apart from certain vested interests?) and animal welfare is attempting to ride along, with increasing success. The debate is very much alive in our politics and society, yet the effect on behavior is still ambiguous. One thing that is clear is that the Dutch are starting to eat less meat, about one kilogram less per year, a trend which started in 2010 (Verhoog, Wijsman and Terluin, 2015: 7). Eating less meat is the only truly undisputable sustainable development I can think of (concerning livestock).

4 _{Term coined by journalist Wouter Klootwijk and refers to chickens of a rapid growing breed who are fed} powerfood in order to be fit for slaughter as soon as possible.

24

3.3 Ecological modernization and Ecologism

There are multiple narratives being practiced in the public debate on livestock production and its sustainability. During 2007 when the animal party was new in parliament and a sort of dialogue was opened between the government and the citizens on this issue, a lot of information was given to discourse students which was interesting to analyze. One such discourse analysis on this period was done by Bottinga (2013) who identified two main narratives of which one was dominant. The dominant ecological modernization and the challenger of ecologism.

Ecological modernization was originally formulated by Joseph Huber, Martin Jänicke and Udo Simonis (Cohen, 1997: 108). In its most basic form it is the idea that our economy and environment can both be improved at the same time by allowing human ingenuity and technological innovation to spur both economic growth and improve the environment (ibid). It is a highly pragmatic school of thought which values scientific rigor and generally uses amoral corporate language. The answer to sustainability issues thus lies with market logic where for instance pollution can be seen as an inefficiency which is a challenge for businesses to reduce (Heywood, n.d.: 4). It does sound nice and has a positive message, which makes it attractive for a government to adopt, moreover ecological modernization tells us that the path we started walking a few decades ago is the correct one, and no revolutionary changes to the system are required to achieve sustainability. It can be sold within the system of market capitalism that our government finds itself in. Ecological modernization goes against the idea of a zero-sum trade-off between the economy and environment (Cohen, 1997: 109). Adherents can have different opinions on the amount of government regulation which is required to stimulate companies to innovate. A potential danger in this discourse is a focus on economic factors while relative neglecting the social and environmental. Upscaling of livestock production is the logical path due to economic factors (Meulen et al. 2011; Bos et al, 2010). Animal welfare issues are kept outside the discussion of finding plausible sustainable solutions to the environmental issues, the debate limits itself to the established main tasks of division of welfare and goods. This discourse is shown to be practiced by the government at the time and also the scientific advisors, which are almost exclusively academics from WUR whom are legitimizing government policy (ibid:

25

94).

Ecologism on the other hand is a political theory where the economy is a clear enemy of the environment (ibid: 30). Its language is particularly moral. It stresses the need to add value to the amoral corporate and science discourses. "Chemistry, physics, and the science of ecology acknowledge only change, not valued change" (Naess. 1989: 24). This is deemed problematic as humankind is seen as capable of partially or completely and irreversibly destroying the very environment upon we are dependant, due to structurally embedded means of production and consumption without proper regulation of human population (ibid: 23). Thus ecologists argue that the contemporary ecological crisis (which some deny exists at all) requires a reaction where humans open up their minds to alternative ways to lead a meaningful life, one that is starkly different from the consumer-way-of-life that has emerged in the urbanized, techno-industrial mega-society (ibid: 24). Nature needs to be reinterpreted, no longer merely seen in economic terms, as a resource available to satisfy human ends (ibid: 1). It is an eco-centric world view which recognized the ideological dimension of the threat to the environment, namely anthropocentrism, the human-centered bias in contemporary mainstream ethical thinking (ibid).

Ecologists argue that government needs to go beyond the politics of material (re-)distribution. In its highest ambition this school of thought requires us to change the relationship between humankind, nature and the appreciation of nature in order to increase the scope of our moral responsibilities and transform human consciousness (Heywood, n.d.: 3). Ecologism can be divided in three broad categories. Modernist/humanist ('shallow'), social, and deep ecology. The discursive practices of animal activist and environmental organizations and the animal party which have a strong presence in the public debate adhere closest to a modernist ecologism or eco-socialism (subcategory of social ecology). Deep ecology is radical in its cause of bio-centric equality in which all species share a universal right to bloom and flourish (ibid: 6). Placing humans above any other form of life is akin to racism or sexism. The focus is on the intrinsic value of nature while the other forms of ecologism also account for the value of nature for humans. I would not give deep ecology ideas much chance in contemporary society.

Taking the perspective of a modernist or social ecologist, animals and nature can be used for human interests, but we have to take into account the scruples of livestock

26

production concerning animal welfare. Concern for and high standards of animal welfare are mandatory for what an ecologist sees as a sustainable system. Now we can distinguish a person in the debate based on adhering to a ecological modernization discourse or a ecologist one, or based on his perspective on animal welfare being integral to sustainable development or not.

3.4 Conclusion

Livestock production has expanded, intensified, and been transformed to a more rational, formal process of production. Economies of scale and policies of privatization, free market capitalism, stimulation of innovation and productivity improvements, and technological advancement have run its course and now we are left with a system that turns out to produce a number of ecological problems. Two main narratives arose, one of ecological modernization where the solution lies within the limits of our existing framework and that of ecologism which advocates more radical change. This context along with the discussed aspects of a reflexive risk society form the foundation for the analysis in the following chapters. By using the tools of SCA and ADA a comprehensive picture will be given of the discursive practices of sustainable development, animal welfare and the relation between the two. This will form the basis out of which will be inferred what the effect is on the political agenda and what is to be expected to be reflected in policy (dependant on how dominant a discourse turns out to be).

27

4. Sustainable Development

& Animal Welfare

4.1 Introduction

A general assumption of this study is that sustainable development as a concept exists in many forms and shapes. Its most basic form is general. Sustainable development connects the controlled process of change (development) with the maintenance of social life within the earth's supporting capacity (sustainability) and thus suggests an intentional and conscious control of the relationship between society and nature (Garcia, 2000: 229). Important is the idea that conscious human behavior can affect the environment on a global level. One can be skeptical of humans consciously controlling their own behavior let alone complex global systems. Trying to control the relation between two complex self-organizing systems is like 'a croquet game in which a flamingo is used as a mallet and a hedgehog as the ball' (Bateson, 1987: 449-450). Put in other words, sustainable development is based on an idea that vastly underestimates the complexity of the situation, it is a mechanical thought applied to a non-mechanical system. Leaving sustainable development theoretically unfeasible if we can't predict the outcomes of our actions. Good thing then that history teaches us that we are able to tackle global environmental issues by consciously deriving a strategy, based on rather simple mechanical thought. I'm referring to the successful control of the production of chlorofluocarbons in order to stop the depletion of ozone high in the skies and prevent us all from horrible scenario's of exposure to UV-radiation. Conscious intervention and reinventing some aspect of society has been shown to be possible. So, sustainable development in its very basic and broad form seems possible. The CFC problem was a relatively easy one to solve because of the undisputed science behind the effects it had and small number of producers and available alternative goods to replace CFC's. Other issues we are facing now including that of feeding the planet and sustainable livestock

28

production are trickier. Solutions will require much deeper (and much more negative) adaptation of the behavior of individuals and aspects of society (think of a deep ecologist proposing to all become vegan and control population by limiting pregnancies). The characteristics that Garcia (2000: 232) ascribes to human society; a complex, self-organizing, learning and reflexive system made up of conscious elements, make its conscious development limited. However I would argue that these characteristics also give human society the potential to improve at effectively and intentionally causing social change. This ability to adapt and be flexible is necessary for sustainability development.

Furthermore I haven't addressed the question of what 'sustainable' exactly is. Depending on how strenuous ones definition it is redundantly easy or blatantly impossible to achieve. Physics tells us that entropy will keep increasing and thus technically even renewable energy and perfect recycling habits will eventually be unsustainable. On the other hand some users of the word sustainable apply it to any development resulting in 'less pollution' or 'more animal friendly' which is technically achievable by having one less milking cow in a company that owns thousands.

Clearly the most basic form of the concept which Garcia captures leaves open a lot for further conceptualization and interpretation. The narratives of ecological modernization and ecologism are examples of how one discourse can conflict with the other and lead to fundamentally different views on what sustainable development is and how it is achieved. In the rest of this chapter I will explore the discursive practices on sustainable development currently present in the public debate. In particular the relation between sustainable development and animal welfare will be under scrutiny.

29

4.2 Topics: Semantic Macrostructures

Now the empirical analysis begins the question arises which individuals or groups are relevant for this study. As described in the theoretical framework, those in key structural positions regarding policymaking and agenda-setting have a priority. So for instance the most important individual will be the secretary of state of economic affairs who is responsible for agriculture, some aspects of the environment and animal welfare. But also the scientific advisers, the experts that inform the secretary of state are important, and the interest organizations (which includes political parties) who lobby and push for their ideas to be adopted.

Semantic macrostructures refer to global meanings and topics or themes. The global meaning has been in part been addressed in the introduction above, but this leaves open much for differentiation. Now I will examine which topics are addressed.

4.2.1 Secretary of State of economic affairs

Here I will look at written and spoken text by the secretary of state Martijn van Dam and also his predecessor Sharon Dijksma, mainly because van Dam has only very recently been appointed as a result of Dijksma having to fill in the position of the fallen secretary of state Wilma Mansveld at a different ministry. Indicators are the letters they wrote to parliament addressing their plans and explaining their reasoning, these exemplify the issues they prioritize and put on the agenda. Topics:

 November 30, 2015, Van Dam writes a letter on a new system concerning agricultural and natural land management and grassland birds (Ministry of economic affairs, 2015). The macropropositions in this letter are:

o M1: Dutch grasslands are a tourist attraction.

o M2: They also serve as the life environment of important flora and fauna. o M3: M1+M2 They are of great value and need to be protected.

30

o M5: M3+M4 New management is required to properly conserve the grasslands

The letter goes on with concrete steps to achieve this and describing the current state of affairs. The macropropositions express the general ideological principles of ecological modernization. The conservation of nature is linked to economic factors and the argument is that innovation is required to solve this ecological problem while having economic incentives to do so.

 November 26, 2015, Van Dam holds a speech in the Hague after receiving the OECD report on 'Innovation, Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability in the Netherlands'. Interestingly enough, this 186 page report has no chapter or even subchapter on animal welfare. It only has 18 mentions of the concept in the entire document, and in all those cases it is part of an enumeration such as "There is little knowledge in the general public about how food is produced. Increased transparency should go along with communication on efforts to improve practices and product quality, reduce losses and increase recycling and animal welfare" (OECD, 2015: 146). No in depth analysis on animal welfare or paragraph dedicated to the concept. Van Dam's speech reflects this. In his short speech which translated into two pages of text he mentions the word 'innovation' no less than 18 times, just as much as animal welfare is mentioned in the 186 page report. The core of the speech is found in this sentence: "The platform [AgriFoodTech platform, ed] is focused on innovation at the cutting edge of high-tech science and agriculture. It seeks social and technological innovation. Both are vital ingredients for a sustainable future" (Ministry of economic affairs, 2015b). Again this line of thinking and the priorities Van Dam has concerning sustainable development reflect the ideology of ecological modernization.

 December 16, 2015, Van Dam writes a letter informing parliament on the results of the agriculture and fishery council that was held in Brussels the two preceding days. The main topics were fishing quota, discard policies, animal medicine & health, sustainable agriculture, forestry and fisheries, the pig meat market, school milk and fruit, the codex alimentarius, bees and honey, and young farmers. No mention of animal welfare whatsoever (Ministry of economic affairs, 2015c). Animal health is of

31

course linked to animal welfare but can't be reduced to it. Most concerns on animal health are coming from the danger that resistant (to antibiotics) bacteria form to livestock populations (have to slaughter and dispose of infected animals) and human health. Thus from an economic perspective and concern for human health. As soon as the term sustainable is used, innovation, research, and economy follow.

Van Dam is consistent throughout these examples and also other letters and speeches. Priorities for the agenda are innovation, economic opportunities and sustainable development. This is a clear trend that I see throughout the 161 documents already available regarding Van Dam as secretary of state. Sustainable development in practice has little to do with animal welfare if I examine his discursive practices. Yet the political party he is part of (PvdA) does place animal welfare under the theme of sustainable development on their website. Also the main government policy document on animal welfare which was originally formulated by Dijksma in 2013 to which Van Dam also refers, states: "Animal welfare is an integral part of sustainable livestock production" (Ministry of economic affairs, 2013: 1). The general policy outlined there is one where animal welfare is valued ethically and translated into concrete plans which reflect the main priorities. Proposals done by Dijksma are mostly about reducing moments of stress for the animals and instances where physical pain occurs. In sum, the secretaries of state over the past few years have spoken/written a language reflecting the ecological modernization ideology. Animal welfare has been theoretically positioned as a part of sustainable development in the outline of government policy, but in the discursive practices this conceptualization is not reflected, animal welfare is used either as a different subject next to sustainability or as low priority relative to innovation, economic factors and animal and human health.

4.2.2 Experts

In academic literature we also find global meanings of 'sustainable development' and its relation to animal welfare. The scope of the concept is almost always defined by dividing the concept in a three-dimensional frame distinguishing between social, economic and ecological aspects and the connections between them. For instance the 'people, planet and profit' division (Fisk, 2010) or the 'economic, social, and environmental' (Munasinghe, 2013),