I agree that the livestock strategy was a very mixed bag and it had not sufficient measures to limit industrial livestock.
In that context, I am not convinced that any public insurance for livestock farmers is a good idea. Here in Sweden, the government picks up most of the bills when livestock producers are harmed by certain diseases. The biggest egg producer (2 million hens) have repeatedly got huge sums as payment for costs associated with salmonella. Extensive systems are much more robust and less likely to face major disease outbreaks.
As for methane, I believe the EU strategy is partly correct to point to flaws in the concept of carbon dioxide equivalence and the metrics which are applied. Unfortunately, they still recommend the use of methane reducing feed additives - again a measure suitable for intensive livestock, but not for extensive production. In general, the whole methane discourse is flawed and it is a tragedy that so many environmental groups have got the analysis wrong. The methane focus is essentially favoring the worst kinds of livestock system from an environmental and animal welfare perspective.
For more on Via Campesina's position:
https://www.eurovia.org/press-releases/eu-livestock-strategy-and-protein-plan-recognise-the-value-of-territorial-livestock-systems-but-must-go-further-on-fair-prices-market-regulation-and-food-sovereignty/
I agree that the livestock strategy was a very mixed bag and it had not sufficient measures to limit industrial livestock.
In that context, I am not convinced that any public insurance for livestock farmers is a good idea. Here in Sweden, the government picks up most of the bills when livestock producers are harmed by certain diseases. The biggest egg producer (2 million hens) have repeatedly got huge sums as payment for costs associated with salmonella. Extensive systems are much more robust and less likely to face major disease outbreaks.
As for methane, I believe the EU strategy is partly correct to point to flaws in the concept of carbon dioxide equivalence and the metrics which are applied. Unfortunately, they still recommend the use of methane reducing feed additives - again a measure suitable for intensive livestock, but not for extensive production. In general, the whole methane discourse is flawed and it is a tragedy that so many environmental groups have got the analysis wrong. The methane focus is essentially favoring the worst kinds of livestock system from an environmental and animal welfare perspective.
https://gardenearth.substack.com/p/the-methane-ruminations
Thank you for the comments and apologies for the delayed response. I look forward to reading the piece you shared!