HLPE-report V0 draft
Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition,
including the role of livestock
Comments from the Private Sector Mechanism
We congratulate the HLPE project team on producing the zero draft of the report on Sustainable Agricultural Development for Food Security and Nutrition, including the Role of Livestock. It is the first time the crucial role of livestock in global food security has been addressed in such a comprehensive manner.
1. The report is wide-ranging and comprehensive in analyzing the contribution of sustainable agricultural development to ensuring food security and nutrition (FSN), with a particular focus on the livestock sector because of its importance for both nutrition and sustainable futures. Do you think that the report is striking the right balance between agricultural development overall and the livestock sector specifically with respect to their relative contribution to FSN?
PSM believes that the report succeeds at giving a broad overview of the challenges faced by sustainable agricultural development while providing a good focus on the livestock sector. It succeeds at providing information on both these subjects in a balanced way.
However, we believe that the report could be further improved by emphasizing that all production systems including non-livestock agriculture are facing a wide range of sustainability challenges with different livestock farming regions having their own unique challenges. Science-based best practice that is targeted to local needs is required to be promoted throughout. It needs to be recognized that as biological systems, change takes time in order to achieve the desired improvements and that best practice needs to be promoted throughout.
In addition, the report has a bias towards agriculture in developing countries and seems particularly favorable to smallholder farming systems. While it is indeed the CFS’ mission to foster agriculture in developing countries, it is important to address food security and nutrition as a global issue. All production systems -regardless of criteria such as size, model - make important contributions. As the report recognizes “There is not one policy formula that is suitable in all situations, but there are lessons to be learned from experience” (page 10 line 9).
2. The report is structured around context, trends, challenges and pathways/responses. Do you think that these are comprehensive enough, and adequately considered and articulated? Does the report strike the right balance of coverage across the various chapters? Are there important aspects that are missing?
The report is ambitious and covers many issues and subjects. It is fairly long but the scope is also wide. Overall, we believe is it well structured though could benefit from the following:
-There are many repetitions and issues that seem to be cross-cutting: is particularly the case for nutrition/diet issues. We wonder if those could not be centralized into a section.
-There is very little on the opportunities that exist and on the existing solutions that have been developed. This gives the impression that all challenges have remained untouched and that all the work to make agriculture more sustainable needs to start now from scratch. It would be very important to provide more background documentation about the many approaches that exist already and the technological advances that have been made to increase efficiency and productivity. The dairy sector, through the Global Dairy Agenda for Action program and The Dairy Sustainability Framework, has developed a facility to collect and share sustainability best practice with the global sector to both facilitate a more rapid progress. The Framework will be able to provide the data and demonstrate the sector’s continuous sustainability improvement.
-The report makes numerous references to intensification highlighting the negative aspects only without also acknowledging the benefits. There is room and very much a willingness, in particular from the private sector, to improve all production systems, including intensive. We note that the discussion is more balanced in the concluding comments section 2.7.
3. The report uses a classification to distinguish between four broad categories of livestock systems, in order to better identify specific challenges and sustainable development pathways for each of them. Do you find this approach useful for identifying specific policy responses and actions in different socio-economic and environmental contexts?
PSM appreciates the effort to provide categories. Unfortunately the current proposal does not succeed at capturing the existing variety of models that exist around the world. The four categories proposed go too far in trying to simply.
Several of our members involved in the livestock sector cannot currently fit in the four proposed categories. For instance, dairy cooperatives in Western Europe with a specialized production model, with approximately 80 % of the feed grown at the dairy farms as many are mixed farming systems or in the region, cannot for now be classified in the report. PSM, therefore, proposes to diversity the categories and be more specific about the challenges and opportunities faced by each.
It would also be of interest for the analysis to move beyond existing categories towards envisaging new systems that combine the best of various systems.
In addition to diversifying the categories, we propose to edit the description of the different categories to ensure that a neutral approach is taken in describing the system to avoid underlying statement asserting that one system/category may be more desirable than others.
Finally, the four categories do not seem to be considered later on in the report so a decision would need to be made whether chapter 3 and 4 should follow the classification.
4. The report has referenced key projections and scenario studies in identifying the drivers and trends through to 2050. Are there other studies that the report needs to reference, which offer different perspectives on the future outlook for the agriculture (including livestock) sector, in particular those that focus on nutrition and diet?
The current overview of scenario study is thorough. The PSM is not aware of reports that would have been overlooked. We appreciate that many reports were highlighted providing a great diversity of view and opinions to the future of agriculture.
5. The report has identified a wide range of challenges likely to be faced in the coming period to which policy makers and other stakeholders will need to take into account so that SADL can contribute to FSN. Do you think that there are other key challenges/opportunities that need to be covered in the report, including those related to emerging technologies, the concentration and intensification of production in livestock, and the implications for feedstuffs (crops and oilseeds), and international trade?
The PSM is favorable to a greater focus being given to the role of technology, research & development. It was striking to see such a short section dedicated to the role of mobile technology with no reference to the prospects of using mobile technology for livestock traceability. The report should provide a much greater overview of the existing and future solutions to increase the sustainability and resilience of agricultural systems, and provide examples for the livestock sector as well. For instance, the report could cover environmental mitigation technologies. New greenhouse gas emission mitigation technologies are being developed.
For more information: Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases and Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) Platform. 2015. 'Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock: Best Practice and Emerging Options' available at:
http://www.saiplatform.org/uploads/Modules/Library/lrg-sai-livestock-mitigation_web2.pdf
In addition, the PSM believes that some key issues could be better represented, including:
· Animal welfare: A section on re-emerging diseases is missing. Improving broiler welfare through changing to free-range systems may cause certain diseases to re-emerge (Hiemstra and Ten Napel, 2013, page 13+53). Animal diseases moving from low risk to high risk (e.g L to HPAI, like the 2015 case in the UK) should be added.
· Antibiotics: It is important to address here the concerns of veterinarians that some retailers and food chains move towards “food from animals that have not been treated with antibiotics” (contrary to no prophylactic use and shown improvements in decreasing use of ABs). This goes against the oath of veterinarians to treat animals in need of care, and is detrimental for animal welfare. The US poultry veterinarians have expressed their serious concerns in this respect. It is about strategic use of anti-microbials as is practiced in human medicine and although reduction for some may be prudent it is not about a blanket reduction. At an EU workshop held on October 26th 2015 under the Luxemburg presidency, it was reasserted that antibiotics would need to remain part of the therapeutic arsenal against bacterial diseases. http://www.eu2015lu.eu/en/agenda/2015/10/23-conf-agri-antimicrobiens/index.html. On the topic of use, the quote of the Van Boeckel article is maybe justified but the paper relies on assumptions and does not take into account some recent steps taken like the FDA policy of withdrawing growth promoter use in the US. It would be good instead to promote the OIE plan, announced at the last G7, to monitor use in food animals worldwide.
· Livestock traceability: Livestock traceability systems are based upon three basic elements: animal identification; premises identification; and animal movement. Traceability systems are important, effective tools that can be used for animal health, public health and food safety. They can help reduce response time, thereby limiting economic, environmental and social impacts of emergency situations such as disease outbreaks. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals/terrestrial-animals/traceability/eng/1300461751002/1300461804752.
· Infrastructure: A chapter on the crucial role of infrastructures is missing. Countries and regions need to invest in roads, waterways, railroads and other efficient, quality transport. Producers must be able to transport their produce to cities and other markets from their remote production areas.
· Agricultural education and extension services need to support farmers in their transition towards more sustainable agricultural systems.
6. A decision-making approach that could be useful for policy makers in designing and implementing policies and actions has been proposed in Chapter 4 of the report. Is this a useful and pragmatic approach?
Chapter 4 is quite useful in demonstrating the complexity, the synergies, trade-offs and variety of outcomes.
The section outlining the different challenge and potential recommendations is useful but we would recommend the following:
-make nutrition and health a separate section (currently mixed with animal welfare)
-under that section clearly make recommendations to address hunger and malnutrition, including the key micronutrients provided by animal-source foods, so it is not mixed with issues of NCDs.
-make animal health and welfare a separate section
7. Chapter 4 also contains case studies/examples of evolutions of agricultural development policies and actions in different contexts/countries. Could you offer other practical, well-documented and significant examples to enrich and provide better balance to the variety of cases and the lessons learned in agricultural development, including the trade offs or win-win outcomes in terms of addressing the different dimensions of sustainability and FSN?
We appreciate the case-studies presented in the boxes, particularly those on sustainable intensification (Box 2), food sovereignty (Box 3), and Deforestation (Box 13). We believe that this critical review of the pros and cons is appropriate as it demonstrates that there is not one policy or formula suitable in all situations.
PSM supports the contributions of case-studies submitted by the dairy sector for inclusion in the boxes. Please refer to the above comments above related to the Dairy Sustainability Framework.
8. The social dimension of sustainable agriculture development has often been less well described and understood, including due to lack of data. Examples and experiences on such issues (livelihoods, gender, share and situation of self employed versus wage workers, working conditions, etc.) would be of particular interest to the team.
PSM notes that sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are written with a negative prism. It would be important to give a more neutral view and highlight also the benefits provided by the sector to many farmers, rural economy and landscape development. For instance, it is important to note that the livestock sector provides opportunities for farming families, and in particular women farmers, to increase their income. The report states accurately in its introduction that the livestock and dairy sectors help to sustain the lives of people and communities across the world and is a major contributor to the sustainability of rural communities throughout the world, in both developing and developed countries. A viable livestock sector contributes to local, regional, and national economies.
PSM would encourage the authors to look at the role of women in livestock production systems. Case studies point that women are actually the caretaker of herds in many parts of the world and manage for the daily nutrition needs of the animals and the family (also in 3.1.2). Further exploration of the role of women in livestock as it relates to the sustainable development goals would be a welcome addition to this document.
9. The upstream and downstream sectors are playing an increasingly important role in respect of the orientation of agricultural development, food choices and diets. Can you provide examples of the role these sectors play in sustainable agricultural development and FSN?
PSM incorporates all actors along the agri-food value chain and supports the notion that the upstream and downstream sectors all influence through their investments the sustainability of agricultural food systems. The barriers from one sector to another are also less clearly defined. For instance, nutrition and health are no longer only the attributes of food processors and retailers as we look to nutrition-sensitive agriculture strategies where crops can be improved to be more nutritious from the onset.
10. What are the key policy initiatives or successful interventions to improve the sustainability of food systems, in different countries and contexts that merit discussion in the report? Is there evidence about the potential of economic incentives, and which ones (taxes, subsidies etc.), regulatory approaches, capacity building, R&D and voluntary actions by food system actors?
The report would greatly benefit from a brief review of public and private investments in the livestock sector. For the public sector, it seems that public investment has not been increasing, despite increases in livestock’s contribution to agricultural GDP. IFPRI/ASTI demonstrated the impact of investment in agriculture research on overall economic development. Incentivising good practices is fundamental for farmers and all actors along the agri-food supply chain.
For the livestock sector more precisely, the report could look at successful public, private, or public-private interventions on improvement of animal production systems, animal management practices and animal feed and breeding improvements. The area of greatest need is access to extension services.
11. The design and implementation of policies for FSN requires robust, comparative data over time and across countries. Where are the data gaps that governments, national and international organizations might need to address in the future in order to understand trends and formulate better policies?
Data gaps include:
· Measurement of a product's environmental footprint in relation to its nutritional value
· Protein quality, i.e. amino acid composition and digestibility
· Daily provisioning of nutrient dense foods
· Data related to the value of agriculture to the wider social network. What if there were no livestock?
12. Are there any major omissions or gaps in the report? Are topics under-or over-represented in relation to their importance? Are any facts or conclusions refuted or questionable? If any of these are an issue, please send supporting evidence.
Omissions:
· The water footprint of livestock systems
· Role of institutional building in towards SAD and FSN
· Modeling resource efficiency for global productivity gains to meet protein, macro and micro nutrient needs
· Nutrient cycling potential of animals and the role of manure to offset imported nitrogen to watersheds.
Under-represented:
· Livestock comfort and welfare
· Importance of healthy animals on many different outcomes (health, productivity, sustainability, farmers’ livelihoods, welfare)
· Prudent uses of antibiotics are necessary in animal husbandry in order to take care of animal welfare, avoid chronically infected animals, and have a sustainable animal husbandry. Refer to OIE responsible use chapter 6.9 of the OIE terrestrial code. http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_antibio_use.htm
· Refer to OIE role in monitoring antibiotic use in food animals worldwide
· Refer to OIE on animal welfare standards
· Industry and research institutions globally are all looking for innovative ways to maximize nutrient returns
· Importance of trade is not clearly outlined as a means to provide access to nutritious food in particular to countries and populations that cannot produce nutrient dense and protein rich foods. This is particularly true for the many emerging economies that do not have a developed livestock sector.
Over-represented:
· Local foods: the report provides too many mentions to this concept. While the PSM supports the supply of nutritious products through the lens of local food habits, preferences, consumption patterns and affordability of the needy, the local production of food is not a necessary solution for many countries, regions or communities. In many regions, local provision would not provide access to affordable, diverse and nutritious foods that support a healthy diet.
Topics not covered appropriately:
· Market consolidation: The report claims that “Three-quarters of food sales in most industrialized countries are now sold through 10 supermarkets, and 90 percent of the global grain trade is undertaken by four agribusiness firms (Murphy et al., 2011). This has drawn critics to highlight the environmental and social implications of extended supply chains designed to achieve year-round provision at the lowest cost.” (section 2.6). The Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) would like to contest this figure of 90%. According to their data, it is 30% of global grain trade that is managed by four companies. Governments would be very concerned if 90% of trade was undertaken by such a small number of private sector actors.
· Nutrition: The report currently suggests a link between higher ASF consumption, over-nutrition and chronic disease. The science on this remains uncertain. The discussions on fat and cholesterol (butter and eggs) illustrate very well that correlation does not mean causation. In the nutrition sections, it seems to us that concerns regarding malnutrition should be well differentiated from those on NCDs.
These comments were put together by the Private Sector Mechanism Working Group on Livestock.
The private Sector Mechanism would like to thank the CFS-HLPE for having given us the opportunity to comment on the zero draft. We stand ready to provide detailed comments on the first draft.
Morgane Danielou