Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

Dear Sir / Madame,

On behalf of the FAO Inter-departmental Working Group on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR-WG*), I am pleased to submit the attached comments and contribute to this e-consultation.

Best Regards,

Alessandro Patriarchi and HendrikJan Ormel

Coordinators of the AMR-WG

*The FAO interdepartmental AMR Working Group : This inter-departmental FAO Working Group brings together FAO officers from Animal Health, Animal Production, Codex Alimentarius, Fisheries, Food Safety and Plant Production.  The group includes officers from both FAO Headquarters and Regional and Sub-regional offices.

Dear HLPE,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on and provide feedback on the V0 Draft Report Sustainable Agricultural Development for Food Security and Nutrition, Including the Role of Livestock.

We look forward to forthcoming versions and the final report.

Kind regards,

Agriculture for Impact

Supplement: It is the study of international cooperation on food security and nutrition in China that supported by WFP, IFPRI etc. for reference of further study of SADL.

China’s progress on the first Millennium Development Goal (MDG1) – eradicating poverty and hunger – is widely acknowledged to be a key driver in advancing this goal globally. The economy has grown annually at the rate of 9% since the beginning of reforms in 1978. Improvements in food security, health services, incomes, family planning and care practices have led to great dropping in under-nutrition rates, from 272.1 million in 1990-1992 to 158 million in 2010-2013. Of the 256.6 million fewer undernourished people in the world between 1991 and 2012, 105.9 million (or 41%) were in China (World Bank, 2014).

According to a WFP/IFAD/FAO funded study on food security status in China (Yunlai Xiao et al, 2009), it was indicated that there were 91 million rural people in 12 out of 31 provinces affected by food insecurity, mainly concentrated in middle and west of China. The MDG Joint Programme “Improve the nutrition, food safety and food security for China’s most vulnerable women and children” (Fengying Nie et al, 2011) found that 15.2% of the surveyed households in poverty counties in western rural China is food-insecure and these households have some characteristics in common. The heads of food-insecure households tend to have less official education, less informal training and higher illiteracy rate than those from food-secure Households which was assumed to reduce their skills on agriculture production and opportunities for skilled labour. In rural areas, rearing of livestock has double benefits: it provides meat consumption, and it is a useful coping strategy when encounting shocks as it can be marketed to earn income. Food-insecure Households were found to have less livestock, pig for instance than food secure Households. The majority (75%) of the food secure Households have at least one pig, while only half of the food-insure Households have.

When an in-depth study evaluates the nutrition status, the story becomes more challenging (Fengying Nie et al, 2014). The food consumption in poor areas is lack of diversity, consumption mainly including staple food, vegetables, pork. Few households consume fish and shrimp, dairy products, beef and mutton. 24.3% of households can not meet the standards of energy intake. And this proportion is higher than the estimation with Food Consumption Score (FCS) which only counts the food consumption frequency. And the situation becomes worse when calculating protein. Around 40% of households are lack of protein intake, especially the high-quality protein (soy protein, animal protein) intake.

But the diet change is motivating larger demand of animal source food which leads to improvement of food security and nutrition, especially in rural China where the growth rate of average annual income surpassed the urban income continuously in the last 5 years. The great achievement in precise targeting poverty reduction, effective policy support in value chain development, the resilience enhancement of social protection and the new food security and nutrition strategy will guarantee a positive expect for eliminating poverty by 2020 and ending hunger and undernutrition by 2025 (IFPRI, 2015).  

Reference

World Bank. 2014. World Bank Development Indicators database. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Accessed May 10, 2014. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators.

Yunlai Xiao, Fengying Nie. 2009.A Report on the Status of China’s Food Security. China Agricultural Science and Technology Press. Beijing.

Fengying Nie, Jiaqi Huang, and Jieying Bi. 2014.Food Consumption of Households in Poverty-Stricken Areas of West China: The Case of Shaanxi, Yunnan, and Guizhou. Proceedings of 2013 World Agricultural Outlook Conference, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-54389-0_7, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Fengying Nie, et al, 2011. Analysis of Food Security and Vulnerability in Six Counties in Rural China. China Agricultural Science and Technology Press. Beijing.

Fengying Nie et al, 2016. Comprehensive Food Security and Nutrition Vulnerability Analysis in Rural China. To be published in 2016.

International Food Policy Research Institute. 2015. 2014–2015 Global Food Policy Report. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

The use of plant extracts as antimicrobial agent to control plant pathogens is feasible and is cost effective as the material used is inexpensive. The major benefit is its being eco-friendly.

Slow Food has been actively working to promote a holistic approach to food and agriculture for many years and good animal welfare practices are a fundamental part of this. They are important not only because they respect animals as sentient beings, but also because they benefit farmers, consumers and the environment.

Slow Food believes that animals used for food should be given a life free of pain and fear in which they are free to express their natural behaviors.

Each year the welfare of billions of animals raised for their meat, milk and eggs for human consumption is seriously compromised. Animal farming throughout the world has become increasingly intensive, where maximum production and profits are prioritized, and animals are treated as commodities.

As the consumption of animal products continues to increase, it has become necessary to confront these problems in order to safeguard the health of citizens and the environment, and guarantee that small-scale farmers can thrive in their activities while ensuring that the welfare of animals is respected.

Animals are sentient beings – they can suffer pain and distress or be happy and enjoy life. We therefore have a responsibility to ensure they are kept in humane farming systems, allowed to live a life free from pain and mental distress and able to express their natural behaviors, and are slaughtered humanely.

Slow Food believes that the way we treat farm animals is intricately linked to our general wellbeing and that of the planet. 

Animal welfare is of crucial importance to the approximately 1 billion people (FAO) that depend on animals as a source of income and food: A secure supply of food depends on the health and productivity of animals, which in turn depend on the care and nutrition these animals receive.

• Factory farms reduce animals to mere machines, subject to confinement and mutilations. These conditions make animals more prone to diseases and as a result, they are routinely injected with vaccines and antibiotics. This extensive use of antibiotics poses a risk to those who consume their meat and contributes to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria: a growing public health concern.

Making animal welfare a priority is an added value for both small- and large-scale farmers. Providing good living conditions for animals results in better health and less stress for the animals, and subsequently fewer diseases and a reduced use of drugs, lower production costs and improved product quality in terms of both taste and nutrition.

Animals pay a harsh price in the current system. Factory farms reduce animals to mere machines and commodities. They are packed into tight cages or confined to small spaces where they spend a short but painful life. During this time they are often subjected to mutilations, their beaks are trimmed, tails docked and horns removed in order to avoid injuring themselves or their companions due to the stresses of being condemned to a life less than natural. After having spent the entirety of their lives in these conditions, they are then transported to slaughterhouses, often travelling for many hours at a time and in gruelling conditions. They feel the stresses and strains of not being able to express their natural behaviours, often left in the hands of people who have not received adequate training, denying them the compassionate and respectful treatment that a sentient being deserves. Living in these conditions makes animals more prone to diseases. In many intensive farms they are therefore routinely injected with vaccines and antibiotics, posing a risk to those who consume their meat.

In recent years, meat consumption has not only remained high in America and Europe, but has consistently grown in China, India and generally within those countries where a wealthy new middle class is emerging alongside a strong demographic increase (the Indian population, for instance, has grown by 200 million inhabitants every 10 years). A global surge in the demand for meat has resulted in a corresponding growth of the industrial production of meat and, subsequently, the concentration of power in the hands of the few large companies that can satisfy the market's demand. The transformation of the animal livestock industry and the production of meat have a long list of negative effects on the environment, human health, animal welfare and social justice.

The animals that we raise for food in turn need to be nourished to grow and produce, but the dietary resources they consume are significantly higher than those they produce in the form of meat, milk and eggs.

We must also recognise an overall increase in awareness regarding our treatment of animals, which has resulted in the adoption of lifestyles that increasingly abandon or limit the consumption of animal products and a rise in stricter animal welfare laws.

Many eminent voices from a range of areas have been working to promote the responsible consumption of meat, by choosing a high quality product and limiting the average intake.  Slow Food believes that promoting a strong animal welfare ethic encourages the consumer to eat less meat because it reduces the amount of meat produced and supports those who raise their animals according to the highest standards.

Every time you shop, remember that your individual choices can influence the positive change of the global food production system. When it comes to meat, you can really leave your mark.

Suggestion for supplement of Support of ICT technology apply for the improvement of SADL

To support Sustainable Agricultural Development for Food Security and Nutrition, including the Role of Livestock, our aim is to research and apply the novel ICT technology into agricultural product/food safety management, control and trace-ability and reflect the technological responses for different dimensions of sustainable agricultural development.      

Prof. Chunjiang Zhao, the Director and Chief Scientist of National Engineering Research Center for Information Technology in Agriculture(NERCITA) China is leading one of the largest and the most influential research institutes on information technology for agriculture in the world. They Put forward a series of research resultsPut forward a series of research results and has a certain reference value to strengthen for SADL:

For social challenges: Develop science and technology popularization video, canton and programs, to provide and disseminate science-based evidence on novel technologies for SADL.

For economic challenges: Establish the cold chain environment monitoring equipment fitting the different conditions; Build on a comprehensive model for predicting shelf-life of fresh agricultural products; Develop cold chain environment controlling system based on the environment-mass-energy balance with CFD method; Study on energy consumption evaluation for different control modes of cold chain logistics. We hope to reduce food losses and waste through above ways.

For environmental challenges: Use Big data, Internet of Things, Cloud Computing, etc. in pest early warning with application in climate-smart and precision agriculture, combing different disciplines, such as agronomy, ICT, meteorology, phenotyping and biology, which will provide bases for predicting and control pest outbreaks.

For health and animal welfare challenges: Based on the animal behavior studies and internet of things, we plan to improve monitoring and control system for animal diseases for rapid detection at early stages. Then we develop a holistic health breeding system for implementing good practice for animal care and a whole supply chain trace-ability system with RFID and novel barcodes to provide better food information/labelling for consumers. At the consumption terminal, we will design and implement a healthy diet recommend system interconnecting with smart household electrical appliances and precision logistics for agricultural products and food.

Related Reference

1.        Chunjiang Zhao, Precision Agriculture Research and Practice, Beijing: Science Press, 2009.

2.         Li M, Qian J P, Yang X T, et al. A PDA-based record-keeping and decision-support system for traceability in cucumber production[J]. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture,2010, (70):69-77.

3.        Chun-Jiang Zhao*, Ming Li, Xin-Ting Yang, Chuan-Heng Sun, Jian-Ping Qian, Zeng-Tao Ji, A data-driven model simulating primary infection probabilities of cucumber downy mildew for use in early warning systems in solar greenhouses, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2011,76(2):306-315 

My comments relate to improving the coherence of the sustainability arguement by addressing issues of food losses, waste and inequalities in consumption and the role of livestock industries in this report. There are significant environmental risks associated with agricultural intensification if the production system leaks water, nutrients and genetic material. Bringing consumption physically closed to production, increasing the amount of crop production waste used as livestock feed and the amount of livestock waste used as fertilizer in soil based crop production systems would address the critical issue of integrity in agricultural production and marketing systems. I think the document is too long and is drafted with the clear intention of making a case for agricultural intensification, without carefully conceptualising current agricultural produciton, and food security and nutrition. An accurate conceptual framework is needed. 

p17 line 10, "adequate, safe, diversified and nutrient-rich food for all that contributes to healthy diets and pointed to resource scarcity, environmental degradation, unsustainable production and consumption patterns, food losses and waste and unbalanced distribution as root causes."

This is the critical issue that I think the case for integrated livestock and crop production systems addresses. 

p21, line 8, "Transition to more sustainable food systems involves both qualitative and quantitative changes in the 8 relationships between society, nature, energy and material flows within the food system. Sustainable  agricultural development encompasses crop cultivation and livestock production, with links to forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, practised across a wide diversity of ecosystems and landscapes."

Aquaculture receives no further mention in the document despite its capacity to use lower quality feed sources, accelerating demand, higher and more efficient meat production rates than terrestrial livestock systems, and much higher rates of return on investment. 

p22, line 8, Figure 1 Conceptual framework showing linkages between sustainable agricultural 8 development and food security and nutrition

Where is livestock production in this diagram? It should be linking between waste & losses from consumption to production systems. This diagram does not conceptually represent the integration that is needed in global, sustainable production systems, stresses such as geographically localised over consumption, losses and waste and needs to be revised. 

p25, line 50, "In conclusion, several pathways are possible to feed the global population of over 9 billion people in 2050. These pathways can be seen as changes in diet (including fish), increases in agricultural productivity, changes in land use, greater reliance on trade, reduction in food losses and waste, and reduction of inequalities. Among these pathways, livestock has a key role to play and is part of the solution (Erb et al., 2009)."

p41, line 38, Food losses and waste - A figure of 1/3 of food production lost as waste is quoted, "this appears to hold for all regions, although losses are somewhat higher in sub-saharan Africa". The losses are apparently difficult to measure accurately. 

p65, line 49, Food losses and waste are an identifed response under economic challanges

p81, line 31 Food losses and waste and unhealthy overconsumption of animal-based produces are supply stresses that are overlooked and not adequately addressed in favour of increasing agricultural intensification. 

p85, line 11 Refers to actions to reduce food losses in developing countries and waste in developed countries. 

p85, line 14, Recommends that food losses and waste are disaggregated according to each livestock product. 

Reasonable, but identifying where one livestock waste is another livestock feed is critical to more sustainable production. 

General  comments:

The HLPE draft report on “Sustainable Agriculture Development for Food Security and Nutrition, including the role of livestock” is successful in reflecting the different views of stakeholders and the suite of pressures and sustainability dimensions.

The central role of livestock in agriculture is well highlighted yet could be further reinforced by stressing the synergies with other agriculture sectors. Cropping systems, timber, aquaculture benefit from nutrients cycling triggered by livestock. Manure is essential in securing key soil functions such as physical stability and support that is essential for plant growth.

In order to discuss about sustainable food systems also in the context of food security and nutrition, it is very helpful the commentary provided on reference definitions on page 16. Nevertheless, it is highly recommended that the definition of sustainable food systems provided as footnote on page 21 is made more prominent and placed in the body text. Indeed, in order to articulate discussion on food security and nutrition, the whole report could be built on such definition. In order not to compromise food security and nutrition of future generations while also taking action to secure nutritious food to current generations, we need plausible future-oriented scenarios and pathways identified and assessed by sound tools such as reference integrated sustainability assessment methodologies and data.

Besides providing an overview of the different views on livestock production systems, this report is lacking in structure. The responses outlined at the end of the report lack supporting rationale and are often in contradiction.

Once highlighted all sustainability facets at the beginning of the report, more emphasis should be provided on the importance of reference data and life cycle sustainability assessment methods as a part of a toolbox in support of policy making. Without building consensus on reference methods and data, pathways towards sustainable agriculture will always be questioned from a methodological perspective and dialogue among stakeholders won’t move forward. The proliferation of environmental assessment methods has, in fact, led to diverging messages which hamper any improvement.

In order to meet the SDGs, linking assessment tools (like the ones that the LEAP Partnership is developing) to the development of alternative future-oriented scenarios is fundamental. Life cycle assessment could be used to assess alternative scenarios and identify suitable pathways (http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/sustainability-assessment-of-future-oriented-scenarios-pbLBNA26088/). Section 2.1.2 should have a more prominent role in the report and should be directly linked to the figure on page 22 as well as to final recommendations. 

To assess and monitor over time the environmental performance of livestock supply chains, the LEAP Partnership guidelines are the tool for livestock production systems and I would reccomend mentioning them in this report. (http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/resources/resources/en/; http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/resources/public-review/en/).

The figure on page 22 highlights very well the role of both production and consumption in the sustainability journey. At the bottom of the figure, the environmental compartments (biodiversity, nutrient cycles and water) are well placed. Nevertheless, soil quality should have a role and it could help readability a clearer distinction between production inputs (i.e. resources such as labour, land, water, nutrients, energy) and impacts (e.g. biodiversity, eutrophication, climate change, human health).

The methodological notes of the LEAP Partnership provide a comprehensive overview of environmental pressures and impacts and their linkage to resource use (http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/resources/resources/en/; http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/resources/public-review/en/)

What is titled on page 52 as environmental sustainability, it is actually more about resource use. Sub-sections on land and water (3.3.2 and 3.3.3) lack detail on the plethora of angles from which indicators and assessments have been produced. Impacts from land use and (direct and indirect) land use change are not sufficiently discussed. Soil quality indicators are not mentioned. The wide array of approaches, indicators and assessments on the water footprint of livestock does not emerge from 3.3.3. A section is missing on the positive and negative impacts of livestock on biodiversity. In this respect, inspiration may come from the LEAP report “A review of indicators and methods to assess biodiversity – application to livestock production at global scale.” Principles on the assessment of impacts of livestock on biodiversity are also recommended can complete the picture on biodiversity.

The use of pesticides, herbicides, etc. in agriculture – including feed production- might result in impacts on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems as well as on human health. An in-depth commentary on this impact category is highly recommended.

It should also be better articulated the relationship between chemical fertilizers and land degradation.

Section 3.3.4 on page 55 should be moved under section 2 “trends and drivers”.

Building on the classification by Robinson et al. (2011) mentioned on page 31, the LEAP Partnership Guidelines on feed, poultry, small ruminants, large ruminants and pigs supply chains provide an overview of the major production practices worldwide. Such text was put together by researchers from all continents and it is recommended to include such classification in the body text of section 2.3.

On page 41 line 17, I recommend quoting the LEAP guidelines and databases that are all based on life cycle thinking. http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/resources/public-review/en/

It is strongly recommended to comment how the figure on page 67 fits in the loop on page 33 of the FAO report “Building a Common Vision for Sustainable Food and Agriculture” http://www.fao.org/3/919235b7-4553-4a4a-bf38-a76797dc5b23/i3940e.pdf

On page 68, line 17, it is recommended to include the following text:

“Another MSP is the Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance (LEAP) Partnership. The LEAP Partnership focuses on the development of recognised sector specific guidelines to assess environment performance of livestock supply chains. LEAP aims at supporting the transition towards more sustainable food and agriculture by improving the environmental performance of livestock supply chains while ensuring social and economic viability. LEAP is a first-of-its-kind, multi-stakeholder partnership of Governments, Private Sectors, NGOs and CSOs, and other stakeholders united by a shared commitment to the sustainable development of the livestock sector. Guiding principles of the LEAP partnership include: global, inclusive, consensus, transparency, scientific, comprehensive, continuous improvement and adoption. “

Specific comments:

On page 43, line 44, it is maintained that “small-scale mixed systems in the tropics and subtropics have a significant role to play…”. To my knowledge, small-scale mixed systems also have a major role in other areas. 

Meat and livestock sector/products are often presented throughout the report (see pages 17, 26) as two separate categories while meat is part of the livestock sector and products as milk, fiber, manure are also livestock products.

Chapter 3 of the report of SADL is proposed to strengthen the analysis of climate change

Research on climate change may need to reflect the diversity of the results, which will be helpful for choosing the appropriate supportive policies. Trend of the impact of climate change on the increase of grain production in most areas of the world from is similar: from tropical to north temperate zone, the grain production changes from a reduction to an increase gradually, and the overall production keeps stable. Research team led by Prof. Xian Xin from China Agriculture University comes out with following results:

Xin et al. (2013) investigates the impacts of climate change on China’s grain output using rural household survey data. Their results indicate that the overall negative climate impacts on the PRC’s grain output range from -0.31% to -2.69% in 2030 and from -1.93% to -3.07% in 2050, under different emission scenarios. The impacts, however, differ substantially for different grain crops and different regions. The substantial regional differences will also induce changes in agricultural interregional trade pattern. Xin et al. (2015) investigate the climate change impacts on this trade pattern and their results indicate that Northwest, South, Central, and Northeast China will see increases in the outflows of agricultural products in 2030 and 2050. Conversely, outflows from East, North, and Southwest China will decrease.

References:

Xin Xian, Lin Tun, Liu Xiaoyun, Wan Guanghua, and Yongsheng Zhang (2013). The Impacts of Climate Change on the People’s Republic of China’s Grain Output—Regional and Crop Perspective, China Agricultural Economic Review,  Vol. 5, No.4, pp.434-458

Xin Xian, Lin Tun, Liu Xiaoyun, Wan Guanghua, and Yongsheng Zhang (2015). Climate Change and Agricultural Interregional Trade Flows in the People’s Republic of China, China Agricultural Economic Review, Vol. 7, No.2, pp158-166

I thank the HLPE for the opportunity to comment on the V.0 draft of its report. I offer the following suggestions as a contribution to the panel’s work.

First, I welcome the focus of chapter 4 around the task of identifying and developing pathways towards sustainable agricultural development. As a member of the ESRC STEPS Centrei  I agree that the concept of pathways – multiple, diverse and inclusive – is a useful and practical one to help researchers, policy makers and practitioners create a sustainable future through the integration of social, technological and environmental knowledge and action. I hope that the HLPE will maintain this focus in the final version of chapter 4 and I invite the report’s authors to draw on the insights of STEPS researchers’ conceptual, methodological and empirical contributions over the past decade, including work on agriculture and livestock.ii

Second, I suggest that the report needs to demonstrate the HLPE’s awareness of the ways in which emerging technologies and novel foods, including various alternatives to conventional meat, may have an influence on future markets and production systems for conventional livestock. These alternatives include edible insects (also known as ‘mini livestock’) and other substitutes for conventional meat, such as protein foods based on algae and fungi or laboratory-cultured meat. This may not be a major topic or one with immediate implications, but it is still significant enough, I believe, to merit brief consideration in a report like this one.

On edible insects, I recommend the recent FAO report on the topic (Huis et al., 2013) and the works cited therein. We included a box on other novel protein foods, with some web links and cited works, in a recent IDS publication on the potential of edible insects as food and feed (Glover and Sexton, 2015, Box 1.1, p.9).

Third, more generically I would point out that some topics discussed in the body of the V.0 draft of the report do not appear in the conclusions and recommendations, or do so in a notably low-key manner. For example, in lines 28—35 the tone implies that in the context of intensification of livestock production (which is acknowledged to imply concentration and specialisation within industrial systems), nothing more can or need be done to acknowledge the continued relevance of small-scale, mixed farming systems than ‘be attentive to opportunities to engage and retain [them] where possible’. This is rather feeble in light of the discussion and works cited in the foregoing chapters of the report.

Finally, I would encourage the HLPE to give greater attention within the report to issues of sustainable consumption, which are touched on here and there throughout the report, but scarcely reappear in the conclusions or recommendations. For example, lines 30—33 affirm that rising demand for animal products need not be taken as a ‘given’ yet, nonetheless, this is more or less accepted, at least implicitly, in the draft report’s conclusions. I think that a flagship review like this one ought to look more closely and consider more seriously whether inexorably rising demand really is inevitable, and also at whether measures to influence, moderate, or reduce demand for meat and dairy products are at all feasible or realistic — and not simply assume that there is little to be done except plan to meet projected demand. In our own recent foresight study on the potential contribution of edible insects (as an example of a novel food), participants in a scenario exercise found it conceivable that consumer demand for conventional meat might fall, perhaps quite sharply, for instance in response to a major outbreak of zoonotic disease or antibiotic-resistant illness that might be traced to contemporary intensive livestock rearing operations (Glover and Sexton, 2015). We concluded that such a scenario is quite plausible, even if it is not widely anticipated, and our work suggests that the HLPE should take such systemic shocks and surprises into account.

I hope that these comments and suggestions are useful. I am happy to elaborate on them or provide further information if required. I look forward to seeing the revised report in due course.

References

Glover, D. and A. Sexton (2015). Edible Insects and the Future of Food: A Foresight Scenario Exercise on Entomophagy and Global Food Security. IDS Evidence Report 149. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.  Available from http://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/edible-insects-and-  the-future-of-food-a-foresight-scenario-exercise-on-entomophagy-and-global-food-security

Huis, A. van, J. van Itterbeeck, H. Klunder, E. Mertens, A. Halloran, G. Muir and P. Vantomme (2013). Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security. FAO Forestry Paper. Rome, IT: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Available from  http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e.pdf

i  The STEPS Centre focuses on Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability. The Centre has been established for its first ten years with funds from the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). For more information on the STEPS Centre, please refer to http://steps-centre.org/.

ii  Information on the STEPS Centre’s ‘pathways approach’ and methods is available from http://steps-  centre.org/methods/pathways-approach/ and http://steps-centre.org/methods/pathways-methods/. Publications based on STEPS research in agriculture, including livestock, can be found at http://steps-centre.org/publications/ (using the search filters).