المنتدى العالمي المعني بالأمن الغذائي والتغذية

I wish to commend this document.  I believe that it has presented a thorough and balanced argument that takes account of the major concerns relating to food security, economics, land management, societal pressures and animal welfare. It is also refreshing to read a review on sustainable agriculture that gives proper and sympathetic recognition to the importance of pastoral systems especially in the less developed world not only to food production but also in relation to environmental stability. 

I have addressed these issues in detail elsewhere (Webster 2013, 2016).   Here I wish to draw attention to a matter of major importance that has not, in my opinion, been given due weight. You recognise (p41) the need to use full life-cycle assessments to evaluate the environmental impact of all agricultural systems. Again on p48 you refer to the “narrow metrics” used in consideration of the GHG footprint associated with food production from ruminants.  However you do not develop this theme. In particular you do not consider the potential of pastoral and especially silvo-pastoral systems to act as major C-sequestering sinks.  The impact of ruminants is considered only in terms of production of greenhouse gases (GHG, principally methane) and means of reducing output.  Recent research based on life cycle analysis indicates that C sequestration in well-managed pastoral and silvo-pastoral systems can exceed GHG output from ruminants grazing these systems (Soto Pinto et al 2010, Sousanna et al 2010). It is clear that these ecosystems, which depend for their sustainability on properly managed grazing, can make a highly significant contribution to sustainable agricultural development in ways that (in your words) should be “compatible with values…. by reducing greenhouse gas production, land degradation, water pollution…. and achieving animal welfare” (p45).  The second phrase would read better as “reducing net greenhouse gas production through C sequestration”.

Your conclusion 7f (p84) within the environmental section states:

“ Incorporate incentives to reward public goods provision and disincentives (polluter pays) including appropriate pricing structures to support sustainable use of natural resources” 

This is a powerful recommendation that I applaud. I have criticised the Environmental Stewardship Schemes within the EU Common Agricultural Policy for the fact that they “focus only on the prettier features of planet husbandry, like wildlife, and neglect the big issues such as carbon sequestration and water management”  (Webster 2013, p208).  Your paper recognises the vital importance of well-managed pastoral systems to sustainable land management.  However I believe that you need to give much more emphasis to the point that the people whose life depends on the management of this land cannot be expected to compete if their reward comes entirely (or nearly entirely) from the sale of food and other animal produce. Until we can fully reward their contribution to sustaining the quality of the living environment, all will suffer.

References

Soto Pinto l, Anzueto M, Mendozaj, Ferrer J, de Long B 2010  Carbon  sequestration through agroforestry in indigenous zones of Chiapas, Mexico. Agriforest Systems 78, 39-51

Sousanna JF, Allec T, Blanfort V 2010 Mitigating the greenhouse gas balance of ruminant production systems through carbon sequestration in grassland Animal 4 334-340

Webster John 2013 Animal Husbandry Regained: the place of farm animals in sustainable agriculture. Earthscan from Routledge, London and New York

Webster John 2016 Livestock production systems: animal welfare and environmental quality.  Section 1, Ch.9  In Routledge Hanbook of Food and Nutrition Security. Eds B Pritchard, O Rodomiro, M Sheka, Routledge, London and New York (in press)