We would like to thank the UN Committee on World Food Security for the opportunity to comment on this report.
There are two areas where we would welcome further analysis in the final report:
The first is to do with Land Use Change, which is often associated with the production of animal feed. The report notes(albeit briefly) the environmental impact of this but it is also important to reflect the social impacts that land use change can have, particularly when indiginous forms of subsistence farming are displaced by the sort of commodity crops that typically supply the livestock feed markets. The resulting model is not only less resilient in terms of the sort of climatic shocks we need to plan for, but it also greatly increases the risks posed by economic shocks.
The second is to do with water consumption - so often cited as a major issue with livestock production. We would welcome a greater distinction between blue, green and grey water in this respect. The report (3.3.3) does correclty note the potential problems associated with grey water from intensive livestock production. However, it is also important to note that pasture-based, extensive livestock production is predominently associated with green water use and as such presents minimal conflict with domestic water supplies. A more accurate way to see the use of green water in the context of extensive livestock production is not as one of consumtion, but as part of a closed cycle, whereby excreted water (urine) is used by plants as a source of nutrition and both toxins and pollutants are rapidly broken down by crops and in the soil by nicroflora.
Attached is a slightly more detailed version of our response.
With good wishes,
John Turner Pasture-Fed Livestock Association (Certification)
John Turner