Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

We welcome the timely focus of this report on Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition, including the role of livestock. As the scoping document states, livestock is at the centre of current global food systems: 75% of all agricultural land is dedicated to grazing or growing feed crops[i], and 36% of global crop production (by calories)[ii] and 29% of all marine capture fisheries landings (by weight) [iii] are destined to feed animals. How many animals we raise and how we do it has a direct impact on the amount and quality of food we produce.

We also welcome the inclusion of a critical assessment of food demand projections. Many projections assume a “business as usual” evolution of consumption patterns. However, there is enough evidence to show that supply-side measures won’t be enough to ensure the sustainability of our food systems and that demand-side measures will also have to be part of the solution. If consumption patterns change, the requirements to fulfil them, will also change. We should not see those projections as an inevitable future we must cater to, but as guides to help us shape the future and achieve truly sustainable and sufficient food production.

However, livestock goes beyond just food. On one hand, it’s a major driver of some of the most threatening impacts we currently face:

·     Livestock is responsible for 14.5% of anthropogenic GHG emissions[iv];

·     the expansion of pastures and cropland expansion (driven by the increasing demand for feed crops) and the associated deforestation and biodiversity loss; and

·     the high levels of animal protein intake in some societies plays an undeniable role in the rise of obesity and related non communicable diseases. Not just because of the direct intake of meat, milk and eggs, but because of the associated consumption patterns (fried chicken, burgers, processed foods, etc.).

On the other hand, livestock sustains the livelihoods of people all around the world, including the most vulnerable and food insecure among us. Livestock is key in providing valuable nutrients but also many other services, ranging from draught power to work the land and transport goods, to roles in maintaining community structure, acting as indicators of social status and as savings mechanisms that increase the resilience of people’s livelihoods to extreme or unpredictable events.

Discussions about livestock tend to be polarized. We believe this to be caused by a lack of distinction between different production systems and a lack of a “food systems” approach with an integrated view of crops and livestock production, as well as of food consumption patterns. This report presents an excellent opportunity to distinguish between different systems and identify their advantages and disadvantages in different contexts. We would like the report to explore the differences between different systems from different perspectives, including but not limited to:

·     The use of human-edible crops as animal feed (and other aspects of the food vs feed debate), including impacts on food security and resource use efficiency.

·     The concept of virtual nutrient and water trade. Water and many nutrients (effectively, soil) are depleted from feed producing regions and accumulated in livestock intensive areas (with serious consequences in both cases).

·     A better appreciation of the multiple uses of livestock. In many contexts, livestock’s value cannot be restricted to the provision of meat, milk and eggs.  They provide many services that have direct and indirect implications for food security. In some cases, these “non-market” values can be higher than the market ones.

·     An integrated view of rural development. Accounting for differences in access to market (including both formal and informal markets), employment opportunities and conditions, as well as other related factors as gender, education and cultural traditions.

·     The use of antibiotics in farm animals, its effect on the emergence of antibiotic resistance and the risk this presents to human health.

·     The need to better integrate livestock and crop production. To close the nutrient cycle, minimize the dependence on agrochemicals, increase the resilience of food production and increase the diversity of our diets.

·     Access to and free exchange of knowledge. To ensure the prevalence of farmer to farmer transfer and making sure that indigenous, traditional and localized knowledge is taken into account as a valuable source and not ignored by agricultural extension (bottom up, rather than top down approach); knowledge is not only derived from transferred practices and technologies.

·     Identification of systems in which livestock is central to the way of life of people and not easily replaceable by any other activity (e.g. pastoralists, crofters)

We are convinced that we cannot reconcile several aspects of current food systems, without changing our approach to livestock. At the same time, it’s important to be aware of the possible adverse effects that proposed measures to improve food security could have on other aspects of sustainability.

Besides these comments, and opinions about the general direction of the report, we are attaching some proposed changes to the actual text of the scoping document that crystalize some of our thinking.