Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

Dear Sir/Madame, I am sending my contribution to this report, after reading. Sorry for the gramatical errors, since my mother tongue is spanish, but I prefer to write in english in order to reach more readers

Thanks for this opportunity,

Santiago

Dear members of the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security,

Please find below our comments on the V0 draft of the study: “Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition, including the role of livestock”. We have organized them in two sections: “general comments”, which address the main questions proposed in the report, and “specific comments”, which address specific sections and paragraphs. The latter were chosen as representative of similar paragraphs and information put forward in several parts of the report.

We hope these suggestions are useful, and look forward to reading the new version.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Cynthia Schuck, PhD, Oxon – Dept. of Environment, Brazilian Vegetarian Society

Dr. Eric Slywitch, MD – Department of Nutrition, Brazilian Vegetarian Society

General Comments

The report asks “How can the goals of FSN be achieved in ways and in systems that conserve natural resources, reduce pollution and adjust to climate change, and respect social and cultural values?”

Indeed, a growing body of evidence shows that the health of humanity is intrinsically linked to the health of the environment.

The environmental crises that are already unfolding are, however, greatly amplified by livestock production. We are 7 billion humans, but raise and slaughter over 70 billion land animals – and an even greater number of aquatic animals – every year for use as food. Livestock production puts enormous pressure on every ecosystem on Earth: in addition to producing solid, liquid and gaseous waste in massive amounts, each animals requires a fraction of land, water and food. Overall, 75% of the arable land on the planet is used as pasture or for feed production (Foley et al 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478:337-42). Indeed, as acknowledged in the report, “eating animals rather than edible plants is inefficient in terms of calories harvested per hectare” – leading to inefficient land use, habitat loss and waste of natural resources that could otherwise be used more efficiently. In addition, the major impact of livestock production on soil erosion, desertification, water scarcity and pollution, as well as on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, is also well established. Population growth and a rising demand for animal products – projected to increase from 70 to 100% by 2050 (Godfray et al 2010 Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327:812-818) – will further intensify existing pressures on climate, land and water. Considering the present use of 75% of arable land for animal agriculture, it becomes clear that food security will not be achieved if animal production increases further to meet the demands of a growing and more affluent population, even if existing yield gaps in agricultural production become narrower. If dietary patterns are left unchecked, over 1 billion hectares of arable land (the size of the entire European continent) would be needed (Tilman et al 2011, PNAS 08:20260–4), with simultaneous increases in greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, nitrogen, phosphorous and water use. This is an unsustainable scenario.                                    

The potential to mitigate most of the environmental damage associated with the livestock sector is greater through changes in consumption than through supply-side mitigation measures. Reducing the consumption of animal products is central to achieving the sustainable development goals as established in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations. A reduction of livestock consumption would help achieve food security and improved nutrition (Goal 2), healthy lives and well-being for all (Goal 3), availability and sustainable management of water resources (Goal 6), sustainable consumption and production patterns (Goal 12) and combat climate change and its impacts (Goal 13).

In a second part, the report focuses on “how effective policies can be designed and implemented to achieve food security and nutritional goals across and within different countries and societal groups”.

While there has been a number of success stories in low-income countries in tackling under-nutrition, obesity has rapidly become a global epidemic. The sharp increase in prevalence and the associated health risks, co-morbidities and costs have made it a major public health challenge at a global scale.

In Latin America, for example, the nutritional transition has been largely driven by the widespread offer of cheaper food products low in nutritional value and high in energy, sugar, animal fats and proteins, as well as by unregulated advertising practices to which poorer populations are particularly vulnerable. Currently, these food products are often more accessible than fresh fruits and vegetables. A number of African countries are following the same steps. The higher consumption of livestock products, in particular, has been also shown to be an important risk factor for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and some cancers, further adding to the burden of malnutrition.

Acknowledgment of the heavy environmental footprint and public health burden of the increasing consumption of livestock products is therefore paramount for the design of effective prevention and mitigation strategies aimed at promoting healthy and sustainable diets.  Overall, shifting global demand for animal products is one of the most promising means to promote a healthy, safe and sustainable future for all.

Specific Comments

Report. Page8, lines 24-30 “the meat and livestock sector is central to sustainable agricultural development. It accounts for 40 percent of global agricultural GDP and makes a huge positive contribution to livelihoods and nutrition including for poor and vulnerable people in the developing world. An estimated 1 billion poor people, many of them women, derive at least part of their livelihood from livestock. It has been one of the fastest growing sectors in global agriculture, due to rapid demand growth in low-income and emerging economies. That trend is set to continue to meet a 70 percent projected increase in demand for livestock products by 2050, almost all of which will be in developing countries”.

Comment. This sentence implies that the livestock sector is central to sustainable agricultural development because of its pervasive influence in today’s societies. However, mitigating hunger, improving nutrition, increasing food security and lessening environmental pressures on natural resources and ecosystems all depend on making the livestock sector less central. A shift towards the substitution of livestock by crops should also have major benefits for those who derive their livelihood from it, as the amount of land and natural resources to raise livestock is considerably higher than that required for the production of similar amounts plant-based protein, or calories harvested, even when compared to highly productive livestock systems.

Report Pg18. 37-48. Nutritionally, meat and other animal products such as milk and eggs globally provide 13 percent of total calories, 28 percent of dietary protein, and are sources of vitamins and key micronutrients, several of which are not found in plant foods, thus contributing to optimal nutrition. They are valuable in combating malnutrition and a range of nutritional deficiencies in particular for disadvantaged and vulnerable people, including the elderly, lactating mothers and infants. Around two billion people suffer from micronutrient deficiencies including at least half of children worldwide aged 6 months to 5 years (Ahmed et al., 2012). In particular, there is severe and widespread deficiency of iron, zinc, vitamin A, iodine and folate, all of which are present in animal-sourced foods (ASFs). Indeed, ASFs are probably the world’s most important source of nutrient-rich foods in diets and studies show the health benefits of providing ASFs to undernourished populations (Gibson, 2011). Milk consumption is especially associated with increased height, and meat consumption with increased cognitive development.

Comment. That ASF provide only 13% of total calories consumed, while requiring 75% of all arable land of the planet for its production, is illustrative of the unsustainability of animal agriculture, even under putative increases in productivity.

In terms of nutrition, higher levels of ASF consumption now represent a major threat to malnutrition, morbidity and mortality from non-communicable diseases. As acknowledged in the report “many studies show an association between meat consumption (especially red and processed meat) and cardiovascular disease (including strokes), some cancers, diabetes and all cause mortality (Micha et al., 2012; Larsson and Orsini, 2014). There are also plausible mechanisms which livestock products may have a causal role. For example, meat is a source of carcinogens formed during high-temperature cooking of meat and ASFs are sources of saturated fat, associated with higher risk of cardiovascular disease.” These trends should be intensified with the projected urbanization of societies in all continents.  Additionally, a large number of nutritional deficiencies are associated to the poor consumption of fruits and vegetables, which is increasingly below recommended levels in high- and low-income countries alike. As recognized by the national dietary guidelines of several countries, a plant-based diet can be healthy in all stages of life. Iron, zinc, vitamin A, iodine and folate are all present in plant-based food sources. For example, beta-carotene (a source of vitamin A) is abundant in carrots, kale and pumpkins. Beans and other whole grain sources are rich sources of zinc and iron – cheaper than meat. Absorption of these micronutrients can be further increased when soaked in water for some hours before cooking and combined with food sources rich in vitamin C. Dark leafy greens are also rich in iron and calcium. It is only if a population consumes a monotonous plant-based diet that dietary bioavailability of micronutrients such as iron and zinc can be low. Promoting a diversified diet is therefore essential. It is also important to consider that consumption of ASFs is not a guarantee for the absence of nutritional deficiencies. Folic acid, for instance, is destroyed by heat. Therefore, meat is only a good source of folic acid when consumed in its raw form (a practice not recommended considering the increased risk of contamination). Iodine is not synthetized by animals. Instead, it needs to be supplied to livestock when not naturally available in the region where it is raised. Indeed, a number of epidemiological studies show that micronutrient deficiencies are widespread in societies with meat-rich diets. Milk consumption can be especially detrimental in populations characterized by a high prevalence of lactose intolerance, as is the case in many Asian and African countries.

Report Pg. 26, lines6-9. “For this increase in access to animal-sourced foods, livestock numbers need to increase, but so too will the productivity of these animals, the latter being particularly important if natural resources (particularly water) are to be used wisely, and environmental pressures and greenhouse gas emissions are to be mitigated”. Report Pg. 43, 31-35. “Globally, increases in livestock productivity in the recent past have been driven mostly by scientific and technological developments in breeding, nutrition/feeding and animal health. However, there is still a big yield gap to be addressed that holds the potential to increase production and efficiency in a sustainable way”.

Comment. Proposals aimed at curbing the negative effects of livestock production have focused predominantly on the intensification of the sector, particularly the intensification of animal farming systems. The cost-effectiveness of these options relative to demand-side mitigation policies is, however, often ignored. Due to the low energy efficiency typical of meat, egg and dairy production, large areas (many of which high-grade arable land) are used inefficiently to produce feed for animals raised intensively. Water and fertilizer are similarly wasted in large volumes. Intensive animal farming is also associated with high levels of water and soil pollution. The technical and logistic costs of existing solutions to mitigate these and other environmental by-products of animal farming are often prohibitive to small farmers.

As suggested in the report, many of the costs of intensive animal farming systems are transferred to animals. Productivity gains often stem from the selection and manufacturing of fast-growing and/or highly productive breeds. A common outcome of this process is a high incidence of bone and joint disorders, among other anatomical and physiological diseases associated with chronic pain. Other means to increase productivity also include reducing the amount of feed per animal, age at slaughter and the confinement of animals in high densities, in an environment that prevents them from fulfilling basic behavioral, physiological and psychological needs. Palliative measures (such as the extraction of teeth, horns, tails and beaks) to prevent physical harm and mutilation as a by-product of chronic stress are commonly employed. Poor welfare conditions also increase susceptibility to diseases – routinely managed with the use of antibiotics in large amounts.

Productivity gains at the cost of animal welfare goes against the idea – put forth in the report – that “Animal welfare is increasingly recognised as an important issue, and as a characteristic of sustainable agricultural development (Reisch et al., 2013)”.  Moreover, as pointed out in the report “Improvements in efficiency may not be sufficient to close the disconnect between increasing scarcity of resources and rising demands for ASF. In Sweden, for example, GHG per kg of chicken fell by 22 percent between 1990 and 2005, but consumption increased by 180 percent during the same period, with a resultant total emissions increase of 150 percent (Cederberg et al., 2009)”. Indeed, productivity gains are often accompanied by falling prices and subsequent increases in demand, which can partially or fully override environmental savings achieved.

Report Pg.50. 24-25. Accessibility of ASF, including fish (HLPE, 2014a), is a major determinant of ensuring nutrition security.

Comment. If not restricted to a few rural, isolated or pastoral societies, this conclusion contradicts several of the arguments put forward in previous sections, which acknowledge that livestock “contributes to many nutrition, health, social and environmental problems”.

We hope these comments are useful in tailoring the report.

With best regards

Dr. Cynthia Schuck, PhD, Oxon – Dept. of Environment, Braz. Vegetarian Society

Dr. Eric Slywitch, MD – Department of Nutrition, Brazilian Vegetarian Society

Please find enclosed a document with comments and answers on the V0 draft of the Report: Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition, including the role of livestock.

Best regards

Mauro Fioretti - Senior expert

Associazione Italiana Allevatori (A.I.A.)

Via G. Tomassetti 9 - 00161 Roma (Italy)

Dear HLPE Project Team,

Please find attached the Brooke's contribution to this consultation, calling for a fuller recognition of the entire spectrum of livestock functions that underpin the livelihoods strategies of poor people, with a particular emphasis on draught (traction and transport). We include evidence to show why omitting these essential livestock inputs puts sustainable food production and food security at risk.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the V0 draft of the report.

The Brooke

Q1. 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?

While totally relevant in its aim to reassociate animals to agriculture, the focus on livestock seems to me (even a livestock scientist) some oversized or too recurrent compared to the more general agricultural stakes for FSN. Like for livestock, a more structured approach of the main stakes around staple food crops (for FSN) and cash crops (for market) and a classification of the main categories of crop systems (from small holder to industrial) could be developed in parallel and analysed in terms of interactions (or not) between these two main Agricultural subsectors (Crop/livestock).

In some way there is a strong "long shadow report" effect for the livestock component where such synthetized approach and global report is still missing for cropping agriculture. 

Q2. 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 structure is relevant but could be better balanced or declined and articulated between "primary production" crop agriculture multiple functions and stakes and the livestock agriculture as a  "secondary" transformer, adding value to cultivated or natural resources biomasses (grasslands, grains, by products..)  and it's own functions/stakes toward sustainability

A totally lacking aspect in actual and future drivers is the global economy players and the recent and rapid financialisation trend of agriculture that followed the food crisis and that crosses contexts, trends, challenges with many new actor's (pension funds, commodity markets, food equities funds, new private investors etc), raising in many places and the fact that these will probably boost some categories of crop and/or livestock systems and lay behind some others …. Food Commodities are becoming more subject to speculations. New rules or absence of rules questions the sustainability in it's three main pillars.  The report should evocate at least these important trends (I'm absolutely not expert, attached a small example more can be found when "googleing" on financialisation, agriculture as key words). Eventually HLPE could sollicitate some specific expertise on the subject to develop around actual trends and further views in link to this specific financial aspect.    

The burden of nutrient losses (Nitrogen, phosphorus ..) between livestock and return back crop (e.g >70 million tons N are rejected by animals in their environment, a still small part is recycled in agriculture while more than 80 million tons mineral N is synthesized.... etc). The enormous challenge to better and effectively reconnect cropping systems // livestock systems and recycle in the most efficient way all the wasted nutrients could be more strongly underlined.

As stated in the document Energy use in systems has been crucial for crop and or livestock intensification, between renewable and non renewable energies ; Food  Feeds, Fuel,  human, animal energy imputs in systems vs NRE uses, the future sustainability is also questioned.  See e.g. Vigne M (2014) Environmental assessment of livestock systems with the emergy methodology: Efficiency of extensive livestock systems in harsh environments. Perspective 25. CIRAD Agriculture Research for Development, Paris, France.

The questions of the use efficiency of the different forms of energy in the agricultural systems could be better outlined

Q3. 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?

In the global agriculture these 4 categories are sufficient for livestock but the weight given to Ruminant appears implicitly a little too recurrent while non ruminant (pig poultry) have know the major development in the last decades. ( in 2010  23 .10 9 heads vs  6. 109 en 1960 (Faostat), : poultry x5, pigs x 2.4 , ruminants x1.5  )  These non ruminant systems are the most efficient but also the highest users and competitors on agricultural primary food products (grains, pulses …).

Another very rapidly growing and highly weighing sector are the fisheries and the intense use of feeds in aquaculture. It is rather poorly evocated in a general way and most of the time considered apart from livestock (aquaculture is cited 1 time in the report, while global aquaculture productions, consuming large amounts of feeds,  actually equals bovine meat production …) see e.g. P. GERBER, C. BRUGÈRE, P. ANKERS 2011 Évolution des productions animales terrestres et aquacoles dans le monde : tendances globales et implications économiques, sociales et environnementales INRA Prod. Anim., , 24 (1), 9-22

These productions (non rum livestock and fish) are great competitors on human food but on the other hand, because of their high value adding capacity, these have a very high training effect on the primary agricultural production and economy in many landscapes. As far as these are also all short cycle production systems that can be rapidly stopped or reboosted, these systems also constitute an important buffer for global FSN. Some consideration could be detailed on these direct and indirect economic effects and global food feed stakes of these components of the livestock sector

Q4. 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?

Some added reference:  beyond global food security the concerns evolve toward, malnutrition and under vs over nutrition see IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute. 2015. Global Nutrition Report 2015: Actions and Accountability to Advance Nutrition and Sustainable Development. Washington, DC. Also, more and more evidence based papers address the poor effect of agricultural development (crop or livestock) on malnutrition disequilibrium and diseases in rural communities as well as in cities see e.g. UK aid report (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/292727/Nutrition-evidence-paper.pdf or Dury S, Bocoum I, 2012. Le « paradoxe » de Sikasso (Mali) : pourquoi « produire plus » ne suffit-il pas pour bien nourrir les enfants des familles d'agriculteurs ? Cah Agric 21 : 324-36. doi : 10.1684/agr.2012.058

Beyond global FSN It would be useful to deepen and actualise on such evolving malnutrition concerns

Q5. 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?

Again the shift in the investor's profile, the financial challenges, and the observed huge investment in high technologies like precision agric, food E-commerce, water, drones/robotics, land  buying, would probably merit some particular attention (see e.g. http://www.foodtechconnect.com/2015/08/14/agtech-funding-explodes-2b-invested-first-half-2015/ ) 

Financial capacities of emerging actors could or definitely will, deepen the gap between industrial and family household. How could some  SWOT be developed on the compared and real future strengths, opportunities for rural agricultural (incl livestock) development.

Facing the rapid urbanisation of populations, the loss of cultural link to rural values and the sometimes growing idea (among policy makers and private investors) and sometimes consumers that (only) large highly industrialised and integrated systems using latest technologies will feed the world, some more argumented consideration and balanced views on the real actual weight of family households (see FAO SOFA 2014, Innovation in family farming), their skills and local knowledge use to precisely manage at low cost and with parsimonious resource uses a large part of the agricultural production could be further developed

Q6. 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?

The chapter is well structured it conveys to a quite classical enumeration of key issues and a Figure 9 Decision making approach: the response cycle for policies to address FSN-SADL that depicts a stylized approach to such decision-making. The figure is a little too simple, the overall context climate change, urbanization, demography could be further developed in it's complexity with societal health and nutrition, animal welfare, organic vs conventional food ... concerns

What also probably misses in such scheme is a representation or a further discussion paragraph on who are the decider's is it a small group or the broad community of actors including the private sector (rarely named or evocated in the document) along to the producers, the transformers, the traders etc  in the chains and who are the policy makers: local communities, private investors, governments, regional economic communities financing organisations ( UE, WB etc what could be the future balanced role of each.

Q7. 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?

Regarding livestock interesting examples could be found around the milk developments in kenya a self sufficient country where a very large part of the market is informal (Ilri has made a lot of survey and syntheses on this), or better in India a leading country in world milk production and it's White Revolution structuring around BAIF millions of producers managing low performance and highly recycling cows fed mainly with agricultural by products (see e.g. BAIF http://www.baif.org.in/pdf/Dairy_Husbandary.pdf) ... Summarised examples could be solicited among these institutions

Q8. 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.

Recent example of Vietnam milk development and comparison of indicators between mega farm and small holder milk farm in the NRA Revalter project is highly interesting ( see and eventually contact  http://www.futurelivestock.net/)

Q9. 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?

The role is effectively essential but also controversial in its effects regarding sustainability. high quality and safety standards policy and low prices competition in the retailers/consumers distribution sector favours upstream integration of large feed and agrifood providers it contributes to FSN and to the economic pillar of sustainability the environmental and in particular the social pillar are more questionable …  examples can be found in all production sub sector ( cereals, soya, oil, livestock, fish, vegetables) . Should be  effectively something interesting to discuss more here 

Q10. 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?

Facing climate and environmental concerns, Carbon markets potentials, Ecosystem services retribution as well as concepts like Social Responsibility of the Enterprises, Social Business etc …  emerging in the private sector, what could be a future sustainable agriculture associating such tools and initiatives 

Q11. 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?

Regarding animal agriculture there appear very huge gaps between highly developed world and the rest on basic country, region, systems data’s.  First on real Animal existing numbers (e.g. figures on animal numbers in a country like Niger vary between 10 and 40 millions….) and on the actualised productivity parameters in smallholder systems To address environmental questions, efficiency gaps closures, self-sufficiency foresights, at landscapes, regional or national level national actualised and  detailed accounting figures are highly needed

Committee on World Food Security - High Level Panel of Experts on “Food Security and Nutrition  Sustainable Agricultural Development for Food Security and Nutrition, including the Role of Livestock”

The report is very important and comprehensive, with some comments:

It is very important to deal with the matter according to each country, for example, in the developing countries such as my country Jordan, the main food loss and waste in:

    Poor quality packages which provide little or no protection during handling, transport and storage which lead to mechanical damage.

    Delays in marketing without proper storage.

    Buy more food when the price is low which lead to more loss of food.

    It is very important also to take the measures in awareness to consumer (Lectures, media,…. ) about important of proper consumption  by buying their need not more than that and learn them that this will lead to increase the price. The proper way of consumption lead to decrease the cost for family, more health for human ( fresh) to increase knowledge and changed behaviors which provide the food to other people in the same country or other country.

    The change in nutrition habits of consumers is very important in reducing the food loss and reach to healthy food.

    The cooperation between the countries in food issues.

    Climate change is very important in food production.

Thank you very much

Khaled Al-talafih

Amman- Jordan

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?

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?

L'idée de condenser beaucoup d'éléments dans ce rapport donne une idée de patchwork plutôt que de pensée complexe articulant différentes thématiques.

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?

Les systèmes d'élevage sont identifiés par une catégorie de plus que le dernier rapport de la FAO( les commercial ranchers)... quel intérêt?  Quels systèmes français par exemple rentreraient dans cette catégorie : ceux du massif central? On déplore la précision chiffrée ou qualifiée qui permettent d'identifier selon cette grille les élevages des différentes régions du monde. Une carte serait fortement bienvenue  pour préciser cela.... Par ailleurs, les deux systèmes agricoles identifiés, intensive crop farming et smallholder systems, ne couvrent clairement pas l'ensemble des systèmes agricoles mondiaux (quid de la polyculture élevage avec ruminants sur pâture? Identification des zones de grandes cultures sèches ou irriguée?). De plus, un élevage peut-être compris dans les deux systèmes (type exemples beaucerons) : à quoi sert alors cette classification? Quels liens entre les 4 catégories d'élevage précédemment cités dans ces systèmes de production ?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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. 

A) Dans les biofuels, le biogaz (méthanisation) est-il comptabilisé?

De manière générale, le texte ne comprend pas de réflexion sur le potentiel (éventuellement dangereux à grandes échelles*) de méthanisation  via les excréments des animaux.

*comprend:

- questionnement autour de la restitution de la matière organique aux sols  (CH4 volatilisé, que reste-t-il dans les digestats restitués aux sols agricoles)?

–  "nourrir" les digesteurs suppose souvent grands volumes de matières biologiques à transformer.       

B) de façon générale, les incidences culturelles comme l'identification de terroirs ou de paysages spécifiques, ressort peu dans le document. Or, elles peuvent avoir des conséquences sur, par exemple, le maintien de l'élevage dans des zones en déprise agricole (au moins dans les pays du Nord).

The Quaker United Nations Office would like to congratulate the Expert Panel on the immense amount of work done this far to bring these complex issues together in one piece.

We appreciate especially the even-handed approach used when discussing sustainability concerns related to livestock production, recognizing that the pillar of food stability requires that factors associated with livestock production such as GHG emissions, water pollution and agrobiodiversity loss be taken into consideration in FSN policy dialogues.

We appreciate also the attention paid to pasture-based livestock, pastoral and mixed agricultural systems, of which the majority of the one billion people involved in livestock production manage. These less resource-intensive systems contribute to rural livelihoods and promote FSN worldwide.

One suggestion is to include some analysis of the volume of crops currently being diverted to animal feed, as well as projections, and the caloric and nutritional value of these crops relative to the meat and animal products derived from them. After reading the context section the reader may be left wondering, for example, how much feed is required to produce the 13% of total calories derived from meat and animal products (pp.8). If data is unavailable (as suggested on pp.25), this might be highlighted upfront.

We suggest that projections for how much food production will need to increase by 2050 (pp.24) may be more modest if national policies are in place to promote traditional / local food cultures and nutrition education. Increased meat and animal product consumption may not be an inevitability, particularly in light of recent health concerns associated with meat-intensive diets.

Additionally, it would be helpful to visualize the nutritional breakdown of the non-meat and animal product dietary proteins we consume. The reader may be left wondering if the 72% of dietary protein we consume (the total less the 28% of meat and animal products) is sufficient for healthy diets, physical and cognitive development and for combating micronutrient deficiencies (pp.17, 28).

Another suggestion would be to differentiate between pasture-based livestock and pastoral systems and intensive livestock systems (typology presented pp. 32) according to the demographics involved in each, their relative size and contributions to GHG emissions, and their contributions to rural livelihoods. This information may help policy makers supporting sustainable livestock sectors determine appropriately differentiated policies. For example, and depending on the context, it may be appropriate to provide small-scale pastoralists with additional incentives to produce a diversity of breeds while taxing large-scale industrial producers relative to their emissions.

Lastly, we caution against attributing food price volatility to increased market supply (pp. 9). The relationship between food prices, agricultural trade and financial speculation in grain commodity pricing is complex and highly contentious. We acknowledge the recognition that price volatility disproportionately affects poor farmers and consumers in terms of accessibility (pp.50), and that public stockholdings may be one tool for mitigating these affects (pp. 15, HLPE 2011).

Once again, we acknowledge the Expert Panel for their dedicated work thus far. The finalized document will surely contribute to creating a common understandings the role of sustainable livestock production in achieving the SDGs and in particular, FSN.

Thank you

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. 

Abstract :    International initiatives for influencing the evolution of the livestok sector worldwide

About livestock, we can distinguish three kinds of organised international initiatives for influencing the evolution of the sector worldwide:

• Projects based on an international consensus which are leaded in the framework of international organizations with some of their members states,
• International professional organisations, historicly the oldest, which gather national governments and the private sector or only professionnal organisations,
• New “influence initiatives” based on a lobbying approach gathering private actors (producers or firms) and more rarely NGOs.

8 “key factors” have been identified in evaluating the influence game in livestock production and markets at international level:

1/ The demand of products isued of livestock (meat, milk, eggs and leather) is increasing quikly for a long time. This is the main cause of the present “Livestock revolution” which is impacting the traditionnal livestock sector through intergation and industrialisation processses.

2/ The “Livestock revolution” is engaged without “ Supreme guide” meaning without international governance and more often without national policies in the sector.

3/ The increasing strong demand of products issued from livestock is so quick that tentatives for building a consensus on an international governance are unefficient today. International trade agreements drive the productions and the markets and build the leadership of few countries on the sector.

4/ The actions and speeches for reducing the consomption of meat, “against meat” or “against industrial food”, mainly from some NGOs, have a limited impact in front pf the magnitude of the demand.

5/ In the meat sector, the international leadership is moving to the American continent (USA, Canada and Brasil).

6/ Despite this trend, the role of the main international actors is not definitively fixed due to agricultural constrains, political, social en economical reasons.

7/ In the large majority of african countries, Africa representing 20 % of the world population in 2050, there is no real agricultural policies and a fortiri no policies for livestock.

8/ The Research in the livestock sector have few impacts on the “Livestock revolution”.