Dear Moderator
At a quick glance I found the HLPE’s report impressive in terms of wording and interpretation. The background part is presented in very appealing language which might have given a very good impression about the report to many readers. When I constructively analysed its substances, -based on my theoretical knowledge and experiences about the subject matters, I found many issues and doubted on intension of the report. Some of the problems of the report are as follows.
An improvement area on the methodology part: The outcomes of livestock based sustainable food security and nutrition are largely depend on modalities and degrees of interactions of multiple elements of social, economic and environmental systems. The phenomena of changing inputs into outputs can be called a process. The report has attempted a few process level phenomena to explain the FSN problem but these are not insufficient. The problems and solutions associated with the complex livestock based food production systems, therefore, could be better explained in the analytical framework that includes a process element.
The report justified subsidy as a factor driving farming inefficiency and problem of economic sustainability. Market approach is considered as a magic tool for the problem. From my understanding the arguments on the policy tools are partially true. It means not always true. The actors in the agri-economic world are different in strategic positions and needs due to different in access to technologies, resources and other supportive institutions. The actors in weaker position cannot compete or sustain their business and way of lives without some support. They need supports until the economy reach to a sustaining threshold level. Subsidies are different in modalities and governments are paying to the farmers in need indirectly even in the country that the commission reported subsidy free and competitive farming. If the government of developing economies follow subsidy free policy approach the livestock based food security and nutrition will be further worse or remain stagnant in those countries.
Citing a report of World Bank, the HLCF stated that the subsidy benefit mostly to rich farmers and a little to poor. The finding or argument is a flaw. The problem arise if the policy is designed and implemented based on the principle of one size fit all. From my understanding, the outcome of the subsidy is more related to the problem of designing and implementing the policy modality. It the subsidy policy had had designed and implemented targeting specially to people in socially disadvantaged position it would make a notable difference to the needy people and but little to rich. It is a big blunder to follow such controversial arguments and reports based on their influences in global financial/economic policy. Some people of such agencies often make such argument to achieve their vested interests. Others do due to wrong understandings or poor studies. This report requires avoiding uses of such controversial or poor arguments which are used to conclude many policy recommendations.
This report has missed many critical and emerging issues of livestock farming in developing countries. For example it has missed the forest resource complemented livestock farming system which is a common practice in many Asian and some African countries. Forest resources are vital to sustain the farming systems and livelihoods of forest based communities. Geophysical condition and agroecological environment resulted to adopt and evolve the practices in some communities or regions. Policy on privatization of land area and availabilities of their resources are historically determined the traditional land use practices. However, the practices are considered bad by influential people of many international organizations and western who shaped the international and national policies for environment management and forest products and services supplies to urban areas. The people or agencies are ceasing the use practices and livestock systems. Even FAO development support policies and practices have also hampered the system. If the HLPE-FSN is aware of the issue I advise to read a journal article on The Local Environmental, Economic and Social Tragedies of Managing Community Forests for Global Environment Conservation: A Critical Evaluation. 2014. The Open Journal of Forestry. 4(1):58-69. The policy and support practices have severely hampered the business, opportunities, and wellbeing of the resource based people. Neither nomadic and crop - livestock mixed system can represent it. Similarly the report has also ignored mountain livestock farming system which has also some special features and importance. Supply of livestock feed could be increased by improving forest management and improving resource distribution practices in critical scarcity seasons and needy people. This issue is overlooked. It looks the expert team is not interested on this issue.
One of the emerging problems of livestock farmers in developing countries resulted due to conversation of communal pasturelands and private lands into forestry . Some subsidies and other policy interventions given for afforestation contributed to convert the grazing lands into the forest. The increase in forest areas in India, China and Nepal are the outcomes of the land conversion. The resource based livestock are decreased. Current international policy for carbon emission offset (e.g. REDD forest policy) and expansion of wild lives national parks/reserves are also hampering the livestock business in many developing countries. FAO experts are well familiar with data/the information and problems. The impact of the policy affected livestock based food security of poor, women and indigenous people. The issues are little stated in the report. This evidence also caste other doubt on the intension (who are hidden beneficiaries) of the report.
The report has little recognised the contribution and emerging problem of livestock business of smallholders in biodiversity conservation in broader agricultural landscape level. The farmers followed special practices for centuries which contributed in the development of socioecological systems and sustaining the agrobiodiversity. Livestock hostile national and international policies on land uses have hampered the livestock based biodiversity greater landscape level. For example, agri-cultural environment to grow and sustain many indigenous varieties of vegetables and crops are deteriorated due to declining of livestock manure and increasing use of chemical fertilizer in crop field. Exotic weeds and other invasive plant species are also increased in mountains and other forest areas of Himalayan regions due to decreasing access to grazing in forest and alpine pasture resources and seasonal mobility of herds between agro-ecological zones. In addition some indigenous breeds are at the risk of extinction or disappears from many communities. The gene pools of the species could be conserved if alternative breeding and institutional policies were introduced. Smallholders are custodians of the indigenous heritage and a considerable number of people have heritage conservation stewardship. Current both national and international livestock development and support related policies have spoiled the social assets. This report has poorly explained the conservation issues, opportunities and approaches.
Livestock management problems of mountain areas are completely neglected in the report as the Abbidash (?) meeting of international communities ignored/avoided in September 2015 the mountain development agenda in 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030. Currently some of international agencies are strategically destroying indigenous systems of mountain livestock farming systems. They have provided misleading information and advices on policy formulation, funds for achieving their objectives and incentives to key players. These facts indicate prejudices of international agencies on livestock farming systems of mountain communities. The prejudices also found with the working team of the report.
This report has focused on conventional system based livestock farming and undermined indigenous people’s rights and existence threats. The ethnic groups requires naturally grown low fat meats (e.g. sourced from fisheries, wild animals and naturally grown pasture. The report as international development agencies are deliberately intervening national policies and introducing conventional farming systems which have hampered indigenous livestock farming and access to low fat animal product. The people are persistently suffering in mass even in many developed countries with indigenous people (e.g. USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). Some of the indigenous ethnic groups (e.g. Nepal and India) are at the risk of extinction due to lack of pragmatic policy. The problems are caused by restricting access on traditional foods and mediating to consumption of the foods products based on conventional systems. The food and nutrition related problem is more related to national and international policies than resource scarcity. The policy actions are against international agreement of indigenous people’s rights. The action can be termed genocides (UN Declaration on Indigenous People’s Rights 2007).
The main area of the report is to provide guidelines and rich and quality information to make improvement in international policies on livestock development for sustainable farming. Based on my experience and understanding the report may hardly make difference in livestock development policy of developed countries but it could make significant differences on those countries policies on supporting livestock development in developing countries. For the purpose the report requires to find and explain important issues of developing countries explicitly. The report has excluded many critical points and made others not clear.
The report stated that “[A]ttempts have been made to upgrade the fodder quality of crop residues by chemical, biological and physical treatments, but few of these interventions have been widely adopted” but it has not recognised potential of the feed quality improvement of crop residuals at genetic aspect.
Crop-livestock mixed farming systems areas requires livestock business friendly crop breeding policies. But current international policies and practices on crop breeding and supports are antagonistic to the crop- livestock mixed farming systems of smallholders.
The report over emphasized on climate change mitigation problem but low value on other environmental problems. One of the main reasons to give low values in livestock development and support at current international agenda is climate change policy. Some of international policies on climate change mitigation have hampered livestock based farming systems and disadvantaged to poor farmers. The report is silent about the international vision and policies.
Social implications of some international and national policies on climate change related problems (adaptation and mitigation) vary between smallholders (farming for livelihoods) and large scale commercial growers (running business for profit motive). The report has not explained approaches that could help governments and other support agencies in formulating and implementing the climate policies and result fairer outcomes between the livestock business groups.
It would be more informative if the report would show comparative statistics of per capita livestock based GHG emission in both developed and developing countries and under different kinds of policy supports on livestock farming.
The report has over valued economic efficiency and undervalued distributive issues of different modalities of livestock policies in recommendations.
One of the policy approach to ease life of smallholders and indigenous people is scarcity of pasture resources in critical scarcity season. Pasture management plan and some technical support could alleviate the problems but this report has poorly recognised the problem in analysis and policy recommendation.
The report poorly explained problems and women and children in livestock based communities. Most of the explanations of problems and solutions on livestock based sustainable farming related to women are also based on western values and understanding. If the problems were looked constructive view and pragmatic way the report could be more interesting, informative and useful. The strategies that increase income and social benefits of women are only highlighted in objectives and poorly looked at explaining approaches and recommendation. Blamed only the traditional institution but bypassed the problem exuberated by policy and other interventions of international development agencies and governments. There are many other policies of international organizations including FAO that have contributed to further marginalization of the social groups. Excluding the policy issues further supports doubt on the quality and intension of the report.
Migration and cultural assimilation has changed people’s preferences and consumption of food types in developed countries and contributed on slowing down of increasing rate of meat consumption. Cereal food (rice and pasta) has substituted the meat. The issues are not acknowledged.
Animal based foods are considered socially high value in most society. Adequate access of the foods would provide social satisfaction to those who value the foods. This issue is different from equity in availability of adequate food and nutrition. The issue of social inclusion and equity in meet consumption is not well stated in the report.
The problem resulting trade-offs and synergies relationship on environment, economic and social dimensions requires compromise solution. This report has not explicitly and adequately explained and points the approaches and areas that requires compromise solution.
Some case studies are also miss leading and little helpful. A team with professional integrity would not use the case study, for example, of biosecurity of livestock related Australian aborigine. It is because many policies related to food security and nutrition (especially animal foods) have resulted poor health (persistent suffering in mass) and affected indigenous people’s rights and cultural values. They have loss access to low fat animal products due to closing their original residential areas, wild life conservation policy and forceful assimilation to European culture (read case studies of stolen generation). Australia has others interesting cases and more useful lesson learning about livestock farming such as dryland pasture and livestock management.
Some parts have are very poor level of analysis referring poor quality of references. For example, referring to an argument of Convey (2012) in page 19, the report described intensification from three aspects (genetic, ecological and market). The reference has found only three factors but missed technological intensification (beyond genetic improvement or change) which contributed much more than any other factors in sustainability of farm. However, the roles of technology innovation and adoption on livestock based agricultural development are well explained in other sections.
Some policy recommendations are ackwards and meaningless. The problems and solutions are poorly explained.
Conclusion
In fact there is a need of a robust study to increase understanding about emerging issues and solutions of sustainable agriculture development including livestock farming at broader landscapes level, and draw the attention of socioecomically powerful agencies. The study that benefit all societies could be carried out by the team of fair minded people with constructive thinking and rich knowledge of diverse kinds of farming systems and socioecological issues. However the draft document of HLPE on FSN has many serious problems in constructive analysis. If the policy recommendations are followed it may bring substantial benefits to institutionally strong and economically competitive countries particularly developed ones but it may further hamper livestock business of smallholders and other vulnerable farmers in long terms. The policy approaches play slow poison role on sustaining ruminant livestock business in many developing countries and poor societies. The imports of red meat and milk increase significantly in developing countries. The global agribiodiversity will be decreased. People who asses problems on critical theoretical framework (such as institutional theory of gender analysis) can argue that the problems on the report are associated with composition of members in the HLPE team and working mission and intension of FAO including funding agencies in the background.
Thanks.
Bhubaneswor Dhakal
Bhubaneswor Dhakal