Consultation du HLPE sur la version V0 du Rapport : Développement agricole durable au service de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition, y compris le rôle de l’élevage
En octobre 2014, le Comité sur la sécurité alimentaire mondiale (CSA) des Nations Unies a demandé à son Groupe d'experts de haut niveau sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (HLPE) de préparer une étude sur le Développement agricole durable au service de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition, y compris le rôle de l’élevage. Les conclusions de cette étude seront présentées à la quarante-troisième session plénière du CSA (octobre 2016).
Dans le cadre de l'élaboration de son rapport, le HLPE organise une consultation pour recevoir des contributions, des suggestions et des commentaires sur le présent texte préliminaire V0. Cette consultation virtuelle ouverte permettra au HLPE d’affiner le rapport qui sera ensuite soumis à la révision d’experts externes avant sa rédaction finale et son approbation par le Comité de pilotage du HLPE.
Les rapports préliminaires V0 du HLPE sont intentionnellement présentés suffisamment tôt dans le processus, avec toutes leurs imperfections, pour que le processus de rétroaction soit pris en compte de façon adéquate et qu’il soit réellement utile dans l'élaboration du rapport. Cette interaction est un aspect crucial du dialogue scientifique entre l'équipe du projet HLPE et le Comité de pilotage, et le reste de la communauté des spécialistes. À cet égard, ce rapport préliminaire VO définit plusieurs domaines de recommandations à un stade très initial, à propos desquels le HLPE serait heureux de recevoir toutes suggestions ou propositions..
Pour renforcer le rapport, le HLPE aimerait recevoir du matériel, des suggestions fondées sur des preuves, des références, des exemples, en particulier sur les aspects clé ci après :
- Le rapport présente une étude aussi vaste que complète de la contribution du développement agricole durable pour garantir la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (SAN), notamment pour le secteur de l’élevage en raison de son importance pour la nutrition et la pérennité de l’avenir. Pensez-vous que le rapport trouve un juste équilibre entre l’ensemble du développement agricole et le secteur de l’élevage en particulier, en termes de leur contribution relative à la SAN?
- Le rapport est structure autour de plusieurs axes: le contexte, les tendances, les defies et les voies/réponses. Estimez-vous que le champ couvert est suffisamment large et que ces elements sont abordés et articulés de façon adequate? Le rapport trouve-t-il l’équilibre voulu dans l’abord des ces themes dans les différents chapitres? Certains aspects importants ont-ils été omis?
- Le rapport établit une classification qui distingue quatre grandes catégories de systèmes d’élevage, de manière à préciser les défis spécifiques à relever et les pistes de développement durable pour chacun d’entre eux. Pensez-vous que cette approche sera utile pour définir des réponses et des mesures politiques spécifiques dans différents contextes socioéconomiques et environnementaux ?
- Le rapport se fonde sur des projections clés et des analyses de scénarios dans la définition des déterminants et des tendances jusqu’en 2050. Connaissez-vous d’autres études sur lesquelles le rapport devrait se baser et qui présentent d’autres perspectives sur l’avenir de l’agriculture (y compris l’élevage), en particulier en ce qui concerne la nutrition et l’alimentation ?
- Le rapport préliminaire V0 a défini un vaste éventail de problèmes qui vont probablement surgir dans les années à venir et dont les décideurs et autres acteurs devront tenir compte pour que le développement agricole durable et l’élevage puisse contribuer à la SAN. Pensez-vous que le rapport devrait aborder d'autres défis/opportunités, comme les aspects liés aux technologies émergentes, à la concentration et l'intensification de la production de l'élevage et les répercussions en termes d'aliments pour animaux (céréales et produits oléagineux), et au commerce international.
- Une approche en matière de prise de décision qui pourrait être utile aux décideurs dans l’élaboration et l’application de politiques et de mesures est proposée dans le chapitre 4 du rapport. S’agit-il d’une approche utile et pragmatique ?
- Le chapitre 4 présente également des études de cas/des exemples d’évolution des politiques et des mesures de développement agricole dans différents contextes/pays. Pouvez-vous nous apporter d’autres exemples pratiques, bien documentés et significatifs qui enrichiraient l’éventail de cas et les leçons apprises et assureraient un meilleur équilibre dans le développement agricole, notamment les compromis et les résultats avantageux pour tous dans l’abord des différentes dimensions de la pérennité et de la SAN ?
- La dimension sociale du développement durable de l’agriculture a souvent été le parent pauvre dans la description et compréhension du sujet, notamment en raison du manque de données. Il serait très intéressant pour l’équipe de recevoir des exemples et des expériences dans ce domaine (moyens d’existence, égalité des sexes, proportion et situation de travailleurs indépendants par rapport aux travailleurs salariés, conditions de travail, etc.)
- Les secteurs en amont et en aval jouent un rôle de plus en plus important dans l’orientation du développement agricole, le choix des aliments et les régimes alimentaires. Pouvez-vous apporter des exemples du rôle joué par ces secteurs dans le développement durable de l’agriculture et la SAN ?
- Quelles sont les principales initiatives ou les interventions réussies pour améliorer la pérennité des systèmes alimentaires dans différents pays et différents contextes qui devraient être analysées dans ce rapport? Y a-t-il des preuves relatives au potentiel des incitations économiques et sur le type d'incitations (impôts, subventions, etc.), les approches normatives, le renforcement des capacités, la R&D et les mesures volontaires adoptées par les acteurs du système alimentaire?
- L’élaboration et la mise en œuvre de politiques propices à la SAN requièrent des données robustes comparables dans le temps et entre les pays. Quels sont les déficits de données que vont devoir combler les gouvernements et les organisations internationales pour mieux appréhender les tendances et formuler de meilleures politiques?
- Le rapport présente-t-il des omissions ou des lacunes majeures ? Certains thèmes sont-ils sous-représentés ou surreprésentés au vu de leur importance ? Certains faits ou conclusions peuvent-ils être réfutés ou contestés ? Dans ce cas, veuillez fournir les preuves à l’appui.
Nous remercions à l’avance toutes les personnes qui vont lire et commenter cette première version de notre rapport et apporter leurs contributions.
Nous attendons avec intérêt cette consultation féconde et enrichissante.
L'équipe du projet HLPE et le Comité de pilotage
- Afficher 99 contributions
p. 45, lines 32,33,34 – to the livestock sector specific problems, we should also add “antibiotic resistance”.
p. 57, line 35-36. “Agriculture has a potentially important role in contributing to the emerging problem of antimicrobial resistance”. This needs to be expressed stronger. For one, this problem is specific to the livestock sector; secondly it is not only “potentially important”, but proven to be so. So the sentence should read “The livestock sector has an important role in contributing to the problem of antimicrobial resistance.”
p. 60, lines 6-8. “There is a broad consensus that while the livestock sector generates many health, livelihood, economic and environmental benefits, it also contributes to many nutrition, health, social and environmental problems.”
What should be mentioned here is that both problems and benefits of the livestock sector depend on the system in which livestock is kept. Maybe a table relating the respective problems and benefits to the types of livestock systems they are associated with would be helpful.
p.62, lines 12-16. “Technically, the potential exists even with existing technologies to narrow the productivity or yield gap between the highest and lowest performers in a region and thus increase agricultural production, including livestock and animal feed production. A fundamental question is how to scale up the well understood technologies and approaches to improving yields that are massively underused by poor producers. “
This is a frequently made statement, but it does not clarify what the “existing” and “well understood” technologies are. It would be really important to provide some examples for the benefit of non-livestock experts.
p. 64, lines 27-28: “Without the large scale operations the very existence of the small and intermediate operators would be in question (as would the sustainability, livelihood and other benefits that are claimed to be associated with these systems)”. Clarification please, why this is so.
John WebsterJohn Webster
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)
The report tackles one of the most important global issues in 21st century. The issue is complex; the report attempts to integrate various components related to the topics, in particular the role of livestock in food security. I recognize that a lot of efforts have been made for the difficult process.
I have following comments on this report.
1. The report presented four pathways to sustainable agriculture production. One of the pathways is environemtal.
P 63 line 11 says:
“A pathway emphasizing the “environmental” dimension would give priority to conserving natural resource systems and cycles, with production and farming livelihoods better integrated with agro-ecological conditions, such as is encapsulated in agro-ecological intensification.”
In order to emphasize environmental dimension with integration of agro-ecological condition, for Use of trees for ruminant production by silvopastoral system is an important pathway. According to my study ilvopastoral area has positive impact on milk production n dual purpose cattle production system in Nicaragua (Yamamoto, et. al., 2007). Please see attached article.
Silvopastoral system is an important model of pathways with more attention to the environmental and social aspects (Page 63 Line 19-24) with sustainable intensification (integrated, low external input, climate-smart agriculture). It is low carbon agricultural production systems (Page 64 line 7).
Page 84 line 14 Environmental Aspect of conclusions
The following point can be added.
“Incorporate wherever possible silvopastoral system positively using tree resources (through feed, animal health, etc.) into livestock production which contributes to watershed management and biodiversity conservation simultaneously” can be included.
2. Page 63 line 19, As an institutional structure for promoting environmentally sustainable agricultural production, certification can be considered. We studied Certification on Environmental Sustainable Beef Production in Developing Countries. Please see attached report.
Also as Environmental Aspect of conclusions (Page 84 line 14), the following point can be considered. “Incorporate wherever possible certification system for environmentally sustainable agriculture” can be included.
3. Global demand on livestock products is increasing dramatically. One of the most important trends is the increasing meat consumption in BICS countries, particularly in China.
As a pathway to tackle the issue, awareness raising for consumers can be considered. Consumer perception should be directed to consume products produced in more environmentally sustainable ways. We studied the issue in Japan Netherland, Canada and Costa Rica. Please see the same report above.
4. Page 50 “3.2.3 Risks in an interconnected world”, Environmental risk due to trade liberalization is neglected.
For example, in Dien Bien Province, mountainous region in Northwest Vietnam, expansion of shifting cultivation for corn production causes forest degradation. Corn is largely purchased for feeding animals by piggeries located near Hanoi and pork meat is exported to China. I believe such environmentally negative connections to produce livestock feeds occur throughout the world. Increasing demand of pork in China caused environmental damage (degradation of forests) in Vietnam.
5. Throughout the report the role of livestock as insurance was recognized but reducing environmental damage by livestock by introducing insurance is missing. By providing insurance number of livestock as insurance can be reduced.
Please see attached concept note: Connecting climate change solution with poverty alleviation by rural finance: Expansion of crop production and reduction of livestock pressure on natural resources by agricultural insurance in Bugesera region, Rwanda.
6. Page 63 line 26
“Intensification and the continued shift from ruminants to monogastrics (especially poultry) are continuously improving land-use efficiency, helping to reduce the land area used per unit of output.” Fishery can also land use efficient production system. It would be better to compare ruminant, monogastrics and fish in terms of productivity as per energy consumption. Fish production/consumption is particularly energy efficient needed because they are cold blooded animals.
7. Page 32 line 43
According to the typology of the report, small holder mixed farming system considers more for those in Asia. Smallholders in Latin America are rather large scale and extensive; therefore it is difficult to fit in the typology.
8. Page 84 Line3
“Intensify efforts to rebuild and revitalize rural communities including through rural non-agricultural initiatives and infrastructure enhancement”.
As non-agricultural sector in government agencies, collaboration with forest sector is very important to intensify the effort because they have lands (forest land, many time they are not productive), available offices at the very rural conditions and political strength to organize with other sectors.
For example In India, Uttar Pradesh Participatory Forest Management and Poverty Alleviation Project uses Joint Forest Management (JFM) scheme to support rural poor by organizing women’s groups (Self Help Group) to provide finance to produce vegetables, poultry, etc.
Agradezco la oportunidad de comentar el documento sobre desarrollo agrícola sostenible para la SAN incluyendo los medios de vida.
Al respecto considero debe resaltarse el rol de los programas de protección social como medio para garantizar acceso a fuentes de financiamiento y tecnología de los pequeños productores, principalmente de la agricultura familiar. Los programas de protección social han sido empleado como una herramienta de los gobiernos para llevar a los más vulnerables recursos de diferente índole, tales como económicos o de especias. Sin embargo, los programas de protección social aún presentan desafíos como la universalización de los servicios sociales que entrega. Desde una perspectiva de derecho, los programas de protección social contribuyen a romper la brecha de la pobreza y hambre en los países en vías de desarrollo.
Por otro lado, cabe resaltar que la pobreza no se limita únicamente a recursos económicos, sino que va más alla, en acceso inadecuado a servicios de salud, educación, vivienda, empleo, entre otras necesidades insatisfechas de los más necesitaso. De igual manera, se podría enfatizar el efecto que la pobreza tiene sobre la seguridad nutricional de los grupos de mayor vulnerabilidad como las niñas y niños pequeños, mujeres embarazadas y lactantes, y grupos en mayor riesgo de malnutrición.
Por último, en relación a la creación de ofertas de empleo rural se debe cambiar la mirada a los sistemas agrícolas no basados únicamente en la producción sino también en todo el entorno que genera, entre lo que se podría mencionar el turismo agroecológico, servicios no relacionados con la agricultura en el medio rural, por ejemplo. Así mismo, indicar cuál es el rol de la empresa privada a través de los programas de responsabilidad social empresarial.
Todo el borrador esta correcto, solamente tengo una observación en el punto en que proponen la siguiente teoría:
Sumberg (2012) señala que los principales estudios analíticos, incluido el informe del Consejo Interacadémico (2004), el Informe sobre el Desarrollo Mundial (Banco Internacional de Reconstrucción y Fomento / Banco Mundial, 2007), la Evaluación Internacional de Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria (IAAST, 2009) y el informe del Reino Unido Foresight (2011) se basarán en el análisis de rendimiento de diferencia como un dispositivo de encuadre de prescripciones políticas agrícolas orientadas a la toma de mejoras en la productividad agrícola en duraderos las partes del mundo donde se puede hacer la mayor diferencia de los medios de vida y FSN (Sumberg, 2012; Consejo Interacadémico, 2004; Foresight, 2011). Como Sumberg señala, rendimiento- o la productividad-gap El análisis, elaborado a partir de las disciplinas de la ecología la producción agrícola y la microeconomía, puede ser una muy recurso de enlace útil para centrar la atención en la promesa de lo que podría ser alcanzado para aumentar la productividad agrícola. Él esboza una serie de formas en que los analistas han estimado que el déficit o brecha entre el rendimiento real y potencial de los cultivos y explora la importancia relativa de los factores e insumos que explican las diferencias, poniendo de relieve la importancia de la especificidad ubicación del marco y el hecho de que favorece exploraciones a largo plazo. Y mientras él ve gran mérito en el análisis de brecha de rendimiento como dispositivo que enmarca para el debate político sobre las intervenciones para mejorar la productividad agrícola y FSN, que señala que es utilizado a menudo por los defensores de las políticas de apoyo a las narrativas o prescripciones particulares que podría estar mal relacionado con el análisis de rendimiento de diferencia sin tener en cuenta sus matices y limitaciones (incluyendo especificidad ubicación). Aunque podría ayudar a centrar la atención en las oportunidades, análisis de rendimiento-gap en sí mismo, es poco probable que ayudar a desenredar "continuar el debate y cuestionamiento sobre visiones alternativas, objetivos e instrumentos de la política agrícola (sobre) las explotaciones grandes o pequeñas; participación de mercado o la autosuficiencia; fertilizantes y los transgénicos o la agroecología; zonas desfavorecidas o marginales "(Sumberg, 2012).
Esta teoría es parecida a la teoría del comercio basado de que cada país puede y debe producir y comercializar de acuerdo a lo que puede realizar es decir un país produce y vende lo que a otro le falta. Este concepto en teoría es bueno pero en la práctica no han producido ningún beneficio para el desarrollo humano, social y económico de los pueblos. La propuesta de Smberg 2012, basada en el rendimiento se aparta de la realidad que actualmente esta latente en el campo de los pequeños y mediano agricultores y que ustedes mismo señalan; Esta es tal vez porque que cubre una gama muy amplia de temas dispares y complejos - el papel de las empresas de pequeños agricultores y las comunidades rurales que dependen de la agricultura; las condiciones de trabajo del sistema agrícola y alimentario los trabajadores; la nutrición, las enfermedades transmitidas por los alimentos y la salud humana; reducción de la pobreza; preferencias culturales; y cuidado de los animales - que son muy específicos de país y no se prestan fácilmente a la generalización y son a menudo difíciles de cuantificar y comparar. La dimensión social de la agricultura sostenible el desarrollo es, pues, una de las zonas más difíciles de abordar, aunque muchos de los problemas son a menudo inextricablemente vinculado a las dimensiones económicas y ambientales. Crear un marco integral para el examen apropiada para guiar las políticas, instituciones y acciones, utilizando las tres dimensiones de la sostenibilidad (social, económica y ambiental) que surgió del proceso de Río.
La Participación de los agricultores es la clave para la agricultura sostenible. Teniendo en cuenta los incentivos adecuados y el apoyo del gobierno, las familias de agricultores pueden y están haciendo progresos significativos hacia la gestión de su tierra y el agua de manera sostenible. Los recursos genéticos son esenciales para el suministro de alimentos que se incrementara. Las autoridades de las regiones ricas en recursos genéticos deben ser alentadas a conservar las especies silvestres de animales y plantas.
El Suelo y el agua deben ser conservados para mantener la productividad de la planta. Esto requiere la introducción de la gestión de la tierra para reducir o detener la erosión del suelo y mantener o aumentar la capacidad de retención de agua del suelo. La agricultura de regadío necesita ser revisado, donde se desperdicia el agua o el rendimientos de los cultivos están disminuyendo como consecuencia de la salinidad del suelo y el anegamiento. La contaminación atmosférica, incluyendo la lluvia ácida, daña los cultivos y masas forestales. El uso excesivo de fertilizantes químicos y pesticidas envenena los suelos y reduce la productividad.
Claros derechos de propiedad y de los sistemas de tenencia de la tierra y proporcional poderosos incentivos para los propietarios e inquilinos de utilizar sus tierras de manera sostenible. Los países en desarrollo necesitan precios justos para sus productos y una mejor infraestructura agrícola, incluyendo los servicios de extensión adecuados y el transporte eficiente para conseguir sus alimentos a los mercados.
Ningún sistema económico que el hombre a puesto en practica a resuelto definitivamente los problemas esenciales como el hambre, la desnutrición, y las enfermedades tan simple como una gripe, todos han fracasado y es hora de realizar un cambio y debe aplicarse tomando encuenta a la persona para que su Desarrollo Humano sea homogéneo.
Estamos asistiendo a unos tiempos esenciales para la supervivencia humana y en ustedes esta la oportunidad de desarrollar y garantizar un sistema de producción y alimentación mundial para poder eliminar el fantasma de la hambruna y la desnutrición de la tierra. Las instituciones que ejercen influencia en el sistema económico mundial deben de cambiar su estrategia de producir solo dinero es necesario que a la par de producir dinero se preocupen por desarrollar la calidad de vida de cada habitante de este planeta, En ustedes esta la oportunidad de desarrollar este sistema mundial de desarrollo ya que poseen los recursos tanto humano como económicos para realizarlo
<>
__________________________________
Дорогие участники консультаций
Нулевой вариант доклада приводит детальный обзор концепций, понятий, категорий, тенденций. Это хорошо общего обозрения. Однако, мне кажется, окончательный вариант должен быть укороченным и адаптированным для широкого круга читателей.
Я также, хотел бы отметить, о подходе к принятию решений, на странице 67, который, на мой взгляд, заслуживает особого внимания. Но, возможно, авторы хотели представить наиболее общую модель.
Сначала идет, в верхнем кругу "Identifying and prioritizing objectives", затем "Undertaking analysis", и потом "Defining Response Options". Это, немного спорный подход.
Возможно, было бы лучше, написать, "Identifying and prioritizing challenges" на рисунке 9, как это отмечено в тексте. Тогда схема, будет выглядеть более целесообразной.
На диаграмме на странице 22, вы пронумеровали
i. Stability
ii. Utilization
iii. Access
iv. Availability
Хотя мне кажется должно быть наоборот:
i. Availability
ii. Access
iii. Utilization
iv. Stability
Арсен Керимбеков
АО Казагромаркетинг
Заместитель председателя правления
___________________________________
Dear participants of the consultations,
Zero version of the report provides in-depth review of concepts, categories and trends. It is good for overview. However, it seems to me, the final version should be shortened and adapted for a wide range of readers.
I also wanted to point out the Decision-making approach, on page 67, which, in my opinion, deserves special attention. Perhaps, the authors wanted to present the most common model.
At first, in the upper circle we see "Identifying and prioritizing objectives", following by "Undertaking analysis", and then "Defining Response Options". This approach is somewhat disputable.
Perhaps it would be better to write, "Identifying and prioritizing challenges" in Figure 9, as noted in the text. Then the scheme will look more appropriate.
In the diagram on the page 22, you are numbered:
i. Stability
ii. Utilization
iii. Access
iv. Availability
Probably, it should be numbered as:
i. Availability
v. Access
vi. Utilization
vii. Stability
Looking forward for the final version of the report.
Arsen Kerimbekov
JV Kazagromarketing
Vice-Chairman
The ISSUES are too many.
Really you need to meet with Mercy for Animals, PETA, and Compassion in World Farming to find out what is going on.
Live Export is the shame of humanity
http://www.banliveexport.com/gaza-files Australian Cows - sent to Gaza and Tortured, stabbed in eyes
http://www.animalsaustralia.org/take_action/Australia-condemns-sheep-dea...
Aussie cows died in the extreme heat, how would they like it
http://www.peta.org/blog/india-bans-foie-gras/ Why are the rest of us force feeding ducks, using Ancient Egypt Method? The Pharaoh also enjoyed this.
This is not part of what the UN Calls "Sustainable Agriculture", which is supposed to promote animal welfare and responsible production.
BABIES - https://www.facebook.com/gary.yourofsky/videos/863883167000266/?pnref=story
Babies should not be taken from their mother so soon
It is a disgrace - https://www.facebook.com/BloodyDairy?fref=ts
DOG MEAT - why do you not add dogs and cats to the UN FAO Figures?
Someone has to. Dogs and Cats are BOILED ALIVE - yes boiled alive in Huge Regions of China.
So are turtles and frogs - why are they not on the agricultural figures?
The whole state of affairs is appalling and animals are suffered.
Where is your statement about Animal Welfare, inside of Sustainable Agriculture!
Please find attached my report on "Agricultural Atrocities"
However strict we make the policies, we need to make them 15 times stricter
This information has been collected from the Global Animal Rights community who are the ones that get hold of the grass roots issues.
The REAL issues.
Please look at this report. You will see what really goes on and why stricter policies are needed.
Please help these poor creatures.
DOG and CAT meat needs to be included, while discussing the others eaten
Sending information on behalf of my friends at NoToDogMeat
Please contact
Please see this link, it shows how millions of dogs and cats are prepared, using Ancient Live Meat Process
https://www.facebook.com/EndFoodTortureCulture/photos_stream
PLEASE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE - Very Important *
In South Korea alone over 2.5 Million dogs are eaten yearly. Every summer a two month long dog meat eating festival takes place and up to 15,000 dogs and cats will die each day. There is no regard to the Univeral Five freedoms of the sentient being. ( as defined also in Article 7 of the OIE Terrestrial Code) . What is really shocking is that the torture and slaughter frequently takes place in front of children.
In China this figure is close to 10 Million with dogs skinned alive, their fur then sold for cheap clothing. Dog meat festivals such as in Yulin are commonplace and there is no regard given to health or sanitation. Activists are frequently pushing for welfare laws to be created and our team is working on draft legislation.
Koreans believe the more the animal suffers the better the meat tastes. This means dogs are beaten and blowtorched alive and cats are boiled to make soup and elixirs. Imagine a kitchen full of pressure cookers where cats are plunged into hot water alive. This happens in a sophisticated country, the home to Samsung, LEG and Hyundai.
Please can the Board Members watch this documentary
I think there are a lot of things that you need to be informed about and the documentary is extremely informative
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358456/
Thank you
This is my research related to sustainable livelihood please go through it.
Bibhu Santosh Behera
Enhancing Community based Food and Water Security through Micro-Diversion Based Irrigation Initiative in poverty stricken areas of Orissa
- At the end of introduction (p.10, l.48), I would summarize the intended objective of the report.
- Sustainability should be clearly defined, also under consideration of some historical aspects (e.g. von Carlowitz 1713) and the discussion of the “Club of Roma” about the condition of global equilibrium (Meadows et al. 1972). Later, you may come to Brundtland (1987) and other authors.
- For my understanding, a sustainable agriculture including a sustainable production of food or protein of animal origin should be characterized by an efficient use of limited resources (such as land, water, fuel etc.), an optimal use of unlimited resources (such as sun energy, nitrogen and carbon dioxide from the air, the genetic pool etc.), an improvement of farm animal productivity and low emissions, a socio-economical and ethical responsible production and the earth should be considered as the base for existence of future generations (see also Wu et al. 2014a,b).
- Figure 1 should be better explained (p. 20-22). Instead of social – economical and environmental aspects, the authors may explain the so-called 3P-concept (IUNC 2005; Boonen et al. 2012). This concept considers a balance between Planet (global resources and emissions) – People (social aspects of population all over the world) and Profit (economic aspects. money making) as an important prerequisite for a sustainable life and development on the earth. Profit should not and cannot be the only one objective of s sustainable production.
- The problems and consequences of land grabbing (mainly in Africa, Asia, South America and East Europe) for sustainable agricultural development in many regions and countries are not mentioned in the Draft. International food trade may also contribute to inhibit local food production and should be considered.
- Personally, I would recommend some critical remarks concerning imbalances in the 3P-concept and long term consequences of land grabbing and import of low cost food for developing countries and food security and nutrition in many countries (esp. for smallholders and landless farmers).
- I miss some substantial remarks about the importance of plant breeding as the starting point for the whole food chain. Recently, we (Flachowsky et al. 2013; see Annex 1). analysed the significance of plant and animal breeding (see Annex 2) for a sustainable agriculture. Plant breeding my substantial contribute to high and stable plant yields, but may also be able to reduce the need for natural limited resources, such as land, water, fuel etc.for plant growth and may help for a better/more efficient use of unlimited resources, such as N2 and CO2 from the air, sun light/sun energy or the available genetic pool from plants, animals, microorganism etc.(for example see SCAR 2008; The Royal Society 2009).
- Under consideration of the remarks above, I am surprised about your assessment of green biotechnology (p. 47/48). Personally. I think that we have to use the potentials of green biotechnology to use limited natural resources (such as water etc.; see above) more efficient and to improve the using of unlimited resources (e.g. protein syntheses on N from the air by microbes similar to legumes; more efficient photosynthesis with more CO2 in the air). The present results of genetic modifications of plants (resistant against herbicides etc.) or the changes in plant composition and to increase the content of some nutrients etc. should be considered as a starting point of green biotechnology driven by some companies. But the objectives mentioned above should be sponsored by public research, not only by companies and some private foundation (see also one of my previous books; Flachowsky 2013).
- What means meat (see p. 24 and 27/28 etc) in your paper and in your calculations? Meat is very difficult to define (e.g. body weight of animals for slaughtering with or without content in the digestive tract; empty body weight (warm or cold), empty body weight without bones; considering of edible inner organs etc.). Some years ago, we tried to calculate carbon footprints for meat and came to the conclusion, that edible protein would be the bets parameter to compare animal yields (milk, meat, eggs etc.). Attached, you will find the paper dealing with this topic (Flachowsky and Kamphues 2012; see Annex 3).
- Ruminants and grassland are for my understanding in your work in some cases under evaluated. Grassland is available in large areas and ruminants are the only animals, which are able to use grassland to produce edible protein without any competition to human nutrition. Agricultural (e.g. straw) and industrial by- or co-products of food and biofuel industry (e.g. Makkar 2012) should be also considered as valuable feeds (mainly for ruminants, but also as important protein sources for non-ruminants. We should find effective ways to use such feeds rich in fibre, but not in competition to humans in animal nutrition and to reduce negative consequences on environment (e.g. methane emission etc.; see contributions in Malik et al. 2015)).
- Development and perspectives of aquaculture
- Insects as food and feed (see Makkar et al. 2014; van Huis et al. 2014; EFSA 2015)
- Valuable plant protein sources to produce similar animal products, cultured muscle cells (e.g. Post 2014)
- Reduction of feed and food losses on the field, during harvesting, storing, in the food industry, trade, household and kitchen left overs
- Changing of eating behaviour/eating patterns (e.g. Guyomard et al 2012)
Some minor comments:
- List of references should be checked (e.g, I missed Havlik et al. 2015; p.55, l.21; Perry et al. ; p. 56, l. 35)
- Necessity of food of animal origin in human nutrition should be better explained (e.g. more examples; why is a need?)
- Some figures need reference(s); (e.g. global meat etc. consumption; p. 8)
- Repetitions should be avoided (e.g. p. 8, l. 31 ff. and p. 17; l. 38 ff)
<< The English version is below>>
Уважаемые члены Группа Экспертов Высокого Уровня (ГЭВУ) по продовольственной безопасности и питанию,
Хотелось бы в первую очередь поблагодарить вас за вашу работу и подготовку нулевого варианта отчета по Устойчивому развитию сельского хозяйства для обеспечения продовольственной безопасности и питания, в том числе роли животноводства.
По-моему мнению это очень актуальная тема, и насколько позволяет мой английский язык, я вижу значительную подготовительную работу. Был проанализирован значительный материал. Рассмотрены различные аспекты устойчивого развития сельского хозяйства и его влияния на продовольственную безопасность и питание. А также очень углубленно изучена роль животноводства. Предложены пути и механизмы более эффективного использования производственных ресурсов. Эти модели могут быть адаптированы к различным странам и условиям.
По сути отчета хотелось бы добавить о роли представителей власти (Правительств на секторном и региональном уровнях, Министерств сельского хозяйства и т.д.) аграрного сектора в развитии сельского хозяйства и обеспечении ПБП. Они играют очень важную роль и должны разрабатывать соответствующие нормативно правовые акты, которые способствуют развитию сельского хозяйства и обеспечении ПБП, а не препятствовали бы. Это такие документы, которые направлялись бы, например, на улучшении использования именно пахотных и пастбищных земель. Во многих странах нет законов, который управлял пастбищами. Это является основополагающей причиной деградации пастбищ, который находятся вблизи населенных пунктов. При этом отгонные или отдаленные пастбища не используется, потому что у фермеров, которые занимаются животноводством, не достаточно средств, чтобы они использовали отдаленные пастбища.
Шайбек Карасартов,
Директор ОФ "Центр обучения, консультации и инновации"
Кыргызстан
_________________
Dear members of the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) on Food Security and Nutrition,
First of all, I would like to thank you for your work and the elaboration V0 Draft of the report on sustainable agriculture for food security and nutrition, including the role of livestock.
In my opinion, it is a very burning topic, and as much as my English allows me, I see considerable preparatory work. There was a considerable amount of material analyzed. Various aspects of sustainable agriculture and its impact on food security and nutrition are discussed in the draft report. The role of livestock is very deeply studied too. The ways and mechanisms for more efficient use of production factors are suggested. Of course, those models can be customized to different economies and conditions.
In fact, I would like to add a report on the role of the authorities (government at sectoral and regional levels, the Ministry of Agriculture, etc.) of the agricultural sector in the development of agriculture and FSN. They play a very important role and should develop appropriate regulatory and legal acts, which promote the development of agriculture and provision of FSN, but do not hinder the sustainable development. These legislative documents, for instance, can be addressed to improving the use of arable lands and pastures. In many countries, there are no laws/regulations on pasture manage pastures. This is the fundamental cause of degradation of pastures, which are located near population centers/villages. These outrun or remote pastures are not used because farmers are engaged in animal husbandry, do not have enough money/resources for using remote pastures.
Shaibek Karasartov,
Director of the Public Foundation "Training, Advisory and Innovation Center (TAIC)"
Kyrgyz Republic
Cette activité est maintenant terminée. Veuillez contacter [email protected] pour toute information complémentaire.