General comments:
The HLPE draft report on “Sustainable Agriculture Development for Food Security and Nutrition, including the role of livestock” is successful in reflecting the different views of stakeholders and the suite of pressures and sustainability dimensions.
The central role of livestock in agriculture is well highlighted yet could be further reinforced by stressing the synergies with other agriculture sectors. Cropping systems, timber, aquaculture benefit from nutrients cycling triggered by livestock. Manure is essential in securing key soil functions such as physical stability and support that is essential for plant growth.
In order to discuss about sustainable food systems also in the context of food security and nutrition, it is very helpful the commentary provided on reference definitions on page 16. Nevertheless, it is highly recommended that the definition of sustainable food systems provided as footnote on page 21 is made more prominent and placed in the body text. Indeed, in order to articulate discussion on food security and nutrition, the whole report could be built on such definition. In order not to compromise food security and nutrition of future generations while also taking action to secure nutritious food to current generations, we need plausible future-oriented scenarios and pathways identified and assessed by sound tools such as reference integrated sustainability assessment methodologies and data.
Besides providing an overview of the different views on livestock production systems, this report is lacking in structure. The responses outlined at the end of the report lack supporting rationale and are often in contradiction.
Once highlighted all sustainability facets at the beginning of the report, more emphasis should be provided on the importance of reference data and life cycle sustainability assessment methods as a part of a toolbox in support of policy making. Without building consensus on reference methods and data, pathways towards sustainable agriculture will always be questioned from a methodological perspective and dialogue among stakeholders won’t move forward. The proliferation of environmental assessment methods has, in fact, led to diverging messages which hamper any improvement.
In order to meet the SDGs, linking assessment tools (like the ones that the LEAP Partnership is developing) to the development of alternative future-oriented scenarios is fundamental. Life cycle assessment could be used to assess alternative scenarios and identify suitable pathways (http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/sustainability-assessment-of-future-oriented-scenarios-pbLBNA26088/). Section 2.1.2 should have a more prominent role in the report and should be directly linked to the figure on page 22 as well as to final recommendations.
To assess and monitor over time the environmental performance of livestock supply chains, the LEAP Partnership guidelines are the tool for livestock production systems and I would reccomend mentioning them in this report. (http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/resources/resources/en/; http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/resources/public-review/en/).
The figure on page 22 highlights very well the role of both production and consumption in the sustainability journey. At the bottom of the figure, the environmental compartments (biodiversity, nutrient cycles and water) are well placed. Nevertheless, soil quality should have a role and it could help readability a clearer distinction between production inputs (i.e. resources such as labour, land, water, nutrients, energy) and impacts (e.g. biodiversity, eutrophication, climate change, human health).
The methodological notes of the LEAP Partnership provide a comprehensive overview of environmental pressures and impacts and their linkage to resource use (http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/resources/resources/en/; http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/resources/public-review/en/)
What is titled on page 52 as environmental sustainability, it is actually more about resource use. Sub-sections on land and water (3.3.2 and 3.3.3) lack detail on the plethora of angles from which indicators and assessments have been produced. Impacts from land use and (direct and indirect) land use change are not sufficiently discussed. Soil quality indicators are not mentioned. The wide array of approaches, indicators and assessments on the water footprint of livestock does not emerge from 3.3.3. A section is missing on the positive and negative impacts of livestock on biodiversity. In this respect, inspiration may come from the LEAP report “A review of indicators and methods to assess biodiversity – application to livestock production at global scale.” Principles on the assessment of impacts of livestock on biodiversity are also recommended can complete the picture on biodiversity.
The use of pesticides, herbicides, etc. in agriculture – including feed production- might result in impacts on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems as well as on human health. An in-depth commentary on this impact category is highly recommended.
It should also be better articulated the relationship between chemical fertilizers and land degradation.
Section 3.3.4 on page 55 should be moved under section 2 “trends and drivers”.
Building on the classification by Robinson et al. (2011) mentioned on page 31, the LEAP Partnership Guidelines on feed, poultry, small ruminants, large ruminants and pigs supply chains provide an overview of the major production practices worldwide. Such text was put together by researchers from all continents and it is recommended to include such classification in the body text of section 2.3.
On page 41 line 17, I recommend quoting the LEAP guidelines and databases that are all based on life cycle thinking. http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/resources/public-review/en/
It is strongly recommended to comment how the figure on page 67 fits in the loop on page 33 of the FAO report “Building a Common Vision for Sustainable Food and Agriculture” http://www.fao.org/3/919235b7-4553-4a4a-bf38-a76797dc5b23/i3940e.pdf
On page 68, line 17, it is recommended to include the following text:
“Another MSP is the Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance (LEAP) Partnership. The LEAP Partnership focuses on the development of recognised sector specific guidelines to assess environment performance of livestock supply chains. LEAP aims at supporting the transition towards more sustainable food and agriculture by improving the environmental performance of livestock supply chains while ensuring social and economic viability. LEAP is a first-of-its-kind, multi-stakeholder partnership of Governments, Private Sectors, NGOs and CSOs, and other stakeholders united by a shared commitment to the sustainable development of the livestock sector. Guiding principles of the LEAP partnership include: global, inclusive, consensus, transparency, scientific, comprehensive, continuous improvement and adoption. “
Specific comments:
On page 43, line 44, it is maintained that “small-scale mixed systems in the tropics and subtropics have a significant role to play…”. To my knowledge, small-scale mixed systems also have a major role in other areas.
Meat and livestock sector/products are often presented throughout the report (see pages 17, 26) as two separate categories while meat is part of the livestock sector and products as milk, fiber, manure are also livestock products.
Camillo De Camillis