全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

As some other contributors have pointed out before, the report in its current form is quite hard to read although it contains many important lines of thought. It should be condensed and given a clear structure and coherent argument. There are two main points we would like to emphasize: the importance of local knowledge, and the value of extensive pastoralism.

Importance of local knowledge:

•    p.84, Environmental Recommendations. A recommendation should be added: to take local knowledge into particular consideration. Its strategies are known to work for a specific place. Moreover, any measure that is based on local knowledge will be more readily accepted by local stakeholders.

Value of extensive pastoralism:

•    p.52, ll.40-42: Have a look and cite: IIED, 2013. Global public policy narratives on the drylands and pastoralism (http://pubs.iied.org/10040IIED.html), which discusses inconsistent narratives with regard to pastoralism.

•    p.82, ll.3-4 could be expanded to: “Transforming feedstuffs that are otherwise inedible to humans and utilizing land that is unsuitable for crops in an efficient and sustainable way, on much of the world’s terrestrial land area.”

•    p.84, ll.32-34. This point should be specified with examples: “e.g. by giving support to mobile, extensive livestock breeding in dryland areas.”

•    For the value of pastoral systems, see Krätli, S., 2014. If Not Counted Does Not Count? A programmatic reflection on methodology options and gaps in Total Economic Valuation studies of pastoral systems. Issue Paper. IIED: London. http://pubs.iied.org/10082IIED.html

•    Two more references to be considered in this regard: Krätli, S., Huelsebusch, C., Brooks, S., Kaufmann, B., 2013. Pastoralism: A critical asset for food security under global climate change. Animal Frontiers 3(1) 42-50, and: Reid, R.S., Fernández-Giménez, M.E., Galvin, K.A., 2014. Dynamics and resilience of rangelands and pastoral peoples around the globe, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, pp. 217-242.

Miscellaneous comments:

•    p.11, l.48 “most people are hungry because they cannot afford food.” Consequently, continued global efforts to reduce poverty should be a main recommendation in the latter parts, but is only mentioned in the narrow context of agricultural development (as a means to lift producers out of poverty). Alleviating the poverty of non-producers is an important challenge that should not be forgotten.

•    p.51, ll.37-38 “The experience over many years and many countries demonstrates that the benefits of trade liberalization and globalization clearly outweigh the risks.” Such a sweeping generalization should at least cite a convincing source, otherwise it is mere ideology.

•    p.60, Conclusions. This paragraph is very unspecific and vague so far.

•    p.85, ll.4-5 “Increase farmers’ access to markets, focusing especially on non-distorting measures such as capacity building, credit and market infrastructure.” Here, mentioning the provision of adequate (agricultural) insurance instruments would be a valuable addition.

Birgit Müller, David Kreuer

Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany

Junior Research Group POLISES: www.polises.de

Algae for Food, Feed, Fuels and CO2 Sequestration

Time for a reality check

Algae research for advanced biofuels has sounded like a wonderful idea for decades. It has been rather profitable for universities, researchers and Department of Energy employees for over 70 years.  With today’s low fossil fuel prices, this is a perfect time for the DOE to change its mindset that more algae research is needed and use some of the existing algae fuel technologies that have been developed with years of taxpayer-paid algae research that is sitting on shelves at NREL and Washington, D.C.  After all, the original goal was not to line the file cabinets at the Patent Office and the DoE with patent filings and new (and seemingly useless) technologies, but to help the US “get off of foreign oil” become self-sustainable and energy independent.

The National Algae Association thinks the DOE Algae Biomass Program /BETO needs to be completely restructured.   Instead of accomplishing its mission, it changes it!  It’s not enough to change the upper leadership.  It’s time to change the staff members who are afraid to shift away from all algae research and who have proven themselves to be incapable of meeting the commercial algae production needs. Someone needs to admit that the Congressional mandate that funds the DOE Algae Biomass Program is outdated and no longer fits the needs for which it was intended.  Past algae research grant recipients stated years ago that “all algae technology hurdles had been met. It’s all engineering and scale-up going forward.”  Then what did it do?  It applied for and received additional research grants!

It takes less than a year to build a commercial algae farm or indoor algae bio-manufacturing facility using lots of proven existing technologies.  So what is the hold up in Washington?

NAA has asked the DOE Algae Biomass Program/BETO, its algae research grant recipients, its lobbyists and the media sources that they pay to report on their ‘accomplishments’ to be more accountable when discussing the commercial algae production industry. We have asked that they be more accountable to the US taxpayers who are actually paying them and to be less accountable to the universities it has been supporting for almost a century.  Algae does not grow in Washington, DC and never will. Algae technologies sitting on shelves at NREL and at universities have no benefit to the private US commercial algae producers, consumers or the economy, but neither NREL nor the DoE will ever admit to that, let alone hold anyone accountable for the buffoonery.

DOE algae grant researchers have been asked been asked to participate with private industry getting into commercial algae production industry but they admit that they are limited on what they can disclose outside the university research grant. Private industry and investors on the other hand have been patiently waiting to see deployment of commercial production technologies.  Nobody at the Department of Energy, nor in a research lab at a university, knows the first thing about deployment – their track records speak for themselves.

NAA is deeply concerned about the huge gap that has been created between the DOE and private industry. Taxpayer-financed algae technologies for fuels need to be deployed into the private sector.  The only way this will happen is by taking the DOE Algae Biomass Program/BETO out the process of picking winners and losers without any having commercial algae production experience. If private industry cannot make it happen with everything that has already been developed after spending 70 years and billions of dollars, the grant-recipient university researchers will be faced with a different set of issues.

I want to commend the consultative group that drafted the report.

It is well articulated and provide measures on sustainable agriculture in line with FAO mandate.

The role of livestock in food security cannot be overemphasized, however little research efforts are geared towards it in mostAfrica

I also congratulates the FAO organization for her foresight and initiatives in addressing and meeting the global future needs in terms of food security and sustainability.

The HLPE paper on SAD for FSN including Livestock is a huge literature review work based on Delgado’s Livestock Revolution and Carlos Sere’s work on the Production Systems, and a number of deterministic models. However, the draft, in its current format, is too long, and is not a guiding document. Also the sentences are very long and the conclusions unclear and unspecific. However, the report is still in draft form and is open to reviewer’s comments online. If shortened it should provide a good case on the needed strategies of sustaining Animal Source Foods for Food Security and nutrition especially in the developing countries. The case studies from Australia and New Zealand may not offer universal technical clues ( e.g. in the situation of sheep and goats which are mostly raised under semi-extensive or traditional systems; although not being from the developing countries is not a reason for their exclusion. Possible case studies from successful counties that have closer problems would help 

The report should take on board the issues concerning the Right to Adequate Food and Nutrition as outlined in the attached report recently released. In particular I should like to emphasise the contents of the article on the RtAFN in Africa by me and Davinder Lamba, which refers to urban agriculture, an aspect negelcted in the report so far.

Data cited on urban agriculture in Africa clearly show the importance of small-scale livestock production to food and nutrition security of the urban poor and women headed households in particular. Urban malnutrition is a growing problem due to the fact that many urban poor live in dense, unserviced slums. Obesity in these conditions is linked to lack of proper food due to its unaffordability and reliance on sugars and starches. Data show that keeping urban livestock may be a good strategy as improved food security and child health are linked to consumption of animal source foods (including milk and eggs and not just meat). Improved incomes are also linked to keeping urban livestock. Urban authourities need to put policies and plans in operation to permit and support urban livestock keeping, in order to address the right to adequate food and nutrition. 

This is all in the article mentioned. I would like to add that, regarding policy improvements, Nairobi City County, which has an estimated 200,000 small household farmers within its boundaries, has just passed an Urban Agriculture Promotion and Regulation Act (27 August 2015), in confomity with the recognition of the right to food in Kenya's constitution of 2010 and Urban Areas and Cities Act of 2011.

Compassion in World Farming is supportive of the report’s efforts to contribute to global food security and nutrition (FSN) by focusing on livestock.  We also welcome the inclusion of animal welfare in the report.  We do however encourage the report to be developed further, with particular recognition of the bio-physical limits of the planet[1] and the negative impact of intensifying livestock production in certain areas of the world.  A particularly pressing threat is the increase in grain-fed animal production on food security and nutrition (FSN) of the most food-insecure people[2].

We therefore encourage the report and policy recommendations to focus on exactly how sustainable agricultural development (SAD) can contribute to the goals of the FAO[3].  Specifically, we feel that the report should shift its emphasis from a focus primarily on increasing production to instead focusing on the contribution that SAD and livestock can make to:

i.    the FSN of the people who are most in need of more calories and/or specific nutrients;

ii.   the livelihoods of small-scale farmers and the poorest families and communities; and

iii.  restoration and protection of the environment and farm animal welfare.

It is currently unclear how increasing livestock production alone will meet these three goals, particularly as the report correctly states that hunger is the result of poverty rather than due to a lack of available food.  Focusing exclusively on producing more (animal-sourced food) ASF - without specifically targeting a reduction in the prevalence of under-nutrition and over-nutrition - could do more harm than good to global FSN.  For example:

i.    under-nourished poor people may not be able to afford these additional ASF and may find grain more expensive if crops are diverted to feed livestock instead of directly to feed humans.  This may therefore create a higher frequency of individuals suffering from hunger rather than fewer.

ii.   adequately nourished people with moderate incomes may be more likely to over-consume and become overweight if ASF become more available; over-weight and obese people may be more likely to stay or become more over-weight[4].

iii.  increased meat and dairy consumption does not necessarily improve nutrition depending on the types and amounts of meat and dairy consumed.  For instance, an increase in red and processed meat consumption is linked with higher frequencies of certain cancers[5] and increased processed meat consumption with coronary heart disease and diabetes[6].  Therefore purely increasing livestock production as a whole, without explaining how these ASF can be produced healthily, nutritiously and accessibly to those most in need, might exacerbate malnutrition.

The conclusion of the report is mostly well balanced and we welcome recognition of: the need for de-intensification in some areas; the fact that it is impossible to adopt a western diet globally; that policy or other interventions to shift consumption patterns towards healthy and sustainable levels are needed; and that reductions in waste and losses will be helpful towards achieving a sustainable food production.  We do however feel that there is limited discussion on: the negative effects on soil of increased livestock production; the inefficiency of feeding crops to livestock and its associated calorific waste due to livestock metabolism; and the benefits of agro-ecological livestock production in comparison to conventional western production.  There are examples of using low-tech, localised improvements in livestock management to benefit people, livestock and the planet[7],[8] without having to adopt an industrialised system, the latter of which costs $3.3 trillion annually in environmental damage through global intensive farming of crops and livestock[9].  Lastly, the report incorrectly assumes that food production must increase to feed a population of nearly 10 billion by 2050.  Enough food is already produced to feed 10 billion but is wasted due to overconsumption, pre- and post-harvest losses and calorific losses due to feeding human-edible crops to livestock.

We expand on these points and outline further concerns about the report in the attached document, as responses to the questions posed by FAO.

The Report completely over-estimates the importance to food security and nutrition (FSN) of 'the livestock sector'.

Food sovereignty, secure access to land, and water sustainability are all demonstrably far better served by plant agriculture.  

The Report needs to radically change, to emphasize the growing of protein crops and vegetables because of their importance for both nutrition and sustainable futures.

Please examine our new Grow Green report: http://www.vegansociety.com/resources/downloads/growgreenreport

(12 Mb PDF).

This sets out the case for Minority World countries (specifically the UK) to take the lead in directing farming subsidies into grain legumes and other nutritious, sustainable, widely enjoyed plant protein crops. In the UK, this can be up to £25,000 per large farm. 

A C Baker Ph.D. Senior Policy Officer from The Vegan Society non-profit 

T: +44 (0) 121 523 1737

E: poli[email protected] W: www.vegansociety.com

A: The Vegan Society, Donald Watson House, 21 Hylton St, Birmingham B18 6HJ UK

Reg. Charity No 279228 Company Reg. No 1468880 Registered in England & Wales VAT Reg. No 448 5973 95

Dear CFS Secretariat,

Attached please find the comments of Afghanistan on the HLPE Draft Report on Sustainable Agricultural Development for Food Security and Nutrition, including the Role of livestock.

We appreciate your efforts for arranging the preparation of such a valuable report.

Thank you and high regards.

Ayazi

Livestock Context of India

Animal husbandry is an integral component of Indian agriculture supporting Livelihoods’ of more than [1]two-thirds of the rural population. India has [2]56.7% of world’s buffaloes, 12.5% cattle, 20.4% small ruminants, 2.4% camel, 1.4% equine, 1.5% pigs and 3.1% poultry. International Livestock Research [3]reported that the livestock sector grew at an annual rate of 5.3% during the 1980s, which was almost double the growth rate of the crop sector. In subsequent decades, growth in the livestock sector declined and reached 3.6% during the 2000s. Despite this decline, growth in the livestock sector remained about 1.5 times higher than growth in the crop sector .Livestock production directly contributes to food security by being the source of milk, meat, and eggs. Though livestock products are expensive yet they are the best sources of high quality protein and micronutrients that are essential for development and good health. However, poor people tend to sell them instead of consuming at home which is causing low per capita annual consumption of milk (69 kg) and meat (3.7 kg). The government of India initiatives like crossbreeding programs (door step artificial insemination services in cattle and buffaloes), improved animal health services, fodder development programs and better access to markets has contributed to increased livestock production but the average yield is low compared to world average: milk yield of Indian cattle is fifty percent less and meat yield 20-60%. Some of the causes of low productivity are explained below.

The small holder livestock production is mostly characterized as extensive where animals rely upon low quality roughages. Crop residues like rice, wheat, sorghum, millets etc., are the key source of feed for animals and their availability is not adequate, the deficit of dry fodder, concentrates and green fodder is 10%, 33% and 35%, respectively. Mostly small holders are unable to grow cultivated fodder as the land possessed by them is very small and it is used for producing cereals.

Outbreaks of diseases like Foot and Mouth Disease, Black Quarter, PPR, Brucellosis, Swine fever and Avian Influenza etc., on a regular basis continue to impact productivity.

Despite promoting crossbreeding program for more than four decades, India’s crossbred population has not exceeded 25% in cattle, 21.5% in pigs and 5.2% in sheep. Most of the crossbreds are not properly managed by small holders due to lack of adequate knowledge and resources.

Due to urbanization and conversion of waste lands for agriculture purpose grazing lands are shrinking dramatically impacting fodder scarecity.

Although, there is an improvement in health service delivery system in the country availability of services is mostly observed in milk shed areas that too confining to dairy animals. Reach of quality services to small ruminants, pigs and backyard poultry still a big challenge.

The livestock sector is likely to face threat of climate change. The global warming is likely to cause a loss of 1.6 million tons milk production by 2020 and 15 million tons by 2050 from current levels in India. The decline in yield may vary from 10-30% in first lactation, and 5-20% in second and third lactations[4]. The decline in milk production will be higher in crossbreds (0.61%) followed by buffaloes (0.5%) and indigenous cattle (0.4%). A rise of 2-6°C due to global warming between 2050s and 2080s is projected to negatively impact growth, puberty and maturity of crossbred animals and buffaloes. Therefore earnings of the farmers dependent primarily on animal husbandry becomes vulnerable when heat stress conditions prevail. Currently the policies are focusing more on promoting indigenous breeds which are more hardy, robust and less affected by extreme temperature and high humidity conditions with potential to produce equivalent amounts of milk as crossbreds.

CK.Rao

Senior Advisor

Intercooperation Social Development

The report should be made Brief Crisp Simple The role of nutrition with food safety and agricultural sustainability and livestock is a multisectoral topic and its related to a wide range of factors i.e Water availability and quality Climate condition Transportation and infrastructure Population size Good governance Finance department and tax policy Healthcare Markets Literacy and cultural factors All the above factors have to be kept in focus while dealing with nutrition, food safety and agricultural sustainability.