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
Susan Bragdon