Q1. The report is wide-ranging and comprehensive in analyzing the contribution of sustainable agricultural development to ensuring food security and nutrition (FSN), with a particular focus on the livestock sector because of its importance for both nutrition and sustainable futures. Do you think that the report is striking the right balance between agricultural development overall and the livestock sector specifically with respect to their relative contribution to FSN?
While totally relevant in its aim to reassociate animals to agriculture, the focus on livestock seems to me (even a livestock scientist) some oversized or too recurrent compared to the more general agricultural stakes for FSN. Like for livestock, a more structured approach of the main stakes around staple food crops (for FSN) and cash crops (for market) and a classification of the main categories of crop systems (from small holder to industrial) could be developed in parallel and analysed in terms of interactions (or not) between these two main Agricultural subsectors (Crop/livestock).
In some way there is a strong "long shadow report" effect for the livestock component where such synthetized approach and global report is still missing for cropping agriculture.
Q2. The report is structured around context, trends, challenges and pathways/responses. Do you think that these are comprehensive enough, and adequately considered and articulated? Does the report strike the right balance of coverage across the various chapters? Are there important aspects that are missing ?
The structure is relevant but could be better balanced or declined and articulated between "primary production" crop agriculture multiple functions and stakes and the livestock agriculture as a "secondary" transformer, adding value to cultivated or natural resources biomasses (grasslands, grains, by products..) and it's own functions/stakes toward sustainability
A totally lacking aspect in actual and future drivers is the global economy players and the recent and rapid financialisation trend of agriculture that followed the food crisis and that crosses contexts, trends, challenges with many new actor's (pension funds, commodity markets, food equities funds, new private investors etc), raising in many places and the fact that these will probably boost some categories of crop and/or livestock systems and lay behind some others …. Food Commodities are becoming more subject to speculations. New rules or absence of rules questions the sustainability in it's three main pillars. The report should evocate at least these important trends (I'm absolutely not expert, attached a small example more can be found when "googleing" on financialisation, agriculture as key words). Eventually HLPE could sollicitate some specific expertise on the subject to develop around actual trends and further views in link to this specific financial aspect.
The burden of nutrient losses (Nitrogen, phosphorus ..) between livestock and return back crop (e.g >70 million tons N are rejected by animals in their environment, a still small part is recycled in agriculture while more than 80 million tons mineral N is synthesized.... etc). The enormous challenge to better and effectively reconnect cropping systems // livestock systems and recycle in the most efficient way all the wasted nutrients could be more strongly underlined.
As stated in the document Energy use in systems has been crucial for crop and or livestock intensification, between renewable and non renewable energies ; Food Feeds, Fuel, human, animal energy imputs in systems vs NRE uses, the future sustainability is also questioned. See e.g. Vigne M (2014) Environmental assessment of livestock systems with the emergy methodology: Efficiency of extensive livestock systems in harsh environments. Perspective 25. CIRAD Agriculture Research for Development, Paris, France.
The questions of the use efficiency of the different forms of energy in the agricultural systems could be better outlined
Q3. The report uses a classification to distinguish between four broad categories of livestock systems, in order to better identify specific challenges and sustainable development pathways for each of them. Do you find this approach useful for identifying specific policy responses and actions in different socio-economic and environmental contexts?
In the global agriculture these 4 categories are sufficient for livestock but the weight given to Ruminant appears implicitly a little too recurrent while non ruminant (pig poultry) have know the major development in the last decades. ( in 2010 23 .10 9 heads vs 6. 109 en 1960 (Faostat), : poultry x5, pigs x 2.4 , ruminants x1.5 ) These non ruminant systems are the most efficient but also the highest users and competitors on agricultural primary food products (grains, pulses …).
Another very rapidly growing and highly weighing sector are the fisheries and the intense use of feeds in aquaculture. It is rather poorly evocated in a general way and most of the time considered apart from livestock (aquaculture is cited 1 time in the report, while global aquaculture productions, consuming large amounts of feeds, actually equals bovine meat production …) see e.g. P. GERBER, C. BRUGÈRE, P. ANKERS 2011 Évolution des productions animales terrestres et aquacoles dans le monde : tendances globales et implications économiques, sociales et environnementales INRA Prod. Anim., , 24 (1), 9-22
These productions (non rum livestock and fish) are great competitors on human food but on the other hand, because of their high value adding capacity, these have a very high training effect on the primary agricultural production and economy in many landscapes. As far as these are also all short cycle production systems that can be rapidly stopped or reboosted, these systems also constitute an important buffer for global FSN. Some consideration could be detailed on these direct and indirect economic effects and global food feed stakes of these components of the livestock sector
Q4. The report has referenced key projections and scenario studies in identifying the drivers and trends through to 2050. Are there other studies that the report needs to reference, which offer different perspectives on the future outlook for the agriculture (including livestock) sector, in particular those that focus on nutrition and diet?
Some added reference: beyond global food security the concerns evolve toward, malnutrition and under vs over nutrition see IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute. 2015. Global Nutrition Report 2015: Actions and Accountability to Advance Nutrition and Sustainable Development. Washington, DC. Also, more and more evidence based papers address the poor effect of agricultural development (crop or livestock) on malnutrition disequilibrium and diseases in rural communities as well as in cities see e.g. UK aid report (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/292727/Nutrition-evidence-paper.pdf or Dury S, Bocoum I, 2012. Le « paradoxe » de Sikasso (Mali) : pourquoi « produire plus » ne suffit-il pas pour bien nourrir les enfants des familles d'agriculteurs ? Cah Agric 21 : 324-36. doi : 10.1684/agr.2012.058
Beyond global FSN It would be useful to deepen and actualise on such evolving malnutrition concerns
Q5. The report has identified a wide range of challenges likely to be faced in the coming period to which policy makers and other stakeholders will need to take into account so that SADL can contribute to FSN. Do you think that there are other key challenges/opportunities that need to be covered in the report, including those related to emerging technologies, the concentration and intensification of production in livestock, and the implications for feedstuffs (crops and oilseeds), and international trade?
Again the shift in the investor's profile, the financial challenges, and the observed huge investment in high technologies like precision agric, food E-commerce, water, drones/robotics, land buying, would probably merit some particular attention (see e.g. http://www.foodtechconnect.com/2015/08/14/agtech-funding-explodes-2b-invested-first-half-2015/ )
Financial capacities of emerging actors could or definitely will, deepen the gap between industrial and family household. How could some SWOT be developed on the compared and real future strengths, opportunities for rural agricultural (incl livestock) development.
Facing the rapid urbanisation of populations, the loss of cultural link to rural values and the sometimes growing idea (among policy makers and private investors) and sometimes consumers that (only) large highly industrialised and integrated systems using latest technologies will feed the world, some more argumented consideration and balanced views on the real actual weight of family households (see FAO SOFA 2014, Innovation in family farming), their skills and local knowledge use to precisely manage at low cost and with parsimonious resource uses a large part of the agricultural production could be further developed
Q6. A decision-making approach that could be useful for policy makers in designing and implementing policies and actions has been proposed in Chapter 4 of the report. Is this a useful and pragmatic approach?
The chapter is well structured it conveys to a quite classical enumeration of key issues and a Figure 9 Decision making approach: the response cycle for policies to address FSN-SADL that depicts a stylized approach to such decision-making. The figure is a little too simple, the overall context climate change, urbanization, demography could be further developed in it's complexity with societal health and nutrition, animal welfare, organic vs conventional food ... concerns
What also probably misses in such scheme is a representation or a further discussion paragraph on who are the decider's is it a small group or the broad community of actors including the private sector (rarely named or evocated in the document) along to the producers, the transformers, the traders etc in the chains and who are the policy makers: local communities, private investors, governments, regional economic communities financing organisations ( UE, WB etc what could be the future balanced role of each.
Q7. Chapter 4 also contains case studies/examples of evolutions of agricultural development policies and actions in different contexts/countries. Could you offer other practical, well-documented and significant examples to enrich and provide better balance to the variety of cases and the lessons learned in agricultural development, including the trade offs or win-win outcomes in terms of addressing the different dimensions of sustainability and FSN?
Regarding livestock interesting examples could be found around the milk developments in kenya a self sufficient country where a very large part of the market is informal (Ilri has made a lot of survey and syntheses on this), or better in India a leading country in world milk production and it's White Revolution structuring around BAIF millions of producers managing low performance and highly recycling cows fed mainly with agricultural by products (see e.g. BAIF http://www.baif.org.in/pdf/Dairy_Husbandary.pdf) ... Summarised examples could be solicited among these institutions
Q8. The social dimension of sustainable agriculture development has often been less well described and understood, including due to lack of data. Examples and experiences on such issues (livelihoods, gender, share and situation of self employed versus wage workers, working conditions, etc.) would be of particular interest to the team.
Recent example of Vietnam milk development and comparison of indicators between mega farm and small holder milk farm in the NRA Revalter project is highly interesting ( see and eventually contact http://www.futurelivestock.net/)
Q9. The upstream and downstream sectors are playing an increasingly important role in respect of the orientation of agricultural development, food choices and diets. Can you provide examples of the role these sectors play in sustainable agricultural development and FSN?
The role is effectively essential but also controversial in its effects regarding sustainability. high quality and safety standards policy and low prices competition in the retailers/consumers distribution sector favours upstream integration of large feed and agrifood providers it contributes to FSN and to the economic pillar of sustainability the environmental and in particular the social pillar are more questionable … examples can be found in all production sub sector ( cereals, soya, oil, livestock, fish, vegetables) . Should be effectively something interesting to discuss more here
Q10. What are the key policy initiatives or successful interventions to improve the sustainability of food systems, in different countries and contexts that merit discussion in the report? Is there evidence about the potential of economic incentives, and which ones (taxes, subsidies etc.), regulatory approaches, capacity building, R&D and voluntary actions by food system actors?
Facing climate and environmental concerns, Carbon markets potentials, Ecosystem services retribution as well as concepts like Social Responsibility of the Enterprises, Social Business etc … emerging in the private sector, what could be a future sustainable agriculture associating such tools and initiatives
Q11. The design and implementation of policies for FSN requires robust, comparative data over time and across countries. Where are the data gaps that governments, national and international organizations might need to address in the future in order to understand trends and formulate better policies?
Regarding animal agriculture there appear very huge gaps between highly developed world and the rest on basic country, region, systems data’s. First on real Animal existing numbers (e.g. figures on animal numbers in a country like Niger vary between 10 and 40 millions….) and on the actualised productivity parameters in smallholder systems To address environmental questions, efficiency gaps closures, self-sufficiency foresights, at landscapes, regional or national level national actualised and detailed accounting figures are highly needed
Philippe LECOMTE