A) Context: The traditional way of setting the scene has always been of establishing knowledge of supply (sustainability, NRM, coping with/ adapting to CC and other environmental shocks etc) and demand (growing need for ASFs, change in consumption habits, and some understanding of the cultural values that influence what people eat). This is fine. But it does not take us all the way. An important entry point is waste and loss of ASFs. In poorer countries waste and loss are driven by poor means of production and transport to fattening and slaughter houses, poor hygiene, high mortality rates, etc. In the richer more affluent loss is cultural (scare of bugs by a majority who do not know what bugs are). But in spite of that the culture of expiry-date have never succeeded in making the people in the affluent countries healthier (if not sick of bacteria caused diseases they are sick of overeating) and safer than otherwise. I once read that mortality and falling sick because of contaminated foods is really high in UK. Imagine! Indeed there should be good understanding of the drivers of economic growth specially noting that most of the livestock is produced by the poor subsistence level rural households.
B) Achieving sustainability for food security and nutrition: A rigorous assessment of the challenges, objectives and pathways (bullets 3, 4 and 5) in the report is necessary and there is abundance of expert knowledge, practices, models and examples from everywhere. At the end where this assessment is expected to take us? Which specific direction is targeted? Which "Worlds" to consider: the ideal, the uncertain or the real? What would be the extent of identifying barriers to change? In a nut shell the report must be unique in its ability to provide solutions. Times of looking at livestock from the pro and con views is over. The challenge is in how to make safe and nourishing ASFs available to a growing population without the traditional challenges of overeating and hunger?
Ahmed E SIDAHMED