Hird, V.

McDermott, John J.

CGSpace

SPATDear John,Global livestock consumption hassuch a massive impact on ourplanet. It uses 26 per cent of theearth’s ice-free land surface forgrazing and 33 per cent ofcropland for feed production.Livestock production produces 18per cent of global greenhouse gasemissions (GHG), as well as loss offorests and biodiversity, overuse andcontamination of water, and thehuge costs of food-borne diseases. But these headlines do not revealhow the huge growth in meatconsumption over the pastdecades has been driven by amassive expansion of industrial-scalelivestock systems: highly bredanimals mainly housed and fedgrain and protein produced farfrom the farm.1Of particular concern is thedestruction of forests and habitats in South America to make room forhuge plantations to grow soy – athird of which comes to Europe tofeed our intensively housed pigs,poultry and cows. This is pushingsmall farmers and forestcommunities off their land. Yet it isnot even an efficient use of cropland as animals are highly inefficient converters of plantmatter to protein.Meat-hungry western consumerscan still eat meat and dairy, but less of it and only from sustainable,humane production using homeproduced feeds. We should debatehow we achieve that. Yours, Vicki 1 www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/livestock_impacts.pdf Dear Vicki,The livestock sector does have amassive impact, both positive andnegative, on the environment andpeople’s welfare. But global trends hide importantdifferences. Rich people shouldconsume less meat, poor peoplemore. The consumption boom is inpoorer countries. Production systemsvary greatly. Industrial productionhas expanded without countingenvironmental costs. Livestockproduction on 450 million smallfarms in developing countries is verydifferent. Animals don’t eat grainbut roughage and provide draughtpower and manure for crops.Families with little land rely onlivestock for incomes and savings. How do we improve the livestocksector? Deforestation andagricultural expansion are largelydriven by socio-economic factors.Environmental sustainability mustaccommodate people’s livelihoods.In this context, we must improve theaccounting for environmentalexternalities in developing workableregulations and incentives. In richcountries, consumption might bereduced through a combination ofreducing subsidies and increasingtaxes and environmental payments.In poorer countries, regulation willbe more difficult but should start inindustrial systems which have sprungup in Asia, especially for pigs andpoultry, in response to demand.For small farmers, incentives aremore appropriate. These can targetredistributing livestock moreappropriately and promotingsmarter practices to intensify crop-livestock systems with greaterproduction from fewer resources. Yours, JohnDear John,So we agree – the headlines werehiding the specific environmentaland social damage industriallivestock systems cause.Extensive, pastoral, usually mixedfarming in developing countries hasan impact too, including greenhousegas emissions. But, as you say, these‘multifunctional’ systems providemuch needed protein, as well asincome, collateral, and even fueland fertilizers for low incomecommunities. But following theintensive, high-input model of theWest is not the answer for increasingprotein consumption and couldresult in major environmental, socialand health problems. Modelling wecommissioned,1 of different scenariosof consumption, production, landuse and technologies, shows thatfeeding the world in 2050 is possiblewithout the most intensive forms ofanimal and crop production or amassive expansion of agriculturalland. And we can still eat meat upto three times a week. To do this, regulation in richercountries is vital. We need changesto farm subsidies and taxation;public procurement of meat anddairy; and investment in agriculturein the UK and via internationalfinancial institutions like the WorldBank. We also need to raise publicawareness and change behaviour inrich countries. This will take a while tohave an impact, so must start now. Yours, Vicki1 www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/eating_planet_briefing.pdf Should we eat less meat to increase food security?Vicki Hird and John McDermott disagreePAGE 10 PEOPLE&SCIENCE June 2010PAGE 11 PEOPLE&SCIENCE June 2010Dr John McDermott is Deputy DirectorGeneral of Research, International LivestockResearch Institute  www.ilri.orgj.mcdermott@cgiar.org Vicki Hird is Senior Food Campaigner atFriends of the Earth  www.fixthefoodchain.org vicki.hird@foe.co.uk Dear Vicki,We have important alignment butour words would differ. Building basicagreements is essential to combineevidence and practical actioneffectively in improving the livestocksector. Recent headlines fromAmerica1 proclaim that livestock hasno influence on climate change tocounter claims demonizing livestock.How do we close the selective-evidence divide on both sides of this debate?What are key areas in which betterevidence is critical? One is theestimation of environmental costsand resource use efficiencies. Currentdebates reflect the considerablecomplexity of allocating costs andestimating relative benefits, as weneed to recognize that someindustrial practices are very efficient.This evidence will underpin decisionson how to make better use ofdifferent types of land and biomass.Initial targeting of livestock-environment impacts can beimproved, and I see some recentprogress. As argued, environmentaland socio-economic priorities mustbe combined to assess tradeoffseffectively and develop equitableand sustainable solutions. We agree that initial interventionsshould be in rich countries andindustrial systems. Brazil, Russia, Indiaand China need to be includedearly, given their global importance.However, I fear that needed actionswon’t happen quickly. To acceleratethe process, it is urgent to initiatedialogue between important actors.Yours, John1 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/23/meat-dairy-diet-not-tied-to-global-warming/ Dear John,Those recent headlines from Americawere hugely misleading. The Food andAgricultural Organisation’s calculationremains accurate: livestock is responsiblefor 18 per cent of global greenhouseemissions and major South American landuse change. The problem was the FAOcomparison with global transport basedon an underestimation of transport’semissions, not on an overestimation oflivestock’s emissions.You say some industrial systems are ‘veryefficient’ – in terms of conversion of feedinto protein, emissions per kilo and so on?Perhaps, but we also have to assess whatthat does for urban and ruralconsumption; whether the production isfor export; who gains from the trade.Putting aside the significant animal healthand welfare, labour standards, diseaseload, antibiotic use, water use, and localpollution issues associated with ‘industrial’,if we drive demand by making it cheapwe will end up with greater need for feedcrops. Yet conversion rates are higher ifpeople eat the cereals and proteinsdirectly, however ‘efficient’ the system.I agree we need to make sure thatevidence is accurate and mitigationoptions have impact assessments. Canwe afford to wait for a perfect evidencebase before we act? We think not. Wehave presented a Sustainable LivestockBill in Parliament to kick start the dialogueon vital UK action. Yours, Vicki Dear Vicki,Whatever consensus emerges on the relative levels of greenhouse gasemissions generated by differentsectors, what is most important is tounderstand what livestock productionpractices can and should beimproved and how. The SustainableLivestock Bill is a call to action. Butbefore taking broad action, we shoulduse the best available knowledge todesign and test interventions in pilotstudies. With phased learning, we candevelop consensus as we obtainbetter evidence.The biggest global change is thegrowing importance of emerging andpoor countries. In these countries, 450million poor households and over onebillion people rely on livestock tobetter their incomes, their nutritionand their livelihoods.Smarter livestock production practicesin developing countries can provideincomes for the poor while meetinggrowing demand for milk and meatand improving natural resourcemanagement. But such ‘smart’practices will work only if markets startworking for rather than against thepoor. And we need to improve theefficiency of small-scale livestocksystems while shifting production awayfrom forests to robust drylands and, inwetter regions, to intensive mixedcrop-livestock-tree production systems.In short, smart livestock intensificationcan help us meet a triple bottom line:less hunger, less poverty and a betterenvironment. Yours, JohnOther current initiatives on food security are Food 2030, the government’s new food strategy (seewww.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/strategy/), and the ForesightProject on Global Food and Farming Futures, due to belaunched in November 2010 (see http://xr.com/06y).

Should we eat less meat to increase food security?

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/10568/1945/1/SPAT_june2010.pdf

Should we eat less meat to increase food security?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace