BALANCING LIVESTOCK, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND HUMAN NEEDS

Maresum 3 of 5

SUMMARY OF THE LXE-L PLENARY GROUP DISCUSSION
Victor Mares; Conference Moderator

Miguel Velez argued that there is a forgotten actor in this conference as much has been said about technical matters but little about the farmer/pastoralist. He contends that society has to consider him as a manager of the environment, who deserves a decent pay and to live decently. He asked how much money farmer's deserve, how much land and animals do they need to obtain that income, and who will pay for it. Don Peden and Nadine Saad introduced another forgotten actor, namely women. Don and Nadine were very interested in hearing views on the role of women in the described livestock systems and asked how women are affected by livestock-human-environment imbalances. They also asked how women would/should be affected by the interventions proposed in this conference.

David Waltner-Toews responded Cees de Haan specific question about involving stakeholders and policy makers by arguing that this frequently asked question betrays a lack of understanding of the new systems-based interactive research methods. In this approach, all stakeholders (including farmers and policy-makers) are part of the research process which requires definition of key levels (local, region, country...) and important stakeholders.

Rosario Perez Espejo mentioned a relatively successful project carried out in Mexico to minimize the impact of wastewater from pig farms. It involved collaboration between the academic, private and public sectors. She recommended similar initiatives to produce guidelines for waste management, design projects for the production of organic fertilizers, educate stakeholders and integrate different interest groups to monitor regulations compliance. She also commented on the lack of resources for government-run extension services in developing countries.

Raul Vera responded to some of the important issues raised by Cees de Haan. On how to influence policy makers, Raul recommends that international lending agencies host a series of regional high level, well focused regional face-to-face workshops with national policy makers and international environmental organizations. Complementary, for the national and subnational level, he recommends the implementation of joint research projects. On building bridges, besides the above activities he recommends that all participants in this conference should take the initiative to build bridges between producers organizations and the environmental sectors. Concerning the urgency of action, Raul feels that we have to be pragmatic and need, not only to ask for more research funds but to delve into the current stock of knowledge which is large and may be seriously underutilized, without being used to inform policymakers who continue to take uninformed decisions.

Responding to Bob's suggested options, Gregory Sullivan supported option 1 (minimum approach; ad hoc cooperation) as an immediate linear approach to sustaining the efforts made by participants to this conference, complementing this initial action with the development of more complex networking.

Jan Slingenbergh argued that the main issue is the unchecked growth of livestock production in developing countries, associated with issues such as food security, poverty and emerging diseases in both livestock and humans.

Don Moore recommends and integrated approach to experimentation and database management on similar biotic communities across continents, to test alternative hypothesis of both agricultural and environmental scientists. He also recommends education of people at large, including all stakeholders and social actors in order to integrate the needs of farmers and rural people with concerns of other public. He stressed the need to make scientific information available for decision-making. Several mechanisms and levels of education are suggested. On Bob's submitted options for networking, Don supported the idea of a virtual center with programs based at current active institutions.

Miguel Velez responded to de Haan's questions. On the virtual center issue, he thinks that it will bring people from different disciplines together. On building bridges he suggests to invite representatives from the major environmental groups to the Wageningen meeting. On food prices, Miguel argues that as in poor countries farmers represent a large proportion of the population, higher food prices would mean better incomes for them. On industrial systems he agrees that these systems provide the food but he questioned the costs to environment and society.

Mohamed Saleem made some comments and raised some questions. He argued that there are several issues that need to be addressed before actions can be prescribed. On human needs he thinks we have to clarify whose needs and what needs are we talking about. He argues that livestock problems can also be addressed from another angle as livestock are second level converters of solar energy and research and development could be more concentrated to improve productivity of the better land in the lower or moderate slopes so that human grain requirements can be met and steeper slopes can be spared to ease grazing pressures and the resultant land degradation. He referred to a recent international workshop where soil fertility recapitalization was considered as a high priority issue. He asked about the possibility of recapitalization of grazing lands arguing that grazing lands be considered natural assets as croplands are. Commenting Cees de Haan's question about how long do we have to wait (for research results) to take actions, Mohamed (who recalled the same question was raised by Cees some fifteen years ago) argues that there is a flaw in our approach to the problem and that research and development efforts need to be re-examined. He supports, in principle, the idea of a virtual LxE center. However, he is concerned with the technicalities and the benefits for the less developed countries. He put forward an idea to give priests of every religion an active role for conveying (to regular church, mesquite and synagogue goers) the message of balancing agriculture, environment and human needs.

Christiane Willeke-Wetstein discussed some criteria for deciding which one of Bob's options to choose. Proposed criteria included: 1) Cooperation between all stakeholders in order to find the best solution for each location; 2) Local definition of environmental quality objectives such as threshold values for pollution and degradation, agreed upon by all stakeholders; 3) Securing easy access to information; 4) Actions should start now; 5) Use of existing infrastructure to make actions as efficient and cheap as possible; 6) Shared governance of the initiative; and, 7) Some activities should be organized by a central body. On that basis, she supported Bob's options 1 (ad hoc cooperation) and 3 (LxE Network).

Manuel Ruiz commented about the conference and responded to some of Cees de Haan's comments. Manuel concurred with the assessment that the main actors were out of the discussion. He argued that we need to enhance face-to-face discussions with them (farmers) and other actors (environmentalists, policy-makers) to make sure their views are taken into consideration. He feels that building bridges will require more than just a simple exchange of propositions, documents, letters or bulletins. He believes in the value of personal contacts and face-to-face traditional discussions, so he recommends putting this mechanism into our strategies for the future, together with the use of modern approaches such as the Virtual Center, a proposal he supports. He called our attention to the fact that when we talk about rural people all members are included and that making specific points about the role of women will lead to claims to dedicate equal time to men or children. He remarked an earlier comment he made about the need for funding agencies to make sure that projects are somehow tied to environmental concerns. With respect to education, he argued that what matters is not where the training is effected but how it is effected and to what global objectives the training is tied to. He noticed that many of us (from developing countries) have been formally trained in the developed world and that has not impeded us from using the knowledge and techniques so obtained to try to solve our countries' problems.

P. Leegwater disputed Cees de Haan assumption that including environmental costs in livestock production may aggravate the inadequate nutrition of poor farmers. He reasoned that poor households give priority to food items other than animal products which are used to buy other food commodities such as grains and beans. Thus, he thinks that in the context of food security and poverty alleviation livestock production is important, not consumption. He argued that the increasing demand for animal products is from people with purchasing power, a fact that gives the livestock sector more opportunities to include environmental costs in production. He agrees with the suggestion that some environmental degradation have to be accepted to generate sufficient means for development of poor farmers but he sees no reason for intensive livestock production benefiting from the same license. On industrial systems, he does not expect that they will contribute anything positive to reduce the pressures on marginal areas used by smallholder farmers who primary keep livestock as a security asset, as pressures are not only related to livestock but to other factors such as crop encroachment and fuel wood harvesting. He considers that under those circumstances it may even be beneficial to increase the role of livestock through the introduction of multipurpose shrubs and trees for feed, fuel and erosion prevention.

Curtis Hoffman recommended the intervention of NGO's and producers to design and conduct pilot projects which reduce environmental effects of livestock production and increasingly meet human needs. International organizations should support those projects and disseminate results. He responded to Miguel Velez suggestion that prices of animal products should rise to compensate producers for their expenses in environmental corrective actions by arguing that more income for livestock producers would result in more destruction of forests to increase productive areas and get more income which will be oriented to buy goods such as vehicles, refrigerators, etc. rather than to environmental corrective actions. He said that his approach is to trade (to offer goods and services) rather than to pay for participation in conservation oriented projects. Concerning Bob's options he is interested in the virtual center.

J.C. Wandemberg pointed out that development initiatives have not been successful. He argued that research should focus on the development of policy recommendations and models for resource use based on the understanding of systemic issues leading to resource misallocation, over-exploitation and unsustainable project outcomes. He claims that human behaviors and factors that influence and motivate those behaviors are central to the understanding to socio-economic and environmental sustainability. He stressed the role of organizational structure of development initiatives (whether they are bureaucratic or participative) on socio-economic and environmental outcomes.

Aslam Pervez Umrani expressed a pessimistic view of Bob's proposal. However, he thinks that we should start from a minimum approach and then move towards a more complex ideas. Going back to the arid and semi arid lands discussion, he thinks that the opportunistic way of utilization supported by Cees de Haan will lead to biodiversity losses.

Miguel Velez stressed that the merit of the virtual center proposal is that it would bring together a large number of people from different disciplines. So he questioned the idea of splitting it along disciplinary lines and prefer to do it by geographic areas.

On the same issue, Raul Vera commented that he favors the LxE-Network as a preliminary step leading to, if successful, a virtual center. Furthermore, the Network would be acceptable to most institutions whereas the creation of a new, albeit virtual, Center would introduce un-needed "noise" when most international institutions are in the midst of a process of change.

Sitanon Jesdapipat supported, in principle, Bob's proposal but cautions that not all stakeholders will have equal chance to participate. He suggested to have regional virtual sub-centers as well. About the forgotten actors, he pointed out that in Thailand men have a more active role in livestock herding, whereas women have an important role in dairy. Concerning industrial livestock production in Thailand, it is concentrated in the hands of a few large firms and small pig farms are almost gone out of business. This trend is worrisome as domestic livestock rearing provides both cash and food for the family. Regarding Orskov's comments on methane production, he thinks that although methane production from livestock in Asia is small compared to other sources, the issue is important enough to deserve attention.