BALANCING LIVESTOCK, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND HUMAN NEEDS

LXECSY-L

1. Summary of the discussion of the Case Studies
2. Summary of the discussion of the Cross-System Systems Chapter from the multi-donor study.

*****************************************************************
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS OF CASE STUDIES
By: Victor Mares, Moderator

The first period of our group discussions centered around all the case studies which provided information about a set of key questions. A total of 70 case studies (34 grazing systems, 29 mixed systems and 7 industrial systems) were sent by participants.

The case studies came from the following countries:

Argentina: 2; Australia: 6; Benin: 1; Bolivia: 1; Botswana: 1
Burundi: 1; Canada: 3; Cape Verde: 1; Colombia: 1; Costa Rica: 1
Chile: 1; China: 1; Ecuador: 2; Ethiopia: 1; Dominican Republic: 1
Greece: 2; Honduras/Nicaragua: 3; India: 1; Italy: 1; Malawi: 1
Mexico: 3; Mongolia: 1; Nepal: 1; Niger: 2; Nigeria: 1; Pakistan: 2
Peru: 2; Scotland: 2; South Africa: 1; Spain: 1; Switzerland: 1
Tanzania: 4; The Netherlands: 1; Tunisia: 1; Uruguay: 2; USA: 8
Venezuela: 1; West Africa: 2; World: 1; Zimbabwe: 1

Discussions in this group were less active than in the other three rooms.
Shan Panigrahi initiated the discussion by claiming that methane emissions by grazing animals fed on low quality roughage are a major reason for refocusing livestock development strategies under grazing systems.
Arguing that pastoral systems are unsustainable, he wrote that unless those systems are intensified (reducing methane emissions), grazing land will increasingly be converted into cropland because that will be more sustainable, both environmentally and economically than pure grazing systems. Burton Smith took exception to the above statement, pointing out that land so worn out that it can't support grazing livestock won't be able to support crops.
He asserted that usually the scenario is the reverse. Guillermo Schnitman claimed that environmental problems related to agricultural systems still are a matter of debate. He pointed out than in certain ecoregions, livestock is perceived as a cause of degradation whereas in other regions well managed animals are seen as a means to stop and revert degradation.

******************************************************************
SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CROSS SYSTEMS CHAPTER
By: Victor Mares, Moderator

The second period of group discussions in this room focused on the cross systems chapter of the multi-donor study on Livestock and the Environment.
This discussion period considered two central aspects of the chapter: the characterization of hot spots and driving forces on the one hand and the recommendations on the other. This report summarizes the comments and contributions on both the diagnostic and the recommendations aspects of the chapter.

Aslam Pervez Umrani agreed with Bob Hart's assertion that the breakdown of the integration between livestock and crops increases the problem of nutrient balance in the soil. He also agrees with the author's comment that improvements in ruminant nutrition can reduce methane emissions. However, he doesn't see clearly how to introduce such improvements in arid and semi arid ecosystems. On sustainability, he argued that there are very few options to use fertilizers to maintain soil productivity in developing countries but maintaining soil productivity is a requirement.

Pierre Hiernaux commented on some of the issues raised in the Cross Systems
Chapter. On impact of concentrate feed production on land and water quality, he discussed some other factors, further to the factors listed by the authors, prompting the use of concentrates in livestock production. Among these factors he listed the cases where population pressure on land restricts extensive livestock production, where feed conversion to animal product is high, or where the ratio of livestock product to feed price is relatively high. In agreement with the author's proposal to "..limit feed use and corresponding land requirements" he suggests an increased use of crop residues and the inclusion of legume forages as ways to minimize the negative environmental impact of concentrate feed production but cautioned that in developing countries, farmer uptake of these technologies have been minimal. He thinks necessary to dilucidate the cultural, socioeconomic and policy factors limiting technology adoption, which has been insufficiently or secondarily investigated. He argued that there are opportunities in developing countries to optimize the use of concentrates and non-concentrate feeds to promote socially and economically acceptable and environmentally benign livestock production practices but a concerted effort at both local and international levels are needed. He stressed the complementary role of both research and policies to exploit these opportunities.

Piet Leegwater raised again the issue of the internalization of environmental costs and the willingness of consumers to pay more for "environmentally safe" livestock products. He argued that without internalizing environmental costs in the livestock sector as a whole there is no reason to expect that recognition of eco standards and eco farming will lead to more environmental balanced intensive production systems.
However, Piet suggests that norms and regulations directly focusing at livestock environment interactions are more effective than proposals to internalize environmental costs.