HUGO LI PUNa, E.J. MWENDERAa,
V. MARES,b, B. HARTc,
H. STEINFELDd, D.PEDENe,
C. SEREe, C. DE HAANf
a International Livestock Research institute, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
b IICA, Panama
c INFORUM, USA
d Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Rome
e International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada
f World Bank, Washington, USA
Livestock provide essential commodities and services to the majority of the world's population. With increasing numbers of people, meat production is projected to increase from 200 million to 310 million tons per year by the year 2020 (De Haan et al., 1996). Although demand for livestock products is stagnating in developed countries, it is rapidly increasing elsewhere due to urbanization and associated shift in eating habits towards livestock products. In addition to providing meat, milk, eggs, hides and skins, livestock provide draught power and manure to enhance soil fertility. Livestock form an integral part of the social fabric for many peoples while they serve as a capital reserve available for hard times. While nutritional trends in developed countries may be in favour of reducing consumption of animal products, in developing countries nutritional needs for animal products are still high.
In spite of their growing global importance, livestock are increasingly being held responsible for many adverse effects on the environment. Loss of vegetative cover, reduced biodiversity, soil erosion and compaction, and excessive run-off often result from over-grazing. High concentrations of livestock contribute to contamination of ground water, eutrophication, and soil pollution. The processing of animal products in urban areas of developing countries especially generates waste materials creating disposal problems. Livestock can produce significant quantities of “greenhouse” gases (e.g. methane) thereby possibly contributing to global warming. However, most criticism of livestock agriculture do not take into account the fact that negative effects are frequently related to underlying driving forces such as inappropriate land use policies, population pressures, rural poverty, insufficient ecological knowledge in tropical areas and inappropriate technology.
These trends and concerns were identified by several stakeholders, including representatives from several donor agencies. A study led by the World Bank, FAO and USAID (De Haan et al., 1996) addressed these issues, according to the main livestock production systems practiced in the various regions of the world.
ILRI, together with IDRC, World Bank and FAO, were requested to organize and conduct a global electronic conference and face to face consultations which would address the issue of finding a balance between the positive roles of livestock in human affairs and their beneficial impact and the negative consequences for the local and global environment. The objective of the consultation is to provide a global forum at which views of stakeholders in developing countries are fully represented in a global discussion on the role of livestock in sustainable agricultural development and natural resource conservation.
2. Objectives of the Global Consultation
The main objectives of the conference were:
3. Mechanisms of the Global Consultation
The consultation involved two major activities:
An organizing meeting was held in Addis Ababa on January 21–23, 1997 to plan the electronic conference, the local non-electronic consultations and the follow-up activities. Some 10 participants from the main donor and executing agencies (FAO, INFORUM, WB, ILRI and IDRC) attended the meeting and, in the following weeks, continued the planning of the activities.
The electronic conference took place between the 10th of March and the end of May of 1997. During the conference, the main issues emanating from the study on Livestock and Environment Interactions, as well as ecoregional case-studies and personal inputs were discussed by participants from both developed and developing countries. The conference was moderated and assisted by ILRI, INFORUM, FAO, IICA and IDRC.
The non-electronic consultations, which included individual interviews and round-table meetings, were organized and conducted in selected developing countries which represent “hot spots” for livestock and environment interactions. These face-to-face consultations were facilitated by local convenors with the support from the organizers. The consultations were participated by policy-makers, government officials, environmentalists, developing agencies, agricultural researchers, social scientists, extension agents, university educators, traders, farmers and representatives of farmers' organizations. The proceedings of the conference are being presented at this meeting.
4. The electronic conference
The electronic conference began with the process of subscription and self-introduction by the participants. For subscriptions and discussions, a list was opened at the central FAO computer in Rome by the Conference Manager. This was the LxE-List. Four complementary lists were also opened. These lists were based on four different livestock production systems and related problems discussed in the multidonor study namely, grazing, mixed, and industrial systems, and cross-systems issues. The formal exchange began on March 10. The conference was divided in three periods of discussions: the first period of plenary session, the second period of four parallel break-out discussion groups and the final plenary session. During the first plenary session, the discussion focused on the keynote paper which was previously distributed to all subscribers to the LxE-List. At the end of this period, all comments by the participants were responded to by the authors of the keynote paper. Participants were then invited to subscribe to one or more of four discussions groups. The chapters corresponding to the four systems from the study were distributed to the respective discussion group. Participants also received the case-studies contributed by some of them, sorted out by production system. Summaries of the discussions about both the case-studies and the chapters of the discussion paper were produced by the moderator. The LxE-List reconvened for the final plenary session which focused on producing conclusions and recommendations aimed at balancing livestock, the environment and human needs. A summary of the discussions was also produced by the moderator.
i) Participants in the electronic conference
A total of 1,045 people from 86 countries subscribed to the LxE-List . Out of them, 147 people participated in the exchange by either sending in case-studies or commenting during the discussions. The group discussions were not evenly active as most participation occurred in the grazing (33 people) and mixed (29 active participants) whereas the industrial and cross systems groups recorded 7 active participants each.
a) Participation by regions
The majority of the participants came from developed countries, as indicated in Table 2. The low level of participation from the developing countries was probably a reflection of the absence of electronic communication facilities and/or the difficulties of using such facilities where they existed. The cost of using such facilities are so high in most developing countries that only a few can afford to use them.
|Participation by region||Participants|
|Central & Latin America and Caribbean||14|
|Australia and New Zealand||9|
|West Asia and North Africa||2|
b) Profiles of participants and main areas of interest
A cross-section of people with varying backgrounds participated in the conference. They ranged from academicians and researchers from both developing and developed countries, farmers, journalists, traders, to professionals in government departments and NGO's national and international.
|Participation by specialization||Participants|
|Main areas of interest|
|Animal Scientists||45||Feed & genetic resources, animal biodiversity, herd health management|
|Environmentalists||18||Pollution of water, soil & air from animal wastes, environmental degradation, conserving biodiversity,|
|Agriculturalists||16||Integrated livestock-cropping systems, nutrient cycling, crop residues as animal feed, forage legumes in crop rotations|
|Social Scientists||15||Livestock production and food security, poverty and resource degradation, policy impact on livestock production and resources conservation,|
|Farmers||3||Livestock production and human needs, impact of market structure and policy options on livestock production|
|Others*||3||Agricultural systems and human needs, global food demand, long-term needs of pastoralists, livestock as a social status|
* Includes entrepreneurs
Table 2 summarizes the profiles and main interests of the 1,045 people who subscribed to the conference. The dominance of livestock scientists is very clear from the subscribers' list. These included animal breeders, veterinarians, animal nutritionists, meat scientists, epidemiologists, animal geneticists, and poultry specialists. The environmentalists, who accounted for 18 % of the subscribers, included ecologists, biologists, geographers, and foresters. The agriculturalists who were 16 % of the people, included agronomists (crop, forage and pasture), entomologists, soil scientists, and land use scientists. The social scientists, who accounted for 15 % of the people, included economists, sociologists, and anthropologists. The category of others included computer scientists, engineers, journalists, philosophers, and traders.
|Latin America & Caribbean countries||11|
It is clear from Table 3 that the majority of participants were interested in livestock-environmental issues at global scale and those related to developed countries (North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand).
ii) The first plenary session
The first plenary session discussed the keynote paper. Most comments from the participants expressed the view that the paper was very informative and thought provoking. All criticisms from participants were quite constructive and the authors answered and clarified those comments. The main points raised by the participants and the authors were:
The need to slow down population growth and to reduce the demand for livestock products as measures to address livestock-environment imbalances;
The blame on livestock rather than people, promoted by inaccurate analysis of livestock-environment interactions, has led to donors and governments abandoning the livestock sector rather than seizing the opportunities;
Much of the degradation attributed to livestock can be restored by properly managed livestock;
The need to analyze why technologies known to halt degradation or improve the environment elsewhere have found little adoption in many countries;
The role of land tenure systems in livestock-environment interactions;
The need to identify the primary causes of environmental degradation accurately;
To define and agree on methods for assessing environmental effects of livestock in particular socio-ecological contexts;
The paucity of information on the livestock-environment-human needs interactions in many parts of the world call for comprehensive research.
The need to develop a framework to address social, political and economic issues as determining factors in livestock-environment interactions.
iii) Parallel groups discussions
After the first plenary session, four parallel groups were organized to discuss livestock-environment interactions in grazing, mixed and industrial systems, and the cross-systems issues. To promote and focus the discussions, these groups received the corresponding case-studies sent by participants and the relevant chapters from the multidonor study.
a) The grazing systems group discussion
The first period of group discussions centered around case-studies which provided information about a set of key questions. A total of 34 grazing systems' case-studies were sent by participants. These case-studies came from Argentina (1), Australia (5), Bolivia (1), Botswana (1), Brazil (1), Canada (1), Cape Verde (1), Colombia (1), Costa Rica (1), Ecuador (2), Honduras/Nicaragua (1), Mexico (1), Mongolia (1), Niger (2), Pakistan (1), Peru (1), Scotland (2), South Africa (1), Tanzania (2), Uruguay (1), USA (5), West Africa (1) and Zimbabwe (1).
The second period of group discussions in this room focused on the grazing 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.
The assertion that policy is a key element controlling the interaction of livestock and the environment came out quite strongly from the discussions. For example, Niamir-Fuller (1997) has shown that the rate of deforestation in the Amazon decreased from 35,000 km2 per year in 1980 to 10,000 km2 per year in 1996, due to a decrease of government subsidies to large ranchers, decrease in infrastructure development, among other factors. One problem is that policy formulation is based on a narrow perception of the environment which tend to prioritize technology determinants. There are a number of ecosystems which have been grazed by cattle for centuries, and are far from being degraded, but they are threatened by a change toward crop production (Umrani, 1997). It is argued that lack of clear understanding of all the ecological and sociological processes in the interaction between humans and natural resources tend to lead to erroneous conclusions about the role of livestock on the environmental processes. There is need to link technical, ecological, economic, social and political perspectives in research and teaching.
b) The mixed system group discussion
A total of 29 mixed systems' case-studies were sent by participants. The case-studies came from Argentina (1), Australia (1), Benin (1), Burundi (1), Canada (1), Chile (1), China (1), Ethiopia (1), Greece (1), Honduras (2), India (1), Italy (1), Malawi (1), Mexico (2), Nepal (1), Nigeria (1), Peru (1), Spain (1), Switzerland (1), Tanzania (2), Tunisia (1), Uruguay (1), USA (2), Venezuela(1) and West Africa (1).
Manure from livestock can provide nutrients for crops in a crop-livestock system. However, the role of livestock in the nutrient and energy equilibrium through crop-livestock integration is still debatable in certain ecosystems. For example, Fernandez-Rivera et al. (1995) reported that livestock only returns about 50 % of the organic matter, 45 % of N and 85 % of P intake through faeces deposits. Thus, it is questioned whether soil fertility could be maintained through crop-livestock integration, without external fertilizers inputs.
Unbalanced livestock-environment interactions were often attributed to both faulty technologies and wrong policies and we have to deal with both aspects as the policies we set influence the technical problems, and vice versa. Long term societal goal setting is essential to define what technical issues become important to serve those goals agreed upon. It was argued that the world's policy makers have a distorted paradigm concerning natural resources, which is based on the current economic theory that puts no other value on natural resources than the cost of extracting them (Smith, 1997). A clear distinction should be made between the different policy instruments such as price policies and subsidies on the one hand, and norms, rules and regulations on the other. Lack of alternative investment opportunities for farmers is a more important determinant of livestock densities than production technology.
There is need for communication between biophysical and social scientists for understanding the issues and problems, generation of technologies, and formulation of policies and strategies to overcome problems.
c) The industrial systems group discussion
A total of 8 industrial systems' case-studies were sent by participants. The case-studies in this group came from Canada (1), Dominican Republic (1), Greece (1), India (1) Netherlands (1), Pakistan (1), USA (1) and World (1).
Discussions in this group were rather less active than in the grazing and mixed systems rooms. It was observed that developing countries place less importance on environmental issues than developed countries. It was argued that monogastric livestock production should be intensified in countries which face severe shortages of cereals for human consumption. However, it has been shown that N and P and various heavy metals generally produced from industrial monogastric livestock systems pollute the environment. For example, Bos and de Wit (1996) concluded that 44, 50, and 20 % of N excreted by pigs, broilers and laying hens, respectively, is lost and becomes harmful to the environment.
One of the problems associated with this system is the lack of commitment from society to take the necessary steps and to incur the necessary costs of protecting natural resources.
d) The cross-system group discussion
Participants in this group received all case-studies and the cross-system chapter from the multidonor study. Again, discussions in this group were rather less active than in the grazing and mixed systems rooms.
The issue of methane production by livestock systems and its effect on the environment is still very debatable. Methane is considered to have a global warming potential of about 20 – 30 times that of carbon dioxide (Duxbury et al., 1993). According to Vermorel (1995), methane production is responsible for 15 % of the greenhouse effect. Animals and their excreta produce 23 % of the methane while the rest is produced by insects (22 %), water meadow land (21 %), rice fields (20 %), and losses from the use of conventional energy sources (14 %). EPA (1993) estimate that about 95 % of the total methane emissions from livestock digestive systems comes from cattle (75 %), buffalo (10 %), and sheep (10 %).
Generally, environmental problems related to agricultural systems still are a matter of debate as 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. There appear to be few options to use fertilizers to maintain soil productivity in developing countries but maintaining soil productivity is a requirement. The authors of the study list the impact of concentrate feed production on land and water quality as one of the impact domains. The group commented that the use of concentrates in livestock production is prompted 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.
The highest number of case-studies came from Latin America and the Caribbean region followed by Africa (Table 4). The absence of case-studies under the industrial system in Africa suggests that this system of livestock production is not yet very prominent.
|Latin America & Caribbean||10||9||1||20|
|Australia & New Zealand||5||1||1||7|
iv) The final plenary discussion
The plenary discussions covered the last three weeks of the electronic conference and focused on a final analysis aimed at producing the main conclusions and recommendations of the conference.
5. The non-electronic local consultations
Local consultations were aimed at obtaining the views and perceptions of stakeholders from developing countries who might not have access to electronic mail or the time to get involved in the electronic conference. Local individual consultations were carried out in Bolivia, Colombia, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru in Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Yemen in West Asia and North African (WANA) region, in Niger, Nigeria and South Africa in Sub-Saharan African (SSA) region, and India in Asia.
Group consultations were conducted in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay in South America southern cone region, and in Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, Tanzania, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Swaziland in the Southern Africa Development Committee (SADC) region.
a) Methodology of the local consultations
With the exception of the South American southern cone and the opportunistic consultation in Southern Africa, local consultations were carried out in the selected individual countries listed above. In all cases, interviews and/or round tables involving representatives of different categories of stakeholders were conducted by selected local convenors. Questions and discussion issues were previously defined by the conference organizers. In most cases, consulted stakeholders included livestock farmers, crop-livestock producers, farmers groups, government officials and policy makers, educational institutions, NGO representatives, agricultural and social scientists, extension agents and industrialists.
b) State of the natural resources
There is a striking coincidence in most reports in describing a critical state and an ongoing process of degradation of all natural resources and environmental variables. All reports coincide in pointing out deforestation, soil erosion, reduced soil fertility, biodiversity losses, water contamination, waste disposal, and greenhouse gases emissions as ongoing environmental problems. For example, large scale ranching is estimated to have contributed to more than 50% of deforestation in the Amazon (Niamir-Fuller, 1997).
However, the direct links of livestock production as an immediate causal factor of significant environmental degradation appear less clearly. There is a paucity of data about the role of livestock production in such degradation. This paucity of information is shown by the fact that quantitative indicators of natural resources conditions and trends, as affected by different livestock production systems and managements, are seldom quoted. It is also noticeable that for participants it was easier to mention environmental degradation than to describe positive effects of livestock on the environment. For instance, mentions of the carbon sequestration potential of grasses, the preservation and restoration of soil microfauna, and the capture and protection of water resources by rangelands were almost absent.
c) Driving forces of natural resources degradation
Most reports coincide in listing the following driving forces of environmental degradation: increasing human population pressure, micro and macro economic policies, cultural values, poverty, land tenure characterized by communal ownership, lack of appropriate technology to harmonize productivity with resource conservation, lack of awareness of the livestock-environment-human needs interactions, lack of infrastructure to facilitate marketing, and lack of involvement of local communities in their own development. Some of the reports pointed out that livestock is not a primary driving force.
d) The role of livestock on resource degradation
Direct negative impacts of livestock on natural resources are not explicitly described by participants in the local consultations. Thus, there is no indication of how much of the observed environmental degradation is directly attributable to livestock production. However, the following causal relationships concerning direct livestock effects on natural resources, are quoted: Overgrazing, overstocking, and feeding of crop residues to livestock without returning manure to the land.
e) The response of society to environmental degradation
In general, reports indicate that there is a poor response of society, due to the low awareness of environmental issues. However, some trends such as the creation of governments' environmental bodies, environmental NGOs, and the inclusion of environmental concerns in policy formulation are emerging. But the problem remains of insufficient scientific data to inform policy makers, compounded by the lack of effective interaction between scientists and policy makers. There is also a lack of effective social participation in policy making and mechanisms to enforce environmental legislation.
6. Conclusions and recommendations
a) General issues
The large number of participants in the conference can be taken as a measure of some degree of success in the short term.
b) Conference participation
In spite of the fact that the conference organizers made tremendous efforts to attract wide participation from developing countries and a broad range of stakeholders, the majority of the participants were from developed countries (Table 1) and were animal scientists (Table 2). This was probably due to the fact that electronic communication systems are inadequate and very expensive in most developing countries. Another possible reason could be that developing countries place less importance on environmental issues than developed countries environmental issues, an issue which came out clearly from the discussions.
c) Conference contents
The conference has managed to create awareness of the issues of livestock, environment and human need among the participants.
One of the main points emanating from the conference is that livestock receive a lot of unsubstantiated blame for environmental degradation. In fact, it has been shown that, although there are environmental problems associated with livestock, there are numerous concomitant examples of successful strategies to enhance positive and limit the adverse effects of livestock on the environment.
However, it has also emerged that a lot of land degradation and environmental damage is associated with livestock production, mainly due to population pressure coupled with inappropriate livestock management practices. This is particularly so under grazing and mixed systems. Water and air pollution are the major livestock-related environmental problems under industrial systems.
It is clear from the conference discussion that one of the major gaps in dealing with livestock, environment and human needs is the paucity of information on livestock agriculture and the environment. Another gap in this is the lack of a holistic approach in most of the research dealing with livestock-environmental interactions. There is a rift between scientists and policy-makers; policies are often designed by economists and environmentalists without a holistic analysis of the problems and without any technical argumentation. Similarly, there is a rift between farmers and scientists as their sources of knowledge and their practical experience are different. Farmers, while conscious of the environmental impact of livestock production, tend to be more concerned of their immediate needs which, in most cases, may lead to long term environmental degradation.
Another gap is the divergence of environmental perceptions between people from developed countries and those from developing countries. It is argued that most of the environmentally related problems in developing countries are related to poverty and that policies should not only protect the environment but encourage more lucrative ways of managing livestock as any attempt to minimize livestock impact on the environment are bound to be futile if farmers do not have better economic alternatives.
On the other hand, livestock-related environmental problems in developed countries can be solved by tougher legislation in making livestock producers pay for the costs of environmental protection.
d) Local consultations vs. electronic conference
The local consultations provided on the spot and a grassroots' point of view of issues related to livestock, environment and human needs. The electronic conference dwelt much on research, development, policy, institutional collaboration, cross-system and global issues related to livestock-environmental interaction. Most of the discussions from the round table dwelt on direct livestock interaction with the environment since all the local consultations were conducted in developing countries where grazing and crop-livestock are the dominate livestock systems.
Most of the conferees of the electronic conference were professionals and scientists with broader but rather theoretical perception of the issues as they are somehow detached from the real situations on the ground. While there was a divergence of views from the many conferees in the electronic conference, there was a striking coincidence in most local consultation reports on the description of critical states and ongoing processes of degradation of all natural resources and environmental variables. All reports coincided in pointing out soil erosion, reduced soil fertility, biodiversity losses, water contamination, waste disposal, and greenhouse gases emissions as ongoing environmental problems, while increasing human population pressure, micro and macro economic policies, cultural values, poverty, land tenure characterized by communal ownership, lack of appropriate technology to harmonize productivity with resource conservation, lack of awareness of the livestock-environment-human needs interactions, lack of infrastructure to facilitate marketing, and lack of involvement of local communities in their own development as the main driving forces of environmental degradation.
However, the direct links of livestock production as immediate causal factor of significant environmental degradation appear less clearly. There is a paucity of data about the role of livestock production in such degradation, as shown by the fact that quantitative indicators of natural resources conditions and trends, as affected by different livestock production systems and managements, were seldom quoted.
The recommendations from the electronic conference and the round table consultations covered areas of policy, research, education, development projects, production systems, social empowerment, and institutional framework.
It was considered important that policies should be put in place to halt subsidies for animal feeds and to minimize communal grazing systems. Land tenure should enable ownership for rangelands and environmental costs should be internalized. Policy formulation should include environmental issues and, wherever, possible there should be policy incentives to promote adoption of environmentally friendly technology.
There is need for more research in developing technologies that enhance productivity with no adverse effects on the environment. Where paucity of information exists, research should be geared to produce basic data on livestock-environmental interaction with necessary threshold values for different livestock systems under varying ecosystems. Research should also focus on participatory development of agrosilvopastoral systems.
Environmental Impact Assessment should become an integral part of development projects, and it should be mandatory that grass-roots communities and organizations be involved in formulation and implementation of development projects.
Crop/livestock systems which employ soil conservation techniques should be encouraged. Agrosilvopastoral systems which contribute to increased productivity with a minimum negative impact on the environment should be encouraged. The use of adapted and improved grasses and legumes should increase. Where pressure on land increases, grazing and mixed systems will develop into more intensified systems. Such evolution is inevitable and should be facilitated.
Economic terms of exchange between rural and urban products should be equitable. Rural people should be offered alternative means of economic life in order to release the pressure on limited land resources.
There is a need to increase public awareness of environmental issues in all educational institutions. It is necessary to raise education levels in rural areas so that rural people can understand the environmental implications of their activities.
While many countries have environmental laws enshrined in their constitutions, such laws do not operate due to a lack of effective mechanisms to enforce environmental legislation.
7. Follow-up activities
A number of activities were considered to be undertaken as a follow-up to the electronic conference and the Wageningen conference. It was recognized that each institution would probably plan its follow-up activities. The activities include:
The organizers of the Electronic Conference on balancing livestock, the environment and human needs would like to thank the following people and organizations for their support and contribution to the conference.
The conference was funded and organized by FAO, World Bank, IDRC, ILRI, & INFORUM.
The conference organizers wish to thank ICARDA (Syria), ICRISAT (India), IICA(Panama), ADRI (Tanzania), CARDI (Jamaica), CAZRI (India), MARDI (Malaysia), CODESU &, CIP-CONDESAN (Peru), IICA-RISPAL (Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua), IDIAP (Panama), SACCAR (Botswana), IDESSA (Cote d'Ivoire), MAP-21 (Mongolia) for providing logistical support for conducting face-to-face round-table consultations.
The following management team worked tirelessly to ensure that the conference ran smoothly and on course. They are T. Fujita, Director, Animal Production and Health Division, FAO, Rome; Christine Ellefson, FAO, Rome; Ralph von Kaufmann, Director of External Relations, ILRI; and Harvey Blackburn (USDA/ARS).
The contribution of the following organizers of local consultations is gratefully acknowledged. These are Ercole Zerbin, ILRI (India); C. Devendra, Consultant (Malaysia); Jimmy Smith, ILRI (Nigeria); Salvador Fernandez, ILRI (Niger); Pierre Hiernaux, ILRI (Niger); Euan Thomson, ICARDA (Syria); Helen Raij, IDRC (Uruguay); Faroda, CAZRI (India); Sharif Ahmad, MARDI (Malaysia); Carlos Leon-Velarde & Roberto Quiroz, CIP-CONDESAN (Peru); Koffi Goli, IDESSA (Cote d'Ivoire); Bardarch, MAP-21 (Mongolia); and Brenda Lee Wilson, IDRC (Nepal).
The contribution of the following conveners of local consultations is gratefully acknowledged.
Sahr Lebbie, Botswana; Mulumba Kamuanga, ILRI, Burkina Faso; G. ToureBH, Niger; Abdou Salla, ILRI, Cote d'Ivoire; Paul Mkonyi, ADRI, Tanzania.
Shadi Shamadeh, Lebanon; Len Reynolds, Yemen; Mahfouz Abu Zant, Jordan.
In LAC countries
Manuel Ruiz, Colombia, Nicaragua, Mexico; Francis Asiedu, Jamaica; Alfredo Riesco & Carlos Leon Velarde, Peru; Sonia Chifflet & Carlos Arrelano Sota, Southern Cone (Temperate zone), Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, & Uruguay; Manuel de Gracia, Panama; Everardo Gonzalez, Colombia.
Mathur, B.K., Jodhpur, India; Ajit Marus, Andhra Pradesh State, India; Jamakar, Eusof, Malaysia; Oyun-Erdene, Mongolia; Panday, S.B., Nepal; Sitanon Jesdapipat, Thailand.
Bos, J.F.F.P. & J. de Wit. 1996.Environmental impact assessment of landless monogastric livestock production systems. International Agricultural Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
De Haan, C., Steinfeld, H. and Blackburn, H. 1996. Livestock and the Environment: Finding a balance. Draft Summary Report. FAO/World Bank.
Duxbury, J.M., Harper, L.A., and Moiser, A.R. 1993. Contribution of agroecosystems to global climate change. In: Agricultural Ecosystem Effects on Trace Gasses and Global Climate Change. American Society of Agronomy Special Publication Number 55, Madison, WI, USA. pp. 1–18.
EPA. 1993. Options for reducing methane emissions internationally. Volume I: Technological options for reducing methane emissions.Report No. EPA/400-R-9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
Fernandez-Rivera, S., Williams, T.O., Hiernaux, P., and Powell, J.M. 1995. Faecal excretion by ruminants and manure availability to crop production in the semi-arid West Africa. In: J.M. Powell et al. (eds.) Livestock sustainable nutrient cycling in mixed farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa.Vol. II, ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp 149–170.
Niamir-Fuller, M. 1997. Livestock production in the Amazon. A case-study presented to the Electronic Conference on Livestock, Environment and Human Needs, March to May, 1997.
Safley, L.M. Jr., Casada, M.E., Woodbury, J.W., and Roos, K.R. 1992. Global methane emission from livestock and poultry manure. Report Number EPA/400/1-91/048, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA.
Smith, Burt. 1997. Response to remarks made by an economist. Electronic Conference on Livestock Environment and Human Needs, March to May, 1997.
Umrani, Aslam P. 1997. CSY recommendations. Electronic Conference on Livestock Environment and Human Needs, March to May, 1997.
Vermorel, M. 1995. Productions gazeuses et thermiques résultant des fermentations digestives. In: Jarrige et al. (eds.) Nutrition des ruminants domestiques - Ingestionet digestion. INRA, Paris, pp 648–670.
|Country||Ecozone||Major environmental degradation|
|Argentina||Humid-temperate||soil erosion & compact. & loss of biodiversity|
|Australia||Tropics||exotic woody weeds|
|Australia||Humid sub-tropics||loss of biodiversity, low soil fert.|
|Australia||Arid, semi-arid wet-dry tropics||loss of biodiversity, soil erosion & compaction, habitat & nutrition loss, weed invasion|
|Australia||Arid, semi-arid||increase in shrubs/trees/non-native animals, soil erosion, low fertility, soil compaction|
|Bolivia||Tropical Wet and Dry||soil erosion, soil compaction, weed invasions|
|Canada||Temperate||air & groundwater pollution from livestock waste, reduced soil fertility|
|Cape Verde||Arid, temperate||deforestation, loss of biodiversity|
|Colombia||Wet-dry tropics||loss of biodiversity, soil compaction, deforestation of gallery forests|
|Costa Rica||Humid Tropics||deforestation|
|Ecuador||semi-arid, 1600–2000 m||soil erosion, compaction and loss of, subtropics productivity|
|Ecuador||humid 1000–2000 m subtropics||deforestation and loss of biodiversity, soil erosion|
|Honduras/Nicaragua||Tropics & subtrop||deforestation; soil erosion, compaction, reduced fertility; loss of biodiversity|
|Mexico||Sub-humid, lowlands tropical||deforestation, loss biodiversity, reduced soil fertility, pollution animal wastes|
|Mongolia||Mountain taiga/grass steppe & desert||soil erosion, decreasing soil fertility, desertification|
|Niger||Semi-arid Tropics||loss vegetative cover, soil, eolian and hydric erosion; reduced soil fertility|
|Niger||Hot & dry arid & semi-arid||loss of vegetation cover and soil erosion (desertification)|
|Pakistan||Arid Subtropics||loss of biodiversity, soil erosion|
|Peru||Humid tropical rainforests||loss of biodiversity, deforestation, soil erosion/compaction/reduced prod.|
|Scotland||Temperate highlands||loss of biodiversity, prevention of regeneration of woodland/scrub.|
|Scotland||Temperate maritime||loss of biodiversity|
|South Africa||Semi-arid subtropical||deforestation, loss of biod. soil erosion|
|Tanzania||Semi-arid||no evidence for degradation of soil or vegetation has been published|
|Tanzania||Tropical-humid sub-humid, semi-arid||deforestation, soil erosion/reduced fert, bush fires, loss of biod., pollution|
|Uruguay||Sub-humid temperate||loss of biodiversity (grazing)|
|USA||Arid||soil erosion, desertification|
|USA||Subtropics||water pollution from animal wastes|
|USA||Semi-arid; temperate plains||biodiversity decline; soil erosion; water table decline|
|USA||Arid warm temperate||soil erosion, replacement of grass by brush dominated ecosystems|
|USA||Humid continental||water pollution from animal wastes|
|West Africa||Wet-Dry, Coastal tropics||degrad: poverty, malnutrition, social conflicts; deforestation, erosion loss of biodiversity|
|Zimbabwe||Semi-Arid||soil erosion, deforestation, reduced soil fertility|
|Table I-2: Case-studies on mixed systems|
|Argentina||Humid-temperate||soil erosion, soil compaction and loss of biodiversity|
|Australia||Warm temperate||soil erosion, poorer soil structure, salinity, reduced soil fertility|
|Benin||Tropical, coastal-humid||decreasing soil fertility, deforestation, loss of biodiversity|
|Burundi||Trop humid highlands||decreasing soil fertility, overgrazing; soil erosion|
|Canada||Temperate||air & groundwater pollution from livestock waste, reduced soil fertility|
|Chile||Semi-arid||soil erosion, water/soil pollution from industry, agr. areas to urban|
|China||Humid, temperate||loss of biodiversity, water pollution from animal wastes|
|Ethiopia||Highlands||deforestation, soil erosion, nutrient depletion, siltation|
|Greece||Semi-arid, coastal, Mediterranean||loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, water pollution from animal wastes, unpleasant odours|
|Honduras||Wet-dry||deforestation, loss of biodiversity, soil erosion|
|Honduras/Nicaragua||Tropics & subtropical||deforestation; soil erosion, compaction, reduced fertil.; loss of biodiversity|
|India||Mid-altitude/monsoonal||water pollution and soil erosion, invasion of unpalatable weeds|
|Italy||Mid altitude||soil erosion|
|Malawi||Savanna tropics||deforestation, soil erosion & reduced soil fertility|
|Mexico||Sub-humid; lowlands tropics||deforestation, loss biodiv, reduced soil fertility, pollution animal wastes|
|Mexico||Tropical mountains and lowlands||deforestation, soil erosion, reduced soil fertility|
|Nepal||Wet-dry/tropics-temperate||deforestation, soil erosion|
|Nigeria||Wet-dry (sub-humid)/humid||soil erosion & surface sealing|
|Peru||Humid tropical rainforests||loss of biodiversity, deforestation, soil erosion compaction and reduced prod.|
|Spain||Semi-arid Mediterranean||deforestation, loss of biodiversity, soil erosion|
|Switzerland||Mid altitude highlands||temperate loss of biodiversity, water pollution from animal wastes|
|Tanzania||Highlands||reduced soil fertility, soil erosion|
|Tanzania||Tropical humid, sub-humid semi-arid||deforest., soil erosion, reduced fertility, bush fires, loss of biodiv., pollution|
|Tunisia||Coastal and semi-arid||deforestation, soil erosion, reduced soil fertility|
|Uruguay||Sub-humid temperate||soil erosion|
|USA||Arid-temperate, high desert||loss biodiv, alt. climax, erosion, accelerated runoff, groundwater depletion, greenhouse gases|
|USA||Temperate||water pollution from animal waste, to a minor extent, soil erosion|
|Venezuela||Dry tropics-savannas||deforestation, burning, soil compaction & reduced fertility|
|West Africa||Wet-dry, coastal tropics||degradation, poverty, malnutrition, social conflicts; deforestation, soil erosion, loss of biodiversity|
|Table I-3: Case-studies on industrial systems|
|Canada||Temperate||air & groundwater pollution from livestock waste, reduced soil fertility|
|Dominican Republic||Tropics||water and air pollution from animal wastes|
|Greece||semi-arid, coastal, Mediterranean||loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, water pollution from animal wastes, unpleasant odours|
|Netherlands||Temperate||loss of biodiversity, water pollution|
|Pakistan||Arid semi-arid||drinking water & air pollution, human health, loss of buffalo germ plasm|
|USA||Humid continental||water pollution from animal wastes|
|World||All eco-zones||eutrophication, fossil energy consump, loss of biodiversity, components of food/feed, processing wastes|
II. Guidelines for the local consultations
a) What is the local consultation?
The local consultation is a component of the global conference on livestock and the environment, aimed at obtaining the views and perceptions of stakeholders from developing countries who might not have access to electronic mail. A stakeholder is any individual or group in society that has an interest, dependency, relationship or responsibility on livestock production and consumption, and natural resources management. By this definition, stakeholders include livestock farmers, consumers, livestock researchers, agricultural development agents, natural resources managers, agricultural economists, extension agents, environmental advocates, and policy makers.
b) Who should be included in the local consultation?
In order to obtain a fairly representative set of opinions and perceptions from stakeholders, a fair sample of each kind of stakeholders should be included in the local consultation. Particular attention should be paid to the participation of farmers and producers as their number and diversity are larger than those of other stakeholders. Including grassroots farmers groups representatives (cooperatives, local and national farmers associations) rather than individuals will be appropriate. Where consumers and environmental advocates are concerned, particular attention should be paid to local NGOs. Researchers and policy makers generally pertain to government institutions such as NARS, Universities, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Planning Ministry.
c) Activities to be conducted by the local convenor
There are two activities to be conducted by the local convenor. One is a series of interviews and the other is a round-table. The interviews to different stakeholders should be conducted during the first two weeks of the electronic conference which will start on March 10. The interviews can be conducted individually or in small groups of one particular type of stakeholders. Questions to be asked during the interviews are given below. The round-table should be convened during the 9th or the 10th week of the electronic conference which will last for 12 weeks. Expected participants in the round-table are representatives of each type of stakeholder. The round-tables should include no more than 20 participants. The aim of the round table is to examine the particular views of different types of stakeholders concerning the issues being discussed in the electronic conference and to reach some conclusions. These issues, which are the basis of the questions asked during the interviews are described below. Following each one of the activities (the interviews and the round table), the convenor has to produce a summary of the results and conclusions and input these summaries into the global electronic conference. Thus, the local convenor has to subscribe to the electronic conference as any other individual participants. Instructions for subscribing to the electronic conference are provided below.
In organising the interviews and the round-table, the local convenor should identify and contact relevant participants.
d) Questions to be asked and discussed during the interviews, round-tables and the electronic conference
There is a set of three main issues (state of natural resources; driving forces for livestock-environment interactions; and responses of society), for the global discussion. Each one of this issues poses a number of specific questions to be asked and discussed during the interviews, round tables and the electronic conference. As for the interviews and round tables, the aim is to obtain qualified opinions and perceptions from stakeholders.
The issues and questions to be asked and discussed are:
|1.||What are the most important national problems related to livestock production and natural resources enhancement and degradation: nutrient cycling and soil improvement, biodiversity enhancement, savings of fossil fuels, deforestation, soil degradation (erosion, compaction), biodiversity loss, involution (reduced soil fertility due to negative nutrient balance) of mixed systems, or/and animal-waste contamination?|
|2.||What is the state or condition of natural resources (soil, water, vegetation, air and biodiversity) and what are the most important recent trends in your local area?|
|2.1.||What indicators do you use for monitoring these changes in the state of the above mentioned natural resources?|
|3.||What are the driving forces and pressures (e.g., incentives, land tenure or institutional policies, human population pressure, consumption patterns, climate, human values, and technologies) leading to the identified problems?|
|3.1.||What are the driving forces in your area which define the effects of livestock on the natural resource base? Do you have information to quantify that causal relationship?|
|3.2.||What are the most critical livestock-environmental interactions; positive and negative?|
|3.3.||How do land tenure, prices of inputs and outputs, institutions and regulations or any other policies affect these effects on the resource base?|
|3.4.||What effects on the local environment are due to factors in other environments?|
|4.||What are the bio-physical and socio-economic impacts of livestock systems (grazing, mixed, and industrial or land-detached systems) in your particular ecoregion?|
|4.1.||What is the value placed by the local community on different livestock outputs and services such as meat, milk, fertilizer, animal traction, social prestige and assets building?|
|4.2.||Does the local community believe that livestock provides the social, economic and financial benefits expected of them and if so, are they better or worse than in the past?|
|5.||What are the responses of stakeholders and society at large to environmental changes?|
|5.1.||What are the farmers' time horizons and goals and how are they responding to pressures on the environment?|
|5.2.||What are the responses of farmers and other stakeholders on the trends in the state of the natural resource base? What technologies are being used which can mitigate the negative effects and which enhance the positive effects of livestock on natural resources?|
|5.3.||What policies and regulations are used to promote the above mentioned technologies and what is the effect of those policies?|
|5.4.||Are environmental issues considered in policy formulation?|
|5.5.||How important are other groups in defining the policies affecting livestock-environment interactions. Who are they? How constructive are those interventions?|
|5.6.||What are the policy linkages with population pressure?|
|6.||What is the effect of those responses on the rate and direction of environmental change and human needs satisfaction?|
|6.1.||What are the current policy issues related to the pressures?|
|7.||How do you see demand trends for livestock products in your country (internal consumption and export) and which production system would you say has the largest potential to satisfy any increase?|
|8.||What should we do and what can be done (research priorities, policies, development programs, production systems to be encouraged and discouraged) in order to balance livestock, environment, and human needs in your local area?|
The above questions and the corresponding discussions to be held during the global consultation follow the conceptual analytical framework of Pressure-State-Response (PSR) which is based on the environmental model developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This conceptual framework helps to identify and understand the forces, processes, effects, and societal responses involved in livestock and environment interactions.
III. Preparatory meeting
A preparatory meeting was held at ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia from 21 – 24th January, 1997. The objective of the meeting was to prepare for the Electronic Conference and local Consultations on Livestock, the Environment and Human Needs.
The meeting was attended by Hugo Li-Pun (Chairperson), ILRI-Eth; Ralph von Kaufmann, ILRI-Eth, Don Peden, IDRC, Victor Mares (Consultant), IICA; Henning Steinfeld, FAO; Robert Hart, INFORUM; Mohamed Saleem, ILRI-Eth; Simeon Ehui, ILRI-Eth; Paschal Osuji ILRI-Eth; Eddie Mukasa, (ILRI-Eth); Mamadou Diedhiou, ILRI-Eth; and Emmanuel Mwendera (Rapporteur), ILRI-Eth.
IV. Conference organizing committee
The committee responsible for organizing the electronic conference was formed at the preparatory meeting. The committee was to take responsibility for the following five functions:
a. Computer Hardware and Software Management:
Lead : Robert Hart, INFORUM;
Others : John Rowell, FAO; and Mamadou Diedhiou, ILRI
b. Information Management
Lead : Victor Mares, IICA
Others : Takuo, FAO; and Emmanuel Mwendera, ILRI.
c. People Management (Facilitator)
Lead : Robert Hart, INFORUM;
Others : Victor Mares, IICA
d. Subject Matter Management
Lead : Victor Mares, IICA;
Others : Henning Steinfeld, FAO; Emmanuel Mwendera, ILRI; Cees de Haan, World
Bank; and Manuel Ruiz, IICA.
e. Overall Conference Coordination
Lead : Hugo Li Pun, ILRI-Eth;
Others : Robert Hart, INFORUM; Victor Mares, IICA.