FAO.org

Traditionally, livestock producers have been able to adapt to various environmental and climatic changes. However, expanding populations, urbanization, economic growth, increased consumption of animal-based foods and greater commercialization (Chapter B2-2.1) have made traditional coping mechanisms less effective (Sidahmed, 2008). As a result, the identification of coping and risk management strategies has become very important.

A wide array of adaptation options are available (see, for instance, chapter B8-3.3 on the sustainable use and development of animal genetic resources for climate change adaptation (Kurukulasuriya and Rosenthal, 2003; IPCC, 2007). Possible adaptive responses include technological options (e.g. more drought-tolerant crops); behavioural modifications (e.g. changes in dietary choices); managerial choices (e.g. different farm management practices); and policy alternatives (e.g. planning regulations and infrastructural development). Some options may be appropriate in the short term, others for the long term (or both). 

In the short term, adaptation to climate change is often framed within the context of risk management, which is comprehensively dealt with in module C5 on disaster risk reduction. Washington et al. (2006) outline an approach for addressing the challenges of climate change that depends on a close engagement with climate variability. Livestock can  produce edible food for people from a range of inedible vegetal products. They can also move to find feed resources and endure a certain level of food and water stress. As a consequence, livestock production and marketing can help stabilize the food supplies and provide individuals and communities with a buffer against economic shocks and natural disasters. Particularly in pastoral and agro-pastoral systems, livestock are key assets held by poor people and fulfil multiple economic, social, and risk management functions. Livestock are also a crucial coping mechanism in variable environments. As climate variability increases, livestock will become more valuable because it provides a range of options (e.g. mobility, use of alternative feed resources, mobilization of body reserves ) to buffer the effects of this variability on food production. Box B2.3 on the drylands of Africa and the case study B2.3 on Zambia provide examples.

In addition, keeping more than one species of livestock is a risk-minimizing strategy and provides farmers with a wider range of adaptive options against climate unpredictability than if only one species is kept (Reijntjes et al., 1992):

• An outbreak of disease may affect only one of the species, e.g. the cattle, and specific species or animals of specific breeds are better able to survive droughts and thus help carry a family over such difficult periods. 
• Advantage can also be taken of the different reproductive rates of different species to rebuild livestock holdings after a drought. For example, the greater fecundity of sheep and goats permits their numbers to multiply quicker than cattle or camels. The small ruminants can then be exchanged or sold to obtain large ruminants.
• Different animal species exploit different feed resources. In pastoral areas, camels can graze up to 50 km away from watering points, whereas cattle are limited to a grazing orbit of on average 10-15 km. Camels and goats tend to browse more, i.e. to eat the leaves of shrubs and trees; sheep and cattle generally prefer grasses and herbs. Their different shaped mouths allow them to graze different sources. 
• Different animal species supply different products. For example, camels and cattle can provide milk, transport and draught power, whereas goats and sheep tend to be slaughtered more often for meat. Chickens often provide the small change for the household, sheep and goats are sold to cover medium expenditures, while larger cattle are sold to meet major expenditures.

However, livestock production can be destabilized, particularly by climate change and events such as disease outbreaks (see Chapter B2-1.2). For many poor people, the loss of livestock assets means a collapse into chronic poverty and has long-term effects on their livelihoods. Helping decision makers understand and deal with current levels of climate variability can provide one entry point to the problems posed by increasing variability in the future and the options that may be needed to build resilience. However, there are still problems to be addressed concerning the uncertainty of climate projections and projected impacts and how this uncertainty can be appropriately treated when determining response options (Wilby et al., 2009).