Livestock in Food Security: the debate widens...

With all the talk about environmentalism, and when we are all too busy hugging trees, we do forget other things that are happening on the planet. 

Sustainable development is not just some buzz-phrase cooked up in the nineties to gives us 15 year olds in the naughties to learn about in geography... well there is some truth in that too.

It is easy to forget that livestock, farming, is a valuable source of income for some of the poorest families in the world. A new report by the UN FAO on the importance of livestock to food security is a great summary of what kind of role livestock plays in developing nations in particular:

"livestock make a vital contribution as generators of cash flow and economic buffers, provided that market chains are organised to provide openings for small scale producers and traders and those in remote areas." (Forward, ix, FAO 2011: Livestock in Food Security)

The fundamental point is that livestock is not just a source of emissions, pollution, ethical controversy but at the end of the day is a source of food and income. Highlighting Sub-Saharan Africa, the expansion of agriculture (like that seen in China and India in the late 20th Century, Green Revolution) is pegged as a lifeline to reduce poverty and improve on the health problems.

The report highlights the changes in livestock production numbers and per capita consumption (Table 4) and also shows specific region and national scale changes and predictions (figures 1, 2 and table 16). I could bore you describing what they say... alternatively you could read? read isn't a good word to use, you don't 'read' a graph do you? observe the graphs yourselves.

As you can see, the numbers only increase...

Pastoralists number 120 million, and they depend on their livestock for food, income, transport and fuel; would it be fair to force them to stop stocking animals because climate change is getting out of hand? After all it is the 'developed' who have truly mechanised GHG emissions; should we tarnish everyone with the same brush? I don't think so.

This coupled with the need to maximise profits and reduce cost to open the market to everyone, livestock intensification is needed, and these agricultural systems are the worst environmentally, ethically and for small business competition which just does not have the finance to compete.

The report (FAO, 2011) goes onto stress that the dichotomy for environmental mitigation and sustainable economic development doesn't necessarily result in changes in the way development is going but rather the point that:

"suggest that the average global consumption of meat should be approximately 90 g a day, compared with the current 100 g, and that not more than 50 g should come from red meat from ruminants. If this target were achieved, it would lower the peak demand for meat. However, government-sponsored nutritional and healthy eating programmes have had limited success in changing dietary preference." (page 82)

The root of all evil it seems is not money but consumption, and a lot of it at that!

Inequality in food distribution is widely known. Last year I had the opportunity to sit in on a UN Young Ambassador Society events held at the Institute of Education and none other than the Executive Director of the World Food Programme gave a keynote speech. There, Josette Sheeran spoke quite bluntly about the inequality of food distribution worldwide. There is enough food but a billion remain undernourished and a billion over. That means there is still a lot of waste, and through waste reduction we can 'offset' carbon emissions and save the environment!

It is a very long read and I would bet there are gems that I haven't mentioned that I haven't read in the report... it's 100 pages long! What do you expect me to do???

Keep watching the posts!!