Conclusions

Previous section From analysis to action

Driving forces

Underlying a complex network of links between livestock and the environment, there are some strong fundamental pressures that will persist over the next decades. They are:

• Strong population growth, increases in per capita income and urbanization are fueling demand for livestock products, while at the same time limiting resources for livestock production. For example, while population is expected to double by the year 2020 in Asia and Africa, demand for meat and milk is expected to triple. Livestock products have a very high incomes elasticity and, under equal income levels, urban dwellers consume more meat than rural populations (IFPRI, 1995). This dramatic increase in demand will change the structure of the global livestock sector, as the amount of grazing area is not expected to increase, and the possibilities for increased production per unit area are also limited. These forces will change the geographical distribution of production, essentially breaking its traditional links with land, as livestock production will become more industrial and crop-based and, in the tropics, will move towards the more humid zones; and
• Poverty and social inequality also leads to degradation of natural resources. Different levels of income, between and within countries, lead to a different valuation of environmental resources and willingness to pay for their conservation. The desperation of the poor limits what can be achieved. The situation of abject and mounting poverty because of decreasing per capita land resources in some tropical highlands, and declining cattle-people ratios in pastoral systems, simply does not allow indigenous investments in labour and capital for resource conservation or improvement.

These fundamental pressures have already disrupted, and will continue to disrupt the balance between people, livestock and natural resources. They are exacerbated by additional man-made pressures:

• Inappropriate price policies and incentives. Economy-wide and sector price policies often pursue social or economic objectives outside the sector and often fail to address the environmental dimension. For the livestock sector, this often means a policy to promote the provision of cheap livestock products for the urban population, without accounting for the environmental costs involved in their production. In addition, this has led to subsidies on inputs and products, thus inducing wasteful use of natural resources, and constraining beneficial livestock-environment synergies. Subsidized concentrate feed, fuel, fertilizer and free AI-services, are some prominent examples. Protected markets and subsidies on milk and meat are others;
• Institutional weaknesses. Missing or inadequate institutions result in ill-defined property rights and deny access to essential resources in many extensive grazing systems. Ecologically un-adapted systems are the result. In addition, institutions fail to develop and enforce regulations to protect environmental resources, such as wildlife and forest areas, surface waters or cropland, both in the developed and developing world. Furthermore, weak institutions allow uncontrolled growth of, and pollution by, urban animal production and processing. As a result, the strengthening of institutions, particularly at the local level, as well as empowerment of poor livestock holders should be a priority responsibility for governments;
• Inadequate level of infrastructure. Insufficient infrastructure limits the opportunities to develop land-based livestock production and encourages the establishment of industrial systems and the concentration of large amounts of waste. It also constrains rapid destocking and restocking of arid ecosystems, and so stifles these systems' ecological optimal adaptation to prevailing erratic climatic conditions. Infrastructure development can, however, pave the way for reckless exploitation and destruction of valuable ecosystems in humid forest areas, with livestock being used to claim land titles. However, except for the humid tropics, infrastructure development and, in particular, marketing infrastructure, will be a powerful instrument to mitigate environmental impact;
• Widespread ignorance and lack of know-how. The public perception still is that major natural resource degradation processes are related to livestock activities, as shown by the use of terms such as “the Hamburger connection”. The reality is more complex and, only now is the scientific community starting to understand the importance of ecosystem dynamics such as those of the arid lands. But much more is required. The full dynamics of crop-livestock interactions are far from well understood and this leads to poor decision making. For example, the lack of understanding of wildlife-livestock dynamics has resulted in unnecessary killing of wildlife. The persistence of the concept of desertification, as advancing deserts induced by overgrazing, has led to badly directed, and even counter-productive investments in forced settlements of pastoral peoples. Finally, the perception that farmers in the industrialized world have no concern for their environment, has led to authoritative, top-down regulation, whereas there is increasing evidence in all OECD countries that considerable reduction in land and water pollution can be obtained through grass-root education and motivation. Re-invigorated research, training, extension and public education efforts are required;
• Policy void in the sector. Livestock producers, especially in South America, the EU and USA have established powerful political lobbies, which have sought to maintain subsidies and minimize environmental regulation. They have often done so under the argument that the introduction of environmental regulations puts them at a competitive disadvantage. This, in turn, has often induced them to demand import protection through either tariff or non-tariff barriers, notably exaggerating sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards, in order to “level the playing field” with their competitors in lower regulation countries. Although their influence has diminished over the last decade, especially in the EU and the USA, livestock lobbies are still influential. They found themselves often at the side of powerful urban voters, who do not wish to pay the price for all environmental costs. On the other hand, some of the pastoral groups in Africa and Asia are among the most marginalized groups in their countries, with almost no influence in reversing those policies that limit their access to key resources and hence the sustainability of their ecosystem and livelihood;
• Lack of information by consumers. This also plays a role in explaining why certain modes of production continue and why more stable systems are placed at an economic disadvantage in the developed countries. In the developed world, the health dangers of excessive meat and milk consumption have been extensively disseminated, whereas the links between diet and the environment have been less well covered. Those links which have been made, often departed from strong anti-livestock assumptions (Goodland, 1996).

Next section Response: Policy and technology options