The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation held a conference on sustainable livestock transformation in September. Photo / Greg Bowker
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation held a conference on sustainable livestock transformation in September. Photo / Greg Bowker
THE FACTS
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation conference prioritised feeding a growing population over reducing greenhouse gases.
Greenpeace protested, advocating for agro-ecology and the end of intensive agriculture.
The conference highlighted the need for political leadership, funding, and investment in sustainable livestock practices.
The first role of the food system is to feed a growing population.
This was the major statement of the closing session at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) conference on sustainable livestock transformation held in Rome at the end of September.
The overall message was, “Feeding people, not bringing down greenhouse gases”.
Sustainability was certainly part of the focus, with environmental impact and biodiversity discussed, but feeding people was paramount, hence the focus on livestock, which can create high-quality human nutrition (meat and milk) from land that is more suited for pasture and rangeland than crops.
This is not what the climate activists wanted.
Greenpeace was outside the FAO’s building with people in cages wearing animal masks and holding purple flares to indicate methane.
The placards stated that animals are cooking the planet, that intensive agriculture should be stopped, and that agro-ecology should take its place.
Most people at the conference came from countries where extensive agriculture, a pastoral version of agro-ecology, is the norm, and where improved access to protein is important for the health of the growing population.
Context is everything.
That was a point made repeatedly by speakers: goals, starting points, environment and ability.
And access to financial assistance to assist in “transformation”.
Change, whether transformative or incremental, costs money and is associated with risk.
Whatever benefits of change are promised, for a subsistence farmer, or any farmer without good cash flow, that risk might be too great to take on.
In developing countries, change is encouraged through government programmes, often involving overseas experts, but always the context dominates what can be done, as does the fact that the public purse and charity funding are shrinking.
The programmes that remain are focused on trying to improve production per hectare in order to feed people.
In the EU, change is encouraged by member governments through subsidies.
Farmers have been subsidised to install solar panels, buy newer (more efficient) machinery, put areas into woodland or wetland, and set areas aside for meadows.
Farmers feel that the focus is too much on sacrificing food production to encourage wildlife, even though there is research that suggests current measures will simply increase the populations of relatively common animals and plants rather than increasing the number of species.
Dr Jacqueline Rowarth at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation conference on sustainable livestock transformation held in Rome at the end of September.
Improving the plight of vulnerable species requires highly targeted interventions, not just more planting of hedgerows.
The rationale is that doing something feels better than doing nothing, and is lauded by society in general, but the consequences of decreased food production are not being understood, hence the focus of the FAO meeting.
Increasing production from existing land decreases, at least in theory, the pressure on expanding agriculture to take more land into production to feed people.
Biodiversity is protected, while more people achieve improved nutrition.
Other global concerns at the conference included diseases without borders and antimicrobial resistance.
Listen to Jamie Mackay interview Dr Jacqueline Rowarth on The Country below:
Anybody watching the TV programmes on border biosecurity knows the issues.
The beagles at Auckland airport are effective as well as charming, likewise the staff. Long may that continue. Farmers in the UK envy New Zealand’s vigilance.
Antimicrobial resistance is a similar issue.
It appeared as a concern in the round-up from most country reports, while holding the line that, for many developing countries, access to animal health products such as vaccines and antibiotics would improve animal welfare and productivity.
All sectors are trying to reduce antibiotic use because of the threat of antimicrobial resistance, but for low users, cutting further has resulted in unintended consequences, such as increased mastitis.
Context is everything: the goal, the starting point, the resources available and the ability of people involved.
The FAO conference concluded after three days, urging political leadership to enable a more productive future.
This will take improved understanding, partnerships, increased funding and investment in science and sustainability.
The outcome was predictable but important because the FAO has acknowledged the role that the livestock sector plays in feeding people.
