Move our global food systems into a ‘safe space’–Memo to G8 from CGIAR’s Bruce Campbell

Watch this elegant 6-minute film: How to fed the world by 2050: Actions in a changing climate.

Film summary: To achieve food security in a changing climate, the global community must operate within three limits: the quantity of food that can be produced under a given climate; the quantity needed by a growing and changing population; and the effect of food production on the climate. At present the planet operates outside that safe space, as witnessed by the enormous number of people who are undernourished. If current trends in population growth, diets, crop yields and climate change continue, the world will still be outside this ‘safe operating space’ in 2050. Humanity must urgently work to enlarge the safe space and also move the planet into the safe space (film credit: Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, an initiative of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security, in collaboration with University of Minnesota Global Landscapes Initiative).

The Huffington Post has run a series of blogs by leading non-governmental organizations to call attention to a range of issues that should be raised at the G8 summit at Camp David, which just took place in rural Maryland, 18–19 May 2012. One of these opinion pieces is by Bruce Campbell, who leads the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, of which the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) is a part.

In his opinion piece, Campbell warns that ‘Our window of opportunity to avert a humanitarian, environmental and climate crisis is rapidly closing. Currently, the global food system contributes 19–29 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions and is seen as one of the main drivers of global climate change. There are currently 1 billion people hungry and in only 15 years’ time, there will be 1 billion more mouths to feed. Ironically, there are also 1.5 billion overweight people in the world. Consumer food waste in the developed world can be considerable (30 percent in the UK, for instance) while in the developing world, an equal percentage (or more) can be lost during and after harvests due to poor pest control, inadequate storage facilities as well as lack of access to markets for selling crops.

These simple facts tell us that not only that we must redouble our efforts to increase our overall food production, but that we must do this with a smaller impact on the climate while promoting sustainable diets and uncovering new methods for efficient distribution and waste prevention.

‘Fixing our food system is indeed a colossal task, but there are huge opportunities for transformation, should global leaders take heed. Agriculture accounts for almost 40 percent of employment around the world, as well as 70 percent of water use, and covers more land that any other human enterprise. In addition, 95 percent of the world’s farmers live in the developing world and produce the majority of the world’s food. They are also among the most vulnerable to climate change shocks such as floods or drought.

As such a vital part of the economy and of society, how can agriculture not be a top priority on the global political agenda? . . .’

Read the whole opinion piece by Bruce Campbell in the Huffington Post: Food security: A ripe opportunity for the G8, 18 May 2012.

About CCAFS: The CGIAR Research Program, Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), is a strategic partnership of the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR) and the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP). The Program’s lead center is the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). The program is funded by bilateral and multilateral donor agencies, and is staffed by people based at leading research institutions worldwide.

About Bruce Campbell: Director of CCAFS since 2009 and chair of Agriculture and Rural Development Day, a gathering on 18 June 2012 of the world’s leading agricultural scientists and food system thinkers at the Rio+20 sustainable development summit, Bruce Campbell is an ecologist who champions new approaches to applied research in managing natural resources. Campbell spent two decades working on social-ecological systems in southern Africa, covering small to large forestry, livestock, dryland and irrigated cropping production systems. For ten years, he directed a team of 50 scientists in a forests and livelihoods program at the Centre for International Forestry Research, based in Indonesia, and he spent time in northern Australia, working on natural resource management by Aboriginal communities.

 

Coping with drought: Assessing the impacts of livestock insurance in Kenya

In January 2010 the index-based livestock insurance (IBLI) pilot project was launched in Marsabit District of northern Kenya as an effort to help pastoralists manage drought risk, and its pernicious ex ante and ex post effects.

A Brief from the I4 Index Insurance Innovation Initiative reports results based on the impact of insurance on households’ anticipated changes in their coping behavior after receipt of their October 2011 IBLI insurance payouts. It gives a preliminary appraisal of the impact of drought insurance on household well-being.

The IBLI index insurance contract uses satellite-based measures of vegetative cover to predict average livestock mortality experienced by local communities. Households receive a payout if the predicted average livestock mortality rate reaches 15%. In October-November 2011 the first IBLI payouts were made to households who had purchased insurance earlier in the year. Households in our study received an average payout of about 10,000 Kenyan Shillings (or roughly $150).

The IBLI pilot was implemented in connection with a rigorous impact evaluation. This long-term research design will allow researchers to explore whether the beneficial effects of insurance (on both ex ante and ex post coping strategies) are large enough to warrant increased development of similar products. While we await those long-term findings, this Brief reports results based on the impact of insurance on households’ anticipated changes in their coping behavior after receipt of their October 2011 insurance payouts. By comparing these anticipated coping changes with those of their uninsured peers, we are able to arrive at a preliminary appraisal of the impact of drought insurance on household well-being.

Download the Brief

 

Lasst die Wildnis leben (Let the wilderness live)

Kenya safari (photo on Flickr by Shawna Nelles).

‘Afrikas Bevölkerung wächst rasch. Das bedroht einzigartige Ökosysteme. Sind Löwe, Gnu & Co. noch zu retten?

‘Doch außerhalb der Schutzgebiete, und das ist der größte Teil der Mara-Region, verschwinden die großen Wildtiere beängstigend rasch. Besonders betroffen sind die Büffel, Warzenschweine und Wasserböcke, Elen-, Topi- und Kongoni-Antilopen, Gnus, Giraffen und Thomson-Gazellen. Das belegen Zahlen des International Livestock Research Institute (Ilri), das zur Besichtigung der Mara-Region eingeladen hat. Noch leben auf den ungeschützten Flächen die meisten großen Wildtiere, etwa 70 Prozent des Gesamtbestandes. Sie wandern seit Urzeiten frei umher und sind deshalb auch wichtig für das Leben in der Masai Mara und der Serengeti.

‘Die Tiere ahnen nicht, dass Menschen willkürliche Schutzlinien gezogen haben. Überschreiten sie diese Grenzen, trachten ihnen vermehrt Wilderer nach dem Leben. Zudem drohen Konflikte mit der rasch wachsenden Bevölkerung. Zäune versperren dem Wild natürliche Wanderwege und zunehmend den Zugang zur wichtigsten und knappsten Ressource, dem Wasser.

In den vergangenen drei Jahrzehnten haben die meisten Wildtierarten in der Mara etwa 70 Prozent ihrer Populationen verloren«, mahnen Jan de Leeuw vom Ilri . . . .

Ökotouristen bringen das nötige Geld, um private Landflächen zu pachten, die als Reservate dienen.

Das klappt in Ol-Chorro schon seit vielen Jahren gut«, sagt Dickson Ole Kaelo von der Universität Nairobi, der selbst in der Region aufgewachsen ist und sie hervorragend kennt.

‘Und so funktioniert das Modell: Jeder Reisende zahlt 80 US-Dollar Gebühren an drei lizenzierte Touranbieter. Diese können ihren Gästen auf Rundfahrten im Schutzgebiet exklusive Wildtiererlebnisse bieten.

Weil die Massai auf Bewirtschaftung verzichten, erhalten sie jeden Monat eine Pacht«, erklärt Dickson Kaelo.

Das sichere ihnen ein bescheidenes, aber regelmäßiges Einkommen. Zusätzlich würden Schulen und Gesundheitsdienste in der Region gefördert. So profitierten alle davon, Menschen, Tiere und die Natur. Tatsächlich zeigte sich auf mehreren Fahrten durch private und kommunale Schutzgebiete am Rande der Masai Mara bis hinauf nach Ol-Chorro, dass in den conservancies die Wildtierdichte oft größer war als im staatlichen Masai-Mara-Reservat. . . .

‘Auf einem Workshop des internationalen Forschungsinstituts Ilri in Nairobi diskutierten im Februar drei Dutzend Wissenschaftler und Experten aus Europa und Afrika über die Vor- und Nachteile solcher Wildreservate. Das Projekt wurde auch mit deutschen Forschungsmitteln unterstützt. Grundsätzlich waren sich die Teilnehmer des Workshops einig, dass die Schaffung weiterer conservancies im Umfeld großer staatlicher Reservate viele Vorteile bringe, sowohl für die Wildtiere und ihre Umwelt als auch für die Massai. Die Tourismusunternehmen seien ebenfalls bisher überwiegend zufrieden. Doch eine Patentlösung zur Armutsbekämpfung und Rettung des Wildbestandes ist das Einspannen reicher Ökotouristen keineswegs, wie sich in der Debatte zeigte. Aus prinzipiellen Gründen. . . .’

Read the whole article, in German, at Zeit Online: Lasst die Wildnis leben, 23 Apr 2012.

 

‘Developing countries are where it’s at in reducing livestock’s ecological hoofprint’ – (promiscuous agricultural) geographer

Visual capture of livestock talk by Andy Jarvis (CIAT and CCAFS), ‘The Elephant in the Room—Or Is It a Cow?’—to the Inter-Agency Donor Group (IADG) for livestock at the Work Bank in Washington DC, in Apr 2012 (figure credit: CIAT).

Andy Jarvis, a senior scientist and biodiversity expert at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (known by its Spanish acronym, CIAT), based in Cali, Colombia, where he leads a ‘Decision and Policy Analysis Program’, last week took on what many might view as an awkward role—that of livestock spokesperson—at the 13th Annual Meeting of the Inter-Agency Donor Group (IADG) at the World Bank in Washington, D.C.

If most environmentally minded scientists would have viewed this job as pulling the short straw, Jarvis, who has been called a ‘promiscuous agricultural geographer’—seems to have relished his livestock presentation as a golden opportunity. With his professional interests including developing-country agriculture with a focus on Latin America, spatial analysis of agrobiodiversity (aka wild relatives of our food crops, with a rare wild pepper a target of his special interest), climate change, payment schemes for poor communities for their provision of water and other ecosystem services, global environmental modelling and dataset development, geographical information systems (Jarvis heads CIAT’s GIS laboratory), Jarvis is also a self-confessed communicator to just about everyone and innovator of just about anything.

Noting the difficulty in pinning down, fairly and accurately, levels of emissions of greenhouse gases produced by the livestock sector, Jarvis says, ‘It’s no wonder livestock often gets left out of the mitigation discussion altogether.’

But the difficulties associated with getting the numbers correct are no excuse for inaction, Jarvis told the livestock donor group.

Despite our uncertainties, explained Jarvis, there’s no getting around the fact that livestock have a huge ecological ‘hoofprint’. That hoofprint can only get bigger as global demand for animal products grows, and the livestock sector has to get serious about appropriate policy and technology.

‘Reliable estimates of the percentage of GHG emissions attributable to livestock range from 10–18%, a considerable difference. But even the most conservative figures should be nothing short of startling, especially when you consider that 30–45% of the earth’s terrestrial surface is pasture, as well as 80% of all agricultural land. “That’s arguably the largest ecological footprint on the planet, certainly in terms of area,” said Jarvis. In fact, a full 80% of all agricultural emissions come from none other than the livestock sector, and it would be foolish to ignore such statistics in the name of absolute certainty.

‘Meanwhile, trends of animal product consumption in the developing world make the subject of livestock sector sustainability even more urgent. Between 1961 and 2005 milk consumption in developing countries doubled, meat consumption tripled, and egg consumption increased by a factor of five. While this increase signals an encouraging blow against malnutrition, it also carries with it the burden of environmental degradation. Furthermore, simply eliminating animal products from the menu with the aim of decreasing emissions could be disastrous for poor farmers, the majority of whom depend on livestock as an important—and sometimes their only—source of income.

‘Jarvis challenged those present at April’s meeting to look at the livestock “hoofprint” as an opportunity as much as a call to immediate action. “Developing countries are where it’s at! They have the biggest potential for mitigation and major system transformations. There are systems which are far more efficient than others, and developing nations have the ability to put the rest of the world to shame.” . . .’

Read the whole article by Caitlin Peterson on CIAT’s DAPA Blog: The elephant in the room—or is it a cow?, 26 Apr 2012, where you’ll also find a provocative and information-dense slide presentation Jarvis made to the donor group—’Livestock, climate change and resource use: Present and future’. The slide presentation (also available online here) was put together by Jarvis jointly with CIAT’s Peterson and Michael Peters and their colleagues from the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Phil Thornton, Polly Ericksen and Mario Herrero. Jarvis, Peters and Thornton also lead research in the multi-institutional CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Here is how the CIAT-ILRI authors sum up their messages to the donors of livestock research for development:

The Hoofprint Means There’s Plenty To Do

• Livestock is a major contributor to climate change and arguably has the largest ecological footprint on the planet (certainly in terms of area).
• The trend is that things can only get worse—with a rising demand for livestock products in developing countries and emerging economies meaning that the livestock sector is likely to make up a larger and larger share of global greenhouse gas emissions.
• Developing countries are where it’s at! They have the biggest potential for mitigation of livestock-generated greenhouse gas emissions and present plenty of opportunities for major system transformations.
• There are still big knowledge gaps that research can and should fill, starting with better estimates of GHG emissions produced by the livestock sector.
• Good policies accompanied by the right technologies could transform the hoofprint—and put developed nations to shame.

Read more about the livestock ‘goods’ and bads’ controversies here: ILRI Pinterest board on livestock ‘goods’ and ‘bads’.

 

Livestock herding and resource management: Good (natural, rangeland) bedfellows

Livestock herding in Niger (photo credit: ILRI/Stevie Mann).

Pastoralism—herding cattle, sheep, goats and other ruminant animals to find new grazing grounds—should be recognized as a key sector in resource management, said experts meeting at a Brussels Development Briefing on Pastoralism held on 22 Feb 2012.

‘Recurring drought and land disputes have recently placed nomadic pastoralists under the media spotlight. Their skill at managing livestock and the quality of the meat they produce . . . is however largely ignored by national political elites.’ In 2011, the African Union began to redress this by launching the Pastoral Policy Framework to strengthen the role played by pastoralism within the African economy.

‘“Nomadic pastoralism is not an evolutionary impasse”, says Jeremy Swift, who has spent most of his working career at the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Sussex in the UK. . . . “Pastoralists here are livestock experts. Far from being a subsistence economy, their contribution to the national economy is significant if seldom acknowledged”. The point made by Swift highlights one of the greatest challenges for pastoralism: being included in the government’s official statistics.

‘It is estimated that there are around 20 million pastoralists in Africa and 50 million in the world. Both these numbers are to be taken with a pinch of salt, however, as they only take nomadic pastoralists into account and not agricultural pastoralists. In West Africa pastoral livestock is one of the keys to integration . . . . In Mali the livestock sector accounts for 44 per cent of the agricultural GNP.

‘. . . The socio-economic advantages of pastoralism are especially relevant in Eastern Africa. In Sudan, the pastoral-dominated livestock sector accounts for 80 per cent of the agricultural GDP and Somalia is the major livestock exporter to the Gulf States. In Ethiopia, the livestock-dependant leather industry is the second largest source of foreign currency after coffee. In Tanzania and Kenya, pastoralism and tourism try to co-exist and in South Africa 60 per cent of the country’s cattle herding exports [are] supplied by pastoral breeders.

‘Being recognised by government statistics is one thing, being properly represented in politically elected bodies and in the social services is another. And yet interesting initiatives are beginning to emerge. . . .

‘Unlike other economic actors, in Africa pastoralists do not have access to credit or insurance which would enable them to safeguard themselves against a whole host of hazards, including weather hazards. A pilot insurance project was launched in Northern Kenya in January 2010.

This system, which will be extended to Ethiopia, has ensured that pastoralists were able to buy food without sacrificing a part of their livestock and protecting them from the risk of falling into extreme poverty,” explains Shirley Tarawali, Director of Institutional Planning at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) based in Nairobi.’

Read the whole article at Afronline: Seeking recognition for pastoralism, a key sector in resource management, 7 Mar 2012.

Read more on the ILRI News Blog, with a link to the presentation made by ILRI’s Shirley Tarawali: Options to enhance resilience in pastoral systems: The case for novel livestock insurance, 22 Feb 2012.

Note: The Brussels Development Briefing on pastoralism in ACP (African, Caribbean and the Pacific) countries was organized by the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU (CTA), in partnership with the African Union Commission, the European Commission (DG DEVCO), the ACP Secretariat and Concord, and in collaboration with CELEP (Coalition of European Lobbies for Eastern African Pastoralists). This article is published in the framework of an editorial project supported by CTA in the framework of Brussels Development Briefings, but does not necessarily reflect the views of the organization.

 

Could Rift Valley fever be a weapon of mass destruction? An insidious insect-animal-people infection loop explored

The Fifth Plague: Livestock Disease, woodcut by Gustave Doré, 1866 (public domain, via Wikimedia Commons).

Anthrax, bird flu , Ebola, HIV-AIDS, H1N1, H5N1, influenza, Rift Valley fever, SARS: What are the disease links between people, animals and environments? And what are we doing to protect ourselves against the next outbreak of a deadly infectious disease? A series being published in the Huffington Post is exploring such ‘living weapons’ and our preparedness, or lack thereof, in dealing with them. Keeping an eye on livestock diseases, experts agree, is a major way to prevent deadly outbreaks of human diseases. And these animal-human disease links, they say, are under-appreciated and under-funded.

Take Rift Valley fever, a disease transmitted between mosquitoes, livestock and people in Africa. Although considered by many experts to be a potential bioterrorist weapon, it remains underfunded.

As Lynne Peeples of the Huffington Post reports:

This emphasis on coordination among medical, veterinary and environmental health scientists, reflecting the global “One Health” movement, could also be employed in the development of vaccines and treatments for bioterror threats.

Rift Valley fever virus is a prime candidate for such collaboration, says BioProtection Systems’ [Ramond] Flick, an expert on emerging infectious disease, which can afflict both animals and humans. Creating a livestock vaccine would reduce the risk of human infection.

However, because the disease is not considered a priority human bioterrorism agent by the government, research funding is low. Jason McDonald, a CDC spokesperson, explains the agency’s exclusion of Rift Valley: humans typically contract the virus through bites of infected mosquitoes and just 1 percent of these victims die.

Flick disagrees.

The public’s current awareness of Rift Valley fever and its perception of the West Nile virus threat before 1999 are strikingly similar, he says. West Nile had not been given much thought before it cropped up in New York City. Within a few years it had spread across the country.

Flick warns of even more devastating consequences with the relatively unknown bug. More mosquito species can carry Rift Valley than West Nile. It is also more virulent. And according to research in Arabia and Africa, the fatality rate may actually be increasing, killing more than 30 percent of people infected during recent outbreaks. Further, there does appear to be potential for human-to-human transmission.’

Scientists at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) have been working with partner organizations in eastern and southern Africa to better understand the spread of Rift Valley fever. They are developing a toolkit that will help decision-makers make timely and appropriate interventions to prevent the disease from jumping from cattle to the poor people who rear them. The toolkit includes advice on the conditions that suit the Rift Valley fever virus infecting cattle populations (e.g., following unusually heavy rains northern Kenya and other parts of the Horn’s drylands), at which point disease control agents should begin surveillance to diagnose and stop the spread disease in the infected animals before it has time to begin infecting human populations.

Efforts to better align the work of organizations researching Rift Valley fever were the focus this month (Feb 2012) of a workshop organized and hosted by ILRI at its Nairobi headquarters. Watch for a forthcoming post on the ILRI New Blog on that workshop and what it achieved.

The urgency of adopting a ‘one health’ approach to disease control is highlighted by the Huffington Post‘s Lynne Peeples.

‘. . . Biological weapons have a long and sordid history, from catapulting infected corpses to dropping bombs of plague-infected fleas. But what if a biological weapon were being developed and studied by scientists that had the potential to kill not a battalion or a city, but 150 million people? According to some public health and defense officials, that is exactly what we’re facing, following the cultivation of a highly contagious form of H5N1—a lethal bug better known as bird flu. The contagion, they fear, could escape the lab or its recipe could land in the wrong hands.

. . . A super flu is just one of a growing list of potential pandemics that could develop in the near future, either as a result of terrorism, of superbugs leaping from animals to humans, or both. In fact, nearly 80 percent of the bioterrorism agents recognized by the U.S. government started in animals. . . . And nature will spawn new agents continuously.’

‘This means a terrorist may need few tools, little training, minimal money and no published blueprint to harvest a superbug and then unleash it in food, water, air or via insect vectors such as fleas or mosquitos. . . .

The overlap of bioterrorism agents and emerging infectious disease also means that officials could defend against biological attacks and natural outbreaks in tandem.’

‘. . . Yet federal funding to prevent and respond to bioterrorism is plummeting. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s biodefense budget peaked in 2005 at about $1.2 billion. The 2012 budget is down to $800 million, with state and local programs—the country’s first line of defense—absorbing some of the most significant cuts. . . . The U.S. “remains largely unprepared for a large-scale bioterrorism attack or deadly disease outbreak.”

. . . Meanwhile, nature knows no rules or regulations and continues to create new viruses and alter old ones. And because animal-borne diseases may need no help spilling over into humans, outbreak investigations could easily confuse intentional and natural outbreaks.

“The government spends a lot of money developing biosensors,” says Princeton’s Kahn, referring to air sampling surveillance and other sophisticated systems. “But I would argue the best ones are flying around,” or in this case, hanging out on farms.

Zoos can be particularly good sources of sentinels, she adds, as they house a wide array of animals from around the world with different levels of susceptibility. Most zoos are also located near densely populated urban centers, which tend to be terrorism “hot spots.”

“There’s a possibility that the high-tech tools are not even in the right place,” says Rabinowitz. “By being constantly aware of new events in animals as well as in humans and the environment, we’re more likely to pick up a new threat.”. . .

This emphasis on coordination among medical, veterinary and environmental health scientists, reflecting the global “One Health” movement, could also be employed in the development of vaccines and treatments for bioterror threats. . . .

Researchers have discovered an average of 15 to 20 previously unknown diseases in each of the past few decades, including incurable diseases like HIV/AIDS, ebola and SARS, with new pathogens likely to emerge and spread faster due to the global population’s increasing size and mobility.’

‘. . . The ability to detect and identify diseases as they initially emerge can go a long way in thwarting an outbreak, [Scott Lillibridge] says. It can provide the time to prepare, including upgrading quarantines at the border, researching a vaccine and identifying what drugs might successfully combat the infection.

‘”A couple weeks can be critical,” says Lillibridge. “It can make an administration look foolish or like they’re in control.”

‘Overall, the U.S. government spent approximately $60 billion on biodefense from 2001 to 2009. Only 2 percent of that was dedicated to preventive measures such as programs to discover and reduce biological threats overseas, according to Koblentz.

To protect Americans, we must look at what is going on in the rest of the world,” says Khan.

ANSER’s Gursky, recently returned from hosting a NATO meeting in Central Europe: “The most important strategy is to build up the capabilities that we share, which means reaching across borders and politics,” she says.’

‘Coalescing efforts might also allow the government to do more with less. “We’re looking at not only man being a terrorist, but nature can be a terrorist as well,” says Henderson. “The natural occurrence of a disease gives us similar problems, so whatever we’re doing to prepare for one, prepares us for the other.”‘

Read the whole article, by Lynne Peeples, in the Huffington Post: Bioterrorism funding withers as death germs thrive in labs, nature, 10 Feb 2012; this article is part of a series, ‘The Infection Loop,’ investigating the complex links between human, animal and environment.

Read more on ILRI’s News Blog and Clippings Blog about recent research advances in better control of Rift Valley fever.

 

ILRI scientists map Kenyan watershed services to benefit people, crops, livestock and wildlife

A map of land use in the Ewaso Ng’iro watershed, taken from Mapping and Valuing Ecosystem Services in the Ewaso Ng’iro Watershed, published in 2011 by ILRI.

From Ecosystem Marketplace comes this review of a new publication from the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).

‘. . . As climate change increases the frequency and intensity of floods and droughts in [dryland pastoral] ecosystems, water catchment and management becomes a crucial tool in building ecosystems resilience. For practical water management, entire watersheds need to considered; from the water catchment in highland forests to the basins in the lowlands.

‘Understanding the dynamics of the watershed, conducting cost-benefit analysis of different land use practices, and determining the economic value of ecosystem services in particular water, forests and biodiversity plays a key role in advocating for conservation and sustainable development of landscapes, where linkages between ecosystem services and human well-being are well documented.

That’s why the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), a Nairobi-based NGO, published Mapping and Valuing Ecosystem Services in the Ewaso Ng’iro Watershed to inform the Government of Kenya on the latest developments on arid and semi-arid lands (ASAL’s) that cover approximately 80% of the country.

‘Typically, ASAL’s encompass a range between the savanna grasslands and desert areas. The extent of the Ewaso Ng’iro North watershed, the subject of the study, begins in the highlands of Mount Kenya where agriculture, logging and land grabbing have been documented, to the lower plains of Laikipia and Samburu which are famous for the wildlife and rich culture.

‘The step-by-step approach of mapping and valuing the ecosystem services of the watershed began with using spatial imagery to map the extent and characteristics of the watershed. This included water, biomass, livestock, wildlife and irrigated crops. These services were quantified and the demand for these services based on different land-use systems measured. An economic valuation of these services was then conducted.

‘The results of such a study are expected to inform the Government of Kenya on how to improve the standard of living in the region. This tool allows for a comparison of “alternative land and water uses between livestock, crop production, and wildlife-based tourism to enable future assessments of how and how much each use will improve the standard of living and whose standard of living.”

‘Determining the ecosystem services of the watershed takes into account more criteria than just water, but the categorization of water makes it possible to determine it’s unique value to human well-being.

The ILRI study priced the value of water based on what production systems water was a main contributor too, namely crop and livestock. It showed that value of water requirements for crops was much higher than livestock in the drylands, a cost that can now be used as a tool for various water pricing schemes and conservation incentives by policy makers.

‘The study also indirectly priced water’s contribution to tourism and biomass, values that can be used to compare different land use implications.

‘The use of such a study is not limited to policy implementation, but can inform a range of conservation and development initiatives on where to focus effort.

‘Considering different land use implications, energies can be directed towards opportunities that can deliver maximum benefit at least cost. This could be by developing conservation areas where agriculture may not be viable, or developing market mechanisms to boost livestock production. Payments for ecosystem services can also be developed for such watersheds to advocate for their conservation. . . .

[S]tudies such as the one conducted by ILRI take the first steps in informing us the how’s, why’s, what’s and how much ecosystems contribute to human well-being.

Read the whole article at Ecosystem Marketplace: Kenyan cattlemen map watershed services, 21 Dec 2011.

Read about the ILRI publication on the ILRI News Blog: Putting a price on water: From Mt Kenya forests to Laikipia savannas to Dadaab drylands, 19 Jan 2012.

Download the publication, Mapping and Valuing Ecosystem Services in the Ewaso Ng’iro Watershed, by Ericksen, PJ; Said, MY; Leeuw, J de; Silvestri, S; Zaibet, L; Kifugo, SC; Sijmons, K; Kinoti, J; Ng’ang’a, L; Landsberg, F and Stickler, M. 2011. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

 

NGO of ‘eat less meat’ mantra takes holistic view of livestock’s role in meeting global eco- and nutritional challenges

Ethiopian livestock-keeping family (photo credit: ILRI/Apollo Habtamu).

Dan Murphy, a food industry journalist, has published a commentary on a Pork Network website about a livestock chapter in the State of the World 2011: Innovations That Nourish the Planet, published by the Worldwatch Institute, in the USA. ‘The book aims to provide a blueprint for coping with the impact of population growth, resource limitations and climate change on world food production, nutrition and agriculture.’

What takes Murphy by surprise are the recommendations, set out by the chapter’s ILRI authors, with approval from the senior editors at Worldwatch, which is, he reminds us, a ‘Washington, D.C.-based think tank and eco-activist NGO’ famous for trumpeting the “eat less meat to forestall global warming” mantra.’

‘. . . The section I reviewed in detail was a chapter called “Improving Food Production from Livestock.” In it, Mario Herrero, a senior researcher at the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi, Kenya, and a group of senior Worldwatch scientists combined to pose a provocative question:

To meet the nutritional, economic, and environmental needs of the world’s approximately one billion people living in poverty, how can livestock producers globally find ways to increase milk, meat, and egg production—but without harming the environment?

‘. . . [U]nlike many activist screeds, which demonize producers and demand imposition of a vegan agenda to solve the world’s eco- and nutritional challenges, the Worldwatch team stated unequivocally that

Farm animals are an ancient, vital, renewable natural resource [upon which] a billion people throughout the developing world rely on for their livelihood. Livestock sustain most forms of agricultural intensification—from the Sahelian rangelands of West Africa to the mixed smallholdings in East Africa to highly intensified rice production in Asia.”

‘. . . Raising livestock is critical not only for animals’ ability to make even marginal grasslands productive—and for their undeniable nutritional value—but for its economic value to hundreds of millions of people who otherwise would possess few resources of value upon which to base their existence, the report explained.

‘Most importantly, the Worldwatch team acknowledged that livestock production is “agriculture’s most economically important subsector,” with demand for animal foods in developing countries projected to double over the next two decades. . . .

‘After reading this chapter, I have only one complaint: Why aren’t its contents the focus of the Institute’s positioning on the challenges of climate change, population growth and environmental protection the group so relentlessly preaches?

‘These insights ought to be in the headline, not buried in the middle of Chapter 14.’

Read the whole commentary by Dan Murphy in Pork Network: Worldwatch wisdom, 12 Dec 2011.

Related stories on the ILRI News Blog

Read more about this ILRI-authored livestock chapter in Worldwatch’s flagship publication: ‘State of the World 2011′: Sustainable livestock production is part of the solution for nourishing people and the planet, 28 Apr 2011.

Read about a recent disagreement between Worldwatch and ILRI authors regarding credible figures for levels of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production: Livestock and climate change: Towards credible figures, 27 Jun 2011.

 

Rangeland-based livestock production systems in the arid and semi-arid tropics

For the November 2011 ‘liveSTOCK Exchange’ event at ILRI, Augustine Ayantunde, Shirley Tarawali and Iain Wright prepared an issue brief on livestock challenges and opportunities in rangelands …

Perceptions about arid and semi-arid pastoral regions are rapidly changing. They are no longer seen as livestock enterprises but as multiple use systems with important consequences for the global environment and for more diversified livelihood strategies.

They are crucial for the production of ecosystems goods and services, for tourism and for mitigating climate change. They have many functions and some alternative development options.

Some of these options, while important for households and communities are also of global and regional interest and might turn into economically viable livelihood strategies if the right systems of incentives and policies are put in place. For poor households this will mean alternatives beyond traditional livestock production such as the payments for ecosystems good and services like water, carbon sequestration and others, tourism, biofuel production and the development of niche markets.

Research agendas need to take into account the trade-offs and synergies arising from these multiple uses so that the poor are able to reap the multiple benefits provided by these ecosystems

Download Issue Brief 4.

---

On 9 and 10 November 2011, the ILRI Board of Trustees hosted a 2-day ‘liveSTOCK Exchange’ to discuss and reflect on livestock research for development. The event synthesized sector and ILRI learning and helped frame future livestock research for development directions.

The liveSTOCK Exchange also marked the leadership and contributions of Dr. Carlos Seré as ILRI Director General. See all posts in this series / Sign up for email alerts

 

Livestock and climate change

For the November 2011 ‘liveSTOCK Exchange’ event at ILRI, Philip Thornton, Mario Herrero and Polly Ericksen prepared an issue brief on the relations between climate change and livestock systems in developing countries …

Livestock systems occupy 45% of the global surface area with a value of at least $1.4 trillion. Livestock industries and value chains are a significant source of livelihoods – they employ at least 1.3 billion people globally and directly support the livelihoods of 800 million poor smallholders in the developing world. Livestock products also contribute 17% of calories and 33% of protein consumed globally. For the poor, increased consumption of livestock products reduces mortality and improves cognitive development of children and there is considerable potential to increase incomes of smallholders from the sale of livestock products.

However, livestock and livestock systems are a major cause of global warming; and climate change will have major impacts on poor livestock keepers and on the ecosystem goods and services on which they depend.

The future trajectory of global green-house gas (GHG) emissions is uncertain, but even if these are reduced substantially and quickly, the globe will continue to warm for several decades.

The authors outline ways to reduce GHG emissions from livestock systems through technologies, policies and incentives. They also discuss options that livestock keepers can adopt to adapt to climate change and cope with increasing climate variability. These include technological (drought-tolerant fodder crops), behavioural (changes in dietary choice), managerial (different livestock management practices), and policy (market and infrastructural development). They conclude identify some future challenges.

Download Issue Brief 3.

---

On 9 and 10 November 2011, the ILRI Board of Trustees hosted a 2-day ‘liveSTOCK Exchange’ to discuss and reflect on livestock research for development. The event synthesized sector and ILRI learning and helped frame future livestock research for development directions.

The liveSTOCK Exchange also marked the leadership and contributions of Dr. Carlos Seré as ILRI Director General. See all posts in this series / Sign up for email alerts