This year, World Food Day is all about rights to food, celebrating the basic human rights that ensure all have access to healthy, nutritious, safe and culturally appropriate food always.
As a result of climate change, conflicts and the entrenched inequity embedded in the social, economic and political systems we live in, too many people across the world, particularly food producers, suffer from food and nutrition insecurity. In addition to being unstable, our food systems today are unsustainable. The fragility and the social and ecological impacts of our food systems reinforce the need for different approaches to producing, supplying and consuming our food.
Central to this debate, are the conversations surrounding livestock and animal-sourced food (ASFs). The most vocal view, often shared across high-income countries (HICs), is that we need sustainable “alternatives” to livestock and ASFs. This suggested move away from livestock is reflected, for example, in increasingly popular vegetarian and vegan diets and focus on lab-based alternative protein in HICs.
However, as a community of practitioners focused on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), we argue that this view is imposed by the experiences and viewpoints in the Global North and ignores the realities of livelihoods, nutrition security and environmental sustainability from the Global South. In this joint statement, we outline why the framing of “alternatives” to livestock and ASF is problematic, and why any attempts to increase sustainability within the livestock sector must address all dimensions of sustainability.
Livestock production: is it really unsustainable?
Livestock influences our environment in multiple ways and the sustainability of livestock is often framed through its contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and in turn, climate change. Generally, livestock contributes significantly to GHG emission, therefore sustainability narratives encourage consumers, who have choices and economic means, to avoid animal-based foods. However, a recent analysis and evidence from LMICs suggest that linking the environmental sustainability and livestock requires a more nuanced picture. While intensive livestock systems indeed produce less GHG than extensive ones, their use of fossil fuel is significantly larger. Also, the analysis focusing on GHG ignores the other benefits of extensive and small-scale livestock-based livelihoods.
From the LMICs perspectives, some communities do not have any choice but to engage in livestock-based livelihood activities, as not all lands are suitable for other income-generating activities. Additionally, because of the resilience of commonly raised/kept animals against environmental stresses, livestock also allows people to engage in income- and food-generating activities across a diverse range of ecosystems. In this sense, it is irrelevant to identify “alternatives” to livestock.
Instead, the focus needs to shift towards supporting small-scale and/or extensive livestock farmers and keepers to improve their practices so that the environmental costs of their livelihood activities can be reduced.
Animal sourced food: NCDs, climate change and nutrition security
Animal sourced food – specifically red and processed meat – is often linked to health issues such as cancer, and consumers are encouraged to eat less or omit these foods completely from their diets. These issues are not contained in the global North, but obesity and overweightness from unhealthy food choices have been serious public health issues in emerging economies. In this light, the rapidly increasing demand for animal sourced food in the global South is considered alarming. However, whilst the overconsumption of animal sourced food is linked to health issues, many in other LMICs suffer from malnutrition due to lack of animal sourced food. Animal sourced foods are rich in critical nutrients and protein, which form the foundation of a healthy and active life. Therefore, the adequate consumption of, for instance, eggs and dairy products is critical to the physical and cognitive development, particularly for children and women of reproductive age.
Therefore, the sustainability of livestock in LMICs needs to be focused on different priorities than HICs with regards to improving nutrition security. As such, governments in LMICs need to focus on increasing animal sourced food production in a way that minimises environmental issues. Another critical aspect, particularly for LMICs, is the need to improve the quality and safety of these animal sourced foods. Food safety is an important aspect of food security, yet food systems in LMICs face challenges including regulatory oversight, informally organised supply chains, and poor market governance, leading to contaminated food. These issues need to be prioritised, and small-scale livestock farmers, traders and meat vendors need to be supported in improving nutrition security.
What alternative? Livestock-based livelihoods are critical for marginalised people
While the “alternatives to livestock” implies that there are feasible and sensible alternative sources of livelihoods for marginalised communities, our research shows that this is often not the case and livestock rearing is the main livelihood option in pastoral systems in Africa and Asia. For instance, our work along chicken value chains in Vietnam and pig value chains in Myanmar show that marginalised people – i.e. people who are landless or have a small piece of land, migrants, women, and families who earn a living from precarious work – see rearing of small livestock species as a vital source of income to mitigate shocks on household finance and move out of poverty. For them, livestock is not necessarily an important source of income, but a main contributor to household nutrition and food security. Additionally, small livestock species are particularly equitable, as women and families with small land areas are able to utilise the limited space and time to earn income. Whilst it must be recognised that these households, particularly women, face obstacles in expanding their production, adequate and targeted support, which is equity driven, will be able to support them in sustainably and equitably intensifying livestock value chains.
The next steps
The above examples show that a closer look into realities across LMICs highlight a more nuanced story than “livestock and ASFs need more sustainable alternatives”. As a community of agricultural and applied economists focusing on equity and sustainability within food systems, we contend that these lived experiences by marginalised and under-represented communities need to be better reflected in the debate on livestock sectors for sustainable food systems in an effort to “leave no one behind”.
Whilst the viewpoints we represent here are often recognised by academic communities, practitioners and policy makers, the drive to industrialise and modernise livestock production and value chains tends to overtake these perspectives from LMICs. This is evident, for instance, in livestock development policies in LMICs where policy makers acknowledge the role livestock plays for poverty reduction, health and sustainability whilst allocating resources and policy support toward large-scale industrial actors, not small-scale actors. Another issue is that historically non-grain commodities such as livestock and aquaculture, and vegetables have received limited attention within the research and policy communities as pathways towards poverty reduction and food security. Neglecting the lived experiences of marginalised people particularly in LMICs runs the risk of increasing vulnerability and poverty among these people, increasing public health threats and contributing further damage to our environment.
On World Food Day, we ought to be thinking about these communities the most and be focused on finding ways to create food systems that protect their Rights to Food. Therefore, instead of focusing on industrialising the livestock sectors in LMICs, we need to generate evidence on what support marginalised communities need in order to reduce poverty, improve public health and nutrition security, and contribute to ecological sustainability.
We advocate for a “development first agenda” where the focus is on protecting the nutrition security and livelihoods of the most marginalised people and providing support for the wellbeing of these people as well as our planet.
