1

Overviewpaper:Livestock,ClimateandNaturalResourceUse

HenningSteinfeld1,CarolynOpio1,JulianChara2,KyleFDavis3,PeterTomlin4andStaceyGunter5

1. FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations2. CentroparalaInvestigaciónenSistemasSosteniblesdeProducciónAgropecuaria3. ColumbiaUniversity4. KansasStateUniversity5. UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture

Global food systems play a central role in anthropogenic environmental change. In particular, thelivestocksectorisakeycontributortoarangeofenvironmentalissues.Demandforanimalproductshasrisenmarkedly over thepast 50 yearswith important environmental impacts, contributing to climatechange, water depletion and pollution, land degradation, and biodiversity loss (FAO, 2006; O’Mara;2011)

Environmentalimpactshavebeenpartlymitigatedbyproductivityincreasesinlivestockthathavebeenbroughtaboutby thebroadapplicationof scienceandadvanced technology in feedingandnutrition,genetics and reproduction, and animal health control as well as general improvements in animalhusbandry andoverall food chainmanagement.While these innovationshave led to transitions fromlow-input low-outputsystemstomoreefficientandproductive livestocksystems inmanypartsof theworld,theoverallenvironmentalburdenofthelivestocksectorcontinuestoincrease(Davisetal.2015).

Livestocksystemsvarywidelyacrossanimalspecies,productsandgeographies.Productionoccursinawide range of ecosystems, from those relatively undisturbed, such as rangelands, through food-producing landscapes with mixed patterns of human use, to production environments that areintensively modified and managed by humans. Livestock systems have evolved as a result of agro-ecological potential, the relative availability of land, labor and capital and the demand for livestockproducts(Steinfeldetal.,2019).

Extensivelivestocksystemsarelowintheuseoflaborandexternalinputs.Thesesystemstendtooccurinlightlymanagedareasthatarefrequentlyunsuitableforcropandthereforedonotcompetewithcropproduction.Extensivelivestocksystemsspanadiversityoflandscapes,fromthedryrangelandsofAfricatotemperatezonesinNorthAmericaandthesteppesofCentralAsia.Extensivelivestocksystemsaresusceptible to climate change, with extreme weather and extended droughts causing decreases inproductivity as well as high levels of herdmorbidity andmortality. Extensive systems directly utilizenaturalbiomassproduction,withrelativelylowyieldsperunitoflandoranimalandhighGHGemissionsintensities. In principle, extensive grazing systems are closed systems, where the waste product(manure) is recycledwithin thesystemand, ifwell-managed,oftendoesnotpresentaburdenontheenvironment. However, resource degradation, especially of land and biodiversity, is a widespreadproblem.Forthemostpartthis isoccurringwhere,asaresultofexternalpressures, traditionallywellmanaged common lands have become open access areas (de Haan, Steinfeld and Blackburn, 1997).Problemsofaccessalsoleadtoconcentrationandovergrazingincertainareasbuttoabandonmentofotherareas.Thisproblemofaccesscanresultfromconflictsorlackofinfrastructuresuchasboreholesin Africa or roads to summer pastures in Central Asia. In such open access situations, degradation ismostsevere.Ontheotherhand,withappropriatemanagementgrazingsystemscanofferpotentialforecosystemserviceandbiodiversityenhancement(Janzen2010;Teagueetal.2013).

Labour-intensivesystemsaretypicallyoperatedbysmallholders,mostlyaspartofmixedcrop-livestockfarms,butalsoaspastoralandsilvopastoralsystems.Thesesystemsproducemilk,eggsandmeat,but

2

other outputs suchmanure as fertilizer or animal traction are important aswell. Livestockact as anasset and liquidity reserve that can be mobilized in case of need. The majority of labour-intensivesystemsare subsistence family farms,which sell or exchangeany surpluses locally. For these farmingfamilies, livestockareanimportantsourceofnutritiousfoodandfulfilsocialandfinancialfunctions. Ifmeasuredsimplybyyieldgaps, resourceuse in subsistence farms isgenerally inefficientcompared toextensiveorcapital-intensivesystems(Herreroetal.,2013).However,thereareothermetricsthatmustbe considered, particularly in relation to nutrient cycling, adding value to crop residues, providingdraughtpowerandmanureandcapturing carbon.Resourceuse inmixed farming isoftenhighly self-reliantasnutrientsandenergyflowfromcropstolivestockandback.

Capital-intensive systems are open in both physical and economic terms. They depend on externalsupplies of feed, energy and other inputs. The operations are usually large-scale, mechanized andverticallyintegrated.Thereisthusagreateruniformityofpracticesthaninmixedandgrazingsystems.These systems are defined by their reliance on external feeds that are nutritionally optimized topromotegrowthandproduction.Forcattle, thismeansfatteninganimals in feedlotswithconcentratefeedbasedongrainsoroilseedsfeedsduringthelastfewmonthsbeforeslaughter.Withintensiveporkand poultry production, the animals are exclusively fed purchased feeds. Farmers also use selectedbreedsoptimizedforsize,productivityandproductcharacteristics,andanimalsarekeptincontrolled,confinedsettings.Thissystemuseslargeamountsoffeedandotherexternalinputs,butalsoproducesgreater yield per unit of land and per animal than extensive farming systems.While the number offarmersfarmersissmallerthanlabour-intensivesystems,manypeoplebenefitfromaregularsupplyofsafe,affordable,nutritiousfood.Incontrasttoextensivesystemsandintegratedcrop-livestocksystems,thesesystemsarealmostexclusivelydedicatedto foodproduction,asa responsetogrowingdemandforlivestockproducts,domesticallyandforexport.Emissionintensitiesareoftenlowinthesesystems.However,withspecializationandconcentrationofanimals inhighdensities,dealingwithnutrient-richmanure is a challenge for intensive systems and amajor source of soil andwater pollution. Capital-intensivesystems,throughtrade links,canalsoexertpressuresonecosystemsindistant locations, forexamplethroughtheuseofsoyproducedinthetheAmericas in livestockfeedinEuropeorEastAsia.Thesesystems,ifnotproperlyregulated,offermanyopportunitiestoneglecttheirenvironmentalcosts.

LanduseandlandusechangeLandisthebasisoffoodproductionandafiniteresource.Thetriplingoffoodproductionoverthelast50years(FAO,2017)haspartlybeensupportedbybringingmorelandintoproduction,butatthesametimehasresultedinacceleratingdegradationandsoilerosion.

Pasturesandarable landfor feedproductionoccupyalmostone-thirdof theglobal ice-freeterrestrialland surface (FAO,2006). Livestock appropriate themajorityof global phytomass capturedbyhumanactivity, mostly by converting vegetal material of no immediate other use by way of ruminantproduction. In total, crop and livestock production accounts for 78 percent of global humanappropriation of net primary productivity (HANPP), the remaining 22 percent made up by forestry,infrastructure, andhuman-induced fires (Haberl et al., 2007). Krausmannet al (2008) suggest that 58percentofdirectlyusedhuman-appropriatedbiomasswasutilizedbythelivestocksectorin2000,whileDavisandD’Odorico(2015)estimatethathalfofallcropcalorieproductionwasusedforfeedin2011.Consideringtheinefficienciesinherenttobiologicalfeedconversion,theexpectedexpansionoflivestockproductionwill likely grow as a share in anthropogenic biomass consumption. Biomass appropriationdoes not necessarily imply a negative impact on the environment. In properly managed grass-basedsystems, grazing and mowing contribute to increased ecosystem productivity and biodiversity.Demonstrations in the State of Georgia (USA) with grass-fed beef production have shown thatappropriate management of pasture lands can sequester more carbon equivalents than the beef

3

producing enterprise emits (WOF, 2019). Derner et al. (1997) report increased soil carbon storage ingrazedversusnon-grazedpasturesintheshortgrasssteppeofnortheasternColorado.Inmanyregions,grasslandsrepresenttheonlyviablesystemoffoodproductionandenablecommunitiestoinhabit,andprosperin,aridandsemi-aridregions.However,livestocksystems,particularlyinfragilelandscapeswithhighly variable climate that livestock often occupy, are often implied in extensive land degradation(SteinfeldandGerber,2010;AshandMelvor,2005).

Most are facing some form of disturbance. The Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA)concludes thatabout16percentof rangelandsare severelydegraded (FAO,2010).Other studiesalsoreported severe degradation in grazing biomes. Le et al. (2014), estimates that about 40 percent ofgrasslandsexperienceddegradationbetween1982and2006.ThemostfertilegrasslandareincreasinglyconvertedintocroplandinSouthAmerica.InNorthAmerica,onlyaround20%ofitscentralgrasslandshavenotyetbeendevelopedorconvertedtocropland,andmuchofwhatremainsisutilizedforcattlegrazing(Samson,etal.,1998).InChina,grasslanddegradationinInnerMongoliaisbelievedgenerallytobe amajor reason for the increased frequency of severe sand and dust storms in northern China inrecentdecades,particularlyinBeijingandadjacentregions(Shietal.,2004).

Degradation is causedbyavarietyof factors,mostly related toovergrazingandresultingproblemsofsoil erosion andweed encroachment.Many of the problems, particularly in low income countries ofAfricaandAsiaarise from thebreakdownof traditionalmanagementwith centuries-oldnomadicandtranshumantgrazingsystems.Populationgrowth,urbanization,collectivizationandsubsequentbreak-up of collective farms, and land distribution have all contributed to the decline of traditional grazingsystems in many regions, and their replacement with continuous overgrazing and subsequentdeterioration.

In intensive livestock operations, the need for external feed drives up demand for crops and land togrowthem.Today,aboutone-thirdofglobalcroplandisusedtoproducefeedcrops(Mottetetal.2017).Unlikeruminantsystems,whichmainlyrequiregrazingareas,intensiveporkandpoultrysystemsrelyoncropland elsewhere for feed production. The expansion of soybean production for feed protein hasoccurredattheexpenseofforests,inadditiontopastureconversiontocroplandinLatinAmerica.Theadded impacts of land-use change in systems that source feeds from high-deforestation areas canoutweighanygains fromhigherproductivity—this impact in factexplains thehigheroverallemissionsassociatedwithintensiveporkproductionatthegloballevel(FAO,2013).Additionally,sincemarketsforlivestockfeedareglobal,anyincreaseindemandcanresultincontinuedpressureforlandconversioninfeed-producingregions.Therearealsoindirectpathwaysforsoybeantobeadriverofdeforestation.Forexample,Fearnside(2005)suggeststhatwhilepastureoccupiesvastareasofland,soybeancultivationcarries thepoliticalweightnecessary to induce infrastructure improvements,which in turn stimulatesthe expansion of other crops. Further, Nepstad et al (2006) suggest that growth of the Brazilian soyindustry may have indirectly led to the expansion of the cattle herd. According to several studies(Nepstadetal.,2006; Cattaneo,2008;Dros2004),soybeanhasdrivenuplandpricesintheAmazonandinMatoGrosso,allowingmanycattlerancherstosellvaluableholdingsatenormouscapitalgainsandpurchasenewlandattheagriculturalfrontierandexpandtheirherds.

Landuseconversionfromforesttopastureisthusoftendrivenbydemandforlivestockproducts,andlargeprofitscanbemadefromincreaseinlandpricesattheagriculturalfrontier,oftencompoundedbylackofenforcementofpoliciesandregulations.Convertingnaturalecosystemsreducesbiodiversityandecosystemservices(e.g.,pollination,pestcontrol,floodcontrol).Currentpasturemanagementpracticesoftenresultinlanddegradation,whichresultsintheneedformoreforestclearing,andpastureburningtopromoteregrowthandnutrientcyclingleadstoadditionalforestlossesfromaccidentalfires.Forestclearing,oftenthroughburning,releaseslargeamountsofCO2totheatmosphere,andgreaterlivestock

4

numbersalsoincreaseGHGemissions.Atthesametime,theabilityofterrestrialecosystemstoabsorbgases(especiallyCO2)isreducedbyforestclearing.

LivestockproductioninachangingclimateFuturelivestockproductionrequiresadaptationtoacomplexsuiteofimpactslinkedtoclimatechange:higher temperatures; changes in rainfall patterns, amounts and intensity, andmoreextremeweatherevents; requirements for GHGmitigation; potential competition for land resources for production ofhuman food, animal feed, fuels, and carbon sequestration and increasing input costs due to watershortage and higher energy costs; and expectations that sustainable production and environmentalprotectionbedemonstrated.

Globally, livestock systemsemit14.5percent (7.1gigatonnesCO2equivalent)of global anthropogenicemissions (FAO, 2013), considering not only direct emissions from animals and manure, but alsoemissions associatedwith feed production and land use change, aswell as processing and transport.Methane(CH4)emissionsfromlivestockareestimatedtobeapproximately3.1GtCO2eq.accountingfor44 percent of total anthropogenic methane emissions. Furthermore, the global livestock sectorcontributes3.1GtCO2eq.ofnitrousoxide(N2O),orabout72percentofanthropogenicN2Oemissions.ThecontributionofCO2emissionsfromthelivestocksectorareestimatedat2GtCO2,or6percentofglobalanthropogenicCO2emissions(FAO,2013).

Livestock contribute both directly and indirectly to greenhouse gas emissions. Direct emissions areproducedby animal throughbiological processes suchas enteric fermentationandmanureandurineexcretion. Specifically, ruminants produce CH4 directly as a by-product of digestion via entericfermentationbymicrobes.MethaneandN2Oemissionsarereleasedfromnitrification/denitrificationofmanureandurine.Directemissionsrepresent49percentoftheemissionsfromlivestocksystems(FAO,2013).Indirectemissionsrefertoemissionsassociatedwithactivitiessuchasfeedproduction(CO2andN2O),manure storageandapplication (N20 andCH4), productionof fertilizer for feedproduction (CO2), andprocessingandtransportationoffeed,animals,andlivestockproducts(CO2).Theseemissionsrepresent41percentofthelivestockemissions.

Additional indirectemissions includeemissions from landuseand landuse change linked to livestockproduction.Theseemissionsareassociatedwithdeforestation(i.e.,conversionofforesttopastureandcropland for livestock purposes), desertification (i.e., degradation of above ground vegetation fromlivestockgrazing),andreleaseofCfromcultivatedsoils(i.e.,lossofsoilorganiccarbon(SOC)viatilling,and natural processes). FAO estimates livestock induced land use change for feed production to beresponsibleforalmost10percentoftotallivestockemissions(FAO,2013).

Globally, there is more carbon in soil than in terrestrial plants and the atmosphere combined.Grasslandsarethelargestterrestrialcarbonsink,occupyingabout70percentoftheglobalagriculturalareaandareestimatedtocontainglobally343billiontonnesofcarbon,nearly50percentmorethanisstored in forests worldwide (FAO, 2010). The large area under grasslands implies that even smallincrementsofchange insoilcarbonstocks ingrasslandcanhaveasignificant impactonglobalcarbonbalance(Sacksetal.,2014).Ingrazinglandssoilcarbonstocksaresusceptibletolossuponconversiontootherlandusesorfollowingactivitiesthatleadtodegradation,suchasovergrazing.Emissionsfromcattledominatelivestock-relatedemissions,contributingaround65percentofthetotal.Buffaloesandsmall ruminantsadda further9percentand7percent respectively, so inall ruminants

5

accountforover80%oftotallivestockrelatedclimateimpacts,mostsignificantlyviaentericmethane–whicharehighest,perunitofmilkormeat,ingrazingsystems(FAO,2013).

Emission intensities (i.e.emissionsperunitofproduct)vary fromcommodity tocommodity.Theyarehighest forbeef (almost300kgCO2-eqperkilogramofproteinproduced), followedbymeatandmilkfrom small ruminants (165 and 112kg CO2-eq.kg, respectively). Cowmilk, chicken products and porkhave lower global average emission intensities (below 100 CO2-eq/kg protein). Current livestockproduction systems operate at very different levels of efficiency. As a result, emissions per unit ofproduct,oremissionintensities,canvarysubstantiallywithinsystems.Forexample,emissionintensitiesforbeefvaryfrom100to490kgCO2-eq/kgprotein(FAO,2013).

Regional and country emission profiles for livestock vary widely. Differences are explained by therespectivesharesofruminantsormonogastricsintotallivestockproduction,andbylevelsoftechnologyandemissionintensities.LatinAmericaandtheCaribbeanhavethehighestleveloflivestockemissions(almost 1.3 Gt CO2 eq.) due to the importance of beef. Although at a reduced pace in recent years,ongoinglandusechangecontributestohighCO2emissionsintheregion,duetotheexpansionofbothpasture and cropland for feed production. With the highest livestock production and relatively highemissionintensitiesforitsbeefandpork,EastAsiahasthesecondhighestamountoflivestockemissions(morethan1GtCO2eq.).NorthAmericaandWesternEuropeshowsimilarGHGemissiontotals (over0.6GtCO2eq.)andalsofairlysimilarlevelsofproteinoutput.However,emissionpatternsaredifferent.In North America, almost two-thirds of emissions originate from beef production, which has highemission intensities. In contrast, beef inWestern Europemainly comes from dairy herds withmuchloweremission intensities. InNorthAmerica,emission intensities forchicken,porkandmilkare lowerthaninWesternEuropebecausetheregiongenerallyreliesonfeedwithloweremissionintensity.SouthAsia’stotalsectoremissionsareatthesamelevelasNorthAmericaandWesternEuropebutitsproteinproductionishalfwhatisproducedinthoseareas.Ruminantscontributealargeshareduetotheirhighemissionintensity.Forthesamereason,emissionsinsub-SaharanAfricaarelarge,despitealowproteinoutput(FAO,2013).

Climate changeposesa serious threat to livestock systems,although themagnitudeof the impacts isuncertain because of the complex interactions and feedback processes in the ecosystem and theeconomy.Shiftsinclimaticconditionsareaffectinglivestockproductioninseveralways(Rojas-Downingetal.,2017). Temperatureincreases;shifts inrainfalldistributionandincreasedfrequencyofextremeweather events are expected to adversely affect livestock production and productivity in mostlocations.1 This can occur directly through increased heat stress and reduced water availability, andindirectlythroughreducedfeedandfodderqualityandavailability(Chapmanetal.,2012;Polleyetal.,2013;Thorntonetal.,2009),increaseddiseasepressure(Lacetera,2019),andcompetitionforresourceswith other sectors (FAO, 2010; Thornton et al. 2009; Thornton and Gerber, 2010; Thornton 2010;Nardoneetal.,2010).

While the effects of climate change on livestock are diverse, more serious impacts are expected ingrazingsystems,duetotheirdirectdependenceonambientconditionsaffectedbyclimatechange,andtheir limited adaptation options (Aydinalp and Cresser, 2008 Thornton et al, 2009). Impacts areexpected to be most severe in arid and semi-arid grazing systems at low latitudes, where highertemperatures and lower rainfall are expected to reduce rangeland yields and increase degradation(Hoffman and Vogel, 2008). Predicted changes in climate and weather are likely to result in more

1Theremayalsobepositiveimpactsfromwarmtemperaturesathigherlatitudesthoughreductionsincoldstressforanimalsraisedoutside,andthroughreductionsinwinterheatingcostsinconfinedsystems(FAO,2009).

6

variablepastureproductivityandquality,increasedlivestockheatstress,greaterpestandweedeffects,more frequent and longer droughts, more intense rainfall events, and greater risks of soil erosion(Stokesetal.2010).Climatechangemayalsoimpactgrazingsystemsbyalteringspeciescompositioninmixed swards. For example, warming favours tropical (C4) species over temperate (C3) species, withassociatedchanges inpasturequality (Howdenetal. 2008).Augustineetal. (2018) report that short-grass prairie grass in the United States when grown in-situ under CO2 enrichment and warming,increased in net primary production but declined inmetabolizable energy and protein concentration.WhiletheabsolutemagnitudeofthedeclineinenergyandnitrogenduetocombinedwarmingandCO2enrichmentisrelativelysmall,suchshiftscanhavesubstantialconsequencesforruminantgrowthratesduring the primary growing season in the largest remaining rangeland ecosystem in North America(Augustineetal.,2018).

Incontrast, thedirect impactsofclimatechangearemore limitedonnon-grazingsystems,asanimalsarehousedinbuildingsthatallowgreatercontroloverambientconditions(ThorntonandGerber2010;FAO2010).Indirectimpactsfromlowercropyields,feedscarcityandhigherfeedandenergypricesarenonethelessimportantinthesesystemsaswell.

Withinthesebroadtrends,therewillbelargelocalvariations,astheimpactsofclimatechangearelikelytobehighlyspatiallyspecific.

The impact of climate change on livestock production is further compounded by the vulnerability oflivestock keepers, who are often poor. In some situations livestock keeping is itself an adaptationstrategy. Even though climate changepresents great adaptation challenges for livestock, it could alsoelevate the importance of livestock, given the greater capacity for livestock to cope with increasedclimate variability compared to cropping. Jones and Thornton (2009) predict that climate change andvariabilityislikelytoinduceshiftsfromcroppingtoincreaseddependenceonlivestockinAfrica.

Adoptionofmanagementchangesforlongertermadaptationiscurrentlylimitedbyuncertaintyaboutthe local impacts of climate change, and limited information on the best response strategies forprofitablefarmingenterprises.Researchisneededtobetterunderstandthedirectandindirecteffectsofclimatechangeonanimalproductionsystemsfordevelopmentofregionallyapplicable, longertermadaptationstrategies(Garnaut,2011;FAOandIPCC,2017).

WaterUseWater usage for the livestock sector should be considered an integral part of water resourcemanagement,consideringthetypeofproductionsystem(e.g.grassland-based,mixedcrop–livestockorlandless) and scale (intensive or extensive), the species and breeds of livestock, and the social andculturalaspectsoflivestockfarmingindifferentcountries(Schlink,NguyenandViljoen,2010).

Consumptivewater use in livestock is generally divided into two categories: (1) drinking and processwater–directbluewateruse;and(2)wateruseforproductionoffeed,fodderandgrazing–blue(i.e.,irrigation)andgreen(i.e.,rainfall)wateruse2.Livestockproductionrequireshighamountsofwater,thevastmajorityofwhichcomesfromindirectwateruse.Deutschetal.(2010)estimatethatthelivestocksectorusesanequivalentof11900km³offreshwaterannually,thatisapproximately10percentoftheannual global water flows (estimated at 111000km³). Weindl et al. (2017) estimate that for 2010,2290km3ofgreenwaterand370km3ofbluewaterwereattributedtofeedproductiononcropland.

2Bluewater represents surfaceandgroundwater,whereasgreenwater representswater lost fromtheunsaturatedzoneofsoilsbyevaporationandtranspirationfromplantsderiveddirectlyfromrainfall(Falkenmark,2003).Greywater,atheoreticalestimate of the amount of water necessary to dilute pollutants, varies widely depending on the pollutant (e.g., nitrate,syntheticorganicchemicals)andthethresholdsselectedfortheirconcentrations.

7

Daily water requirements of livestock vary significantly between animal species, and within herds,differentiated by the animal's size and growth stage. Consumption rates can be affected byenvironmental andmanagement factors, such as air temperature, relative humidity,metabolism andlevel of production. The quality of the water, which includes temperature, salinity and impuritiesaffectingtasteandodour,alsohasaneffect.Further,thewatercontentoftheanimal'sdietinfluencesitsdrinkingwaterneeds.Feedwitharelativelyhighmoisturecontentdecreasesthequantityofdrinkingwaterrequired.Forexample,dependingontheirlevelofmilkproduction,dairycowsdrinkbetween68-155litresofwaterperday(OMAFRA,2015),whileswinedrinkbetween2.6-22litresperday(Meehanetal., 2015), small ruminantsdrinkbetween2-12 litresperday (DAF, 2014), andpoultrydrinkbetween0.05-0.77litresperday.

Apart from drinking water for livestock, water is used to grow and process feed, and for processingoutputintomarketableproducts.Gerbens-Leenesetal.(2013)findthatonaverage,thewaterfootprintof concentrates (1000 m3 tonne-1; global average) is five times larger than the water footprint ofroughages(grass,cropresiduesandfoddercrops;200m3tonne-1).Asroughagesaremainlyrain-fedandcrops for concentrates are often irrigated and fertilized, the blue and grey water footprints ofconcentrateswerefoundtobe43and61timesthatofroughages,respectively.

Thedifferenceinwaterrequirementshasanimpactonthetotalwateruseforaspecificproductrelyingonthegrainfromaparticularregion.Onekilogramofgrainusedinlivestockfeedrequiresabout1000to 2000 kg of water if the feed is grown in the Netherlands or Canada. The same grain, however,requires approximately 3000 to 5000 kg of water if grown in arid countries like Egypt or Israel(ChapagainandHoekstra,2003).

Inadditiontoeffectsonquantityused,loadingofnutrients,pesticides,andantibiotics(Chee-Sanfordetal. 2009) used in agriculture have negative effects onwater quality andpose public health issues forhumans. Phosphorous and nitrogen fertilizer pollution in particular is notorious for producing algalbloomsandanoxicdeadzonesinbothfreshwaterandcoastalmarinesystems,whichkillfishandreducethepalatability of drinkingwater for human consumption. Globally, there areover 400 coastal deadzones–upfrom49inthe1960s–andtheseareexpandingattherateof10percentperdecade(DiazandRosenberg,2008).Anadditional115sitesintheBalticSeawereaddedtothelistin2011(Conleyetal.2011).IntheUnitedStatesalone,agricultureisestimatedtoaccountforaround60percentofriverpollution,30percentoflakepollutionand15percentofestuarineandcoastalpollutionin2010(OECD,2012;2013).

NutrientuseandcyclinginlivestocksystemsLivestockhaveapositiveroleinbalancedagriculturalsystemsinthattheycanprovidealargepartofthenutrients for plant production. The increasing use of synthetic fertilizer has played a major role inincreasingthesupplyoffoodnecessarytosupportarapidlygrowinghumanpopulation,andforallowinga higher share of livestock products in human diets. These gains in human nutrition are howeveraccompaniedbylargernutrientloadsenteringtheenvironmentandsubsequentdegradation.Leakagesfromnutrientuseinagriculturearelarge,causingnotonlyenvironmentaldamagebutalsopublichealthimpacts.

Today, nutrients are used inefficiently in most agri-food systems – resulting in enormous andunnecessary losses to the environment, with impacts ranging from air and water pollution to theunderminingofimportantecosystems(andservices)aswellasthelivelihoodstheysupport.

Animals requirespecificnutrients in thecorrectamountandcomposition tooptimizeproductivity.Allnutrient elements are taken up via feed and water ingested. The amounts taken up depend on the

8

nutrient element, animal type, body mass, productivity, and management. Feeding regimes areformulatedwithasafetymarginbyincreasingtheconcentrationsofnutrientsbeyondthoseneededtomeetrequirements.Suchoverfeedingresults inexcretionofexcessivenutrients.Alargepercentageofthenutrientelementsconsumedinthefeedisexcretedviadungandurine(typicallybetween60%and>90%ofthenutrientspresentinfeed,dependingonanimalspecies,feedcomposition,productivityandmanagement(Liuetal.,2017).Mineralsupplements(e.g.Cu,Zn,Se,Ca,Mg)areofferedtoanimalstoboostproductivityandimprovehealth.Thissupplementationofanimalfeedsalsoenhancesthenutrientcontentinanimalmanure,andhencethefertilizationvalueoftheanimalmanure.However,excessivesupplementationcanalsomakemanureapollutant.

Livestocksystemsarehighlydiverseintheirnutrientmanagement.Ingrazingsystems,mostofthedungandurineisdepositedonpasturesandnutrientsarethusrecycled,buttherecyclingofNandPisoftenlowduetothespatiallyunevendistributionofmanure.Inmixedcrop–livestockfarms,therecyclinganduse of manure nutrients greatly depends on the management of manure, manure managementtechnology,availabilityofsyntheticssubstitutesandregulations.Recyclingofmanurenutrientsdifficultin large industrialproductionsystemswithreducedaccessto landformanureapplication,resulting innutrientloadingandpollution.

Animal manure is a large source of organic carbon and nutrients, and important for improving soilquality and the fertilization of crops. Returning manure to land is one of the oldest examples of acirculareconomy.FAOestimatesthatabout70percentofthenitrogeningestedisreturnedto landinthe form of animal manure. While this figure seems impressive, much of the recycled nutrients isimprecisely applied resulting inunbalanced fertilization. Inaddition,notall nutrients areavailable foruptakebyplantsandthereforelosttotheenvironment.

Furthermore, inappropriate collection, storage and subsequent application of manure to croplandcontributetohighlossesofmanurenutrientstoairandwaterbodies.ManureNandParenoteffectivelyusedincropproductiondueto:(1)theoftenincompletecollectionandinappropriatestorageofmanurefromhousedanimals,with largevolatilizationand leaching losses; (2) thepoor timingandmethodofmanureapplication;and(3)therelativelylowpricesofchemicalfertilizers.

The specialization and geographic concentration of livestock production since the second half of the20th century has resulted in the spatial decoupling of crop and animal production, and limited theopportunities for the utilization of nutrients in animal manure (Naylor et al., 2008). Areas with highanimaldensityproduceexcessvolumesofnutrients in relationto localcapacityof landtoabsorbthisload.Tradeinfeednotonlyresultsintheconcentrationofexcessivenutrientsbutalsointhedepletionof soil nutrients in some countries. As a result,manure nutrients are often not utilized efficiently. Incontrasttothenutrientoversupplyinsomepartsoftheworld(NorthAmerica,Europe,SouthAsia,EastAsia), thereremainvastareas,notably inAfricaandLatinAmerica,whereharvestingwithoutexternalnutrientinputs(nutrientmining)hasledtolanddegradationanddepletionofsoilfertility(Smalingetal.1997;Sanchez,2002).

Nitrogen plays an important role in animal production because it is essential for the production ofanimaltissues,suchasmeat,milk,eggsorwool.Theglobalefficiencyofnitrogeninlivestocksystemsislow. Corresponding values for nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) are 5-30 percent for meat and dairyproducts () compared to 45-75 percent for plant commodities () (Westhoek et al., 2015). Ninety-sixmillion tonnes3 of nitrogen are excreted by livestock annually; equivalent to about 80 percent of theglobalN fertilizerdemand. Nitrogen is lost throughemissionsofammonia (NH3),nitrousoxide (N2O),

3Source:FAO’sGlobalLivestockEnvironmentalAssessmentModel–GLEAMVersion2.0

9

andnitricoxide(NO).NH3contributestoeutrophicationandacidificationwhenredepositedontheland.NOplaysaroleintroposphericozonechemistry,andN2Oisapotentgreenhousegas.

UnlikeN, themajor concern over P is thepotential pollution of surfacewater. Excess P in the soil isconverted into water-insoluble forms, which then attach to soil particles and can erode into lakes,streams, and rivers. Erosion of soil particles containing P compounds into surface waters stimulatesgrowthof algaeandotheraquaticplants. The resultingdecomposition following such increasedplantgrowthdiminishestheoxygeninthewater,creatinganenvironmentthatisunsuitableforfishandotheranimals,i.e.eutrophication.ConfinedanimaloperationsandexcessfertilizationareconsideredtobethemajorsourcesofPenteringwaterbodies.Incerealgrainsandoilseedmealsthatmakeupthebulkofnon-ruminantdiets,twothirdsofPisorganicallyboundintheformofphytate.ThisformofPislargelyunavailabletomonogastricanimals.Therefore,inorganicPisaddedtodiets,usuallyinexcess,tomeetthePrequirementofmonogastricanimals,leadingtoexcessPexcretion(Denbowetal.1995;Humeretal.,2015).TheefficiencyofdietaryPutilizationPisrelativelylow(20–27%)(Ferketetal.2002).

Trace elements are essential dietary components for livestock species. However, they also exhibit astrong toxic potential.When supplemented in doses above the animal requirements, trace elementsaccumulateinmanureandrepresentapotentialthreattotheenvironment.Ofparticularimportanceinthisregardisthefeedingpracticeofpharmacologicalzinc(Zn)andcopper(Cu)dosesforthepurposeofperformanceenhancementinpig,poultry,anddairycattle.Pigsexcreteapproximately80–95percentofCu and Zn dietary supplements (Brumm 1998) producing metal-enriched manures (Jondreville etal.2003).Adverseenvironmental effects include impairmentof plantproduction, accumulation in edibleanimalproductsandthewatersupplychainaswellasthecorrelationbetweenincreasedtraceelementloadsandantimicrobialresistance(BruggerandWindisch,2015).BiodiversityThelivestocksectoraffectsbiodiversityinmultiplewaysatthelevelofspeciesandecosystems,aswellasagorbiodiversity.Directimpactsoccurthroughgrazingandtrampling,changingvegetativecoverandnaturalhabitats.Indirectimpactsresultfromlivestockincludelandclearingforconversiontopasturesorarable land for feedoralterationofnutrient flows. Livestocksystemscandrive thedestructionofundisturbedhabitatsinbiodiversityhotspots,suchasintheconversionofprimaryforesttopasturesorsoybeanintheBrazilianAmazon(Nepstadetal.,2009).

In grasslands, the relationship between biodiversity and stocking density often follows a Gaussianfunction,withthehighestbiodiversity levelsfoundatmoderatestockingdensitieswherelivestockcanplaythesameroleaswildherbivores(suchasbisoninNorthAmerica,Collinsetal.,1996)inpromotingplantspeciesrichnessandmaintainingahigh-qualitygrasslandhabitatforothertaxa.Thetwoendsofthe stocking density gradient can result in biodiversity loss: abandonment because it leads to shrubencroachmentandthelossofgrasslandspeciesandoverstockingasitleadstolanddegradation(Asneretal.,2004).IntheUnitedStates,rangelandssupplyforagesthatsupportaround10%oftheruminants’needs, and with adequate livestock management they promote biodiversity conservation but alsoprovideotherecosystemservices -carbonsequestrationandwaterprovision inparticular (Havstadetal.,2007). Grazingungulatesplaysakeyecologicalrole ingrasslands,andcancontributepositivelytonumerous ecosystem services. Grazing management and is often geared towards multiple goals,including vegetation management to reduce wildfire fuel loads, control of invasive weeds, maintaingrassland habitat for sensitive species, support a diverse plant community structure, increase carbonsequestration, regulate beneficial nutrient cycling, control encroaching brush species and enhancewildlifehabitat(DeRamusetal.2003).

10

In tropical environments, the replacement of complex forest habitats by pasture has also led to highbiodiversitylossandhabitatdestruction.Inthesecases,biodiversityconservationandrecoveryrequireacombinationofforestpatchesandhighertreecover(Gardneretal.,2009;KremerandMerenlender,2018).

Through livestock’scontributiontoGHGemissions (Gerberetal.,2013), livestock indirectlycontributeto biodiversity loss caused by climate change – the second yet increasingly important driver ofbiodiversitylossafterhabitatchange(Leadleyetal.,2010).Nutrientpollutionistheothermaindriverofindirect impacts of livestock on biodiversity; it reduces species richness through eutrophication,acidification, direct foliar impacts, and exacerbation of other stresses (Diseet al2011, Bobbinketal2010).AstrikingexampleincludesnutrientrunofffromgrazingsystemsintheNortheasterncoastofAustraliahavinganimpactoncoralsintheGreatBarrierReef(AustralianGovernment,2014).Nutrientpollutionalsooccursat the stageof feedproduction. For instance,nutrient loading in theMississippidue to fertilizeruse in thecentralUScroplands (mainlyusedasanimal feed)has causedhypoxiaand‘deadzones’inthecoastalecosystem(Donner,2007).

At the level of agro-biodiversity,more than 8800 livestock breeds have been recorded globally; theyunderpinthecapacityoflivestocktoprovidediverseproductsandservicesacrossdiverseenvironments.Theproportionoflivestockbreedsatriskofextinctionincreasedfrom15to17percentbetween2005and 2014 (FAO, 2015). Nearly 100 livestock breedsworldwide disappeared between 2000 and 2014.Europe/CaucasusandNorthAmericaarethetworegionswiththehighestproportionofat-riskbreeds.Both regions are characterizedby highly specialized livestock systems that rely on a small number ofbreedsforproduction.IntheUS,outof284reportedbreedsoflivestock,110areatriskofextinction.Themaindriversoflossofanimalgeneticresourcesincludecross-breeding,changingmarketdemands,weaknessesinanimalgeneticresourcesmanagementprograms,policiesandinstitutions,degradationofnaturalresources,climatechangeanddiseaseepidemics.Animalgeneticresourcesareessentialtocopewithclimatechange,diseasesandchangingmarkets.

1. InnovationstoenhancesustainabilityoflivestocksystemsDespitesubstantialprogressmade,today’sagri-foodsystemsfallshortofmeetingpeople’snutritional,environmental and socio-economic needs. Billions of people are still poorly nourished, millions oflivestock producers live at subsistence level, enormous amounts of food go to waste and poorproduction practices are taking a toll on the environment and natural resource base. Innovations intechnology–aswellasinpolicy,financing,andbusinessmodels–areessentialtorealizingasustainablelivestocksector.

Globallivestockproductionhasalreadybenefittedfromawiderangeofinnovations.Advancesinanimalnutritionandhealth,improvedgenetics,plantbreeding,useoffertilizersandcropprotectionchemicals,mechanizationandthemorerecentadditionofbiotechnologyaresomeexamples.

Innovation will be the fundamental engine of long-term growth and is crucial to enabling emergingeconomies to grow sustainably. Examples of new technologies include advanced precision livestockproduction technologies;digitalizationanddataenableddifferentiation technologiese.g.bigdata, theInternetof Things (IoT), artificial intelligenceand roboticsandblock-chain; anddevelopmentofnovelproducts.

Newtechnologyisnotonlyaboutimprovingefficiency–itisalsohelpingmakeahugedifferencetothehealthandwell-beingofanimals.Anexampleofanintegratedprecisionlivestockfarmingframeworkis

11

the IOF20204. This EuropeanUnion funded project is using sensors to collect and link real-time farmdata of individual animals/animal groups to data from slaughter plants with the intent to providefarmers with feedback on their management strategies and help to optimize animal well-being andproductionprofits.Thesenewtechnologiesarealsotransforminghowinnovationsarebeingconceptualized,designedandcommercializedand,moregenerally,howbusinessesoperate.Technologyisalsobecomingincreasinglyconnected,andmergingwithotherdisciplinese.g.engineeringandbiology.Biologyandbiotechnologyoffer potential to improve the efficiency of food production from livestock; to reduce environmentalimpactperunit foodproduced; to reduce the impactofdisease; improveanimalwelfare; toenhanceproductqualityandnutritionalvalue,andtosafeguardhumanhealth.Innovativewaystoprotect,treatandtendtotheanimalsmeansthefieldofanimalhealthisnowevolvingtoparalleladvancesinhumancare.Forexample,theOneHealthInitiative5advocatesforcollaborationbetweenmedicaldisciplinestolinkhuman,animalandenvironmentalhealth.

It is important to recognize that addressing the challenges outlined above requires changes andinnovations beyond the agri-food food system.Within the technology area, advances in big data andanalytics,block-chain,mobileservices,IoTandbiotechnologies,amongothers,areallchangingthewayfood is produced, distributed and consumed. Beyond the development of new technology solutions,innovation encompasses social innovation: new economic and business models, new policy andgovernanceapproaches.Finally,innovationinthefoodsystemcantouchdiversepartsofthevaluechain(on-farmproductionorretail),differentproductionsectors(crops,livestock,fisheries,forestry),productcategories(crops,meat,dairy,etc.),ormultiplebenefitareas(nutrition,livelihoods,biodiversity,soilorwaterquality,etc.).

Innovationsthatimprovetheefficiencyoflivestocksystems

Onepotentialsolutionistomakelivestocksystemsincrementallymoreproductiveandmoreefficientin resource use. In many parts of the world, technological innovations have transformed livestocksystemsandhavehelpedtodeliverconsiderableimprovementsinlivestockproductivity.Forexample,in theUSA, dairy cows produce four timesmoremilk than 75 years ago (Capper et al., 2009). Thisincreased productivity is attributed to improved genetics, advanced technology, and bettermanagement practices, including advanced breeding innovations (artificial insemination, embryotransplants, and sexed semen) (Khanal and Gillespie, 2013). Blayney (2002) cites technologicalinnovationssubstitutionofmachineryandequipment(capitalinputs)forlaborincreasedtheefficiencyofproduction);changesinthemilkproductionsystem,andspecializationasthemainunderlyingforcesthatshapedthedirectionandmagnitudeofmilkproductionintheUSA.

However, there is a large yield gap between actual and potential productivity in many livestocksystems,andproductivityisstillstubbornlylowinlargepartsofsub-SaharanAfrica,LatinAmericaandSouth Asia. High income countries already enjoy the benefits of past innovations that have sharplyincreasedproductionandresourceefficiency.Newandemergingtechnologiescouldallowthemtogoevenfurther,whilelowandmiddleincomecountriescould“leapfrog”tohighlyproductive,low-carbonproductionsystems.With technologiessuchasgenomesequencing, semensexing,optimizedanimaldiets, animal health technologies (e.g. improved diagnostics and genomics applied to vaccinedevelopment)andembryotransfer,scienceandtechnologycouldfurtherspurproductivitygrowth.

4InternetofFoodandFarm2020:https://www.iof2020.eu/trials/meat5 OneHealthInitiative:http://www.onehealthinitiative.com/

12

Farmers and agricultural companies are increasingly using ‘smart farming’ solutions to enhanceefficiency, productivity and decision making. Such technologies not only aid the monitoring andmanagement of production, but also generate large volumes of data that can be gathered, analyzed,andinterpretedtoinformcriticalfarmingdecisions.

Technologiesofprecision livestock farming (PLF)havethepotential tocontributetothewidergoalofmeeting the increasing demand for foodwhilst ensuring the sustainability of production, based on amorepreciseandresourceefficientapproachtoproductionmanagement–inessence‘producingmorewithless’.WithdigitaltechnologiessuchBigDataand‘theInternetofThings’,newopportunitieshaveopenedfortheadvancementofprecisionfarmingtechniques.TheimportanceofPLFisgrowingglobally,asevidencedbycurrentagriculturalresearchagendas intheEU(EuropeanCommission,2018)andUS(NationalAcademiesofSciences,EngineeringandMedicine,2018).

PLFemergedfromtheneedtoinformfarmersmoreregularlyandinmoredetailonthehealth,welfareand productivity of their animals and to help themmake quick and evidence-based decisions on theanimals' needs (Norton and Berckmans, 2018). It is a management system for livestock throughcontinuousautomatedreal-timemonitoringofproductionandreproduction,health,animalwelfareandenvironmental impact. Farm processes suitable for precision livestock production include animalgrowth,milkandeggproduction,detectionandmonitoringofdiseasesandaspects related toanimalbehavior and the physical environment such as the thermal micro-environment and emissions ofgaseouspollutants.AdvancedprecisionmanagementtechnologiesthatcombineIT-basedmanagementsystems,andreal-timedatamonitoring,bigdataanalyticsandadvancedroboticscouldallowfarmerstoapply the optimal amount of inputs for each animal and crop and assist with the management oflivestock, thereby boosting yields and reducing resource use andwaste including GHG emissions.Bytrackinginputs,suchasfeed,waterandenergy,thesetechnologiesallowfarmerstomonitorresources,as well as the health, welfare and performance of their animals (Berckmans, 2014; Bell andTzimiropoulos,2018).

Livestockfarmersinhighincomecountrieshavebeenearlyadoptersoftechnologiessuchasrobotics,andrapidadvancesarebeingmadeineverythingfromautomaticmilking,tofeederstoherderbots,designedtoactlikeroboticshepherds.Thetake-upisarelativelysmallpercentageatthemoment,butan EU foresight studypredicts that around50percent of European cowswill bemilkedby robots by2025 (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2016) This technology is more than labor saving:automated milking robots enable cows to be milked according to their individual biorhythms,improving theirhealthandyield.At thesametime, robotscapturevastamountsof information.Allthisdigitaldatacanbeusedtoprovidethefarmerwithanoverviewofthehealthofawholeherdaswellasspecificinformationforindividualanimals.

Supporting this is better nutrition, improving an animal’s conversion of feed into protein. Addingnaturalenzymesandorganicacidsincreasesthedigestibilityoffeeds,enablinganimalstodrawmorenutrition from a greater variety of poorer plants. A growing understanding of animals’ precisenutritional needs is producing feeds tailored to optimize the provision of energy, protein, andvitaminswhile improvingoverallwellbeing—better yields andhealthier herds. Precision feeding canbe a highly effective tool in enabling a reduction of feed intake per animal while also maximizingindividualgrowthrates.Themonitoringofthegrowingherdwheremeasurementofgrowthinrealtimeisimportanttoprovideproducerswithfeedconversionandgrowthrates.Itenablestheprovisionoftheright amount of feed, in the right nutrient composition, at the right time, and for each animalindividually(WhiteandCapper,2014).

Maintenanceofhealthwillbeoneofthebiggestchallengesforefficientlivestockproductioninthenextfewdecades.Thetrajectoryofintensificationoflivestocksystemsraisesproductivitybutcanalsohave

13

adverse effects on animal health and welfare, and may increase the risk of rapid and far-reachingdiseaseoutbreaks.Tomeetthecurrentandemergingchallengesofdiseasesurveillance,diagnosticsandcontrol,earlydiseasedetectionandresponseareimperative.Thisinvolvestheabilitytoperformrapiddiagnosisonthefarmitself.ThroughICTandtheIoT,moreperformance-relateddatacanbecollectedfrom the animals, for example through cameras and image recognition software, sensors, as well asweightorsoundmonitoring.Inaddition,datafromlivestockfacilitiescanalsohelptoimproveanimalhealth, for example through climate, air quality and ventilation monitoring. An example is the“IndividualPigCare”amanagementtoolforpigfarmers,basedonenhancingthedirectobservationofthepigs inthenursery-growingphase,toallowearlydetectionofhealthproblemsandthereforehavethe necessary information to effect a rapid response to them (Pineiro et al., 2014). In addition, newsystems for datamonitoring for feed andwater consumption can be used for the early detection ofinfections (Shi et al., 2019). Acoustic sensors can detect an increase in coughing of pigs and calves(Carpentieretal.,2018)asanindicatorofrespiratoryinfection.

While PLF potentially brings new information or data sources for enhanced farm level monitoring,awareness, and decision making, adoption by the farmer is reliant on the perceived benefits andinvestment needed, which may be influenced by the production system i.e., high versus low inputsystem.

Increasing production efficiency is essential to sustain socio-economic progress in a world of finiteresources and ecosystem capacity, but it is not sufficient. The aggregate impactwill depend on howproductivitygrowthwillbemet.There isgrowingevidencethat it ispossibletoreducestocknumbersandthusreduceGHGemissions,whilemaintainingorimprovingprofitability.Theflipsidetoefficiencygainsisasfarmersreduceemissionsbybecomingmoreefficienttheywillbetemptedtoincreaseanimalnumbers to make more profit. If animal numbers keep increasing, there is little room for loweringemissions.Moreanimalsmeanmorefeed,moreland,nutrientsandemissions.Thesetypesoffeedbackeffects suggest that there is a need to look beyond isolated efficiency improvements and insteadaddressinanintegratedway.

InnovationstoenhancenaturalresourcestocksWhile efficient production remains necessary to reduce GHG emissions and other environmentalimpacts,itisnotsufficienttorealizeanabsolutereductioninthenaturalresourcedemandsoflivestockproduction.Naturalandmanagedecosystemsneedtobeharnessedascarbonsinkstooffsetemissionsthrough the potential offered by regenerative grazing. It includes strategies to regenerate the soil’snatural vigorandmicrobial capacity to sequester carbonandnitrogen.Regenerativegrazingpracticescanbeapplied insilvo-pastoral,agroforestryorpasture-basedsystems.Practices includemanagementof grazing to stimulate biomass growth andoverall pasture and grazingproductivity,while increasingsoil fertility,biodiversityand soil carbonsequestration.Grassland recovery canoffera solution to thegrowingpressureonlandandslowdownagriculturalexpansionintoforestsandothernaturalhabitats.Vegetative cover can increase, building carbon stocks both above ground and in the soil. Restoringgrasslandsalsoprotectsecosystems,improvingtheirresiliencetoachangingclimate.

The PLF approach has the potential to bring the benefits ofmonitoring and control of nutrition andhealthnormallyassociatedwithintensivesystemstorangelandsystems.Throughtechnologiessuchasuse of bioacoustics (virtual fences, sensors) or drones, the concept of precision farming has beenintroduced to grazing systems (Rutter, 2014; Elischer et al., 2013). Drones are increasingly used tomonitor the health andproductivity of both animals and the land they graze. Able to operate overvastareasofdifficultterrain,adronefittedwithinfraredsensorsandmulti-spectrum,high-definitioncamerascansendreal-timeimagesofherdsandflocks.Thiscanhelpfarmerstoquicklyandeasilyfind

14

lostanimals,identifynewborns,anddiagnosesicknessinherdsandindividualanimals.Equally,dronescanshowtheconditionofpasture,informingdecisionsonmovinganimalsforfood,water,orsafety.

Notallimprovementsarehigh-tech.Forexamplesilvopastoralsystemsdonotnecessarilyrequirelargecapital investments, but relatively large investments in labour and knowledge. Silvopastoral systemsdefinedastheintentionalintegrationoflivestock,trees,shrubsandgrassesonthesamelandunit(Joseet al. 2017) allow the intensification of cattle production based on natural processes, and promotebeneficial ecological interactions thatmanifest themselves as increased yield per unit area, improvedresource use efficiency and enhanced provision of environmental services. Globally, the main SPSinclude live fences,windbreaks, scattered trees in pasturelands,managed plant successions, cut-and-carry systems, tree plantations with livestock grazing, pastures between tree alleys and intensivesilvopastoral systems (ISPS) (Murgueitioand Ibrahim2008;Murgueitioetal.2011,Charáetal.2019).Businesses are leveraging regenerative livestock systems, as the sourcing of rawmaterials has thepotentialtobeagamechanger,e.g.leatherandfibersupplychainsthatcomefromgrazingsystems,suchaswoolandcashmerearegaininggroundinthefashionindustry.

InnovationsthatintegratelivestockinthecirculareconomyLivestock systemsplay amajor role in foodandnutrition securitybyprovidingprotein-rich foodwithhigh nutritional quality, by valorizing landscape and resources that cannot be otherwise used.Transforming livestock systems towards more sustainability is a crucial objective which requiresfosteringtheagro-ecological,socialandeconomicservicesprovidedbythelivestocksector.

Institutionalandtechnologicalinnovationinthefoodsystemcanplayanimportantroleinhelpingbuildthe circular bio-economy, a concept for integrated production and consumption systems that userenewable biological resources to produce food and feed, materials and energy. Circularity may beachieved by managing flows of nutrients and energy at various scales: within farms, atlandscape/regionallevel,withinthefoodsystem,andatglobalscale.Itisessentialtoexploresolutionsthatimproveefficiencyofresourcesandlandusebyreconnectinglivestockandplantproduction,makeuseoflocalproteinsources,implementrecyclingapproachestomakeuseofbiomassandunusedland,make use of by-products that are unfit for human consumption and develop new alternative feedsources.

Value chains also stand to benefit from innovations – improved collaboration, efficient supply chainsand enhanced traceability could dramatically improve food systems outcomes. The integration orcouplingofvaluechainscanfacilitatetheexchange,useandre-useofbiomassfeedstocksforlivestockproduction.Thevalorizationofwastestreamsofonesupplychaincanbetherawmaterialsforanother.Inthisscenario,animalswouldbefedfromfoodwaste,by-productsfromagro-industrialorbioenergyplants.This reduces theneed fornewresourcesandtheassociatedemissions.Addressing foodwasteandfoodlossatthefarmandconsumer levelsoffersopportunitiesforbio-innovationtocontributetomore circular models; for example, the safe and efficient conversion of post-harvest losses andbyproducts from farming and processing as a renewable energy source for fertilization or otherapplicationsisawin-winsituationforfarmersandtheenvironment.InJapan,theFoodWasteRecyclingLawallowed the Japanese food industry to reduce, reuse,andrecycleanaverageof82percentof itsfoodwaste in2010.Methane,oilandfatproducts,carbonizedfuels,andethanolaccountedforsevenpercent,fertilizerfor17percent,andanimalfeedfor76percent—thelatterbeingtheprimaryrecyclingfinalproductbyfar.Akeydriverbehindthegovernment’spromotionoffoodwasterecyclinghasbeenthe country’s high dependency on imports of feed and livestock, and the underlying scarcity of landresources.Japan’sself-sufficiencyoffeedforlivestockwasaslowas26percentin2011.WiththeBasicPlan for Food,Agriculture, andRuralAreas, the Japanese government set theobjectiveof rising feed

15

self-sufficiency to 38 percent by 2020 through the production of eco-feed via the implementation ofrecyclingloops(Marr,2013).

Circularitycanbebuiltontraceability,greatly facilitatedbymanytransformativetechnologies.RecentadvancesinIoTsensorsandnetworks,robotics,mobilecomputing,andhardwarearemakingitpossibletohavedata collection innewways thatwerenotpossiblebefore (Djedouboum,2018). Thismakes itpossible to collect and digitize food data, which can then be passed along to other actors across thesupplychain.Forexample,sensorsandblockchaintechnologywill improvesupplychaintransparency,further reducing food waste and loss while preventing tampering, counterfeiting, and mislabeling.Traceability can create improved supply-chain visibility to deliver food production transparency toconsumers, reduce fraud, improve food safety, increase supply-chain efficiency and reduce food lossandwaste. Further, this visibility couldmake itpossible to captureandcalculateexternalitiesof foodsystemstosupportsustainabilitygoalsandhelpempowerproducersbylinkingthemtomarkets.

InnovationsinanimalproductsubstitutesWithgrowingawarenessofenvironmental,animalwelfareandhealthissues,consumersareincreasinglyseekingalternativestoconventionalanimalproducts.Growingvoices(forexample,Willettetal.2019)arecallingforarethinkofourentirediet—limitingoreveneliminatingsomeanimalprotein,creatingmore sustainable versions of others, and starting to eat things that not everyone currently considersedible.Alternativeproteins thatcanactassubstitutes for traditionalanimal-basedfoodareattractingconsiderable financial investment, researchattentionandconsumer interestasapathway tomeetingthenutritionalneedsandfooddemands.

Alternativestotypicallyconsumedanimalproteinproductscomefromavarietyofsources.Therehasbeen a surge of recent innovation involving new purely plant‑based alternatives, products based oninsectsandothernovelproteinsources,andtheapplicationofcutting‑edgebiotechnologytodevelopculturedmeat.MostconsumerinterestandinvestmentinalternativeproteinsiscurrentlyinEuropeandNorthAmerica. AccordingtoaFAIRRInitiativereport(FAIRR,2018)annualglobalsalesofplant-basedmeatalternativeshavegrownonaverage8percentayearsince2010..Europeisthelargestmarketformeatsubstitutes,accountingfor39percentofglobalsales,with8percentannualgrowthratesintheEUandflatconsumptionfortraditionalmeatproducts.Plant-basedproducts,suchassoyandalmondmilksubstitute,nowmakeup10percentoftheoveralldairymarket,whileanimal-baseddairyproductshavestagnated.Worldwide sales of plant-based dairy alternatives more than doubled between 2009 and2015to$21billion.

Innovation is occurring across this spectrum from novel recipes and marketing to increase thedesirabilityoftheless-processedvegetablealternatives,throughadvancesinfoodprocessing,tohighlysophisticatedbiotechnologythatcombinesproductsfrommultipleplantsourcestocreateproductsthatenableconsumerstocontinueexperiencingthe‘sensorypleasures’ofconventionalmeat,dairyandeggproducts.

Althoughtraditionallyconsumedinmanycountries,therearedifferingopinionsonhowreadilyinsectswill be welcomed by consumers. Aside from human consumption, insects could provide a valuablealternativesourceofanimalfeedandfreeupplant-basedfoodsforhumanuse.Insectproteinsareusedbyagrowingnumberofcompanies inEuropeandNorthAmerica inproducts forhumanconsumptionandinanimalfeed(Verbekeetal.2014).

One of the most radical possibilities for meeting future demand is cellular agriculture – growinganimal-basedproteinproductsfromcellsinsteadofanimals.Itis‘biologicallyequivalent’(Stephenset

16

al., 2018) to meat but not harvested from a living animal. Culturing meat involves biotechnologicalprocessesborrowedfromregenerativemedicineandaimstoscaleuptheseapproachestomanufacturemeat through cellular and tissue culture, termed ‘cellular agriculture’ (Post, 2012). It is argued thatgrowingmeatinlabswouldreducetheneedforfeed,water,andmedicineswhilefreeingupvaluableagricultural land. The science and the economics are still being worked out, but it could make avaluablecontributiontomeetingthechallenge,sincethedemandformeatisprojectedtocontinuetogrow(FAO,2018).

Alternative proteins are still in an early stage of adoption and understanding and may come withancillary implicationsthatrequireasystemsperspective:there isaneedtoaccountfortrade-offsandexternalities associated with this shift. For example, Lynch and Pierrehumbert (2019) argue that itsclimaticimpactdependontheprovisionofdecarbonizedenergyandinsomecasescouldbeevenhigherthanthatofbeefproduction.Westhoeketal. (2014)showthattheeffectsonthe livestocksectorwillmostlikelybesevere,especiallyifconsumerpreferenceschangerapidly.Finally,thehealthimplicationsofthenovelprocessesandingredientsusedinsomeoftheseproductsarenotyetwellunderstood.Toachievea levelof impact,consumeracceptancewillbevital.Alternativeproteinswillneedtobecomecommercially available at prices equal to or lower than other proteins and with equal or betternutritionalcontent,tasteandtexture.Regulationsandincentiveswillbeintegraltoensurethatfeedandfoodaresafeforconsumption.

These examples illustrate the impact that innovative technologies could have on food systems.However,transformingfoodsystemsrequiresinterventionsthatgobeyondtechnologyinnovation.Forexample, creatingnewandboldpolicies thataddress the truecostsof food systems,establishing theinfrastructure and investment that allows technology innovations to thrive, influencing consumerbehaviors,buildingtrustandtransparency,andcollaboratingacrosssectorsandvaluechainsisrequired.

2. Synergiesandtrade-offsAddressing the challenges faced by the sector requires an evaluation of synergies and trade-offsbetweendifferentsustainabilitydomains(foodandnutritionsecurity,livelihoodsandeconomicgrowth,animal health and welfare, natural resources and climate) and within the domain itself. Specificsustainabilityoutcomesareoften interlinkedwithotheroutcomes, leadingtotrade-offs.Forexample,nutritional benefits from the consumption of animal products comewith resource costs or emissionsFurthermore, different stakeholder groups are affected in differentways depending onwhat specificsolutionsandoutcomesarebeingpursued.Evenapparentactionsthataregenerallyacceptedsuchasthereductionoffoodwasteandlossesmayimplysomeformoftrade-offs.Forexample,settingupcoldstoragefacilitiesforcertainproductsinlowincome countries is often presented as an obviousway to improve product conservation and reducefood waste and losses (Parry, James, and LeRoux, 2015). Yet, such a solution has an environmentalimpact.Anysustainable foodsystemthinkingshouldnotonly focusonenhancingandbuildinguponpotentialsynergiesbutalsobeconsciousofthepresenceoftrade-offs.

WithindomaintradeoffsandsynergiesGloballytheongoingtransition inthe livestocksectorhasbeenawayfromextensivesystemsthatrelyonbiomassfromrangelandsandgrasslandsandtowardsmoreintensivesystemsthataremorereliantoncropproductionforfeed(FAO,2006;DavisandD’Odorico,2015).Thisshiftreflectstheacceleratedgrowth in the production of monogastrics (e.g., chickens and pigs) compared to ruminants, and theincreasing role of international trade and, as a result, has substantially modified themagnitude andgeographyofnaturalresourcedemandsofthelivestocksector(Nayloretal.,2005).Increasingreliance

17

onconcentratefeedhasmeantthatthevolumeofirrigationwaterandamountoffertilizerapplicationperunitofanimalproducthavesteadilyrisen(Davisetal.,2015).Atthesametime,thetransitionfromgrassland-based to feedlot-based finishing systems is associated with increased environmental costs,suchastheincreaseinsoilandwatercontaminationriskandinbiodiversityloss.Theintensificationofcattleproductionthroughfeedlotshasalsoledtospecializationoffarmingsystemsinwhichthebenefitsofanimal-crop-grasslandinteractionsthatarethemechanismsforerosioncontrol,carbonandnitrogencycling,regulationofpestsanddiseases,andbiodiversityconservation,arelost.Atthesametime,theshift away from extensive ruminant systems has meant reductions in the land requirements andgreenhouse gas emissions per unit of animal product. This intensification of the sector has alsopresentedbenefitsforprotectingbiodiversitythrough‘landsparing’,therebyreducingtheexpansionofagricultural frontiers (Phalan et al., 2011) – though the conversion of natural systems to pasturescontinuestooccursincertainregions(e.g.,theBraziliancerrado)(Spera,2017).Inaddition,thegrowingdemandforirrigationtosupportfeedproductionhasledtosubstantialimpactsonenvironmentalflows(Richter et al., 2019). Globalization and the growing importance of trade have also meant that theresourcedemandsofproductionare increasinglydisplacedalong livestock supply chains (Gallowayetal., 2007), so that, for instance, rising pork demand in China is met by soybeans produced with thenaturalresourcesofSouthAmerica(Dalinetal.,2012;Carretal.,2013).Thispresentsopportunitiesforbetter aligning places of production with areas of resource abundance but can also engenderunsustainableresourceuse.Thesetradeoffsbetweennaturalresourcesaretheresultofdifferingresourceuseefficienciesbetweenproductsaswellasbetweensystemsofproduction.Acrossenvironmentalefficiencies for land,water,fertilizer,andGHGemissions intheUS,beefproduction issubstantially lessefficientthanothermajorlivestockproducts(i.e.,chicken,pork,eggs,anddairy)(Esheletal.,2014)–apatternwhichholdstrueacross industrialproductionsystems ingeneral (ClarkandTilman,2017)but is lesswellunderstood inextensivesystems.Withinbeefproduction,forexample,grass-fedsystemstendtorequire lessenergythan grain-fed systems but producemore GHGs and requiremore land and nutrient inputs per unitoutput(ClarkandTilman,2017).Duetoavarietyoffactorsincludingfeeduse,productionsystem,andlocation, there isalsosubstantial inter-regionalvariation in the resourceuseefficienciesandemissionintensitiesofdifferentanimalproducts.Forinstance,thenon-CO2GHGemissionintensities(kgCO2eq.kgprotein-1)ofruminantproductioninEuropeandNorthAmericacanbeseveralordersofmagnitudelowerthaninmuchofsub-SaharanAfrica(Herreroetal.,2013).Inthecaseofwater,thevastmajority(90%)ofvariationinproductivityisattributabletofeedproduction(Pedenetal.,2007).Whilethisrangein intensitieshighlights theexistingresourceuse inefficiencies inmanysystems, italsopoints to largeopportunities for reducing or eliminating tradeoffs between different environmental outcomes.Solutionsformitigatingpressuresonlandmustbebasedonsustainablemanagementpracticesthatwillbedifferentacrossproductionsystems(Greenetal.,2005).Forinstance,inintensivesystemsbasedonexternalfeed,thebeststrategymaybetoreducenegativeexternalities(pollution,GHGemissions)whileincreasing efficiency to achieve high output levels and sparing land for nature. On the contrary,extensivesystemsmayhavetheopportunitytomaximizebenefitstoandfromecosystems;sustainablemanagement practices could result in higher levels of biodiversity that could also boost biomassproductionandcarbonsequestration.

AcrossdomaintradeoffsandsynergiesAhostoftradeoffsandsynergiesalsoexistbetweenthenaturalresourceuseofthelivestocksectorandotherkeydomains.

18

It is essential that innovations to reduce natural resource use and greenhouse gas emissions fromlivestocksystemsaccountfortheimplicationsonfoodandnutritionsecurity,especiallygiventheglobalprevalenceof irondeficiency anemia andother deficiency diseases that canpotentially be addressedthrough increasedconsumptionofanimalproducts.Efforts to improvetheefficiencyandresilienceoflivestockcanleadtoenhancedand/orstabilizedyieldsandtherebyincreasenutritionsecurityforlocalcommunities (Capper and Bauman, 2013). This can be complemented by interventions to minimizelossesandwastealonglivestocksupplychainsandtominimizethelossofembeddednaturalresources(e.g.,Kummuetal.,2012).Ongoingtransitionsinlivestockproduction(fromruminantstomonogastrics)canalsoproduceco-benefitsforreducingGHGemissionsandresourcedemandsfromthesectorandforloweringincidenceofnon-communicablediseasesassociatedwithoverconsumptionofanimalproducts–particularly indevelopedcountries (Davisetal.,2016;Springmannetal.,2018;Willettetal.,2019).However, livestock systems that depend heavily on concentrate feedmay increase competitionwithother demands (e.g., direct human consumption, biofuels), thereby affecting prices and andaffordability.Inaddition,adecliningemphasisonruminantscanalsoreduceoneofthekeybenefitsofthese systems, that of converting large amounts of human-inedible biomass into protein and energywhich people can eat (White and Hall, 2017). Thus, emerging efforts to better integrate crop andlivestock systems through rotating land use offer promise for realizing benefits related to foodproduction, farmer livelihoods, and avoided forest clearing and emissions from land use change(Nepstadetal.,2019).

Effortstoreducenaturalresourcedemandandimproveefficiencycanalsoproducetradeoffswithorco-benefits for animal health and welfare. Improving the dietary quality of ruminants can reduce GHGemissions per animal while also enhancing yields and improving animal health (Gerber et al., 2013).Becausethemostefficientsystemsareoftenindustrialinscale,theseoperationsfaceuniquechallengesin terms of animal welfare (Cronin et al., 2014; Shields and Orme-Evans 2015; Nordquist, 2017). Inaddition,breedingforproductivityandefficiencyalonehasbeenshowntoreducefertilityandgeneralhealth in certain cases (Lawrence et al., 2004) and to lead to higher overall health costs (Thornton,2010).Improvingthelongevityofanimalscanalsoreduceemissions,asthiswouldlowerthefrequencywithwhich resources are required to support a replacement animal (Shields andOrme-Evans, 2015).Intensivefarmingposesmanythreatstoanimalwelfare.Thisisparticularlytrueinthecaseofthekindofpigproductionwhere largenumbersofanimalsarekept indoorsallyear round inbarren,concreteflooredhousesandinunnatural,denselystockedsocialgroups.Theseissuesareexacerbatedbygeneticselectionforfastgrowthrate,leannessandlargelittersizeswhichplacespigsunderintensemetabolicpressure. More extensive systems also face heightened exposure to certain diseases, as ecosystemchangeanddeforestationarekeyproximatedriversofdiseasedynamicsinlivestock(Perryetal.,2013).Efforts to prevent land conversion for pasture and tominimize emissions from land use change cantherefore be made complimentary to animal health and may help in reducing incidence of certainanimaldiseases.

Avarietyofinterventionsandbestmanagementpracticesarealsoavailabletosimultaneouslyimprovelivelihoods and achieve environmental goals. Efforts at sustainable intensification can promotemoreefficientresourceuse, improvesoilhealth,avoidtheconversionofnaturalsystemstoagriculture,andenhanceanimalproductivityandfarmerincomes(McDermottetal.,2010).Nutrientrecyclingbetweencropandlivestockproduction(e.g.,cropresiduesforfodder)canreduceadditionalinputrequirementsand feed costs. For instance,manure is a key input for enhancing soil nutrients – particularly in sub-

19

SaharanAfricawhereaccesstosyntheticfertilizersremainslow(Herreroetal.,2009)–andoffersclearbenefitsforboostingyieldsandforimprovingtheincomesofsmallholders.Technologieslikeanaerobicdigesterscanalsobeusedtoproducebiogasfrommanuretohelpmeeton-farmenergyneeds,therebyreducing both GHG emissions and costs (Gerber et al., 2013). Other innovations such as automaticmilkingcanreducelaborcostswhileenhancingproductivityandresourceuseefficiency.Therearealsomoredirectpolicy leverssuchaspaymentsforecosystemservicesto increasecarbonsequestration inrangelands,enhanceecosystemservices,andaidinthediversificationofpastoralistincomes(Herreroetal.,2009).Researchhasalsoconsideredhowenvironmentalandpoliticaleconomiccontexts(includingpolicy responses toenvironmentalchange) intersect toshapeoutcomes inproductionssystems.Forexample,droughtandconcernsforwaterqualityandriverhealthhaveledtopoliciesinAustraliathatrestrict water usage on irrigated dairy farms, resulting in altered livelihood strategies and genderrelationsthat—togetherwiththeimpactsofclimatechange—havereducedfarmproductivity(Alstonetal.2017).

20

3. ImplicationsforpolicyFinding solutions to provide safe and nutritious food to nearly 10 billion people by 2050 withoutdestroyingourplanet isoneof thegreatestchallenges.The livestocksectorparticularly inmiddleandlowincomeregionsisstilldecadesbehindintermsoftechnology,policyandbusinessmodelinnovation.Itlagsfarbehindothersectorsinattractinginvestmentandfinance.Itisrarelynearthetopofprioritiesforpolicymakers.Yetitsimpactonthewellbeingofpeopleandthenaturalenvironmentisunrivaled.

Decades of increasing productivity and efficiency in the livestock sector have led to pressures on thenaturalenvironmentattheexpenseofwaterandsoilquality,biodiversity,ecosystemservicesandtheclimate ‒ among others. To prevent further depletion and over exploitation of natural resources, asystem change is necessary. Such a futurewill not be possiblewithout policy and regulation reform,accounting for externalities, new business model innovation, infrastructure development, massiveconsumer behavior changes and technology innovation. Most investments in innovative technologyapplications are currently concentrated in developed regions, highlighting both the risk of unequalaccess to new technologies but at the same time presents opportunities formiddle and low incomeregionsiftheycanbeeffectivelyscaled.

Policy tools can influence thebehavior of food systemactors by impacting on supply anddemand inmultiple ways. Supply-side policy instruments act upon producers, processors and distributors byaltering the conditions that determine prices and quantities supplied. The role of demand-sideinstruments is largely under-exploredwithin sustainable food policy. Demand-side policy instrumentsaffecttheconditionsofdemand.Forinstance,taxesonsaturatedfatareaimedatalteringrelativepricesamongfooditems;nutritionallabellingaimsatorientingconsumers’choice.

Regulation(standardsandregulatoryinstruments,voluntaryguidelines,bestpractices)Regulatorypolicies thatcurbharmfulpracticescould triggermajorshifts in theway food isproduced,handled,purchasedandconsumedand,subsequently,driveinnovation.Suchmechanismsandrulescaninclude hard governance tools (government policy and regulation), soft-governance tools (standards,guidelines,norms,codesofconduct).Directregulationisappliedtopermit,prohibitorregulatetheuseof given production or commercial practices or products. Examples of direct regulation in the foodsystemare:regulationonuseofpesticides,fertilizers,feedadditives,growthhormones,antibiotics,etc.Animportantcomponentofdirectregulationarestandards,technicalguidelinesappliedtoagriculturalproduction(fore.g.theNitratesDirectiveoftheEU6wherememberstatesshouldguaranteethatannualapplicationofnitratesbyanimalmanureatthefarmleveldoesnotexceed170kg/ha)andprocessing(asinthecaseofqualityschemesorinthecaseoflevelsofcontaminantsinfood).

Thedevelopmentandintegrationofrecommendationsthatpromotespecificfoodpracticesandchoiceshave been an obvious strategy for addressing sustainability, mainly in its nutrition and environmentdimensions. For example, in 2016, the Chinese health ministry released new dietary guidelines thatrecommend that the nation’s 1.3 billion population should consume less meat. In particular, theyintroducedadownward revisionof the lowerendof its recommendedmeatconsumption range.Thisimplied a maximum annual per capita meat consumption of 27 kg, which is 45% below the 2013consumptionfigureof49.7kgpercapita.Theguidelines,whicharereleasedonceeverytenyears,aredesigned to improve public health. However the reduction in meat consumption could also help to

6 TheEUNitratesDirectivehttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/nitrates.pdf

21

significantly reduce China’s environmental footprint. The recent changes to the government’s dietaryguidelinesaresignificant,especiallygiventhebroaderculturalcontextsurroundingmeatconsumptionandtheexpectedgrowthinmeatconsumptioninChina.

The adoption of standards and their communication to usersmay imply labelling and/or certificationschemes.Standardscanbemandatory(inthiscaseallhavetoadoptthem)orvoluntary(inwhichcasetheadoptionisrewardedbybenefitssuchasimprovedreputationoraspecificpayment).

Market-basedInstrumentsMarketfailureforgoodsandservicesprovidedbynaturalresourcesisoneofthemainreasonsbehindtheir unsustainable use and degradation currently being experienced. The traditional response tomarketfailuresforpublicgoodshasbeentoprovidethegoodthroughthepublicsectorandplacelimitsontheamountsused. Intermsofthedifferentcategoriesofmarket-basedsolutions,fourmajortypescan be taken into account: taxes; tradable permits; market barrier reductions; payment forenvironmentalservices,andsubsidies(Stavins2003).Market based instruments are increasingly discussed in thepolitical debateover future strategies fornatural resourcemanagement. Forexample, food taxationmeasureshavebeen introduced in severalcountries to reduce the consumption of unhealthy food. Fats, sugars, salt are the targets of thesepolicies. Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, and Mexico have such taxes (Sautet, 2014). Severalgovernmentsaroundtheworldhavealreadybeguntoconsidertaxesorotherregulatoryactiononmeatordairy insomeform.Meattaxesarealreadyontheagenda inDenmark,SwedenandGermany,andalthough no proposals have advanced into actual legislation (FAIRR, 2017). Taxation is expected toimpact on consumption levels in relation to thewillingness to pay for a food product. However it isuncleartowhatextenttaxesshiftfoodbehaviour.Consumersarenotsolelymotivatedbyprice,sotheseimpactswillalwaysbedifficulttomeasure.Otherexamples includepollutiontaxes,wateruser fees,wastewaterdischargefees,etc.Forexample,theChinesegovernment introducednewtaxon larger farms to restoredamagedwaterways:The tax,introducedbytheChineseMinistryofEnvironmentalProtectionbrought inanewchargeofRMB1.40($0.20)peranimalforlargerfarms.Theaimofthetaxprimarilyistoreducewastewateremissionsandgenerate revenue to clean up the country’s polluted waterways. In May 2017, Germany’s FederalEnvironmentAgencyproposedraisingtaxesonanimalproductssuchasliversausages,eggsandcheesefromsevento19%forenvironmentalreasons.Theincreaseinthepriceofanimalfoodsduetoapplyingthe full rate of value-added tax could motivate consumers to reduce their consumption of animalproducts and replace themwith vegetable products. The proposed tax rise is designed to offset theimpactofthesectoronclimatechangethroughhighmethaneemissions(GermanFederalEnvironmentAgency,2014).Environmental subsidiesand incentives (includinggreenpurchasing)arewidelyusedandeffective forsupporting the development and more rapid diffusion of new technologies and adoption of bestmanagementpractices.Incentivesmustbeputinplacethatlinktheadoptionofbestpracticestocredit,taxandotherfiscalincentives.Lessemphasisshouldbeplacedonprovisionofsubsidizedinputs.Tradable rights or permits can be exchanged among producers or landowners for the use of a givenresource,usuallyafterregulationshaveconstrainedfullpotentialuse.Paymentsforecosystemservices(PES)policiescompensateindividualsorcommunitiesforundertakingactionsthatincreasetheprovisionofecosystemservicessuchascarbonsequestration,waterpurificationorfloodmitigation.PESschemesrelyonincentivestoinducebehavioralchange,andcanthusbeconsideredpartofthebroaderclassofincentiveormarket-basedmechanisms forenvironmentalpolicy (Jacketal., 2008).Pappagallo (2018)

22

outlines the risks and opportunities of operationalizing PES as a tool for sustainable rangelandmanagementandecosystemserviceprovision.Awarenessandeducation(ofgeneralpublic,consumers,farmers,etc.)Sustainability objectives may be reached by ensuring that consumers and producers are betterinformed. This type of policy instrument includes information and publicity campaigns, training,guidelines, disclosure requirements. Policy instruments focused on information and education aim tochangebehaviourbymakingmore information available to allow consumers tomakemore informeddecisions. Themain tools for the provision of information and education are information campaigns,education and point-of-purchasing information (labels). Labelling rules for example regulate theinformationonfoodlabelstoconsumers.Itestablishesinformation,regulatesoptionalinformationandsetsterminology.Labellingrulescanbeanimportantfoodpolicytoolsinceitcandisplayinformationontheoriginoftheproduct,onmethodsofproductionandonthenutritionalcontentoffood.

PolicyprocessesandstakeholdersForpolicies tobesuccessful theyneedtobe inclusive (Steinfeldetal.,2006).Topromotefuture foodsecurity andhealth, an integrated, systematicpolicy response involvingall levelsof government, plusfood industry and civil society, is needed across the entire food system. Stakeholders will need toengage in a dialogue on how best to accelerate the sustainability agenda, including identifyingtechnologies to be scaled, enabling innovations in policy and business models and determininggeographiesandmarketswherepilotscanbedesignedandimplemented.

Everystakeholdercanplayaroleinrealizingthispotential.Governmentscandeliverinfrastructureandinnovative policy. The livestock industry can collaborate to open newmarkets, business models anddevelopnewproducts.Forgovernmentstounlockprivatesectorinvestmenttheyneedtounderstandhowmarketsandcorporateinvestmentstrategiescanbeincentivizedtodeliverresultsconsistentwithsought after sustainability goals. Scaling technologies, however, requires more than just providingsupport to technology development and innovation. Support structures need to be put in place toenableproducerstoadoptthenewtechnologies.PublicInvestmentinbasicagriculturalandtechnologyinfrastructure(roads,storageandbroadbandorconnectivity,respectively)isimportant.

Growing consumer awareness, NGO campaigns and multi-stakeholder round-tables are pressing forstricter standards around expanding agriculture. Examples include commodity round table multi-stakeholder initiativessuchastheRoundTableonResponsibleSoy(RTRS),andGlobalRoundtableforSustainableBeef(GRSB)seekingtoinfluenceforestconversionbyapplyingsustainabilityprinciplesandlinking producers with other actors in the supply chain. For example, the Brazilian Amazon cattleagreementshavehelpedtochangethesourcingbehaviorofmeatpackers towards farmsthatcomplywith regulations against deforestation. These platforms demonstrate how public-private partnershipscanaddresstheinterfacebetweenlivestockandnaturalresources.

23

ReferenceList

Alston,M.,J.Clarke,andK.Whittenbury.2017.Genderrelations,livelihoodstrategies,waterpoliciesandstructuraladjustmentintheAustraliandairyindustry.SociologiaRuralis57:752–768.

Asner,G.P.,Elmore,A.J.,Olander,L.P.,Martin,R.E.&Harris,A.T.2004.GrazingSystems,EcosystemResponses,andGlobalChange.AnnualReviewofEnvironmentandResources,29:261–299.

AustralianGovernment,QueenslandGovernment.2014.GreatBarrierReefReportCard2014.

Bell,M.andTzimiropoulos,G.(2018).NovelMonitoringSystemstoObtainDairyCattlePhenotypesAssociatedWithSustainableProduction.FrontiersinSustainableFoodSystems.

Brugger,D.andWindisch,WM.(2015).Environmentalresponsibilitiesoflivestockfeedingusingtracemineralsupplements,AnimalNutrition(2015),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2015.08.005

Capper,JL.,andBauman,DE.(2013).Theroleofproductivityinimprovingtheenvironmentalsustainabilityofruminantproductionsystems.AnnRevAnimalBiosci1,469-489.

Carr,JA.,D’Odorico,P.,Laio,F.,andRidolfi,L.(2013).Recenthistoryandgeographyofvirtualwatertrade.PLoSONE8,e55825.

Cattaneo,A.(2008).Regionalcomparativeadvantage,locationofagriculture,anddeforestationinBrazilJ.Sustain.Forest.2725-42

Chee-Sanford,JC,Mackie,RI,Koike,S,Krapac,IG,Lin,Y-F,Yannarell,AC,Maxwell,S&Aminov,RI2009,FateandTransportofAntibioticResiduesandAntibioticResistanceGenesfollowingLandApplicationofManureWaste'JournalofEnvironmentalQuality,vol.38,no.3,pp.1086-1108.https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0128

ClarkM,TilmanD(2017)Comparativeanalysisofenvironmentalimpactsofagriculturalproductionsystems,agriculturalinputefficiency,andfoodchoice.EnvironResLett12,064016.

Collins,S.L.,Knapp,A.K.,Briggs,J.M.,Blair,J.M.,&Steinauer,E.M.1998.Modulationofdiversitybygrazingandmowinginnativetallgrassprairie.Science,280:745-747.

Conley,D.J.,J.Carstensen,J.Aigars,P.Axe,E.Bonsdorff,T.Eremina,B.-M.Haahti,C.Humborg,P.Jonsson,J.Kotta,C.La¨nnegren,U.Larsson,A.Maximov,M.R.Medina,E.Lysiak-Pastuszak,N.Remeikaite_-Nikiene_,J.Walve,S.Wilhelms,andL.Zille´n.2011.HypoxiaisincreasinginthecoastalzoneoftheBalticSea.EnvironmentalScienceandTechnology45:6777–83.10.1071/SR17031.

Cronin,G.,Rault,J,L.&Glatz,P.(2014).Lessonslearnedfrompastexperiencewithintensivelivestockmanagementsystems.10.20506/rst.33.1.2256.

DalinC,KonarM,HanasakiN,RinaldoA,IgnacioRodriguez-IturbeI(2012)Evolutionoftheglobalvirtualwatertradenetwork.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA109,5989-5994.

DavisKF,D’OdoricoP(2015)Livestockintensificationandtheinfluenceofdietarychange:Acalorie-basedassessmentofcompetitionforcropproduction.ScienceoftheTotalEnvironment538:817–823.

24

DavisKF,GephartJA,EmeryK,LeachA,GallowayJN,D’OdoricoP(2016)Meetingfuturefooddemandwithcurrentagriculturalresources.GlobEnvironChange39,125-132.

DeRamus,H.A.,T.C.Clement,D.D.Giampola,andP.C.Dickison.2003.Methaneemissionsofbeefcattleonforages:efficiencyofgrazingmanagementsystems.JournalofEnvironmentalQuality32:269-277.

DernerJD,BriskeDDandBouttonTW(1997)Doesgrazingmediatesoilcarbonandnitrogenaccumulationbeneathc4,perennialgrassesalonganenvironmentalgradient?PlantandSoil191,147-156.

Djedouboum,AssideC.;AbbaAri,AdoA.;Gueroui,AbdelhakM.;Mohamadou,Alidou;Aliouat,Zibouda.(2018)."BigDataCollectioninLarge-ScaleWirelessSensorNetworks."Sensors18,no.12:4474.

Donner,S.D.2007.Surforturf:AshiftfromfeedtofoodcultivationcouldreducenutrientfluxtotheGulfofMexico.GlobalEnvironmentalChange,17:105–113.

DrosJM2004ManagingtheSoyBoom:TwoScenariosofSoyProductionExpansioninSouthAmerica(Amsterdam:AIDEnvironment-WWF)pp1-65

EshelG,SheponA,MakovT,MiloR(2014)Land,irrigationwater,greenhousegas,andreactivenitrogenburdensofmeat,eggs,anddairyproductionintheUnitedStates.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA111,11996–12001

FAO.2015.TheSecondReportontheStateoftheWorld’sAnimalGeneticResourcesforFoodandAgriculture,editedbyB.D.Scherf&D.Pilling.FAOCommissiononGeneticResourcesforFoodandAgricultureAssessments.Rome.

FAOandIPCC(2017).FAO-IPCCExpertMeetingonClimateChange,LandUseandFoodSecurity:FinalMeetingReport;January23-25,2017FAOHQRome.FAOandIPCC,2017.

FearnsidePM2005DeforestationinBrazilianAmazonia:history,ratesandconsequencesConserv.Biol.19680–8

GallowayJN,BurkeM,BradfordGE,NaylorR,FalconW,ChapagainAK,GaskellJC,McCulloughE,MooneyHA,OlesonKL,SteinfeldH,WassenaarT,SmilV(2007)Internationaltradeinmeat:thetipoftheporkchop.Ambio36,622-629.

GardenerT.,BarlowJ.,ChazdonR.,EwersR.,HarveyC.,PeresC.,SodhiN.2009.Prospectsoftropicalforestbiodiversityinahuman-modifiedworld.EcologyLetters12:561-582.

GerberPJ,SteinfeldH,HendersonB,MottetA,OpioC,DijkmanJ,FalcucciA,TempioG(2013)Tacklingclimatechangethroughlivestock–Aglobalassessmentofemissionsandmitigationopportunities(Rome,FAO).

Gerber,P.,Steinfeld,H.,Henderson,B.,Mottet,A.,Opio,C.,Dijkman,J.,Falcucci,A.&Tempio,G.(2013)TacklingClimateChangethroughLivestock:AGlobalAssessmentofEmissionsandMitigationOpportunities.FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,Rome.

Green,R.E.,Cornell,S.J.,Scharlemann,J.P.,&Balmford,A.(2005).Farmingandthefateofwildnature.science,307(5709),550-555.

25

H.W.Polley,D.D.Briske,J.A.Morgan,K.Wolter,D.W.Bailey,J.R.Brown(2013).ClimatechangeandNorthAmericanrangelands:trends,projections,andimplicationsRangelandEcol.Manage.,66(2013),pp.493-511

Havstad,K.M.,Peters,D.P.,Skaggs,R.,Brown,J.,Bestelmeyer,B.,Fredrickson,E.,&Wright,J.(2007).EcologicalservicestoandfromrangelandsoftheUnitedStates.EcologicalEconomics,64(2),261-268.

HerreroM,PetrHavlíkP,ValinH,AnNotenbaertA,RufinoMC,ThorntonPK,BlümmelM,WeissF,GraceD,ObersteinerM(2013)Biomassuse,production,feedefficiencies,andgreenhousegasemissionsfromgloballivestocksystems.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA110,20888–20893.

HerreroM,ThorntonPK,GerberP,ReidRS(2009)Livestock,livelihoodsandtheenvironment:understandingthetrade-offs.CurrOpinEnvironSust1,111–120.

Humer,E.,Schwarz,C.,Schedle,K.(2015).Phytateinpigandpoultrynutrition.JAnimPhysiolAnimNutr(Berl).2015Aug;99(4):605-25.

JackBK,KouskyC,SimsKR.Designingpaymentsforecosystemservices:Lessonsfrompreviousexperiencewithincentive-basedmechanisms.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA.2008;105(28):9465–9470.doi:10.1073/pnas.0705503104

Janzen,H.H.2010.Whatplaceforlivestockonare-greeningearth?AnimalFeedScienceandTechnology166-167:783-796.

Khanal,A.R.andGillespie,J.(2013).Adoptionandproductivityofbreedingtechnologies:EvidencefromUSdairyfarms.AgBioForum.

KrausmannF,ErbK-H,GingrichS,LaukC,HaberlH.(2008).Globalpatternsofsocioeconomicbiomassflowsintheyear2000:Acomprehensiveassessmentofsupply,consumptionandconstraints.EcolEcon.2008;65:471–487.

KremenC.,MerendlenderA.Landscapesthatworkforbiodiversityandpeople.Science362,eaau6020.

KummuM,deMoelH,PorkkaM,SiebertS,VarisO,WardPJ(2012)Lostfood,wastedresources:globalfoodsupplychainlossesandtheirimpactsonfreshwater,cropland,andfertiliseruse.SciTotEnviron438,477-489.

Lacetera,N.(2019)Impactofclimatechangeonanimalhealthandwelfare,AnimalFrontiers,Volume9,Issue1,January2019,Pages26–31,https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy030

LawrenceAB,ConingtonJ,SimmG(2004)Breedingandanimalwelfare:practicalandtheoreticaladvantagesofmulti-traitselection.AnimWelfare13,S191–S196.

Le,Q.B.,Nkonya,E.,Mirzabaev,A.(2014).Biomassproductivity-basedmappingofgloballanddegradationhotspots.ZEF-DiscussionPapersonDevelopmentPolicyNo.193.UniversityofBonn.

Leadley,P.,Pereira,H.M.,Alkemade,R.,Fernandez-Manjarres,J.F.,Proenca,V.,Scharlemann,J.P.W.etal.(2010).Biodiversityscenarios:projectionsof21stcenturychangeinbiodiversityandassociatedecosystemservices.In:SecretariatoftheConventiononBiologicalDiversity(ed.DiversitySotCoB).PublishedbytheSecretariatoftheConventiononBiologicalDiversity,Montreal,p.1–132.TechnicalSeriesno.50.

26

Liu,Q.,Wang,J.,Bai,Z.,Ma,L.Z.,&Oenema,O.(2017).Globalanimalproductionandnitrogenandphosphorusflows.

LynchJ.andPierrehumbertR.(2019)Climateimpactsofculturedmeatandbeefcattle.Front.Sustain.FoodSyst.3:5.doi:10.3389/fsufs.2019.0000

McDermottJJ,StaalSJ,FreemanHA,HerreroM,VandeSteegJA(2010)Sustainingintensificationofsmallholderlivestocksystemsinthetropics.LivestockScience130,95-109.

Mottet,A.,deHaan,C.,Falcucci,A.,Tempio,G.,Opio,C.,&Gerber,P.(2017).Livestock:Onourplatesoreatingatourtable?Anewanalysisofthefeed/fooddebate.GlobalFoodSecurity,14,1-8.

Nabuurs,G.J.(2004).Currentconsequencesofpastactions:howtoseparatedirectfromindirect.InC.B.Field&M.R.Raupach(Eds.),Theglobalcarboncycle(pp.317–326).

Nardone,AB.Ronchi,N.Lacetera,M.S.Ranieri,U.Bernabucci.(2010).Effectsofclimatechangeonanimalproductionandsustainabilityoflivestocksystems,Livest.Sci.,130pp.57-69

NationalAcademiesofSciences,Engineering,andMedicine(2016)Nutrientrequirementsofbeefcattle(NationalAcademyPress,Washington,D.C.).

NationalResearchCouncil(2001)Nutrientrequirementsofdairycattle(NationalAcademiesPress,Washington,D.C.).

NaylorR,SteinfeldH,FalconW,GallowayJ,SmilV,BradfordE,AlderJ,MooneyH(2005)Losingthelinksbetweenlivestockandland.Science310,1621-1622

NepstadD,SticklerCMandAlmeidaOT2006GlobalizationoftheAmazonsoyandbeefindustries:opportunitiesforconservation.Conserv.Biol.201595–603

NepstadLS,GerberJS,HillJD,DiasLCP,CostaMH,WestPC(2019)PathwaysforrecentCerradosoybeanexpansion:extendingthesoymoratoriumandimplementingintegratedcroplivestocksystemswithsoybeans.EnvironResLett14,044029.

Nordquist,R.E.,vanderStaay,F.J.,vanEerdenburg,F.J.,Velkers,F.C.,Fijn,L.,&Arndt,S.S.(2017).MutilatingProcedures,ManagementPractices,andHousingConditionsThatMayAffecttheWelfareofFarmAnimals:ImplicationsforWelfareResearch.

P.K.Thornton,J.VandeSteeg,A.Notenbaert,M.Herrrero(2009).Theimpactsofclimatechangeonlivestockandlivestocksystemsindevelopingcountries:AreviewofwhatweknowandwhatweneedtoknowAgric.Syst.,101(2009),pp.113-127

Parry,A.,James,K.,&LeRoux,S.(2015).Strategiestoachieveeconomicandenvironmentalgainsbyreducingfoodwaste.

PedenD,TadesseG,MisraAK,AwadAmedF,AstatkeA,AyalnehW,HerreroM,KiwuwaG,KumsaT,MatiBetal.:Chapter13.Livestockandwaterforhumandevelopment.InWaterforFood,WaterforLife:AComprehensiveAssessmentofWaterManagementinAgriculture.EditedbyMoldenD.Earthscan/IWMI;2007:485-514.

PerryBD,GraceD,SonesK(2013)Currentdriversandfuturedirectionsofgloballivestockdiseasedynamics.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA110,20871-20877.

27

Phalan,B.,Onial,M.,Balmford,A.,andGreen,R.E.(2011).Reconcilingfoodproductionandbiodiversityconservation:landsharingandlandsparingcompared.Science,333(6047)(2011),pp.1289-1291

RichterBD,BartakD,CaldwellP,DavisKF,DebaereP,HoekstraAY,LiT,MarstonL,McManamayR,MekonnenMM,RuddellB,RushforthRR,TroyTJ(2019)Ismyburgerkillingariver?Waterscarcityisdrivenbyourfoodchoices.(InReview).

Rojas-Downing,Maria,PouyanNejadhashemi,A,Harrigan,Timothy,Woznicki,Sean.(2017).ClimateChangeandLivestock:Impacts,Adaptation,andMitigation.ClimateRiskManagement.16.10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001.

S.C.Chapman,S.Chakraborty,M.F.Dreccer,S.M.Howden(2012).Plantadaptationtoclimatechange:opportunitiesandprioritiesinbreeding.CropPastureSci.,63pp.251-268

SamsonFB,KnopfFL,OstlieWR.Grasslands.Washington,D.C.:UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey;1998.

SauvantD,DelabyL,NoziereP(2018)INRAfeedingsystemforruminants(WageningenAcademicPublishers,Wageningen,Netherlands).

SchlundtJ(2002).Newdirectionsinfoodbornediseaseprevention.IntJFoodMicrobio78,3-17.

SchumanGE,JanzenHH,HerrickJE(2002)Soilcarbondynamicsandpotentialcarbonsequestrationbyrangelands.EnvironmentalPollution116,391-396.

SchumanGE,ReederJD,ManleyJT,HartRH,ManleyWA(1999)Impactofgrazingmanagementonthecarbonandnitrogenbalanceofamixed-grassrangeland.EcologicalApplications9,65-71.

Shi,P.;Yan,P.;Yuan,Y.;Nearing,M.A.WinderosionresearchinChina:past,presentandfuture.Prog.Phys.Geogr.2004,28,366–386.

ShieldsS,Orme-EvansG(2015).Theimpactsofclimatechangemitigationstrategiesonanimalwelfare.Animals5,361-394.

Shields,S.,andG.Orme-Evans.2015.Theimpactsofclimatechangemitigationstrategiesonanimalwelfare.Animals5:361–394.

Spera,S.(2017).AgriculturalintensificationcanpreservetheBrazilianCerrado:applyinglessonsfromMatoGrossoandGoiástoBrazil’slastagriculturalfrontier.Trop.Conserv.Sci.,10(2017),Article1940082917720662.

SpringmannM,ClarkM,Mason-D’CrozD,WiebeK,BodirskyBL,LassalettaL,deVriesW,VermeulenSJ,HerreroM,CarlsonKM,JonellM,TroellM,DeClerckF,GordonLJ,ZuraykR,ScarboroughP,RaynerM,LokenB,FanzoJ,GodfrayHCJ,TilmanD,RockströmJ,WillettW(2018)Optionsforkeepingthefoodsystemwithinenvironmentallimits.Nature562,519-525.

Teague,W.R.,F.Provenza,U.P.Kreuter,T.Steffens,andM.Barnes.2013.Multi-paddockgrazingonrangelands:Whytheperceptualdichotomybetweenresearchresultsandrancherexperience?JournalofEnvironmentalManagement128:699-717.

ThorntonPK(2010)Livestockproduction:recenttrends,futureprospects.PhilTransRSocB365,2853–2867.

28

WesthoekH., Lesschen J.P., LeipA., RoodT.,Wagner S.,DeMarcoA.,Murphy-BokernD., PallièreC.,HowardC.M.,OenemaO.&SuttonM.A.(2015)NitrogenontheTable:TheinfluenceoffoodchoicesonnitrogenemissionsandtheEuropeanenvironment.(EuropeanNitrogenAssessmentSpecialReportonNitrogenandFood.)CentreforEcology&Hydrology,Edinburgh,UK.

Westhoek,H.,Lesschen,J.Peter,Rood,T.,Wagner,S.,DeMarco,A.,Murphy-Bokern,D.,Leip,A.,vanGrinsven,H.,Sutton,M.A,&Oenema,O.(2014).Foodchoices,healthandenvironment:EffectsofcuttingEurope'smeatanddairyintake.Globalenvironmentalchange,26,196-205.doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.004

WhiteRR,HallMB(2017)NutritionalandgreenhousegasimpactsofremovinganimalsfromUSagriculture.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA114,E10301-E10308.

WillettW,RockströmJ,LokenB,SpringmannM,LangT,SonjaVermeulenS,TaraGarnettT,DavidTilmanD,FabriceDeClerckF,AmandaWoodA,MalinJonellM,ClarkM,GordonLJ,FanzoJ,HawkesC,ZuraykR,RiveraJA,DeVriesW,SibandaLM,AfshinA,ChaudharyA,HerreroM,AgustinaR,BrancaF,LarteyA,FanS,CronaB,FoxE,BignetV,TroellM,LindahlT,SinghS,CornellSE,ReddyKS,NarainS,NishtarS,MurrayCJL(2019)FoodintheAnthropocene:theEAT–LancetCommissiononhealthydietsfromsustainablefoodsystems.TheLancetCommissions393,447-492.