http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/en/ The perspective of the meat industry on livestock environmental assessment is outlined. Special emphasis is on data interpretation, on negative and positive impacts and on the specificities of livestock supply chains. This presentation does not necessarily represent FAO’s views, positions, strategies or opinions. © IMS: http://www.meat-ims.org/

1. INTERNATIONAL MEAT SECRETARIAT
RUMINANTS AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
Hsin Huang, Secretary General IMS
FAO, 4 July 2012

2. INTERNATIONAL MEAT SECRETARIAT
The International Meat Secretariat (IMS) brings together meat
and livestock organisations throughout the world
Non-profit making association.
Forum for the exchange of ideas and experiences on
international issues: conferences, meetings, publications
Representation in international organisations: FAO, OIE, OECD,
WHO
Members: national meat and livestock organisations,
corporations and other bodies connected with the meat and
livestock sector
More than 90 members in over 30 countries around the world

3. LIVESTOCK MEANS:
• Meat, leather, wool
• High quality protein, heme iron, vitamin b12
• Landscape, biodiversity
• Water and soil quality
• Economic and social benefits
INTERNATIONAL MEAT SECRETARIAT

4. GRASSLAND PROVIDES MANY SERVICES
In Europe (27), 1/3 of agricultural land
is permanent pastures, used by livestock
Climate regulation by carbon sequestration
Ex : France : 33% of livestock farming
greenhouse gas emissions offset by carbon
storage in pastures
Water resources & Water availability
Biodiversity : Species, pollination, environmental
services
Landscape
Fire regulation
Soil structure and fertility
Flood regulation
In agronomic systems :
complementarity between livestock
and crops

5. Grassland and forest : same
sequestration after LUC !
Climate
regulation

6. 50 % bird species depend on habitats for breeding
and feeding (Pain and Pienkowski, 1997)
Grasslands represent the most species-rich
vegetation types (up to 80 plant species/m²)
(Vandewalle et al., 2010 )
Agricultural landscapes :
major habitat for biodiversity
Biodiversity
0
40
80
120
160
200
Grassland Young
fallow land
Medium
fallow land
Old fallow
land with
trees
Numberofspecies
vegetation
grains

7. WHAT DO U.S. CATTLE EAT?
THE U.S. CATTLE HERD CONSUMES:
• 80% nutrients in form of forages
• 20% in the form of concentrates
Forages –grasses, herbs, hay
Concentrates –corn, corn-mill by-product, ethanol by-
product, cotton by-product, broken cookies, potato slurry,
citrus pulp, etc.
MOST OF THIS IS NOT FIT FOR HUMANS!

8. U.S. BEEF ENV. FOOTPRINT 1977 vs 2007
In 1977 it took five animals to produce the same
amount of beef as four animals in 2007
Improved productivity means fewer resources
required to produce same amount beef:
• 19% less feed
• 12% less water
• 33% less land

9. EXAMPLES OF SUSTAINABILTY
EFFORTS BY IMS MEMBERS
 U.S. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, LCA
with BASF
U.S. National Pork Board “Live Swine Carbon
Footprint Calculator”
Canada, LCA of Quebec Pork
Brazil, voluntary moratorium on soybeans grown
only on deforested Amazon post 2006
U.K., Greenhouse Gas Action Plan
Australia, National Environmental Sustainability
Strategy
Etc., etc.

10. BENCHMARK FOR SHEEP GHG FOOTPRINT
TO BETTER ENABLE DIRECT ON FARM COMPARISONS
• Help farmers improve CONTINOUSLY environmental performance
• Help farmers improve PROFITABILITY

11. WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACHIEVE?
PRODUCERS
• Produce more of what we want
• Produce less of what we don’t want
• Continuous improvement « journey » not a
« destination »,
• Identify hotspots
• Improve profitability
CONSUMERS?

12. DON’T CONFUSE THE CONSUMER
GREENHOUSE GASES (less is better)
Product A < Product B
Should consumer choose between NZL lamb vs UK
lamb? Food miles debate
Should consumer choose between chicken or
steak? One industry vs another
Should consumer choose between vegetables or
meat? Vegetarian argument

13. DON’T CONFUSE THE CONSUMER
BIODIVERSITY (more is better)
Product A < Product B
Should consumer choose between local vs foreign
(e.g Costa Rica, Amazon, Africa)?
Should one type of biodiversity be favored over
another (e.g. grasslands vs forests, man-made
« Europe » vs. « natural »)?

14. DON’T CONFUSE THE CONSUMER
GREENHOUSE GASES (less is better)
Product A < Product B
BIODIVERSITY (more is better)
Product A < Product B
COMPOSITE INDEX 50/50 weights
Product A = Product B

15. CREDIBILITY?
WHERE THERE IS
SMOKE,
THERE IS FIRE!

16. KEEP IT IN PERSPECTIVE

17. CONCLUSIONS

18. NEED FOR SHARED ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT METHODS
Pre-competitive issue
Need for international normalized methods
Realistic
Credible
Partnership with FAO on LCA
Partnership with FAO GAA

19. FINAL THOUGHTS
Life-cycle analysis important but:
Don’t forget biology and agronomy
Environment is not limited to carbon
Count positive contributions as well –social
and environmental services provided by
livestock
Not to mention feeding 9billion by 2050
Be proud!