Economic, Environmental and Social Context Are Essential to Achieving Sustainable Livestock Production

A group of scientists published findings this week from a global research project, offering an updated approach to maximizing sustainability in ruminant livestock production systems. The paper, “Context Is Key to Understand and Improve Livestock Production Systems,” was written by a 20-member team of scientists representing 15 organizations and institutions from around the globe.

Researchers analyzed 10 expert-led case studies of livestock production systems from diverse agroecological regions, including the United States, Latin America, Brazil, England, Africa, Australia and the Tibetan Platueau of China. This approach enabled the researchers to explore the role multiple contextual factors—economic, environmental and social—play in determining current production systems and the potential for change toward increased sustainability.

“More than three-fourths of the world’s agricultural lands are used for livestock production, and the livestock farmers, ranchers and pastoralists that manage these lands use different systems and practices based on the unique circumstances of their geography,” said Clare Kazanski, Ph.D., lead author and senior scientist with The Nature Conservancy (TNC). “There is no one-size-fits-all solution to achieving sustainability across these lands and production systems, but an understanding of the distinct, varied contexts of these locations can drive meaningful change for people and nature.”

The researchers found that a comprehensive understanding of the contextual factors, along with a comprehensive view of outcomes, is necessary to enact effective policies, secure investments and inform future research aimed at increasing the productivity and social benefits gained through livestock system sustainability.

“Livestock are not the same everywhere,” said co-author Mario Herrero, professor of food systems and Atkinson Scholar at Cornell University. “Acknowledging the different roles livestock have is essential for tailoring interventions that can improve their environmental performance and simultaneously contribute to livelihoods and economic development.”

Each of the systems included in the study have distinct barriers and enabling conditions for improving livestock production, but there are also emergent patterns the researchers identified that can point toward effective solutions by economic context and primary market setting. For example:

• In Tanzania’s Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem, technical advisor programs, attuned to the cultural contexts of the region and its people, could help herders adopt practices to improve livestock breeds for enhanced resilience and productivity and grazing strategies to reduce land degradation.
• Halfway around the world on the high slopes of the Andes in Colombia, livestock producers strive to adopt the practice of silvopasture—the integration of trees into grazing systems—to restore degraded landscapes, diversify farm profits and enhance biodiversity. Policies that provide financial incentives, along with training and technical assistance, can enhance the producers’ ability to adopt silvopasture, which will benefit both producers’ livelihoods and nature.
• Farther north in the Great Plains of the United States, ranchers operate in space where local traditions intersect with global markets. Targeted incentives such as payments for ecosystem services could encourage ranchers to integrate these practices, bolstering biodiversity while maintaining agricultural productivity.

“The research highlights the importance of understanding context in its entirety—beyond the commonly considered geographical and climatic factors—to include social and economic dimensions as well,” said co-author John Ritten, professor, AgNext, Colorado State University. “Such a comprehensive approach is essential for enabling a diverse range of operations to adopt sustainability solutions that are not only relevant to their specific circumstances but are also more likely to yield positive outcomes.”

“Tradition has been for researchers to seek panacea innovations that apply to all production systems and agroecological regions,” said co-author Matthew Harrison, Ph.D., professor and Systems Modelling Team leader, Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania. “Our study shows that such conceptualization is fundamentally flawed. For effective, inclusive and sustainable change, purported solutions must account for not just biophysical factors driving production, but also the economic, social and cultural factors that underpin the historical development of livestock systems in any given location. In that way, enablers and inhibitors of change are more likely to be accounted for, which is essential for any innovation to be adopted for the long term.”

The research team embarked on this project with a goal to spark discussion and awareness among decision makers on how considering context and multiple outcomes can result in positive outcomes for people and nature, including specific ideas for what researchers, policymakers and funders could do. The researchers offer a framework for advancing effective solutions that is grounded enough in local conditions to be relevant, yet broad enough to be generalizable for policy or funding interventions.

“Our research is a call to action for decision makers and investors,” said Kazanski. “By highlighting the importance of economic, ecological and social contexts in the communities and landscapes that support livestock production systems, we aim to inspire meaningful dialogue and drive transformative changes that will have far-reaching benefits for people and nature.”

The research project was funded by the MacDoch Foundation and led by TNC. Co-authors on the paper are from World Resources Institute; JG Research and Evaluation; Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford; University of Cape Town; Conservation South Africa; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; University of Queensland; Egerton University; Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford; Cornell University; Wageningen University; AgNext, Colorado State University; Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania; and University of California, Berkeley.