1

Animal Waste Management in Livestock Farms:Practical Environmental Policies and Reviews

How sustainable is our current livestock production and consumption? What can we do to make itmore environmentally sustainable? This paper is part of our effort to provide information on thetrend of livestock production and consumption, the environmental challenges presented by thistrend, and the effective responses to these challenges. The paper is developed based on literaturereview and provides structured information on the main environmental issues of livestockproduction, and policy practices. The paper also serves as information pointer to lead readers to theinformation sources for more details. You can either browse through the contents and theirreferences on the web site (URL: www.agrifood-forum.net/practices/sector/livestock/) by using thenavigating bar on the side, or download the paper in PDF format for future reading or reference.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction1.1. Trends – Livestock Production and Human Needs1.2. Driving Force – Population Growth, Rising Incomes, and Urbanisation

2. The Environmental Impacts of the Livestock Production2.1. Livestock Production Systems

2.1.1. Grazing systems2.1.2. Mixed farming systems2.1.3. Industrial systems

2.2. Environmental Pollution Caused by Livestock Manure2.2.1. Air - Gaseous Emissions of Livestock Waste2.2.2. Contamination of Freshwater and Groundwater by Livestock Waste2.2.3. Human Health Risks2.2.4. Unintentional Release of Manure by Accidents

2.3. Projection of Future Demands and Expected Environmental Impacts

3. Responses to Challenges3.1. Monitoring3.2. Policy Design3.3. Institutional Development3.4. Incentive Policies3.5. Regulations3.6. Information, Training and Extension3.7. Selection of Technology

4. Recommendations for Actions

5. References

6. Annotated List for Further Reading

2

1. IntroductionAnimal agriculture is one of the most important components of global agriculture. For example,livestock use 3.3 billion hectares of grazing land and the production from about one-quarter of theworld's croplands (FAO, 1996). In total, livestock make use of more than two-thirds of the world'ssurface under agriculture, and one-third of the total global land area (FAO, 1997a). Livestockraising is the sole source of livelihood for at least 20 million pastoral families, and an important(and often the main) source of income for at least 200 million smallholder farmer families in Asia,Africa and Latin America (FAO 1997b).

The way livestock are kept and meat is produced will be a key factor in the future health of theplanet. Livestock production, mainly as a result of increasing demand, has become an importantfactor in environmental degradation. Large land areas have become degraded through overgrazingand deforestation because of ranching. Biodiversity is affected by extensive, as well as intensive,livestock production. Livestock are an important source of gaseous emissions (mainly methane andcarbon dioxide) contributing to global warming. Where animal concentrations are high, land andwater may be polluted through waste from animal production and processing.

One of the great challenges facing the world over the next decades is to identify policies andtechnologies which mitigate any negative environmental impact, while at the same time producingsufficient livestock products to satisfy the demands of a growing human population. This paperdiscusses the practical environmental policies and reviews for animal waste management inlivestock farms. Links are also provided to the main actors in this area of study to enable furtherunderstanding of the issue.

1.1. Trends – Livestock Production and Human NeedsFood production has expanded enormously in the past three decades, paralleling the growth in theworld’s population from 3.5 billion in 1968 to 5.9 billion in 1998 (See Figure 1). The world cerealsharvest almost doubled between 1968 and 1998, from 1161 to 2054 million tonnes (See Figure 2)while meat production nearly tripled, from 83 million to 222 million tonnes (See Figure 3. 83 and222 million tonnes, respectively, are totals for developed and developing counties.). The increasein cereals harvest was due to a combination of improved grain varieties, greater fertiliser andpesticide use and irrigation, and rapid growth of food imports. Total meat production in thedeveloping countries exceeded that of the developed world in 1998. There was a small net inflowto the developing counties in internationally traded meat and meat products.

Figure 1. World Population and ProjectionSource: United Nations (U.N.) Population Division, Annual Populations 1950-2050 (The 1998

Revision), on diskette (U.N., New York, 1999).

3

Figure 2. World Cereals ProductionSource: FAOSTAT on-line statistical service (FAO, Rome, 1998-99).

Not only did the number of people in the world almost doubled between 1968 and 1998, but thetotal consumption of meat per person also increased. Individual meat consumption remains highestin the industrialized world. Average per capita meat consumption in the developed world as awhole was 77kg/person/year in 1998. Average per capita consumption in the developing countrieswas 26 kg/person/year (see Figure 4).

Figure 3. World Meat Production (1968-1998)Source: FAOSTAT on-line statistical service (FAO, Rome, 1998-99)

Figure 4. Meat Consumption per capita (1968-1998)Source: FAOSTAT on-line statistical service (FAO, Rome, 1998-99)

The importance of livestock production can be expected to increase over the next decades. Whilein the industrial world, demand for meat and milk will probably plateau, or even decline, in thedeveloping world, income growth and urbanisation will fuel a strong increase in demand. Currentlevels of meat consumption in the developing world are only about one-third of those in theindustrial world. However, specialists of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)estimate that the demand of 209 million tons of meat in 1997 may rise to 327 million tons of meatby the year 2020. Moreover, it will be especially strong in Asia and Africa where the demand formeat is expected to triple (IFPRI, 1999).

4

Further Information:FAOSTAT on-line statistical service [http://apps.fao.org/] - FAOSTAT is on-line and consists ofmultilingual databases currently containing over 1 million time-series records covering internationalstatistics in the areas including production, fertiliser and pesticides, land use and irrigation, population.

World Resources Institute (WRI) – Earth Trends, the Environmental Information Portal[http://earthtrends.wri.org/] - The Environmental Information Portal is the World Resources Institute's newinteractive website. It was developed to make relevant, high-quality information easily accessible and freeto policy-makers in government and private industry, NGOs, educators, students, and the general public.

The World Food Situation: Recent Developments, Emerging Issues, and Long-Term Prospects (InternationalFood Policy Research Institute, 1997)[http://www.ifpri.cgiar.org/checknames.cfm/fpr24.pdf?name=fpr24.pdf&direc=d:%5Cwebs%5Cifpri%5Cpubs%5Cfpr] - This report presents the authors’ best assessment of prospects for global food security over thenext quarter century. It draws upon recently revised and updated information from IFPRI’s global foodmodel, which projects food demand, supply, and trade to the year 2020. The report analyses the implicationsof recent events and emerging issues for agricultural research and food policy reform in developingcountries.

Worldwatch Institute [http://www.worldwatch.org/] – The site is dedicated to fostering the evolution of anenvironmentally sustainable society - one in which human needs are met in ways that do not threaten thehealth of the natural environment or the prospects of future generations. The Institute's mission is to raisepublic awareness of global environmental threats to the point where it will support effective policyresponses.

5

1.2. Driving Force – Population Growth and Rising IncomesThe driving force behind the surge in demand for livestock products is a combination of populationgrowth, rising incomes and, possibly, also increasing urbanisation. Figure 5 shows normalisedincrease in the world population, total cereals and meat production. While the world populationnearly doubled between 1961 and 1998, the world cereals production almost doubled, and meatproduction nearly tripled. Figure 5 indicates that there is a clear correlation between the worldpopulation growth and production increase in cereals and meat.

Figure 5. Population and global food production indices, 1961 – 1998Source: FAOSTAT on-line statistical service (FAO, Rome, 1998-99)

There is a strong positive relationship between level of income and consumption of animal protein.Incomes continue to grow, especially in the developing world (FAO 1997b). As people becomemore affluent, consumption of meat, milk and eggs increases relative to the consumption of staplefood. Urban population growth has been substantial through out the developing world in recentyears (Delgado et al., 1999, IFPRI, 1999). The average growth rate for all developing countries was3.8 percent which was more than three times the developed country rate. Consumers in urban areasare more likely to diversify their diets into meat and milk (Huang and Bouis 1996; Anderson et al.,1997).

Further Information:Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution (International Food Policy Research Institute, Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations and International Livestock Research Institute, 1999)[http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGA/LSPA/lvst2020/Default.htm] - This reportexamines in detail the interrelationships over time between supply and demand for live stock and feed grain,using IFPRI’s IMPACT model. It also investigates the plausibility of the projected demand increases forlivestock products and the implications of these increases for world markets in feed, milk, and meat.

Critical consumption trends and implications: Degrading Earth's ecosystems (World Resources Institute1999) [http://www.wri.org/critcons/] - The report argues that production and consumption patterns areintegrally linked: that the entire use cycle must be considered if environmental effects are to be understood,potential interventions identified, and effective policy approaches articulated. It also suggests that theurgency of addressing consumption in this systemic fashion becomes clear when consumption trends areconsidered. Within a decade, plausible demand forecasts suggest a marked escalation of environmentalimpacts, if the present production-consumption patterns are not altered.

Livestock - Environment Interactions – Issues and Options (FAO) - Livestock, Environment & Humanneeds [http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/aga/lspa/LXEHTML/policy/ch1a.htm] -This section of the paper suggests that there are massive pressures on animal production to satisfy the deeplyrooted demand for high value animal protein. The massive appetite of the growing urban populations formeat, milk and eggs often translates into environmental damage and disruption of traditional mixed farming.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996

Year

1996

= 1

00

World PopulationCereals productionMeat production

6

2. The Environmental Impacts of the Livestock ProductionTo meet growing demand, the world’s livestock population has boomed. Cattle numbers rose by 26percent between 1968 and 1998, pigs by 61 percent and chickens by 175 percent (see Figure 6).The world today is home to 14.7 billion chickens (FAOSTAT, Agriculture on-line database). Inindustrialised countries, animals traditionally reared on rangelands or in farmyards are nowincreasingly concentrated in intensive feedlots, where they are fed on cereals and commercialpreparations of grain, animal protein, and fish meal. This trend, in turn, is leading to theconcentration of great amount of manure, which is not economically easy to redistribute back toareas where the cereals were originally grown. The nitrogen component of manure variesaccording to the animal and its diet but a crude global estimate is that approximately 32 milliontonnes of nitrogen (derived from fodder crops and forage) are deposited into the environment viamanure each year (Worldwatch Institute, 1994).

Figure 6. Number of livestock (cattle, pigs and chickens)Source: FAOSTAT on-line statistical service (FAO, Rome, 1998-99)

The total effect on the environment due to animal farming can be divided into direct impacts (suchas gas emissions, pollution, and soil degradation) and indirect impacts (production of grains andanimal feed required for cattle nutrition). The following sections focuses on direct impact,particularly pollution problems caused by animal waste in livestock farms.

7

2.1. Livestock Production SystemsLivestock raising is carried out in many forms, usually referred to as production systems or agro-ecosystems. Before discussing environmental impacts of livestock production, it will be useful tokeep in mind the nature of the production systems. Production systems evolve as a result of agro-ecological potential, the relative availability of land, labour and capital and the demand forlivestock products. Based on the degree of integration with crops and its relation to land, theworld's livestock sector can be classified into three broad livestock production systems (Sere andSteinfeld, 1996): grazing, mixed farming and industrial systems.

2.1.1 Grazing systemsGrazing systems are systems based almost exclusively on livestock production, with little or nointegration with crops. They are based mainly on native grassland. In principle, grazing systemsare closed systems, where the waste product (manure) is used within the system and does notpresent a burden on the environment. Resource degradation, especially of land and biodiversity, isnow developing in many of the world's grazing areas.

2.1.2 Mixed farming systemsMixed farming systems are where crops and livestock production are integrated on the same farm.Mixed farming is probably the most benign agricultural production system from an environmentalperspective because it is, at least partially, a closed system. The waste products of one enterprise(crop residues), which would otherwise be loaded on to the natural resource base, are used by theother enterprise, which returns its own waste products (manure) back to the first enterprise. As itprovides many opportunities for recycling and organic farming and for a varied, more attractivelandscape, mixed farming is the favourite system of many agriculturalists and environmentalists.

2.1.3 Industrial systemsIndustrial systems cover industrial types of production and small-scale urban or peri-urbanproduction in developing countries. In recent years, industrial livestock production grew at twicethe rate (4.3 percent) of that in mixed farming systems (2.2 percent) and more than six times thegrazing system production growth (0.7 percent) (Seré and Steinfeld, 1996). These systems are openboth in physical and economic terms. They depend on outside supplies of feed, energy and otherinputs. These systems are strongly market driven, which makes them resilient to market upheavalsthan other systems.

In terms of total production, grazing systems are of lesser importance because they supply only 9percent of global meat production. Mixed farming systems produce the largest share of total meat(54 percent), and milk (90 percent), and industrial systems provide 37 percent of the total globalmeat production (Figure 7). Many production systems are currently at a sustainable equilibrium,with livestock being produced in harmony with nature and in environmentally sound systems.However, over the last decades, several production systems have lost this equilibrium because ofthe pressure caused by growing human populations and increased demand for animal products.

Figure 7. Ratio of total meat production from different production systems.Source: FAO, 1997b

8

In the past, industrial systems have greatly benefited from policy distortions which, in many cases,have given these systems a competitive edge over land-based systems, e.g. in the EU, highdomestic prices for beef and milk and low import tariffs for cereal substitutes. In the formercentrally planned economies, beef feedlots were based on heavily subsidised feed grain and onsubsidised fuel and transport. In many developing countries, there are not only direct subsidies onfeed but also on energy. With energy being a major direct and indirect cost item in industrialproduction systems, economy-wide policies often tend to favour them over their land-basedcounterparts.

Further Information:Virtual Research and Development Centre on Livestock, Environment and Development Issues - The LEAD(Livestock, Environment And Development) Initiative [http://lead.virtualcentre.org/] - The LEAD Initiativehas implemented the project "Decision Support on Livestock and Environment Issues" to provide decision-support on maximising positive and minimising negative interactions of livestock and environment. Theproject’s main goals are to increase awareness, knowledge and understanding of livestock and environmentinteractions; to identify appropriate options for livestock and environment management at regional andnational level and to convey livestock and environment concepts into government and donor policies andprojects.

As part of the project, LEAD hosts a "Virtual Research and Development Centre on Livestock, Environmentand Development Issues" that includes the Internet portal operated by collaborating institutions. Theseportals enables the research and development workers around the world to access information on livestockand environment interactions that is essential to achieve rural sustainable development. One can also registerto the LEAD distribution list on the Internet.

The Livestock and Environment Toolbox [http://lead.virtualcentre.org/en/dec/toolbox/Index.htm] providestechnical and policy or institutional development options for enhancing positive or mitigating negativeeffects of livestock on the natural resource base, together with suggestions for increasing awareness of theissues among a spectrum of policy-makers, planners and extension officers.

Area-Wide Integration (AWI) of Crop and Intensive Livestock Production[http://lead.virtualcentre.org/en/res/awi/default.htm] The main objective of AWI is to link those specialisedactivities on a regional scale to limit their environmental impacts and enhance social benefits. This throughre-establishing links between these activities, such as nutrients fluxes (i.e. manure recycling, feed),economics (i.e. contracts, labor use), and environment protection (i.e. share of surface water use). To reachthis objective, AWI proposes to develops technologies (i.e. water management on farm, manure recycling),but moreover policy instruments (i.e. removal of subsidies on imported concentrates, zoning, establishmentof environmental standards).

Livestock & the Environment - FINDING A BALANCE (FAO) - Livestock grazing systems & theenvironment [http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/aga/lspa/LXEHTML/tech/ch2a.htm]– This site contains details on grazing systems.

Livestock & the Environment - FINDING A BALANCE (FAO) – Mixed farming systems & theenvironment [http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/aga/lspa/LXEHTML/tech/ch3a.htm]– This site contains details on mixed farming systems including the environmental challenges.

Livestock & the Environment - FINDING A BALANCE (FAO) - Industrial livestock systems & theenvironment[http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/aga/lspa/LXEHTML/tech/ch4a.htm] – This sitecontains details on industrial livestock systems including states, environmental challenges, policies andtechnologies to reduce the pollution problems.

World Livestock Production Systems - Current Status, Issues and Trends. FAO Animal Production andHealth Paper by Carlos Seré and Henning Steinfeld in collaboration with Jan Groenewold[http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGA/LSPA/Paper127/default.htm] - This paper is

9

part of a multi-donor study entitled "Interactions between Livestock Production Systems and theEnvironment - Global Perspectives and Prospects", partially executed and coordinated by FAO. As afollow-up to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the studyaddresses the issues of livestock-environmental interaction and attempts to assess more objectively the roleof livestock in environmentally sustainable agriculture. A PDF version can be obtained at[http://www.fao.org/lead/toolbox/Paper127/TEXTLPS.pdf]

10

2.2. Environmental Pollution Caused by Livestock ManureAdding manure to the soil increases the nutrient retention capacity (or cation exchange capacity),improves the physical condition by increasing the water-holding capacity and improves soilstructure stability. This is a crucial contribution because, in many systems, it is the only meansavailable to farmers for improving soil organic matter. It is also substantial in economic terms.Approximately 20 million tons or 22 percent of total nitrogen fertilisation of 94 million tons and 11million tons or 38 percent of phosphate is of animal origin. This represents about US$ 1.5 billionworth of commercial fertiliser (FAO, 1997c). Not only does animal manure replenish soil fertilitybut it also helps to maintain or create a better climate for soil micro-flora and fauna. It is also thebest way of using crop residues. Most mixed farming systems of the developing world especiallyin the tropics have a negative nutrient balance.

Excess soil nutrients, which are a result of net nutrient imports, exist in large areas of north-westernEurope (the Netherlands, Germany, and Brittany in France), in the eastern and mid-western USA,Japan, and increasingly, coastal South-East Asia. For example, large plain areas in China showenormous nutrient surplus that range from 200 to >1,000 kg of nitrogen per hector per year (FAO,1997b). Industrial and specialised livestock production systems emit large quantities of waste,resulting in excessive loading of manure on the limited land areas within reasonable distances ofthe producers. Globally, pig and poultry industries produce 6.9 million tons of nitrogen per year,which is equivalent to 7 percent of the total inorganic nitrogen fertiliser production in the world(FAO, 1997a). Mineral fertilisers, frequently a cheaper and more readily available source ofnutrients, reduce demand for nutrients from manure even further, turning it into "waste".

2.2.1. Air - Gaseous Emissions of Livestock WasteLivestock and livestock waste produce gases. Some are localised, such as ammonia whereasothers, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), nitrous oxide (N2O) and othertrace gases (together forming greenhouse gases) affect the world's atmosphere, by contributing to"global warming" or global climate change. Livestock's contribution to that effect can be estimatedat between 5 and 10 percent. Methane is much more aggressive (24 times) than carbon dioxide incausing global climate change. It is the product of animal production and manure management,rice cultivation, production and distribution of oil and gas (pipelines), coal mining and landfills.Twenty percent of methane emanating from animal production comes from manure stored underanaerobic conditions (USEPA, 1995). Nitrous oxide is the most aggressive greenhouse gas (320times that of CO2) contributing to global warming. It is produced in animal manure whichcontributes about 0.4 million tons N per year, or 7 percent of the total global anthropogenicemissions (Bouwman et al., 1995).

2.2.2. Contamination of Freshwater and Groundwater by Livestock WasteIn the United States, large livestock farms, which can house hundreds of thousands of pigs,chickens, or cows, produce vast amounts of waste. These industrial systems generate nearly 160million tonnes of manure annually, and some 60 percent is excreted directly onto cropland andpasture, while 40 percent is collected from animals in confinement and must somehow be disposedof (OTA, 1990). Manure volumes have reached a critical point in parts of Northwestern Europe,where nitrogen deposition far exceeds the absorptive capacity of crops. Though concentration oflivestock in feedlots is not yet the norm in developing countries, industrial-scale chicken farms arebecoming more common, for example, in some South American countries.

Direct drainage of manure into surface water and leaching from saturated soils is a featureassociated with industrial systems. In areas with high livestock concentrations, the spreading ofmanure on land can lead to nitrogen leaching into water. Nitrates contaminate surface water,leading to high algae growth, eutrophication and damage to the aquatic and wetland ecosystems.When manure enters surface waters, excess nutrients and organic materials are added. Increasing

11

nutrient levels can cause excessive growth of aquatic plants and algae. The decomposition ofaquatic plants depletes the oxygen supply in the water, creating anoxic or anaerobic conditionswhich can lead to fish kills. Amines and sulfides are produced in anaerobic waters, causing thewater to acquire an unpleasant odour, taste, and appearance. Such waters can be unsuitable fordrinking, fishing, and other recreational uses. Dissolved ammonia at concentrations above 0.2 mg/Lmay be toxic to fish, especially trout. Phosphates, although less mobile than nitrates, can causesimilar problems.

2.2.3. Human Health RisksSeveral diseases from microorganisms in livestock waste can be contracted through direct contactwith contaminated water, consumption of contaminated drinking water, or consumption ofcontaminated shellfish. Runoff from fields receiving manure will contain extremely high numbersof microorganisms if the manure has not been incorporated or the microorganisms have not beensubject to stress. Beach closures can result from high fecal coliform counts. Although not the onlysource of pathogens, animal waste has been responsible for shellfish contamination in some coastalwaters. The pathogen Cryptosporidium, a protozoan parasite, is common in surface waters,especially those containing high amounts of animal waste. It may cause gastrointestinal illness andmay lead to death in persons with compromised immune systems (ERS-USDA website). Nitratesin drinking water are potentially dangerous to new-born infants. Nitrate is converted to nitrite inthe digestive tract, which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood (methemoglobinemia),resulting in brain damage or even death.

2.2.4. Unintentional Release of Manure by AccidentsIn the United States, from 1995 to 1998, 1,000 spills or pollution incidents occurred at livestockfeedlots in 10 states and 200 manure-related fish kills resulted in the death of 13 million fish.According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, livestock waste has polluted more than27,000 miles of rivers and contaminated groundwater in dozens of states. Pollution from livestockfarms seriously threatens humans, fish and ecosystems. Some facts and statistics which threatenedhuman public health are shown in Box 1.

12

There are reports of several manure lagoons spill incidents in the United States, releasing largequantities of wastes into rivers, groundwater and coastal wetlands. Some facts and statistics whichthreatened ecological system are shown in Box 2.

Box 1. Livestock Pollution and Threats to Public Health.

• California officials identify agriculture, including cows, as the major source of nitratepollution in more than 100,000 square miles of polluted groundwater.

• In Oklahoma, nitrates from Seaboard Farms' hog operations contaminated drinkingwater wells, prompting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to issue anemergency order in June 2001 requiring the company to provide safe drinking water toarea residents.

• In 1996 the Centers for Disease Control established a link between spontaneousabortions and high nitrate levels in Indiana drinking water wells located close tofeedlots.

• High levels of nitrates in drinking water increase the risk of methemoglobinemia, or"blue-baby syndrome," which can kill infants.

• In May 2000, 1,300 cases of gastroenteritis were reported and six people died as theresult of E. coli contaminating drinking water in Walkerton, Ontario. Health authoritiesdetermined that the most likely source was cattle manure runoff.

• Manure from dairy cows is thought to have contributed to the disastrousCryptosporidium contamination of Milwaukee's drinking water in 1993, which killedmore than 100 people, made 400,000 sick and resulted in $37 million in lost wages andproductivity.

Source: NRDC - http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp

Box 2. Manure Spill Incidents and Threats to Ecological Systems.

• In 1995, an 8-acre hog waste lagoon in North Carolina erupted 25 million gallons ofanimal waste into the New River. The spill killed 10 million fish and closed 364,000acres of coastal wetlands to shellfishing (Williams, 1998).

• In 1998, a 100,000-gallon spill into Minnesota's Beaver Creek killed close to 700,000fish (Williams, 1998).

• In 1997, animal feedlots were responsible for 2,391 spills of manure in Indiana state(Niederpruem, 1998).

• According to Missouri State’s Department of Natural Resources, 63% of Missouri'sindustrial farms suffered spills between 1990 and 1994 (Williams, 1998).

• In 1996, 40 spills killed close to 700,000 fish in Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri (Nutritionand Forestry, 1997).

• Runoff of chicken and hog waste from factory farms in Maryland and North Carolina isbelieved to have contributed to outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida, killing millions of fishand causing skin irritation, short-term memory loss and other cognitive problems in localpeople (NRDC - http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp)

13

Further Information:Confined Animal Production and Manure Nutrients. Resource Economics Division, Economic ResearchService, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 771, 2001.[http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib771/] - Census of agriculture data were used to estimate manurenutrient production and the capacity of cropland and pastureland to assimilate nutrients. The study foundthat most farms have adequate land on which it is physically feasible to apply the manure produced onfarmat agronomic rates. About 20 percent of the Nation’s onfarm excess manure nitrogen is produced in countiesthat have insufficient cropland for its application at agronomic rates.

US Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service (ERS) - Conservation and environmental policy:questions and answers [http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/conservationandenvironment/qa.htm#water] - TheERS Briefing Room offers an in-depth discussion synthesising ERS research and the economic issues thatframe the analysis. It contains recent research developments, readings and data and questions and answersincluding below:

Q. How extensive is pollution from agriculture?Q. Why do changes in the structure of the animal industry raise concerns about water quality?Q. What are the primary agricultural pollutants?Q. How is agricultural pollution treated under Federal water quality laws?Q. How are the States dealing with agricultural pollution?Q. What are the characteristics of nonpoint pollution, and how do they influence policy design?

European Environment Agency Environmental themes - Sectors and activities – Agriculture[http://themes.eea.eu.int/Sectors_and_activities/agriculture] – The European Environment Agency (EEA)aims to support sustainable development and to help achieve significant and measurable improvement inEurope's environment through the provision of timely, targeted, relevant and reliable information to policymaking agents and the public. The agriculture sector provides reports and indicators in a variety of areasincluding agricultural intensity and nutrient surplus.

European Environment Agency Environmental themes - Sectors and activities – Water[http://themes.eea.eu.int/Specific_media/water] - The water sector provides reports and indicators in avariety of areas including ammonium concentrations, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), Nitrogen andphosphorus concentrations in rivers.

European Environment Agency: Nitrogen and Phosphorus in River Stations Report[http://themes.eea.eu.int/Specific_media/water/indicators/nitrogen/yir01wq2NP.pdf] (123 KB)This report contains a series of distribution graphs for phosphorus, nitrate or total oxidised nitrogen (TON)and orthophophate concentrations in Europe. The report indicates that concentrations of both phosphorusand ammonium in EU rivers fell during the 1990s, reflecting the general improvement in wastewatertreatment over this period. However the current concentrations are still well above what might beconsidered to be ‘background’ or natural levels.

Groundwater quality and quantity in Europe [http://reports.eea.eu.int/groundwater07012000/en] This reportpresents the first Pan-European overview of groundwater quality and quantity based on measured data. Dataand information provided from 37 countries have been used in this assessment report. Different indicatorshave been used to assess the pressures on groundwater quality and quantity related to, in particular, nitrate,pesticides and groundwater abstraction. The report also identifies a need for improved information ongroundwater across Europe. Published: 07 January 2000

Groundwater quality and quantity in Europe - Data and basic information[http://reports.eea.eu.int/TEC22/en] This technical report contains detailed data which are underlying theinformation evaluated and presented in the EEA Environmental Assessment Report i.e. Groundwater Qualityand Quantity in Europe, European Environment Agency (1999). Data were mainly received fromquestionnaires distributed to 44 European countries through the EEA´s Environmental Information andObservation Network (EIONET).

14

2.3. Projection of Future Demands and Expected Environmental ImpactsWorld population is expected to grow from 6 billion in 2000 to about 8 billion in the year 2030 andnearly 9 billion in 2050 (Figure 1).

Figure 1. World Population and ProjectionSource: United Nations (U.N.) Population Division, Annual Populations 1950-2050 (The 1998

Revision), on diskette (U.N., New York, 1999).

The world food supply and demand, trade, prices, and food security to the year 2020 was projectedbased on an updated version of IFPRI’s International Model for Policy Analysis of AgriculturalCommodities and Trade (IMPACT) (IFPRI, 2001). This projection gives best estimate of the mostlikely world food situation in 2020 if governments make no major changes in their agricultural andeconomic policies and investments and if population grows at the rate given in the United Nations’medium projection. According to the projection, the world’s appetite for meat will jumpenormously – the demand of 209 million tons of meat in 1997 may rise to 327 million tons of meatby the year 2020, which is a 57 percent increase (Figure 8). Most of the increase will occur indeveloping countries. For example, China alone will account for more than 40 percent of thisincrease, compared with India’s 4 percent.

Figure 8. World demand for meat, 1974, 1977, and 2020Source: IFPRI, 2001

With all the data shown in the previous sections, it could readily be imagined that the world-widepopulation of livestock animals in the future will be a great concern. The so-called “LivestockRevolution” occurring in most of developing countries has already caused serious environmentalproblems in terms of forest loss, biodiversity loss and soil degradation. Another urgent concernwhich derives from livestock production is the solid manure, which usually represents a significantload of organic waste to dispose of. Beef cattle dominate the global production of manure,accounting for about 55% of the total, which in turn has been estimated to be 3.1 billion tonnes ofdry matter (Wirsenius, 2000, FAO 1997a). If governments make no major intervention in theiragricultural and economic policies and investments, the most likely world food and environmentalscenario in 2020 will not be sustainable.

77

32

10998 111

209

114

213

327

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

DevelopedCountries

DevelopingCountries

World

Mill

ion

met

ric

ton

s

1974

1977

2020

15

An indicative diagram of the balanced livestock production system is shown in Figure 9. The bluearrows represent input, black arrows output or product, and red arrows resulting environmentalproblems. When the demand from the consumer side is manageable as seen in Figure 9-A, everycomponent is in balance with respect to other components in the system. Production of crops isenough to supply food for humans and feed for livestock production system, and the livestockproduction meets the world meat demand. The produced livestock manure is in a managablequantitiy, so that, with appropriate management policies and practices, environmental pollution canbe prevented and minimised at tolerable levels.

Better management of the world's natural resources and livestock waste is essential if sustainableagricultural production is to continue. In order to better manage the world's natural resources, thesize of each system (consumption, crop system, and livestock system) must be kept consistent.Better management of livestock waste requires: (1) minimising the production of the waste; (2)application of the manure back in the crop system; and (3) treating and recycling the manure toother application.

When governments make no major changes in their agricultureal and economic policies and theworld’s appetite for meat jumps enormously as seen in Figure 9-B, the world’s crop system will beenlarged and livestock population will boom in order to meet the growing demand. The productionsystem may surpass the maximum tolerable level of the ecological carrying capacity and may loosebalance among the systems – which means that it is no longer sustainable. In this situation,diverting cereals to feed livestock may lead to an inadequate cereal supply for direct humanconsumption. Enormous amount of livestock manure (which is estimated to be more than 6 billiontonnes per year) will be produced and human welfare will be compromised by major environmentalpollution.

16

Figure 9. Indicative diagram of the livestock production and consumption system based on thesame human population - (A) balanced and (B) out of balance.

(? ): input, (? ): output or product, (? ) resulting environmental problems.

A.

CropSystem

LivestockProduction

SystemConsumption

LivestockWaste

FeedMeat

Products

LivestockWaste

Application ofManure oncrop landSoil loss,

Runoff,Excess N and P,

Energy,

Water,Fertilis

Energy,Water

Food

for Human

Greenhouse gas emissionsRunoff

Excess Organics, N and PPathogens

Greenhouse gas emissionsRunoff

Excess Organics, N and PPathogens

B.

CropSystem

N, P

LivestockSystem Consumption

LivestockWaste

FeedMeat

Products

LivestockWasteApplication of

Manure oncrop land

Soil loss,Runoff,

Excess N and P,

Energy,Water,

Fertiliser

Energy,Water

Food

Greenhouse gas emissionsRunoff

Excess Organics, N and PPathogens

Greenhouse gas emissionsRunoff

Excess Organics, N and PPathogens

for Human

17

Further Information:International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (2001). 2020 Global Food Outlook: Trends,Alternatives, and Choices - A 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Initiative.[http://www.ifpri.cgiar.org/checknames.cfm/fpr30.pdf?name=fpr30.pdf&direc=d:\webs\ifpri\pubs\fpr]Edited by Mark W. Rosegrant; Michael S. Paisner, Siet Meijer, and Julie Witcover.This report shows just how, and how much, certain policy decisions and social changes will affect theworld’s future food security. It projects the likely food situation in 2020 if the world continues on more orless its present course, and it then shows how alternative choices could produce a different future.

18

3. Responses to ChallengesEnormous increase in meat production results in a variety of different forms of environmentaldegradation including land and water pollution with deliberative of livestock manure, such asammonia, nitrate and phosphate and pathogens. Governments responded to these environmentaldegradations with monitoring, policies and environmental management instruments, such asinstitute influences, incentive policies, regulations, information, training and extension, andtechnology, to prevent and minimise the subsequent environmental impacts caused by wastes fromlivestock farms.

Government agricultural and food-pricing policies can have enormous effects on agriculturalproduction patterns and their subsequent environmental impacts. Subsidization of agriculturalinputs such as water, electricity, fertilisers and pesticides have often led to their inefficient andenvironmentally damaging use. When subsidies artificially lower input prices, they can encourageoverexploitation and waste of natural resources and other inputs. Government policies stillgenerally exempt farmers from the “polluter pays” principle, allowing them to avoid paying the fullcosts of damage from pesticides, water resource degradation and other agricultural impacts.

The challenge for policy makers and environmental and livestock specialists is to fully incorporatethe contribution of livestock in development that will satisfy current and future human needs whilemaintaining the natural resource base. Decision-makers in national governments, NGOs, atfarming and community levels and in international and donor organisations, are the actors whomust put the policy and technology elements to work within the context of consistent strategies.With government support and willingness to act, there are sufficient mechanisms to keep adverseeffects of livestock production within tolerable limits and to enhance the net contribution to humanwelfare.

3.1. MonitoringLevels of nitrates in freshwaters and drinking water supplies have been closely monitored for manyyears in the industrialized countries, and the data confirm a historic rise in nitrogen levels in surfacewaters. For example, a 1994 national survey in the United States revealed that nearly 40 percent ofthe country’s lakes and rivers were too polluted for basic uses, such as fishing or swimming.Agricultural run-off was the leading source of pollution in both categories (US EPA, 1995). In fact,tests in Pennsylvania have shown that about 40% of the tested soil samples from dairy-crop farmsexhibited excessive phosphorus and potassium levels. Soils are saturated, and surplus nutrients areleached into surface water and pollute the environment (Narrod et al., 1994). In major rivers of thenortheastern United States, nitrate concentrations have risen three- to tenfold since the beginning ofthe century. Nitrate contamination is also the USA’s most widespread groundwater pollutionproblem; in a national survey, 22 percent of wells in US agricultural areas contained nitrate levelsin excess of the federal limit (US EPA, 1995).

In Europe, the past decades have seen significant progress in treating the sewage and industrialwastes which are being released into Europe’s river systems, resulting in lower levels of mostpollutants and a measurable improvement in water quality. The agricultural sector, on the otherhand, has not made as much progress. Nitrate levels in Europe’s rivers are still as high as they wereat the beginning of the last decade. For example, in Brittany, France, one in eight counties had soilswith nitrate levels of more than 40 mg/L in the 1980s. In 1995, all eight counties reported similarnitrate levels (Brandjes et al., 1995), which can cause extensive damage to the region's aquaticsystems. According to the European Environment Agency’s Nitrogen and Phosphorus in RiverStations Report, the concentrations of both phosphorus and ammonium in EU rivers fell during the1990s, reflecting the general improvement in wastewater treatment over this period. However,Total Oxidised Nitrogen (TON) levels in Europe’s rivers have not fallen since 1990. No progresshas been made in reducing the concentration of nitrates in Europe’s rivers with levels remaining

19

stable for all types of rivers throughout the 1990s. There is no information on the impacts of theseelevated concentrations in terms of changes in the trophic and ecological status of the affectedrivers. The smaller the river, the higher the concentration, with levels in small rivers reaching andoften exceeding the 5.6 mg/L guidelines set by the European Directive on Surface Water forDrinking.

3.2. Policy designThe choice of policy instruments should take careful account of local institutions, infrastructure andlevels of income. Regulations work best where the polluter or degrader can be unmistakablyidentified (point-source pollution) and where government has the financial resources to establishthe infrastructure and where there are reliable institutions to enforce environmental regulations.Where institutions are weak, and where the polluter is difficult to identify (non-point sourcepollution) regulations are difficult to enforce and more reliance has to be placed on marketinstruments.

Complementary measures with specific or localised foci should be designed that help mitigatenegative effects or enhance positive effects of the original policies on the environment(Munasinghe, 1994). The challenge is to design policies that correspond to the intended social andeconomic objectives but still comply with environmental sustainability. The current trend in theEU to direct income support rather than price support is one move in that direction.

In the developed world, regulations are being introduced to restrict the emission of nutrients in thecase of point source pollution, and restrict stocking rate (“manure quota”) in the case of non-pointsource polluters. Regulations include a variety of restrictions on stocking rate and use of fertiliser,manure storage and times and techniques of application, encouraged by government subsidies onmanure processing and management. A variety of measures may be introduced to reduce nutrientsurpluses. Some control options are shown in Box 3.

Any sustainable livestock development strategy has to fully recognise the set of objectives whichgovern behaviour. For many farmers, the first priority is household food security and familywelfare. Less tangible future sustainability of resource use is often traded off against immediatefood needs. At a policy level, social and economic objectives may be in conflict withenvironmental objectives or have different time scales.

It is necessary to find a set of policies that make both economic and environmental sense, thoughoften do not pay off in the short term. These win-win situations are, for example, the reduction ofmethane emissions through increased animal productivity, livestock-wildlife integration and the useof slaughter waste for alternative feed or energy sources. However, problems occur because

Box 3. Livestock Waste Control Options• Taxation of inorganic fertiliser, in order to discourage unnecessary use where a

system is already in surplus• Maximum application limits and regulation of times of application in order to reduce

leaching and volatilisation• Taxation on feed imports to reduce the significant transfer of nutrients from the

already nutrient deficient developing world to the nutrient surplus areas of theindustrialised world. Such taxation might be supplemented with, or used as,subsidies for a transfer of nutrients back to the developing world.

• Incentives to achieve a more balanced distribution of crop and livestock activities.

Source: FAO, 1997b

20

benefits that accrue to the global common goods are only slight or not tangible for the originator ofthese benefits. A completely new set of mechanisms with novel financing approaches needs to bedesigned for the protection of these global commons.

3.3. Institutional InfluencesInstitutions are required to develop environmental polices and laws and to assist line agencies toincorporate environmental concerns into economic development planning and budgeting. Theremust also be institutional capability to monitor compliance and enforce environmental regulations.For most traditional grazing systems under pressure by changing property rights, institutions needto be improved by decentralising decision making. Local empowerment is required in allsituations, but especially where governmental institutions are weak. The need to transfer authorityand responsibility for resource management to the lowest level at which it can be exercisedeffectively is increasingly recognised. Often, consultation and direct participation of thecommunity in decision-making enables local knowledge to be harnessed and for responsibility foridentifying problems and finding solutions to be taken at local level.

For example, property-rights need to be enforced by governments and, in a subsidiary fashion bytraditional institutions. Lack of security of tenure has often been identified as a prime cause of landdegradation. In many parts of Africa, effective common property regimes have broken downbecause governments have seen fit to allocate key grazing areas to people who wish to crop them.Pastoral systems have an overriding need for mobility over large areas and to maintain access to thekey resources of dry season or mountain summer pastures. This need calls for the strengthening oftraditional communal grazing rights, combined with enforcement and conflict resolutionmechanisms, and decentralized decision making, both in public (government) and customary law.Empowering pastoral people will be the main challenge in future pastoral development(Shanmugaratnam et al., 1992).

Government institutions must establish and enforce a regulatory framework for land protection orwaste control, such as for industrial production systems or animal product processing units.Strengthening pollution control and enforcement mechanisms in the developing world will be animportant future task.

3.4. Incentive PoliciesIncentive policies rely on market forces. The more a production system is exposed to the market,the more susceptible it will be to price changes. In particular, intensive production depends oninputs that contain a high component of natural resources often not reflected in their market price.These should be priced higher by abolishing subsidies or, in some situations, taxation. Examplesinclude feed concentrates, fossil fuel, inorganic fertiliser, livestock products, land, mechanisationand genetic material. This, in addition to a quantitative effect of reduced consumption, will inducea more efficient use of natural resources, with both environmental and economic gains. It will alsofavour a more even, spatial distribution and promote land-based systems. Correspondingly,subsidies or tax relief can be provided where natural resources are saved or used wisely, such asthrough the use of renewable energy (methane) or protecting biodiversity. Essentially, therecommendation is for full cost recovery of the provision of all goods and services used bylivestock producers, and also, those sectors that compete with the livestock sector for resources andmarkets.

There are several examples of incentive policies. If the grazing systems need to be directedtowards more sustainable resource use, the following incentive policies may be introduced toreduce grazing pressure by increasing the cost of rangeland grazing (FAO, 1997b):

21

• Full cost recovery, especially for water and animal health services would provide anincentive for rapid destocking of pastoral areas when feed resources are in decline, andwould encourage more efficient use.

• Appropriate benefit sharing systems may also be devised for the protection of biodiversity.In the European Alps (Austria, Switzerland), farmers receive income support for landscapemaintenance. At a global level, benefit sharing systems may be devised for the productionof global commons.

• Taxation for pasture and crop land in rainforest areas to discourage conversion of forest tocrop and pasture land is conceptually attractive.

If the full environmental benefits of mixed farming systems are to be achieved, feed, fertilizer andmechanization subsidies should be removed. Cheap feed favours the development of industrialproduction at the expense of home-grown feed whereas cheap mineral fertilizer and fuel placeinputs from internal sources, such as manure and animal traction at a disadvantage. For nutrientsurplus reduction in mixed farming and industrial systems in surplus areas there are a variety ofincentives or penalties, including the following (FAO, 1997b):

• removal of subsidies on, or taxation of, imported concentrate feed to reduce the significantnutrient transfer. This will increase the cost of feed concentrate intensive production andfavour land-based systems over industrial systems. Removing subsidies on, or taxation of,concentrate feed and on inputs used for its production such as fertilizer, fuel and machineryencourages efficient resource use. This would not only encourage its more efficient use butalso promote the use of animal manure in mixed farming areas.

• incentives to achieve a more balanced distribution of crop and livestock activities: theseinclude, taxes on manure surpluses or phosphate loads or systems of tradable manure quotasto limit the number of animals (Brandjes et al., 1995).

• levies on waste discharge, for example, in the United States, there are examples of watertreatment utilities paying farmers to adopt low polluting management practices because thisoption is more cost-effective for them than upgrading their water treatment plant (USEPA,1995).

• removal of import restrictions on materials (such as phosphate enzymes, and amino-acids)and equipment that improve feed efficiency. This could lead to lower waste loads throughbetter feed conversion.

• subsidies for investment or running costs to improve the adoption of emission controltechnologies. An example is subsidies for constructing manure storage facilities, practisedin many EU countries. In the USA, cost-sharing and state revolving funds have beenestablished for manure storage sheds and dead poultry composters. Another example is theadoption of methane recovering techniques from manure which is largely determined by theprice and availability of other forms of energy.

3.5. RegulationsRegulatory instruments are imposed to control the distribution and concentration of livestockproduction and introduce technical control systems. The regulatory approach is most efficient insituations of point source pollution and where there are strong enforcement institutions. Incountries with weak institutions, the enforcement of regulations at reasonable social cost remains amajor challenge and limits the validity of this approach. Compliance with regulations affects costof production and may therefore influence regional distribution. Specific examples of regulationsare given in Table 1. They include the limits on the number of animals in the EU, and most of themember states, taxes on surplus animals as in Belgium (Manale, 1991), taxes on surplus P (mostEU countries), a ban on direct discharge of manure into surface waters (USA, Malaysia), and theestablishment of nutrient management plans (Indonesia, the USA and a number of Europeancountries). These usually include timing and methods of application, animal waste collection andstorage (Narrod et al., 1994). Some of these regulations are difficult to control and enforce, such as

22

maximum amounts of manure applied per unit area, while others are more easily controlled likestorage capacity and number of livestock per farm. Guidelines on manure storage and applicationmethods, timing, crops and quantities are available in practically all countries with high animaldensities.

3.6. ZoningRegulations often aim to establish rational patterns of land use through zoning laws and should takeinto consideration, among other factors, the environmental value and susceptibility of an area.Zoning is an important current and future instrument for both animal manure and productprocessing, not only for environmental objectives but also for reasons of human health concernsand reduction of nuisance. Two different approaches can be taken: intensive production units canbe distributed over a wide geographical area to bring the production of waste products in line withthe absorptive capacities of the land, and production can be concentrated to benefit from economiesof scale in waste treatments. The first approach has successfully moved industrial production unitsaway from urban centres in OECD member countries. Good infrastructure is an importantprerequisite for successful zonation as perishable animal products have to be transported over largerdistances. Zonation has to consider the marketing and processing infrastructure and beaccompanied with supporting policies to facilitate respective investments. The creation of confinedindustrial parks as an alternative to a geographic spread with, sometimes, shared facilities for wastecollection and treatment, offers opportunities to burden industrial production systems with theenvironmental costs while still maintaining advantages of market access and economies of scale.To a varying extent, zonation may also be obtained through incentives.

Table 1. A cross section of manure management regulationsCountry N - Emissions P – Emissions

European Union Maximum stocking rate: 2.0 cows,equivalent to 170 kg N per year inmanure.Nitrate level in drinking water: MAC†50 mg NO3/L.

P2O3 in drinking water: 5,000 µg/L.

Max. amount of P2O5 (kg/ha) in animalmanure allowed to be added to the soil todecline as follows:

1990 2000Grassland 250 90Maize 350 65

Netherlands Same water standards as EU. Reductionof NH3 emission by 50-75 percent,through low ammonia emissiontechniques: injection, bans on autumnand winter applications, and coveredmanure storage. Cost sharing formanure drying and transport to manuredeficient regions.

with levies for every kg of phosphateproduced per hectare of farm-owned land inexcess of a tax-free amount of 55 kg P per ha.The tax of US $ 0.40 per kg of P2O5 isdoubled for production over 87 kg per ha.

Germany Varies according to the State.Maximum fertiliser rate at 240 kg N perha, and in some states maximumstocking rates of 3.5-4.5 cows (ormanure equivalent) per ha. Manureapplication (winter) and storagerestrictions. Mineral record keepingrequired.

Unlike Netherlands, most attention is onnitrogen

USA Varies according to the State. Manure management plans required for all farms (withfederal and state sharing cost in implementation) and permits required for concentratedanimal feeding operations (CAFO's). Bans on the direct discharge on surface water.† Maximum Allowable Concentration

Source: Narrod, 1994

23

3.7. Cleaner ProductionCleaner production means the continuous application of an integrated preventive environmentalstrategy to processes, products and services to increase efficiency and reduce risks to humans andthe environment. In the long run, cleaner production is the most effective way to design andoperate industrial processes and to develop and produce products and services. The costs of wastesand emissions, including negative environmental and health impacts, can be avoided or minimisedby applying the cleaner production concept continuously and throughout the entire life cycle; it is apreventive approach rather than reactive.

In a case of a waste management system on a pig farm, Charles Integrated Farming Enterprises PtyLtd (Charles I.F.E. Pty Ltd) in Australia, for example, saves $435,000 per year from a $2 millioninvestment in a total waste management system for its Berrybank Farm. The system involvesgenerating electricity from biogas, conserving and recycling water and collecting waste for sale asfertiliser. With choosing simple and straightforward technologies and methods, the waste from onepart of a farm is the input to another. Along the way, the company has eliminated environmentalproblems such as odours and groundwater contamination. At the same time, it has dramaticallyreduced consumption of water which is one of Australia’s most precious resources.

3.8. Environmental Management System (EMS)An Environmental Management System (EMS) is a method of incorporating environmental carethroughout the corporate structure. EMS includes strategic planning activities, the organisationalstructure and implementation of the environmental policy as an integral part of the manufacturingprocess. It is a useful tool to implement to comply with legislation, address stakeholder pressureand improve corporate image and raise awareness of environmental issues. EMS is a problem-identification and problem-solving tool, based on the concept of continual improvement, that can beimplemented in an organisation in many different ways, depending on the sector of activity and theneeds perceived by management. In particular, standards for EMS have been developed by theInternational Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) and by the European Commission – Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS).

A livestock environmental management system (EMS) helps producers identify, understand andprioritize environmental risks associated with their existing farming and processing activities. Theassessment process highlights practices that are regulated, and voluntary actions producers can taketo reduce or prevent problems. The EMS framework helps produces develop and document actionplans that support continuous improvements in environmental management. An action plan mayaddress system design, farming practices, operating procedures, equipment and facilities, thenidentify opportunities to take voluntary actions that reduce environmental risks, ensure compliancewith Federal, State and local requirements, and support farm financial management.

The following is a list of a few examples of EMS in agriculture:(1) Rangelands Environmental Accreditation aims to assist Western Australian pastoral producersin demonstrating a commitment to environmental management and the production of safe, qualityrangeland products. The project seeks to use environmental management and quality assurancesystems to differentiate pastoral products within the market, thereby providing a commercialincentive for sustainable management.

(2) Environmental Codes of Practice for Queensland Piggeries, Dairy Farms and Livestock HoldingFacilities; Feedlot Reference Manual give guidance to producers to allow them to comply with thegeneral environmental duty. Also, they assist producers in meeting requirements of certain qualityassurance regimes which have environmental components. They are also a self assessment tool toenable producers to benchmark their current activities with best management practices outlined in

24

the code to ensure producers comply with legislative provisions under the QueenslandEnvironmental Protection Act 1994.

(3) The objectives of the Beef Industry Environmental Management Systems project are todocument and evaluate the benefits and any difficulties encountered in implementing the ISO14000 standard for the grazing industry by June 2002, promote the potential benefits of EMS and todocument key elements of a Codes of Practice for the beef industry. Four groups of beef producersare participating in a pilot project - from temperate southern Australia, tropical northern Australiaand a corporate pastoral company.

3.9. Information, Training and ExtensionKnowledge transfer, in many instances, has to be seen as the key factor to keeping a balancebetween livestock and the environment. While changing scarcities stimulate a search for newtechnologies, this process can be accelerated by the targeted transmission of technical knowledge atall levels. For example, a traditional technique of straw treatment for cattle feeding, helps not onlyto convert crop waste products into beef but also reduces methane emissions. This technique,known since the forties was recently successfully introduced in China and was adopted by sevenmillion farmers within six years (Li-Biagen, 1996). Policy-makers need to keep pace withchanging scarcities of production factors (and anticipate them in their technology policies) and theymust also take into account the impact of environmental effects and policies on these scarcities.This requires a strong institutional base for technology generation and transfer.

In the industrial countries, the extension service has been forced by the complex systems ofregulations on livestock-environment interactions to play an important role in informing farmersabout friendlier technologies and related incentives. In effect, a large part of the work of thepublicly funded extension service focuses on these issues.

3.10. Selection of TechnologyTechnological change is the key to solving the problems of sustainable agriculture as technologydetermines resource use. New technologies, effective and efficient use of existing technologies, areessential to increasing the capabilities of countries while avoiding pollution, achieving sustainabledevelopment, protecting human health and the community. Achievement of these goals requiresimprovements in the technologies currently in use and their replacement by more accessible andmore environmentally sound technologies. However, currently available technologies can alreadysignificantly increase efficiencies, enhance resources in use and recycle waste at various stages ofthe production process.

Over the last decade, there has been considerable interest in promoting low-input mixed farmingsystems, as sustainable and environmentally friendly systems. In the USA, the Rodale Institute inPennsylvania, and the LISA (Low Input Sustainable Agriculture) movement, strongly promoted byUSDA have been in the forefront. In Europe, the ILEIA (Institute for Low External InputAgriculture) has been one of the prime movers. Mixed farming systems are often especiallysuitable for low-input production. Some of the main technologies which can be used in thelivestock sector are shown in Box. 4.

25

Further Information:The Livestock and Environment Toolbox [http://lead.virtualcentre.org/en/dec/toolbox/Index.htm] providestechnical and policy or institutional development options for enhancing positive or mitigating negativeeffects of livestock on the natural resource base, together with suggestions for increasing awareness of theissues among a spectrum of policy-makers, planners and extension officers.

EMS Navigator-A tool for Environmental Management Systems in Australian Agriculture[http://www.affa.gov.au/emsnavigator] - The EMS Navigator allows a visitor to search a database of EMS-related activities in Australia. It provides simple and straightforward links to EMS-related information in thedatabase and overseas. Users can search by industry categories, by state, by type of EMS activity, or by keyword.

Environment Australia – Industry Eco-Efficiency & Cleaner Production Case Studies: Cleaner Production -Total Waste Management System: Berrybank Farm Piggery - Charles I.F.E. Pty Ltd[http://www.ea.gov.au/industry/eecp/case-studies/charlesife.html] – This section of Environment Australia’sIndustry Eco-Efficiency & Cleaner Production holds a collection of 138 Australian case studies in differenttypes of industries to show how companies can reduce production costs, save resources, reduce waste andmaintain a competitive edge.

Livestock - Environment Interactions - ISSUES AND OPTIONS (FAO) What can be done?[http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/aga/lspa/LXEHTML/policy/ch3b.htm] – Thissection of the Livestock – Environment Interaction Issue Paper address the key issues and suggestions on thepolicy design.

Livestock - Environment Interactions - ISSUES AND OPTIONS (FAO) What can be done?[http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/aga/lspa/LXEHTML/policy/ch3c.htm] – Thissection of the Livestock – Environment Interactions paper shows examples of technological change in orderto respond to changes in availability of inputs and in demand for livestock products.

Implementation of nitrates Directive [http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-nitrates/index_en.html] – This section of the European Commission website consists of two subsections:Directive 91/676/EEC on nitrates from agricultural sources; and the Implementation Report COM(97) 473.

U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Unified National Strategy forAnimal Feeding Operations March 9, 1999 [http://www.epa.gov/owm/finafost.htm]

US Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service (ERS) - Conservation and environmental policy:overview [http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/conservationandenvironment/overview.htm] – USA’s ERSresearch program conducts economic research on the efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of policies and

Box 4. Available sustainable technologies available in the livestock sector.

• Use of grass-legume mixtures as the basic feeding system for ruminants. The nitrogenfixation of legumes (such as clovers), can replace the nitrogen lost through milk andmeat

• Mixed species grazing (cattle and small ruminants), which increases grass yield, botaniccomposition and reduces the parasite load

• Genetic improvement focusing on maximum capacity to digest roughage, rather than onconcentrate feed consumption, and based on life-time production, rather than on shortterm lactation yield, to achieve optimum efficiency

Source: FAO, 1997b

26

programs directed toward improving the environmental performance of the agricultural sector. This pageprovides the policy instruments that are available to decision-makers.

US Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service (ERS)[http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/conservationandenvironment/Questions/consenvwq5.htm] - Thisquestions and answers section shows how the States are dealing with agricultural pollution.

US Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service (ERS)[http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/conservationandenvironment/Questions/consenvwq3.htm] – Thisquestions and answers section shows how agricultural pollution treated under Federal water quality laws.

US Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service (ERS)[http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/conservationandenvironment/Questions/consenvwq7.htm] – Thisquestions and answers section shows how education can reduce nonpoint-source pollution from agriculturalsources.

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture[http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm/] – This is the US EPA’s draft technical guidance and referencedocument for use by State, local, and tribal managers in the implementation of nonpoint source pollutionmanagement programs. It contains information on the best available, economically achievable means ofreducing pollution of surface and ground water from agriculture.

Executive Order 13132[http://manure.unl.edu/npdes/npdes.pdf] - Federalism Outreach Document for the U.S. EPA’s ProposedRegulatory Changes to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Concentrated Animal FeedingOperation (CAFO) Regulations and Effluent Limitation Guidelines for Feedlots (July 18, 2000)

The Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania[http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/] - The Rodale Institute works with people worldwide to achieve aregenerative food system that renews environmental and human health working with the philosophy that"Healthy Soil = Healthy Food = Healthy People ®

ILEIA / Centre for Research and Information on Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture[http://www.ileia.org/] - ILEIA's objective is to promote the development and adoption of low external inputsustainable agriculture in collaboration with farmers in the third world. LEISA is seen as a viable alternativeto conventional agriculture in order to increase production and ensure food security in marginal areas.

UNEP DTIE Cleaner Production [http://www.unepie.org/Cp2/home.html] This site provides a brief outlineof the activities performed by this programme including its documents, guides, the programme'sinternational cleaner production information clearinghouse (ICPIC), activity centres and working groups.The site also has an electronic version of the publication ‘Cleaner Production - A Guide to Sources ofInformation’ that provides information on international and national organisations with expertise in cleanerproduction activities.

UNIDO Industrial and Technological Information Bank (INTIB) [http://www.unido.org/] INTIB is theUnited Nations Industry and Development Organisation's (UNIDO) clearinghouse. This site has a completelist of hyperlinks to websites providing cleaner production case studies as well as information on cleanerproduction, clean technology and industrial energy saving efforts.

Cleaner Production in Central and Eastern Europe - EAP Task Force [http://www.oecd.org/env/eap] Thissite is dedicated to cleaner production activities in Central and Eastern Europe (EAP). It providesinformation on its member services, resources, published reports, meeting documentation, availableresources and relevant links.

PREPARE (PReventive Environmental Protection AppRaoches in Europe) [http://www.prepare-net.org/index.html] PREPARE offers information on new international, industry-oriented research and

27

development projects in the field of cleaner process technologies and cleaner product development. It alsoprovides information on experts and research institutions as well as up-coming PREPARE workshops.

Environet Australia [http://www.environment.gov.au/epg/environet/environet.html] This is a network ofdatabases available in Australia. It contains a listing of Australian environmental organisations, pollutionprevention research and development activities, education opportunities and technology case studies. TheCleaner Production Case Studies Directory provides case studies from various Australian industry sectors.

Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention (C2P2) [http://www.c2p2online.com/] Formerly the Great LakesPollution Prevention Centre, this site offers pollution prevention information in the North American region.P2 Dialogue participants are connected electronically to share successes, available resources, key contactsand opportunities for co-operation.

Enviro$en$e International Cooperative for Cleaner Production [http://es.epa.gov/cooperative/international/]This page is part of the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency sponsored Enviro$en$ewebsite. It is a collection of information on international cleaner production activities. It includes activitydescriptions, links to other relevant pages and listings of experts.

ISO Online [http://www.iso.ch/] - This is the official ISO 14000 website. It provides users with informationon ISO, ISO technical work, the standards themselves as well as ISO member contacts and servers.

EMAS HelpDesk [http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/emas/] - Formerly managed by EOTC, thissite is now managed by Bradley Dunbar Associates. It offers official information on Eco-Management andAudit Scheme including a help-desk, regular news service, and news and events.

Clean Technology Center – EMS [http://www.unepie.org/pc/pc/tools/ems.htm] - This site containsinformation on environmental management tools, particularly EMS and EMAS. It outlines what an EMS isand how it can be applied.

UNEP/FIDIC/ICC EMS Kit [http://www.unepie.org/outreach/business/ems.htm] - This UNEP/FIDIC/ICCpublication described on this site is an EMS training resource kit. It gives trainers and managers the toolsnecessary to conduct training courses in EMS for companies in their own region. It is composed of a trainersguide, lecture material, exercises, case studies and information resources. The kit is available in numerouslanguages.

EMAS Tool Kit for SMEs [http://www.inem.org/] - The International Network developed this electronictool kit for Environmental Management. It is aimed at helping small- and medium- sized enterprisesincorporate EMAS into their business operations. The publication contains a tool kit, case studies andinformation for further assistance.

US EPA Design for the Environment (Dfe) programme [http://www.epa.gov/dfe/] - The DfE Program helpsbusinesses incorporate environmental considerations into the design and redesign of products, processes, andtechnical and management systems. This page provides access to the EMS website (under development),which aims to provide information on how to apply and implement an EMS.

EMS Navigator [http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=727E0BA5-6231-4B67-B0666A88172092F2] The EMS Navigator allows you to search a database of EMS-related activities inAustralia. It provides simple and straightforward links to EMS-related information in the database andoverseas. Users can search by industry categories, by state, by type of EMS activity, or by key word. Linksare also provided to further information such as word or pdf documents, and to other websites that host theirown EMS information.

28

4. Recommendations for ActionsGovernments responded to the environmental degradations with above-mentioned policies andenvironmental management instruments to prevent and minimise the subsequent environmentalimpacts caused by wastes from livestock farms. Some national governments in developedcountries have strong and well-designed environmental policies and instruments to prevent andminimise the pollution caused by livestock farms to acceptable levels. However, not all nationalgovernments have the same kinds of policies. Moreover, there still exist the following weaknessesin response to the livestock waste problems in many counties:

• Poorly defined and enforced regulations fail to protect environmental resources, such as forestareas, surface waters or cropland;

• Poorly developed instruments to value and allocate costs and benefits of environmental goodspose practical difficulties to designing feedback mechanisms for environmental degradation;

• Price policies and incentives without clear objectives misguide livestock development throughthe pricing of inputs and products and induce wasteful use of natural resources;

• Where institutions are weak, and where the polluter is difficult to identify, regulations aredifficult to enforce because of lack of technology;

• Lack of know-how at all levels of stakeholders in understanding the importance of ecosystemdynamics may have led to wrong interventions;

• Not enough information is disseminated to consumer side which may also play a role inuncontrolled meat demand.

Improved management of the world's natural resources and livestock waste is essential ifsustainable agricultural production is to continue - feed the world's growing population whilesustaining its natural resource base. To this purpose, it is recommended that all the decision-makers in international organisations, national governments, NGOs, environmental and livestockspecialists at farming and community levels take the following concrete actions:

Governmental Actions:• strengthen the capabilities in monitoring systems and information gathering network to measure

and fully capture the current and future situation of environmental degradation anddevelopment of livestock production that will satisfy current and future human needs, whilepreventing the environmental pollution and maintaining the natural resource base;

• identify and adopt policies and technologies which mitigate any negative environmental impact,while at the same time producing sufficient livestock products to satisfy the demands of agrowing human population;

• strengthen environmental regulations concurrently with the best available technologies;• integrate all the appropriate policies and interventions at each step of livestock production

systems grasping the global view rather than applying them separately viewing only where theproblem exists.

Industry Action (Production Practices):• strengthen the capability in information gathering network to pace with current issues;• development and adoption of better technology and use of environmental assessment tools, such

as Environmental Technology Assessment (EnTA), for better choice of environmentaltechnologies;

• adoption of Environmental Management System (EMS) and pollution prevention practices suchas Cleaner Production.

29

All the stakeholders:Hold national and international workshops to exchange information and expertise, and discuss worktogether towards sustainable livestock production and consumption. The objectives of theworkshop should be: (1) to provide an overview of environmental issues related to the currentlivestock production practices; (2) to define sustainable livestock agriculture; (3) to define goalsand policy approaches to achieve those goals; (3) to present overviews of current knowledge ofmanure management systems for cattle, poultry, swine, and dairy farms in terms of monitoring,policy design, institutional development, incentive policies, regulations, information, training andextension, selection of technology; (4) to present case studies of good management plans forlivestock farms; and (5) to produce a workshop proceedings that is a useful reference to theconference audience. The workshop should provide an educational opportunity for allstakeholders.

30

5. References

Anderson, K., B. Dimaranan, T. Hertel, and W. Martin. 1997. Asia-Pacific food markets and tradein 2005: A global, economy-wide perspective. Australian Journal of Agricultural andResource Economics 41 (March): 19–44.

Bouwman, A.F., van der Hoek, K.W. and Olivier, J.G.J. (1995). Uncertainties in the global sourcedistribution of nitrous oxide. J. Geophys. Res. 100: 2785-2800.

Brandjes, P., de Wit, J., van Keulen, H. and van de Meer H.B. (1995). Environmental Impact ofManure management. Impact domain study for the FAO/WB Study on Livestock and theEnvironment, Final draft, International Agricultural Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Bumb, Balu L. and Carlos A. Baanante. (1996). The Role of Fertilizer in Sustaining Food SecurityandProtecting the Environment to 2020 (International Food Policy Research Institute(IFPRI), Food, Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper No. 17.

Delgado Christopher, m. Rosegrant, H. Steinfeld, S. Ehui, and C. Courbois (1999). Livestock to2020: The Next Food Revolution. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment DiscussionPaper 28.

ERS-USDA website (http://www.ers.usda.gov/)European Environment Agency: Nitrogen and Phosphorus in River Stations Report

(http://themes.eea.eu.int/Specific_media/water/indicators/nitrogen/yir01wq2NP.pdf)FAO (1996). Cereals: feed for animals or food for people? Fact Sheet distributed at World Food

Summit, 13-17 November 1996. Rome.FAO (1997a) Livestock-Environment Interactions: Issues and Options. Henning Steinfeld, Cees de

Haan and Havey Blackburn. 56 p.FAO (1997b) Livestock and the Environment: Finding a Balance. Henning Steinfeld, Cees de Haan

and Havey Blackburn. 115 p.FAO (1997c). Current World Fertilizer Situation and Outlook 1994/95-2000/2001.

FAO/UNIDO/World Bank Working Group on Fertilizers. Rome.Huang, J., and H. Bouis. 1996. Structural changes in the demand for food in Asia. Food,

Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 11. Washington, D.C.: InternationalFood Policy Research Institute.

Huffman, R.L. and P.W. Westerman. (1995). "Estimated Seepage Losses from Established SwineWaste Lagoons in the Lower Coastal Plain in North Carolina," transactions of the ASAE38(2): 449-453.

IFPRI (2001). 2020 Global Food Outlook: Trends, Alternatives, and Choices - A 2020 Vision forFood, Agriculture, and the Environment Initiative. Edited by Mark W. Rosegrant; MichaelS. Paisner, Siet Meijer, and Julie Witcover. International Food Policy Research Institute,Washington D.C.

IFPRI (1995). A 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture and the Environment. International Food PolicyResearch Institute, Washington D.C.

IFPRI (1995). Global Food Projections to 2020. Implications for Investment. Food, Agriculture andEnvironment Discussion Paper 5. International Food Policy Research Institute, WashingtonD.C.

Jongbloed, A.W. and Lenis, N.P. (1992). Excretion of Nitrogen and Some Minerals of Livestock inNitrogen Flow. In: Pig Production and Environmental Consequences, Wageningen, TheNetherlands. EAAP, Publication no. 69.

Li-Biagen (1996). Personal communication with FAO (FAO, 1997b).Loehr, Raymond C. (1968). Pollution Implications of Animal waters – A Forward Oriented

Review. Ada, Okla.: Roert S. Kerr Water Research Centre. U.S. Department of the Interior.Manale, A.P. (1991). European Community Programmes to Control Nitrate Emissions from

Agricultural Activities: An Evaluation of Their State of Implementation and Effectiveness.Washington D.C. Environmental Protection Agency.

31

Munasinghe, M. (1994). Economic and Policy Issues in Natural Habitats and Protected Areas.Protected Area Economics and Policy - Linking Conservation and SustainableDevelopment. World Bank/World Conservation Union, Washington D.C.

Narrod, C., Reynnells, R. and Wells, H. (1994). Potential Options for Poultry Waste Utilization: Afocus on the Delmarva Peninsula. Washington D.C.: United States Department ofAgriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) website –How states Fail to Prevent Pollution fromLivestock waste. http://www.nrdc.org/contactUs/default.asp.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) website –Facts about Pollution from Livestock Farms.http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp.

Niederpruem, Kyle. (1998) "Short Staffing Makes Policing Polluters Harder," Indianapolis Star-News (April 21, 1998).

Nutrition and Forestry (1997) Animal Waste Pollution in America: An Emerging National Problem,Washington, D.C.

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1990). “Technologies to Improve Nutrient and PestManagement,” Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches to Reduce AgrichemicalContamination of Groundwater. Report OTA-F-418. OTA, U.S. Congress. WashingtonD.C., US Government Printing Office.

Sere, C. and Steinfeld, H. (1996). World Livestock Production Systems: Current status, issues andtrends. Animal Production and Health Paper No. 127. FAO. Rome.

Shanmugaratnam, N., Vedeld, T., Mossige, A. and Bovin, M. (1992). Resource Management andPastoral Institution Building in the West African Sahel. World Bank Discussion PapersNumber 175. Washington D.C.

Taiganides, E. Paul. (1964). “Agricultural Solid Wastes” In Proceedings of the NationalConference on Solid Waste Research. December, 1963. Chicago, Illinois. American PublicWorks Association.

USEPA (1995). Study of Livestock-Environment Interactions: Global Impact Domain: MethaneEmissions. Working Document Livestock and the Environment: Finding a Balance.FAO/World Bank/USAID. Rome.

USEPA. (1995). Global Impact Domain - Methane Emissions. Consultant report for the Livestockand the Environment Study. USEPA, Washington D.C.

US EPA (1995). National Water Quality Inventory, 1994 Report to Congress, Report No. EPA841-R-95-005. Washington D.C. Internet reference:http://www.epa.gov./OW/sec1/profile/index.html

Williams, Ted. (1998) "Assembly Line Swine," Audubon Magazine (March-April 1998).Wirsenius S. (2000). Human Use of Land and Organic Materials: Modeling the Turnover of

Biomass in the Global Food System. Ph.D. Thesis. Chalmers University of Technology,Goteborg University. p.171.

Worldwatch Institute, Vital Signs, 1994, Worldwatch Institute. Washington DC, 1994, p. 80.

32

6. Annotated List for Further ReadingVirtual Research and Development Centre on Livestock, Environment and Development Issues - The LEAD(Livestock, Environment And Development) Initiative [http://lead.virtualcentre.org/] - The LEAD Initiativehas implemented the project "Decision Support on Livestock and Environment Issues" to provide decision-support on maximising positive and minimising negative interactions of livestock and environment. Theproject’s main goals are to increase awareness, knowledge and understanding of livestock and environmentinteractions; to identify appropriate options for livestock and environment management at regional andnational level and to convey livestock and environment concepts into government and donor policies andprojects.

As part of the project, LEAD hosts a "Virtual Research and Development Centre on Livestock, Environmentand Development Issues" that includes the Internet portal operated by collaborating institutions. Theseportals enables the research and development workers around the world to access information on livestockand environment interactions that is essential to achieve rural sustainable development. One can also registerto the LEAD distribution list on the Internet.

The Livestock and Environment Toolbox [http://lead.virtualcentre.org/en/dec/toolbox/Index.htm] providestechnical and policy or institutional development options for enhancing positive or mitigating negativeeffects of livestock on the natural resource base, together with suggestions for increasing awareness of theissues among a spectrum of policy-makers, planners and extension officers.

Area-Wide Integration (AWI) of Crop and Intensive Livestock Production[http://lead.virtualcentre.org/en/res/awi/default.htm] The main objective of AWI is to link those specialisedactivities on a regional scale to limit their environmental impacts and enhance social benefits. This throughre-establishing links between these activities, such as nutrients fluxes (i.e. manure recycling, feed),economics (i.e. contracts, labor use), and environment protection (i.e. share of surface water use). To reachthis objective, AWI proposes to develops technologies (i.e. water management on farm, manure recycling),but moreover policy instruments (i.e. removal of subsidies on imported concentrates, zoning, establishmentof environmental standards).

Livestock - Environment Interactions – Issues and Options (FAO)[http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/aga/lspa/LXEHTML/policy/index.htm]Livestock & the Environment – Finding a Balance (FAO)[http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/aga/lspa/LXEHTML/tech/index.htm]These two reports - published in 1997 - are intended to contribute to solving one of today's most crucialagricultural dilemmas: how to find a balance between a fast growing global demand for food and the need tosustain the natural resource base of land, water, air and biological diversity.A group of multilateral and bilateral donors and other organisations undertook to identify ways to help thelivestock sector to satisfy future demands while at the same time preserving the natural resource base.Livestock-Environment Interactions is oriented mainly to policy makers while Livestock & the Environmentis oriented mainly to a technical audience in the domains of agricultural development, livestock productionand the environment.

Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution (International Food Policy Research Institute, Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations and International Livestock Research Institute, 1999)[http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGA/LSPA/lvst2020/Default.htm] - This reportexamines in detail the interrelationships over time between supply and demand for livestock and feed grain,using IFPRI’s IMPACT model. It investigates the plausibility of the projected demand increases forlivestock products and the implications of these increases for world markets in feed, milk, and meat.

FAOSTAT on-line statistical service [http://apps.fao.org/] - FAOSTAT is an on-line and multilingualdatabase currently containing over 1 million time-series records covering international statistics in the areasincluding production, fertiliser and pesticides, land use and irrigation, population. It is also available fromWorld Resources Institute (WRI) – Earth Trends, the Environmental Information Portal[http://earthtrends.wri.org/] - The Environmental Information Portal is the World Resources Institute's newinteractive website. It was developed to make relevant, high-quality information easily accessible and freeto policy-makers in government and private industry, NGOs, educators, students, and the general public.

33

The World Food Situation: Recent Developments, Emerging Issues, and Long-Term Prospects (InternationalFood Policy Research Institute, 1997)[http://www.ifpri.cgiar.org/checknames.cfm/fpr24.pdf?name=fpr24.pdf&direc=d:%5Cwebs%5Cifpri%5Cpubs%5Cfpr] - This report presents the authors’ best assessment of prospects for global food security over thenext quarter century, drawing upon recently revised and updated information from IFPRI’s global foodmodel, which projects food demand, supply, and trade to the year 2020. The report analyses the implicationsof recent events and emerging issues for agricultural research and food policy reform in developingcountries.

Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution (International Food Policy Research Institute, Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations and International Livestock Research Institute, 1999)[http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGA/LSPA/lvst2020/Default.htm] - This reportexamines in detail the interrelationships over time between supply and demand for live stock and feed grain,using IFPRI’s IMPACT model. It investigates the plausibility of the projected demand increases for livestock products and the implications of these increases for world markets in feed, milk, and meat.

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (2001). 2020 Global Food Outlook: Trends,Alternatives, and Choices - A 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Initiative.[http://www.ifpri.cgiar.org/checknames.cfm/fpr30.pdf?name=fpr30.pdf&direc=d:\webs\ifpri\pubs\fpr]Edited by Mark W. Rosegrant; Michael S. Paisner, Siet Meijer, and Julie Witcover.This report shows just how, and how much, certain policy decisions and social changes will affect theworld’s future food security. It projects the likely food situation in 2020 if the world continues on more orless its present course, and it then shows how alternative choices could produce a different future.

Implementation of nitrates Directive [http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-nitrates/index_en.html] – This section of the European Commission website consists of two subsections:Directive 91/676/EEC on nitrates from agricultural sources; and the Implementation Report COM(97) 473.

U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Unified National Strategy forAnimal Feeding Operations March 9, 1999 [http://www.epa.gov/owm/finafost.htm]

US Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service (ERS) - Conservation and environmental policy:overview [http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/conservationandenvironment/overview.htm] – USA’s ERSresearch program conducts economic research on the efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of policies andprograms directed toward improving the environmental performance of the agricultural sector. This pageprovides the policy instruments that are available to decision-makers.

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture[http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm/] – This is the US EPA’s draft technical guidance and referencedocument for use by State, local, and tribal managers in the implementation of nonpoint source pollutionmanagement programs. It contains information on the best available, economically achievable means ofreducing pollution of surface and ground water from agriculture.