Commodities and Conservation:
The Need for Greater Habitat Protection in the Tropics
Background Report: Cattle
Eduard T. Niesten
Center for Applied Biodiversity Science
Conservation International
Note to the Reader:
The bulk of this background report was prepared in the period 1999-2000 for the CABS publication
Commodities and Conservation: The Need for Greater Habitat Protection in the Tropics (published in
2004; available upon request from cabspubs@conservation.org).
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
INTRODUCTION
Over the past few decades, global consumption of beef has climbed steadily as a consequence of
worldwide income growth, population growth, and urbanization. Indeed, Delgado et al. (1999) anticipate
a dramatic surge in beef demand, arguing that the world stands on the eve of a global Livestock
Revolution perhaps as far-reaching in its consequences as the Green Revolution in food grain production
during the 1960s. The Green Revolution was fueled by rising productivity in the cultivation of cereals in
developing countries, leading to astonishing increases in global supply. In contrast, the Livestock
Revolution is demand-driven. Even in areas with muted prospects for per-capita income, population
growth and urbanization will continue to spur growth in demand.
Only a small share of total beef production is traded internationally, suggesting that the
preponderance of future demand for beef will be met through increases in local supply. Cattle raising
already has caused extensive damage to biodiversity, through deforestation in tropical areas and
overgrazing in semi-arid regions (see Figure 1). The Livestock Revolution portends continued
environmental damage as local cattle production systems strive to respond to anticipated growth in
demand.
Figure 1: Conflict between Livestock and Biodiversity in Selected Regions
Source: Steinfeld et al., 1997.
As in the other chapters in this volume, the discussion in this chapter is motivated by habitat
destruction and biodiversity loss in the world’s most biologically diverse areas, found predominantly in
the tropics. Growth in beef production fuels habitat destruction in two ways. First, expansion of grazing
lands to accommodate larger herds often requires conversion of natural habitat to pasture, acting as a
direct driver of deforestation and environmental degradation. Alternatively, intensification of production
supports larger herds and yields (carcass weight per animal) on fixed areas by increasing supplies of
external inputs, especially feed grains. Increasing demand for feed grains, in turn, presents a strong force
for conversion of natural habitat to monocultures of maize, wheat, barley, and soybeans.
1
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
Widespread concern about the biodiversity impacts of cattle production first arose in response to
clearing of virgin forests for grazing in Brazil and Central America in the 1970s and 1980s. By the mid1990s, a doubling in the number of cattle in Central America (since 1950) to nearly 10 million head was
accompanied by an increase in the area under pasture from 3.5 million to 9.5 million hectares (Kaimowitz
1995). During the 1970s in Brazil, forests were converted to pasture at a rate of 0.8 million to 1.0 million
hectares per year, predominantly on large landholdings. In all, about 60 percent of forest destruction in
Brazil between 1966 and 1975 was attributable to cattle ranching schemes (Ecologist 1987, Mahar 1989).
Pasture is the most prominent form of land use in Amazonia, accounting for more than three-quarters of
agricultural land in the region, or about 50 million hectares (Chomitz and Thomas 2001). Moreover, the
pastures created through deforestation offer only limited productive life spans; more than 50 percent of
grazing lands carved out of the Amazon have been abandoned following degradation (Steinfeld et al.
1997).
The cattle industry’s assault on habitat in Brazil and Central America was fueled by government
efforts to promote the conversion of forest to cattle pasture. Tools used to do so parallel policies intended
to promote the spread of coffee, cocoa, soybean, and other commodities throughout the tropics. The
combination of government development priorities and political pressure from farmer lobbies virtually
ensures that this threat will persist, despite frequently marginal economic prospects for the land uses that
replace natural habitat. As with other commodities discussed in this volume, this situation confirms the
need for direct habitat protection as a central component of a conservation strategy designed to address
the threat to biodiversity from expanding cattle production.
The first section of this chapter describes the three models of cattle production currently in use
around the world, and briefly discusses their environmental implications, noting that expansion of cattle
pasture and conversion of habitat to cultivate feed grains are the two main threats that cattle pose to
biodiversity. The next section provides a general overview of global trends in consumption and
production, highlighting the relatively small role played by international trade in global cattle and
biodiversity interactions. The chapter then turns to two case studies that illustrate how conflicts between
cattle and biodiversity can be aggravated by government policies, drawing both from the humid tropics
(Brazil and Costa Rica) and the semi-arid region of Botswana. The chapter concludes that efforts to
dismantle such policies form a critical component of the needed response to cattle and biodiversity
interactions, as do greater efforts to extend direct protection to critical habitat.
Production Systems
The impact on biodiversity of growing demand for cattle products will depend on the production
systems used to accommodate growth in demand. Cattle production systems operate on three principal
models: extensive grazing, mixed farming, and industrial (or intensive) livestock production. Extensive
grazing accounts for 9.3 percent of global meat production, mixed farming for 53.9 percent, and industrial
livestock production for 36.8 percent (Steinfeld et al. 1997).
In extensive grazing systems, cattle herds subsist on inputs readily available from pasture areas.
These systems occupy about one-quarter of the world’s land, yet yield less than 10 percent of global meat
production. In this type of system, production growth primarily is achieved by opening new grazing
areas. However, when expansion of grazing land is not possible, further production growth is achieved
by increasing the number of animals on a fixed area of land, thereby increasing the pressure on rangelands
(Steinfeld et al. 1997).
2
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
Mixed farming systems integrate livestock and crop production, whereby each provides inputs
used in the other: livestock consume crop residues while manure contributes to crop fertilization (see Box
1). When input requirements for production growth overwhelm on-farm capacity to supply feed,
expansion depends on increased supplies of external inputs, particularly feed grain (Thomas & Barton
1995). The introduction of modern strains of high yielding crops into traditional systems presents another
challenge to mixed farming. These crops generate between one-third and one-quarter as much non-grain
biomass as traditional varieties, reducing the amount of waste products available to feed livestock.
Of the three main production systems, output from industrial or intensive livestock production is
growing at the fastest rate (4.3 percent per year versus 2.2 percent for mixed systems and 0.7 percent for
extensive systems) (Seré and Steinfeld 1996). The intensive production model relies on inputs imported
from outside, particularly concentrate feed grains, and therefore can be sustained on small units of land.
As discussed below, the impact of future cattle production on biodiversity largely will depend on the
extent to which rising demand for beef is met by greater intensification or by expansion of grazing to
areas currently occupied by important native habitat. Although pasture expansion is a clear force of
deforestation, severe environmental impacts can also accompany intensification and industrial production
systems.
Box 1: The Many Roles of Cattle
In the developing-country context, cattle serve several functions beyond milk and meat production. For
example, in areas where mechanization and imported chemical fertilizers are often prohibitively
expensive, cattle assist directly with crop production as power for plowing, planting, and weeding. Cattle
provide draught power for more than half of all cultivated land in developing countries (Steinfeld et al.
1997). In addition, cattle dung serves as a principal source of fuel in some regions, and can also be used
as fertilizer. Globally, cattle contribute about 22 percent of total nitrogen fertilization and 38 percent of
phosphates, or the equivalent of about $1.5 billion in commercial fertilizers (Steinfeld et al. 1997).
Finally, in regions lacking stable financial institutions, cattle also serve as a store of value and as an
insurance mechanism. In this regard, adjustments in herd size allow ranchers to adjust to changing
economic conditions, and provide an important avenue for product diversification within a farming
system.
Environmental Impacts
Various environmental problems accompany each type of production system. Extensive grazing
systems directly can lead to overgrazing when demand pressure motivates efforts to raise production
beyond the capacity of available rangelands. Overgrazing results in soil compaction and erosion, and thus
reduces soil fertility and impairs watershed functions. Steinfeld et al. (1997) report that as much as 680
million hectares, or 20 percent of grazing lands worldwide may be degraded due to overgrazing. Mixed
farming systems are similarly vulnerable to overgrazing. Industrial production systems may appear to
alleviate pressure on areas of high biodiversity value because they do not rely on extensive grazing lands
(Delgado et al. 1999). However, industrial production systems are likely to locate near urban areas in
developing countries, where run-off, waste-products, poor hygiene and disease may pose significant
health threats to human populations. Industrialized beef production also contributes to a build up of
pesticides and antibiotics in the food chain (Delgado et al. 1999).
Deforestation and habitat degradation form the principal threats to biodiversity attributable to
cattle production. Expansion of both extensive and mixed farming systems directly contributes to forest
3
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
loss. Cattle ranching can take place on land unsuitable for crops, so governments often are eager to see
ranching expand to ‘idle’ land under natural habitat (Delgado et al. 1999). Although intensive systems
may reduce direct pressure on natural ecosystems from deforestation, they nevertheless threaten
biodiversity indirectly through their impact on global markets for feed grain. Efforts to increase beef or
milk production in mixed farming systems also increase demand for feed grains. Expanding feed grain
markets contribute to expansion of cultivated area for grains such as soybean and maize, in many areas at
the expense of natural habitat. For example, the proliferation of soybean operations in Brazil (see Chapter
6 in this volume) has resulted in widespread conversion of forests and grasslands to large-scale
monoculture (Fearnside 2000). Thus, global intensification of cattle production may transmit severe
threats to biodiversity in regions far from beef producing areas through international markets for feed
grains (see Box 2).
Box 2: Feed Grain Markets
About 21 percent of the world’s arable land is used to produce grains for livestock feed, and grain fed to
livestock represents around 40 percent of total global grain production (Brown 1995). Concentrate feeds,
characterized by high nutrient densities, account for 40 percent of livestock feed in developed countries,
but only 12 percent in developing countries. As continued intensification shrinks this gap, sustained
growth in global demand for feed grains will be met through yield growth in traditional exporting
countries in the Americas and Europe, and expansion of cultivated area in South and East Asia (Delgado
et al. 1999). Soybean derivatives (oil meal) constitute more than half of high-protein feeds (Hendy et al.
2000). Increased supply of soy meal will come largely from South America, particularly in Brazil,
Argentina, and Venezuela, where cultivated area for soybeans is expected to grow dramatically over the
coming decade (USDA 1998). Southern Brazil lost virtually all of its remaining forests by the mid-1980s
to soybean cultivation. Much of this production is exported to the United States and Europe,
demonstrating how intensified beef production in developed countries contributes to biodiversity loss in
the tropics. This dynamic can only grow stronger as intensification of livestock systems proceeds
throughout the world.
GLOBAL MARKET TRENDS
Trends in consumption and production of cattle products suggest that beef production will
increase pressure on biodiversity in the tropics, due to both expanding pastures and intensification as
described above. Inescapably, the global herd will increase in size. The world today holds more than 1.3
billion head of cattle, up 32 percent since 1965. Asia, Latin America, and Africa, home to most of the
world’s global biodiversity hotspots, have seen their shares of the global herd rise, while shares in Europe
and North America fell (see Table 1). Currently Asia holds more than one-third of the world’s cattle
stocks, and Latin America about one-quarter, while Europe’s and North America’s shares are around 10
percent each (see Figure 2).
TABLE 1: REGIONAL GROWTH IN STOCKS (1965-2000)
World
32%
Africa
67.7%
Asia
38.0%
Europe
-12.2%
Latin
America &
Caribbean
76.6%
North
America
0.4%
Oceania
35.8%
Source: FAOSTAT.
4
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
FIGURE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF GLOBAL CATTLE STOCKS (2000)
Oceania
3%
North America
11%
Asia
35%
Latin America &
Caribbean
26%
Africa
17%
Europe
8%
Source: FAOSTAT.
Consumption
Developing countries account for the bulk of anticipated growth in global consumption of cattle
and dairy products. World consumption of beef grew by about 1.1 percent per year between 1982 and
1994. In developing countries, growth was even faster, averaging 3.2 percent per year. Consumption in
the developed world, in contrast, remained virtually stable (Delgado et al. 1999). Over the past two
decades, per-capita meat and milk consumption has expanded most rapidly in Asia. In China, for
example, consumption doubled over this period. Consumption stagnated in Africa and West-Asia on a
per-capita basis, but grew in total due to high population growth. By 2020 developing world meat
consumption is projected to increase by a further 87 percent and milk consumption by 75 percent
(Nicholson 2001).
Increases in meat consumption are driven by population growth, income, and urbanization.
Population growth acts as an obvious driver, as greater numbers of consumers result in greater total meat
consumption. As incomes grow, a portion of additional income is spent on food consumption. People
with low levels of income tend to spend a large proportion of any income increases on high quality
protein sources such as meat (Timmer et al., 1983). Therefore, projected income growth in the
developing world, combined with population growth, will fuel robust growth in demand for beef
(Delgado et al., 1999). Another trend driving increases in meat consumption is urbanization, which
results in exposure to a wide range of culinary influences and a greater variety of food choices, and has
been correlated with growing per capita meat consumption (IFPRI 1995). The United Nations Population
Fund predicts that by 2025, 60 percent of the global population will live in cities, up from around 45
percent today. More than 80 percent of global population growth is taking place in the cities of the
developing world; the most dramatic population shifts will occur in Africa and Asia, where current
urbanization rates are only about 34 percent (UNFPA 1995).
In the early 1990s, developed countries consumed about 5 times as much beef and milk on a per
capita basis as developing countries (Delgado et al. 1999). The gap, however, rapidly is shrinking as
5
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
consumption growth in developing countries outpaces that in developed countries by a factor of three or
more. Future income growth, population increases, and urbanization in developing countries portend a
strong surge in global beef consumption, leading Delgado et al. (1999) to project a ‘Livestock
Revolution’. Whether this surge will warrant the term ‘Revolution’ may be debated, but the overall trend
is unambiguous and certainly will elicit a dramatic response from the beef production sector.
Production and Trade
Most countries produce most of the meat that they themselves consume. Global trade in beef and
veal accounts for less than 4 percent of world production (see Table 2). Even for the 10 leading
exporters, exports only account for about 4 percent of production as a group, although some individual
producers do maintain higher export shares (see Table 3). Since international trade accounts for such
small shares of production, countries expected to experience rapid growth in demand for beef also are
likely to experience rapid growth in production.
TABLE 2: RATIO OF WORLD EXPORTS TO WORLD PRODUCTION (VOLUME) OF CATTLE PRODUCTS
Beef and Veal
Source: FAOSTAT.
1961
0.030
1970
0.034
1980
0.044
1990
0.039
2000
0.024
TABLE 3: BEEF EXPORTS AND PRODUCTION OF WORLD’S TOP-TEN EXPORTERS (1998)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Exports
(Mt)
World
1,832,559
Germany
246,376
France
212,277
India
183,150
Ukraine
164,637
Netherlands
156,548
Canada
114,850
Spain
89,442
United States of America 86,514
Uruguay
78,420
Belgium
76,392
Top 10 Total
3,241,165
Country
Top 10 Share of World
Source: FAOSTAT
0.77
Production
(Mt)
55,315,903
1,458,900
1,630,000
1,400,800
793,000
534,700
1,150,700
650,727
11,803,000
449,900
303,400
75,491,030
Ratio of Exports to
Production
0.03
0.17
0.13
0.13
0.21
0.29
0.10
0.14
0.01
0.17
0.25
0.04
0.36
To date, intensification has proceeded more rapidly in developed countries than in developing
countries. Cattle production in developed countries has seen steady productivity growth in the form of
increased output per animal, whereas production in developing countries has expanded primarily through
larger overall herd sizes. Between 1982 and 1994, the amount of beef produced per animal increased by
.9 percent per year in the developed world, and by only .5 percent per year in the developing world
(Delgado et al. 1999). Over the same period the number of animals fell by 12 percent in developed
countries while production grew by a modest 1 percent, but stocks increased by 16 percent in the
developing world, and production by nearly 50 percent (FAOSTAT). Thus, in the developing world,
6
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
production increases relied heavily on larger herds rather than intensification, as opposed to the developed
world where intensification allowed production growth despite declining total herd size.
The difference between developed and developing country cattle production trends largely
reflects the fact that, in most developing countries, the cost of importing feed grain for intensified
production exceeds the cost of expanding grazing land. For many countries, intensification of feed input
per unit of meat output would imply increased reliance on international trade in feed grain. Thus, a
country’s ability to import feed grain will exert a strong influence on the evolution of livestock production
systems and their impact on biodiversity. In countries where ability to import is constrained (for example,
by foreign exchange shortages), output growth will intensify grazing pressure on existing pasture and rely
on continued pasture expansion into increasingly marginal areas. Especially in developing countries with
abundant and therefore inexpensive land, clearing of forests for pasture may appear more economically
viable than intensification. Given anticipated demand growth, extension to further marginal areas and
conversion of forest areas to pasture continues to threaten vulnerable ecological resources. Livestock
therefore remains an acute threat to natural habitat throughout the developing world.
THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
In addition to global market trends, a host of government policies have encouraged the sacrifice
of biodiversity to expanding cattle pasture. Two case studies below illustrate how government policy can
aggravate the threat cattle production poses for biodiversity. The first examines the impact of government
policies in Brazil and Costa Rica, countries where links between cattle and deforestation first raised
international concern. The Brazilian and Costa Rican experiences show how government policy
exacerbated tropical deforestation caused by cattle ranching. In the second case study, Botswana, direct
conflict between cattle and wildlife has also drawn increasing international attention. The Botswana
experience illustrates how cattle production threatens biodiversity in a semi-arid setting, again due in
large part to the encouragement provided by government policy.
Example 1: Brazil and Costa Rica
During the 1960s and 1970s, influential ranchers’ associations in Brazil and Central America
lobbied for government support of livestock farming and against restrictions on forest conversion.
Governments responded favorably, motivated by a conviction that intensified use of forested areas would
stimulate economic development (Hecht 1989). Several domestic policies supported and encouraged
conversion of forests to pasture, including measures such as property-titling provisions, tax incentives,
and subsidized rural credit, as cattle ranches became a form of tax shelter and land speculation rather than
a response to market demand for beef.
The combination of rural credit subsidies and tax advantages was a powerful incentive for
expansion of the cattle industry. In Costa Rica, the real interest rate on livestock loans was negative
between 1970 and 1983, at times reaching minus 10 percent (World Bank 2000a). In addition to
attractive terms, the government adopted a forgiving stance with respect to loan defaults, thus promoting
the spread of cattle ranching activities irrespective of profitability (WRI 1995). Until 1979 the
Superintendency of Amazonia directly promoted deforestation by providing tax credits for ranches, and
until 1982, corporations could obtain tax credits for up to half of investments in Amazonia funded by
profits generated elsewhere in the country (Binswanger 1991, Fearnside 1989c, Hecht 1989, Nazmi
1991). Moreover, between 80 and 90 percent of agricultural profits were excluded from taxable income
(Binswanger 1991). Brazil’s rural credit subsidy was not eliminated completely until 1987, and through
7
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
the late 1980s, government subsidies accounted for as much as three-quarters of investment in Brazilian
cattle ranches (Fearnside 1989b, Hecht 1989, Mahar 1989). Cheap loans encouraged corporations and
wealthy individuals to clear forests as a means of avoiding taxes, and conversion to pasture simply
represented the most convenient mechanism for taking advantage of these benefits.
Brazil’s system of land titling also encouraged forest clearing and conversion. These activities
were deemed ‘improvements’ that validated ownership claims. As of the 1970s, land tenure laws in
Brazil assigned ownership to whoever cleared the land, promoting land clearing as a form of speculation
(WRI 1994). The land tenure system also facilitated concentration of land ownership. The role of
agricultural land as a tax shelter increased demand for land from corporations and wealthy individuals
with heavy income tax obligations to avoid. As these investors drove up land prices (while enjoying
privileged access to subsidized rural credit), land purchases grew ever further out of reach for landless
poor in rural areas. The poor were forced to resort to squatting and clearing forest to establish title
(Economist 1989). Hence, Fearnside (1989a) goes so far as to say the land tenure system in Amazonia
was founded entirely on deforestation.
These incentives persisted until the mid- to late-1980s, when the drain on national budgets,
international outcry, and pressure from international development agencies compelled governments in
Costa Rica and Brazil to dismantle policies favoring expansion of range lands. The removal of these
subsidies increased the cost of land, inducing intensification of beef production and slowing the rate of
deforestation for pasture. For example, economic reforms adopted by Costa Rica in the 1980s reduced
support for cattle operations, and helped bring about a sharp halt in conversion of forest to pasture (see
Figure 3). Following several decades during which Costa Rica’s deforestation rate ranked among the
highest in the world, in some years reaching 7 percent and higher, Costa Rica’s forested area is now
growing due to reforestation efforts and regeneration of secondary forest on abandoned pasture (de
Camino et al. 2000). The cattle industry in Costa Rica now maintains about the same number of animals
as it did in the mid-1970s (around 1.75 million, down from a peak of nearly 2.5 million in the mid-1980s),
but produces 50 percent more meat, indicating the effects of intensification.
FIGURE 3: LAND USE PATTERNS, COSTA RICA (1961-2000).
Permanent Crops
3,500
Permanent Pasture
3,000
Forests And Woodland
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
19
97
19
94
19
91
19
88
19
85
19
82
19
79
19
76
19
73
19
70
19
67
19
64
0
19
61
Hectares ('000s)
2,500
Year
8
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
Source: FAOSTAT.
Trends in stock and production numbers in Brazil also show how policy changes induced
intensification of beef production (see Figure 4). Stock numbers (or herd sizes) have increased steadily
over time, at an average annual growth rate of about 5 percent. Until the early 1980s, production kept
pace with stock growth, but after policies encouraging expansion of extensive grazing systems were
dismantled, production accelerated through increased yield (carcass weight per animal).
FIGURE 4: BEEF PRODUCTION AND STOCK GROWTH IN BRAZIL (1961-2000)
500
Index Value (1961 = 100)
450
400
350
300
250
200
Production
150
Stocks
100
50
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
1983
1981
1979
1977
1975
1973
1971
1969
1967
1965
1963
1961
0
Year
Source: FAOSTAT.
The Brazilian and Costa Rican experiences highlight two features of cattle production. First, a
wide array of government policies both directly and indirectly can fuel deforestation by the cattle sector.
Second, the elimination of policy distortions, in some instances, can reorient growth in cattle production
from expansion of grazing land to intensification. Given anticipated growth in demand for beef products,
policy reform may reduce direct pressure on natural forests from the cattle sector, but threats to
biodiversity will remain. Growth in demand for cattle products renders unlikely the complete elimination
of incentives to expand pasture, while production increases that rely on intensification do not remove, but
rather change the nature of, pressure for forest conversion.
Example 2: Botswana
As in Costa Rica and Brazil, government policies have supported the cattle sector in Southern
Africa, resulting in expansion of rangeland and overgrazing. Due to government support, cattle
production has expanded in areas better suited to wildlife-based enterprises (Kiss 1990). Principal beef
exporters from the region are Zimbabwe, Namibia, and Botswana, taking advantage of preferential access
to the European Union market. The European Union allows these countries privileged access to its beef
import markets under the Beef and Veal Protocol, a component of the Cotonou Agreement, the latest in a
series of negotiated accords between the European Union and former colonies in the Africa, Caribbean
and Pacific regions. Through the mid-1990s, Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe accounted for about 85
9
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
percent of the total European import quota for all of Africa (FAO 1996a). The large share of production
directed to exports indicates the strong role of distorting trade policy in cattle/environment interactions in
this particular region (see Figure 5).
FIGURE 5: EXPORTS AS PROPORTION OF PRODUCTION
100%
90%
Exports/Production
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
0%
Year
Botswana
Namibia
Zimbabwe
Source: FAOSTAT.
Beef exports from Southern Africa to the European Union must meet strict technical sanitary
requirements regarding Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), veterinary procedures, and slaughterhouse
facilities. Veterinary cordon fences separate FMD and FMD-free zones, and countries maintain buffer
zones where vaccinations and strict movement controls are mandated. The FMD-free zone includes all of
South Africa, Swaziland, and Lesotho, and the central and southern parts of Namibia, Botswana, and
Zimbabwe (see Figure 6). The veterinary fences in Botswana have become a particularly thorny
environmental issue, as the fence system across the northern portion of the country severely restricts
wildlife movements.
FIGURE 6: MAP OF FMD-FREE ZONE AND FENCE IN SOUTHERN AFRICA
10
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
Source: FAO, 1996a.
Botswana’s national herd doubled between the early 1960s and the 1980s, and cattle ranching
rapidly expanded, often to marginal savannah lands. In these areas, cattle came into direct conflict with
wildlife, and to preserve preferential access to European markets, Botswana constructed the fence system
to comply with FMD regulations. The government of Botswana also provides a host of incentives in
addition to the subsidy embodied in the European preferential access scheme; domestic policy distortions
including fiscal incentives, subsidized animal health, extension, and research services, slaughterhouse
subsidies, and tax write-offs comprise social costs that are not adequately set against the gains from
subsidized sales in European markets. In the absence of these various forms of government support,
cattle producers in Botswana could not afford to produce for the European Union market (Pearce and
Warford 1993). Moreover, this access is unlikely to continue indefinitely, as the EU faces increasing
pressure to reform its agricultural trade policies (BBC News, 2002). Loss of preferential access could
reduce beef prices in Botswana by as much as 40 percent, dealing a severe blow to commercial cattle
operations (Sigwele and Khupe 1996, Townsend and Sigwele 1998). The growing likelihood of this
dramatic change in the policy environment augurs a drastic shift in beef production and trade in southern
Africa, but also suggests that on-going large-scale infrastructure investment in new fencing schemes may
be a colossal waste of scarce development funds.
The government of Botswana supports the cattle sector despite various indications that other
sectors may hold more promise. Policies favoring cattle activity in Botswana (and elsewhere in southern
Africa) include domestic government measures such as subsidized stock purchases and free veterinary
care, as well as effective price support due to the EU preferential access scheme. Barnes (1994) suggests
that government policies inflate private financial rates of return to commercial cattle by a factor of 4.
Development planning in parts of Botswana faces a choice between wildlife-based activities centered on
local communities or livestock enterprises representing private commercial interests. Commercial
livestock expansion would require extension of the fencing system and further interference with wildlife
movements (Barnes et al. 2000). Nationally, cattle contribute about 3 percent of GDP, while tourism
centered on Botswana’s wildlife contributes about 5 percent and is rapidly growing (Scott Wilson and
EDG 2000). However, cattle holdings are highly concentrated among powerful interests that favor
expansion of the sector (Perkins 1996). Therefore, even if commercial cattle ranching may not be viable
over the long term despite various government subsidies, expansion and increased fencing remain a real
threat.
11
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
The cattle sector in Botswana illustrates how international markets, government policy, and
political lobbies can promote an industry despite less than robust economic fundamentals. Beef
production for European markets imposes an array of social costs in Botswana, incurred through the
expenditure of government funds to support cattle production and through environmental damage that
undermines potentially more promising activities such as tourism. Nevertheless, a host of subsidies in
Botswana continues to favor cattle production, due to policy inertia and political pressure from domestic
cattle interests. This example shows both the detrimental impact of government policy, and the
challenges facing efforts to promote policy reform. Moreover, policy reform will not change the fact that
increasing global demand for beef will spur continuing increases in production.
12
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The Livestock Revolution anticipated by Delgado et al. (1999) portends robust growth in demand
for beef in the coming decades. International trade comprises only a minor portion of beef consumption
in most parts of the world, and therefore supply responses primarily will involve increases in local
production systems. Production growth will rely on expansion of pasture in some areas of the world, but
elsewhere will depend on increasing use of feed grains. Indeed, expansion in cultivated area for feed
grains may prove to be the greatest threat to biodiversity attributable to cattle (see Chapter 6 in this
volume). Growing demand for cattle products, intensification of production systems, and increasing feed
grain consumption are the dominant factors shaping the following recommendations.
Correct the policy environment. Political pressure to maintain government subsidies is likely to
persist in many countries. Nevertheless, the examples of Brazil and Central America during the 1970s
and 1980s suggest that dismantling skewed incentives for conversion of habitat to pasture can elicit a
dramatic response from the cattle sector. In land-abundant countries, the private sector may still increase
grazing land and stocks rather than pursue productivity growth, if the cost of land is low relative to that of
feed grain imports, technical skills, and capital equipment required for intensification. However, by
eschewing policies that encourage land clearing, governments facilitate intensification in cattle
production, thereby enhancing efficiency, raising output, and reducing a direct threat to biodiversity.
Directly protect habitat against expanding pasture. Policy reform notwithstanding, pasture
expansion will remain a reality in many regions and requires direct protection of ecologically important
areas on grazing frontiers. The productivity gap between extensive livestock production systems and
industrialized production systems suggest that such measures, by reducing land-abundance, can induce
productivity growth and alleviate pressure on threatened regions of high biodiversity value. That is to
say, intensification is more likely to take place when land-constraints become binding, so habitat
protection protects biodiversity while encouraging productivity improvements. However, growing
demand for feed grains due to intensification requires a parallel response to expansion of cereals
cultivation.
Directly protect habitat against expanding feed grain cultivation. Direct habitat protection will
be crucial to protect biodiversity from indirect impacts of global intensification of cattle production
systems. The ongoing process of intensification may reduce direct, local pressure on biodiversity, but
drives expansion of feed grain production elsewhere at an environmental cost that has yet to be
established. To design an appropriate response to this dynamic requires further research on how livestock
sector demand for feed grain impacts biodiversity on a global scale. For instance, soybean cultivation in
Brazil has responded vigorously to demand for high-protein concentrate feeds in North America and
Europe, resulting in rapid, large-scale biodiversity destruction. As beef production systems bear growing
pressure to increase output throughout the world, increasing demand for feed grains promises to intensify
this dynamic. For this reason, direct protection of critical habitat threatened by conversion to cereals
production must become a priority.
13
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
REFERENCES
Alexandratos, N. (Ed.). 1995. World Agriculture: Towards 2010. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations.
Barnes, J. 1994. “Alternative Uses for Natural Resources in Botswana: wildlife utilization”. In S. Brothers and
D. Nteta (eds.) Botswana in the 21st Century. The Botswana Society: Gaborone, Botswana. Pp. 323-336.
Barnes, J., J. Cannon, and K. Morrison. 2000. Economic Returns to Selected Land Uses in Ngamiland,
Botswana. Conservation International.
BBC News. 2002. “Pacific Hits Back at EU Farm Deal”. October 25, available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2359827.stm.
Binswanger, H. 1991. "Brazilian Policies that Encourage Deforestation in the Amazon". World Development.
Vol. 19, No.7. pp. 821-829.
Braga, C. 1992. "Tropical Forests and Trade Policy: The Cases of Indonesia and Brazil." World Bank Discussion
Papers. Vol. 159. World Bank: Washington DC.
Brown, L. 1995. “World Feedgrain Use Up Slightly”. In Vital Signs 1995: the trends that are shaping our
future. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc: New York.
Chomitz, K. and T. Thomas. 2001. “Geographic Patterns of Land Use and Land Intensity in the Brazilian
Amazon”. Working paper, Development Research Group, World Bank: Washington DC.
De Camino, R., O. Segura, L. G. Arias, and I. Pérez. 2000. Costa Rica Forest Strategy and the Evolution of Land
Use. Evaluation Country Case Study Series. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Delgado, C., M. Rosegrant, H. Steinfeld, S. Ehui, and C. Courbois. 1999. Livestock to 2020: The Next Food
Revolution. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 28. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
Ecologist. 1987. "Tropical Forests: A Plan for Action". Vol. 17, No. 4/5. pp. 129-133.
Economist. 1989. "A treasure trove in the trees." Vol. 312, September 2. pp. 10-12.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1996a. Livestock Trade in Southern Africa:
Major Issues and Potential for Growth. Report from Committee on Commodity Problems, Intergovernmental
Group on Meat. FAO: Rome.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1996b. Basic Interactions between Livestock and
the Environment in Different Livestock Production Systems. Report from Committee on Commodity Problems,
Intergovernmental Group on Meat. FAO: Rome.
FAOSTAT (FAO Statistical Databases). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome.
Accessible at http://apps.fao.org/default.htm. (Last accessed on Nov. 29, 2002).
Fearnside, P. 1989a. "Deforestation and Agricultural Development in Brazilian Amazonia". Interciencia. Vol.
14, No. 6. pp. 291-297.
Fearnside, P. 1989b. "A Prescription for Slowing Deforestation in Amazonia". Environment. Vol. 31, No. 4.
pp. 16-20, 39-40.
14
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
Fearnside, P. 2000. “Soybean Cultivation as a Threat to the Environment in Brazil”. Environmental
Conservation. Vol. 28, No. 1. pp. 23-38.
Hecht, Susanna. 1989. "The Sacred Cow in the Green Hell: Livestock and Forest Conversion in the Brazilian
Amazon." The Ecologist. Vol. 19, No. 6. Nov/Dec. pp.229-234.
Hendy, C.R.C., Kleih, U., R. Crawshaw and M. Phillips. 1995. Interactions between Livestock Production
Systems and the Environment: Impact Domain: Concentrate Feed Demand. Working Document Livestock and
the Environment: Finding a Balance. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World
Bank, and US Agency for International Development.
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 1995. A 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture and the
Environment. Washington DC: IFPRI.
Kaimonitz, D. 1995. Livestock and Deforestation in Central America. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Kiss, Agnes (ed.). 1990. Living with Wildlife: Wildlife Resource Management with Local Particpation in Africa.
World Bank Technical Paper #130, Africa Technical Department Series. Washington DC: World Bank.
Mahar, D. 1989. Government Policies and Deforestation in Brazil's Amazon Region. Washington DC: World
Bank.
McGowan International. 1988. National Land Management and Livestock Project, study of the National
Development Bank TGLP loan portfolio. Gaborone, Botswana: Ministry of Agriculture.
Nazmi, N. 1991. "Deforestation and Economic Growth in Brazil: Lessons from Conventional Economics."
Centennial Review Vol. 35, No. 2. pp. 315-322.
Nicholson, C.F, Blake, R.W., Reid, R.S., Schelas, J. 2001. “Environmental Impacts of Livestock in the Developing
World” Environment. Vol. 43, No. 2. pp. 7-17.
Pearce, D. and J. Warford. 1993. World Without End: Economics, Environment, and Sustainable Development,
A Summary. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Perkins, J. 1996. “Botswana: fencing out the equity issue. Cattle posts and cattle ranching in the Kalahari
desert”. Journal of Arid Environments. Vol 33. pp. 503-517.
Science. 1991. "Deforestation Slows." Vol. 251 (March). p. 1425.
Scott Wilson Resource Consultants and The Environment and Development Group (EDG). 2000. Environmental
Assessment of Veterinary Fences in Ngamiland: Summary Report. Submitted to The Government of
Botswana. (EDG can be contacted at admin@edg.org.uk)
Sére, C. and H. Steinfeld. 1996. World livestock production systems: Current status, issues and trends. Animal
Production and Health Paper No. 127. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO).
Sigwele, H. and C. Khupe. 1996. “Implications of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to Botswana’s
Livestock Sector”. Paper submitted to National Development Policy Conference, Gaborone.
Steinfeld, H., C. de Haan, and H. Blackburn. 1997. Livestock-environment Interactions: Issues and Options.
Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Development.
15
Commodities and Conservation Background Report: Cattle
Timmer, P., W. Falcon, and S. Pearson. 1983. Food Policy Analysis. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Thomas, D. and D. Barton. 1995. Interactions between Livestock Production Systems and the Environment:
Impact Domain: Crop-Livestock Interactions. Working Document Livestock and the Environment: Finding a
Balance. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Bank, and US Agency for
International Development.
Townsend, R. and H. Sigwele. 1998. “Socio-economic cost-benefit analysis of action and alternatives for the
control of contagious bovine pleuropneumonia in Ngamiland, Bostwana”. Department of Agricultural
Economics, University of Pretoria.
United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA). 1995. State of World Population. New York: UNFPA.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998. International Agricultural Baseline Projections to 2007.
Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service. Agricultural Economic Report No. 767.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer767 (accessed Nov. 29, 2001).
United States Department of Agriculture Center for Emerging Issues. 2000. “Foot and Mouth Disease, South
Africa”. Impact Worksheet, Sept. Available at URL:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/fmd_southafrica0900e.htm. (accessed Nov. 29, 2001).
Vandermeer, J. and I. Perfecto. 1995. Breakfast of Biodiversity. Oakland, California: Institute for Food and
Development Policy.
World Bank. 2000a. Costa Rica: Forest Strategy and the Evolution of Land Use. Evaluation Country Case
Study Series. Wsahington, D.C.: World Bank.
World Bank. 2000b. World Development Report, 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty. Washington, D.C.: World
Bank.
World Resources Institute (WRI). 1994. World Resources. New York: WRI.
World Resources Institute (WRI). 1995. International Perspectives on Sustainability. Washington, D.C.: WRI.
16