The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its fourth assessment
report (2007) indicated that many of the developing countries tend to be especially
vulnerable to extreme climatic events and adverse impacts of a gradual climate
change as they largely depend on climate sensitive sectors like agriculture and
forestry. India has a geographic disadvantage as it is already in the warmer part of
the world. Nearly two thirds of the Indian population is rural mostly living in harsh
climatic regions of mountains, deserts and river deltas, which are more susceptible
to climate change.
In the case of livestock, global warming and climate change are likely to impact
negatively on production and health. Increase in physiological reactions at high
temperatures will elevate heat loads of animals resulting into a decline in productivity of meat, wool, milk and draught power (Upadhyay et al. 2008).
Livestock is an essential component of the dry land ecosystem. Grazing animals
in dry lands contribute to a healthy soil through manure and seeding. It improves
the soil’s physical properties (porosity, water holding capacity, drainage) and its
fertility (dung has high carbon: nitrogen ratio and urine is rich in ‘nitrogen’ and
‘potassium’). Small ruminants spread the manure and urine very evenly. It is
reported that a flock of 1000 sheep and goats, when spent five nights in the field can
very well manure 1.32 acres of land. Almost eighty percent of milk in India is
produced in integrated mixed crop-livestock farming systems. A well managed
integrated crop livestock system has the potential to create a win-win situation for
both the farmers and the environment. However, there are two areas where livestock in India has likely negative contributions on the environment. They are
(a) methane emission and (b) degradation of common lands. These are issues that
need to be addressed through technical and policy interventions. But valuing
livestock only from one perspective (environmental) in a context where it plays
many roles might lead to making expensive mistakes. This is because a preponderant number of farmers in the marginal lands in countries like India are surviving
only because of livestock. In these countries, livestock is kept by people not just for
production but because of its multiple (livelihood, social, environmental) contributions. When there was agrarian distress in India, farmers committed suicide. But
no suicides were reported in areas where livestock was prominent as there was
something to fall back. Livestock is found to be positively egalitarian. Therefore, a
more detailed and holistic assessment is required before drawing conclusions
(Pasha 2001).
The poor livestock keepers depend heavily on common property resources for
their survival. At the same time, there are few organized efforts for the development
of common lands and its sustainable management. This is likely to have a negative
impact on the land. This scenario is not inevitable, provided the poor are offered
alternative options that will reduce their dependency on the common resources and
that will regulate the use, enhance the regeneration and raise the productivity of
common property resources. Therefore, any change in the status and productivity of
430
G. Letha Devi et al.
report (2007) indicated that many of the developing countries tend to be especially
vulnerable to extreme climatic events and adverse impacts of a gradual climate
change as they largely depend on climate sensitive sectors like agriculture and
forestry. India has a geographic disadvantage as it is already in the warmer part of
the world. Nearly two thirds of the Indian population is rural mostly living in harsh
climatic regions of mountains, deserts and river deltas, which are more susceptible
to climate change.
In the case of livestock, global warming and climate change are likely to impact
negatively on production and health. Increase in physiological reactions at high
temperatures will elevate heat loads of animals resulting into a decline in productivity of meat, wool, milk and draught power (Upadhyay et al. 2008).
Livestock is an essential component of the dry land ecosystem. Grazing animals
in dry lands contribute to a healthy soil through manure and seeding. It improves
the soil’s physical properties (porosity, water holding capacity, drainage) and its
fertility (dung has high carbon: nitrogen ratio and urine is rich in ‘nitrogen’ and
‘potassium’). Small ruminants spread the manure and urine very evenly. It is
reported that a flock of 1000 sheep and goats, when spent five nights in the field can
very well manure 1.32 acres of land. Almost eighty percent of milk in India is
produced in integrated mixed crop-livestock farming systems. A well managed
integrated crop livestock system has the potential to create a win-win situation for
both the farmers and the environment. However, there are two areas where livestock in India has likely negative contributions on the environment. They are
(a) methane emission and (b) degradation of common lands. These are issues that
need to be addressed through technical and policy interventions. But valuing
livestock only from one perspective (environmental) in a context where it plays
many roles might lead to making expensive mistakes. This is because a preponderant number of farmers in the marginal lands in countries like India are surviving
only because of livestock. In these countries, livestock is kept by people not just for
production but because of its multiple (livelihood, social, environmental) contributions. When there was agrarian distress in India, farmers committed suicide. But
no suicides were reported in areas where livestock was prominent as there was
something to fall back. Livestock is found to be positively egalitarian. Therefore, a
more detailed and holistic assessment is required before drawing conclusions
(Pasha 2001).
The poor livestock keepers depend heavily on common property resources for
their survival. At the same time, there are few organized efforts for the development
of common lands and its sustainable management. This is likely to have a negative
impact on the land. This scenario is not inevitable, provided the poor are offered
alternative options that will reduce their dependency on the common resources and
that will regulate the use, enhance the regeneration and raise the productivity of
common property resources. Therefore, any change in the status and productivity of
430
G. Letha Devi et al.