c Cambridge University Press 2013 * ISSN 1466-2523
Animal Health Research Reviews 14(2); 155–158 doi:10.1017/S1466252313000157
Identifying the public health benefits of livestock-dependent, agro-ecosystems under climate change Shana Gillette 210 Diagnostic Medicine Center, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1644, USA
Received 18 March 2013; Accepted 3 June 2013; First published online 1 November 2013
Abstract As the demand for meat continues to grow in South Asia and Africa and access to communal sources of water and forage shrinks, intensification of small-scale livestock systems in periurban areas is expected to expand. In South East Asia, smallholder transition to livestock intensification has been transformative, increasing economic opportunities while also introducing new disease risks. While we have an understanding of the emerging disease burden from livestock intensification; we have just begun to understand the possible public health benefits of sustainable landscapes and the potential health savings accrued from disease avoidance. To date, few studies have attempted to quantify the health benefits attributable to sustainable agro-ecosystems, especially in regard to livestock systems. In this paper, I will examine what is needed to measure and communicate the public health benefits and costsavings (from disease avoidance) of sustainable agro-ecosystems. Keywords: public health, agro-ecosystems and livestock, sustainability, pastoralists, subsistence farmers, health savings, costs and benefits of health interventions
Introduction Areas of agricultural intensification and changing climatic conditions have been identified as ‘hotspots’ for disease activity, due to shifts in disease distribution and increased contact rates between humans, wildlife, and livestock and the costs associated with those risks (Jones et al., 2008). In the past decade, researchers have studied the response of disease vectors, animal hosts, and pathogens to climate change (Heffernan et al., 2012). Increase in extreme rainfall is speeding the transport and transmission of waterborne pathogens (Patz et al., 2000). Climate change appears to be exacerbating existing diseases such as zoonotic tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) (Clifford et al., 2008). Increase in the unpredictability and severity of rainfall patterns and temperature extremes are limiting resource availability, thereby narrowing the window of
E-mail: [email protected]
management options available for modulating disease impacts. While we have an understanding of the health risks and economic costs of infectious and endemic disease events, we have only just begun to identify the possible public health benefits of sustainable landscapes and the potential health savings accrued from disease avoidance (MEA, 2003). To date, few studies have attempted to quantify the health benefits attributable to sustainable agro-ecosystems, especially in regard to livestock systems in regions impacted by climate change such as East and West Africa and South Asia. Therefore, in the following article, I will discuss the role and impact of sustainable livestock production on public health. Two production systems frame the analysis: pastoralism versus intensive, small-holder systems. Sustainability in this context refers to the ‘maintenance of the quantity, as well as the quality of agricultural produce (in this case livestock) over very long periods of time without fatigue’ (Kesavan and Swaminathan, 2008). Therefore, a sustainable livestock system steadily provides livestock
156
products without compromising the health of the agroecosystem. A system is unsustainable if low productivity perpetuates poverty, and the animals and people are chronically malnourished and in poor health. Health and wellbeing are fundamental to sustainability because they contribute to resilience, allowing livestock holders to be less vulnerable to socioeconomic and climatic shocks. Increasing population pressures, changes in land tenure, and increasing climate variability are presently challenging the health and integrity of agro-ecosystems (Daszak et al., 2001). Human perturbations are shifting host–pathogen dynamics, reminding us that health outcomes are interconnected. If the health of one community is compromised, other communities are likely to be affected, spreading infectious disease. Pastoralism can amplify some disease risks through increased contact among wildlife, livestock, and humans. While effective range management may minimize health risks by mitigating climate change impacts and providing ecosystem services. For smallholder systems, disease risk can be high while effective management has the potential to increase economic growth in tandem with improved health outcomes. Across both systems, there is a livelihood spectrum i.e. pastoralists who rely solely on rain-fed rangelands to those communities who are largely sedentary. Equally, smallholder intensive systems range from subsistence to semi-commercial operations. Livelihood transition across these spectrums is not only a socioeconomic transformation but also signals different human interactions within the agro-system. Understanding these transitions is critical because some of the most important impacts on human health may occur during the transition between livelihood states. For example, researchers have linked expansion of agriculture and changes in agricultural practices to Nipah virus emergence in Malaysia (Lam and Chua, 2002). Because of the increasing uncertainty related to socioeconomic and climatic conditions, pastoralism in some semi-arid regions may no longer be viable or sustainable. The increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events (EWEs) affects the quality and quantity of available forage, which in turn affects the mobility patterns of pastoralists (Boko and Niang, 2007). In semiarid regions of East and West Africa, the ecological patches that have provided respite from long periods of drought are now scarce and crowded with livestock, thus increasing disease transmission rates (Mazet et al., 2009). However, pastoralists face limited options for adapting their management strategies to weather extremes (Little, 2012). One option is to change mobility patterns, but these shifts may move pastoralists farther away from markets and into conflict over limited resources. Another option is to change the type of livestock (e.g. from large to small ruminants). A third option is to restrict animals to residential areas with zero-grazing and some form of nutrient-rich feed. Nevertheless, across all of these options there is scope for sustainable production over the
S. Gillette
longer-term, as defined above. Pastoralism helps preserve ecosystem services while taking advantage of limited resources by converting grass to animal protein and milk in semi-arable regions (Gill et al., 2010). Using this as a starting point, development activities must recognize and support sustainability issues across the spectrum of both traditional and transitional livelihood activities. Farmers in smallholder intensive systems face a range of other challenges. As the demand for meat continues to grow in South Asia and Africa and access to communal sources of water and forage shrinks, intensification of small-scale livestock systems in peri-urban areas is expected to expand (FAO, 2010). In South East Asia, smallholder transition to livestock intensification has been transformative, increasing economic opportunities while also introducing new disease risks and increasing demand on limited resources (Rushton et al., 2010). The inherent challenges involved in the intensification of smallholder mixed crop-livestock systems have led to advocacy for sustainable intensification from an ecosystem services perspective, delivering more animal-source, nutritious food per unit of input resource while not further degrading the ecosystem services that are necessary for sustaining human health and wellbeing (FAO, 2010; Smith, 2012). Options for sustainable intensification focus on improving efficiency in use of resources such as water and feed (Wirsenius et al., 2010). While the focus has been primarily on efficiencies, the health benefits in terms of nutritious foods and other determinants of health have yet to be fully explored. Calculating the health benefits and health savings is important for communicating the services that a sustainable agro-ecosystem can provide. For example, some studies have shown that mobile pastoralists achieve better nutritional outcomes for their families because of higher quality milk and meat production when livestock have access to lands that are not as intensively used (Fratkin et al., 2004; Pedersen and Benjaminsen, 2008). However, for the information to be actionable, it is important to identify the key points along the livestock livelihood spectrum where agro-ecosystem capacity could be strengthened to provide sustainable return in terms of health and economic gain. This knowledge is especially important to the least well-off livestock holders who may benefit from assistance as they transition from one livelihood state to another in an effort to adapt to changing socioeconomic and climatic conditions. It is also helpful to compare differences in health benefits and health savings among different livelihood options for livestock holders.
Technical feasibility and challenges Precedents do exist on how to measure health costs, savings and benefits of a public health good. For example, for more than 40 years, the US government has been
Health benefits of livestock-dependent agro-ecosystems under climate change
refining ways to measure the health benefits and cost savings of clean air. The resultant calculations demonstrate that the health savings related to the Clean Air Act far exceed the total cost of implementing the legislation (EPA, 2011). Researchers have also calculated the health savings and costs related to vaccination for zoonoses (Roth et al., 2003; Zinsstag et al., 2007; Rheingans et al., 2009). Presently, such calculations are generally based on the following three approaches: Economy-wide modeling is a tool to estimate the impact of a public health good such as clean air on overall economic growth and economic welfare at the national level. Net overall improvements in economic growth and welfare are measured via improved health and productivity of workers and savings on medical expenses. Scenario analysis assesses the impact of protective measures on economic and environmental change. The scenarios, with the protective measure (e.g. vaccination) versus without the protective measure are processed through a series of economic and physical effects models so that differences between the two scenarios can be compared. Cost-effectiveness comparisons compare the costs of implementing protective measures with the projected number of incidences avoided, and in this manner avoids assigning monetary-based values to changes in risk. Challenges remain in applying these techniques to assess the health benefits and cost savings of sustainable agroecosystems. While many of the human health effects can be quantified, there are still several other effects that are likely to be only partially quantified particularly in relation to ecosystem services. Equally, the lack of comprehensive datasets across many of the parameters of interest means that a wide variety of uncertainties still exist. While macro-economic models are better at estimating costs, more needs to be done in relation to estimating benefits, particularly at the household level. Without further development, such approaches will be biased toward health effects with clear outcomes and direct economic impacts. Equally problematic is placing a monetary value on welfare indicators such as avoiding pain or suffering or issues relating to quality of life, which are by their very nature difficult to quantify. To overcome these challenges, innovative approaches will be required. The creation of a One-Health approach to valuation which shares approaches from public health, veterinary medicine, ecosystem science, and the social sciences may be one way forward to better capture the health benefits and costs related to sustainable agroecosystems.
Conclusion Too often in resource-poor settings, coping strategies are incremental and come at a cost to human and animal
157
health, thereby reducing resilience and the ability to rebound after a severe weather or disease event. Both pastoralists and subsistence farmers face a future of shrinking resources and highly uncertain economic and climatic conditions. Consequently, they need options that will offer them the opportunity to improve their livelihoods along with their health and wellbeing. Sustainability demands that livelihood transitions are not only considered in economic terms. Valuing health within agro-ecosystems can help guide policymakers, extension officers, and livestock holders in making decisions that are beneficial to health, wellbeing, and the sustainability of livestock production. At a time when climate change is affecting the severity and distribution of infectious diseases, a sustainable agro-ecosystems approach can aid climate change mitigation, disease prevention, and livelihood generation among some of the world’s most vulnerable citizens.
References Boko M and Niang A (2007). Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry M, Canziani O, Palutikof J, Van Der Linden P and Hanson C (eds) Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 433–467. Clifford D, Kazwala R, Coppollilo P and Mazet JA (2008). Evaluating and Managing Zoonotic Disease Risk in Rural Tanzania. Global Livestock CRSP Research Brief. Davis, CA: University of California Davis, pp. 1–4. Daszak P, Cunningham AA and Hyatt AD (2001). Anthropogenic environmental change and the emergence of infectious diseases in wildlife. Acta Tropica 78: 103–116. EPA (2011). The benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020. In: Office of Air and Radiation (edn.) Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 1–33. FAO (2010). Sustainable Crop Production Intensification Through an Ecosystem Approach and an Enabling Environment: Capturing Efficiency Through Ecosystem Services and Management. Committee on Agriculture. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), pp. 1–10. Fratkin E, Roth EA and Nathan MA (2004). Pastoral sedentarization and its effects on childrens’ diet, health and growth among the Rendille of northern Kenya. Human Ecology 32: 531–559. Gill M, Smith P and Wilkinson JM (2010). Mitigating climate change: the role of domestic livestock. Animal 4: 323–333. Heffernan C, Salman M and York L (2012). Animal infectious disease and climate change: a selected review. CABI Reviews 7: 1–26. Jones KE, Patel NG, Levy MA, Storeygard A, Balk D, Gittleman JL and Daszak P (2008). Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature 451: 990–993. Kesavan P and Swaminathan MS (2008). Strategies and models for agricultural sustainability in developing Asian countries. Philosophical Transactions Royal Society B 363: 877–891. Lam S and Chua K (2002). Nipah virus encephalitis outbreak in Malaysia. Clinical Infectious Disease 34: S48–S51. Little P (2012). Sell or Move: Preliminary Observations about Herder Decision making During a Prolonged Drought.
158
Livestock Climate Change CRSP Research Brief. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, pp. 1–4. Mazet JAK, Clifford D, Coppolillo P, Deolalikar AB, Erickson JD and Kazwala RR (2009). A ‘One Health’ approach to address emerging zoonoses: the HALI project in Tanzania. PLoS Medicine 6: 1–6. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). Ecosystem and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 127–147. Patz J, Graczyk T, Geller N and Vittor A (2000). Effects of environmental change on emerging parasitic diseases. International Journal of Parasitology 30: 1395–1405. Pedersen J and Benjaminsen TA (2008). One leg or two? Food security and pastoralism in the northern Sahel. Human Ecology 36: 43–57. Rheingans R, Antil L, Dreibelbis R, Podewils LJ, Bresee JS and Parashar UD (2009). Economic costs of rotavirus gastroenteritis and cost-effectiveness of vaccination in developing countries. Journal of Infectious Disease 200: S16–S27.
S. Gillette
Roth F, Zinsstag J, Orkhon D, Chimed-Ochir G, Hutton G, Cosivi O, Carrin G and Otte J (2003). Human health benefits from livestock vaccination for brucellosis: case study. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 81: 867–76. Rushton J, Viscarra RE, Taylor N, Hoffmann I and Schwabenbauer K (2010). Poultry sector development, highly pathogenic avian influenza and the smallholder production systems. CAB Reviews 139: 1–8. Smith P (2012). Delivering food security without increasing pressure on land. Global Food Security 2: 18–23. Wirsenius S, Azar C, Berndes G (2010). How much land is needed for global food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030? Agricultural Systems 103: 621–638. Zinsstag J, Schelling E, Roth F, Bonfoh B, De Savigny D and Tanner M (2007). Human benefits of animal interventions for zoonosis control. Emerging Infectious Diseases 13: 527–531.
Animal Health Research Reviews 14(2); 155–158 doi:10.1017/S1466252313000157
Identifying the public health benefits of livestock-dependent, agro-ecosystems under climate change Shana Gillette 210 Diagnostic Medicine Center, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1644, USA
Received 18 March 2013; Accepted 3 June 2013; First published online 1 November 2013
Abstract As the demand for meat continues to grow in South Asia and Africa and access to communal sources of water and forage shrinks, intensification of small-scale livestock systems in periurban areas is expected to expand. In South East Asia, smallholder transition to livestock intensification has been transformative, increasing economic opportunities while also introducing new disease risks. While we have an understanding of the emerging disease burden from livestock intensification; we have just begun to understand the possible public health benefits of sustainable landscapes and the potential health savings accrued from disease avoidance. To date, few studies have attempted to quantify the health benefits attributable to sustainable agro-ecosystems, especially in regard to livestock systems. In this paper, I will examine what is needed to measure and communicate the public health benefits and costsavings (from disease avoidance) of sustainable agro-ecosystems. Keywords: public health, agro-ecosystems and livestock, sustainability, pastoralists, subsistence farmers, health savings, costs and benefits of health interventions
Introduction Areas of agricultural intensification and changing climatic conditions have been identified as ‘hotspots’ for disease activity, due to shifts in disease distribution and increased contact rates between humans, wildlife, and livestock and the costs associated with those risks (Jones et al., 2008). In the past decade, researchers have studied the response of disease vectors, animal hosts, and pathogens to climate change (Heffernan et al., 2012). Increase in extreme rainfall is speeding the transport and transmission of waterborne pathogens (Patz et al., 2000). Climate change appears to be exacerbating existing diseases such as zoonotic tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) (Clifford et al., 2008). Increase in the unpredictability and severity of rainfall patterns and temperature extremes are limiting resource availability, thereby narrowing the window of
E-mail: [email protected]
management options available for modulating disease impacts. While we have an understanding of the health risks and economic costs of infectious and endemic disease events, we have only just begun to identify the possible public health benefits of sustainable landscapes and the potential health savings accrued from disease avoidance (MEA, 2003). To date, few studies have attempted to quantify the health benefits attributable to sustainable agro-ecosystems, especially in regard to livestock systems in regions impacted by climate change such as East and West Africa and South Asia. Therefore, in the following article, I will discuss the role and impact of sustainable livestock production on public health. Two production systems frame the analysis: pastoralism versus intensive, small-holder systems. Sustainability in this context refers to the ‘maintenance of the quantity, as well as the quality of agricultural produce (in this case livestock) over very long periods of time without fatigue’ (Kesavan and Swaminathan, 2008). Therefore, a sustainable livestock system steadily provides livestock
156
products without compromising the health of the agroecosystem. A system is unsustainable if low productivity perpetuates poverty, and the animals and people are chronically malnourished and in poor health. Health and wellbeing are fundamental to sustainability because they contribute to resilience, allowing livestock holders to be less vulnerable to socioeconomic and climatic shocks. Increasing population pressures, changes in land tenure, and increasing climate variability are presently challenging the health and integrity of agro-ecosystems (Daszak et al., 2001). Human perturbations are shifting host–pathogen dynamics, reminding us that health outcomes are interconnected. If the health of one community is compromised, other communities are likely to be affected, spreading infectious disease. Pastoralism can amplify some disease risks through increased contact among wildlife, livestock, and humans. While effective range management may minimize health risks by mitigating climate change impacts and providing ecosystem services. For smallholder systems, disease risk can be high while effective management has the potential to increase economic growth in tandem with improved health outcomes. Across both systems, there is a livelihood spectrum i.e. pastoralists who rely solely on rain-fed rangelands to those communities who are largely sedentary. Equally, smallholder intensive systems range from subsistence to semi-commercial operations. Livelihood transition across these spectrums is not only a socioeconomic transformation but also signals different human interactions within the agro-system. Understanding these transitions is critical because some of the most important impacts on human health may occur during the transition between livelihood states. For example, researchers have linked expansion of agriculture and changes in agricultural practices to Nipah virus emergence in Malaysia (Lam and Chua, 2002). Because of the increasing uncertainty related to socioeconomic and climatic conditions, pastoralism in some semi-arid regions may no longer be viable or sustainable. The increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events (EWEs) affects the quality and quantity of available forage, which in turn affects the mobility patterns of pastoralists (Boko and Niang, 2007). In semiarid regions of East and West Africa, the ecological patches that have provided respite from long periods of drought are now scarce and crowded with livestock, thus increasing disease transmission rates (Mazet et al., 2009). However, pastoralists face limited options for adapting their management strategies to weather extremes (Little, 2012). One option is to change mobility patterns, but these shifts may move pastoralists farther away from markets and into conflict over limited resources. Another option is to change the type of livestock (e.g. from large to small ruminants). A third option is to restrict animals to residential areas with zero-grazing and some form of nutrient-rich feed. Nevertheless, across all of these options there is scope for sustainable production over the
S. Gillette
longer-term, as defined above. Pastoralism helps preserve ecosystem services while taking advantage of limited resources by converting grass to animal protein and milk in semi-arable regions (Gill et al., 2010). Using this as a starting point, development activities must recognize and support sustainability issues across the spectrum of both traditional and transitional livelihood activities. Farmers in smallholder intensive systems face a range of other challenges. As the demand for meat continues to grow in South Asia and Africa and access to communal sources of water and forage shrinks, intensification of small-scale livestock systems in peri-urban areas is expected to expand (FAO, 2010). In South East Asia, smallholder transition to livestock intensification has been transformative, increasing economic opportunities while also introducing new disease risks and increasing demand on limited resources (Rushton et al., 2010). The inherent challenges involved in the intensification of smallholder mixed crop-livestock systems have led to advocacy for sustainable intensification from an ecosystem services perspective, delivering more animal-source, nutritious food per unit of input resource while not further degrading the ecosystem services that are necessary for sustaining human health and wellbeing (FAO, 2010; Smith, 2012). Options for sustainable intensification focus on improving efficiency in use of resources such as water and feed (Wirsenius et al., 2010). While the focus has been primarily on efficiencies, the health benefits in terms of nutritious foods and other determinants of health have yet to be fully explored. Calculating the health benefits and health savings is important for communicating the services that a sustainable agro-ecosystem can provide. For example, some studies have shown that mobile pastoralists achieve better nutritional outcomes for their families because of higher quality milk and meat production when livestock have access to lands that are not as intensively used (Fratkin et al., 2004; Pedersen and Benjaminsen, 2008). However, for the information to be actionable, it is important to identify the key points along the livestock livelihood spectrum where agro-ecosystem capacity could be strengthened to provide sustainable return in terms of health and economic gain. This knowledge is especially important to the least well-off livestock holders who may benefit from assistance as they transition from one livelihood state to another in an effort to adapt to changing socioeconomic and climatic conditions. It is also helpful to compare differences in health benefits and health savings among different livelihood options for livestock holders.
Technical feasibility and challenges Precedents do exist on how to measure health costs, savings and benefits of a public health good. For example, for more than 40 years, the US government has been
Health benefits of livestock-dependent agro-ecosystems under climate change
refining ways to measure the health benefits and cost savings of clean air. The resultant calculations demonstrate that the health savings related to the Clean Air Act far exceed the total cost of implementing the legislation (EPA, 2011). Researchers have also calculated the health savings and costs related to vaccination for zoonoses (Roth et al., 2003; Zinsstag et al., 2007; Rheingans et al., 2009). Presently, such calculations are generally based on the following three approaches: Economy-wide modeling is a tool to estimate the impact of a public health good such as clean air on overall economic growth and economic welfare at the national level. Net overall improvements in economic growth and welfare are measured via improved health and productivity of workers and savings on medical expenses. Scenario analysis assesses the impact of protective measures on economic and environmental change. The scenarios, with the protective measure (e.g. vaccination) versus without the protective measure are processed through a series of economic and physical effects models so that differences between the two scenarios can be compared. Cost-effectiveness comparisons compare the costs of implementing protective measures with the projected number of incidences avoided, and in this manner avoids assigning monetary-based values to changes in risk. Challenges remain in applying these techniques to assess the health benefits and cost savings of sustainable agroecosystems. While many of the human health effects can be quantified, there are still several other effects that are likely to be only partially quantified particularly in relation to ecosystem services. Equally, the lack of comprehensive datasets across many of the parameters of interest means that a wide variety of uncertainties still exist. While macro-economic models are better at estimating costs, more needs to be done in relation to estimating benefits, particularly at the household level. Without further development, such approaches will be biased toward health effects with clear outcomes and direct economic impacts. Equally problematic is placing a monetary value on welfare indicators such as avoiding pain or suffering or issues relating to quality of life, which are by their very nature difficult to quantify. To overcome these challenges, innovative approaches will be required. The creation of a One-Health approach to valuation which shares approaches from public health, veterinary medicine, ecosystem science, and the social sciences may be one way forward to better capture the health benefits and costs related to sustainable agroecosystems.
Conclusion Too often in resource-poor settings, coping strategies are incremental and come at a cost to human and animal
157
health, thereby reducing resilience and the ability to rebound after a severe weather or disease event. Both pastoralists and subsistence farmers face a future of shrinking resources and highly uncertain economic and climatic conditions. Consequently, they need options that will offer them the opportunity to improve their livelihoods along with their health and wellbeing. Sustainability demands that livelihood transitions are not only considered in economic terms. Valuing health within agro-ecosystems can help guide policymakers, extension officers, and livestock holders in making decisions that are beneficial to health, wellbeing, and the sustainability of livestock production. At a time when climate change is affecting the severity and distribution of infectious diseases, a sustainable agro-ecosystems approach can aid climate change mitigation, disease prevention, and livelihood generation among some of the world’s most vulnerable citizens.
References Boko M and Niang A (2007). Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry M, Canziani O, Palutikof J, Van Der Linden P and Hanson C (eds) Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 433–467. Clifford D, Kazwala R, Coppollilo P and Mazet JA (2008). Evaluating and Managing Zoonotic Disease Risk in Rural Tanzania. Global Livestock CRSP Research Brief. Davis, CA: University of California Davis, pp. 1–4. Daszak P, Cunningham AA and Hyatt AD (2001). Anthropogenic environmental change and the emergence of infectious diseases in wildlife. Acta Tropica 78: 103–116. EPA (2011). The benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020. In: Office of Air and Radiation (edn.) Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 1–33. FAO (2010). Sustainable Crop Production Intensification Through an Ecosystem Approach and an Enabling Environment: Capturing Efficiency Through Ecosystem Services and Management. Committee on Agriculture. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), pp. 1–10. Fratkin E, Roth EA and Nathan MA (2004). Pastoral sedentarization and its effects on childrens’ diet, health and growth among the Rendille of northern Kenya. Human Ecology 32: 531–559. Gill M, Smith P and Wilkinson JM (2010). Mitigating climate change: the role of domestic livestock. Animal 4: 323–333. Heffernan C, Salman M and York L (2012). Animal infectious disease and climate change: a selected review. CABI Reviews 7: 1–26. Jones KE, Patel NG, Levy MA, Storeygard A, Balk D, Gittleman JL and Daszak P (2008). Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature 451: 990–993. Kesavan P and Swaminathan MS (2008). Strategies and models for agricultural sustainability in developing Asian countries. Philosophical Transactions Royal Society B 363: 877–891. Lam S and Chua K (2002). Nipah virus encephalitis outbreak in Malaysia. Clinical Infectious Disease 34: S48–S51. Little P (2012). Sell or Move: Preliminary Observations about Herder Decision making During a Prolonged Drought.
158
Livestock Climate Change CRSP Research Brief. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, pp. 1–4. Mazet JAK, Clifford D, Coppolillo P, Deolalikar AB, Erickson JD and Kazwala RR (2009). A ‘One Health’ approach to address emerging zoonoses: the HALI project in Tanzania. PLoS Medicine 6: 1–6. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). Ecosystem and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 127–147. Patz J, Graczyk T, Geller N and Vittor A (2000). Effects of environmental change on emerging parasitic diseases. International Journal of Parasitology 30: 1395–1405. Pedersen J and Benjaminsen TA (2008). One leg or two? Food security and pastoralism in the northern Sahel. Human Ecology 36: 43–57. Rheingans R, Antil L, Dreibelbis R, Podewils LJ, Bresee JS and Parashar UD (2009). Economic costs of rotavirus gastroenteritis and cost-effectiveness of vaccination in developing countries. Journal of Infectious Disease 200: S16–S27.
S. Gillette
Roth F, Zinsstag J, Orkhon D, Chimed-Ochir G, Hutton G, Cosivi O, Carrin G and Otte J (2003). Human health benefits from livestock vaccination for brucellosis: case study. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 81: 867–76. Rushton J, Viscarra RE, Taylor N, Hoffmann I and Schwabenbauer K (2010). Poultry sector development, highly pathogenic avian influenza and the smallholder production systems. CAB Reviews 139: 1–8. Smith P (2012). Delivering food security without increasing pressure on land. Global Food Security 2: 18–23. Wirsenius S, Azar C, Berndes G (2010). How much land is needed for global food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030? Agricultural Systems 103: 621–638. Zinsstag J, Schelling E, Roth F, Bonfoh B, De Savigny D and Tanner M (2007). Human benefits of animal interventions for zoonosis control. Emerging Infectious Diseases 13: 527–531.
