Urgent climate challenges have triggered calls for radical, widespread changes in what we eat, pushing for the drastic reduction if not elimination of animal-source foods from our diets. But high-profile debates, based on patchy evidence, are failing to differentiate between varied landscapes, environments and production methods. Relatively lowimpact, extensive livestock production, such as pastoralism, is being lumped in with industrial systems in the conversation about the future of food.

This primer focuses on one type of livestock-keeping: pastoralism. Pastoralism is a way of raising livestock that makes use of variable landscapes by moving animals and managing their grazing.1 It provides livelihoods for many millions of people and makes use of rangelands on every continent but Antarctica, across more than half the world’s land surface.

Livestock can be good for the environment. It depends on which livestock, where. Pastoralism – the system of often mobile, extensive livestock production on rangelands – can improve biodiversity, help sequester carbon and protect the environment. In the face of simplistic anti-livestock narratives, it is important to recognise the role of pastoral systems and pastoralists in addressing the linked crises of climate and biodiversity.

Huge global targets for tree planting are being set; everyone is urged to plant a tree to save the planet. But does this always make sense, particularly in rangelands where pastoralists live? Discussions in the run up to the UN’s COP15 conference on biodiversity have focused on tree planting as a way to combat desertification, improve biodiversity and address climate change through ‘carbon offset’ schemes. Many of these initiatives are deeply problematic, yet have targeted over one billion hectares of rangelands across the worldi .

Extensive livestock use can enhance biodiversity and support species conservation in multiple ways. Mobile pastoral systems can create bio-corridors through transhumance routes and disperse seeds, enhancing biodiversity across landscapes, for example. Mobile livestock also create fertile hotspots across rangelands, and livestock grazing is essential in reducing fire loads in vulnerable ecosystems.

In recent years there have been devastating wildfires across the world. Wildfire incidence is increasing with climate change, and wildfires are predicted to increase by 50% by the end of the centuryi . Such intense, uncontrolled wildfires are massively damaging to environments and to people, involving multiple deaths – including among firefighters - and widespread destruction of property.

Debates about the role of livestock in wider landscapes have come into sharp focus around the idea of ‘rewilding’, linked to plans for ‘ecosystem restoration’. Rewilding Britain defines rewilding as “the large-scale restoration of ecosystems to the point where nature is allowed to take care of itself. Rewilding seeks to reinstate natural processes and, where appropriate, missing speciesi .” The big question, though, is: what is ‘natural’ and what is defined as ‘missing’, over what timescale?

Pastoralists and other livestock keepers are too often pitted against conservationists. Parks are sometimes created to keep livestock and people out, and there are frequent stories in the media about pastoralists invading conservation areas during drought, sometimes resulting in conflict and violence. Pastoralism is of course not compatible with a style of conservation that encloses and excludes, but extensive livestock-keeping can be central to more people-centred conservation approaches. 

El cambio climático representa una seria amenaza para las sociedades centroamericanas por sus múltiples impactos previstos en la población y en los sectores productivos. En términos fiscales constituye un pasivo público contingente que afectará las finanzas públicas de los gobiernos por varias generaciones. Se estima que para 2030 Centroamérica aún producirá menos de 0,5% de las emisiones de los gases de efecto invernadero (GEI) del planeta1 , pero al mismo tiempo ya es una de las regiones más vulnerables ante los embates del cambio climático.

Land rights are ascendant across the development sector. Movements addressing women’s empowerment, poverty, social justice, food security and climate change are all increasingly turning to land rights to strengthen their cause. In 2022, renowned philanthropist MacKenzie Scott joined these efforts by making an unprecedented $20 million investment in our work. Ms. Scott’s generous gift represents a profound endorsement of the power of land rights to improve the lives of women, men, and communities around the world.

Land tenure is a particularly important issue in Asia, a region most prone to natural disasters and the impacts of climate change and home to the world’s poorest who depend on land for their lives and livelihoods. However, public understanding of the links between climate change, disasters, and land tenure is still very limited, even among civil society organizations.

De nombreux pays ont reconnu l’importance des forêts pour l’atténuation des changements climatiques. Adopté le 12 décembre 2015 et entré en vigueur le 4 novembre 2016, l’Accord de Paris sur le climat intègre une action sur l’utilisation des terres, y compris la Réduction des Émissions issues de la Déforestation et de la Dégradation des forêts (REDD+). Un nombre important de contributions nationales (CDN) soumises par les pays à la Convention-cadre des Nations Unies sur les Changements Climatiques (CCNUCC) comprennent l’utilisation des terres ainsi que des objectifs forestiers.