Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-4 (section)

==== 4.8.1.4 Crop–livestock interaction as an approach to managing land degradation ====

<div id="section-4-8-1-4-crop-livestock-interaction-as-an-approach-to-managing-land-degradation-block-1"></div>

The integration of crop and livestock production into ‘mixed farming’ for smallholders in developing countries became an influential model, particularly for Africa, in the early 1990s (Pritchard et al. 1992 <sup>[[#fn:r1011|1011]]</sup> ; McIntire et al. 1992 <sup>[[#fn:r1012|1012]]</sup> ). Crop–livestock integration under this model was seen as founded on three pillars: improved use of manure for crop fertility management; expanded use of animal traction (draught animals); and promotion of cultivated fodder crops. For Asia, emphasis was placed on draught power for land preparation, manure for soil fertility enhancement, and fodder production as an entry point for cultivation of legumes (Devendra and Thomas 2002 <sup>[[#fn:r1013|1013]]</sup> ). Mixed farming was seen as an evolutionary process to expand food production in the face of population increase, promote improvements in income and welfare, and protect the environment. The process could be further facilitated and steered by research, agricultural advisory services and policy (Pritchard et al. 1992 <sup>[[#fn:r1014|1014]]</sup> ; McIntire et al. 1992 <sup>[[#fn:r1015|1015]]</sup> ; Devendra 2002 <sup>[[#fn:r1016|1016]]</sup> ).

Scoones and Wolmer (2002) <sup>[[#fn:r1017|1017]]</sup> place this model in historical context, including concern about population pressure on resources and the view that mobile pastoralism was environmentally damaging. The latter view had already been critiqued by developing understandings of pastoralism, mobility and communal tenure of grazing lands (e.g., Behnke 1994 <sup>[[#fn:r1018|1018]]</sup> ; Ellis 1994 <sup>[[#fn:r1019|1019]]</sup> ). They set out a much more differentiated picture of crop–livestock interactions, which can take place either within a single-farm household, or between crop and livestock producers, in which case they will be mediated by formal and informal institutions governing the allocation of land, labour and capital, with the interactions evolving through multiple place-specific pathways (Ramisch et al. 2002 <sup>[[#fn:r1020|1020]]</sup> ; Scoones and Wolmer 2002 <sup>[[#fn:r1021|1021]]</sup> ). Promoting a diversity of approaches to crop–livestock interactions does not imply that the integrated model necessarily leads to land degradation, but increases the space for institutional support to local innovation (Scoones and Wolmer 2002 <sup>[[#fn:r1022|1022]]</sup> ).

However, specific managerial and technological practices that link crop and livestock production will remain an important part of the repertoire of on-farm adaptation and mitigation. Howden and coauthors (Howden et al. 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r1023|1023]]</sup> ) note the importance of innovation within existing integrated systems, including use of adapted forage crops. Rivera-Ferre et al. (2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1024|1024]]</sup> list as adaptation strategies with high potential for grazing systems, mixed crop–livestock systems or both: crop–livestock integration in general; soil management, including composting; enclosure and corralling of animals; improved storage of feed. Most of these are seen as having significant co-benefits for mitigation, and improved management of manure is seen as a mitigation measure with adaptation co-benefits.

<span id="local-and-indigenous-knowledge-for-addressing-land-degradation"></span>