• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: Mitigation options and trade-offs
 

Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: Mitigation options and trade-offs

on

  • 1,575 views

Presentation By Mario Herrero and Philip Thornton at the CCAFS science meeting, Cancun, Mexico, 1-2 December 2010.

Presentation By Mario Herrero and Philip Thornton at the CCAFS science meeting, Cancun, Mexico, 1-2 December 2010.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,575
Views on SlideShare
1,575
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
41
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: Mitigation options and trade-offs Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: Mitigation options and trade-offs Presentation Transcript

    • Livestock and GHG emissions:
      mitigation options and trade-offs
      Mario Herrero and Philip K. Thornton
      CCAFS Science meeting
      December 1st-2nd , 2010 | Cancun, Mexico
    • Structure of the presentation
      • Background
      • Livestock and livelihoods
      • Livestock and GHG
      • Estimates
      • Key principles
      • Mitigation options
      • Researchable issues
      • Conclusions
    • General context
      Population to reach almost 9 billion over the next quarter of a century
      Getting richer and urbanised
      Increased demands for livestock products
      Lots of changes occurring: climate, economics, technology, resource availability, intensification
      Systems are changing……
    • Revised demand for livestock products to 2050
      Rosegrant et al 2009
    • An example of the changing nature of livestock systems
      Can we influence the next transition for the benefit of society and the environment?
      2004 – crop-livestock system
      W. Africa 1966 – pastoral system
    • Key concerns for the future
      • How to achieve food security
      • How to maintain livelihoods
      • Protection and maintenance of ecosystems services
      • Economic growth
      • Reducing the environmental impacts for the livestock sector
    • Livestock and livelihoods
    • Livestock and livelihoods (1)
      • Livestock systems occupy 26% or the global land area (Reid et al 2008)
      • A significant global asset: value of at least $1.4 trillion (excluding infrastructure that supports livestock industries) (Thornton and Herrero 2008)
      • Livestock industries organised in long market chains that employ at least 1.3 billion people (LID 1999)
      • Livestock key as a risk reduction strategy for vulnerable communities (Freeman et al 2007)
      • Important providers of nutrients and traction for growing crops in smallholder systems (at least 60% of the global cropping area receives manure applications – Herrero et al 2008a)
      Herrero et al. (Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1: 111-120)
    • Livestock and livelihoods (2)
      At least 600 million of the World’s poor depend on livestock
      Thornton et al. 2002
    • Livestock – high value products
      Milk has the highest value of production of all agricultural commodities (FAOSTAT 2008)
    • Food production
      Mixed systems in the developing World produce almost 50% of the cereals of the World
      Herrero et al. Science 327: 822-825
    • Livestock and livelihoods (3)
      • Livestock products contribute to 17% of the global kilocalorie consumption and 33% of the protein consumption (FAOSTAT 2008)
      • Livestock provide food for at least 830 million food insecure people (Gerber et al 2007)
      • Significant global differences in kilocalorie consumption but… highest rates of increase in consumption of livestock products in the developing World
      • .
      Herrero et al 2008a
    • Livestock and GHG emissions
    • Livestock’s long shadowA food-chain perspective of GHG emissions
      Emissions from feed production
      chemical fertilizer fabrication and application
      on-farm fossil fuel use
      livestock-related land use changes
      C release from soils
      [Savannah burning]
      Emissions from livestock rearing
      enteric fermentation
      animal manure management
      [respiration by livestock]
      Post harvest emissions
      slaughtering and processing
      international transportation
      [national transportation]
      Steinfeld et al 2006
    • Livestock and GHG: 18% of global emissions
      Chemical N. fert. production
      On-farm fossil fuel
      Deforestation
      OM release from ag. soils
      Pasture degradation
      Processing fossil fuel
      Transport fossil fuel
      Enteric fermentation
      Manure storage / processing
      N fertilization
      Legume production
      Manure storage / processing
      Manure spreading / dropping
      Manu indirect emissions
      N2O
      Manure
      mgt
      Deforestation
      CO2
      Enteric
      fermentation
      CH4
      Prepared by Bonneau, 2008
    • Mitigation options
      Reductions in emissions: significant potential!
      Managing demand for animal products
      Improved / intensified diets for ruminants
      Reduction of animal numbers
      Reduced livestock-induced deforestation
      Change of animal species
      Feed additives to reduce enteric fermentation
      Manure management (feed additives, methane production, regulations for manure disposal)
      Herrero et al. (Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1: 111-120)
    • The world will require 1 billion tonnes of additional cereal grains to 2050 to meet food and feed demands(IAASTD 2009)
      Grains
      1048 million tonnes more to 2050
      human
      consumption
      458 million MT
      Livestock
      430 million MT
      Monogastrics mostly
      biofuels
      160 million MT
    • Changing diets Consuming less meat or different types of meat could lower GHG emissions
      Stehfest et al. 2009. Climatic Change
    • 200
      180
      160
      140
      120
      kg CO2 eq/kg animal protein
      100
      80
      60
      40
      20
      0
      Pig
      Poultry
      Beef
      Milk
      Eggs
      Range of GHG intensities for commodities in OECD-countries
      Source: DeVries & DeBoer(2009)
    • Changing diets Consuming less meat or different types of meat could lower GHG emissions
      Less land needed
      ....but social and economic impacts?
      ....displacement of people?
      Stehfest et al. 2009. Climatic Change
    • Mitigation 101 – intensification is essentialThe better we feed cows the less methane per kg of milk they produce
      Chad - pastoral
      India mixed
      US/Europe - mixed
      Herrero et al (forthcoming)
    • Mitigation options – intensifying diets
      Thornton and Herrero 2010 (PNAS 107, 19667-19672)
    • 23
      Systems shifts - some results from the GLOBIOM model (IIASA-ILRI)
      Simulation horizon:2020
      STICKY livestock production systems
      - min 75% of LPS of 2000 following production trajectory to 2020
      FLEXIBLE livestock production systems
      - min 25% of LPS of 2000 still in the same place in 2020
      - intensifing mixed crop livestock systems
      Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009
    • 24
      STICKY xFLEXIBLE
      IF system change possible  shift to intensive production systems
      Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009
    • 25
      STICKY xFLEXIBLE
      Adjustments in production systems help to keep commodity prices low
      Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009
    • 26
      STICKY xFLEXIBLE
      RED through livestock does not have negative effect on non-CO2 emissions.
      Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009
    • Can we untap the potential for carbon sequestration in rangeland systems?
      Largest land use system
      Potentially a large C sink
      Could be an important income diversification source
      Difficulties in:
      Measuring and monitoring C stocks
      Establishment of payment schemes
      Dealing with mobile pastoralists
      Potential for carbon
      sequestration in rangelands
      (Conant and Paustian 2002)
    • Some conclusions
      Complex issue: livestock’s livelihood benefits and environmental impacts largely dependent on location, systems, intensification level and others
      Reducing livestock’s impact on the environment requires the fundamental recognition that societal benefits need to be met at the same time as the environmental ones
      (current studies: too much focus on the environment, less so on livelihoods)
      Understanding trade-offs requires a ‘multi-currency’ approach: energy, emissions, water, nutrients, incomes, etc along value chains (life cycles)
      Well placed to make global inventories
    • Some key trade-offs
      Biomass uses for food, feed, fuel and fertiliser
      Intensifying systems to increase production efficiency while balancing environmental protection and providing livelihoods for poor people
      Cheap food vs sustainable food for consumers?
      Herrero et al 2009 Current Op EnvSust
    • Researchable issues
      Social and economic impacts of mitigation
      More needed on scenarios of consumption
      Mechanisms for implementing mitigation schemes (policies: carrots, sticks, institutions, etc): need to increase adoption rates!
      What is sustainable intensification? Limits?
      Support on inventory development for developing countries
      Need to refine LCA analyses
    • Thank you!