Livestock: The good, the bad and . . .


Published on

Presentation by Mario Herrero for ILRI Annual Program Meeting, Addis Ababa, 15 April 2010

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Livestock: The good, the bad and . . .

  1. 1. Livestock: the good, the bad and … Mario Herrero, ILRI ILRI APM, Addis Ababa, April 2010
  2. 2. Why are we here today? ‘ Livestock are responsible for 51% of global GHG emissions’
  3. 3. <ul><li>To unravel what is behind the controversy, the polarised opinions, the misunderstanding, the facts… </li></ul><ul><li>To learn a bit </li></ul><ul><li>To think how we can make the most of this huge research opportunity! </li></ul>Why are we here today?
  4. 4. Livestock – the goods (1) At least 600 million of the World’s poor depend on livestock Thornton et al. 2002, revised 2009
  5. 5. <ul><li>Livestock products have a huge value of production (i.e. milk) </li></ul><ul><li>Mixed systems responsible for close to 50% of the global crop output </li></ul><ul><li>A significant global asset: value of at least $1.4 trillion (excluding infrastructure that supports livestock industries) (Thornton and Herrero 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>Livestock industries organised in long market chains that employ at least 1.3 billion people (LID 1999) </li></ul>Livestock – the goods (2)
  6. 6. <ul><li>Users of land not suitable for other livelihood activities </li></ul><ul><li>A key risk reduction strategy for vulnerable communities (Freeman et al 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Livestock products contribute to 17% of the global kilocalorie consumption and 33% of the protein consumption (FAOSTAT 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>Providers of food for at least 830 million food insecure people (Gerber et al 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Important for reducing child malnutrition </li></ul>Livestock – the goods (3) Herrero et al 2008a
  7. 7. <ul><li>Land use </li></ul><ul><ul><li>80% of global deforestation in LAC direct land conversion to pastures (20% soybean production) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>33% of arable land used to plant crops for animals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Large exports of feed to EU, China </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Water </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>31% of water used for agriculture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>90% for the production of feed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Projected demand for livestock products is likely to double total agricultural water use by 2050 (CA 2007) due primarily to increased needs for feeds </li></ul></ul>The bads
  8. 8. <ul><li>Livestock and nutrients </li></ul><ul><li>(the good and the evil) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Manures provide 14%, 9% and 40% of N, P and K inputs for global crop production, respectively </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Livestock important in smallholder systems as a source of fertiliser….. not enough manure available in places </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>… but at the same time concentration of nutrients in industrial system causes water pollution and waste disposal problems (lack of regulation) </li></ul></ul>Herrero et al. 2009
  9. 9. CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O Deforestation Enteric fermentation Manure mgt 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 Lives tock and GHG: 18% of global emis sions (varies between 13-18% depending on the source) FAO 2006
  10. 10. Consensus from science <ul><li>Livestock are not bad everywhere… </li></ul><ul><li>Growth of the sector to meet demand may be unsustainable if trends continue </li></ul><ul><li>Significant opportunities to reduce environmental impact and increase efficiency in the developing world </li></ul><ul><li>Need to manage demand and increase regulation </li></ul><ul><li>Big differences between North and South </li></ul>
  11. 11. Personal take <ul><li>Complex...but not a reason not to act </li></ul><ul><li>No free lunch – lots of trade-offs, need to think of simultaneous dimensions (NRM, livelihoods, GHG…) </li></ul><ul><li>Lots of counterfactuals </li></ul><ul><li>Difficult to negotiate for emissions reductions – different paradigms between North and South </li></ul><ul><li>Need carrots and sticks </li></ul>
  12. 12. Gaps <ul><li>No real global integrated assessment of livestock in competition with other sectors. </li></ul><ul><li>Long Shadow good but not enough as it looks at the livestock sector in isolation of other sectors </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding the magnitude of the potential impacts of technological fixes </li></ul><ul><li>How to manage demand adequately (ethical issues) </li></ul><ul><li>Can we meet demand for livestock products under carbon constrained markets? </li></ul><ul><li>Who are the winners and losers? </li></ul>
  13. 13. Livestock: the good, the bad and … thanks! APM 2010 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.