Downloaded 102 times
Uploaded byILRI
Livestock and the environment: Drivers, impacts, responses
The document discusses the challenges and opportunities related to livestock production in the context of increasing global demand, climate change, and resource scarcity. It highlights the significant environmental impacts of livestock, including greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity concerns, while emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and policies to improve resource efficiency and resilience. It calls for proactive approaches to balance livestock's role in food security with its environmental responsibilities.
More Related Content
Similar to Livestock and the environment: Drivers, impacts, responses
Livestock and the environment: Drivers, impacts, responses
- 1. Henning Steinfeld, FAO Meeting/Workshop title • place and date 1 LIVESTOCK AND THE ENVIRONMENT Drivers, Impacts, Responses Livestock-based options for sustainable food and nutritional security, economic well-being and healthy lives ILRI@40 Conference Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 6–7 November 2014
- 2. Meeting/Workshop title •place and date 2 What are the GLOBAL DRIVERS influencing livestock production?
- 3. Meeting/Workshop title •place and date 3 RISING DEMAND FOR ANIMAL PRODUCTS
- 4. Meeting/Workshop title •place and date 4 2005 - 2050 : + 70% DEMAND FOR ANIMAL PRODUCTS Source: FAO 2012 RISING DEMAND FOR ANIMAL PRODUCTS
- 5. Meeting/Workshop title •place and date 5 2005 - 2050 DEMAND FOR MEAT : + 278% Source: FAO 2012 RISING DEMAND FOR ANIMAL PRODUCTS
- 6. Meeting/Workshop title •place and date 6 Source: IPCC 2014 CLIMATE CHANGE Projected Temperature Change Difference from 1986-2005 mean (°C) Lowest Temperature Projections Highest Temperature Projections Higher temperatures, shifting rainfalls, variability Smallholders and pastoralists to suffer most
- 7. Meeting/Workshop title •place and date 7 RESOURCE SCARCITY Limited land for agricultural expansion 1/3 of arable land for feed crops Land degradation Water scarcity Energy Nutrients
- 8. Second grade crops unfit for human consumption Meeting/Workshop title • place and date 8 RESOURCE SCARCITY 6.4 billion tons DM of livestock feed * Cassava, beans and soybeans ** Bran, oilseed meals, pulp, molasses and wet distiller grains Source: FAO, GLEAM Tree leaves 3% Fresh grass and hay 39% Grass legumes and sillages 3% Swill 1% Crop residues 26% 2% Agricultural by-products** 8% Grains 9% Other edible* 9%
- 9. Meeting/Workshop title •place and date 9 What are the IMPACTS ?
- 10. DIFFERENT SYSTEMS ANDDIFFERENT PURPOSES Meeting/Workshop title • place and date 10 Growing constraints to access grazing and water resources High GHG emissions per unit of protein produced… …but many other products: livestock as saving/insurance, economic activity, social role Cattle herd, Ferlo, Senegal
- 11. DIFFERENT SYSTEMS ANDDIFFERENT PURPOSES Meeting/Workshop title • place and date 11 Global chain, imported feed Lower GHG emissions per unit of protein produced… … but other environmental impacts: nutrient pollution, potential land use change associated with imported feed, impacts on biodiversity Pig farm, Chonburi, Thailand
- 12. DIFFERENT SYSTEMS ANDDIFFERENT PURPOSES Meeting/Workshop title • place and date 12 Resources: ~ 50% of roughages, 20% of silage, 30% of concentrates High productivity: 20% of the global number of dairy cows, 73% of the global milk production Main sources of emissions: enteric fermentation, manure, fossil energy use Dairy production, OECD countries
- 13. DIFFERENT SYSTEMS ANDDIFFERENT PURPOSES Meeting/Workshop title • place and date 13 Grass-fed systems are dominant 6.7% of slaughtered animals were fed in feedlots Land use and land use change is the main source of emissions, with an impact on other environmental criteria (biodiversity) Beef production, Brazil
- 14. CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATECHANGE AGRICULTURE: 20 to 30 % of anthropogenic climate gases; MOST IMPORTANT SOURCES: Meeting/Workshop title • place and date 14 2/3 from livestock (7.1 GT CO2eq) Overriding role of ruminants • Enteric methane • Feed production • Animal waste • Land use Strong relationship between productivity and emission intensity
- 15. Meeting/Workshop title •place and date 15 GHG EMISSIONS MITIGATION POTENTIAL Large variability of emission Intensities within systems and regions 30% mitigation potential estimated through more efficient practices in resource use with existing technologies Source: Gerber et al. (2013) Emission intensity by commodity
- 16. Meeting/Workshop title •place and date 16 GHG EMISSIONS Emission intensities per kg of protein Source: FAO, GLEAM
- 17. LAND-BASED LIVESTOCK PRODUCTIONMOST EXPOSED TO CC LIVESTOCK ARE NATURAL ADAPTERS Meeting/Workshop title • place and date 17 IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE • Lower rainfall and higher temperatures • Changing disease patterns • Variability • Flexible resource users • Buffers for enhanced resilience
- 18. Meeting/Workshop title •place and date 18 NUTRIENT USE EFFICIENCY Nutrient flow (nitrogen) in the beef production process (based on US and Netherlands national data) Source: Leach et al. (2012) But: important role in nutrient cycling
- 19. LIVESTOCK AND WATER Meeting/Workshop title • place and date 19 RESOURCE SCARCITY • Water use: 29% of total agr. water use • Impact on vegetation and water cycles – higher run-offs • Water pollution: local impacts in areas of high animal concentration
- 20. THREAT TO BIODIVERSITYIN 306 OF THE 825 ECOREGIONS Meeting/Workshop title • place and date 20 LIVESTOCK AND BIODIVERSITY EXTENT OF PASTURES: 26% OF ALL LAND – both positive and negative impacts • Arable land use for feed and expansion • Aquatic systems (nutrient loading) • Positive roles
- 21. LAND SPARING Meeting/Workshoptitle • place and date 21 LAND SHARING VS. LAND SPARING INTENSIVE FARMING High productivity UNFARMED High species density LAND SHARING FARMED EXTENSIVELY Moderate species density and productivity in a larger area
- 22. Meeting/Workshop title •place and date 22 LAND SHARING VS. LAND SPARING Agricultural intensity Biodiversity LAND SHARING IS BEST LAND SPARING IS BEST
- 23. Meeting/Workshop title •place and date 23 What are the RESPONSE OPTIONS ?
- 24. Meeting/Workshop title •place and date RESPONSES • Efficiency of resource use – land, water, nutrients • Emission intensity – CO2 eq per unit of product • Sustainable intensification: feeds, genetics, health • Reduce waste through recycling and recovering nutrients and energy • Requires incentives, regulations and continuous innovation INCREASE EFFICIENCY
- 25. ENHANCE LIVELIHOODS ANDHUMAN WELL-BEING Meeting/Workshop title • place and date 25 RESPONSES • protect assets, enhance multiple functions of livestock in smallholder and pastoral systems • Integrated landscape management (optimize contributions rather than maximizing output) for food, biodiversity, water, cultural values • Address overconsumption – healthy diets • Reduce food-feed competition
- 26. • Limit livestock’sexpansion into valuable eco-systems • Integrated land use management (in particular in fragile eco-systems) • Protect water resources • Requires incentives and regulations Meeting/Workshop title • place and date RESPONSES PROTECT RESOURCES
- 27. • Of globalcommons (e.g. climate) • Of local commons (e.g. communal grazing, water) • Incentive schemes (payment for environmental services, carbon markets) Meeting/Workshop title • place and date RESPONSES INCREASE RESILIENCE • Livestock as a tool of adaptation • improve coping capacity with shocks IMPROVE GOVERNANCE
- 28. Meeting/Workshop title •place and date SUMMARY o Large environmental impact, negative and positive o Context of growing demand, climate change and growing scarcities o Diversity of systems, issues and responses o Large potential to respond; social and economic co-benefits o Requires pro-active policies, incentives and innovation
- 29. Meeting/Workshop title •place and date Thank you henning.steinfeld@fao.org www.livestockdialogue.org Sustainable livestock. For people, for the planet
Editor's Notes
- #22 The next slide may be sufficient
- #23 Solid curve: it is when the intensity starts increasing that the effects on biodiversity are the most detrimental => it is better to leave some area unfarmed, with high biodiversity level, while the rest is farmed with high intensity to compensate for the loss of productive area and reach the same level => “land sparing” Dashed curve: there is a moderate level of intensity (in yellowish green) where performances are satisfying for both productivity and biodiversity => it is better to farm the whole region at this intensity level => “land sharing”