Uploaded on

Mario Herrero, Livestock and GHG emissions: mitigation options and trade-offs (presentation from Mitigation session at CCAFS Science Workshop, December 2010)

Mario Herrero, Livestock and GHG emissions: mitigation options and trade-offs (presentation from Mitigation session at CCAFS Science Workshop, December 2010)

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Livestock and GHG emissions:mitigation options and trade-offs Mario Herrero and Philip K. Thornton CCAFS Science meeting December 1st-2nd, 2010 | Cancun, Mexico
  • 2. Structure of the presentation– Background– Livestock and livelihoods– Livestock and GHG – Estimates – Key principles – Mitigation options– Researchable issues– Conclusions
  • 3. 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……
  • 4. Revised demand for livestock products to 2050 Annual per capita Total consumption consumption year Meat (kg) Milk (kg) Meat (Mt) Milk (Mt)Developing 2002 28 44 137 222 2050 44 78 326 585Developed 2002 78 202 102 265 2050 94 216 126 295 Rosegrant et al 2009
  • 5. An example of the changing nature of livestock systemsCan we influence the next transition for the benefit of society and theenvironment? W. Africa 1966 – pastoral system 2004 – crop-livestock system
  • 6. 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
  • 7. Livestock and livelihoods
  • 8. 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)
  • 9. Livestock and livelihoods (2)At least 600 million of the World’s poor depend onlivestock Thornton et al. 2002
  • 10. Livestock – high value producMilk has the highest value of production of all agriculturalcommodities (FAOSTAT 2008)
  • 11. Food production Cereals Production 4% 14% AgroPastoral Mixed Extensive 45% Mixed Intensive Other 35% Developed countries 2%Mixed systems in the developing World produce almost 50% of thecereals of the World Herrero et al. Science 327: 822-825
  • 12. 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– . Europe - 2000 SSA - 2000 3% 3% 10% Meat Meat 24% 4% 11% Dairy Dairy37% Fruit & Vegetables Fruit & Vegetables 5% Cereals Cereals 3% Roots & Tubers Roots & Tubers 47% 1% Dryland crops 16% Dryland crops 31% Others Others 5% Herrero et al 2008a
  • 13. Livestock and GHG emissions
  • 14. 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 Steinfeld et al 2006 – [national transportation]
  • 15. Livestock and GHG: 18% of globalemissions ProductionN. fert. production Chemical fertilisants N Energie fossile fuel On-farm fossil ferme Déforestation DeforestationN2O Sol cultivé from ag. soils OM release Pasture degradation Désertification pâturages Transformation fuel Processing fossil Deforestation Transport fossil fuel Transport CO2 Fermentation ruminale Enteric fermentation Manure storage / processing Effluents, stockage/traitement N fertilization Epandage fertilisants N Enteric Legume production Production légumineuses fermentation Manure storage / processing Effluents, stockage/traitement Manure spreading / dropping Effluents, épandage/dépôt Manu indirect emissions Effluents, emission indirecte CH4 Prepared by Bonneau, 2008
  • 16. 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)
  • 17. 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 humanLivestock consumption430 million MTMonogastrics mostly 458 million MT biofuels 160 million MT
  • 18. Changing dietsConsuming less meat or different types ofmeat could lower GHG emissions Stehfest et al. 2009. Climatic Change
  • 19. Changing dietsConsuming less meat or different types ofmeat could lower GHG emissions Less land needed ....but social and economic impacts? ....displacement of people? Stehfest et al. 2009. Climatic Change
  • 20. Mitigation 101 – intensification is essentialThe better we feed cows the less methane per kg of milk theyproduce 4.5 4 Chad - pastoral 3.5 3 CO2 eq / kg milk 2.5 Series1 2 1.5 1 India mixed 0.5 US/Europe - mixed 0 8 9 10 11 12 ME kg DM Herrero et al (forthcoming)
  • 21. Mitigation options – intensifying diets Thornton and Herrero 2010 (PNAS 107, 19667-19672)
  • 22. Systems shifts - some results fromthe GLOBIOM model (IIASA-ILRI)Simulation horizon: 2020STICKY livestock production systems - min 75% of LPS of 2000 following production trajectory to 2020FLEXIBLE livestock production systems - min 25% of LPS of 2000 still in the same place in 2020 - intensifing mixed crop livestock systems 22 Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009
  • 23. STICKY x FLEXIBLEIF system change possible  shift to intensive production systems 23 Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009
  • 24. STICKY x FLEXIBLEAdjustments in production systems help to keep commodity prices low24 Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009
  • 25. STICKY x FLEXIBLERED through livestock does not have negative effect on non-CO2 emissions. 25 Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009
  • 26. Can we untap the potential for carbon sequestrationin rangeland systems?Largest land use systemPotentially a large C sinkCould be an importantincome diversificationsourceDifficulties in:Measuring andmonitoring C stocksEstablishment ofpayment schemes Potential for carbonDealing with mobile sequestration in rangelandspastoralists (Conant and Paustian 2002)
  • 27. 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
  • 28. 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 Env Sust
  • 29. 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
  • 30. Thank you!