Livestock & Climate Change Food Climate Research Network FCRN-LIDC workshop - 12 June 2009

This presentation Food and its overall impacts Focus on meat and dairy Reducing livestock GHGs: some options Conclusions

Food and its overall impacts

Focus on meat and dairy

Reducing livestock GHGs: some options

Conclusions

1. Overall food related GHG emissions

The LCA perspective Land use change

Overall food-related contribution to GHG emissions EU EIPRO report: 31% all EU GHG emissions UK FCRN & Govt estimates: both around 19% - World agriculture contribution: 13-14% global emissions (direct) (IPCC 2007) Plus 6-17% agriculturally induced land use change Land use change = soil carbon releases

EU EIPRO report: 31% all EU GHG emissions

UK FCRN & Govt estimates: both around 19% -

World agriculture contribution:

13-14% global emissions (direct) (IPCC 2007)

Plus 6-17% agriculturally induced land use change

Land use change = soil carbon releases

UKL Food GHG impacts – around 19% As % of UK consumption related GHG emissions est. at 234 MTCe – source Druckman et al 2008

Former forest, Matto Grosso Brazil

2. Focus on meat and dairy

Livestock and its impacts: some estimates FAO 2006: 18% global GHG emissions EU EIPRO: 15% EU emissions (50% food’s impacts) FCRN: about 8.5% of UK total Kramer et al. : 50% food’s impacts Variation depends on what’s included (eg. LU change ) & baseline consumption GHGs How the emisssions arise affects nature of solutions – more later But there are benefits too

FAO 2006: 18% global GHG emissions

EU EIPRO: 15% EU emissions (50% food’s impacts)

FCRN: about 8.5% of UK total

Kramer et al. : 50% food’s impacts

Variation depends on what’s included (eg. LU change ) & baseline consumption GHGs

How the emisssions arise affects nature of solutions – more later

But there are benefits too

Livestock: benefits & disbenefits ruminants Limited by legislation Benefits Disbenefits Comment Nutrition Excellent for protein, calcium, iron, vit B12 Excessive fat; protein can be more than needed Animal foods not essential; plants can substitute Non food benefits Leather, wool, manure, rendered products Manure can be a pollutant Quantities needed? Substitution cost Eating will always produce an impact Generally plant foods have lower GHG profile Carbon storage Pasture land stores carbon Excessive grazing & land use change releases carbon Land use change from pasture to crops will generate CO 2 Resource efficiency Livestock can consume grass & byproducts Supplemented with grains & cereals in intensive systems Byproducts can be used directly as energy source in AD systems Geography Some land not suitable for cropping Arable land used for livestock Intensified systems are arable hungry

However.... global trends in demand... Source: FAO 2006 ...are unsustainable 2000 (6 bn people) 2050 (9 bn people) Total demand – meat (tonnes) 228 459 Total demand – milk (tonnes) 475 883

Inequality continues: p.c. meat to 2050 Source: FAO 2006

Per cap. milk to 2050

3. Reducing livestock emissions Technological options Behaviour change

Food’s impacts and the importance of the different gases Livestock approx 80% agricultural stage impacts Livestock’s role here? Relationship? Methane from livestock Nitrous oxide from livestock and crops Carbon dioxide from fossil energy use * Carbon dioxide from fossil energy use Beyond farm gate Up to farm gate Carbon dioxide from lost carbon sequest- ration * Note: fossil energy inputs are not huge in themselves but enable scale of production which , for example, turns livestock and its other emissions into a problem

What can we do to reduce livestock emissions? The technological options Productivity – same yield, fewer numbers (feed, breed, fertility, lifespan) Manage soil carbon (pasture; min and no till) Manage manure (anaerobic digestion; composting etc) Energy efficiency : on farm energy use BUT: Predicated on feeding cereals and proteins – esp soy biodiversity and land use change implications

Productivity – same yield, fewer numbers (feed, breed, fertility, lifespan)

Manage soil carbon (pasture; min and no till)

Manage manure (anaerobic digestion; composting etc)

Energy efficiency : on farm energy use

BUT: Predicated on feeding cereals and proteins – esp soy biodiversity and land use change implications

What about switching to pork and poultry? According to LCA, pigs and poultry convert feed to meat more efficiently and have a lower footprint BUT Pigs and poultry are ‘landless’ and heavily grain / soy dependent Ruminants can help sequester carbon (grazing) Ruminants consume rough byproducts – resource efficiency Pigs can be part of the solution too – but ban on pig swill - needs to be reconsidered Pigs and poultry aren’t ‘better’ than ruminants – different pros and cons

According to LCA, pigs and poultry convert feed to meat more efficiently and have a lower footprint BUT

Pigs and poultry are ‘landless’ and heavily grain / soy dependent

Ruminants can help sequester carbon (grazing)

Ruminants consume rough byproducts – resource efficiency

Pigs can be part of the solution too – but ban on pig swill - needs to be reconsidered

Pigs and poultry aren’t ‘better’ than ruminants – different pros and cons

What level of GHG reductions for livestock are technically possible? UK/internl estimates of between 13-30% by 2020 have been given (eg. SAC/CCC; milk road map; Cooking up a Storm ; Bellarby et al) But...

UK/internl estimates of between 13-30% by 2020 have been given (eg. SAC/CCC; milk road map; Cooking up a Storm ; Bellarby et al)

But...

Even if tech improvements could cut global livestock impacts by 50% by 2050 (and this is ambitious) Reduction in per kg emissions offset by growth in output – driven by demand We wouldn’t have a reduction in GHG emissions – just no increase Reduction in consumption needed too (ie. technological improvements and behaviour change) But by how much?

(and this is ambitious)

Reduction in per kg emissions offset by growth in output – driven by demand

We wouldn’t have a reduction in GHG emissions – just no increase

Reduction in consumption needed too (ie. technological improvements and behaviour change)

But by how much?

If yr 2000 consumption levels were maintained At 9 billion people this would mean: Meat: 25 kg year (500g/week) Dairy: 53 kg a year (a litre a week). In other words 2 sausages, 1 small chicken piece and small pork chop a week And milk for cereal & tea OR 100 g cheese (3 sandwiches?) a week

At 9 billion people this would mean:

Meat: 25 kg year (500g/week)

Dairy: 53 kg a year (a litre a week).

In other words

2 sausages, 1 small chicken piece and small pork chop a week

And milk for cereal & tea OR 100 g cheese (3 sandwiches?) a week

Livestock and UK CC targets CCC budgets: 42% cut by 2020 and 50% cut by 2050: CCC modelling work says potential 13-30% CO 2 eq reduction by 2020 and technically 50% by 2050 (agriculture as a whole) Assuming UK pop grows 8% by 2020 and 50% by 2050 (UN pop stats) To achieve targets UK livestock consumption needs to be cut by: 2020: 11-36% 2050: 48%

CCC budgets: 42% cut by 2020 and 50% cut by 2050:

CCC modelling work says potential 13-30% CO 2 eq reduction by 2020 and technically 50% by 2050 (agriculture as a whole)

Assuming UK pop grows 8% by 2020 and 50% by 2050 (UN pop stats)

To achieve targets UK livestock consumption needs to be cut by:

2020: 11-36%

2050: 48%

4. Conclusions

Livestock impacts significant While some livestock production beneficial from GHG and human perspective Not at current levels... ...Or given current trends Trends show global impacts set to grow There are signs that people are waking up to the issue

Livestock impacts significant

While some livestock production beneficial from GHG and human perspective

Not at current levels...

...Or given current trends

Trends show global impacts set to grow

There are signs that people are waking up to the issue

For example... NGOs: FOE, WWF, Green Alliance, CIWF, FEC - all working on the issue Govt: DH action; one local authority; lots of Defra research Industry: SAI dairy carbon footprinting UK dairy industry ‘road map’ UK meat sector – starting road map Supermarket dairy benchmarking groups BUT current industry focus is on efficiency rather than integrating environmental & social concerns

NGOs: FOE, WWF, Green Alliance, CIWF, FEC - all working on the issue

Govt: DH action; one local authority; lots of Defra research

Industry:

SAI dairy carbon footprinting

UK dairy industry ‘road map’

UK meat sector – starting road map

Supermarket dairy benchmarking groups

BUT current industry focus is on efficiency rather than integrating environmental & social concerns

Internationally - the key priorities In the context of 9 billion on planet by 2050 What do we need to do so that: We are all fed adequately At minimum GHG cost? Stored carbon is not released? Biodiversity is protected? Other ethical non-negotiables upheld?? Two approaches ...

In the context of 9 billion on planet by 2050

What do we need to do so that:

We are all fed adequately

At minimum GHG cost?

Stored carbon is not released?

Biodiversity is protected?

Other ethical non-negotiables upheld??

Two approaches ...

Approach A : put demand centre stage – max efficiency Accept consumption trajectories as inevitable Squeeze as much as you can from the land and the animals Minimise the damage Accept biodiversity losses / potential animal welfare losses and/or run dual systems for niche concerned groups Or...

Accept consumption trajectories as inevitable

Squeeze as much as you can from the land and the animals

Minimise the damage

Accept biodiversity losses / potential animal welfare losses and/or run dual systems for niche concerned groups

Or...

Approach B : Live within ecological constraints Make use of what animals are good at - an ‘ecological leftovers’ perspective Confine livestock rearing to grazing on land unsuited to other purposes - storing carbon Feed genuine byproducts - avoided feed production (overturn ban on pig swill) Produce within these constraints Consume within these constraints Ie. meet needs rather than demand

Make use of what animals are good at - an ‘ecological leftovers’ perspective

Confine livestock rearing to grazing on land unsuited to other purposes - storing carbon

Feed genuine byproducts - avoided feed production (overturn ban on pig swill)

Produce within these constraints

Consume within these constraints

Ie. meet needs rather than demand

Thank you Tara Garnett [email_address] www.fcrn.org.uk Food Climate Research Network