Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Global environmental challenges [and livestock]

More Related Content

Similar to Global environmental challenges [and livestock]

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Global environmental challenges [and livestock]

  1. 1. Global Environmental Challenges Henning Steinfeld, FAO ILRI-World Bank Consultation on the Global Livestock Agenda by 2020 Nairobi, 12 - 13 March 2012
  2. 2. Livestock demand and resource constraints Global demand to grow by Growing scarcities and risks 70 to 80 % by 2050 • Growing scarcities - oil, • Stagnant in rich countries land, water, energy, • Still strong in emerging phosphorus countries • Environmental • Rapidly growing degradation and anywhere else (+200 % in pollution Africa) • Climate change
  3. 3. 150 200 250 50 100 0 Apr-01 Aug-01 Dec-01 Apr-02 Aug-02 Dec-02 Apr-03 Aug-03 Dec-03 Apr-04 Aug-04 Dec-04 Apr-05 Aug-05 Dec-05 Apr-06 Aug-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Aug-07 Dec-07 Apr-08 Aug-08 Commodity Price Index Monthly Price Dec-08 Apr-09 Aug-09 Dec-09 Apr-10 Commodity prices on the rise Aug-10 Dec-10 Apr-11
  4. 4. International prices for maize and soy US $ /ton Facts and Trends Source: FAO commodity prices, 2011
  5. 5. HUMAN-EDIBLE PROTEIN BALANCE IN THE LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION OF SELECTED COUNTRIES EDIBLE PROTEIN OUTPUT/INPUT EDIBLE PROTEIN OUTPUT-INPUT TONNES AV. 1995-1997 AV.2005-2007 AV. 1995-1997 AV.2005-2007 Saudi Arabia 0.15 0.19 -533 731 -659 588 USA 0.48 0.53 -7 846 859 -7 650 830 Germany 0.66 0.62 -921 449 -1 183 290 China 0.75 0.95 -2 822 998 -665 276 Netherlands 1.66 1.02 322 804 18 070 Brazil 0.79 1.17 -622 177 550 402 Nepal 2.25 1.88 37 370 40 803 India 3.60 4.30 2 249 741 3 379 440 Sudan 18.22 8.75 235 868 340 895 New Zealand 8.04 10.06 460 366 638 015 Mongolia 14.72 14.60 42 987 35 858 Ethiopia 16.02 16.95 99 909 141 395 Kenya 18.08 21.16 124 513 202 803
  6. 6. Point of Departure The livestock sector is resource-hungry • ~ 70 of total agricultural land, 35 % of all crop land • ~ 60 % of total anthropogenic biomass appropriation • ~ 29 % of agricultural water use • ~ 15 % of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (being re-calculated) Contributions: • 13 % of all dietary energy; 25 % of all dietary protein • 1.5 % of world GDP • livelihood component to 1 billion people
  7. 7. Point of Departure • The sector has specific resource issues – Low NRU efficiency – geographic dispersion (extensive systems) – geographic clustering (intensive systems) • Demand will continue to grow and needs to be accommodated within finite resources • Potential for social, health and economic gains needs to be seized • The need for connecting actors and for joint action
  8. 8. Why livestock? Specific resource use issues • Production of animal protein is typically less efficient than that of plant protein • Remoteness - areas often out of reach (neglect, expansion into forests, overgrazing) • Intensive systems are often detached from land base – nutrient depletion and overloads
  9. 9. Efficiency of Natural Resource Use • Conversion efficiency of land, water, nutrients, energy • (Partially) dependant on local resource endowment • Huge gaps in efficiency exist within and between countries • Knowledge/technology to substitute for natural resource use
  10. 10. Global non-CO2 emission intensities by commodity (tCO2eq/t protein) 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
  11. 11. Inter-country comparison of nitrogen use efficiency in dairy production (Share of ingested N found in milk and meat) 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0
  12. 12. Relationship between total greenhouse gas emissions and milk output per cow 12.00 10.00 kg CO2-eq. per kg FPCM 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Output per cow, kg FPCM per year
  13. 13. Closing the efficiency gap • Resource constraints have started to “bite” - high commodity prices induce innovation and drive technology • Productivity and efficiency gains move largely in parallel • Huge gaps between attainable and actually attained efficiency • Gaps can be narrowed with existing technology • Globally there is more gain from large numbers of producers catching up than from pushing the frontier • Prices need to reflect true scarcities of natural resources
  14. 14. Restoring value to grasslands Issue: neglect of extensive grazing areas, their people and their potential services • improved range management can help store soil carbon: average 0.13 to 0.81 tCO2-e ha-1 yr-1 for moist and dry grasslands, respectively (IPCC, 2006) • strong synergies between productivity gains, climate change mitigation and adaptation and other environmental services
  15. 15. Degraded grasslands Satellite derived map using NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) data from 1981 until 2003 Methods to obtain this map: NDVI is converted to NPP (net primary productivity) and corrected by Rain-Use Efficiency (correct the rainfall variability effect). the trend in time (1981-2003) defines improvements (higher NDVI) or decline of the vegetation Data: Bai et al. , 2008. FAO / UNEP LADA project
  16. 16. Soil organic carbon (somtc) difference; [grazing level with max NPP] - [grazing level closest to LADA NPP} Soil organic carbon (somtc) (gC m -2) 50 0 00 0 00 0 -0 5 00 -2 ,0 -5 -2 50 1, -1 < 0 0 -2 > 25 0 50 This shows the technical potential for C sequestration (summed over the simulation period 1961-2006). Estimated by subtracting max attainable soil C levels (i.e. that could have been achieved if grazing levels were optimally managed) from simulated baseline soil C levels. Also, coverage is only for rangelands, not managed pastures
  17. 17. Restoring value to grasslands • Carbon finance and other PES can alter the production function of grasslands, particularly in marginal areas • Develop a “business case” for grasslands – multiple, global and local, environmental services • Certification methodologies are required • Institutional mechanisms for benefit sharing need to be developed
  18. 18. Towards zero discharge: Recovery of nutrients and energy from animal manure Issue: Discharge of animal manure into the environment caused by geographic concentration of livestock • total amounts of nutrients in livestock excreta > synthetic fertilizers • 50 to 90 percent of nutrients contained in feed are excreted as manure, 30 % of energy • Technology exists to recover most of the energy (biogas) and nutrients (except N) • Policies to address spatial distribution of livestock are required
  19. 19. Globally-900,000,000 hogs Estimated distribution of industrialized produced pig populations. Livestock’s Long Shadow, 2006
  20. 20. Pig Distribution in the US Total 60,000,000 hogs Honeyman, Duffy, 2006. Iowa State Univ
  21. 21. Pigs in North Carolina • 9,800,000 hogs and pigs • 63% are grown in 5 of the 100 counties of the state • 45% are in 2 of the 100 counties of the state and are on the coastal plain
  22. 22. Towards zero discharge • Spatial policies (zoning) addressing land- livestock balances - create opportunities for nutrient recycling • Emission standards (voluntary, non- voluntary) • Waste management technology transfer and adaptation • Incentive policies (incl. CDM in developing countries)
  23. 23. The Global Agenda of Action in Support of Sustainable Livestock Sector Development Programme of action and structure
  24. 24. Direction of Change Improving the efficiency of natural resource use Three focus areas: 1. Closing the efficiency gap: catching up in technology adoption 2. Restore value to grasslands: supporting soil carbon, ecosystem health and productivity restoration with climate finance 3. Zero discharge: towards full recovery of nutrient and energy from animal manure
  25. 25. Closing the natural resource use efficiency gap What has changed: The natural resource constraint is increasingly perceived by stakeholders
  26. 26. Closing the natural resource use efficiency gap What has changed: The natural resource constraint is increasingly perceived by stakeholders Govern- Private Civil Science Inter Actions ments Sector Society Govern Org. mental Org. Measuring efficiency Partnership Assessing natural resource use efficiency gap and options to close the gap Develop PPPs and other models to foster innovation and technology transfer Promote investment programmes for efficiency improvement Expected result: More knowledge-intensive practices, with more efficient natural resource use
  27. 27. Restoring value to grasslands What has changed: Payment for Environmental Services and climate change finance can reverse the neglect of grasslands and enhance productivity and incomes
  28. 28. Restoring value to grasslands What has changed: Payment for Environmental Services and climate change finance can reverse the neglect of grasslands and enhance productivity and incomes Actions Govern- Private Civil Science Inter ments Sector Society Govern Org. mental Org. Assessing and targeting the potential for carbon sequestration and synergies with food security and other env. services Developing Monitoring Reporting and Verification methodologies Piloting institutional and technical approaches Develop intergovernmental support for grasslands, e.g. within UNFCCC Expected result: Pastoralist adopt practices that provide environmental services and improve food security
  29. 29. Recovery of nutrient and energy from animal manure What has changed: Discharge of animal manure is less and less accepted
  30. 30. Recovery of nutrient and energy from animal manure What has changed: Discharge of animal manure is less and less accepted Actions Govern- Private Civil Science Inter ments Sector Society Govern Org. mental Org. Analyze the clustering trend and assess the constraints to the adoption of good manure management practices Develop regional networks that can provide assistance to policy makers Create opportunities for nutrient recycling and energy recovery Foster the development of PPPs and other models to foster technology transfer and farmers’ participation Expected result: Increased nutrient and energy recovery from manure, resulting in reduced pollution
  31. 31. The Agenda’s stakeholders • Governments • Private sector (branch organizations) • CSOs • Research and academia • Intergovernmental organizations (global, regional) • Smallholders/pastoralists not represented at global level (will be at operational level)
  32. 32. Implementation entities • Platform of all members • Advisory Group, composed of Focus Area Groups and Global Partners • Secretariat • Centers of excellence and ad hoc expert groups • Regional hubs, closer to stakeholders, along focus areas
  33. 33. What’s new? • The thematic focus – Offers strong synergies between economic gains and environmental impact reduction • The action-orientation (change in practice) – Built ona sense of urgency to put what we know into practice • Value added of the multi-stakeholder engagement – Convergence of interests and action will translate into change of practices
  34. 34. Implications for the social agenda • Climate change will hit resource-poor grazers more than any other group • Resource constraint hits the “middle ground” – less efficient, small scale, commercial production • Carbon finance could help transition: – Pastoralists to landscape managers – Intensification, particularly of dairy (methane) • “Zero discharge” may increase production cost of large-scale industrial production
  35. 35. Implications for Health Agenda • Climate change will change incidence and severity of animal diseases (particularly vector-borne) • Disease constraints to raising efficiency need to be lifted • “zero discharge” will alleviate public health challenges associated with pollution
  36. 36. …towards a new narrative PG Domain No growth Growth Problems of growth Environment Restore grasslands/ Efficiency/ sustainable Avoid pollution marginal lands intensification Social Protection of Income and Sustained prosperity livelihoods employment Nutrition Avoid starvation Enrich diets Avoid unhealthy diets Health Keep animals alive/ Remove constraints to Safe and healthy food, keep production production, Functional trade systems functional productivity, trade
  37. 37. Thank you henning.steinfeld@fao.org www.livestockdialogue.ord

Editor's Notes

  • Regional differences in objectives and available methods/data

×