Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Henning Steinfeld, FAO 
LIVESTOCK AND 
THE ENVIRONMENT 
Challenges to 2054 
ILRI@40 Livestock and Environment workshop 
Ad...
Assignment 
• Provoking Presentation / Interventions 
• THE BIG ‘L&E’ RESEARCH CHALLENGES TO 2054 
• Positive vs. Negative...
Externalities 
• Regulations 
• Incentives/disincentives 
• Innovations 
• Institutions
Two Approaches 
• Horizontal (geographic) – maps, integrated 
landscapes, ecosystems, biodiversity, 
adaptation 
• Vertica...
GHG emissions from livestock
GHG emissions from livestock 
Nitrous 
oxide 
N2O 
Nitrous 
oxide 
N2O 
Nitrous 
oxide 
N2O
GHG emissions from livestock 
Methane 
CH4 
Methane 
CH4
GHG emissions from livestock 
Carbon 
dioxide 
CO2 
Carbon 
dioxide 
CO Carbon 2 
dioxide 
CO2 
Carbon 
dioxide 
CO2
GHG emissions from livestock 
Carbon 
dioxide 
CO2 
Carbon 
dioxide 
CO2 
Methane 
CH4 Carbon 
dioxide 
CO2 
Nitrous 
oxid...
Bridging the efficiency gap 
Distribution of cattle production units by emission intensity in South Africa 
16000 
14000 
...
Is there an emission gap? 
Emissions gap within systems: dairy production in Western Kenya 
• smallholder mixed dairy syst...
Case studies: mitigation packages 
Commercial pigs in E &SE Asia 
• Manure management 
• Energy efficiency 
• Feed quality...
Case studies: mitigation potential 
(emission intensities) 
Commercial pigs 
-152 to -169 Mt CO2 
Mixed dairy 
-199 Mt CO2...
Barriers to adoption 
• Investment and cost barriers, such as upfront costs in costs of investment in 
equipment, machiner...
LCA 
• Yield gaps, efficiency gaps, emission intensity 
gaps  priority setting 
• Attributional - today’s realities: what...
Technical and institutional determinants to climate 
smart livestock 
Mitigation Food security Adaptation
Technical and institutional determinants to climate 
smart livestock 
Reduced 
emissions per 
unit of output 
C sequestrat...
Technical and institutional determinants to climate 
smart livestock 
Reduced 
emissions per 
unit of output 
Deforestatio...
Technical and institutional determinants to climate 
smart livestock 
Improved 
energy use 
efficiency 
Reduced 
emissions...
Technical and institutional determinants to climate 
smart livestock 
Reduced 
emissions per 
unit of output 
C sequestrat...
Technical and institutional determinants to climate 
smart livestock 
Reduced 
emissions per 
unit of output 
C sequestrat...
Technical and institutional determinants to climate 
smart livestock 
Reduced 
emissions per 
unit of output 
C sequestrat...
Technical and institutional determinants to climate 
smart livestock 
Improved 
energy use 
efficiency 
Reduced 
emissions...
Technical and institutional determinants to climate 
smart livestock 
Improved 
energy use 
efficiency 
Reduced 
emissions...
Categories of pressure
THE SPATIAL ORGANIZATION OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION 
0 15 30 60 90 120 
Kilometers 
Suitability Score 
1: very low suitabilit...
Research Questions 
• LCA = closing the gap – shifting the gap 
(innovation) 
• Geographic = optimal distribution of land ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Livestock and the environment: Challenges to 2054

1,088 views

Published on

Presented by Henning Steinfeld (FAO) at the ILRI@40 Livestock and Environment workshop, Addis Ababa, 7 November 2014

Published in: Science

Livestock and the environment: Challenges to 2054

  1. 1. Henning Steinfeld, FAO LIVESTOCK AND THE ENVIRONMENT Challenges to 2054 ILRI@40 Livestock and Environment workshop Addis Ababa, 7 November 2014
  2. 2. Assignment • Provoking Presentation / Interventions • THE BIG ‘L&E’ RESEARCH CHALLENGES TO 2054 • Positive vs. Negative & Global vs. Local specific • How? Biodiversity • How? Missing data African context – Environmental impacts – System specific to see opportunities (like how local animal responds to feed interventions) • How? Incentives, payments for ecosystem services • How? Complexity and trade-offs • No research needed? “animals flexible and can adapt to CC”
  3. 3. Externalities • Regulations • Incentives/disincentives • Innovations • Institutions
  4. 4. Two Approaches • Horizontal (geographic) – maps, integrated landscapes, ecosystems, biodiversity, adaptation • Vertical (chains) – life cycle (resources, CC), value chains (money), HACCP (health)
  5. 5. GHG emissions from livestock
  6. 6. GHG emissions from livestock Nitrous oxide N2O Nitrous oxide N2O Nitrous oxide N2O
  7. 7. GHG emissions from livestock Methane CH4 Methane CH4
  8. 8. GHG emissions from livestock Carbon dioxide CO2 Carbon dioxide CO Carbon 2 dioxide CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2
  9. 9. GHG emissions from livestock Carbon dioxide CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2 Methane CH4 Carbon dioxide CO2 Nitrous oxide N2O Carbon dioxide CO2 Nitrous oxide N2O Methane CH4 Nitrous oxide N2O
  10. 10. Bridging the efficiency gap Distribution of cattle production units by emission intensity in South Africa 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Number of production units in GLEAM Kg CO2-eq.kg edible protein-1
  11. 11. Is there an emission gap? Emissions gap within systems: dairy production in Western Kenya • smallholder mixed dairy system, temperate climate zone • average milking herd: 2 cows per farm • average milk yield: 1800 litres/cow/year
  12. 12. Case studies: mitigation packages Commercial pigs in E &SE Asia • Manure management • Energy efficiency • Feed quality • Animal health & husbandry Mixed dairy in south Asia • Feed quality • Animal health & husbandry Specialized beef • Grazing management • Animal health Small ruminants in W. Africa • Feed quality • Animal health & husbandry • Grazing management Mixed dairy OECD • Fat supplementation • Anaerobic digestion • Energy efficiency
  13. 13. Case studies: mitigation potential (emission intensities) Commercial pigs -152 to -169 Mt CO2 Mixed dairy -199 Mt CO2 14-17% Mixed dairy OECD -54 to -66 Mt CO2 Specialized beef -753 to -874 Mt CO2 Small ruminants -17 Mt to -21 Mt CO2 18-29% 28-36% 38% 27-41% • Production increases by 7 to 40 percent in all case studies, except OECD • Overwhelming effects of feed, health and energy generation/efficiency
  14. 14. Barriers to adoption • Investment and cost barriers, such as upfront costs in costs of investment in equipment, machinery, materials and labour; transaction costs, credit constraints,etc. • Technology and capacity barriers, such as lack of access to information and human capital, low access to GHG-efficient technology, risk adversity of producer, knowledge gaps of extension services, etc. • Institutional barriers, such as insecure land tenure, policy uncertainty, imperfect markets, limited access to technical extension services, or lack of institutions to support collective action. • Policy barriers e.g. low incentives to capital investment and process innovation
  15. 15. LCA • Yield gaps, efficiency gaps, emission intensity gaps  priority setting • Attributional - today’s realities: what is • Consequential – counterfactual: what if? – Example: what would be the emissions if there weren’t any livestock? – Scenario building – Goodland: 51% of all emissions from livestock
  16. 16. Technical and institutional determinants to climate smart livestock Mitigation Food security Adaptation
  17. 17. Technical and institutional determinants to climate smart livestock Reduced emissions per unit of output C sequestration in biomass and (among others) Mitigation Adaptation soils Reduced sensitivity Increased capacity to adapt Increased productivity Food security
  18. 18. Technical and institutional determinants to climate smart livestock Reduced emissions per unit of output Deforestation and other LUC C sequestration in biomass and Mitigation Adaptation soils Reduced sensitivity Increased capacity to adapt Increased productivity Food security Range management (range composition, grazing, fertilization, irrigation) (among others)
  19. 19. Technical and institutional determinants to climate smart livestock Improved energy use efficiency Reduced emissions per unit of output C sequestration in biomass and Manure management Mitigation Adaptation soils Reduced sensitivity Increased capacity to adapt Feed quality Herd structure Animal genetics Animal health Increased productivity Food security Low C sourcing (among others)
  20. 20. Technical and institutional determinants to climate smart livestock Reduced emissions per unit of output C sequestration in biomass and Manure management (among others) Mitigation Adaptation soils Reduced sensitivity Increased capacity to adapt Feed quality Herd structure Animal genetics Animal health Increased productivity Food security
  21. 21. Technical and institutional determinants to climate smart livestock Reduced emissions per unit of output C sequestration in biomass and Diversification of assets Mitigation Adaptation soils Reduced sensitivity Increased capacity to adapt Increased productivity Food security Water management Range management (range composition, grazing, fertilization, irrigation) (among others)
  22. 22. Technical and institutional determinants to climate smart livestock Reduced emissions per unit of output C sequestration in biomass and Mitigation Adaptation soils Reduced sensitivity Increased capacity to adapt Increased productivity Food security Technical and financial capacity Access to information Functioning and accessible markets (among others)
  23. 23. Technical and institutional determinants to climate smart livestock Improved energy use efficiency Reduced emissions per unit of output Deforestation and other LUC C sequestration in biomass and Mitigation Adaptation soils Reduced sensitivity Increased capacity to adapt Feed quality Herd structure Animal genetics Animal health Increased productivity Food security Technical and financial capacity Water management Access to information Diversification of assets Range management (range composition, grazing, fertilization, irrigation) Manure management Functioning and accessible markets Low C sourcing (among others)
  24. 24. Technical and institutional determinants to climate smart livestock Improved energy use efficiency Reduced emissions per unit of output Deforestation and other LUC C sequestration in biomass and Mitigation Adaptation soils Reduced sensitivity Increased capacity to adapt Feed quality Herd structure Animal genetics Animal health Increased productivity Food security Technical and financial capacity Water management Access to information Diversification of assets Range management (range composition, grazing, fertilization, irrigation) Manure management Functioning and accessible markets Low C sourcing (among others)
  25. 25. Categories of pressure
  26. 26. THE SPATIAL ORGANIZATION OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION 0 15 30 60 90 120 Kilometers Suitability Score 1: very low suitability 5: very high suitability 1.5 - 2 2.1- 2.5 2.6 - 3 3.1 - 3.5 3.6 - 4 4.1 - 4.5 4.6 - 5 Restricted Source: Structural Change in the Livestock Sector – Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative
  27. 27. Research Questions • LCA = closing the gap – shifting the gap (innovation) • Geographic = optimal distribution of land uses – environmental, social, economic benefits • Policy analysis – addressing trade-offs, targeted approaches (livelihoods, market-oriented) • Integrated analysis – combining approaches, objectives, stakeholders – sustainability • What if? scenarios

×