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.

Livestock and global change: Towards a sustainable and equitable livestock sector

8,370 views

Published on

Presented by Mario Herrero at the ILRI ‘livestock live talk‘, Nairobi, 28 November 2012

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Livestock and global change: Towards a sustainable and equitable livestock sector

  1. Livestock and global change: Production systems for the future: Towards a sustainable and equitable livestock sectorbalancing trade-offs between food production, efficiency, livelihoods and the environment Mario Herrero M. Herrero and P.K. Thornton WCCA/Nairobi Forum Presentation ILRI ‘livestock live talk‘, 21 September 2010 | ILRI, Nairobi st Nairobi, 28 November 2012
  2. Livestock – the big numbers– 17 billion domestic animals globally! (SOFA 2009)– 30% of the Earth’s ice-free surface occupied by livestock systems (Reid et al 2008)– 1/3 of global cropland used for feed production– 14-18% of global greenhouse gas emissions (FAO 2006)– 32% of global freshwater consumption (Heinke et al, forthcoming)
  3. Livestock’s economic benefits– Livestock are 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 GDP: 20-40% of agricultural GDP– Incomes for producers (more constant than crops)– Livestock as a risk management tool, especially for the poor
  4. At least 600 million of the World’s poor depend onlivestock Thornton et al. 2002, revised 2009 4
  5. Livestock and nutrition– Livestock products contribute to 17% of the global kilocalorie consumption and 33% of the protein consumption (FAOSTAT 2008) – Africa 8% of calories– Providers of food for at least 830 million food insecure people (Gerber– Significant global differences in kilocalorie consumption but… highest rates of increase in consumption of livestock products in the developing World– . Europe - 2000 3% SSA - 2000 3% 10% Meat Meat 24% 4% 11% Dairy Dairy 37% 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
  6. The ‘livestock revolution’: as people get richer they consume more meat People want to eat chicken, pork and milk! FAO: SOFA2011 6
  7. The 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
  8. Climate changeWhat will happen to feed resources? Diseases? Productivity? Average projected % change in suitability for 50 crops, to 2050 Courtesy of A. Jarvis
  9. Prices volatile, impacts on the livestock sector and the poor? A blip or an emerging trend? FAO: SOFA2011
  10. The balancing act Pros Cons Nutrition Large users Livestock of resources Income systems are not the Polluters Risk same everywhere (in places)management SignificantEmployment GHG Needs nuanced emissions Nutrients understanding and Less efficient Landscape action than otherMaintenance forms of food production Land useunsuitable for Zoonosis agriculture
  11. LIVESTOCK = problem or opportunity? Share of livestock in global GHG emissions Steinfeld et al. (2006) Livestock in the developing world have a high mitigation potential 11 Better feeds, breeds, management, incentives, policies and regulation
  12. Global greenhouse gas efficiency per kilogram of animal protein produced Large ineficiencies in the developing world – an opportunity? Herrero et al PNAS (forthcoming)
  13. What are recent assessments tellingus about the future of food andlivestock production?
  14. Will we be able to feed 9 billion people? Maybe, depends on what we do. Different scenarios = Different resource use implications Different social, economic and environmental costs it all depends how the world reacts
  15. Business as usual will not stop hunger in the world FAO: SOFA2011
  16. Food production Herrero et al 2009, 2010 Cereals Production 4% 14% AgroPastoral Mixed Extensive 45% Mixed Intensive Other 35% Developed countries 2%Mixed systems in the developing world produce almost 50% ofthe cereals of the WorldMost production coming from intensive systems (irrigation, highpotential, relatively good market access)
  17. Mixed systems in the developing World producethe food of the poor (Herrero et al 2009) Maize Production Millet Production 3% 13% 1% 6% 26% 19% 54% AgroPastoral 28% Mixed Extensive Mixed Intensive Other 2% Developed countries 48% Rice Production Sorghum Production 6% 3% 3% 5% 20% 31% 44% 2% 66% 20%
  18. Mixed systems produce significant amounts of milk and meat beef milk lamb 9% 7% 13% 28% 28% 15%50% AgroPastoral Mixed Extensive 17% 59% 5% Mixed Intensive 19% Other 18% Developed countri 4% 7% 21% Developed countries dominate global milk production, significant exports …but… Mixed systems produce 65% beef, 75% milk and 55% of lamb in the developing World
  19. Mixed intensive systems in the developing Worldare under significant pressures 2.5 billion people…3.4 by 2030, predominantly in Asia 150 million cattle increasing to almost 200 million by 2030 Most pigs and significant numbers of poultry, increasing by 30-40% to 2030 Crop yields stagnating: wheat, rice Others increasing: maize (East Asia) All in the same land! Severe water constraints in some places Soil fertility problems, shrinking farm sizes in others
  20. Important productivity gains could be made in the more extensive mixed rainfed areas  Less pressure on the land Population density* (people/km2) 2000 2030 agro-pastoral 8 14 mixed extensive 79 112 mixed intensive 273 371 other 28 41Yield gaps still largePublic investment required to reduce transaction costs, increaseservice provision and improve risk managementThese systems could turn in ‘providers’ of agro-ecosystemsservices to other systems (i.e. fodder for the mixed intensivesystems)
  21. Yield gaps still high in more extensive systems Maize crop in Rajasthan, India during rainy season 2009District Rainfal Yield (kg ha-1) CD l FP FP + IC BN + IC (5%) (mm)Tonk 288 1150 1930 3160 280Udaipur 570 2530 3090 6320 509Mean(5districts) FP=Farmers’ practice; IC=Improved2550 (41%) 1810 cultivar; BN=Balanced nutrition 4340 (141%) Courtesy of Peter Craufurd
  22. To eat or not to eat…..meat? A duality Health problems in the developed world but need for nourishment in the developing world How can we differentiate this message? Most assessments show that reducing meat consumption could have a very positive impact on the environment ….but no assessment has shown what the social and nutritional impacts would be, especially in the developing world
  23. Changing diets – consuming less meat ordifferent types of meat could lower GHGemissions Stehfest et al. 2009. Climatic Change
  24. Range of GHG intensities for different livestock products 200kg CO2 eq/kg animal protein 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Pig Poultry Beef Milk Eggs Source: DeVries & DeBoer (2008)
  25. The world will require 1 billion tonnes of additional cereal grains to 2050 to meet food and feed demands (IAASTD 2009): can we produce them? Grains 1048 million tonnes more to 2050 humanLivestock consumption430 million MTMonogastrics mostly 458 million MT biofuels 160 million MT
  26. Projected land use changes to 2050 in several integrated assessments (Smith et al 2010) Cropland Rangeland Natural habitats +10 to 20% avg = 10% 0 to -20%Cropland area increasing at a faster rate than rangelandsFaster expansion of monogastric production and intensification ofruminant production with grains
  27. Stover deficits likely to occur in the future Herrero et al. 2009
  28. ‘Moving megajoules’: fodder markets are likely toexpand in areas of feed deficits as demand for milkand meat increases India quotes from M Blummel ‘Stovers transported more than 400 km to be sold’ ‘Price has doubled in 5 years, now 2/3 of grain value of sorghum’ ‘Farmers paying for stover quality’ Herrero et al. 2009
  29. Intensification of ruminant production could lead to lowerland requirements Land cover change 2000-2030 Havlík et al. Crop Productivity and the Global Livestock Sector: Implications for LUC and GHG Emissions 29 AAEA Annual Meeting, Seattle, August 12-14, 2012
  30. Is sustainable intensification a win – winsolution for livelihoods, food security and theenvironment? The thrust of the ILRI - IIASA collaboration
  31. Livestock productionHigher production of milk if systems intensified 31 Havlik, Herrero et al PNAS (forthcoming)
  32. Livestock numbersWith less animals! 32 Havlik, Herrero et al PNAS (forthcoming)
  33. Net cumulated land use change over 2000-2030 Intensification could lead to land sparing A little bit more cropland Lower land expansion 33Havlik, Herrero et al PNAS (forthcoming)
  34. Annual average GHG emissions over 2020-2030And to reduced emissions, primarily CO2 from land use changes Havlik, Herrero et al PNAS (forthcoming) 34
  35. Price changes 2000-2030Intensification could dampen livestock product price increases Havlik, Herrero et al PNAS (forthcoming) 35
  36. How can we translate the results ofglobal assessments into actionablepoints at the farm level?
  37. complex !different oppotunities
  38. Approach: Solution-driven R4D to achieve impact Value chains and institutionsR4D integrated to transform selected value chainsIn targeted commodities and countries. Consumers Major intervention with development partnersValue chain development team + research partners Strategic CRP 3.7 Cross-cutting Platforms • Technology Generation • Market Innovation • Targeting & Impact INTERVENTIONS TO GLOBAL RESEARCHSCALE OUT REGIONALLY PUBLIC GOODS
  39. Integrated assessment of farming systemsessential – at all levels – from global to local! Herrero et al, Science 2010
  40. Trade-offs and synergies income 1 0.5 external inputs food security 0 water use GHG mixed pastoral
  41. A few unresolved things….
  42. Land consolidation vs growth andintensification of the smallholder sector  Large commercial farms pro-efficiency (foreign capital investment)  Smallholder development possibly more pro- poor  Smallholders: low opportunity cost of labour  Do diversified smallholder farms promote more biodiversity and better management of ecosystems services?  Smallholder sector fragmented: what actors are needed to support it?
  43. What role for rangelands?Largest land use systemIncreasingly fragmentedPotentially a large C sinkPES: an importantincome diversificationsourceDifficulties in:Measuring andmonitoring C stocksEstablishment ofpayment schemes Potential for carbonDealing with mobile sequestration in rangelandspastoralists (Conant and Paustian 2002)
  44. How much land is available foragricultural expansion?  Essential to understand the magnitude of technological change!  Widely different estimates in the literature (300 – 800 million hectares)  What types of land are suitable? Rangeland vs forest? Opportunity costs?  What kinds of incentives will be required to develop them?  Can their development be pro-poor?  What is the magnitude of the investment required?
  45. Breakthroughs and surprises  Biotechnology: how much can we really alter technological change through biotechnology?  Information technology  Communications  others
  46. Moving between scales From noble global goals (food security, poverty erradication and a sustainable world)  to the grand diversity of farming and livelihood systems and viceversa!
  47. Some conclusions Can we feed 9 billion people: yes, we can by doing the right things We need to change investment paradigm and also start investing in the systems of the future (not only in the what were the high potential areas) Livestock research could have an enormous role Infrastructure and market development essential Incentives: Technology could play a key role but we need investment in provision of services
  48. 2002 Poverty mapping in the developing world 2006 Mapping vulnerability to climate change in Africa 2007 Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture 2007 IPCC AR4 report – inputs in the adaptation chapter 2008 Human Development Report 2009 IAASTD – contributing authors CGIAR Assessment of drivers of change in mixed crop-livestock 2009 systemsSustainable livestock 2009 IPCC Greenhouse Gas Emissions Task Forcefutures team 2009 Livestock in a Changing Landscape 2010 Science food security issue – invited reviewsome contributions to 2010 World Development Report – Climate Change 2010 UK Foresight report – contributing authorsthe global change 2011 UNEP Ecosystems Services Assessmentagenda 2011 State of the World Report – Livestock Chapter lead 2011 WWF Global deforestation outlook 2011 Vulnerability of food systems to climate change (for CCAFS) 2013 PNAS Special Issue on Livestock and Global Change (Guest Editors) 2013 IPCC AR5 report contributing authors adaptation/mitigation chapters
  49. Thank you! Thank you!

×