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 mitigation- Mario Herrero - Nov 2012


Published on

On 13 November, 14:30 Mario Herrero gave a presentation on "Mitigation potentials in the livestock sector" for an online audience.

  • Login to see the comments

Livestock mitigation- Mario Herrero - Nov 2012

  1. 1. Mitigation potentials of the livestock sector Mario Herrero CCAFS Seminar Nairobi 13th November 2012
  2. 2. Structure of the talk• Overview of the livestock sector• GHG emissions• Mitigation potentials and option• Mitigation examples• Conclusions
  3. 3. The challenge ahead• Need to feed 9-10 billion people by 2050 (1/3 more than now)• At a lower environmental cost (roughly the same land, low emissions, water and nutrient use)• In a socially and economically acceptable way (equitably, at the right prices, etc)• Food systems have been changing and are likely to change even more!• How does this translate locally and into an actionable research agenda?
  4. 4. 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)
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. At least 600 million of the World’s poor depend on livestock Thornton et al. 2002, revised 2009 6
  7. 7. 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 SSA - 2000 3% 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
  8. 8. The ‘livestock revolution’: as people get richer they consume more meat People want to eat chicken, pork and milk! FAO: SOFA2011 8
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. Livestock and GHG emissions
  11. 11. Emissions from the agricultural sector Emissions projected to grow as the sector grows due to increased demands for food, feed and other resources Smith et al 2007
  12. 12. 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]
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. Global greenhouse gas efficiency per kilogram of animal protein produced Large inefficiencies in the developing world – an opportunity? Herrero et al. forthcoming (ILRI/IIASA)
  15. 15. Mitigation potentialsLarge potentials associated to livestock Smith et al 2007
  16. 16. Mitigation potentials of agriculture (Smith et al 2007)
  17. 17. Mitigation options Smith et al 2007
  18. 18. Mitigation options• Reductions in emissions: significant potential! – Managing demand for animal products – Structural changes: changing production systems – 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)
  19. 19. Demand managementConsuming less meat or different types ofmeat could lower GHG emissions Less land needed ....but social and economic impacts? ....displacement of people? …nutrition of the poor? Stehfest et al. 2009. Climatic Change
  20. 20. Range of GHG intensities for livestock products in OECD-countries 200 180 kg CO2 eq/kg animal protein 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Pig Poultry Beef Milk Eggs Source: DeVries & DeBoer (2009)
  21. 21. Feed/land use intensities: key driver for the efficiency of the livestock sector (Herrero et al. PNAS forthcoming) beef dairyDepend on land productivity, feed quality, animal speciesand others
  22. 22. Mitigation 1.01Sustainable intensification is essentialThe better we feed cows the less methane per kg of milk they produce 450.00 400.00 350.00 methane - kg CO2 / kg protein produced 300.00 250.00 developed 200.00 developing 150.00 BRICS 100.00 50.00 0.00 7.50 8.50 9.50 10.50 11.50 metabolisable energy (MJ/kg DM) Herrero et al forthcoming (PNAS)
  23. 23. Impact of alternative feeding strategies on milk, manure and methane production (% change) (Bryan et al, Climatic Change in press – IFPRI/ILRI) District Scenario Milk production Manure Methane Methane per production production kg milk Garissa Prosopis 1.5 kg 64 0 -2 -40 3 kg 136 0 -5 -60 Gem Desmodium 1 kg 21 5 -3 -20 2 kg 36 10 0 -26 Mbeere Napier grass 2 kg 12 11 3 -8 3 kg 17 16 2 -12 Njoro Hay 1 kg 18 -5 6 -10 2 kg 49 -5 18 -21 Mukurweni Desmodium 1 kg 9 11 2 -7 2 kg 8 11 0 -7 Othaya Hay 2 kg 9 11 2 -7 4 kg 8 11 0 -7 Siaya Napier grass 2 kg 42 0 12 -21 3 kg 79 10 16 -35 6 districts Average 36 6 4 -20
  24. 24. Mitigation options – intensifying diets Reduction of animal numbers needs to be considered seriously Increasing adoption rates of mitigation practices essential also Thornton and Herrero 2010 (PNAS 107, 19667-19672)
  25. 25. GLOBIOM model results: Annual average GHG emissions over 2020-2030Reduced emissions from methane but primarily CO2 from land use changes Havlik et al (forthcoming – IIASA/ILRI) 25
  26. 26. Crop yield increases can lead to mitigation in thelivestock sector• Alternative crop yield scenarios – S0: No crop yield increase – B: Baseline - linear historical trend – S: -50% yield improvement – C: + 100% in developing regions• Fixed demand on B reference: no rebound effect Havlík et al. Crop Productivity and the Global Livestock Sector: Implications for LUC and GHG Emissions AAEA Annual Meeting, Seattle, August 12-14, 2012
  27. 27. Results Commodity price index 2030/2000 Havlík et al. Crop Productivity and the Global Livestock Sector: Implications for LUC and GHG Emissions 27 AAEA Annual Meeting, Seattle, August 12-14, 2012
  28. 28. Results Ruminants distribution across the systems More transitions towards mixed systems Havlík et al. Crop Productivity and the Global Livestock Sector: Implications for LUC and GHG Emissions 28 AAEA Annual Meeting, Seattle, August 12-14, 2012
  29. 29. Livestock production could increase at a faster pace if crop yields were improved Milk Ruminant meat Monogastrics meat & Eggs 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. 30. Results Land cover change 2000-2030 Havlík et al. Crop Productivity and the Global Livestock Sector: Implications for LUC and GHG Emissions 30 AAEA Annual Meeting, Seattle, August 12-14, 2012
  31. 31. Results Average annual GHG emissions (2000-2030) Difference between scenarios : 2 Gt CO2 eq! Havlík et al. Crop Productivity and the Global Livestock Sector: Implications for LUC and GHG Emissions AAEA Annual Meeting, Seattle, August 12-14, 2012
  32. 32. Can we tap the potential for carbon sequestration inrangeland 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)
  33. 33. Livelihoods systems = Complex production systems Need to think of system-level mitigation practicesEssential for understanding adaptation/mitigation synergies Herrero et al (2010) Science 325, 822-825
  34. 34. Trade-offs, synergies, co-benefits?Large differences depending on type of livelihoodsystem and its objectives income 1 0.5 external inputs food security 0 water use GHGGHG mitigation not necessarily a good mixedproxy for overall environmental efficiency! pastoral
  35. 35. Some conclusions• Mitigation in livestock systems: Large potential!• Mitigation in livestock systems requires the fundamental recognition that societal benefits need to be met at the same time as the environmental ones• Essential to link mitigation to broader agricultural development efforts to increase adoption rates of key practices• No single option best: need packages of technologies, policies, incentives• Understanding trade-offs requires a ‘multi-currency’ approach: energy, emissions, water, nutrients, incomes, etc along value chains (life cycles)…and adaptation/mitigation
  36. 36. 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!• Carbon sequestration: worth it or not as a practice for rangelands?• What is sustainable intensification? Limits?
  37. 37. Thank you!