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, Land and Livelihoods: Adaptation and Mitigation for Small Holders and Pastoralists


Published on

Presentation from the Livestock Inter-Agency Donor Group (IADG) Meeting 2010. 4-5 May 2010 Italy, Rome IFAD Headquarters.

The event involved approximately 45 representatives from the international partner agencies to discuss critical needs for livestock development and research issues for the coming decade.

[ Originally posted on ]

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Livestock, Land and Livelihoods: Adaptation and Mitigation for Small Holders and Pastoralists

  1. 1. Livestock, Land and Livelihoods:Adaptation and mitigation for small holders and pastoralists Constance Neely (FAO) and Muhammad Ibrahim (CATIE) Grasslands Carbon Working Group
  2. 2. Will climate change be the ultimate incentive todo what we have meant to be doing all along?
  3. 3. Grasslands occupy 26% of the emerged ice free world and 70% of the agricultural area and store up to 8% of the world’s carbon (230-260 Tonnes C per ha) (FAO 2006).
  4. 4. Extensive pastoralism occurs on 25% of the global land area supporting 200 million pastoral households
  5. 5. Climate change will have differentiated impacts
  6. 6. Grazing lands management (1.5 Gt CO2 e)Rehabilitating degraded land (0.6 Gt CO2 e)
  7. 7. Improving grazing land management has the secondhighest technical potential for mitigating C emissions (IPCC 2007) Photo credit: C.Neely Photo credit: C. Leggett Photo credit: C. Leggett
  8. 8. 4 Ecosystem Functions Photos: C. Leggett
  9. 9. Photo credit: C.Neely Photo credit: C.Neely Photo credit: A. SavoryPhoto credit: C. Leggett
  10. 10. Non-effective water cycle Effective water cycle50-80% of rainfall is lost through 1 % increase in SOMrun-off and evaporation. 144,000 L H20 per Ha Soil bare between plants Soil covered with plants and mulch After: water table
  11. 11. Mitigation and Adaptation in the Landscape Photo credits: A. Savory
  12. 12. Photo credit: C. Neely Photo credit: C. Neely15 times the yield of the conventionally grown maize Photo credits: A. Savory Neely 2009
  13. 13. Croppers to Livestock-Keepers• “There are likely to be substantial shifts in the patterns of African cropping and livestock keeping” – crop yields decrease but can be handled through agronomic means – crop yields increase, particularly the case of the highlands - “temperature limitations relaxed” – crop yields decline drastically shifting emphasis from marginal crop production to livestock keeping Jones and Thornton (2008)• In Africa, livestock production could provide the 20 million to 35 million people living in these areas a means to stay on their land and have a livelihood (ILRI, 2009).
  14. 14. Let’s not ignore the grazinglands• Livestock are an irreplaceable source of livelihoods for the poor and pastoralism remains the most rational strategy for marginal areas.• Grasslands play a critical role in climate change mitigation.• The associated co-benefits (increased soil organic matter, productivity, water capture and retention, biological diversity) provide a vital adaptation strategies.
  15. 15. Carbon Sequestration Potential of Four Land Use Systems(Adapted from IPCC, 2000, Swaminathan, 2009) Potential Carbon Sequestration by 2040 700 600 500 400 (Mt C y-1) 300 200 100 0 Agrof orestry Grazing Forest Cropland management management management Agroforestry and grassland management have a high potential particularly given the extensive areas.
  16. 16. Mainstreaming Silvopastoral Systems for Mitigationand Adaptation to Climate Change in the Humid and Sub-Humid Tropics
  17. 17. Carbon stocks in pastures and silvopastoral systems• Conversion of tropical forest to pastures with inappropriate management results in degradation and net loss of carbon• Good management of improved pastures and silvopastoral systems can maintian carbon stocks similiar to that stored in the forest
  18. 18. Before Change: C Fluxes After Net C effect C desminuye en produccionDesertifiication NPP 21 Desertification 13 Increased spatial heterogeneity of C and nutrients 1 0.7 Increased Erosion LossesWoody 700 increase in NPPencroachment 2,100 12,000 Woody Encroachment Increased spatial heterogeneity of C and nutrients 16,800 Erosion Losses 19,000 130,000 88,000 14,000Tropical deforestation Fire Repeat & Burning 3,900 Conversion (each burn) 210,000 Leaching Erosion 200,000 losses Losses Three ecological degradation syndromes associated with livestock production systems. Values indicate mean carbon stocks (kg ha-1) or fluxes (kg ha-1 yr-1) as reported throughout the scientific literature (adapted from Asner et al. 2004). Net effect on C storage is depicted on far right.
  19. 19. Carbon balance from conversion of forest to pastures Forest (C3) Well managed pasture (C4) δ13C = -29 ‰ δ13C = -14 ‰ 20 years 80 years } Cp Soil carbon CARBON- PASTURE (C4) CARBONO TOTAL REMANANT CARBON-FOREST M.Ibrahim FAO IFAD side event } Cf COP14 3 Dec 2008 Years
  20. 20. Carbon Sequestration in pasture and forest systems in The sub-humid tropics of Costa Rica Land use Carbon (t/ha) Degraded pasture 0.04 Natural pasture without trees 0.5 Natural pasture with high density of 1.2 trees Improved pasture without trees 1.0 Natural pasture with high density of 1.3 trees Improved pasture with high density of 2.5 trees Forest plantations 3.9 Secondary forest 6.5
  21. 21. Index by land uses and its potential for carbon sequestration and conservation of biodiversity Index Index# Land use Carbon Biodiversity Total index2 Degraded pasture 0 0 03 Native pasture without trees 0,1 0,1 0,28 Live fences 0,3 0,3 0,611 Fodder bank 0,3 0,5 0,814 Native pasture high tree density* 0,5 0,5 1,020 Improve pasture high tree density* 0,6 0,7 1,323 Young secondary vegetation 0,6 0,8 1,424 Riparian forest 0,8 0,7 1,527 Secondary forest 0,9 1,0 1,928 Primary forest 1,0 1,0 2,0 * > 30 tree ha-1
  22. 22. Live fences
  23. 23. ÑOFodder bank with Leucaena 203 2006 0 ha 117,6 ha Silvopastoril intensivo
  24. 24. Impact of Leucaena on growth of animals|Forage system Stocking Liveweight Years to rate gain 600 kg LW (ha/steer) (kg/steer/year) (Jap Ox)Best native pasture 4 100-140 4-5Buffel grass 2 170-190 3-4Leucaena – buffel 1.5 250-300 <2.5 grass Difficult to meet market specifications from native pastures
  25. 25. Payment for Environmental ServicesIs PES an incentive to ¨tip the balance¨ for adoption of silvopastoral practices?How do the poor and non-poor farmers benefit from PES? What is the sustainability of PES systems?
  26. 26. Payment of Environmental services to foster adoption of SPS• Pilot project with 400 cattle farmers in Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Colombia• Funded by GEF, World Bank, FAO- LEAD• Implemented by CATIE- CIPAV, NITLAPAN• Payment- land use changes that enhance biodiversity and carbon sequestration (40-60 US /ha depending on land use change)
  27. 27. Payment is based on annual incrementsin relation to base line Ecological Incremental Points/farm Base line Years Incremental EP = EP in year t – EP base line
  28. 28. FOREST FODDER BANKSIMPROVED PASTURE WITH TREESNATURAL PASTURE WITH TREES DEGRADED PASTURES -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 NET LAND USE CHANGE (%) NON POOR POOR EXTREMELY POORLand used change (%) in cattle farms with Payment for EnvironmentalServices according to the level of poverty in Matiguas, Nicaragua. Non poor(n=16), Poor (n=15), and Extremely poor (n=33).
  29. 29. Mean payment/farm US 969.911,000.00 900.00 800.00 686.25 664.82 700.00 600.00 500.00 400.00 245.40 225.76 300.00 179.82 200.00 100.00 - Costa Rica Nicaragua Colombia 2003 2005 Payment of environmental services equivalent to 2400 to 4000 litres of milk/farm/yr M.Ibrahim FAO IFAD side event COP14 3 Dec 2008
  30. 30. Socio-economic Impact of Payment of Environmental Services- NicaraguaParameter Poverty level Baseline 2007 % 2003 ChangeMilk prod (kg/ha/yr) Non-poor 617.4 662.9 7.4 Poor 657.8 864.0 37.7 Very poor 637.4 878.3 37.8Gross Non-poor 3188.0 5005.0 57.0income/householdcapita (US$/yr) Poor 1258.3 2606.1 107.2 Very poor 802.1 1371.2 70.9
  31. 31. What were the impacts of PES- mitigation?• Adoption of silvopastoral systems resulted in increments of increased carbon stocks• Farmers adopted improved forages of better quality than traditional pastures- reducing emission of GHG• Transition of conventional to silvopastoral systems resulted in a reduced emissions of GHG per kg milk produced.
  32. 32. Chain of carbon footprint in conventional systems 419 22 miilking cows71519 KgCO2e KgCO2e ConcentratesGrupo Ganadería y Manejo del Ambiente 80.4 KgCO2e Supplements 206.4 KgCO2e pasture Fertilzers 206.1 KgCO2e
  33. 33. Chain of carbon footprint in silvopastoral systems 15 milking cows 37735.8 KgCO2e 419 KgCO2eConcentrates 206.4 KgCO2e Forage banks
  34. 34. Comparison of Carbon Footprint in both systems Comparison of Carbon Footprint in both systemsFigure KgCO2e per kg of milk corected by % fat and %protein in bothsystems (case study ,livestock farm in Esparza, Costa Rica). 2,2 2,5 2,0 Kg (CO2e/FPCM) 1,1 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Conventional Silvopastoral Nota: FPCM= fat and protein corrected by milk
  35. 35. Silvopastoral systems- Complex and diverse systems- Improve carbon sequestration and reduce emission of green house gases- fodder trees with good quality- faster growth rates of animals- With SPS – bundling of environmental services- biodiversity, carbon and water
  36. 36. What are the impact on policies• Costa Rica- declaration to become a Carbon neutral country by 2021• Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment have designed and implement policies that will benefit cattle farmers with PES for implementing silvopastoral systems
  37. 37. Send-A-Cow Uganda ExampleKg CO2e (millions) Total Sequestration = 1.08 M Kg CO2e Total Emissions = 0.583 M Kg CO2e
  38. 38. Meru District Tanzania
  39. 39. Preliminary DataCarbon Balance: TanzaniaAspect Mg CO2eTotal Emissions 3.24• Livestock• WoodburningSequestration 6.06Net Sequestration 2.82
  40. 40. • Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture (MICCA) Project. Support agricultural climate change mitigation in the context of food security 5 year multi-donor trust fund, 10 million USD; 3.8 million USD for 2 years by Finland.• Crop-Livestock-(Tree) Integration Focus(Farming Systems are evolved and back)
  41. 41. Research PrioritiesPastures and sylvo-pastoral systems and highly integrated farming systems offer the highest potential for C sequestration.Estimates of sequestration capacities in these systems are comforting but uncertain. There is a lack of direct observation (including baseline information) in developing countries.
  42. 42. Research PrioritiesMeasurement of environmental services and co-benefits with good grazing land practice• Increased effective rainfall capture, reduced drought risk, increased biological diversity, soil health that can be garnered because of the presence of livestock• Give value to these systems. Communal lands are going to be important important• Clarity on grazing systems and increases in C and co-benefits
  43. 43. Research Priorities• Life cycle analyses (LCAs) in extensive systems as well as integrated systems.• Outcomes should be considered per unit of land as well as per unit of product. Build on diversity of systems.• Simple tools for monitoring farms to demonstrate change – indicators of reduction in GHG emissions.• Robust mechanisms to support livestock keepers.