The Climate Food and Farming (CLIFF) Research Network is an international research network that helps to expand young researchers' knowledge and experience working on climate change mitigation in smallholder farming. CLIFF provides grants for selected doctoral students to work with CGIAR researchers affiliated with the Standard Assessment of Mitigation Potential and Livelihoods in Smallholder Systems (SAMPLES) project. This presentation is UQuantifying mitigation potential in livestock systems and was made by Jacobo Arango from the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).

1. Quantifying mitigation potential in
livestock systems
Jacobo Arango, Ngonidzashe Chirinda, Ashly Arevalo, Daniel Villegas, Xiomara Gaviria, Laura Serna, Alejandro
Ruden, Alejandra Marin, Denisse Montoya, Johanna Mazabel, Isabel Molina, Sandra Durango, Stiven Quintero,
Mauricio Sotelo, Jhon F.Gutierrez Todd Rosenstock, Meryl Richards, Rolando Barahona, Idupulapati Rao and
many more…
Tropical Forages Program - CIAT
Cologne, 10-11-2017
CLIFF workshop

2. Follow us: Website: www.ciat.cgiar.org
Blog: www.ciatnews.cgiar.org/en/
http://twitter.com/ciat_
http://www.facebook.com/ciat.ecoefficient
CGIAR and CIAT
CIAT’s mission: To reduce hunger and poverty, and improve
human nutrition in the tropics through research aimed at
increasing the eco-efficiency of agriculture
CGIAR system: Global research partnership for a food-secure
future. CGIAR science is dedicated to reducing poverty,
enhancing food and nutrition security, and improving
natural resources and ecosystem services. Its research is
carried out by 15 CGIAR centers.

4. Agrobiodivesity
Bean
Cassava
Rice
Tropical Forages
Decision and Policy Analysis (DAPA)
CIAT Research areas
Soils and Landscapes for Sustainability

5. 17 billion
The estimated total number of
livestock worldwide, including cattle,
sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, and about a
dozen lesser known species, like guinea
fowl, yaks, and camels
4.9 billion
hectares
Or about two-thirds of the world’s total
agricultural area is used to feed livestock,
including 3.3 billion hectares of grazing
land and a quarter of the croparea
8.1 billion tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent
The annual contribution of livestock to climate change, which is about 15%
of all human-induced greenhouse gas emission and half of those from
agriculture. These includes emissions from deforestation to make way to
pastures, which often serve as a transition into crops like soybean
US $3.1
trillion
The value of livestock as a
global asset, that accounts for
some
1,3 billion jobs
~200 million
hectares
In America Latina alone, have been
degraded by overgrazing and other
unsustainable production practices.
This negative impact is similar in most
areas used for feed
In sum, grazed livestock systems are the world’s single biggest land use. So, how they’re managed – and especially how they’re fed – is
profoundly important for people and the planet
Why is Livestock important: The facts

6. Livestock in Colombia
Sources: IGAC 2012, IDEAM 2014, FEDEGÁN-FNG 2014
• 58.6 Mha in forest (51% territory)
• 34.9 Mha in grasslands (32% territory)
Small % in improved forages
• 7% of national job market
• 1.3% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product)
• 400,000 families of small farmers
• 23.5 million animals (0.67 AU/ha)

7. Contributions of the livestock sector
ü Livestock products make up 17% of total human calorie consumption
and 33% of total human protein consumption, with large deficits in sub-
Saharan Africa.
ü Livestock are an important source of soil nutrients in Africa and other
regions in particular where reliance on commercial fertilizer is low.
ü Evidence that sustainable intensification of livestock production can
reduce GHG emissions by sparing land from deforestation.

8. Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (2006)
Abandon Livestock production?
ü Livestock is one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental
problems.
ü Livestock should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change
and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.
ü Main sources of emissions:
ü Land use and land use change: 2.5 Giga tonnes CO2 eq; including forest and other natural vegetation
replaced by pasture and feed crop in the Neotropics.
ü Feed Production: 0.4 CO2 eq, including fossil fuel used in manufacturing chemical fertilizer for feed crops
(CO2) and chemical fertilizer application on feedcrops (N2O, NH3)
ü Animal production: 1.9 Giga tonnes CO2 eq, including enteric fermentation from ruminants (CH4) and
on-farm fossil fuel use (CO2)
ü Manure Management: 2.2 Giga tonnes CO2 eq, mainly through manure storage, application and
deposition (CH4, N2O, NH3)
ü Processing and international transport: 0.03 Giga tonnes CO2 eq

9. Livestock and climate change: Victim, executioner and the solution! (2013)
ü Responsible for 14.5 % of the anthropogenic emissions:
1. 44%: Production and feed processing
2. 38%: Enteric fermentation
3. 9%: Dung decomposition
4. 9%: Expansion of grasslands substituting forest
ü Reductions in grasp : MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (AND USE OF IMPROVED FORAGES)
Reduction of 30% of GHG (per unit of product)
ü Key to reducing emissions: EFICIENCY!.
http://www.fao.org/livestock-environment
• Better feed practices.
• Waste management.
• Energy saving and recycling along the supply chain.
There are increasing global aspirations of achieving forest-based emissions reductions (REDD+; Paris Agreement), landscape
restoration (The Bonn Challenge) and biodiversity conservation (Aichi Targets) and Livestock can be an important player.
Rao et al., 2015

10. Focused on reducing the emissions intensity of livestock production systems and increasing the quantity of carbon stored in soils supporting
those systems.
The Group has identified the following vision for its livestock-related research activities:
1.Increase agriculture production with lower emissions: Feeding the world within the carrying capacity of earth
2.Improve global cooperation in research & technology: Accelerate/strengthen knowledge and technology development that would not
happen without the Alliance
3.Work with farmers and partners to provide knowledge: Develop relevant mitigation options and strengthen productivity and resilience
of food systems
39 Participating Countries
1. Argentina
2. Brazil
3. Chile
4. Colombia
5. Costa Rica
6. Mexico
7. Peru
8. Uruguay
Livestock Research Group (Global Research Alliance)

11. 92 developing countries included livestock emissions in their Nationally
Determined Contributions (NDCs) to reduce GHG emissions
Andreas Wilkes
Lini Wollenberg

12. 7th Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock meeting
8-12 of May, Addis Ababa (Ethiopia)
Main Actors and key initiatives:
üAcademia, NGOs, Civil Society, Private Sector, Donors, International institutions. 250 participants from 50
countries.
üNeed to promote discourse with people outside livestocksector.
üCritical linkacross sectors: health,environment,agriculture.
üCreate action networkfor policyaction.FAO engaging at intergovernmental level.
üCritical bottleneck for sustainable livestock production is feed and grasslands, thus high priority to restore
value of grasslands and close the efficiency gap.
http://www.livestockdialogue.org/

13. Conclusions and takeaway messages:
üInfluential Multi-stakeholder livestockplatform at International level.
üAim to raise visibilityoflivestockat global policylevel.
üAlignment with SDGs, moving from environment to a wider
development focus.
üSustainable livestock production is part of the environmental
agenda.
üKnowledge sharingfor technological innovations.
üBenefits sharingand equityalongthe value chains.
üLivelihoods,environment and economicdevelopment are linked.
üFinancial investment in sustainable livestock production critical for
scaling.
7th Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock meeting
8-12 of May, Addis Ababa (Ethiopia)
http://www.livestockdialogue.org/

14. Initial idea: 2014
Formalization: 2015/16
Objectives:
a) Support the formulation of public policies related to
sustainable beef production in Colombia
b) Establishment of programs, plans and projects to support
the development of sustainable beef production
c) Frequent exchange with roundtables from other countries
(e.g., Brazil) and the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef
(GRSB)
d) Technical exchange and assistance (e.g., giras
tecnicas/workshops)
2016 is the first year with an official work plan:
http://mesaganaderiasoste.wix.com/principal#!plan-accion/w78jo
Members: approximately 30 constant
members from the private and public sector
including donors and science.
More information about the
MGS:
http://mesaganaderiasoste.wix.c
om/principalThe MGS operates through 3 different technical commissions:
1. Institutional development led by the Ministries of
Agriculture and Environment
2. Techniques and technologies led by CIAT and FEDEGAN
3. Markets led by CIAT
Colombian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef – Mesa de Ganaderia
Sostenible Colombia (MGS)

15. Strategic Initiatives at CIAT (2013)
üSustainable food systems: gaining a better grasp of both the urban and rural
dimensions of agricultural value chains (reduce waste, new opportunities for value
addition)
üEcosystem services: Translate improved ecosystem health into concrete benefits for
rural people, includinggreater dietary diversity and new sources of income
üLivestockPlus: Realize environmental benefits of improved forage-based systems
on a larger scale, while also exploiting their demonstrated capacity to raise milk
and meat production, and boost rural incomes

16. LivestockPlus - the sustainable intensification of forage-
based systems
Three innovative/
intensification processes
Genetic
Improved yield,
quality, stress resistance
Ecological
Better management of
mixed crop-forage-tree-
livestock systems
Socio-Economic
Creation of enabling
environments (markets,
policies, social & human
capital)
Livelihood benefits
Milk
Meat
Eggs
Manure
Adaptation to climate
change
Food security
Income generation
Poverty alleviation
Better family nutrition
Ecosystem services
Improved soil quality
Resource use efficiency
Restoration of degraded
lands
Reduced per unit animal
GHGs
Mitigation of climate
change
Biodiversity conservation
Water flows and quality
Reduced erosion &
sedimentation
Reduce pressure to the
forest – Reduce
deforestation
Rao et al., 2015

17. Livestock and environment
CIAT is currently investigating:
ü Greenhouse gases mitigation
ü Soil-Plant interaction
ü Soil Carbon sequestration
ü Carbon and water footprints
ü Recuperation of degraded soils and pastures
ü Mechanisms to adapt to climate change
ü And more…

18. LivestockPlus Project objectives (2015 -2018) CCAFS
Objectives:
1. Facilitate stakeholder engagement & capacity buildingfor
implementation of NAMAs (Nationally Appropriate
Mitigation Actions)
2. To quantify socioeconomic & GHG impacts of low emissions
pasture management in cattle production systems & to
scale-up best-fit mitigation options
3. To identify best-fit mitigation options and to develop low
cost GHG quantification methods

19. LivestockPlus: supporting NAMAs in Colombia and Costa Rica
Science results on the role of improved forages as mitigation
options by:
ü Increasing soil carbon storage
ü Reducing soil N2O
emissions
ü Reducing CH4 emissions
Soil carbon stocks after 10 years of cultivation (0-80 cm soil depth)
2 - 6 Mg C ha-1
yr-1
CON: Bare soil,
PM: P. maximum,
BHM: Brachiaria Mulato
hybrid,
Bh:679: B. humidicola 679
Bh-16888: B. humidicola
16888
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
-2 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
N2O flux (mg N2O m-2day-1)
Days after urine application
MULATO (Low BNI)
679 (high BNI)
N2O fluxes
257.5
230.5
173.6
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
7:12 12:00 16:48 21:36 2:24 7:12 12:00
Methane (Lt/animal/day)
Time (hours)
Scenario 2: Grass + legume “b”
Cumulative CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation by different diets
Current scenario: 100% Tropicales grass
Scenario 1: Grass + legume “a”

20. Biological Nitrification Inhibition (BNI)
Modified from: Devrim Coskun et al. 2017. NaturePlants 3, 17074
N2O, a potent greenhouse gas
Biological nitrification inhibition where plant root systems produce nitrification inhibitors to suppress nitrifiers activity
in soils to reduce NO3- formation, facilitate NH4+ immobilization, plant uptake of NH4+ and reduction of N2O emissions.
Brachialactone
(root exudates)

21. Devrim Coskun et al. 2017. Nature Plants 3, 17074
Subbarao et al. 2009
Brachiaria is the species with highest BNI reported

22. 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
basal 0 7
mg N-N03-kg-1soil day-1
Days after urine application
Mulato - Agua 679 - Agua
Mulato - Orina 679- Orina
Nitrate production rate in soil
Mulato: low BNI -- Bh CIAT 679: high BNI
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
-2 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
N2O flux (mg N2O m-2day-1)
Days after urine aplication
MULATO (No BNI)
679 (high BNI)
N2O fluxes
Byrnes et al., in preparation
BNI function can effectively control nitrification and N2O emissions in
bovine-urine patches
Days after urine application Days after urine application

23. Phenotyping BNI potential of Megathyrsus maximus grass diversity panel

24. Phenotyping N2O Mitigation potential of M. maximus grass

25. Agropastoral systems improve the N use efficiency while improving
productivity
0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
Maize Brachiaria
humidicola
mg NO3
--
N Kg-1
day-1
Nitrate production rate
Maize
Brachiaria humidicola
1 2
Quantification of the residual effect of the BNI compounds released to the soil by Brachiaria on maize as subsequent crop:
1) La Libertad (Corpoica, Foothills)
2) Taluma (Corpoica, Savanna)

26. Brachiaria residual effect on maize as subsequent crop
(2013, 2014 and 2015)
N application (Kg/ha)
0N 60N 120N 240N
Maize
B. humidicola
60N 120N 240N
Maize 34.4 (±2.1) 15.8(±1.0) 7.7(±0.2)
B. humidicola 80.7 (±5.4) 45.2(±0.6) 23.3(±0.9)
Agronomic N use efficiency
(Kg grain produced /Kg N applied (±SE)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
0N 60N 120N 240N
Kg/ha
N FERTILIZATION RATE Kg/ha
Maize grain yield 2013
Maize Brachiaria humidicola
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
0N 60N 120N 240N
Kg/ha
N FERTILIZATION RATE Kg/ha
Maize grain yield 2014
Maize Brachiaria humidicola
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
0N 60N 120N 240N
Kg/ha
N FERTILIZATION RATE Kg/ha
Maize grain yield 2015
Maize Brachiaria humidicola
Consistent greater yields in the previously B. humidicola planted fields over three years

27. Silvopastoral systems: A viable option that may increase productivity
while reducing GHG emissions
Example of intensification (gradual options):
1. Native Savanna
2. Degraded pastures
3. Improve (productive) pastures
4. Legume / pasture mixture
5. Agropastoral systems
6. Silvopastoral systems (shrub or trees):
ü Live fences
ü Protein Banks
ü Spontaneous tree regeneration
ü Scattered trees
ü Intensive silvopastoral systems
7. Agrosilvopastoral systems
Potential benefits of the silvopastoral
systems:
ü Animal comfort (temperature)
ü Increase productivity (milk and meat)
ü Increase in carbon sequestration (e.g.
biomass and soil c)
ü Control of erosion
ü Nutrient fixing in soil
ü Promote biodiversity

28. Polytunnels with capacity for
simultaneous measurement
of CH4 of four animals
Silvopastoral trial at CIAT HQ to test productive parameters as well as GHG emissions, soil health, forage quality etc.
with grass legume combinations
Treatments:
T1: Brachiaria brizanthacv Toledo.
T2: Brachiaria brizanthacv Toledo + Canavalia brasiliensis.
T3: Brachiaria brizanthacv Toledo + Canavalia brasiliensis + Leucaena diversifolia.
T4: Brachiaria hybrid cv Cayman.
T5: Brachiaria hybrid cv Cayman + Canavalia brasiliensis.
T6: Brachiaria hybrid cv Cayman + Canavalia brasiliensis + Leucaena diversifolia.
T7: Control: Hay. (each treatment with three repetitions)

29. Silvopastoraltrial CIAT
Objective: To estimate and demonstrate eco-efficiency of improved forage-based silvopastoral systems.
Start date: August 2013
Studying: Productivity, GHG emissions, soil health indicators (macro fauna, compaction, soil carbon)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Cayman
Cayman +
Canavalia
Cayman +
Canavalia +
Leucaena
Toledo
Toledo +
Canavalia
Toledo +
Canavalia +
Leucaena
g/animal/day
Live weight gain
*National average: 200a/g/d

30. Methods to measure methane
Patra et al. 2016

31. Measuring methane in vivo (Polytunnel)
1. Lockyer & Jarvis 1995
2. Lockyer 1997
3. Powell et al. 2007
4. Aguirre et al. 2011
5. Murray et al. 2014
6. Molina et al. 2016
7. Goopy et al. 2016
Used by scientific community:
1.0
4.0
7.0
10.0
13.0
16.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Methane (L)
Time (Hour)
Methane Flux
Methane Anim 1 Methane Anim 2 Methane Anim 3 Methane Anim 4

32. Measuring methane in vitro (Lab conditions)
Gas production technique
Brooks, A. and Theodorou, M.K.
1992
Producción de gas método
ANKOM
Measuring the gas produced by an incubation with:
feed plus ruminal microorganisms
Methane determination by GC

33. RUMINANT model validation and calibration using in vivo and in vitro generated data
System characterization
Emission
factors
N. Palmer
Inventory MRV system
N. Palmer
Forage quality
Emissions in vivo
Emissions in vitro
USAID-CCAFS LivestockPlus project

34. Cayman (Brachiaria híbrido cv. CIAT BR 02/1752)
Leucaena (Leucaena diversifoliay L. leucocephala)
Toledo (Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 26110)
Canavalia (Canavalia brasiliensis)
Diet Forage Abrev. PC% FDN% Fat% Ash%
BCHO
(%)
ACHO
(%)
1 Cayman + L. leucocephala (70:30) CyLl 10.96 62.45 3.78 11.88 0.61 10.91
2 Cayman + L. diversifolia (70:30) CyLd 14.65 56.80 3.46 12.54 0.60 12.53
3 Cayman Cy 8.33 68.22 2.51 12.14 0.61 8.8
4
Toledo + L. diversifolia+ Canavalia
(70:15:15) TLdCa 10.78 66.47 2.92 9.61 0.61 10.20
5 Heno Angleton H 6.23 61.26 3.5 20.31 0.47 8.7
6 Toledo T 6.46 69.16 2.51 10.47 0.64 11.4
7 Estrella + Kudzú (70:30) EK 11.21 72.87 2.97 9.56 0.58 3.38
Forage quality of diets
Heno Angleton (Dichanthium aristatum)
Estrella (Cynodon plectostachius)
Kudzú (Pueraria phaseoloides)
Poster Stiven Quintero et al.

35. EF
TIER 2
IPCC
123 L/d/animal
cattle
Methane emissions simulated by Ruminant model
178.1
140.7
116.3
93.2
78.2
66.5
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
CyLd CyLl TLdCa Cy T EK
Methane(L/day/animal)
diets
Metano Simulado
Variability

36. Methane emissions measured by polytunnel (in vivo)
210.3
193.6
175.0 166.8
128.1 123.0
93.2
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
CyLl CyLd Cy TLdCa H T EK
Methane(L/day/animal)
diets
EF
TIER 2
IPCC
123 L/d/animal
cattle

37. Methane emissions measured in vitro
448
293
241
172 147
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
CyLd Cy T EK H
Methane(L/day/animal)
diets
Methane in vitro
EF
TIER 2
IPCC
123 L/d/animal
cattle

38. n=22
Methane simulated vs. Methane measured (in vivo)
Animal
0 5 10 15 20 25
Methane(L/animal/day)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Simulado
Observado
CyLlCyLdCy TLdCaTEK
EK: Estrella + Kudzú
Cy: Cayman
CyLd: Cayman + Leucaena diversifolia
T: Toledo
TLdCa: Toledo + Leucaena diversifolia +
Canavalia
CyLl: Cayman Leucaena leucocephala

39. Correlation Ruminant vs. Polytunnel (in vivo)
Simulado
0 50 100 150 200 250
Observado
0
50
100
150
200
250
Methane (L/day/animal)
R2 = 0,7
CyLl
CyLdCy
TLdCa
T
EK
H: Heno Angleton
TLdCa: Toledo + Leucaena diversifolia +
Canavalia
Cy: Cayman
CyLl: Cayman Leucaena leucocephala
EK: Estrella + Kudzú
T: Toledo
CyLd: Cayman + Leucaena diversifolia

40. Methane (L/day/animal)
R2 = 0,92
CyLd
H
Cy
T
EK
H: Heno Angleton
TLdCa: Toledo + Leucaena diversifolia +
Canavalia
Cy: Cayman
CyLl: Cayman Leucaena leucocephala
EK: Estrella + Kudzú
T: Toledo
CyLd: Cayman + Leucaena diversifolia
Correlation Ruminant vs. in vitro

41. Case 1: Modelo impreciso e inexacto
Case 2: Inaccurate but precise
Case 3: Modelo exactoe impreciso
Case 4: Modelo exactoy preciso
Target represents the Y value
Describing the ruminant model: Accuracy versus precision

42. H: Heno Angleton
TLdCa: Toledo + Leucaena diversifolia + Canavalia
Cy: Cayman
CyLl: Cayman Leucaena leucocephala
EK: Estrella + Kudzú
T: Toledo
CyLd: Cayman + Leucaena diversifolia
Methane emitted by Kg de dry matter intake
41.9
33.1 31.3
27.2 27.1 25.5
21.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
H TLdCa Cy CyLl EK T CyLd
Methane(g/Kg DM intake)
Diets

43. Effect of condensed tannins from
Leucaena leucocephala (shrub legume) leaves to reduce CH4 emissions in cattle
Denisse Montoya, University of Yucatan, Mexico
Preliminary results

44. “ROTATINOUS” STOCKING:
GRAZING MANAGEMENT TARGETS, EFFICIENCY
OF PASTURE UTILIZATION, AND ENTERIC
METHANE EMISSIONS BY DAIRY CATTLE
PhD thesis of AlejandraMarín

45. Sustainable intensification
of forage-based systems
Efficiency of pasture
utilization
Improved animal production
Strategies to mitigate
enteric methane emissions
by dairy cattle.
3
1
2
4
The major challenge of pasture management is to create sward structures to allow
high forage intake.

46. Pre-Grazing sward
surface height
Post-Grazing sward
surface height
The rotatinuous stocking is an innovation in grazing management based on
the ingestive behaviour Pasture structure èmaximizes bite mass
The major challenge of pasture management is to create sward structures
to allow high forage intake.
40%

47. Pasture targets based on grazing behaviour and bite mass maximization
applied at farm level.
Forage species
Pre-grazing pasture
height target* (cm)
Pos-grazing pasture
height target (cm)
Reference
Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) 50 30 (Fonseca et al. 2012)
Avena (Avena strigosa) 29 17 (Mezzalira et al, 2013)
Millet (Pennisetum glaucum) 60 20 (Mezzalira et al. 2013)
Cynodon sp. cv. Tifton 85 (Cynodon sp.) 20 12 (Mezzalira et al, 2013)
Native grassland (mainly Paspalum notatum,
Axonopus affinis, Desmodium incanum and P.
plicatulum)
12 7 (Gonçalves et al. 2009)
Panicum maximum cv. Aruana 30 18 (Zanini et al. 2012)
Panicum maximum cv. Mombaça 95 57 (Palhano et al. 2006)
Panicum maximum cv.Tanzania 70 40 Pers comm .
Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) 20 12 D.F.F. Silva pers comm.
Tall Fescue (Schedonorus arudinaceus
[Schreb.] Dumort)
22 15 Leonardo pers comm
Hemartria (Hemarthria altíssima) 22 13 R. Moraes pers comm
Cenchrus clandestinus, Hochst. ex Chiov 20 12 A. Marin pers comm.

48. Silvopastoraltrial CIAT, soil health indicators
Inclusion of herbaceous and shrub legumes in combination
with improved grasses increase productivity but also improves
the soil health indicators.
Eduardo Vasquez & Nikola Teutscherova, U. Madrid

49. üAt the 2009 Conference of the Parties (COP) Colombia announced an
ambitious goal of reaching zero net deforestation in the Colombian
Amazon by2020.
üThe governments of the UK, Norway and Germany seek to support
Colombia in achieving its goal of zero net deforestation in the Amazon
region by 2020 through targeted interventions and investments (VA
program).
üCIAT is participating with the implementation of demonstrative
silvopastoral systems in livestock farms in Guaviare and Caquetá
departments, with the commitment from the farmer to preserve the
remainingnative forest in his farm.
Colombia’s Amazon Vision program
Environment and Agricultural ministries

50. Publications for the general public

51. Summary
üLivestock production is associated with negative environmental impacts
(GHG, Water, Deforestation and other land use changes) however:
üLivestock production is the base of livelihoods for more than 1 billion
smallholders and addressing protein deficits particularly in Africa.
üSustainable livestock production is part of the solution and is a critical part
or the global environmental agenda.
üThere is (recent) evidence that sustainable livestock production can reduce GHG and
spare land from deforestation.
üFinancial investment and regulatory frameworks are critical for scaling sustainable
livestock productionwith positive environmental,social and economic impacts.

52. Thanks!
Jacobo Arango: j.arango@cigar.org