Presentation By Mario Herrero and Philip Thornton at the CCAFS science meeting, Cancun, Mexico, 1-2 December 2010.

1. Livestock and GHG emissions: mitigation options and trade-offs Mario Herrero and Philip K. Thornton CCAFS Science meeting December 1st-2nd , 2010 | Cancun, Mexico

3. Livestock and livelihoods

4. Livestock and GHG

5. Estimates

6. Key principles

7. Mitigation options

8. Researchable issues

10. Revised demand for livestock products to 2050 Rosegrant et al 2009

11. An example of the changing nature of livestock systems Can we influence the next transition for the benefit of society and the environment? 2004 – crop-livestock system W. Africa 1966 – pastoral system

13. How to maintain livelihoods

14. Protection and maintenance of ecosystems services

15. Economic growth

18. A significant global asset: value of at least $1.4 trillion (excluding infrastructure that supports livestock industries) (Thornton and Herrero 2008)

19. Livestock industries organised in long market chains that employ at least 1.3 billion people (LID 1999)

20. Livestock key as a risk reduction strategy for vulnerable communities (Freeman et al 2007)

21. Important providers of nutrients and traction for growing crops in smallholder systems (at least 60% of the global cropping area receives manure applications – Herrero et al 2008a)Herrero et al. (Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1: 111-120)

22. Livestock and livelihoods (2) At least 600 million of the World’s poor depend on livestock Thornton et al. 2002

23. Livestock – high value products Milk has the highest value of production of all agricultural commodities (FAOSTAT 2008)

24. Food production Mixed systems in the developing World produce almost 50% of the cereals of the World Herrero et al. Science 327: 822-825

26. Livestock provide food for at least 830 million food insecure people (Gerber et al 2007)

27. Significant global differences in kilocalorie consumption but… highest rates of increase in consumption of livestock products in the developing World

28. . Herrero et al 2008a

29. Livestock and GHG emissions

30. 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 [national transportation] Steinfeld et al 2006

31. Livestock and GHG: 18% of global emissions Chemical N. fert. production On-farm fossil fuel Deforestation OM release from ag. soils Pasture degradation Processing fossil fuel Transport fossil fuel Enteric fermentation Manure storage / processing N fertilization Legume production Manure storage / processing Manure spreading / dropping Manu indirect emissions N2O Manure mgt Deforestation CO2 Enteric fermentation CH4 Prepared by Bonneau, 2008

32. Mitigation options Reductions in emissions: significant potential! Managing demand for animal products 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)

33. 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 human consumption 458 million MT Livestock 430 million MT Monogastrics mostly biofuels 160 million MT

34. Changing diets Consuming less meat or different types of meat could lower GHG emissions Stehfest et al. 2009. Climatic Change

35. 200 180 160 140 120 kg CO2 eq/kg animal protein 100 80 60 40 20 0 Pig Poultry Beef Milk Eggs Range of GHG intensities for commodities in OECD-countries Source: DeVries & DeBoer(2009)

36. Changing diets Consuming less meat or different types of meat could lower GHG emissions Less land needed ....but social and economic impacts? ....displacement of people? Stehfest et al. 2009. Climatic Change

37. Mitigation 101 – intensification is essentialThe better we feed cows the less methane per kg of milk they produce Chad - pastoral India mixed US/Europe - mixed Herrero et al (forthcoming)

38. Mitigation options – intensifying diets Thornton and Herrero 2010 (PNAS 107, 19667-19672)

39. 23 Systems shifts - some results from the GLOBIOM model (IIASA-ILRI) Simulation horizon:2020 STICKY livestock production systems - min 75% of LPS of 2000 following production trajectory to 2020 FLEXIBLE livestock production systems - min 25% of LPS of 2000 still in the same place in 2020 - intensifing mixed crop livestock systems Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009

40. 24 STICKY xFLEXIBLE IF system change possible  shift to intensive production systems Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009

41. 25 STICKY xFLEXIBLE Adjustments in production systems help to keep commodity prices low Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009

42. 26 STICKY xFLEXIBLE RED through livestock does not have negative effect on non-CO2 emissions. Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009

43. Can we untap the potential for carbon sequestration in rangeland systems? Largest land use system Potentially a large C sink Could be an important income diversification source Difficulties in: Measuring and monitoring C stocks Establishment of payment schemes Dealing with mobile pastoralists Potential for carbon sequestration in rangelands (Conant and Paustian 2002)

44. Some conclusions Complex issue: livestock’s livelihood benefits and environmental impacts largely dependent on location, systems, intensification level and others Reducing livestock’s impact on the environment requires the fundamental recognition that societal benefits need to be met at the same time as the environmental ones (current studies: too much focus on the environment, less so on livelihoods) Understanding trade-offs requires a ‘multi-currency’ approach: energy, emissions, water, nutrients, incomes, etc along value chains (life cycles) Well placed to make global inventories

45. Some key trade-offs Biomass uses for food, feed, fuel and fertiliser Intensifying systems to increase production efficiency while balancing environmental protection and providing livelihoods for poor people Cheap food vs sustainable food for consumers? Herrero et al 2009 Current Op EnvSust

46. 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! What is sustainable intensification? Limits? Support on inventory development for developing countries Need to refine LCA analyses

47. Thank you!