Delivering information for national low-emission development strategies: acti...
Livestock mitigation- Mario Herrero - Nov 2012
1. Mitigation potentials of the livestock sector
Mario Herrero
CCAFS Seminar
Nairobi 13th
November 2012
2. Structure of the talk
• Overview of the livestock sector
• GHG emissions
• Mitigation potentials and option
• Mitigation examples
• Conclusions
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. 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. 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. At least 600 million of the World’s poor depend on livestock
Thornton et al. 2002, revised 2009
6
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. The ‘livestock revolution’: as people get richer they consume more meat
People want to eat chicken, pork and milk!
FAO: SOFA2011
8
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
human
Livestock
consumption
430 million MT
Monogastrics mostly
458 million MT
biofuels
160 million MT
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. Livestock’s long shadow
A 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. Livestock and GHG: 18% of global
emissions
ProductionN. fert. production
Chemical fertilisants N
Energie fossile fuel
On-farm fossil ferme
Déforestation
Deforestation
N2O
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. Global greenhouse gas efficiency per kilogram of animal protein produced
Large inefficiencies in the developing world – an opportunity?
Herrero et al. forthcoming (ILRI/IIASA)
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. Demand management
Consuming less meat or different types of
meat 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. 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. Feed/land use intensities: key driver for the efficiency of the
livestock sector (Herrero et al. PNAS forthcoming)
beef dairy
Depend on land productivity, feed quality, animal species
and others
22. Mitigation 1.01
Sustainable intensification is essential
The 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. 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. 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. GLOBIOM model results: Annual average GHG emissions over 2020-2030
Reduced emissions from methane but primarily CO2 from land use changes
Havlik et al (forthcoming – IIASA/ILRI)
25
26. Crop yield increases can lead to mitigation in the
livestock 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Can we tap 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
Potential for carbon
Dealing with mobile sequestration in rangelands
pastoralists (Conant and Paustian 2002)
33. Livelihoods systems = Complex production systems
Need to think of system-level mitigation practices
Essential for understanding adaptation/mitigation synergies
Herrero et al (2010) Science 325, 822-825
34. Trade-offs, synergies, co-benefits?
Large differences depending on type of livelihood
system and its objectives
income
1
0.5
external inputs food security
0
water use GHG
GHG mitigation not necessarily a good mixed
proxy for overall environmental efficiency!
pastoral
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. 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?