Mitigation potentials of the livestock sector

Mario Herrero

CCAFS SeminarNairobi 13th November 2012

Structure of the talk

• Overview of the livestock sector

• GHG emissions

• Mitigation potentials and option

• Mitigation examples

• Conclusions

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?

– 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)

Livestock – the big numbers

– 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

Livestock’s economic benefits

6

At least 600 million of the World’s poor depend on livestock

Thornton et al. 2002, revised 2009

– 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

10%

11%

5%

31%5%

1%

37%

Meat

Dairy

Fruit & Vegetables

Cereals

Roots & Tubers

Dryland crops

Others

Livestock and nutrition

SSA - 2000

3%

3%

4%

47%16%

3%

24%Meat

Dairy

Fruit & Vegetables

Cereals

Roots & Tubers

Dryland crops

Others

Herrero et al 2008a

8

FAO: SOFA2011

People want to eat chicken, pork and milk!

The ‘livestock revolution’: as people get richer they consume more meat

The world will require 1 billion tonnes of additional cereal grains to 2050 to meet food and feed demands (IAASTD 2009)

Grains1048 million tonnes

more to 2050

humanconsumption

458 million MT

Livestock430 million MT

Monogastrics mostly

biofuels160 million MT

Livestock and GHG emissions

Emissions from the agricultural sector

Smith et al 2007

Emissions projected to grow as the sector grows due to increased demands for food, feed and other resources

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

Production fertilisants N

Energie fossile ferme

Déforestation

Sol cultivé

Désertification pâturages

Transformation

Transport

Fermentation ruminale

Effluents, stockage/traitement

Epandage fertilisants N

Production légumineuses

Effluents, stockage/traitement

Effluents, épandage/dépôt

Effluents, emission indirecte

CO2

CH4

N2O

Deforestation

Enteric

fermentation

Man

ure

mgt

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

Livestock and GHG: 18% of global emissions

Prepared by Bonneau, 2008

Global greenhouse gas efficiency per kilogram of animal protein produced

Large inefficiencies in the developing world – an opportunity?

Herrero et al. forthcoming (ILRI/IIASA)

Mitigation potentials

Smith et al 2007

Large potentials associated to livestock

Mitigation potentials of agriculture (Smith et al 2007)

Mitigation options

Smith et al 2007

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)

Demand management

Consuming less meat or different types of meat could lower GHG emissions

Stehfest et al. 2009. Climatic Change

Less land needed....but social and economic impacts?....displacement of people?…nutrition of the poor?

Range of GHG intensities for livestock products in OECD-countries

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Pig Poultry Beef Milk Eggs

kg

CO

2 e

q/k

g a

nim

al

pro

tein

Source: DeVries & DeBoer (2009)

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

Mitigation 1.01Sustainable intensification is essential

The better we feed cows the less methane per kg of milk they produce

7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00 10.50 11.00 11.50 12.000.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

450.00

developeddevelopingBRICS

metabolisable energy (MJ/kg DM)

met

hane

- kg

CO

2 /

kg p

rote

in p

rodu

ced

Herrero et al forthcoming (PNAS)

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 production

Methane production

Methane per kg milk

Garissa

Gem

Mbeere

Njoro

Mukurweni

Othaya

Siaya

6 districts

Prosopis1.5 kg3 kg

Desmodium1 kg2 kg

Napier grass2 kg3 kgHay1 kg2 kg

Desmodium1 kg2 kgHay2 kg4 kg

Napier grass2 kg3 kg

Average

64136

2136

1217

1849

98

98

4279

36

00

510

1116

-5-5

1111

1111

010

6

-2-5

-30

32

618

20

20

1216

4

-40-60

-20-26

-8-12

-10-21

-7-7

-7-7

-21-35

-20

Mitigation options – intensifying diets

Thornton and Herrero 2010 (PNAS 107, 19667-19672)

Reduction of animal numbers needs to be considered seriously

Increasing adoption rates of mitigation practices essential also

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)

Havlík et al. Crop Productivity and the Global Livestock Sector: Implications for LUC and GHG EmissionsAAEA Annual Meeting, Seattle, August 12-14, 2012

Crop yield increases can lead to mitigation in the livestock sector

• Alternative crop yield scenarios– S0: No crop yield increase– S: -50% yield improvement

• Fixed demand on B reference: no rebound effect

– B: Baseline - linear historical trend– C: + 100% in developing regions

Havlík et al. Crop Productivity and the Global Livestock Sector: Implications for LUC and GHG EmissionsAAEA Annual Meeting, Seattle, August 12-14, 2012

27

Commodity price index 2030/2000

Results

Havlík et al. Crop Productivity and the Global Livestock Sector: Implications for LUC and GHG EmissionsAAEA Annual Meeting, Seattle, August 12-14, 2012

28

Ruminants distribution across the systemsMore transitions towards mixed systems

Results

Havlík et al. Crop Productivity and the Global Livestock Sector: Implications for LUC and GHG EmissionsAAEA Annual Meeting, Seattle, August 12-14, 2012

29

Milk Ruminant meat Monogastrics meat & Eggs

Livestock production could increase at a faster pace if crop yields were improved

Havlík et al. Crop Productivity and the Global Livestock Sector: Implications for LUC and GHG EmissionsAAEA Annual Meeting, Seattle, August 12-14, 2012

30

Land cover change 2000-2030

Results

Havlík et al. Crop Productivity and the Global Livestock Sector: Implications for LUC and GHG EmissionsAAEA Annual Meeting, Seattle, August 12-14, 2012

Results Average annual GHG emissions (2000-2030)Difference between scenarios : 2 Gt CO2 eq!

Can we tap the potential for carbon sequestration in rangeland systems?

Potential for carbonsequestration in rangelands(Conant and Paustian 2002)

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

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

0

0.5

1income

food security

GHGwater use

external inputs

mixed

pastoral

Trade-offs, synergies, co-benefits?

GHG mitigation not necessarily a good proxy for overall environmental efficiency!

Large differences depending on type of livelihood system and its objectives

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

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?

Thank you!