Livestock and the environment: Challenges to 2054

LIVESTOCK AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Henning Steinfeld, FAO

Challenges to 2054

ILRI@40 Livestock and Environment workshopAddis Ababa, 7 November 2014

Assignment

• Provoking Presentation / Interventions• THE BIG ‘L&E’ RESEARCH CHALLENGES TO 2054• Positive vs. Negative & Global vs. Local specific• How? Biodiversity• How? Missing data African context

– Environmental impacts– System specific to see opportunities (like how local animal

responds to feed interventions) • How? Incentives, payments for ecosystem services• How? Complexity and trade-offs• No research needed? “animals flexible and can adapt to CC”

Externalities

• Regulations• Incentives/disincentives• Innovations• Institutions

Two Approaches

• Horizontal (geographic) – maps, integrated landscapes, ecosystems, biodiversity, adaptation

• Vertical (chains) – life cycle (resources, CC), value chains (money), HACCP (health)

GHG emissions from livestock


Nitrous oxide N2O

Nitrous oxide N2O

Nitrous oxide N2O


Methane CH4

Methane CH4


Carbon dioxide

CO2

Carbon dioxide

CO2

Carbon dioxide

CO2Carbon dioxide

CO2


Carbon dioxide

CO2

Carbon dioxide

CO2

Methane CH4 Carbon

dioxideCO2

Nitrous oxide N2O

Carbon dioxide

CO2

Nitrous oxide N2O

Methane CH4

Nitrous oxide N2O

Distribution of cattle production units by emission intensity in South Africa

< 100

100 -

125

125 -

150

150 -

175

175 -

200

200 -

225

225 -

250

250 -

275

275 -

300

> 300

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Kg CO2-eq.kg edible protein-1

Num

ber o

f pro

duct

ion

units

in G

LEAM

Bridging the efficiency gap

Emissions gap within systems: dairy production in Western Kenya

• smallholder mixed dairy system, temperate climate zone• average milking herd: 2 cows per farm• average milk yield: 1800 litres/cow/year

Is there an emission gap?

Case studies: mitigation packages

Mixed dairy in south Asia• Feed quality• Animal health & husbandry

Commercial pigs in E &SE Asia• Manure management• Energy efficiency• Feed quality• Animal health & husbandry

Specialized beef• Grazing management• Animal health

Small ruminants in W. Africa• Feed quality• Animal health & husbandry• Grazing management

Mixed dairy OECD• Fat supplementation• Anaerobic digestion• Energy efficiency

Case studies: mitigation potential (emission intensities)

Mixed dairy-199 Mt CO2

Commercial pigs-152 to -169 Mt CO2

Specialized beef-753 to -874 Mt CO2

Small ruminants-17 Mt to -21 Mt CO2

Mixed dairy OECD-54 to -66 Mt CO2

18-29%

28-36%38%

27-41%

14-17%

• Production increases by 7 to 40 percent in all case studies, except OECD• Overwhelming effects of feed, health and energy generation/efficiency

Barriers to adoption

• Investment and cost barriers, such as upfront costs in costs of investment in equipment, machinery, materials and labour; transaction costs, credit constraints,etc.

• Technology and capacity barriers, such as lack of access to information and human capital, low access to GHG-efficient technology, risk adversity of producer, knowledge gaps of extension services, etc.

• Institutional barriers, such as insecure land tenure, policy uncertainty, imperfect markets, limited access to technical extension services, or lack of institutions to support collective action.

• Policy barriers e.g. low incentives to capital investment

and process innovation

LCA

• Yield gaps, efficiency gaps, emission intensity gaps priority setting

• Attributional - today’s realities: what is• Consequential – counterfactual: what if?

– Example: what would be the emissions if there weren’t any livestock?

– Scenario building– Goodland: 51% of all emissions from livestock

Technical and institutional determinants to climate smart livestock

Mitigation Adaptation Food security


Mitigation Adaptation

Reduced emissions per unit of output

C sequestration in biomass and

soilsReduced

sensitivityIncreased

capacity to adaptIncreased

productivity

Food security

(among others)





soilsReduced



productivity

Food security

Range management(range composition, grazing, fertilization, irrigation)

Deforestation and other LUC

(among others)





soilsReduced


capacity to adapt

Feed quality

Herd structure

Animal genetics

Animal health

Increased productivity

Food security

Manure management

Low C sourcing

Improved energy use efficiency

(among others)





soilsReduced


capacity to adapt

Feed quality

Herd structure

Animal genetics

Animal health


Food security

Manure management

(among others)





soilsReduced



productivity

Food security

Water management

Diversification of assets


(among others)





soilsReduced



productivity

Food security

Technical and financial capacity

Access to information

Functioning and accessible markets

(among others)





soilsReduced


capacity to adapt

Feed quality

Herd structure

Animal genetics

Animal health


Food security


Water management Access to

information




Manure management


Low C sourcing


(among others)





soilsReduced


capacity to adapt

Feed quality

Herd structure

Animal genetics

Animal health


Food security


Water management Access to

information




Manure management


Low C sourcing


(among others)

Resource use efficiency

Categories of pressure

THE SPATIAL ORGANIZATION OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION

0 30 60 90 12015Kilometers

0 30 60 90 12015Kilometers

Suitability Score

Restricted

1.5 - 2

2.1- 2.5

2.6 - 3

3.1 - 3.5

3.6 - 4

4.1 - 4.5

4.6 - 5

1: very low suitability5: very high suitability

Source: Structural Change in the Livestock Sector – Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative

Research Questions

• LCA = closing the gap – shifting the gap (innovation)

• Geographic = optimal distribution of land uses – environmental, social, economic benefits

• Policy analysis – addressing trade-offs, targeted approaches (livelihoods, market-oriented)

• Integrated analysis – combining approaches, objectives, stakeholders – sustainability

• What if? scenarios

Science

Livestock and the environment: Challenges to 2054