Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: Mitigation options and trade-offs
-
Upload
ilri -
Category
Technology
-
view
5 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: Mitigation options and trade-offs
Livestock and GHG emissions: mitigation options and trade-offs
Mario Herrero and Philip K. Thornton
CCAFS Science meetingDecember 1st-2nd , 2010 | Cancun, Mexico
– Background
– Livestock and livelihoods
– Livestock and GHG– Estimates
– Key principles
– Mitigation options
– Researchable issues
– Conclusions
Structure of the presentation
General context
• Population to reach almost 9 billion over the next quarter of a century
• Getting richer and urbanised• Increased demands for livestock products• Lots of changes occurring: climate, economics,
technology, resource availability, intensification
• Systems are changing……
Revised demand for livestock products to 2050
Rosegrant et al 2009
Annual per capita consumption
Total consumption
year Meat (kg) Milk (kg) Meat (Mt) Milk (Mt)
Developing 20022050
2844
4478
137326
222585
Developed 20022050
7894
202216
102126
265295
W. Africa 1966 – pastoral system 2004 – crop-livestock system
An example of the changing nature of livestock systems
Can we influence the next transition for the benefit of society and the environment?
– How to achieve food security
– How to maintain livelihoods
– Protection and maintenance of ecosystems services
– Economic growth
– Reducing the environmental impacts for the livestock sector
Key concerns for the future
Livestock and livelihoods
– Livestock systems occupy 26% or the global land area (Reid et al 2008)
– 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 key as a risk reduction strategy for vulnerable communities (Freeman et al 2007)
– 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)
Livestock and livelihoods (1)
Livestock and livelihoods (2)At least 600 million of the World’s poor depend on livestock
Thornton et al. 2002
Livestock – high value products
Milk has the highest value of production of all agricultural commodities (FAOSTAT 2008)
Food production
Cereals Production
4%14%
35%
2%
45%
AgroPastoral
Mixed Extensive
Mixed Intensive
Other
Developed countries
Mixed systems in the developing World produce almost 50% of the cereals of the World
Herrero et al. Science 327: 822-825
– Livestock products contribute to 17% of the global kilocalorie consumption and 33% of the protein consumption (FAOSTAT 2008)
– Livestock provide food for at least 830 million food insecure people (Gerber et al 2007)
– 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 livelihoods (3)
SSA - 2000
3%
3%
4%
47%16%
3%
24%Meat
Dairy
Fruit & Vegetables
Cereals
Roots & Tubers
Dryland crops
Others
Herrero et al 2008a
Livestock and GHG emissions
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
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)
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
Changing diets
Consuming less meat or different types of meat could lower GHG emissions
Stehfest et al. 2009. Climatic Change
Range of GHG intensities for commodities 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)
Changing diets
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?
Mitigation 101 – intensification is essential
The better we feed cows the less methane per kg of milk they produce
8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 120
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Series1
ME kg DM
CO
2 e
q /
kg
milk
Herrero et al (forthcoming)
Chad - pastoral
US/Europe - mixedIndia mixed
Mitigation options – intensifying diets
Thornton and Herrero 2010 (PNAS 107, 19667-19672)
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
24
STICKY x FLEXIBLE
IF system change possible shift to intensive production systems
Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009
25
STICKY x FLEXIBLE
Adjustments in production systems help to keep commodity prices lowHavlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009
26
STICKY x FLEXIBLE
RED through livestock does not have negative effect on non-CO2 emissions.
Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009
Can we untap 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
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
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 Env Sust
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
Thank you!