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!