Livestock, Land and Livelihoods: Adaptation and mitigation for small

holders and pastoralists

Constance Neely (FAO) and Muhammad Ibrahim (CATIE)Grasslands Carbon Working Group

Will climate change be the ultimate incentive to do what we have meant to be doing all along?

Grasslands occupy 26% of the emerged ice free world and 70% of the agricultural area and store up to 8% of the world’s carbon

(230-260 Tonnes C per ha) (FAO 2006).

Extensive pastoralism occurs on 25% of the global land area supporting 200 million pastoral households

Climate change will have differentiated impacts

Grazing lands management (1.5 Gt CO2 e) Rehabilitating degraded land (0.6 Gt CO2 e)

Photo credit: C.Neely

Photo credit: C. Leggett

Photo credit: C. Leggett

Improving grazing land management has the second highest technical potential for mitigating C emissions

(IPCC 2007)

4 Ecosystem Functions

Photos: C. Leggett

Photo credit: C.NeelyPhoto credit: C.Neely

Photo credit: C. LeggettPhoto credit: A. Savory

water table

Non-effective water cycle Effective water cycle

Soil bare between plants Soil covered with plants and mulch

50-80% of rainfall is lost through run-off and evaporation.

After: www.managingwholes.com

1 % increase in SOM144,000 L H20 per Ha

Mitigation and Adaptation in the Landscape

Photo credits: A. Savory

Neely 2009

Photo credit: C. Neely Photo credit: C. Neely

Photo credits: A. Savory

15 times the yield of the conventionally grown maize

Croppers to Livestock-Keepers• “There are likely to be substantial shifts in the patterns of

African cropping and livestock keeping”

– crop yields decrease but can be handled through agronomic means

– crop yields increase, particularly the case of the highlands - “temperature limitations relaxed”

– crop yields decline drastically shifting emphasis from marginal crop production to livestock keeping

Jones and Thornton (2008)

• In Africa, livestock production could provide the 20 million to 35 million people living in these areas a means to stay on their land and have a livelihood (ILRI, 2009).

Let’s not ignore the grazinglands

• Livestock are an irreplaceable source of livelihoods for the poor and pastoralism remains the most rational strategy for marginal areas.

• Grasslands play a critical role in climate change mitigation.

• The associated co-benefits (increased soil organic matter, productivity, water capture and retention, biological diversity) provide a vital adaptation strategies.

Carbon Sequestration Potential of Four Land Use Systems(Adapted from IPCC, 2000, Swaminathan, 2009)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Agroforestry Grazingmanagement

Forestmanagement

Croplandmanagement

Pote

ntial

Car

bon S

eques

trat

ion b

y 20

40

(Mt C

y-1

)

Agroforestry and grassland management have a high potential particularly given the extensive areas.

Mainstreaming Silvopastoral Systems for Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Humid and

Sub-Humid Tropics

Carbon stocks in pastures and silvopastoral systems

• Conversion of tropical forest to pastures with inappropriate management results in degradation and net loss of carbon

• Good management of improved pastures and silvopastoral systems can maintian carbon stocks similiar to that stored in the forest

Before Change: C Fluxes After Net Ceffect

Desertifiication

Woody encroachment

Tropical deforestation

130,000

210,000

Fire &

Conversion

88,000

Leaching losses

ErosionLosses

2,100

16,800

Woody EncroachmentIncreased spatial heterogeneity

of C and nutrients

DesertificationIncreased spatial heterogeneity

of C and nutrients

21

1

13

0.7

19,000

12,000

3,900

200,000

700 increase in NPP

Repeat Burning

(each burn)

14,000

C desminuye en produccionNPP

Erosion Losses

Increased Erosion Losses

Three ecological degradation syndromes associated with livestock production systems. Values indicate mean carbon stocks (kg ha-1) or fluxes (kg ha-1 yr-1) as reported throughout the scientific literature (adapted from Asner et al. 2004). Net effect on C storage is depicted on far right.

M.Ibrahim FAO IFAD side event COP14 3 Dec 2008

Forest (C3) Well managed pasture (C4)

20 years 80 years

Years

CARBONO TOTAL

δδδδ13C = -29 ‰

REMANANT CARBON-FOREST

δδδδ13C = -14 ‰

CARBON- PASTURE (C4)

Soi

l car

bon Cp

Cf

}}

Carbon balance from conversion of forest to pastures

Land use Carbon(t/ha)

Degraded pasture 0.04

Natural pasture without trees 0.5

Natural pasture with high density of trees

1.2

Improved pasture without trees 1.0

Natural pasture with high density of trees

1.3

Improved pasture with high density of trees

2.5

Forest plantations 3.9

Secondary forest 6.5

Carbon Sequestration in pasture and forest systems in

The sub-humid tropics of Costa Rica

## Land useLand useIndexIndex IndexIndex

CarbonCarbon BiodiversityBiodiversity Total indexTotal index

22 Degraded pastureDegraded pasture 00 00 00

33 Native pasture without treesNative pasture without trees 0,10,1 0,10,1 0,20,2

88 Live fencesLive fences 0,30,3 0,30,3 0,60,6

1111 Fodder bankFodder bank 0,30,3 0,50,5 0,80,8

1414 Native pasture high tree density*Native pasture high tree density* 0,50,5 0,50,5 1,01,0

2020 Improve pasture high tree density*Improve pasture high tree density* 0,60,6 0,70,7 1,31,3

2323 Young secondary vegetationYoung secondary vegetation 0,60,6 0,80,8 1,41,4

2424 Riparian forestRiparian forest 0,80,8 0,70,7 1,51,5

2727 Secondary forestSecondary forest 0,90,9 1,01,0 1,91,9

2828 Primary forestPrimary forest 1,01,0 1,01,0 2,02,0

Index by land uses and its potential for carbon Index by land uses and its potential for carbon sequestration and conservation of biodiversitysequestration and conservation of biodiversity

** >> 30 tree ha30 tree ha--11

Live fences

Silvopastoril intensivo

ÑO

203 2006

0 ha 117,6 ha

Fodder bank with Leucaena

Difficult to meet market specifications from native pastures

Impact of Leucaena on growth of animals|

Forage system Stockingrate

(ha/steer)

Liveweight gain

(kg/steer/year)

Years to 600 kg LW(Jap Ox)

Best native pasture 4 100-140 4-5

Buffel grass 2 170-190 3-4

Leucaena – buffel grass

1.5 250-300 <2.5

Is PES an incentive to ¨tip the balance¨ for adoption of silvopastoral practices?

How do the poor and non-poor farmers benefit from PES?

What is the sustainability of PES systems?

Payment for Environmental Services

Payment of Environmental services to foster adoption of SPS

• Pilot project with 400 cattle farmers in Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Colombia

• Funded by GEF, World Bank, FAO-LEAD

• Implemented by CATIE- CIPAV, NITLAPAN

• Payment- land use changes that enhance biodiversity and carbon sequestration (40-60 US /ha depending on land use change)

Payment is based on annual increments in relation to base line

Years

EcologicalPoints/farm

Base line

Incremental

Incremental EP = EP in year t Incremental EP = EP in year t –– EP base lineEP base line

Land used change (%) in cattle farms with Payment for Environmental Services according to the level of poverty in Matiguas, Nicaragua. Non poor (n=16), Poor (n=15), and Extremely poor (n=33).

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

DEGRADEDPASTURES

NATURAL PASTUREWITH TREES

IMPROVED PASTUREWITH TREES

FODDER BANKS

FOREST

NET LAND USE CHANGE (%)

NON POOR POOR EXTREMELY POOR

M.Ibrahim FAO IFAD side event COP14 3 Dec 2008

245.40

969.91

225.76

686.25

179.82

664.82

-

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00

1,000.00

Costa Rica Nicaragua Colombia

Mean payment/farm US

2003 2005

Payment of environmental services equivalent to 2400 to 4000 litres of milk/farm/yr

Socio-economic Impact of Payment ofEnvironmental Services- Nicaragua

Parameter Poverty level Baseline2003

2007 % Change

Milk prod (kg/ha/yr) Non-poor 617.4 662.9 7.4

Poor 657.8 864.0 37.7

Very poor 637.4 878.3 37.8

Grossincome/householdcapita (US$/yr)

Non-poor 3188.0 5005.0 57.0

Poor 1258.3 2606.1 107.2

Very poor 802.1 1371.2 70.9

What were the impacts of PES-mitigation?

• Adoption of silvopastoral systems resulted in increments of increased carbon stocks

• Farmers adopted improved forages of better quality than traditional pastures- reducing emission of GHG

• Transition of conventional to silvopastoral systems resulted in a reduced emissions of GHG per kg milk produced.

Gru

po G

anad

ería

y M

anej

o de

l Am

bien

teChain of carbon footprint in conventional systemsChain of carbon footprint in conventional systems

Concentrates

Supplements

Fertilzers

419

KgCO2e

80.4

KgCO2e

206.1

KgCO2e

206.4

KgCO2e

22 miilking cows71519

KgCO2e

pasture

Chain of carbon footprint in silvopastoral systemsChain of carbon footprint in silvopastoral systems

Concentrates

Forage banks

419

KgCO2e

206.4

KgCO2e

15 milking cows

37735.8 KgCO2e

Comparison of Carbon Footprint in both systemsComparison of Carbon Footprint in both systemsComparison of Carbon Footprint in both systems

Figure KgCO2e per kg of milk corected by % fat and %protein in both systems (case study ,livestock farm in Esparza, Costa Rica).

Nota: FPCM= fat and protein corrected by milk

2,2

1,1

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

Kg

(C

O2

e/

FP

CM

)

Conventional Silvopastoral

Silvopastoral systems

- Complex and diverse systems

- Improve carbon sequestration and reduce emission of green house gases- fodder trees with good quality- faster growth rates of animals

- With SPS – bundling of environmental services- biodiversity, carbon and water

What are the impact on policies

• Costa Rica- declaration to become a Carbon neutral country by 2021

• Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment have designed and implement policies that will benefitcattle farmers with PES for implementing silvopastoral systems

Kg

CO

2e (

mill

ions

)

Send-A-Cow Uganda Example

Total Sequestration = 1.08 M Kg CO2eTotal Emissions = 0.583 M Kg CO2e

Meru District Tanzania

Preliminary Data

Carbon Balance: Tanzania

Aspect Mg CO2e

Total Emissions• Livestock• Woodburning

3.24

Sequestration 6.06

Net Sequestration 2.82

• Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture (MICCA) Project. Support agricultural climate change mitigation in the context of food security 5 year multi-donor trust fund,10 million USD; 3.8 million USD for 2 years by Finland.

• Crop-Livestock-(Tree) Integration Focus(Farming Systems are evolved and back)

Research PrioritiesPastures and sylvo-pastoral systems and

highly integrated farming systems offer the highest potential for C sequestration.

Estimates of sequestration capacities in these systems are comforting but uncertain. There is a lack of direct observation (including baseline information) in developing countries.

Research PrioritiesMeasurement of environmental services and

co-benefits with good grazing land practice• Increased effective rainfall capture,

reduced drought risk, increased biological diversity, soil health that can be garnered because of the presence of livestock

• Give value to these systems. Communal lands are going to be important important

• Clarity on grazing systems and increases in C and co-benefits

Research Priorities

• Life cycle analyses (LCAs) in extensive systems as well as integrated systems.

• Outcomes should be considered per unit of land as well as per unit of product. Build on diversity of systems.

• Simple tools for monitoring farms to demonstrate change – indicators of reduction in GHG emissions.

• Robust mechanisms to support livestock keepers.