+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Herrero - Livestock and GHG emissions

Herrero - Livestock and GHG emissions

Date post: 22-Jan-2015
Category:
Upload: ccafs-cgiar-program-climate-change-agriculture-and-food-security
View: 1,079 times
Download: 3 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
Mario Herrero, Livestock and GHG emissions: mitigation options and trade-offs (presentation from Mitigation session at CCAFS Science Workshop, December 2010)
Popular Tags:
30
Livestock and GHG emissions: mitigation options and trade-offs Mario Herrero and Philip K. Thornton CCAFS Science meeting December 1 st -2 nd , 2010 | Cancun, Mexico
Transcript
  • 1. Livestock and GHG emissions:mitigation options and trade-offs Mario Herrero and Philip K. ThorntonCCAFS Science meeting December 1st-2nd, 2010 | Cancun, Mexico

2. Structure of the presentation Background Livestock and livelihoods Livestock and GHG Estimates Key principles Mitigation options Researchable issues Conclusions 3. General context Population to reach almost 9 billion over the next quarterof a century Getting richer and urbanised Increased demands for livestock products Lots of changes occurring: climate, economics,technology, resource availability, intensification Systems are changing 4. Revised demand for livestock productsto 2050 Annual per capita Total consumption consumption year Meat (kg) Milk (kg) Meat (Mt) Milk (Mt)Developing 20022844 137 222 20504478 326 585Developed200278202102 265 205094216126 295Rosegrant et al 2009 5. An example of the changing nature of livestock systemsCan we influence the next transition for the benefit of society and theenvironment? W. Africa 1966 pastoral system 2004 crop-livestock system 6. Key concerns for the futureHow to achieve food securityHow to maintain livelihoodsProtection and maintenance of ecosystems servicesEconomic growthReducing the environmental impacts for the livestock sector 7. Livestock and livelihoods 8. Livestock and livelihoods (1)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) 9. Livestock and livelihoods (2)At least 600 million of the Worlds poor depend onlivestock Thornton et al. 2002 10. Livestock high value producMilk has the highest value of production of all agriculturalcommodities (FAOSTAT 2008) 11. Food productionCereals Production4% 14% AgroPastoral Mixed Extensive45% Mixed Intensive Other35%Developed countries 2%Mixed systems in the developing World produce almost 50% of thecereals of the WorldHerrero et al. Science 327: 822-825 12. Livestock and livelihoods (3)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 - 2000SSA - 2000 3%3% 10% Meat Meat 24%4% 11% DairyDairy37%Fruit & Vegetables Fruit & Vegetables 5% Cereals Cereals3% Roots & Tubers Roots & Tubers 47%1% Dryland crops16% Dryland crops 31% Others Others5% Herrero et al 2008a 13. Livestock and GHG emissions 14. Livestocks 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 transportationSteinfeld et al 2006 [national transportation] 15. Livestock and GHG: 18% of globalemissions ProductionN. fert. production Chemical fertilisants N Energie fossile fuel On-farm fossil ferme Dforestation DeforestationN2O Sol cultiv from ag. soils OM release Pasture degradation Dsertification pturages Transformation fuel Processing fossil Deforestation Transport fossil fuel Transport CO2 Fermentation ruminale Enteric fermentation Manure storage / processing Effluents, stockage/traitement N fertilization Epandage fertilisants NEntericLegume production Production lgumineusesfermentation Manure storage / processing Effluents, stockage/traitement Manure spreading / dropping Effluents, pandage/dpt Manu indirect emissions Effluents, emission indirecteCH4Prepared by Bonneau, 2008 16. 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) 17. The world will require 1 billion tonnes of additional cerealgrains to 2050 to meet food and feed demands(IAASTD 2009) Grains 1048 million tonnesmore to 2050 humanLivestockconsumption430 million MTMonogastrics mostly 458 million MT biofuels160 million MT 18. Changing dietsConsuming less meat or different types ofmeat could lower GHG emissionsStehfest et al. 2009. Climatic Change 19. Changing dietsConsuming less meat or different types ofmeat could lower GHG emissions Less land needed ....but social and economic impacts? ....displacement of people?Stehfest et al. 2009. Climatic Change 20. Mitigation 101 intensification is essentialThe better we feed cows the less methane per kg of milk theyproduce 4.54 Chad - pastoral 3.53CO2 eq / kg milk 2.5 Series12 1.51India mixed 0.5 US/Europe - mixed0 8 9 10 11 12 ME kg DM Herrero et al (forthcoming) 21. Mitigation options intensifying dietsThornton and Herrero 2010 (PNAS 107, 19667-19672) 22. Systems shifts - some results fromthe GLOBIOM model (IIASA-ILRI)Simulation horizon: 2020STICKY livestock production systems - min 75% of LPS of 2000 following production trajectory to 2020FLEXIBLE livestock production systems - min 25% of LPS of 2000 still in the same place in 2020 - intensifing mixed crop livestock systems 22 Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009 23. STICKY x FLEXIBLEIF system change possible shift to intensive production systems23Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009 24. STICKY x FLEXIBLEAdjustments in production systems help to keep commodity prices low24 Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009 25. STICKY x FLEXIBLERED through livestock does not have negative effect on non-CO2 emissions.25Havlik, Herrero, Obersteiner et al, COP15, 2009 26. Can we untap the potential for carbon sequestrationin rangeland systems?Largest land use systemPotentially a large C sinkCould be an importantincome diversificationsourceDifficulties in:Measuring andmonitoring C stocksEstablishment ofpayment schemes Potential for carbonDealing with mobilesequestration in rangelandspastoralists (Conant and Paustian 2002) 27. Some conclusions Complex issue: livestocks livelihood benefits andenvironmental impacts largely dependent on location,systems, intensification level and others Reducing livestocks impact on the environment requiresthe fundamental recognition that societal benefits need tobe 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-currencyapproach: energy, emissions, water, nutrients, incomes,etc along value chains (life cycles) Well placed to make global inventories 28. Some key trade-offs Biomass uses for food, feed, fuel and fertiliser Intensifying systems to increase production efficiencywhile balancing environmental protection andproviding livelihoods for poor people Cheap food vs sustainable food for consumers?Herrero et al 2009 Current Op Env Sust 29. 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 toincrease adoption rates! What is sustainable intensification? Limits? Support on inventory development for developingcountries Need to refine LCA analyses 30. Thank you!


Recommended