Global Environmental Challenges

Henning Steinfeld, FAO

ILRI-World Bank Consultation on the Global Livestock Agenda by 2020 Nairobi, 12 - 13 March 2012

Livestock demand and resource constraints

Global demand to grow by 70 to 80 % by 2050

• Stagnant in rich countries

• Still strong in emerging countries

• Rapidly growing anywhere else (+200 % in Africa)

Growing scarcities and risks

• Growing scarcities - oil, land, water, energy, phosphorus

• Environmental degradation and pollution

• Climate change

Commodity prices on the rise

Apr-0

1

Aug-0

1

Dec-01

Apr-0

2

Aug-0

2

Dec-02

Apr-0

3

Aug-0

3

Dec-03

Apr-0

4

Aug-0

4

Dec-04

Apr-0

5

Aug-0

5

Dec-05

Apr-0

6

Aug-0

6

Dec-06

Apr-0

7

Aug-0

7

Dec-07

Apr-0

8

Aug-0

8

Dec-08

Apr-0

9

Aug-0

9

Dec-09

Apr-1

0

Aug-1

0

Dec-10

Apr-1

10

50

100

150

200

250

Commodity Price Index Monthly Price

International prices for maize and soy

Facts and Trends

US $ /ton

Source: FAO commodity prices, 2011

HUMAN-EDIBLE PROTEIN BALANCE IN THE LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION OF SELECTED COUNTRIES

EDIBLE PROTEIN OUTPUT/INPUT EDIBLE PROTEIN OUTPUT-INPUT TONNES

AV. 1995-1997 AV.2005-2007 AV. 1995-1997 AV.2005-2007

Saudi Arabia 0.15 0.19 -533 731 -659 588

USA 0.48 0.53 -7 846 859 -7 650 830

Germany 0.66 0.62 -921 449 -1 183 290

China 0.75 0.95 -2 822 998 -665 276

Netherlands 1.66 1.02 322 804 18 070

Brazil 0.79 1.17 -622 177 550 402

Nepal 2.25 1.88 37 370 40 803

India 3.60 4.30 2 249 741 3 379 440

Sudan 18.22 8.75 235 868 340 895

New Zealand 8.04 10.06 460 366 638 015

Mongolia 14.72 14.60 42 987 35 858

Ethiopia 16.02 16.95 99 909 141 395

Kenya 18.08 21.16 124 513 202 803

Point of DepartureThe livestock sector is resource-hungry• ~ 70 of total agricultural land, 35 % of all crop land• ~ 60 % of total anthropogenic biomass

appropriation • ~ 29 % of agricultural water use• ~ 15 % of anthropogenic greenhouse gas

emissions (being re-calculated)

Contributions:• 13 % of all dietary energy; 25 % of all dietary

protein• 1.5 % of world GDP• livelihood component to 1 billion people

Point of Departure• The sector has specific resource issues

– Low NRU efficiency– geographic dispersion (extensive systems)– geographic clustering (intensive systems)

• Demand will continue to grow and needs to be accommodated within finite resources

• Potential for social, health and economic gains needs to be seized

• The need for connecting actors and for joint action

Why livestock?Specific resource use issues

• Production of animal protein is typically less efficient than that of plant protein

• Remoteness - areas often out of reach (neglect, expansion into forests, overgrazing)

• Intensive systems are often detached from land base – nutrient depletion and overloads

Efficiency of Natural Resource Use

• Conversion efficiency of land, water, nutrients, energy

• (Partially) dependant on local resource endowment

• Huge gaps in efficiency exist within and between countries

• Knowledge/technology to substitute for natural resource use

Global non-CO2 emission intensities by commodity (tCO2eq/t protein)

020406080

100120140160180200

Inter-country comparison of nitrogen use efficiency in dairy production

(Share of ingested N found in milk and meat)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Relationship between total greenhouse gas emissions and milk

output per cow

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000

Output per cow, kg FPCM per year

kg C

O2-

eq. p

er k

g FP

CM

Closing the efficiency gap• Resource constraints have started to “bite” - high

commodity prices induce innovation and drive technology

• Productivity and efficiency gains move largely in parallel

• Huge gaps between attainable and actually attained efficiency

• Gaps can be narrowed with existing technology• Globally there is more gain from large numbers of

producers catching up than from pushing the frontier• Prices need to reflect true scarcities of natural

resources

Restoring value to grasslands

Issue: neglect of extensive grazing areas, their people and their potential services

• improved range management can help store soil carbon: average 0.13 to 0.81 tCO2-e ha-1 yr-

1 for moist and dry grasslands, respectively (IPCC, 2006)

• strong synergies between productivity gains, climate change mitigation and adaptation and other environmental services

Satellite derived map using NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) data from 1981 until 2003Methods to obtain this map: NDVI is converted to NPP (net primary productivity) and corrected by Rain-Use Efficiency (correct the rainfall variability effect). the trend in time (1981-2003) defines improvements (higher NDVI) or decline of the vegetation

Data: Bai et al. , 2008. FAO / UNEP LADA project

Degraded grasslands

Soil organic carbon (somtc) (gC m-2)

< -250

-250 -

0 0

0 - 250

250 -

500

500 -

1,000

> 1,000

Soil organic carbon (somtc) difference;[grazing level with max NPP] - [grazing level closest to LADA NPP}

This shows the technical potential for C sequestration (summed over the simulation period 1961-2006). Estimated by subtracting max attainable soil C levels (i.e. that could have been achieved if grazing levels were optimally managed) from simulated baseline soil C levels. Also, coverage is only for rangelands, not managed pastures

Restoring value to grasslands

• Carbon finance and other PES can alter the production function of grasslands, particularly in marginal areas

• Develop a “business case” for grasslands – multiple, global and local, environmental services

• Certification methodologies are required• Institutional mechanisms for benefit sharing need

to be developed

Towards zero discharge: Recovery of nutrients and energy from animal manure

Issue: Discharge of animal manure into the environment caused by geographic concentration of livestock• total amounts of nutrients in livestock excreta >

synthetic fertilizers• 50 to 90 percent of nutrients contained in feed are

excreted as manure, 30 % of energy• Technology exists to recover most of the energy

(biogas) and nutrients (except N)• Policies to address spatial distribution of livestock are

required

Estimated distribution of industrialized produced pig populations. Livestock’s Long Shadow, 2006

Globally-900,000,000 hogs

Honeyman, Duffy, 2006. Iowa State Univ

Total 60,000,000 hogs

Pig Distribution in the US

Pigs in North Carolina

• 9,800,000 hogs and pigs• 63% are grown in 5 of the 100 counties of the

state• 45% are in 2 of the 100 counties of the state and

are on the coastal plain

Towards zero discharge• Spatial policies (zoning) addressing

land-livestock balances - create opportunities for nutrient recycling

• Emission standards (voluntary, non-voluntary)

• Waste management technology transfer and adaptation

• Incentive policies (incl. CDM in developing countries)

The Global Agenda of Actionin Support of Sustainable Livestock

Sector Development

Programme of action and structure

Direction of ChangeImproving the efficiency of natural resource use

Three focus areas:1. Closing the efficiency gap: catching up in

technology adoption2. Restore value to grasslands: supporting soil

carbon, ecosystem health and productivity restoration with climate finance

3. Zero discharge: towards full recovery of nutrient and energy from animal manure

Closing the natural resource use efficiency gap

What has changed: The natural resource constraint is increasingly perceived by stakeholders

Closing the natural resource use efficiency gap

Actions Govern-ments

PrivateSector

Civil Society Org.

Science

Inter Governmental Org.

Measuring efficiency

Assessing natural resource use efficiency gap and options to close the gapDevelop PPPs and other models to foster innovation and technology transferPromote investment programmes for efficiency improvement

What has changed: The natural resource constraint is increasingly perceived by stakeholders

Expected result: More knowledge-intensive practices, with more efficient natural resource use

Partnership

Restoring value to grasslandsWhat has changed: Payment for Environmental Services and climate change finance can reverse the neglect of grasslands and enhance productivity and incomes

Restoring value to grasslands

Actions Govern-ments

PrivateSector

Civil Society Org.

Science

Inter Governmental Org.

Assessing and targeting the potential for carbon sequestration and synergies with food security and other env. servicesDeveloping Monitoring Reporting and Verification methodologiesPiloting institutional and technical approaches

Develop intergovernmental support for grasslands, e.g. within UNFCCC

What has changed: Payment for Environmental Services and climate change finance can reverse the neglect of grasslands and enhance productivity and incomes

Expected result: Pastoralist adopt practices that provide environmental services and improve food security

Recovery of nutrient and energy from animal manure

What has changed: Discharge of animal manure is less and less accepted

Recovery of nutrient and energy from animal manure

Actions Govern-ments

PrivateSector

Civil Society Org.

Science

Inter Governmental Org.

Analyze the clustering trend and assess the constraints to the adoption of good manure management practicesDevelop regional networks that can provide assistance to policy makersCreate opportunities for nutrient recycling and energy recoveryFoster the development of PPPs and other models to foster technology transfer and farmers’ participation

What has changed: Discharge of animal manure is less and less accepted

Expected result: Increased nutrient and energy recovery from manure, resulting in reduced pollution

The Agenda’s stakeholders

• Governments• Private sector (branch organizations)• CSOs• Research and academia• Intergovernmental organizations (global, regional)• Smallholders/pastoralists not represented at

global level (will be at operational level)

Implementation entities

• Platform of all members• Advisory Group, composed of Focus Area Groups

and Global Partners• Secretariat• Centers of excellence and ad hoc expert groups• Regional hubs, closer to stakeholders, along focus

areas

What’s new?

• The thematic focus– Offers strong synergies between economic gains and

environmental impact reduction

• The action-orientation (change in practice)– Built ona sense of urgency to put what we know into

practice

• Value added of the multi-stakeholder engagement– Convergence of interests and action will translate into

change of practices

Implications for the social agenda• Climate change will hit resource-poor

grazers more than any other group• Resource constraint hits the “middle

ground” – less efficient, small scale, commercial production

• Carbon finance could help transition:– Pastoralists to landscape managers– Intensification, particularly of dairy (methane)

• “Zero discharge” may increase production cost of large-scale industrial production

Implications for Health Agenda

• Climate change will change incidence and severity of animal diseases (particularly vector-borne)

• Disease constraints to raising efficiency need to be lifted

• “zero discharge” will alleviate public health challenges associated with pollution

…towards a new narrativePG Domain No growth Growth Problems of

growthEnvironment Restore grasslands/

marginal landsEfficiency/ sustainable intensification

Avoid pollution

Social Protection of livelihoods

Income and employment

Sustained prosperity

Nutrition Avoid starvation Enrich diets Avoid unhealthy diets

Health Keep animals alive/ keep production systems functional

Remove constraints to production, productivity, trade

Safe and healthy food,Functional trade

Thank you

henning.steinfeld@fao.orgwww.livestockdialogue.ord