Greenhouse gas emissions along livestock supply chains and options for mitigation

GAA, 4th MSP meetingOttawa, 18 October 2013

Pierre Gerber, Senior Policy Officer, FAO-AGA

1

FAO-AGA’s work on GHG emissions in the livestock sector

• Goal: identify low emission pathways for the livestock sector

• Specific objectives: ▫ Produce disaggregated assessments of global GHG

emissions and related mitigation potential▫ Carry out economic analyses of mitigation costs and

benefits▫ Engage in multi-stakeholder initiatives on methods

and practice change

2

Preparation team

• Jeroen Dijkman •Benjamin Henderson•Alexander Hristov (PSU)•Michael MacLeod (SRUC)•Harinder Makkar•Anne Mottet•Carolyn Opio•Henning Steinfeld•Theun Vellinga (WUR)• ...

4

Global Livestock Environment Assessment Model – GLEAM: main features

• Life Cycle Assessment based modelling• Cradle to retail, all major sources of emissions included• Computes emissions at local level (cells on a map)• Can generate averages and ranges at different scales• Developed at FAO, in collaboration with other partners• Allows for scenario analysis

• Now used for the quantification of GHG emissions; will be expanded to other livestock-environment interactions (e.g. land use, nutrients, water)

5

Where are the emissions?

6

7

Total calculated emissions: 7.1 Gt CO2-eq, 14.5% of anthropogenic emissions

GHG emissions from global livestock supply chains

Grass and other

roughages44%

Swill1%

Crop residues

26%

By-prod-ucts**

8%

Grains9%

Second grade crops

2%

Other edible*9%

* Cassava, beans and soybeans** Bran, oilseed meals, pulp, molasses and wet distiller grains

Global feed ration

Estimated global emission intensities (Ei)

kg CO2-eq per kg protein

50% of prod

80% of Prod.

Average

9

Beef

Cattle

milk

Smal

l rum

inan

t mea

t

Smal

l rum

inan

t milk

Pork

Chick

en m

eat

Chick

en e

ggs

-

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

450.00

500.00

GHG emissions are losses

• CH4 emissions are energy losses▫ Total enteric methane emissions : equivalent to 144 Mt oil equivalent per

year▫ Total manure methane emissions: equivalent to 29 Mt oil equivalent per

year

 • N2O losses are N losses from manure and fertilizers

▫ Manure N2O emissions (direct and indirect) from manure application on crops and application on pasture: 3.2 Mt of N

 • CO2 emissions are related to fossil fuel use and organic matter

losses ▫ Energy use efficiency can be improved in many systems▫ Soil organic matter is key to land productivity

There is a strong link between GHG emission intensity and natural resource use efficiency

10

What do we know about mitigation options?

11

Mitigation potential (i)

Approach:

1. Statistical analysis of emission intensity gaps

Distribution of intensive broiler supply chains according to their emission intensity in temperate zones of East and Southeast Asia

13

< 10 10-15 15-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 >100 -

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

kg CO2-eq.kg meat protein-1

Num

ber o

f pix

els (

spati

al u

nits

)

Modeled emission intensity gap

20 to 30% mitigation effect if producers in a given region, farming system and agro-ecological zone would apply the production practices of the 10th to 25th quantiles with lowest emission intensity.

Mitigation potential (iii)

Approach:

1. Statistical analysis of emission intensity gaps

2. Modeling of potential soil C sequestration in collaboration with Colorado State University

Results - potential soil C sequestration

• Maximum technical soil C sequestration potential for grassland is estimated to be approx. 0.4 GtCO2-eq per year over a 20 year period - adjustment of grazing pressure (offtake rate).

• Additional 0.2 GtCO2-eq per year over a 20 year period - sowing legumes in some grasslands.

• Around half of the grasslands are under-utilized and half are over utilized.

• Optimal management increases absolute levels of forage offtake in most areas (overall, reduction in the level of offtake occurs in only 25% of the grassland area).

Mitigation potential (iii)

Approach:

1. Statistical analysis of emission intensity gaps

2. Modeling of potential soil C sequestration in collaboration with Colorado State University

3. Case studies in selected regions/farming systems

Case studies: mitigation packages

Mixed dairy- Feed quality- Animal health & husbandry

Commercial pigs- Manure management- Energy efficiency- Feed quality, - Animal health &

husbandry

Specialized beef- Grazing management- Animal health

Small ruminants- Feed quality- Animal health & husbandry- Grazing management

Mixed dairy OECD- Fat supplementation- Anaerobic digestion- Energy efficiency

Case studies: mitigation potential (emission intensities – constant output)

Mixed dairy-120 Mt CO2-eq

Commercial pigs-52 to -71 Mt CO2

Specialized beef-190 to -310 Mt CO2

Small ruminants-8 Mt to -12 Mt CO2

Mixed dairy OECD-54 to -66 Mt CO2

18-29%

28-36%

38%27-41%

14-17%

• Production increases by 7 to 40 percent in all case studies, except OECD• Overwhelming effects of feed, health and energy generation/efficiency• Grazing management : C sequestration and productivity gains

What are the main strategies for the reduction of emission intensities?

• Ruminants▫ animal level: feed digestibility and balancing, health,

genetics▫ herd level: maintenance to production ratio in animal

cohorts▫ production unit level: grazing management▫ supply chain level: energy use efficiency, waste

minimization and recycling

• Monogastrics▫ animal level: feed balancing, health, genetics▫ production unit level: source low Ei feed and energy▫ supply chain level: energy use efficiency, waste

minimization and recycling

19

Key policy areas for action

• Education, extension and agricultural support services.

• Incentives, access to capital and risk management.

• Research and development. ▫ refine existing technologies, and technical itineraries▫ supply new mitigation technologies/practices.

• National policies, including Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs).

• International agreements.

20

Emissions intensity vs net emissions

Estimated emission intensity reduction potential (30%) lower than expected production growth (70%)

• conservative estimate of mitigation potential• emission intensity gains will have effects on

production levels and costs• interventions on demand side may reduce

production growth rates

1. The livestock sector plays an important role in climate change. GHG emissions are estimated at 7.1 GtCO2-eq per year, about 14.5 percent of all human-induced emissions.

2. The sector’s emissions could be brought down by about 30 percent just through the wider use of existing best practices and technologies.

3. Substantial emission reductions can be achieved across all species, systems and regions.

4. Strong correlation between mitigation and resource use efficiency: possible environmental co-benefits .

5. Strong correlation between mitigation and productivity gains, especially among ruminant systems operating at low productivity.

6. Implementation will require education, awareness raising and incentives for technology transfer.

Main findings

QVID TVM

• Support practice change (GAA) ▫Test some of the options and related institutional

frameworks on the ground ▫Support development of livestock NAMAs

• Investigate the economics of mitigation• Improve, update GLEAM to reduce uncertainty

and measure progress (LEAP, GRA, CIRAD, WUR)

• Progressively include more environmental categories in GLEAM (nutrients, land, biodiversity, water)

23