Global Agenda of Action in Support of Sustainable Livestock Sector Development. Rome, 2 April 2012

Transcription

1 Global Agenda of Action in Support of Sustainable Livestock Sector Development Rome, 2 April 2012

2 The 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 substantial contribution to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (being recalculated) Driver of deforestation (pasture, soy) and degradation Major source of water pollution

3 Contributions 13 % of all dietary energy; 25 % of all dietary protein 1.5 % of world GDP Driver of rural growth in developing countries livelihood component to more than 1 billion people Component of food security

4 Livestock s 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

5 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 Growing scarcities and risks Growing scarcities - oil, land, water, energy, phosphorus Environmental degradation and pollution Climate change

6 Source: The Economist Apr-01 Aug-01 Dec-01 Apr-02 Aug-02 Dec-02 Apr-03 Aug-03 Dec-03 Apr-04 Aug-04 Dec-04 Apr-05 Aug-05 Dec-05 Apr-06 Aug-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Aug-07 Dec-07 Apr-08 Aug-08 Dec-08 Apr-09 Aug-09 Dec-09 Apr-10 Aug-10 Dec-10 Apr-11 Commodity prices on the rise 250 Commodity Price Index Monthly Price

7 International prices for maize and soy US $ /ton Facts and Trends Source: FAO commodity prices, 2011

8 Point of Departure The livestock sector is resource-hungry 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

9 Direction of Change Improving the efficiency of natural resource use Three focus areas: 1. Closing the efficiency gap: catching up in technology adoption 2. 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

10 Closing the Efficiency Gap

11 Inter-country comparison of nitrogen use efficiency in dairy production (Share of ingested N found in milk and meat) Source: FAO-AGAL

12 kg CO2-eq. per kg FPCM Relationship between total greenhouse gas emissions and milk output per cow ,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Output per cow, kg FPCM per year Source: Gerber et al.

13 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

14 Closing the natural resource use efficiency gap What has changed: The natural resource constraint is increasingly perceived by stakeholders

15 Closing the natural resource use efficiency gap What has changed: The natural resource constraint is increasingly perceived by stakeholders Actions Governments Private Sector Civil Society Org. Science Inter Govern mental Org. Measuring efficiency Partnership Assessing natural resource use efficiency gap and options to close the gap Develop PPPs and other models to foster innovation and technology transfer Promote investment programmes for efficiency improvement Expected result: More knowledge intensive practices, with more efficient natural resource use

16 How do we express and measure natural resource efficiency? Productivity and NRU efficiency are not the same Both are descriptions of efficiency Human-made inputs (labor, capital, knowledge) Natural resource inputs (land, water, nutrients, fossil energy, air) Prices and values may not be the same (externalities, market failures) Substitution processes

17 How do we express and measure natural resource efficiency? The need for broadly accepted units and easy ways of measuring them The issue of multiple and non-marketable products Global versus local scarcities Gas emission intensities to be included How to deal with trade-offs?

18 Where are the largest gaps? Animal species and commodity? Production system (grazing, mixed, industrial)? Geographical region? What shape of efficiency distribution?

19 Frequency What shape? Efficiency

20 What are the constraints to closing the gaps? Prices and incentives? Presence of market failures and externalities? Market barriers? Support services? Access to capital? Access to knowledge and technology? Technical capacities? Institutional framework and public policies?

21 Identify the targets High to medium potential but currently limited by constraints that are within reach; growing and functioning markets What combination of technical, institutional and policy approaches?

22 Towards a work programme Additional research About the gap About closing it Resource mobilization Financial institutions Private sector Donors Transfer of knowledge and technology Development of conducive policy frameworks Proof of concept pilots - investments

23 Tentative GAA Structure GAA Multi-Stakeholder Platform Stakeholder clusters Public sector Civil society Academia / research International organizations Private sector GAA advisory group Restoring value to grassland Reduced discharge Action programme clusters Closing the efficiency gap GAA Secretariat brokering, support, coordination