AC H I E VING F O O D SECURITY A N D CLIMATE C H A N G E M I T I G ATION T H E POLICY CHALLENGE F O R A N I M A L

Transcription

1 AC H I E VING F O O D SECURITY A N D CLIMATE C H A N G E M I T I G ATION T H E POLICY CHALLENGE F O R A N I M A L P RO DUCTION GGAA 2016, Melbourne, Australia Pierre GERBER, Andy REISINGER, Mario HERRERO

2 Gton CO2-eq/yr THE GRAND CHALLENGE 60 Emissions from food - Baseline degree climate target Emissions from food - Increased livestock productivity Emissions path 70% probability Emissions path 50% probability Source: Hedenus, Wirsenius, Johansson (2010)

3 TRENDS IN ANIMAL PRODUCT DEMAND United States European Union Japan Brazil China WORLD Indonesia Nigeria India Ethiopia Note: The Alexandratos & Bruinsma 2012 projections covered Their trend result was carried forward here from the FAOStat actual data point for Source: J. Ranganathan et al., Shifting Diets, Installment 11 of the World Resources Report, WRI, forthcoming. WRI, 2015; based on FAO, 2015, and Alexandratos & Bruinsma, 2012

4 CONTRIBUTION OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION TO FOOD SECURITY: ANTAGONIST MECHANISMS The positives: Conversion of non-human-edible biomass into food products Agriculture productivity Adaptation to climate change and resilience Income generation (marketing of products, job creation and economic growth) The negatives: Food-feed competition Competition for resources and resource degradation National Geographic, 2015

5 CONTRIBUTION OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION TO FOOD SECURITY: BEYOUND CALORIES AND PROTEIN 790 million undernourished; 2,5 billion affected by malnutrition Animal products: 13 percent of calories, 28 percent of protein consumed, globally. Probably even more relevant to micronutrients intake hidden hunger Uday et al. 2014

6 CONTRIBUTION OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE Direct non-co 2 emissions from agriculture estimated at 10-12% of total global GHG emissions in 2010 (IPCC 2013); livestock can be estimated at about 9%. The direct contribution of livestock non-co 2 emissions to actual warming is considerable (>10% of warming to date, and potentially even greater fraction if the world reduces GHG emissions (Reisinger & Clark, this conference).

7 GHG EMISSIONS FROM THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR Relative contribution of life-cycle phases global livestock sector Total GHG emissions: 7.1 Gt CO 2 -eq. FAO, 2013

8 THREE MAIN GHG GASES 29 % 44 % 27 % CH4 N2O CO2 - fossil f. CO2 - LULUC

9 BROAD MITIGATION STRATEGIES Efficiency CH4 N2O CO2 - fossil f. CO2 - LULUC Land use C sequestration

10 REDUCING DEMAND - EVIDENCE Strong rationale Livestock products are generally more GHG intensive than others food items Reduced demand: dietary change and reduction in food losses and wastes Direct and indirect mitigation effects of reduced demand Uncertainties in the analyses Effect on farming systems: use of crop residues and food byproducts, fertilization, traction Results highly dependent on hypothesis made about alternative land use Rebound effect (50 % in Sweden, Grabs 2015) Constraints to implementation Instruments and willingness to influence consumers choice Alternative sources of nutrients aren t always accessible / more environmentally friendly.

11 RETHINKING LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND MITIGATION Food Security CC mitigation Production reduction Emission intensity reduction C sequestration and avoided C loss from LUC Consumption Efficiency LU and LUC Adapted from Smith et al., 2013

12 RETHINKING LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND MITIGATION Food Security CC mitigation Production reduction Emission intensity reduction C sequestration and avoided C loss from LUC Consumption Efficiency LU and LUC 0.7 to 7.8 Gt CO 2 eq. Year -1 Smith et al., 2013

13 RETHINKING LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND MITIGATION Food Security CC mitigation Production reduction Emission intensity reduction C sequestration and avoided C loss from LUC Consumption Efficiency LU and LUC 0.7 to 7.8 Gt CO 1.1 to 1.9 Gt CO 2 eq. Year -1 2 eq. Year -1 FAO, 2013

14 RETHINKING LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND MITIGATION Food Security CC mitigation Production reduction Emission intensity reduction C sequestration and avoided C loss from LUC Consumption Efficiency LU and LUC 0.7 to 7.8 Gt CO 2 eq. Year to 1.9 Gt CO 2 eq. Year to 0.9 Gt CO 2 eq. Year -1 FAO, 2013; Henderson et al., 2015

15 RETHINKING LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND MITIGATION Food Security CC mitigation Production reduction Emission intensity reduction C sequestration and avoided C loss from LUC Consumption Efficiency LU and LUC 0.7 to 7.8 Gt CO 2 eq. Year to 1.9 Gt CO 2 eq. Year to 0.9 Gt CO 2 eq. Year -1

16 RETHINKING LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND MITIGATION Food Security CC mitigation Production reduction Emission intensity reduction C sequestration and avoided C loss from LUC Consumption Efficiency LU and LUC 0.7 to 7.8 Gt CO 2 eq. Year to 1.9 Gt CO 2 eq. Year to 0.9 Gt CO 2 eq. Year to 10.6 Gt CO 2 eq. Year -1

17 ENTRY POINTS High emission intensity Low emission intensity High incidence of food insecurity Where: Marginal lands, were production essentially relies on low productivity ruminant systems: Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Andean countries. Policy challenges: Boost productivity: - Improve access to technology and resources - Strengthen access to input and output markets - Secure access to natural resources (land and water) - Improve range management Where: Monogastric based systems of East and Southeast Asia. Policy challenges: Improve productivity of agricultural system - Land use planning for better crop-livestock integration - Regulation, incentives and capacity development for manure management. Food security generally achieved Where: Extensive beef production systems of Latin America and to some extent north America and Oceania. Policy challenges: Improve efficiency, reduce emissions related to land use and land use change - Control deforestation - Secure access to land - Compensate agriculture for the generation of offsets, i.e. pay for emission reduction and C sequestration - Foster technology transfer for intensification Where: OECD countries with important monogastric sector and cattle herd largely engaged in milk production. Policy challenges: Stabilize / reduce consumption and further reduce Ei - Include agriculture (and livestock) in nation-wide mitigation targets. - Communication campaigns addressing consumers. - Regulate menus in publicly managed catering services.

18 POLICY QUESTIONS: EFFICIENCY GAINS OR SOIL CARBON? kg CO2-eq. per kg FPCM Or? ,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Output per cow, kg FPCM per year Gerber et al., 2011 Tschakert, 2000

19 POLICY QUESTIONS: EFFICIENCY GAINS OR SOIL CARBON? Both and they go hand in hand, as greater grassland productivity generally goes with greater animal productivity. Efficiency gains tend to represent most of the mitigation potential among landless and mixed-crop livestock systems as long as agricultural land expansion is controlled. Soil C dominates the mitigation potential (80 to 90%) in extensive mixed systems and grass based / sylvo-pastoral systems.

20 POLICY QUESTIONS: MITIGATION OR BIODIVERSITY? Biodiversity and GHG emissions in dairy cattle systems MSA impact (MSA loss*m 2 /kg prot.) Grassland Mixed GHG emissions (kgco 2 -eq/kg prot.) Teillard et al., 2014

21 POLICY QUESTIONS: HOW URGENT IS METHANE MITIGATION COMPARED TO CARBON DIOXIDE? Atmospheric lifetime of GHGs 114 Years To limit peak warming, focus on long-lived gases then on shortlived gases (Allen 2015). Emissions of short-lived gases only need to be stabilised. 12 Years Millenia CH4 N2O CO2 - fossil f. CO2 - LULUC Questionable strategy as it requires rationality and high economic and policy flexibility.

22 WHAT WILL TRIGGER CHANGE?

23 MITIGATION AS A CO-BENEFIT? McKinsey & Company, 2010

24 MITIGATION AS A CO-BENEFIT? Emission levels have been influenced by: Air and water pollution measures (covered manure storage, manure injection) Efficiency gains resulting in profitability increase (ration balancing, animal health, energy use efficiency) Effect of specialization Energy policy (shift to renewable sources) Food waste reduction

25 THE ROLE OF MARKETS: MITIGATION AS A RESULT OF DEMAND CHANGE Consumers preference change, traditionally motivated by concerns about health and animal welfare, increasingly by environmental concerns. Demand constrained by purchasing power: levelling off and shifting from beef to lower Ei commodities, especially in high income countries. Corporate social responsibility, limited to few companies, generally with important public exposure

26 PUBLIC POLICIES: WHERE DO WE NEED TO FOCUS? 26 Pannel, 2008

27 < > 1000 PUBLIC POLICIES: WHERE DO WE NEED TO FOCUS? Technology transfer Access to finance Risk mitigation Safeguard against trade-offs (water, animal welfare, ) - kgco2-eq.kg meat protein-1 27 Pannel, 2008

28 PUBLIC POLICIES: WHERE DO WE NEED TO FOCUS? Research C markets / payments for emission reduction Subsidies (e.g. biogas, renewable energy production)

29 PUBLIC POLICIES: WHERE DO WE NEED TO FOCUS? Regulations (e.g. on manure management, on agricultural land expansion) Price of resources (e.g. fossil fuel) 29 Pannel, 2008

30 CROSS-CUTTING POLICY ISSUES: DISPLACEMENT OF EMISSIONS (LEAKAGE) Macdonald et al., 2015 Leakage can amount to 35% when Climate Policies Are Limited to Annex I Countries (Golub et al., 2012) 30

31 CROSS-CUTTING POLICY ISSUES: LAND USE AND LAND USE CHANGE SINCE 2009, 2/3RDS OF MAJOR SLAUGHTERHOUSES MADE COMMITMENTS Gibbs et 31 al. 2015

32 CROSS-CUTTING POLICY ISSUES: INTEGRATION 32

33 ADAPTATION FINANCE AND SECTORS OF AGRICULTURE MITIGATION FINANCE (2010, 2011, 2012) Climate focus, 2014

34 CLIMATE FINANCE HOW WELL HAVE WE DONE? Livestock didn t significantly connect to climate mitigation finance. Focus on food security and adaptation Complexity, high transaction costs (MRV) NAMA: slow development in the livestock sector Mitigation funded by some donors (e.g. GEF) but no performance based payment in place.

35 CLIMATE FINANCE - OUTLOOK Paris Agreement Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs): 54 Countries mentioned livestock, out of 80 that mention agriculture. Recognition of voluntary cooperation to implement NDCs and achieve lower emissions using Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMO) Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM). Enables international transfers of emission reductions, in addition to INDCs. Green Climate Fund Most affluent countries have promised to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020, not all from the GCF. 170 million USD disbursed in 2015 (8 projects, none on mitigation in agriculture), plan to raise to 2.5 billion USD in 2016

36 PUBLIC INVESTMENT IS PICKING UP Designing and testing integrated mitigation packages for manure emissions and enteric methane (CCAC, ~1 M USD) Climate smart livestock in Ecuador (GEF, Gov of Ecuador, 15 M USD) Climate smart livestock in Uruguay (GEF, Gov of Uruguay, ~7 M USD) Climate Smart Agriculture in Niger (WB, 110 M USD) Climate Smart Agriculture in Kenya (WB, 200 M USD, half on livestock) Sylovopastoral project in Colombia (WB, DFID, ~ 180 M USD) India National Dairy Support project (WB, 280 M USD) Livestock project in Nepal (WB, 80 M USD) 36

37 GETTING READY Narrative the key role of the livestock sector in achieving SDGs Indicators and methods CDM manure Sustainable grassland management Efficiency gains in dairy Technical packages Adapted Take trade-off into consideration Are economically viable Institutional and financial setups for inclusive participation

38 GETTING READY Narrative the key role of the livestock sector in achieving SDGs Indicators and methods CDM manure Sustainable grassland management Efficiency gains in dairy Technical packages Adapted Take trade-off into consideration Are economically viable Institutional and financial setups for inclusive participation

39 GETTING READY Narrative the key role of the livestock sector in achieving SDGs Indicators and methods CDM manure Sustainable grassland management Efficiency gains in dairy Technical packages Adapted Take trade-offs into consideration Are economically viable Institutional and financial setups for inclusive participation

40 GETTING READY Narrative the key role of the livestock sector in achieving SDGs Indicators and methods CDM manure Sustainable grassland management Efficiency gains in dairy Technical packages Adapted Take trade-off into consideration Are economically viable Schematic effect of project on household income Yearly hh income project baseline time Institutional and financial setups for inclusive participation

41 Thank you