Challenges in assessing mitigation and adaptation options for livestock production: Europe, Africa & Latin America Jean-François Soussana 1 & Peter Kuikman 2 1. INRA, France 2. Alterra Wageningen UR, Netherlands
Two Goals of Our Time 1. Achieving Food Security 1 billion hungry Food production to increase 50-70% by 2050 Adaptation to climate change is critical 2. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change - The 2 C railguard requires major emission cuts - Agriculture and land use contribute to 30% of GHG emissions......and need to be part of the solution Against a background (resource depletion, BD loss,... )
World animal production provides one third of food proteins supply 19 billion animals 18% of world GHG emissions 1.4 trillion $ 1.3 billion jobs 30% of frost-free land 38% of crop production
Increasing awareness of the environmental impacts and services Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change Livestock life cycle: 18% of GHG emissions 1/3 of anthropogenic CH 4 (enteric fermentation) 2/3 of anthropogenic N 2 O, the great majority from manure 9 % of anthropogenic CO 2 (deforestation) (FAO, 2006) Global production of meat and milk are projected to more than double by 2050
Outline 1. Setting the global scene: grasslands and climate change by 2050 2. Climate change impacts on grasslands 3. Regional hot-spots for grasslands under changing climate 4. Carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions 5. The search for practical solutions: How to adapt? How to mitigate? Concluding remarks
1. Setting the global scene
Data standardized to 1961 Relative changes in global livestock proteins supply and GHG emissions over 1961-2007 Animal food proteins Direct GHG (CO 2 eq.) Carbon intensity (CO 2 eq. per protein) Years (Ben Ari, Soussana, Havlik and Gerber. In prep)
IPCC AR5 Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) SSP3 is a fragmented world characterized by strongly growing population and important regional differences in wealth with pockets of wealth and regions of high poverty. Unmitigated emissions are high, low adaptative capacity and large number of people vulnerable to climate change. Impact on ecosystems are severe. SSP1 is the sustainable world with strong development goals that include reducing fossil fuel dependency and rapid technological changes directed towards environmentally friendly processes including yield-enhancing technologies. SSP2 is the continuation of current trends with some effort to reach development goals and reduction in resource and energy intensity. On the demand side, investments in education in not sufficient to slow rapid population growth. In SSP2 there is only an intermediate success in addressing vulnerability to climate change.
Changes in direct livestock GHG emissions for three socioeconomic storylines Livestock proteins GHG emissions SSP2. Middle of the road SSP3. Fragmentation SSP1. Sustainability SSP3. Fragmentation SSP2. Middle of the road SSP1. Sustainability (Ben Ari, Soussana et al. In prep)
2. Climate change impacts
Extreme drought events in the future Consecutive dry days Low soil moisture (IPCC, Special Report on Extreme Events, 2011)
Elevated atmospheric CO 2 concentration alleviates the impacts of a heat and drought extreme 2050 A2 scenario: warming and precipitation change. With/without summer heat and drought extreme; With/without elevated CO 2 (520 ppm) CNRS ECOTRON Average NEE per period (g CO 2 m -2 day -1 ) 4 3 2 1 0-1 -2 C sink C source Ctrl 380 Ext 380 Ctrl 520 Ext 520 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Date Total 400 300 200 100 0-100 -200 Seasonal flux (g CO2 m -2 ) Testing interactions across drivers (Roy, Cochard,, Soussana., in prep.)
Current and future vulnerability of European grassland DM production in dry years (25 th percentile) A1B SRES scenario, PaSIM model (1961-2010) (kg DM m -2 ) (2011-2060) (Lardy et al., in prep., Vital et al., Comp. Elect. Ag. 2013)
4. Carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions
Global rangeland carbon sequestration potential Maximum technical soil C sequestration potential for grassland is estimated to be approx. 0.4 GtCO 2 eq per year over a 20 year period - adjustment of grazing pressure Additional 0.2 GtCO 2 eq per year over a 20 year period - sowing legumes in some grasslands. Regarding adjustment of grazing pressure: results suggest that of total rangeland area: 37% under-utilized (baseline offtake % < optimal offtake %) 47% over-utilized (baseline offtake % > optimal offtake %) 16% optimally utilized (baseline offtake % = optimal offtake %) Optimal management increases absolute levels of forage offtake in most areas: In the 47% that is over-utilized, almost half experiences increase in level of forage offtake Overall, reduction in the level of offtake occurs in only 25% of the range area. (FAO 2013, forthcoming)
Carbon balance of EU grazing systems (1987-2007) 1.0 0.9 Cumulated relative frequency 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0-250 -200-150 -100-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 NBP (gc m -2 yr -1 ) Source Sink Source Sink (permanent grasslands) (Soussana et al., in preparation)
5. The search for practical solutions How to mitigate? How to adapt?
Tropical pasture intensification (C 4 grass, e.g.brachiaria): soil carbon and nitrogen impacts CO 2 +N N 2 O Stocking rates Carbon stocks
Evaluating pasture intensification in Brasil Stocking Rates (actual/grazing potential, %) Are there enough low productivity grasslands suitable for improvement? Stocking rate hd ha -1 (Gouvello et al., 2011)
Using grass-legume mixtures for adaptation Drought resistance of grass-legume mixtures Mixed legumes seem to be largely drought resistant Grass-legume mixtures could be a win-win option for adaptation and mitigation Legumes are favoured by the current atmospheric CO 2 rise (e.g. Teyssonneyre et al., 2002)
Designing adaptation options with farmers and stakeholders In a changing climate, we need to rethink options concerning: Grazing systems, Alternative feed sources, Plant and animal genetics and breeding, Soil and water conservation, Biodiversity and ecosystem services
Multistage adaptation process (ILRI, AnimalChange project)
Mitigation options original list 16 European farms, 11 farms in Africa and Brazil 28 mitigation options : Fertilisation rate Nitrification inhibitors Grass-legume swards Legumes in the rotation Cover crops Irrigation Restoring degraded lands Improving pastures improving roughage quality Feeding more maize and less grass Feeding more fat Additive nitrate Balancing amno acids and reduce CP Increasing housing (grass constant) Replacemnt rate cattle Cover slury stores Manure acidification Anaerobic digestion Agroforestry Genetic improvement in dairy cattle Start the feedlot fattening younger Change the grazing management Clean the pasture from unwanted species Integrate livestock and crop production Reducing age at first calving Optimizing calving dates Using enzymes (Phytase) Fire control François HOULLIER / Introduction EAAP 27 / 08 / 2013
Most popular mitigation options Overall choices cover 23 options, 14 options are picked for more than two farms Nitrification inhibitors and feeding more fat: not chosen, but might still be important Most popular choices Overall Europe Brazil and Africa Improve pastures Grass-legume swards Legumes in the rotation Improve roughage quality Anaerobic digestion Change grazing mgmt Restore degraded lands Genetic impr. (cattle) Fertilisation rate Agroforestry François HOULLIER / Introduction EAAP 27 / 08 / 2013
Concluding remarks Our understanding of the synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation in the grassland sector is still limited and requires further research; AnimalChange is taking up the challenge in interactive approach with farmers. Once we gain understanding, climate smart grassland systems that sustainably increase productivity and resilience (adaptation), reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation), and enhance food security and development could be defined and promoted. Reducing productivity gaps and increasing livestock production efficiency would contribute to mitigate climate change from less tropical deforestation and expansion of productive grasslands into savannahs.
Acknowledgements