Livestock interventions for building climate change resilience in the drylands TCI Investment Days December 2014 Pierre Gerber, Anne Mottet, Giulia Conchedda

Coordinator: World Bank 1.Characterize current and future challenges to reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience in drylands 2.Identify main interventions to enhance resilience, estimate their costs, and assess their effectiveness 3.Provide an evidence-based framework to improve decision making on alternative options to enhance resilience 4.Promote sharing of regional and global knowledge on resilient development in drylands Complementarity with governments and partners’ current engagements especially in in the Sahel and the Horn of Africa The economics of resilience in the African Drylands

Coordinator: Cees de Haan, WB Action Contre la Faim, CIRAD, FAO, IFPRI and ILRI Modelling likely trends of livestock systems in the drylands of Sub- Saharan Africa a)What are the likely impact of climate change on feed availability and animal productivity? b)How to improve the resilience of livestock systems?  assess the potential of a set of technical interventions a)What are the opportunities for the drylands to contribute to projected increase in demand for animal products? Livestock background report to the Flagship report on the economics of resilience

Biogenerator Total and accessible biomass GLEAM Feed & system modules MMAGE Requirement/ animal categoryv Conforti projections & scenarios (interventions & droughts) GLEAM Crop production & crop residues (GAEZ) 2000 adjusted to Conforti projections for FEED AVAILABILITY ANIMAL REQUIREMENTS Meat & Milk Supply, demand & prices FUTURE Gridded Livestock of the World BAU: Scenarios: ≠ sequence At grazing shed level, full mobility GLEAM fills up the requirements: -First by-products (if system and cohort allow) -Then crops residues -Then leaves from non agricultural biomass up to a maximum % -Then other natural vegetation (grass) - Feed balances - Feed rations & digestibility - GHG emissions At pixel level, zero mobility - Feed “balances” and maps - TLU not meeting requirements IMPACT Financial and economic rates of return ECORUM

From biomass to feed

No Early offtakeEarly offtake of males No Health intervention Health intervention No Health intervention Health intervention No climate effectX Baseline Severe droughtXXXX Mild droughtXX Scenarios

Balances computed at pixel level (WA)

Balances computed at pixel level (WA

Summary of the effects of droughts and interventions Baseline Mild drought Severe drought Mild drought + health Severe drought + health Severe drought + health + early off- take males West Africa arid (AI 0.03 – 0.2) TLU (mill.) TLU in deficit area (%)20.2%22.9%22.5%23.5%23.8%24.3% West Africa semi-arid (AI 0.2 – 0.5) TLU (mill.) TLU in deficit area (%)6.6%9.3%11.0%13.1%16.2%13.0% East Africa arid (AI 0.03 – 0.2) TLU (mill.) TLU in deficit area (%)18.9%20.9%25.3%22.1%26.9%28.3% East Africa semi-arid (AI 0.2 – 0.5) TLU (mill.) TLU in deficit area (%)10.4%10.0%12.2%10.7%12.5%10.9%

Define a new functional geographical unit 10 Drylands defined based on the Aridity Index, which is consistent with UNCCD practice Particular emphasis is given to the vulnerable areas in West and East Africa

Males early offtake

Relative merits of policies to reduce feed deficit 12 Feed deficit index on average for in the drylands of West and East Africa, compared to the past sequence and assuming full animal and feed mobility within grazing sheds

Summary of average annual outputs ScenariosProduction Productivity (animals sold per 1000 TLU) Dry matter requirement drylands Total meat production drylands Total meat production incl. fattened males Baseline (Conforti, 2011)37 million TLU25%428 million t4.4 Milion tcw4.4 milion tcw Drought-14%-2%-26%-14% Drought + health1%6%-4%1% Drought + male -26% (+7.7 M TLU)13% -27% (+6.8 Mt)-26%5% Drought + health + male -12% (+9.3 M TLU)25% -21% (+7.1 Mt)-12%20% Mild drought-8%-3%-4%-8% Mild drought + health7%4%3%7%

At “grazing shed” level: enough resources to support livestock sector growth but local shortages  animal mobility or feed transportation Baseline : use 2.5 times more available (but not necessarily accessible) resources. In some scenarios, this may go up to 3.5 times. This calls for interventions in the areas of animal mobility (corridors, security, border regulations, health, tenure, ….) and feed management (storage, processing, transport, …) Animal health interventions need to be coupled with interventions that increase access to feed. Otherwise, full benefits may not be achieved and conflicts over resources may increase. Maps produced by this assessment can support targeting intervention for increased feed accessibility Livelihoods: how many people will the sector support in the future? Conclusion