1. Greenhouse gas emissions along livestock supply chains and options for mitigation GAA, 4 th MSP meeting Ottawa, 18 October 2013 Pierre Gerber, Senior Policy Officer, FAO-AGA 1

2. FAO-AGAs 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

4. Preparation team Jeroen Dijkman Benjamin Henderson Alexander Hristov (PSU) Michael MacLeod (SRUC) Harinder Makkar Anne Mottet Carolyn Opio Henning Steinfeld Theun Vellinga (WUR)... 4

5. 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

6. 6

7. 7 Total calculated emissions: 7.1 Gt CO 2 -eq, 14.5% of anthropogenic emissions GHG emissions from global livestock supply chains

8. Global feed ration

9. Estimated global emission intensities (Ei) kg CO 2 -eq per kg protein 9

10. GHG emissions are losses CH 4 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 N 2 O losses are N losses from manure and fertilizers Manure N 2 O emissions (direct and indirect) from manure application on crops and application on pasture: 3.2 Mt of N CO 2 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

11. 11

12. Mitigation potential (i) Approach: 1.Statistical analysis of emission intensity gaps

13. Distribution of intensive broiler supply chains according to their emission intensity in temperate zones of East and Southeast Asia 13 20 to 30% mitigation effect if producers in a given region, farming system and agro-ecological zone would apply the production practices of the 10 th to 25 th quantiles with lowest emission intensity.

14. Mitigation potential (iii) Approach: 1.Statistical analysis of emission intensity gaps 2.Modeling of potential soil C sequestration in collaboration with Colorado State University

15. 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).

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 1.The livestock sector plays an important role in climate change. GHG emissions are estimated at 7.1 GtCO 2 -eq per year, about 14.5 percent of all human- induced emissions. 2.The sectors 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

23. 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