Presented by Henning Steinfeld of FAO at the ILRI-World Bank High Level Consultation on the Global Livestock Agenda by 2020, Nairobi, 12- 13 March 2012

1. Global Environmental
Challenges
Henning Steinfeld, FAO
ILRI-World Bank Consultation on the Global Livestock Agenda by 2020
Nairobi, 12 - 13 March 2012

2. Livestock demand and resource
constraints
Global demand to grow by Growing scarcities and risks
70 to 80 % by 2050 • Growing scarcities - oil,
• Stagnant in rich countries land, water, energy,
• Still strong in emerging phosphorus
countries • Environmental
• Rapidly growing degradation and
anywhere else (+200 % in pollution
Africa) • Climate change

3. 150
200
250
50
100
0
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
Commodity Price Index Monthly Price
Dec-08
Apr-09
Aug-09
Dec-09
Apr-10
Commodity prices on the rise
Aug-10
Dec-10
Apr-11

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

5. HUMAN-EDIBLE PROTEIN BALANCE IN THE LIVESTOCK
PRODUCTION OF SELECTED COUNTRIES
EDIBLE PROTEIN OUTPUT/INPUT EDIBLE PROTEIN OUTPUT-INPUT
TONNES
AV. 1995-1997 AV.2005-2007 AV. 1995-1997 AV.2005-2007
Saudi Arabia 0.15 0.19 -533 731 -659 588
USA 0.48 0.53 -7 846 859 -7 650 830
Germany 0.66 0.62 -921 449 -1 183 290
China 0.75 0.95 -2 822 998 -665 276
Netherlands 1.66 1.02 322 804 18 070
Brazil 0.79 1.17 -622 177 550 402
Nepal 2.25 1.88 37 370 40 803
India 3.60 4.30 2 249 741 3 379 440
Sudan 18.22 8.75 235 868 340 895
New Zealand 8.04 10.06 460 366 638 015
Mongolia 14.72 14.60 42 987 35 858
Ethiopia 16.02 16.95 99 909 141 395
Kenya 18.08 21.16 124 513 202 803

6. Point of Departure
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
• ~ 15 % of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions (being re-calculated)
Contributions:
• 13 % of all dietary energy; 25 % of all dietary
protein
• 1.5 % of world GDP
• livelihood component to 1 billion people

7. Point of Departure
• 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
• The need for connecting actors and for joint
action

8. Why livestock?
Specific 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

9. Efficiency of Natural Resource Use
• Conversion efficiency of land, water,
nutrients, energy
• (Partially) dependant on local resource
endowment
• Huge gaps in efficiency exist within and
between countries
• Knowledge/technology to substitute for
natural resource use

10. Global non-CO2 emission intensities by
commodity (tCO2eq/t protein)
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

11. Inter-country comparison of nitrogen use
efficiency in dairy production
(Share of ingested N found in milk and meat)
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0

12. Relationship between total greenhouse gas
emissions and milk output per cow
12.00
10.00
kg CO2-eq. per kg FPCM
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
Output per cow, kg FPCM per year

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
• Prices need to reflect true scarcities of natural
resources

14. Restoring value to grasslands
Issue: neglect of extensive grazing
areas, their people and their potential
services
• improved range management can help store
soil carbon: average 0.13 to 0.81 tCO2-e ha-1 yr-1
for moist and dry grasslands, respectively
(IPCC, 2006)
• strong synergies between productivity
gains, climate change mitigation and
adaptation and other environmental services

15. Degraded grasslands
Satellite derived map using NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) data from 1981 until 2003
Methods to obtain this map: NDVI is converted to NPP (net primary productivity) and corrected by Rain-Use Efficiency (correct the
rainfall variability effect).
the trend in time (1981-2003) defines improvements (higher NDVI) or decline of the vegetation
Data: Bai et al. , 2008. FAO / UNEP LADA project

16. Soil organic carbon (somtc) difference;
[grazing level with max NPP] - [grazing level closest to LADA NPP}
Soil organic carbon (somtc) (gC m -2)
50
0
00
0
00
0
-0
5
00
-2
,0
-5
-2
50
1,
-1
<
0
0
-2
>
25
0
50
This shows the technical potential for C sequestration (summed over the
simulation period 1961-2006). Estimated by subtracting max attainable
soil C levels (i.e. that could have been achieved if grazing levels were
optimally managed) from simulated baseline soil C levels. Also,
coverage is only for rangelands, not managed pastures

17. Restoring value to grasslands
• Carbon finance and other PES can alter the production
function of grasslands, particularly in marginal areas
• Develop a “business case” for grasslands –
multiple, global and local, environmental services
• Certification methodologies are required
• Institutional mechanisms for benefit sharing need to be
developed

18. Towards zero discharge:
Recovery of nutrients and energy from animal manure
Issue: Discharge of animal manure into the
environment caused by geographic concentration of
livestock
• total amounts of nutrients in livestock excreta > synthetic
fertilizers
• 50 to 90 percent of nutrients contained in feed are excreted as
manure, 30 % of energy
• Technology exists to recover most of the energy (biogas) and
nutrients (except N)
• Policies to address spatial distribution of livestock are
required

19. Globally-900,000,000 hogs
Estimated distribution of industrialized produced pig populations. Livestock’s Long
Shadow, 2006

20. Pig Distribution in the US
Total 60,000,000 hogs
Honeyman, Duffy, 2006. Iowa State Univ

21. Pigs in North Carolina
• 9,800,000 hogs and pigs
• 63% are grown in 5 of the 100 counties of the state
• 45% are in 2 of the 100 counties of the state and are on
the coastal plain

22. Towards zero discharge
• Spatial policies (zoning) addressing land-
livestock balances - create opportunities
for nutrient recycling
• Emission standards (voluntary, non-
voluntary)
• Waste management technology transfer
and adaptation
• Incentive policies (incl. CDM in
developing countries)

23. The Global Agenda of Action
in Support of Sustainable
Livestock Sector Development
Programme of action and
structure

24. 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

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

26. Closing the natural resource use
efficiency gap
What has changed: The natural resource constraint is increasingly
perceived by stakeholders
Govern- Private Civil Science Inter
Actions ments Sector Society Govern
Org. 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

27. Restoring value to grasslands
What has changed: Payment for Environmental Services and climate change
finance can reverse the neglect of grasslands and enhance productivity and
incomes

28. Restoring value to grasslands
What has changed: Payment for Environmental Services and climate change
finance can reverse the neglect of grasslands and enhance productivity and
incomes
Actions Govern- Private Civil Science Inter
ments Sector Society Govern
Org. mental
Org.
Assessing and targeting the potential for carbon
sequestration and synergies with food security
and other env. services
Developing Monitoring Reporting and
Verification methodologies
Piloting institutional and technical approaches
Develop intergovernmental support for
grasslands, e.g. within UNFCCC
Expected result: Pastoralist adopt practices that provide environmental
services and improve food security

29. Recovery of nutrient and energy
from animal manure
What has changed: Discharge of animal manure is less and less accepted

30. Recovery of nutrient and energy
from animal manure
What has changed: Discharge of animal manure is less and less accepted
Actions Govern- Private Civil Science Inter
ments Sector Society Govern
Org. mental
Org.
Analyze the clustering trend and assess the
constraints to the adoption of good manure
management practices
Develop regional networks that can provide
assistance to policy makers
Create opportunities for nutrient recycling and
energy recovery
Foster the development of PPPs and other
models to foster technology transfer and
farmers’ participation
Expected result: Increased nutrient and energy recovery from manure,
resulting in reduced pollution

31. The Agenda’s stakeholders
• Governments
• Private sector (branch organizations)
• CSOs
• Research and academia
• Intergovernmental organizations (global, regional)
• Smallholders/pastoralists not represented at global level
(will be at operational level)

32. Implementation entities
• Platform of all members
• Advisory Group, composed of Focus Area Groups and
Global Partners
• Secretariat
• Centers of excellence and ad hoc expert groups
• Regional hubs, closer to stakeholders, along focus areas

33. What’s new?
• The thematic focus
– Offers strong synergies between economic gains and
environmental impact reduction
• The action-orientation (change in practice)
– Built ona sense of urgency to put what we know into practice
• Value added of the multi-stakeholder engagement
– Convergence of interests and action will translate into change of
practices

34. Implications for the social agenda
• Climate change will hit resource-poor
grazers more than any other group
• Resource constraint hits the “middle ground”
– less efficient, small scale, commercial
production
• Carbon finance could help transition:
– Pastoralists to landscape managers
– Intensification, particularly of dairy (methane)
• “Zero discharge” may increase production
cost of large-scale industrial production

35. Implications for Health Agenda
• Climate change will change incidence and
severity of animal diseases (particularly
vector-borne)
• Disease constraints to raising efficiency
need to be lifted
• “zero discharge” will alleviate public
health challenges associated with
pollution

36. …towards a new narrative
PG Domain No growth Growth Problems of
growth
Environment Restore grasslands/ Efficiency/ sustainable Avoid pollution
marginal lands intensification
Social Protection of Income and Sustained prosperity
livelihoods employment
Nutrition Avoid starvation Enrich diets Avoid unhealthy diets
Health Keep animals alive/ Remove constraints to Safe and healthy food,
keep production production, Functional trade
systems functional productivity, trade

37. Thank you
henning.steinfeld@fao.org
www.livestockdialogue.ord