Download Livestock`s long shadow

Broker 1 – ENVIRONMENT – pages 4, 5, 6
Text + sources – 1750 words
Maybe box 18 percent: 118 words
[author bio – PRINT only]
Joris Tielens (35) is a science journalist based in Wageningen, the Netherlands. He
writes about research related to international trade, globalization, development
cooperation and sustainability.
[author bio – WEBSITE only]
Joris Tielens (35) is a science journalist based in Wageningen, the Netherlands. He
writes about research in the social, agricultural and environmental sciences, focusing
on international trade, globalization, development cooperation and sustainability.
After obtaining a Masters degree in tropical land use at Wageningen University, he
worked in Africa, and since 1999 at Cereales, independent publisher of magazines for
Wageningen University and Research Centre.
[Website only] Keywords: livestock, agriculture, climate change, environment, meat
consumption, development
[chapeau]
Livestock and climate change
[title]
Livestock’s long shadow
[intro]
Anyone who wants to help prevent climate change would do better to give up eating
meat rather than their car, suggests a recent FAO report. Scientists agree that
livestock are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, but not all of them
endorse the proposed solution – more intensive livestock production.
[author]
By Joris Tielens □ [email]
[text]
Fossil fuels are the most significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, the most
recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated again.
But this conclusion does not take fully into account another important source of
greenhouse gases, namely livestock, say researchers at the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO).1 In a bulky report, Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental
Issues and Options, the FAO concludes that livestock contribute substantially to land
degradation, air and water pollution, and the loss of biodiversity.
The report follows on from previous assessments of the livestock sector and the
environment compiled by the FAO and organizations such as the International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Livestock Research Institute
1
(ILRI).2 What is new in this report is its estimate that livestock are responsible for
18% of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of the transport sector
worldwide.
Chain
The authors of the FAO report arrived at these conclusions by adding together all the
greenhouse gases produced throughout the entire livestock commodity chain. The
primary greenhouse gas emitted directly by livestock is methane, which is produced
during the digestion of food. Another, nitrous oxide, comes from manure, as well as
from the artificial fertilizer used in the production of feed crops such as soya and
maize. Finally, CO2 itself is released as a result of land degradation due to
overgrazing, deforestation and the conversion of grasslands for cultivation. Thus most
of these greenhouse gases come not directly from livestock themselves, but from the
production systems of which they are part.
BOX [print (if enough room) and website – 118 words)
18% of greenhouse gases
The livestock sector is responsible for emissions of three major greenhouse gases – carbon
dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. For ease of comparison, quantities of these gases are
converted to their CO2 equivalents.
 Livestock produce 2.7 billion tonnes of actual CO2, or 6.8% of all anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions.
 Methane is 21 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Some 37% of methane
emissions come from the digestive systems of ruminants, and 8% from rice paddies. The
methane produced by livestock amounts to 2.2 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent, or 5.5%
of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
 Livestock are also responsible for 65% of nitrous oxide emissions [This amounts to ??
billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent, or ??% of greenhouse gas emissions].
Overall, livestock are responsible for 18% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, a
bigger share than that of transport.
[end box]
Double demand for meat
Western consumers eat most meat and are therefore the main producers of greenhouse
gases. As a rule of thumb, as incomes rise, so does the consumption of meat. This is
also the driver of what has been called the ‘livestock revolution’3 – the dramatic
increase in the worldwide demand for meat. Between now and 2050 this demand is
likely to double due to population growth, continued rural–urban migration and, in
particular, the rising incomes in emerging economies such as China. An exception is
India, where religious rules limit the consumption of meat. In Western countries, a
small number of concerned consumers are choosing to eat less meat or organic meat,
or switching to a vegetarian diet or ‘novel protein foods’, i.e. meat substitutes based
on vegetable proteins, but the effects are only marginal.
The increasing consumption of meat in developing countries has many benefits. Not
least, a varied diet is better for human health. Also, in many countries, animals are an
integral part of the agricultural systems of small farmers. Crop waste is used as feed
for cattle, which are used to plough fields, and their manure is used as fertilizer. For
2
many people, cattle also represent a walking insurance policy, since they can be sold
when times are hard.
Nevertheless, the importance of livestock for food needs to be weighed against the
consequences for the environment, according to Akke van der Zijpp, professor of
animal production systems at Wageningen University. Based on her research into the
sustainability of animal production systems in developing countries, van der Zijpp
believes that part of the solution lies in encouraging consumption of meat from other
sorts of animals, particularly non-ruminants such as pigs and poultry because they
emit less methane. Cattle have a low food conversion efficiency: they produce fewer
kilograms of meat per kilo of fodder they consume compared with pigs and chickens.
In fact, insects produce the most animal protein per unit of food consumed.4 While
insects may be an unorthodox source of food in the West, they are widely accepted in
Africa.
Overlap
The FAO report has been criticized in a number of respects. For example, it states that
land degradation and deforestation make significant contributions to greenhouse gas
emissions in that they result in the release of stored CO2. But little research has been
done to determine the rate at which land converted to pasture actually recovers.
Further, deforestation cannot be ascribed solely to livestock production. In many
countries in South America, trees are being cut down not only to clear land to produce
soya for cattle feed, but also for wood for sale, and by land speculators.5
More fundamental criticism comes from Rik Leemans, professor of environmental
systems analysis at Wageningen University, whose research focuses on the impacts of
changes in land use on greenhouse gas emissions. He is also co-author of the
scientific section of the IPCC report 2007. The report did identify livestock as a
significant source of greenhouse gases, but focused on fossil fuels, followed by
changes in land use. The reason for this, Leemans believes, is that in any commodity
chain analysis, such as that used by the FAO, it is difficult to draw the line between
the various sources of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, emissions due to the
transport of cattle are included in the livestock sector, but it also belongs to the
transport sector. The IPCC reports, to which senior scientists from all over the world
contribute, apply much stricter scientific standards that do not allow such overlap. All
assumptions in the IPCC reports must be substantiated with references, whereas the
FAO frequently refers to the ‘grey’ literature. Leemans concludes that while the FAO
report gives a coherent overview of the influence of the livestock sector on climate, it
is not appropriate to compare it with other sectors.
What next
Meat and cattle feed are too cheap, according to the FAO, and that will have to
change, for example by reducing or eliminating agricultural subsidies to Western
farmers. Furthermore, the FAO considers that the Clean Development Mechanism of
the Kyoto Protocol can help6 by encouraging projects in which improved ‘lowcarbon’ technologies are part of intensive livestock systems, or focus on the
reforestation of degraded land.7
According to the FAO, the world’s extensive livestock systems – primarily cattle
grazing on pasture – currently account for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions,
3
while intensive systems are responsible for just one third. The report’s most
significant solution, therefore, is the intensification of the livestock sector. Through
economies of scale and efficiency improvements, businesses would be in a position to
invest more in environmentally benign technologies. As an example, the report
describes closed (‘emission-free’) cattle stalls in which the manure is collected and
processed to produce methane that can be used as a biofuel. It also suggests that
advanced technologies could be used to improve the efficiency of livestock
production systems. Genetic engineering, for example, could be used to breed animals
that can convert food more efficiently, or the composition of the feed could be
adapted so that they produce less methane.
The intensification of the livestock sector is already an economic reality in many
countries. An increasingly large part of the process of animal production is now
dominated by large-scale, intensive agri-businesses, not just in Western countries, but
also in China, Brazil and other emerging economies in the South.
ILLUSTRATION – map 13, page 337, Estimated distribution of livestock production
systems, see link (http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.pdf)
[caption] Estimated distribution of livestock production systems
The areas dominated by intensive livestock production systems (indicated in red). These are
increasing especially in China, Indonesia and Brazil.
Source: Steinfeld et al. (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow, map 13, p.337.
Rudy Rabbinge, professor at Wageningen University and chair of the scientific board
of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR),8 believes
that the FAO report is comprehensive and exhaustive, but perhaps also too gloomy.
Even more than the FAO researchers, Rabbinge sees the trend towards the
intensification of livestock production as the solution to environmental problems.
Developing countries could play leapfrog, and in building their intensive livestock
systems make greater use of the knowledge and technology that has been built up in
recent decades in countries such as the Netherlands. Rabbinge believes that such a
strategy could halve the impact of the livestock sector on the environment, and that
this would compensate for the doubling of the demand for meat.
Other researchers think that intensification is definitely not the best way forward.
Veterinarian Katrien van’t Hooft of ETC International in Leusden, the Netherlands,9
works in the field of small-scale livestock breeding in developing countries. She fears
that intensive livestock production could result in many other, perhaps even greater
environmental problems, such as the acidification and overuse of water supplies, and
the loss of biodiversity. In countries such as Brazil, large areas are already being
deforested to make available land to grow soya for cattle. Further, van’t Hooft notes
that small-scale livestock breeders – upon whom millions of people in developing
countries depend – cannot compete with intensive farming systems. She is convinced
that less large-scale cattle production and more regional production would be much
better both for the environment and for the majority of people in developing countries.
Research has shown that small-scale mixed farming systems will remain the dominant
form of agriculture in Asia and Africa in the years to come,10 says Henk Udo, senior
4
researcher within Akke van der Zijpp’s group at Wageningen. Udo describes the
intensification of livestock production as a single-dimensional solution at the expense
of the mass of smallholders. Intensification, he believes, is likely to lead not only to
many environmental problems, but also to the emergence of much greater social
problems due to the exclusion of millions of smallholder farmers.
Pavel Kabat, scientific director of the climate change group at Alterra, part of
Wageningen University and Research Centre, also does not believe that
intensification is the answer to all problems. Intensive livestock systems is certainly
booming in China, for example, but Kabat does not believe that within the foreseeable
future China will have the same technology in this new industry that is already in
place in the Netherlands.
Kabat and many other researchers, whatever their views on the most effective solution
to the problem, have concluded it is high time that climate scientists and policy
makers took livestock production more seriously and put it high on their agendas for
action.
The author wishes to thank Professor Rudy Rabbinge, ProfessorRik Leemans, Dr
Maja Slingerland and Dr Henk Udo for their comments on this article.
Sources
IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Working Group 1,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
H. Steinfeld et al. (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and
Options. LEAD/FAO. www.virtualcentre.org/en/library
5
Notes
Maybe we could add (part of) the emission trade article, about CDM, on the website, linked to
note 7 or 8 (and the text on CDM).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
H. Steinfeld, P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales and C. de Haan (2006) Livestock’s
Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. LEAD/FAO.
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.pdf
The research was conducted by the Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative,
an inter-institutional project supported by the World Bank, the European Union (EU), the
Ministère des affaires etrangères (France), the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation
and Development via the German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ), the Department for
International Development (UK), the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the
Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), the Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation (SDC), and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
The FAO’s first report on the environmental impacts of livestock production was: C. de Haan, H.
Steinfeld and H. Blackburn (1997) Livestock and the Environment: Finding a Balance (FAO,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5303e/x5303e00.htm). In subsequent years, FAO cooperated with
IFPRI and ILRI on the follow-up, C. Delgado, M. Rosegrant, H. Steinfeld, S. Ehui and C.
Courbois (1999) Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution. (IFPRI/FAO/ILRI,
http://www.ifpri.org/2020/dp/dp28.pdf). The 1999 report first used the term ‘livestock revolution’
to refer to the rapid growth in the demand for and production of animal products worldwide.
Although based on these previous reports, Livestock’s Long Shadow puts more emphasis on
climate change.
Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) (1994) Permanent Risks: Constant Data [??]
(Duurzame risico’s: een blijvend gegeven). The Hague: SDU Publisher Plantijnstraat. This report
to the government, prepared by a project group chaired by Professor R. Rabbinge, presents a
number of scenarios of permanent global food production with among other things the type of food
range playing a role [??] (pp.61 ff). http://www.wrr.nl/content.jsp?objectid=2493
B.J. Nakagaki and G.R. DeFoliart (1991) Comparison of diets for mass-rearing Acheta domesticus
as a novelty food, and comparison of food conversion efficiency with values reported in livestock.
Journal of Economic Entomology, 84(3):891-896. This research demonstrated that the house
cricket converts food to body mass much more efficiently than cattle. A cricket’s food conversion
efficiency (ECI=(weight gained/weight food ingested)*100) is 92%, i.e. a cricket gains 92 grams
body weight for each 100 grams of food consumed. For chickens it is 35-48%, for pigs 28-31%,
for sheep 18% and for cattle 13-16%. The reason for this is the shorter lifespan of insects
compared with cattle, and the fact that they are cold-blooded and so do not require energy to keep
warm.
B.P. Pacheco (2005) Populist and Capitalist Frontiers in the Amazon: Diverging Dynamics of
Agrarian and Land-use Change. PhD thesis, Clark University, Worcester, MA (unpublished).
http://www.amazonia.org.br/arquivos/174752.pdf. In this analysis of the various causes of
deforestation in relation to livestock, Pacheco compares small and large systems in Para, Brazil.
For example: ‘It is hard to imagine a frontier without speculation because of the expected benefits
from obtaining economic rents’ (p.37).
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is a policy instrument that enables industrialized
countries to gain emission credits by investing in projects that will result in reduced greenhouse
gas emissions elsewhere, often in developing countries, which can be used to offset their emissions
at home. Since the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in 2005, 547 CDM projects have been
registered (as of 13 March 2007). http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/registered.html
At present, the Kyoto Protocol only allows storage of CO2 through the reforestation of degraded
land. However, research indicates that the storage of CO2 in grassland can also make a
contribution, sometimes more than in woodlands. The Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture is
interested in this application of the CDM to grasslands. The FAO has carried out a number of
projects in Latin America in which it was clear that it is possible via the CDM to get small-scale
ranchers to convert degraded grasslands to more sustainable systems in which more CO2 could be
stored.
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is the umbrella
organization representing 15 international institutions, including IFPRI and ILRI.
http://www.cgiar.org
http://www.etc-international.org
6