Improving food security and livelihoods while addressing enteric methane emissions

1. Improving food security and livelihoods whileaddressing enteric methane emissions

2. Livestock – compelling figures But also water resources, biodiversity, human health …

3. An aspirational goal… Top line: Estimated business-as-usual emissions from agriculture | Bottom line: Maximum amount of emissions from agriculture in a 2°C Source: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13340

4. Consider the whole farm system …. • Regionally specific – ‘fit for purpose’ • Low cost/no cost – ‘economically viable’ • Readily available – ‘limited barriers to adoption’ • Use the emissions intensity metric – enabling development without worrying about absolute emissions Most important…… Provide a triple win for food security, rural livelihoods and livestock productivity Packages of measures. No single solution • The project is funded by…… For livestock to play its part to achieve these goals we need solutions that:

5. Regional Workshops to determine the problem THE PROJECT…… Wide stakeholder engagement Mobilise networks of scientists to collect data & identify regionally specific measures • Peer review & modelling of measures using GLEAM (life-cycle assessment model) Feedback to countries

7. OUTCOMES: URUGUAY EXAMPLE • Practices available which have potential to reduce emission intensity by 23% - 47% of the baseline emissions. • Aligns with Uruguay’s INDC commitment: reduction of emission intensity of beef by 33% • Strong synergies with productivity gains and profitability • BUT low rate of adoption…… Why? • NEED to quantify other benefits: carbon sequestration, increased grassland productivity, biodiversity, increased resilience • TESTING on the ground required: to better understand barriers to uptake, costs of implementation, • agro-technologies are location specific, technology targeting in terms of ecological conditions, socio-economic condition of farmers

8. KENYA: POTENTIAL FOR DAIRY DEVELOPMENT TO CONTRIBUTE TO ACHIEVING 220 KG TARGET THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY Strong synergies with productivity gains, food security, profitability – mitigation as a co-benefit Potential to reduce emissions intensity ranges from 11%-49% of the baseline emissions - depending on the intervention adopted Business as usual emissions in absence of action % reduction achievable compared to baseline emissions in 2030: -24% Herd size: 8.6 million dairy cattle NEED to be tailored to specific farming systems, constraints and opportunities NEED to better understand the economics of mitigation and barriers NEED to be tested on the ground DATA has been used to underpin development of the dairy NAMA Range GHG emissions if identified national policy actions are implemented % reduction achievable compared to baseline emissions in 2030: - 59% Herd size: 4.5 million dairy cattle (current herd size) Constraints: feed, land, climate, markets, etc.

9. OTHER OUTCOMES….. • SRI LANKA: • New internal collaborations initiated • Data collated centrally for the first time • Data to be used in the 3rd National Communication Report - information to UNFCCC on emissions and removals of greenhouse gases • Project to test interventions ON FARM • Tier 2 inventory to be initiated • OTHER RESULTS following on from the project: • Ethiopia – World Bank project, NZ Dairy Development project, Bill and Melinda Gates foundation engagement • Bangladesh – World Bank project on carbon • Argentina – Stakeholder discussions to explore links between science & policy

10. CAPTURING IMPROVEMENTS IN PRODUCTIVITY SIMPLE: If you can’t measure it, you can’t benefit from any improvements in productivity • Assumes all animals are the same. • Assumes fixed emissions from all animals • SO no ability to measure changes in emissions intensity over time from improved production A lot of countries still use Tier 1 inventory.

11. CAPTURING IMPROVEMENTS IN PRODUCTIVITY Allows for countries to: a. reduce absolute GHG emissions without compromising food security, b. use productivity gains to increase food production but with a lower GHG footprint. • Post Paris (2015), significant demand for assistance with GHG inventories to assist with INDCs and NAMAs, NAPS etc. • Many tools and organizations available to help: • GLEAM-i tool (FAO) • GRA /CCAFS support for advanced GHG inventories A Tier 2 inventory uses information on the animal’s gross energy or dry matter intake to estimate their actual emissions.