All-Party Parliamentary Group on Agroecology London, 25 February 2015 TACKLING SUSTAINABILITY

1. All-Party Parliamentary Group on Agroecology London, 25 February 2015 TACKLING SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH LOW EXTERNAL INPUT LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS Nadia El-Hage Scialabba Senior Natural Resources Officer Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

2. INTRODUCTION

3. A resource-hungry food system • World population growth to 9.7 billion in 2050, and growing incomes, pose unprecedented challenges to food systems • Compared to 2010, projected demand for animal-source foods will substantially increase in 2050: 73% for meat and 58% for milk • Livestock supply chains are important contributors to ecological degradation (14.5% of GHG) but alternatives are within reach • Growth in food production must be accommodated within the growing scarcity of natural resources and Planetary boundaries

4. Study objectives • How can the trade-offs between providing food for the 2050 population and environmental impacts be minimized? • Can environmentally-friendly approaches, such as organic agriculture (not necessarily certified), meet global food demand? • What are the policy and research requirements for effective livestock extensification strategies? • What are the implications on human consumption patterns?

5. Introducing SOL-m • SOL-m: “Sustainability and Organic Livestock modeling” • A mass flow model for understanding the physical inter-dependencies and the feasibility of fundamental changes in the food system (from production to consumption) • Modeling commissioned by FAO to the Swiss Institute for Organic Farming Research (2011-2014) – to be published soon • SOL-m was already used for quantitative modeling of global food wastage footprint and costs/benefits of mitigation options

6. SOL-m components

7. SOL-m modelling approach • General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) • FAOSTAT: Food Balance Sheets, Tradestat, Fertistat, Aquastat, GHG Emissions Database • Scientific literature: LCAs, Ecoinvent, Erb 2007, Seufert 2012, etc. • 229 countries, 180 crops, 35 livestock activities • Ceteris paribus: biofuel, aquaculture, technological progress

8. SOL-m scenarios • Baseline (2005-9): current land use (arable crops, permanent crops, grassland), livestock numbers/herd structures, feeding rations, commodity trade, prices, utilization of commodities (food, feed, seed, waste, other), population, nutrition • Reference scenario (FAO 2012 projections for 2050): population growth, regional dietary changes, yield potential, cropping intensity, trade patterns • Conversion to organic management by 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% in 2050 • management of croplands and grasslands according to organic standards • 20% increase of legumes share in crop rotations • Yield gap (average): -8% (Badgley, 2007) to -25% (Seufert, 2012) • Reduction of concentrate use in livestock feed by 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100% in 2050 • Reduction of food loss and waste 0, 25 and 50 in 2050 Looking for the optimal scenario

9. MODELING RESULTS

10. Overview • Business-as-usual: BAU is not an option, as many environmental impacts will rise by: non-renewable energy use, GHG emissions, water use, pesticides use, N-surplus, P-surplus (hence, eutrophication) • If climate change and natural limitations on yields are considered, even land areas would have to increase drastically to meet forecasted demand • Performance of low-input production systems: • Can produce sufficient food (3028 kcal/cap/day) in 2050 • Different outcomes for crop/animal-based calories and proteins ratio • Positive indicators: GWP, N, P, energy, water, toxicity potential • One negative indicator for organic (16-33%): land occupation

11. Organic agriculture scenarios Assuming a high yield gap (25%), global conversion to organic management in 2050 could provide sufficient food as follows: • With current organic standards, up to 20% conversion is possible without additional lands (360% positive environmental indicators) • Without considering climate impact, 100% organic conversion would require a zero concentrate use for livestock • Under medium climate impact, organic conversion requires 0% concentrates use, plus 50% reduction of food loss and waste Win-win/realistic scenario: 60% organic conversion + 50% less concentrate feed + 25% less food wastage

12. Low-input livestock scenarios • Food-not feed strategy: reduction of food-competing livestock feed, no further conversion of permanent grasslands, increased legume production • When fodder crops and human-edible livestock feed are reduced to 0%, all environmental impacts are mitigated, while land use competition is alleviated and more ecosystem services are provided • Extensification strategies can produce 3028 kcal/cap/day but with global consumption of livestock products reduced by 3-4 While ruminants can be grassfed monogastrics are most affected

13. THE FEED ISSUE

14. GHG emissions from livestock systems 45% of GHG emissions in global livestock supply chains come from feed production and processing: Stern recommended carbon-pricing of feed GHG in 2007! Source: FAO, 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock

15. Cereal feed and livestock production 36% of world cereal consumption goes to feed: developing countries account 42% of world total and will increase to 56% in 2050 Source: FAO, 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050

16. Agriculture land use worldwide Grasslands and pastures reduce inefficient use of arable lands Ruminants use resources not otherwise usable for food production Grasslands maintain carbon stocks

17. Food conversion efficiency Food provision via animals shows large conversion losses Mean based on data from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Thailand, Bhutan and Mongolia Source: FAO, 2014. Dairy Asia: Towards Sustainability

18. Feed sources • Grassfed ruminants will require a better knowledge of the nutritional value of different type of grasslands for different species • Feed supply for monogastrics will require novel technologies to produce feed from agricultural residues, agro-industrial by-products (e.g. Whey, starch waste, oil seed cakes, distillers grains) and food waste (e.g. Cassava waste) • Feed sources assessments are needed to estimate national/local: • Chemical composition and nutritional value of feed ingredients • Nutrient balance (identifying surplus and deficits) • Optimizing use of available feeds • Forecasting feed resources in time and space • Generating optimum livestock-feed relationship • Balancing trade-offs in biomass use • Export/import of feed ingredients and prices

19. THE FOOD WASTAGE ISSUE

20. Footprint of food wastage (1.3 Gt/year) Carbon Water 305 km3/year = 3 times lake Geneva 3.3 Gt CO2eq/year = 3rd largest emitter, if food wastage was a country Land Biodiversity 1.5 billion ha used to grow food that is wasted = 30% of agricultural land 66% of endangered/vulnerable species threatened by food production CO2 Source: FAO, 2013. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources

21. Societal costs of food wastage Carbon Water Land Biodiv. USD 196 billion USD 395 billion Natural resources degradation USD 32 billion USD 73 billion USD 333 billion Livelihoods (due to water erosion) USD 396 billion Conflicts (due to water erosion) USD 153 billion Health (due to pesticides) CO2 Subsidies (OECD countries) USD 119 billion Market price USD 936 billion

22. Full costs of food wastage USD 1.578 trillion Socio-environmental costs (under-estimate) USD 1 055 billion Economic costs (2012) Source: FAO, 2014. Food Wastage Footprint: Full-Cost Accounting Total: USD 2.625 trillion

23. CONCLUSIONS

24. Opportunities for change • There are plausible alternatives to diet-environment-health trilemma • Up-scaling organic agriculture globally is technically feasible but organic standards must be strengthened on animal feed • Existing standards on grass-fed (USA) or pasture-fed (NZ, UK) already implement food-not-feed strategies • No production strategy alone can succeed without a transition to sustainable food systems

25. Caviats to consider • 2050 forecasts of average food needs include status quo trend of unsustainable diets (chronic NCDs) and high food loss and waste • The inappropriate use of antibiotics in animal feed contributes to antimicrobial resistance in humans (WHO, 2014) • Grass-fed meat and dairy are reported to have superior fatty acids and vitamin content (Daley et al, 2010) • Organic crops are reported to have more anti-oxidants (18-69%) and less toxic heavy metals and nitrogen (British Journal of Nutrition)

26. Priority actions • Climate-related decision-making should look beyond GHG/kg indicators and consider optimal productivity of the whole food system • Consumers should consider potential health benefits of decreased animal-sourced foods in diets, while wasting less food • Investments are urgently needed for livestock feeding strategies based on recycling agricultural by-products • The ethic of not feeding animals human-edible crops should become a priority for all: removing subsidies on animal feed would help

27. Sustainable production and consumption Efficiency: improved pratices Providing food for the world population while safeguarding the Planet resources can only be achieved with complimentary changes throughout the global food system Consistency: food system approach Sufficiency: demand restraint Rockström et al., 2009. Planetary Boundaries. Nature 461

28. Thanks www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/sustainability-and-livestock