drivers of change in crop-livestock systems and their potential impacts on agro-ecosystems services...
Post on 11-Nov-2014
1.336 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Drivers of change in crop-livestock systems and their potential impacts on
agro-ecosystems services and human
well-being to 2030
M. Herrero, P.K. Thornton, A. Notenbaert, S. Msangi, S. Wood, R. Kruska, J. Dixon,
D. Bossio, J. van de Steeg, H. A. Freeman, X. Li, C. Sere, J. McDermott
M. Peters and P. Parthasarathy Rao
Nairobi Forum Presentation21 September 2010 | ILRI, Nairobi
Structure of the presentation
Background The problem Some trends The framework Methods Results Next steps
What is the problem?
Population to reach almost 9 billion over the next quarter of a century
Getting richer and urbanised Increased demands for livestock products Lots of changes occurring: climate, economics,
technology, resource availability Systems are changing……but
…. can the poor benefit from these changes?
…. can we change without compromising food security, ecosystems services or livelihoods?
W. Africa 1966 – pastoral system 2004 – crop-livestock system
An example of the changing nature of livestock systems
Courtesy of B. Gerard
Some trends – the drivers
Human population
UNEP 2007
Revised demand for livestock products to 2050
Rosegrant et al 2009
Annual per capita consumption
Total consumption
year Meat (kg) Milk (kg) Meat (Mt) Milk (Mt)
Developing 20022050
2844
4478
137326
222585
Developed 20022050
7894
202216
102126
265295
Cereal yields
Increasing….except in Sub-Saharan Africa
World Bank 2007
Area under cultivation and rates of growth in cereal yields
World Bank 2007
Poultry and chickens have been increasing the efficiency of conversion of grain to meat
Steinfeld et al. 2006
More grains are fed to livestock
Delgado et al 2003
Dependence on green and blue water 2000
80% of agricultural production comes from rainfed areas, significant regional variations exist – CA 2007
… and then there’s climate change
Thornton et al 2006
When it was all holding together…
Wood et al. 2005
…it might still do…but we need to target appropriate investments and ‘do the right thing’
The right thing?
Sustainable intensification!
Framework & Methods
Framework of the study (adapted from MEA 2005)global
local
regional
actions
Indirect Drivers
demographic (urbanisation/migration) economic processes (consumption,
production, markets, trade)science and technology
cultural, social, political, institutional
Pressures
land useresource extraction
biomass competitionuse of external inputs
emissionsbiodiversity
Agro-ecosystems services
food production (crops and livestock)fibers, oils, minerals
biomass / energyecosystems services (water, biodiversity, air quality, etc)
environmental regulation
human well-being
food securitypoverty
incomes and employmenthuman health
resilience and vulnerabilityincome diversification
social and gender equality
context specific options / solutionstechnologies, policies and institutions
trends scenarios
impacts
impacts
responses
Direct Drivers
Volume and pattern of demandChanges in local land use and cover
Consumption patternsWater availability
Technology adaptation and useClimate change
Development context and systems diversity
actions
actions
The IMPACT model
Agricultural sector model developed at IFPRI (Rosegrant et al 2005) that represents a partial equilibrium in food.
Spatially disaggregated in food production units by region by continent. It is specified as a set of country-level demand and supply equations.
Country-level models are linked to the rest of the world through trade.
It also links agricultural production to water availability and use and also estimates number of malnourished children
IMPACT’s driving variables are: population growth, income growth, agricultural trade, yields of crops and livestock, shifts in diets of humans.
Some output variables include: crop area, crop and livestock production, commodity prices, food demand, feed demand, other demand, net trade and food nutritional security.
General methodology
IFPRI IMPACT model
Children malnutritionFood consumption
Feed demandLivestock numbers
Livestock productionCrop production, areas
World prices
Food production units
Sere and SteinfeldFarming systems classification
11 systems
Simplification to 4 systems:Agro-pastoral
Mixed extensiveMixed intensive
others
Market access layersLGP
Re-sampling and dis-agreggationby system
Production systems and their interactions
Herrero et al 2010
Scenarios
Reference scenario: ‘business as usual’
Biofuels scenario (higher demand) Irrigation expansion scenario Low meat demand
Production Systems
Agro-pastoral Low length of growing period and low pop.
density Mixed intensive
Irrigation and/or, good market access, high population density, some services, high potential
Mixed extensive Length of growing period of less than 180
days, but enough for cropping, low population density, poor or average market access
Other / Industrial Forest-based, others
Main observations
Revisiting the importance of mixed systems as providers of agro-ecosystems services and human well-being in the developing World
Simplified classification of production systems
Globally, most people are (and will be) in mixed crop – livestock systems
area ( million km2)
35.2
14
16.9
9.8
agro-pastoral
mixed extensive
mixed intensive
other
population (millions)
295.1
1099.2
2674
480.3
Globally, most people are (and will be) in mixed crop – livestock systems
annual rate of human population growth (%/yr)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
agro-pastoral mixed extensive mixed intensive other
Based on the UN medium variant projection
Food production
Cereals Production
4%14%
35%
2%
45%
AgroPastoral
Mixed Extensive
Mixed Intensive
Other
Developed countries
Mixed systems produce almost 50% of the cereals of the World
Most production coming from intensive systems (irrigation, high potential, relatively good market access)
Mixed systems in the developing World produce the food of the poor
Maize Production3%
13%
28%
2%
54%
Millet Production
26%
48%
19%
1% 6%
AgroPastoral
Mixed Extensive
Mixed Intensive
Other
Developed countries
Rice Production3%
20%
66%
5%6%
Sorghum Production3%
44%
20%
2%
31%
7%
13%
17%
4%
59%
Mixed systems produce significant amounts of milk and meat
28%
18%
21%
5%
28%
AgroPastoral
Mixed Extensive
Mixed Intensive
Other
Developed countries
9%
15%
19%
7%
50%
beef milk lamb
Developed countries dominate global milk production, significant exports…but…Mixed systems produce 65% beef, 75% milk and 55% of lamb in the developing World
Mixed intensive systems in the developing World
are under significant pressures
2.5 billion people…3.4 by 2030, predominantly in Asia
150 million cattle increasing to almost 200 million by 2030
Most pigs and significant numbers of poultry, increasing by 30-40% to 2030
Crop yields stagnating: wheat, rice Others increasing: maize (East Asia) All in the same land!
Severe water constraints in some places Soil fertility problems in others
Mixed intensive systems in the developing World
are under significant pressures (2)
Population density*(people/km2) 2000 2030
agro-pastoral 8 14
mixed extensive 79 112
mixed intensive 273 371
other 28 41
* Baseline scenario
Rates of cereal production diminishing in places due to water and other constraints
Annual changes in Cereal Production2000 - 2030
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
CSA EA SA SEA SSA WANA Total
%
AgroPastoral Mixed Extensive Mixed Intensive Other Developed countries
Rates of growth of mixed intensive similar to developed countriesCatching up
Rates lower than those of population growth
…but rates of production of animal products are increasing at significantly faster rates….
Annual rates of change - beef production 2000-2030
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CSA EA SA SEA SSA WANA Total
%
AgroPastoral Mixed Extensive Mixed Intensive Other Developed countries
Annual rates of change - milk production 2000-2030
0123456789
CSA EA SA SEA SSA WANA Total
%
AgroPastoral Mixed Extensive Mixed Intensive Other Developed countries
Increased consumptionIncreased incomes
…but increased pressure on resources (land, feeds, etc)
Some industrialisation….
…but rates of production of animal products are increasing at significantly faster rates….(2)
Increased consumptionIncreased incomes
…but increased pressure on grains…increase in prices?
Annual rates of change - pork production
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
CSA EA SA SEA SSA WANA Total
%
AgroPastoral Mixed Extensive Mixed Intensive Other Developed countries
Annual rates of change - poultry production
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
CSA EA SA SEA SSA WANA Total
%
AgroPastoral Mixed Extensive Mixed Intensive Other Developed countries
The world will require 1 billion tonnes of additional cereal grains to 2050 to meet food and feed demands (IAASTD 2009)
Grains1048 million tonnes
more to 2050
humanconsumption
458 million MT
Livestock430 million MT
Monogastrics mostly
biofuels160 million MT
Prices of food-feed crops are likely to increase at faster rates than the prices of livestock products (IAASTD 2008)
grains
livestockproducts
humanconsumption
livestock
energy
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
beefporklamb
poultryeggsmilkrice
wheatmaize
oil grainssoybeans
potatossweet potatos
cassavasugar cane
milletsorghumchickpea
pigeon peagroundnut
% change from 2000
reference 2030
biofuels 2030
Monogastrics mostly
In intensive systems, feed shortages for ruminants might increase demand for cereals further. If these end up being fed on grains…this might lead to reduce food consumption of poor people further
grains
livestockproducts
humanconsumption
livestock
energy
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
beefporklamb
poultryeggsmilkrice
wheatmaize
oil grainssoybeans
potatossweet potatos
cassavasugar cane
milletsorghumchickpea
pigeon peagroundnut
% change from 2000
reference 2030
biofuels 2030
Monogastrics mostly+ ruminants
Further increases?
‘Moving megajoules’: fodder markets are likely to expand in areas of feed deficits as demand for milk and meat increases
India quotes from M Blummel
‘Stovers transported morethan 400 km to be sold’
‘Price has doubled in 5 years, now 1/3 (2/3) of grain value of sorghum’
‘Farmers paying for stoverquality’
Herrero et al. in prep
The highest rates of malnutrition relative to population numbers are in agro-pastoral systems followed by the mixed intensive systems
… but significant regional variability exists
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
agro-pastoral mixed extensive mixed intensive
% m
aln
ou
ris
he
d c
hil
dre
n (
as
% o
f to
tal
po
p)
2000.0
ref 2030
biofuels 2030
irrig 2030
Expansion of biofuels will likely reduce household food consumption in most systems
… but significant regional variability exists
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
CSA EA SA SEA SSA WANA Others
region
kcal
per
cap
ita
2000
ref 2030
biofuels 2030
irrigation exp 2030
low meat 2030
Some systems may need to de-intensify or stop growing to ensure the sustainability of agro-ecosystems
Creation of incentives to protect the environment required
Equitable, ‘smart’ schemes for payments for environmental services
Need significant efficiency gains (in crops, in livestock, in other sectors)
Need to understand better intensification thresholds
Important productivity gains could be made in the more extensive mixed rainfed areas
Less pressure on the land Population density*(people/km2) 2000 2030
agro-pastoral 8 14
mixed extensive 79 112
mixed intensive 273 371
other 28 41
Yield gaps still large
Public investment required to reduce transaction costs, increase service provision and improve risk management
These systems could turn in ‘providers’ of agro-ecosystems services to other systems (i.e. fodder for the mixed intensive systems)
YIELD GAPS FOR SELECTED COMMODITIES
Crop Location Mimimum yield on farmers field (t/ha)
Maximum Attainable Yield at experimental
field (t/ha)*
%
Millet
Sudan Savanna, Nigeria(3) 0.35 2 17.5
Matopo, Zimbabwe(2) 0.22 1.69 13
Sorghum
Sudan Savanna, Nigeria(3) 0.5 3.9 12.8
Matopo, Zimbabwe(2) 0.31 1.83 16.9
Cowpea
Northern Guinea Savanna(3) 0.05 2.2 2.3
Sudan Savanna, Nigeria(3) 0.05 2.5 2
Dairy(5)
Kenya x y z
Sources: (1) IAC - (2) ICRISAT - (3) IITA - (4) IFPRI - (5) xxx
Freeman et al 2007
Crop production in mixed extensive systems growing at faster rates than in intensive ones
Annual changes in Cereal Production2000 - 2030
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
CSA EA SA SEA SSA WANA Total
%
AgroPastoral Mixed Extensive Mixed Intensive Other Developed countries
Catching up
Mixed extensive growing at fastest rates
Some Conclusions
Need to change investment paradigm and also start investing in the systems of the future (not only in the what were the high potential areas)
Infrastructure and market development essential
Technology could play a key role but we need investment in provision of services
Some Conclusions (2)
Sustainable intensification: essential to bridge yield gaps
Need to think of also bridging efficiency gaps (more crop per drop, etc), especially in resource-constrianed systems
Is there a role for payments for ecosystems services as a diversification option for smallholders
Contrasting agricultural development paradigms
Land consolidation vs growth of the smallholder sector Large commercial farms pro-efficiency (foreign
capital investment) Smallholder development possibly more pro-
poor Smallholders: low opportunity cost of labour Do diversified smallholder farms promote more
biodiversity and better management of ecosystems services?
Contrasting agricultural development paradigms
Land consolidation vs growth of the smallholder sector
More diversified systems = Risk management If smallholders where to disappear in places,
are there sectors that can absorb the idling population?
Smallholder sector largely fragmented: who are the actors required for their fast development?
Contrasting agricultural development paradigms
How much land is available for agricultural expansion? Widely different estimates in the literature
(300 – 800 million hectares) What types of land are suitable? Rangeland vs
forest? Opportunity costs? What kinds of incentives will be required to
develop them? Can their development be pro-poor? What is the magnitude of the investment
required?
Thank you!
top related