drivers of change in crop-livestock systems and their potential impacts on agro-ecosystems services...

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


%


Annual rates of change - milk production 2000-2030

0123456789


%


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


%


Annual rates of change - poultry production

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


%


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


%


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?


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?


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!