Livestock and environment: The reverse of the story

Florencia RicardCONICET / UNLPam / GPPS

Which is the environmental reality that we face?

1965

Changes in the surface temperature of the Earth between 1884 and 2016. Areas in blue: colder than average. Areas in red: warmer than average. Source: NASA/GISS - NASA Scientific Visualization Studio

19751985199520052015

Dev

iati

on

of

aver

age

tem

per

atu

re o

f th

e p

lan

et

fro

m p

re-i

nd

ust

rial

tim

es (

°C

)

Increase in the average temperature of the planet and projection of the global climate if a critical thermal threshold is exceeded (Source: Steffen et al., 2018).

0

1

2

3

4

19th century 20th century 21st century

Range of climate

certainty

Range of climate

uncertainty

Breakingpoint

Critical threshold

Global climate

collapse?

1820 1920 2016

Urban and dense settlements

Village

Croplands, residential

Croplands, populated

Croplands, pastoral

Rangelands, residential

Rangelands, populated

Rangelands, remote

Woodlands

Treeless and barren lands

Wild remote(woodland or treeless & barren)

Source: Own elaboration from Goldewijk, et al. (2017).

Evolution of MERCOSUR ecosystems of in the last 200 years

Meat (Cerrado)

Soybean (Amazonia)

Soybean (Cerrado)

Meat (Amazonia)

Brazil

Mill

on

es d

e h

ectá

reas

po

r añ

o

Meat Soybean

Argentina

Mill

on

hec

tare

s/

yr

Destination (meat or soybean production) of hectares deforested in Brazil and Argentina between1996 and 2013 (Source: USDA, 2017).

Main sources of greenhouse gas emissions in MERCOSUR

Source: Ricard (2017) elaborated from Global Emissions EDGAR v 4.2 FT2010 (2013)

Large scale biomass burning

72000

5900

Ton eq-CO2/ha/yr

Enteric Fermentation

32000

2500

Ton eq-CO2/ha/yr

Agricultural soils

9000

1500

Ton eq-CO2/ha/yr

16 % 23 % 12 %

Global distribution of livestock systems

Source: FAO (2019) <http://www.fao.org/livestock-systems/en/>

Regional livestock emissions. Regional total emissions and their profile by commodity are shown. Results do not include emissions allocated to non-edible products and other services.

Source: Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (2019); FAOSTAT (2019)

MERCOSUR countries account for 23% of the global emissions of livestock

2

4

6

8

10

12

Gig

ato

nn

ese

qC

O2/y

ear

Trend of total emissions from different countries between 1990 and 2015. Source: Le Quéré et al. (2016); GEO-6 (2019).

China USAEuropean

UnionRussia Japan India Brazil Argentina

Agricultural sector of MERCOSUR emits

2.02% of global carbon emissions

Regional strength:Carbon sequestration in

grazing lands

An inventory of emissions is not a carbon balance

Sequestration ??

What do the inventories calculate for the rural sector?

Deforestation/de-vegetation

Burningvegetation

Entericemissions of

cattle

Cultivatedsoils

Application and use of fertilizers

Rice cultivation

Nitrousoxide

MethaneNitrousoxide

C dioxide

Emissions

Methane Methane

Argentina

ForestGrassing

lands

Brazil

Paraguay

Uruguay

Coverage (% of total territory)

7 81

51 42

20 69

5 89

Percentage of territorial occupation of the biomes with the greatest carbon sequestration capacity in the MERCOSUR Region (Source: Goldewijk et al., 2011.)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

50 100 150 200 250 3000

Years of permanent cultivated pasture

% o

rgan

ic c

arb

on

in t

he

soil

Curve of accumulation of organic carbon in the soil after the incorporation of a permanent pasture without grazing on arable land in long-term experimental plots at Rothamsted station in UK.

Source: Jenkinson (1988).

MethodIPCC (2006)

Tierl 1

Revisedmethod

Results of a meta-analysis of 768 cases showing the sequestration of organic carbon (ton/ha/year) in soil of different biomes and climatic regions. Orange box: grazing land.

Source:Viglizzo et al. (2019).

N = 768

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

- 0.2

Soil

org

anic

car

bo

n s

equ

estr

atio

n

(to

n/h

a/ye

ar)

1.2

151

Tropical / subtropical

forest

Temperateforest

75

Coldforest

47

Tropical / subtropical

shrub

43

Temperatearbustal

52

Rangeland / tropical /

subtropical pasture

164

Rangeland / tempered

pasture

122

Rangeland / cold

pasture

48

Steppebush

33

Crops

33

0

200

400

600

800

Carb

on

Balan

ce (m

illto

n C

year-1)

MERCOSUR Uruguay Paraguay Brazil Argentina

Forests and grazing lands sequester carbon

C sequestration C emission C balance

-200

0

200

400

600

800

MERCOSUR Uruguay Paraguay Brazil Argentina

Carb

on

Balan

ce(m

illto

n C

year-1)

Only forests sequester C (Tier 1 IPCC)

Carbon balance (year 2010) in rural lands of the MERCOSUR region applying two different calculation methodologies (Source: Viglizzo et al., 2019).

C sequestration C emission C Balance

0

50

100

150

200

Carb

on

Balan

ce (m

illon

ton

C year

-1)

1970

1990

2010

2016

Detail of carbon balance in the rural sector of Argentina in 1970, 1990, 2010 and 2016 according to the calculation method that considers carbon sequestration in forests and grazing lands.

Sources: C emissions from WRI (2019); C sequestration from Viglizzo et al. (2019)

0

30

60

90

120

150

C credit rural sector

C non-rural emission

Country C balance

Detail of the total carbon balance of Argentina in 1970, 1990, 2010 and 2016 when the carbon surplus or credit of the rural sector and emissions from non-rural sectors are considered.

Sources: C emissions from WRI (2019); C sequestration from Viglizzo et al. (2019)

1970

1990

2010

2016

Carb

on

Balan

ce (m

illon

ton

C year

-1)

Local challenge:To make the puzzle

Emissions according to IPCC method plus estimates of carbon sequestration to estimate the annual carbon balance (ton C / ha / year) in a productive system.

- 0,213

- 0,049

+ 0,164

Carbon emission Carbon sequestration Carbon balance

- 0.160

+ 0.215

+ 0,055 + 0,294

- 0,205

+ 0,499

Carbon emission Carbon sequestration Carbon balance

+ 0,440

+ 0,550

-0,060

Low animal density

+ 0,210

+ 0,550

- 0,340

Mid animal density

- 0,980

0,380

-1.360

High animal density

Emissions according to IPCC method plus estimates of carbon sequestration to estimate the annual carbon balance (ton C / ha / year) in a productive system.

Carbon emission Carbon sequestration Carbon balance

+ 6,800

+ 0,900

Eucalyptus

- 2,350+ 8,250

+ 2,850

+ 0,800

Coniferous

- 2,630+ 4,680

+ 2,820

+ 0,750

- 2,530+ 4,600

Other broadleaf

Emissions according to IPCC method plus estimates of carbon sequestration to estimate the annual carbon balance (ton C / ha / year) in a productive system.

soybean maíze forestation

- 0,05

0,00

+ 0,20

+ 0,08

- 0,51

- 0,13

+ 0,25

+ 0,44

- 0,30

- 0,60

0

+ 0,30

+ 0,60

Car

bo

no

bal

ance

(to

n/h

a/ye

ar)

+ 0,90

wheat

+ 0,12

intense livestockfarming

semi-extenselivestockfarming

extenselivestockfarming

- 0,30

- 0,60

0

+ 0,30

+ 0,60

Car

bo

no

bal

ance

(to

n/h

a/ye

ar)

+ 0,90

+ 0,20

+ 0,08

+ 0,25

+ 0,44

+ 0,12

Systems with surplus or carbon credit (C +)

soybean maíze forestationwheatintense

livestockfarming

semi-extenselivestockfarming

extenselivestockfarming

Balance between sources (emissions) and carbon sinks (sequestration)

Other sectorsCarbon

Emission

Sequestration

Rural sector

Regional strength:Livestock, trade and

environment

Which countries export Frozen Bovine Meat? (2017)

Source: The Observatory of Economic Complexity (2019)

Which countries import Frozen Bovine Meat? (2017)

Source: The Observatory of Economic Complexity (2019)

Beef imports by China

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Mill

on

to

nn

es

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Mill

on

USD

Beef imports from Argentina

Beef imports from Brazil

Beef imports from Paraguay

Beef imports from Uruguay

Beef imports from USA

Beef imports from Australia

Beef imports from ROW

Beef trade

Source: own elaboration from FAOSTAT (2019); The Observatory of Economic Complexity (2019)

% of total beef imports from MERCOSUR

91 1 2 7 1 1 1

0 1 5 6 1320

18

29

2221

4055

59

MERCOSUR region contributes decisively to China's protein consumption….

... but, in addition to the transfer of tangible products, it also transfers intangible goods and services?

?

19% Land under meadows and pastures

20 % fresh water for agricultural use

Percentage of resources saved by China when importing bovine meat from MERCOSUR region

Source: own elaboration from FAOSTAT (2019); AQUASTAT (2019); Rasmussen, et al. (2011); Hoekstra (2012)

35 % C emissions from rural sector(EF and MM)

17.000 tonnes P

63.000 tonnes N

27.000 millions m3 of water

Global transfer of GHG and ammonia nitrogen emissions from China to countries from which it imports food and fodder (Source: Du et al., 2018).

China

Exporting nations

Alfalfa

Rumiants meat

Dairy

Maize

Thousand tonnes ofCO2-eq or ammonium

Soybean

20% GHG6% NH3

Countries like those of MERCOSUR have attributes that are insufficiently valued and disseminated to

provide, at the same time, food and environmental security to countries that lack it. It is necessary to

certify this comparative advantageCan we make it?

Despite imperfectly proven or unfounded criticisms, rural environments in the MERCOSUR

region present more strengths than environmental weaknesses.