 We are honored here today to have the presenter Henning Stenfeld. Henning is the chief livestock information sector analysis and policy branch of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO. He leads FAO's work on livestock sector policies in their social, economic, environmental and health dimensions. Henning trained as an agricultural economist at the Technical University of Berlin. In his early career he worked in Ghana, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and Rwanda in development projects, research and capacity building. He joined FAO in 1990, first as a statistician and since 1992 in the Animal Production and Health Division. There he developed major work programs in the areas of livestock and natural resources and climate change and poverty reduction through country sector policies. He leads FAO's support to the global agenda for sustainable livestock. It is my pleasure to welcome Henning Stenfeld to make his next presentation. Thank you very much for introducing me and good morning to distinguished guests, colleagues and friends. It's my honor to talk about livestock and the environment and it sort of follows nicely on the previous talk but also the introductory addresses that we had this morning. I will go through drivers' impacts and responses and in so doing try to provide both a global overview but also differentiate the message that I think this subject is suffering from the fact that we are very often making black-knit statements. I need to move it like this because otherwise I can't see the screen. First I would like to talk about the global drivers influencing livestock production and as we have already heard this morning it's all about the rising demand for animal products. We've had back in 1999 a report called the livestock revolution which indeed was at the time produced by ILRI, IFP and FAO. It coined the term of the livestock revolution. It referred to the rapidly rising demand in Asia at the time mostly Latin America also and this livestock revolution has now arrived in Africa. So what we have is a demand increase of 70% as we have already heard from the minister before but particularly in Africa an almost three times expansion of demand for meat but also for milk. So it is against this strong drive of demand that we have to pitch our efforts. It is getting of course complicated by the fact that climate change will affect production in many many different ways. We are not having only higher temperatures and shifting rainfalls but particularly and importantly we are having a variability that will complicate the lives of small owners and partialists in particular. Further complicated by growing resource scarcity as reflected in prices for land, prices for energy and also prices for nutrients. There is only limited land that can be used for agriculture expansion and already one third of arable land is indeed globally used for feed crops. In developed countries this figure is more close to 50 or 60%. 50-60% of the land is used for producing feed, arable land. Land degradation is rampant in many parts of the world. Water scarcity is affecting already about one third of the global population. Energy prices are rising even though yesterday we saw a three or four year low in terms of oil prices but the long term trend is certainly upwards. And nutrients also in particular phosphorus is becoming scarcer. Now in this picture one thing I personally find very interesting is that there are a total amount of 6.4 billion tons of feed used for animals. 6.4 billion tons that translates into something like 850 kilograms per person living on this planet. So there is a huge amount of biomass that is attributed to the livestock sector. A large part of that however is not edible. More than 80% of all feed that goes to livestock is not edible. So we are in the cereals at about 9%. We are having other edible material, again 9% including cassava and beans and soybeans. But the rest is really not edible. And countries like Ethiopia or India or Kenya or any other country in Africa or South Asia really don't use much. They are basically producing the resources that have no alternative uses very often and they make a huge net contribution to animal nutrition. Without that many people would not be able to sustain their lives and have animal products in their diets. So what about the impacts? And I think the point here is that generalizations really don't help. So I just want to go quickly through four different situations. Here we have Senegal where there is a growing constraint with regard to access to resources, particularly grazing and water. And of course, if you look at the system, greenhouse gas emissions, they are very high. They are one of the highest actually that you can find around the world because these animals are not very productive. They live long and produce very little. But they produce many other things which we don't capture in the traditional life cycle analysis. We've heard this before. They are saving and insurance that provide many other goods and services that are not easily captured by economic analysis. Another system is intensive pig production in Thailand. Again, in contrast to the previous one, here we are having a system that is actually depending on imported feed quite a bit, particularly protein. It's a system that has low emissions if you calculate them. But there are other environmental impacts such as pollution of water. And then there are impacts associated with the production of that feed which may be in Brazil or some other place. And there are also impacts on biodiversity which are not easily captured. Another system is dairy production in OECD countries. These systems use a lot of roughage, silage, maybe 30% of concentrates. They are very productive, 20%. Number of animals is only 20% of the global herd, but they produce more than 70% of the global milk production. So it is a very efficient system in terms of producing milk. And here the main sources of emissions will be from enteric fermentation, but there's also lots of fossil fuel use in the systems which also add to climate change. Another system is beef production in Brazil, which is really very extensive in most places. Most fat systems are dominant, small, but growing share of animals are put through feedlots. Here it is again the animal itself, the enteric fermentation that produces greenhouse gas emissions, but there's also a large impact on environmental services, particularly biodiversity, because in many places expansion of pastures is at the expense of forest and that has large impacts on the carbon balance of these areas and biodiversity. So now to the more aggregate picture. Now a little bit the message over the last four or five years has settled on a figure of 20% or 30% agriculture's contribution to climate change. And that is really considering the whole chain of production, looking at land use, looking at fertilizer production and use, looking at feed production, livestock itself, but also then the transporter moving and retailing and so on. So if you put all this together you come to a figure of between 20% and 30% that agriculture makes up of total anthropogenic emissions of climate gases. And again looking around the different references, but there is consensus now that a majority, about two thirds of all agriculture emissions come from livestock. And there is an overriding role of ruminance in that picture, cattle making up about two thirds of all emissions. Most important sources, enteric methane, that is really tied to the biology of the animal, something that cannot be easily changed except through productivity increases, which is a major way of reducing enteric methane, at least in terms of emission intensity. I'm coming to that in a moment. Feed production and again that is connected to land use and fertilizer use and emissions from nitrous oxides and CO2 as well is the second largest source. Animal waste is the third one and then land use would be also an important source. But there is a strong relationship between productivity and emission intensity. And that is saying that in particular in ruminance the higher your productivity the lower the emissions per kilogram of output. And what we found in our analysis is that there is quite a potential to reduce emission intensity by looking at the variation in emission intensity. I hope you can see it looking at different species and what you can see is that there is a wide range within which emission intensity occurs in these systems. So quite a wide spectrum of different performances very often in very similar environments but using different forms of management to come up with very different outcomes. So there is a large variability of emission intensities within systems and regions but we also found that with existing practices, with existing application of existing technologies there is quite a large scope to mitigate without introducing actually any new technology. So we found this to be on average to be 30% globally but if you think about system change and technology change that potential would even be much larger. And this is if you calculate emission intensity on the basis of kilogram of protein here across all species, across all products, it tells you where we have to focus our attention. It tells you that the emission intensity in Africa, in South America, in South Asia are much higher than in other parts of the world. And it is here where you get the highest returns not only in terms of productivity increases but also in terms of reduction of greenhouse gases. So the impact of climate change on livestock is something that very often is not discussed in this context. But here we have of course livestock systems are very much exposed to the impact of climate change through lower rainfall and higher temperatures, through changing disease patterns and as I stressed before because of the variability making management really a headache for many producers across the world, particularly in dry lands. But also and I think that is an important point that very often is not stressed that livestock are very flexible resource users. They can move from one feed to another very quickly and they adapt to changing market conditions also quite quickly. It is the buffer in many of food systems you want because it can resort to very, very many different feed resources. It can change intensity, it can change location. So we are looking at the way as a natural adapter to climate change which is something that I think strategically we need to emphasize much more that with the livestock sector we are having a natural adapter to climate change. It is not something that we have to look at the livestock sector necessarily as being passive and just being a recipient of climate change. It can play a very active role in adaptation. Coming to nutrients and nutrient efficiency. This is just not going into the details here but it explains the various steps of the production process and the fact that out of 100 kilograms of nitrogen put into a beef production system in developed countries we are only harvesting about 11 percent on our plate. All the rest, 89 percent, 90 percent is lost. So we are having a food production system that loses 90 percent of the original nitrogen input. That said, there is also an important role of livestock in nutrient cycling which you see actually in the first part of this graph where there is an increase, this 100 become 134 because there is the flow back from the waste that increases the initial nitrogen but then it windows as it has gone. But of course there is an important role of livestock in nutrient cycling. Looking at water, there are various studies on this but livestock make up about 30 percent of total agriculture water use. A livestock have an impact on vegetation and through that also on water cycles very often implying higher run-offs particularly in hilly and mountainous regions and there is the issue of water pollution in intensive systems which have very often very high local impacts in areas where a lot of livestock are concentrated on limited space. So the opportunity is for recycling that waste is limited and it leads to nutrient loading. Looking at biodiversity as another dimension of the environment and it really here land use is a major factor here because the extent of pastures is so vast. 26 percent of all land is in pastures, they are both positive and negative impacts but very often sometimes it can be managed in a way that through mosaic landscapes through reducing or push encroachment that this impact is positive but also very often it is negative. There is also an impact on biodiversity through feed production in the context of using arable land for feed and that land is not available for biodiversity. The impact on aquatic systems through nutrient loading and the positive roads that I have mentioned before. Now looking at biodiversity there are two concepts that have been discussed and it is really about land sharing as opposed to land sparing. Two different approaches where in one land sparing option you can intensify your highest potential areas leaving some land aside for unfarmed where you have high species diversity and density. So you can keep parks or areas untouched if you use other areas very intensively. And the other approach is land sharing where you move to intensities that are moderate where you have both medium production and moderate levels of biodiversity. These are really two different ways of looking at it and this can be perhaps expressed through this graph here where we see that at moderate levels of intensity land sharing approach may be best as opposed to when you have very high or low intensity where land sparing is the best approach. So looking at what are the different options to respond to all these environmental challenges I think the key question or one of the key issues is the focus on efficiency. The efficiency of SCASA resources particularly focusing on land, water and nutrients and as they are engaged in livestock production and trying to squeeze as much as possible out of these resources which very often are becoming very scarce. In that context the efficiency of resource use correlates very well with emission intensity. So if you use your resources efficiently it also means that you are lowering your emission intensity and that is that the CO2 equivalent footprint of your products measured in per unit of product is going down. So the sustainable intensification approach by specifically looking at feeds, genetics and health as we have heard in the previous presentation is a primary way of achieving that. You also need to look at waste and trying to reduce waste through recycling and recovering nutrients and energy and we've heard about biogas earlier this morning. All this will probably not happen fast enough by itself so it requires incentives, regulations and innovation continuously. Another response would be to look at enhancing livelihoods and human well-being because you cannot solve this environmental equation without looking at the multiple functions of livestock particularly in small hold and partial systems and here the need to protect assets to keep animals productive serves environmental functions as well. You need to look at integrated landscape management and as I said before with this land sparing and land sharing alternatives but trying to optimize contributions rather than maximizing output per hectare of land by also looking at biodiversity, water and cultural values is something that we need to follow particularly in areas which are fragile, which are marginal, which are not easily intensified. In that context particularly talking about developed countries but also increasingly emerging countries over consumption, healthy diets and the role of animal products in excess consumption you may want to call it is a way of reducing impact and I think that's also being recognized increasingly. Food feed competition I've referred to before and also before our Ethiopian guest speaker spoke about it that's something that we need to closely look at trying to push towards livestock and feeding systems where the competition directly through land use but also indirectly through prices is minimized. Protecting resources is particularly valuable resources is another response so limiting livestock expansion into valuable ecosystems and if the estimates for greenhouse gas emissions from the livestock sector have come down it is also because deforestation is actually slowing down and Brazil has made significant efforts in this regard it's actually halved its deforestation rates in the last eight years. Protecting water resources and again the need to install incentives and regulations. Resilience and I've referred to livestock as a tool of adaptation improving the caping capacity to deal with climatic shocks but also other shocks and the need to improve governance of global commons and climate change discussion and what is happening with COP21 in Paris next year but particularly also in local contexts looking at ways by which the use of communal raising and water resources can be made more efficient and more equitable is an important way of addressing environmental issues. Environmental services and payment for these carbon markets these are tools by which this can be achieved. So in summary we're having a large environmental impact of livestock we're having negative and positive impacts we need to consider these in the context of growing demand, climate change and growing scarcities. We need to recognize the diversity of systems, issues and responses and keep in mind that they're very very different. Any blanket statement about livestock is probably wrong. We need to realize that there is a large potential to respond and particularly through the productivity and the mission intensity equation there are social and economic co-benefits that can be also motivators to drive more funding and more attention to the livestock sector. All this requires proactive policies incentives and innovation. Thank you. Thank you very much Henning for that stimulating presentation. You've nicely summarized your key points where you started looking at the global challenges livestock contribution to climate change, impact of climate change to livestock and noted that livestock are natural adapters. You also took us through a number of responses and thank you very much for that. I was worried because this morning you told me that you had 147 slides so I was wondering if we would have time for our presentation. So thank you for cutting it by half. So that gives us time for questions. So I'll open up to the floor. There it is livestock and the environment. The need to balance how we present this topic. So it's your time to engage Henning on this. I see Carlos. Henning, you present a very comprehensive picture which leaves one humbled at the complexity of the problem we have to tackle which goes way beyond the agricultural sector into the environment, into nutrition. What is the implication in terms of how to manage these types of problems? What type of research? How does one deal with this extremely complex system of so many different trade-offs? It seems like a huge challenge for any administration to tackle. Do you have any advice for the CGR in terms of research investments to manage this complexity? It is mind-boggling for me too. Yes, it is very complex and I don't have an easy answer to this. What I feel however is whatever doesn't have a price will not be managed well and that's true for carbon, that's true for water, that's true for communal grazing. So I think ways have to be found by which to devise incentive systems and the key is really young incentives because without that attractiveness of certain options and with certain technologies, things will not happen as quickly as we want. So payment for environmental services but also thinking about grazing fees, thinking about managing water better but then the bigger debate about what come and here I would hope that the climate change community sees the opportunities that they are for mitigation. Not that I think that developing countries will have to mitigate through the livestock sectors but I think that funding can be mobilized because the productivity and emission intensity equations they're nicely telling and that is something that I think we can exploit more forcefully. Thank you, my name is Orkner from Ilri and ATA. My question specifically is on the kind of incentives that can be considered for the majority of the livestock producers. In the context of Ilri of course, the producers are the smallholders and most of the changes that we can see happen come from the smallholders. So what kind of incentives do we see for the smallholders to share the concerns that we have with regard to the environment? Well, I think the sort of trying to, if you talk about climate, trying to provide direct incentives based on carbon credits proves to be very difficult because they require very complicated monitoring and certification work, particularly on soil carbon. It's difficult to measure, it's difficult also to gauge whether these carbon sequestration is actually lasting over time. So you will need to think about other ways of getting these incentives to farmers more quickly. Very often the adoption of new technologies is actually hindered by upfront investment costs that have to be met. And I think donors or whoever has an interest in developing the livestock sector will need to think about providing incentives in an indirect way, which can be via prices, it could be via lowering input prices, it could be via extension and training. So you look at indirect ways of providing these incentives rather than tying it to a carbon market or anything like this. Thank you for that presentation. Let me ask you a slightly simpler question. You draw our attention to this strong relationship between productivity and emission intensity and then you went on to say that you could achieve 30% or it's possible to achieve 30% mitigation with existing technologies. But to what extent is that achievable while maintaining the productivity? And insofar as it isn't, you mentioned several times the climate change, the UNFCCC. To what extent do you think there's scope for those mitigation finance possibilities in livestock systems? And the reason I ask that is Chair, if she's still in the room, Linda Wayne, one of her activities at climate change meetings was to go and give out badges saying no agriculture, no deal. And most of the country delegations were very polite, but they didn't exactly rally round. We made some progress in terms of climate smart agriculture, adaptation in other words, but not in terms of mitigation. So those two linked questions. Climate change, mitigation in livestock is very difficult because there is no, even the discussions for COP 21 do not include livestock. For most countries, there's only New Zealand that I'm aware of that actually has something like a emission target for the livestock sector. All other, no other country has that. But what I've seen in the last couple of years, particularly through the movement on climate smart agriculture, that large institutions including the World Bank now say that 80% of their agricultural lending programs would be on climate smart agriculture. So that their agricultural lending actually gets climate as an integral component of their programs. And I think it is through work like this that there will be some dynamic injected into this discussion. So the participation of the livestock sector in carbon markets is difficult because it all rests on models, it all rests on assumptions. And what we've done particularly in China is we have developed a methodology for measuring soil carbon and actually established a methodology by which the voluntary carbon market can be targeted. So that, that is something that we've done and I hope that more research will help us to develop more robust and, and functional methods for this to have met a larger scale. Can see some hands. I think I'll take the last two. Can see a hand here. Okay. Yeah, thank you. My name is Kaika Sandingotelene, Deputy Minister from Tanzania. Livestock and fisheries developed. Now, at least for a long time, at least in Tanzania where I come from, livestock keepers and pastoralists have been accused of destroyers of the environment due to their movement from one place to another in search of water and pasture. Now, as an expert on the, in this area of livestock and environment, what is your opinion on this accusation? I'm not sure I have an answer to this, but what is, what is clear is that, that as I tried to say in my presentation that there's both a positive and negative impacts of livestock moving on partial areas. It has to do a lot with seasonality of movements, but also with density of animals. And I've recently visited Namibia, which may have similar conditions in at least parts of Tanzania, where a bush encroachment at a large scale is happening because of overgrazing in many parts. And productivity of animals is very low. So one idea that they've been discussing is to have an incentive scheme by which you combine both the carrot and the stick in one instrument. So in other words, you pay a very modest raising fee for animal, animal, for every animal that there is. But that money is used to incentivize early offtake when there is a drought. So the farmer, the animal keeper understands that, you know, it works both ways. Yes, there was a cost of keeping my animal on that pasture. It's not for free, but that money can be used to help me destocking before I lose my animals. So combine, and having that managed at the communal level in order to really have a sort of decentralized devolve type of decision making. And I kind of like the idea of combining the stick and the carrot in one policy instrument in one incentive scheme. This may be something that could be discussed also in other places.