WITH the SUPPORT of Reducing enteric methane for

Project Leaders improving food security Henning Steinfeld (FAO) Harry Clark (NZAGRC) and livelihoods

Project Team Pierre Gerber (World Bank) Andy Reisinger (NZAGRC)

Technical Officer Carolyn Opio (FAO)

Project coordinator Victoria Hatton [email protected] +6421351833 Win-Win opportunities for farmers what can FARMERS DO?

Ruminant production systems with low productivity, PROTEIN SUPPLY Getting farmers to improve the productivity of Feed and Nutrition: Improving feed quality can be lose more energy per unit of animal product than ruminants is a key way to improve rural livelihoods and achieved through improved grassland management, those with high productivity. Increasing productivity improve food security. Farming systems that are much improved pasture species, forage mix and greater across production systems increases food security and more productive generally also reduce enteric methane use of locally available supplements. Matching strengthens farmer livelihoods. This strong correlation MEAT emissions per unit of animal product. production to underlying 33% between animal productivity increases and enteric 51% resources, ration balancing, undertaking adequate MILK methane emission reduction implies there are large 67% These outcomes can be feed preparation and preservation will improve opportunities for low-cost mitigation and widespread achieved through efforts nutrient uptake, ruminant productivity and fertility. social and economic benefits. in the following three areas: Animal Health and Husbandry: Improving the Ruminants are raised in a diverse range of production SHEEP GOAT reproduction rates and extending the reproductive systems, from extensive pastoralist systems to 5% 4% life of the animal will increase their productivity and intensive dairy or beef fattening units. The type of feed BUFFALO generally reduces methane emissions intensity. given to the animals and the share of grazing in the 11% 81% Relevant interventions include reducing the incidence feeding system is a key defining factor of this diversity. of endemic, production-limiting diseases that have a Other important factors contributing to the diversity number of negative outcomes, including death or cull of ruminant production systems include the type and of previously healthy animals, reduced live-weight breed of the animals, herd management practices, gain, reduced milk yield and quality, reduced fertility, level of integration with cropping systems, household abortion and/or increased waste in the system. dependence on ruminants and the level of market Healthier animals are generally more productive and integration. • Ruminants supply 51% of all protein from the While these good practices apply generically, have lower emissions per unit of product. livestock sector; of which 67% and 33% is from milk care is needed to identify the most Ruminants are essential to the livelihoods of millions and meat, respectively. effective package of interventions Animal Genetics and Breeding: Genetic selection of farmers and critical to human health, global food is a key measure increase productivity of animals. and nutritional security. Out of 729 million poor people • 81% of protein from ruminant species is derived that fit local farm systems, resources and Breeding can help adapt animals to local conditions that live in rural and marginal areas, about 430 million from cattle, while buffalo, sheep and goats capabilities, and to avoid inadvertent and can also address issues associated with are estimated to be poor livestock farmers who for the contribute 11%, 5% and 4%, respectively trade-offs. reproduction, vulnerability to stress, adaptability to most part rear ruminant animals. Ruminants convert climate change, and disease incidence. Improved Understanding the barriers and their feed into high value food products for humans Relative to other global greenhouse gas breeding management practices (using artificial (meat and milk) through enteric fermentation. They also abatement opportunities, reducing enteric methane constraints faced by farmers to up-take of the insemination for example and ensuring access by provide important components such as asset savings, through productivity gains is the lowest cost options interventions is critical to ensuring widespread farmers to wide genetic pools for selection) can traction, manure for fuel and fertilizers, and fiber. and has a direct economic benefit to farmers. adoption of the effective packages on farms accelerate those gains. WHY is ENTERIC METHANE EMISSIONS enteric methane CH 4 COMPARATIVE important? WARMING CH4 WHat is EFFECT IN 100 YEARS • Enteric methane is a Short-Lived Climate enteric methane? CO2 Pollutant (SLCP) and has a half-life of 12 years – in comparison to carbon dioxide, parts of which METHANE (CH4) TRAPS 84 TIMES Enteric fermentation is a natural part of the digestive stay in the atmosphere for many hundreds to MORE HEAT THAN CARBON CO2 process of ruminants where microbes decompose and CH4 thousands of years. Methane traps 84 times DIOXIDE (CO2) IN 20 YEARS ferment food present in the digestive tract or rumen. more heat than Carbon Dioxide over the first two Enteric methane is one by-product of this process and is decades after it is released into the air. expelled by the animal through . Other by-products of the fermentation process are compounds which are CH • Even over a 100-year period, the comparative absorbed by the animal to make milk and meat. CH4 4 warming effect of enteric methane is 28 times RUMINANTS greater than carbon dioxide (per kg). Therefore, GLOBAL METHANE The amount of enteric methane expelled by the animal is reducing the rate of enteric methane emissions EMISSIONS 30% directly related to the level of intake, the type and quality would help reduce the rate of warming in the near of feed, the amount of energy it consumes, size, growth term and, if emissions reductions are sustained, rate, level of production, and environmental temperature. CH4 can also help limit peak warming. Between 2-12% of a ruminant’s energy intake is typically lost through the enteric fermentation process. • Ruminants are responsible for 30% of global methane emissions. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF ENTERIC METHANE EMISSIONS FROM RUMINANT (%)

• Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 2.7 Gt CO2 eq. of enteric methane annually, or about SMALL 5.5% of total global greenhouse gas emissions RUMINANTS from human activities. 9% CATTLE • Cattle account for 77% of these emissions (2.1 77% Gt), buffalo for 14% (0.37 Gt) and small ruminants BUFFALO (sheep and goats) for the remainder (0.26 Gt). 14% the PROJECT WHO we ARE

Emissions intensities of enteric methane vary greatly The project is in two Phases: This project is a collaboration between the Food and Agriculture across the regions and also between and within Organization of the United Nations (www.fao.org) and the New Zealand production systems. Efforts to address enteric methane Phase 1 will Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre (www.nzagrc.org.nz), funded emissions in developing regions is relatively new and by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (www.ccacoalition.org) and the fragmented, with a number of on-going initiatives each • identify and prioritize of high potential New Zealand Government in support of the Global Research Alliance on targeting a single component of the challenge. areas for intervention, focusing on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (www.globalresearchalliance.org). ruminant systems that are highly exposed and The project will complement these existing efforts to under pressure from a number of challenges address enteric methane emissions and accelerate like climate change, increasing competition for the uptake of innovative solutions. Working with resources (e.g. land) and, are important in terms ACTIVITIES researchers, policy practitioners and farmer extension of food security and livelihoods. groups we will design cost-effective packages of to be UNDERTAKEN technical interventions that can be implemented to • identify and disseminate information during Phase 1 result in multiple benefits for farmers; including about the cost-effective technologies and gains in farm productivity, improved food security and approaches that will enable farmers to increase reduction in enteric fermentation. productivity while at the same time reduce Activity 1 emissions. Analyze and prioritize opportunities for improved food security and resource use • provide guidance to decision-makers efficiency and the identification of production to ensure widespread up-take of the new systems/countries for detailed assessment The project technologies and practices. Activity 2 will complement, Phase 2 will see the intervention packages tested on Develop packages of appropriate cost-effective facilitate up-scaling and farm and scaled-up for widespread implementation. technologies; recommend policy options that improve resource use efficiency acceleration of existing Activity 3 efforts to address Identify demonstration sites and partners for Phase 2 on farm testing of the technical enteric methane packages Activity 4 emissions. Communication, dissemination and outreach