Livestock interventions for building climate change resilience in the drylands

TCI Investment Days 16-17 December 2014

Pierre Gerber, Anne Mottet, Giulia Conchedda

Coordinator: World Bank

1. Characterize current and future challenges to reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience in drylands

2. Identify main interventions to enhance resilience, estimate their costs, and assess their effectiveness

3. Provide an evidence-based framework to improve decision making on alternative options to enhance resilience

4. Promote sharing of regional and global knowledge on resilient development in drylands

• Complementarity with governments and partners’ current engagements especially in in the Sahel and the Horn of Africa

The economics of resilience in the African Drylands

Coordinator: Cees de Haan, WBAction Contre la Faim, CIRAD, FAO, IFPRI and ILRI Modelling likely trends of livestock systems in the drylands of Sub-Saharan Africa

a) What are the likely impact of climate change on feed availability and animal productivity?

b) How to improve the resilience of livestock systems? assess the potential of a set of technical interventionsc) What are the opportunities for the drylands to contribute to

projected increase in demand for animal products?

Livestock background report to the Flagship report on the economics of resilience

BiogeneratorTotal and accessible biomass

GLEAMFeed & system

modules

MMAGERequirement/

animal categoryv

Conforti projections & scenarios (interventions & droughts)

GLEAMCrop

production & crop residues

(GAEZ)

2000 adjusted to Conforti projections

for 2012-2030

FEED AVAILABILITY ANIMAL REQUIREMENTS

Meat & MilkSupply, demand & prices

FUTURE 2012-2030

Gridded Livestock

of the World

BAU: 1999-2011Scenarios: ≠ sequence

At grazing shed level, full mobility

GLEAM fills up the requirements:- First by-products (if system and cohort allow)- Then crops residues - Then leaves from non agricultural biomass up to a maximum %- Then other natural vegetation (grass)

- Feed balances- Feed rations & digestibility- GHG emissions

At pixel level, zero mobility

- Feed “balances” and maps

- TLU not meeting requirements

IMPACT

Financial and economic rates of return

ECORUM

From biomass to feed

No Early offtake Early offtake of males

No Health intervention

Health intervention

No Health intervention

Health intervention

No climate effect X Baseline

Severe drought X X X X

Mild drought X X

Scenarios 2012-2030

Balances computed at pixel level (WA)

Balances computed at pixel level (WA

Summary of the effects of droughts and interventions

Baseline Mild drought

Severe drought

Mild drought + health

Severe drought + health

Severe drought + health + early off-

take males

West Africa arid (AI 0.03 – 0.2)

TLU (mill.) 27.9 26.6 24.4 28.7 26.2 24.8

TLU in deficit area (%) 20.2% 22.9% 22.5% 23.5% 23.8% 24.3%

West Africa semi-arid (AI 0.2 – 0.5)

TLU (mill.) 31.9 30.3 27.5 33.0 30.1 28.0

TLU in deficit area (%) 6.6% 9.3% 11.0% 13.1% 16.2% 13.0%

East Africa arid (AI 0.03 – 0.2)

TLU (mill.) 39.6 37.9 35.9 40.9 38.7 37.6

TLU in deficit area (%) 18.9% 20.9% 25.3% 22.1% 26.9% 28.3%

East Africa semi-arid (AI 0.2 – 0.5)

TLU (mill.) 49.3 47.1 43.3 49.9 45.9 43.5

TLU in deficit area (%) 10.4% 10.0% 12.2% 10.7% 12.5% 10.9%

Define a new functional geographical unit

10

Drylands defined based on the Aridity Index, which is consistent with UNCCD practiceParticular emphasis is given to the vulnerable areas in West and East Africa

Males early offtake

Relative merits of policies to reduce feed deficit

12

Feed deficit index on average for 2012-2030 in the drylands of West and East Africa, compared to the past sequence and assuming full animal and feed mobility within grazing sheds

Summary of average annual outputs

Scenarios Production

Productivity (animals sold per 1000 TLU)

Dry matter requirement

drylands

Total meat production

drylands

Total meat production

incl. fattened males

Baseline (Conforti, 2011) 37 million TLU 25% 428 million t 4.4 Milion tcw 4.4 milion tcw

Drought -14% -2% -26% -14% -14%

Drought + health 1% 6% -4% 1% 1%

Drought + male-26%

(+7.7 M TLU) 13%-27%

(+6.8 Mt) -26% 5%

Drought + health + male-12%

(+9.3 M TLU) 25%-21%

(+7.1 Mt) -12% 20%

Mild drought -8% -3% -4% -8% -8%

Mild drought + health 7% 4% 3% 7% 7%

• At “grazing shed” level: enough resources to support livestock sector growth but local shortages animal mobility or feed transportation

• Baseline 2012-2030: use 2.5 times more available (but not necessarily accessible) resources. In some scenarios, this may go up to 3.5 times.

• This calls for interventions in the areas of animal mobility (corridors, security, border regulations, health, tenure, ….) and feed management (storage, processing, transport, …)

• Animal health interventions need to be coupled with interventions that increase access to feed. Otherwise, full benefits may not be achieved and conflicts over resources may increase.

• Maps produced by this assessment can support targeting intervention for increased feed accessibility

• Livelihoods: how many people will the sector support in the future?

Conclusion