This document discusses the role of grasslands and livestock in climate change mitigation and adaptation. It notes that grasslands store a significant amount of carbon globally and that extensive pastoralism supports many livelihoods. Improving grazing land management has high potential for carbon sequestration. Payment for environmental services programs that support adoption of silvopastoral practices can boost incomes, increase carbon storage, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional systems. Further research is needed on carbon sequestration potentials, monitoring tools, and policies that incentivize sustainable grazing land management.

1. Livestock, Land and Livelihoods:
Adaptation and mitigation for small
holders and pastoralists
Constance Neely (FAO) and Muhammad Ibrahim (CATIE)
Grasslands Carbon Working Group

2. Will climate change be the ultimate incentive to
do what we have meant to be doing all along?

3. Grasslands occupy 26% of the emerged ice free world and 70% of
the agricultural area and store up to 8% of the world’s carbon
(230-260 Tonnes C per ha) (FAO 2006).

4. Extensive pastoralism occurs on 25% of the global land
area supporting 200 million pastoral households

5. Climate change will have differentiated impacts

6. Grazing lands management (1.5 Gt CO2 e)
Rehabilitating degraded land (0.6 Gt CO2 e)

7. Improving grazing land management has the second
highest technical potential for mitigating C emissions
(IPCC 2007)
Photo credit: C.Neely
Photo credit: C. Leggett
Photo credit: C. Leggett

8. 4 Ecosystem Functions
Photos: C. Leggett

9. Photo credit: C.Neely
Photo credit: C.Neely
Photo credit: A. Savory
Photo credit: C. Leggett

10. Non-effective water cycle Effective water cycle
50-80% of rainfall is lost through 1 % increase in SOM
run-off and evaporation. 144,000 L H20 per Ha
Soil bare between plants Soil covered with plants and
mulch
After:
water table www.managingwholes.com

11. Mitigation and Adaptation in the Landscape
Photo credits: A. Savory

12. Photo credit: C. Neely Photo credit: C. Neely
15 times the yield of the conventionally grown maize
Photo credits: A. Savory
Neely 2009

13. Croppers to Livestock-Keepers
• “There are likely to be substantial shifts in the patterns of
African cropping and livestock keeping”
– crop yields decrease but can be handled through
agronomic means
– crop yields increase, particularly the case of the
highlands - “temperature limitations relaxed”
– crop yields decline drastically shifting emphasis from
marginal crop production to livestock keeping
Jones and Thornton (2008)
• In Africa, livestock production could provide the 20
million to 35 million people living in these areas a means
to stay on their land and have a livelihood (ILRI, 2009).

14. Let’s not ignore the grazinglands
• Livestock are an irreplaceable source of
livelihoods for the poor and pastoralism
remains the most rational strategy for
marginal areas.
• Grasslands play a critical role in climate
change mitigation.
• The associated co-benefits (increased soil
organic matter, productivity, water capture
and retention, biological diversity) provide a
vital adaptation strategies.

15. Carbon Sequestration Potential of Four Land Use Systems
(Adapted from IPCC, 2000, Swaminathan, 2009)
Potential Carbon Sequestration by 2040
700
600
500
400
(Mt C y-1)
300
200
100
0
Agrof orestry Grazing Forest Cropland
management management management
Agroforestry and grassland management have a high potential particularly
given the extensive areas.

16. Mainstreaming Silvopastoral Systems for Mitigation
and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Humid and
Sub-Humid Tropics

17. Carbon stocks in pastures and
silvopastoral systems
• Conversion of tropical forest
to pastures with
inappropriate management
results in degradation and
net loss of carbon
• Good management of
improved pastures and
silvopastoral systems can
maintian carbon stocks
similiar to that stored in the
forest

18. Before Change: C Fluxes After Net C
effect
C desminuye en produccion
Desertifiication NPP
21 Desertification 13
Increased spatial heterogeneity
of C and nutrients
1 0.7
Increased Erosion
Losses
Woody 700 increase in NPP
encroachment 2,100 12,000
Woody Encroachment
Increased spatial heterogeneity
of C and nutrients
16,800 Erosion Losses 19,000
130,000 88,000 14,000
Tropical deforestation Fire Repeat
& Burning
3,900
Conversion (each burn)
210,000 Leaching Erosion 200,000
losses Losses
Three ecological degradation syndromes associated with livestock production systems. Values
indicate mean carbon stocks (kg ha-1) or fluxes (kg ha-1 yr-1) as reported throughout the scientific
literature (adapted from Asner et al. 2004). Net effect on C storage is depicted on far right.

19. Carbon balance from conversion of forest to pastures
Forest (C3) Well managed pasture (C4)
δ13C = -29 ‰ δ13C = -14 ‰
20 years 80 years
} Cp
Soil carbon
CARBON- PASTURE (C4)
CARBONO TOTAL
REMANANT CARBON-FOREST
M.Ibrahim FAO IFAD side event
} Cf
COP14 3 Dec 2008
Years

20. Carbon Sequestration in pasture and forest systems in
The sub-humid tropics of Costa Rica
Land use Carbon
(t/ha)
Degraded pasture 0.04
Natural pasture without trees 0.5
Natural pasture with high density of 1.2
trees
Improved pasture without trees 1.0
Natural pasture with high density of 1.3
trees
Improved pasture with high density of 2.5
trees
Forest plantations 3.9
Secondary forest 6.5

21. Index by land uses and its potential for carbon
sequestration and conservation of biodiversity
Index Index
# Land use
Carbon Biodiversity Total index
2 Degraded pasture 0 0 0
3 Native pasture without trees 0,1 0,1 0,2
8 Live fences 0,3 0,3 0,6
11 Fodder bank 0,3 0,5 0,8
14 Native pasture high tree density* 0,5 0,5 1,0
20 Improve pasture high tree density* 0,6 0,7 1,3
23 Young secondary vegetation 0,6 0,8 1,4
24 Riparian forest 0,8 0,7 1,5
27 Secondary forest 0,9 1,0 1,9
28 Primary forest 1,0 1,0 2,0
* > 30 tree ha-1

22. Live fences

23. ÑO
Fodder bank with Leucaena
203 2006
0 ha 117,6 ha
Silvopastoril intensivo

24. Impact of Leucaena on growth of animals|
Forage system Stocking Liveweight Years to
rate gain 600 kg LW
(ha/steer) (kg/steer/year) (Jap Ox)
Best native pasture 4 100-140 4-5
Buffel grass 2 170-190 3-4
Leucaena – buffel
1.5 250-300 <2.5
grass
Difficult to meet market specifications from native
pastures

25. Payment for Environmental Services
Is PES an incentive to ¨tip the
balance¨ for adoption of
silvopastoral practices?
How do the poor and non-poor
farmers benefit from PES?
What is the sustainability of PES
systems?

26. Payment of Environmental services to
foster adoption of SPS
• Pilot project with 400 cattle farmers in
Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Colombia
• Funded by GEF, World Bank, FAO-
LEAD
• Implemented by CATIE- CIPAV,
NITLAPAN
• Payment- land use changes that
enhance biodiversity and carbon
sequestration (40-60 US /ha depending
on land use change)

27. Payment is based on annual increments
in relation to base line
Ecological Incremental
Points/farm
Base line
Years
Incremental EP = EP in year t – EP base line

28. FOREST
FODDER BANKS
IMPROVED PASTURE
WITH TREES
NATURAL PASTURE
WITH TREES
DEGRADED
PASTURES
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
NET LAND USE CHANGE (%)
NON POOR POOR EXTREMELY POOR
Land used change (%) in cattle farms with Payment for Environmental
Services according to the level of poverty in Matiguas, Nicaragua. Non poor
(n=16), Poor (n=15), and Extremely poor (n=33).

29. Mean payment/farm US
969.91
1,000.00
900.00
800.00
686.25 664.82
700.00
600.00
500.00
400.00 245.40 225.76
300.00
179.82
200.00
100.00
-
Costa Rica Nicaragua Colombia
2003 2005
Payment of environmental services equivalent to
2400 to 4000 litres of milk/farm/yr
M.Ibrahim FAO IFAD side event
COP14 3 Dec 2008

30. Socio-economic Impact of Payment of
Environmental Services- Nicaragua
Parameter Poverty level Baseline 2007 %
2003 Change
Milk prod (kg/ha/yr) Non-poor 617.4 662.9 7.4
Poor 657.8 864.0 37.7
Very poor 637.4 878.3 37.8
Gross Non-poor 3188.0 5005.0 57.0
income/household
capita (US$/yr)
Poor 1258.3 2606.1 107.2
Very poor 802.1 1371.2 70.9

31. What were the impacts of PES-
mitigation?
• Adoption of silvopastoral systems resulted in
increments of increased carbon stocks
• Farmers adopted improved forages of better
quality than traditional pastures- reducing
emission of GHG
• Transition of conventional to silvopastoral
systems resulted in a reduced emissions of
GHG per kg milk produced.

32. Chain of carbon footprint in conventional systems
419
22 miilking cows71519
KgCO2e
KgCO2e
Concentrates
Grupo Ganadería y Manejo del Ambiente
80.4
KgCO2e
Supplements
206.4
KgCO2e
pasture
Fertilzers
206.1
KgCO2e

33. Chain of carbon footprint in silvopastoral systems
15 milking cows
37735.8 KgCO2e
419
KgCO2e
Concentrates
206.4
KgCO2e
Forage banks

34. Comparison of Carbon Footprint in both systems
Comparison of Carbon Footprint in both systems
Figure KgCO2e per kg of milk corected by % fat and %protein in both
systems (case study ,livestock farm in Esparza, Costa Rica).
2,2
2,5
2,0
Kg (CO2e/FPCM)
1,1
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
Conventional Silvopastoral
Nota: FPCM= fat and protein corrected by milk

35. Silvopastoral systems
- Complex and diverse systems
- Improve carbon sequestration and reduce
emission of green house gases- fodder trees
with good quality- faster growth rates of
animals
- With SPS – bundling of environmental
services- biodiversity, carbon and water

36. What are the impact on
policies
• Costa Rica- declaration to become a
Carbon neutral country by 2021
• Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of
Environment have designed and
implement policies that will benefit
cattle farmers with PES for
implementing silvopastoral systems

37. Send-A-Cow Uganda Example
Kg CO2e (millions)
Total Sequestration = 1.08 M Kg CO2e
Total Emissions = 0.583 M Kg CO2e

38. Meru District Tanzania

40. Preliminary Data
Carbon Balance: Tanzania
Aspect Mg CO2e
Total Emissions 3.24
• Livestock
• Woodburning
Sequestration 6.06
Net Sequestration 2.82

42. • Mitigation of Climate Change in
Agriculture
(MICCA) Project. Support agricultural
climate change mitigation in the context of
food security 5 year multi-donor trust fund,
10 million USD; 3.8 million USD for 2
years by Finland.
• Crop-Livestock-(Tree) Integration Focus
(Farming Systems are evolved and back)

43. Research Priorities
Pastures and sylvo-pastoral systems and
highly integrated farming systems offer the
highest potential for C sequestration.
Estimates of sequestration capacities in
these systems are comforting but
uncertain. There is a lack of direct
observation (including baseline
information) in developing countries.

44. Research Priorities
Measurement of environmental services and
co-benefits with good grazing land practice
• Increased effective rainfall capture,
reduced drought risk, increased biological
diversity, soil health that can be garnered
because of the presence of livestock
• Give value to these systems. Communal
lands are going to be important important
• Clarity on grazing systems and increases
in C and co-benefits

45. Research Priorities
• Life cycle analyses (LCAs) in extensive
systems as well as integrated systems.
• Outcomes should be considered per unit
of land as well as per unit of product. Build
on diversity of systems.
• Simple tools for monitoring farms to
demonstrate change – indicators of
reduction in GHG emissions.
• Robust mechanisms to support livestock
keepers.