More milk, less emissions from forests

POINTS FOR EFFICIENCY

The study, led by CIFOR researcher Patric Brandt, is the first to combine a remote sensing approach with an analysis of on-farm feed production, to explore whether sustainable intensification in the Mau Forest makes sense for the people and the region.

News

Improving sustainable cattle production in the Brazilian Amazon

The researchers found that about 18% of the Mau forest area had been disturbed between 2010 and 2016, and that livestock grazing and firewood extraction were the main drivers in 75% of the spots sampled.

They also found that higher on-farm cattle stocking rates and firewood collection caused up to a 10% increase in risk of forest disturbance, while higher milk yields, increased supplementation with concentrated feeds, and more farm area allocated to fodder production were associated with up to a 7% risk reduction.

Thus, the paper notes that more intensified farms had a significantly lower impact on forest disturbance than small and resource-poor farms, and large and inefficient farms. “Our results show that intensification of smallholder dairy farming leads to both farm efficiency gains and reduced forest disturbance,” says Brandt.

Less disturbance means fewer GHG emissions, although Rufino warns that “the positive effect of intensification may be lost if the number of dairy farms greatly increases in the region.”

FROM MECHANISMS TO MOTIVATIONS

The results support mitigation options that increase productivity and minimize negative effects on forests at the same time. “Our findings can inform national policies and also improve management and monitoring tools at the regional scale,” says Rufino.

News

In the hands of farmers: Ethiopia’s push to restore degraded lands

She points out that the study is particularly timely, given that Kenya is working on two important mechanisms: a strategy to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) and a nationally appropriate mitigation action (NAMA) for the dairy sector – the first of its kind in the region.

“The NAMA currently focuses on reducing emissions at the farm level, instead of quantifying them at the landscape level to reduce the possibility of carbon leakage,” she says, in reference to the risk of reducing emissions on farms at the expense of increasing them in neighboring forests, where feed might come from.

The paper mentions the need of providing incentive-based climate financing to farmers, cooperatives and the private sector involved in dairy production. “These funds could be accessed once certain criteria are fulfilled, such as implementing on-farm feed intensification that mitigates direct and indirect GHG emissions and increases farm productivity.”

Some possibilities are increasing farmers’ access to more affordable feeds and providing them with the necessary inputs for on-farm fodder production. From Rufino’s perspective, though, such measures should be accompanied by regulations and oversight.

“Why would people go to the market when they can get the feed for free in the forest?” she queries. From her perspective, a potential solution could be linking the NAMA and REDD+ policies so the incentives for climate-smart agriculture and forest conservation are intertwined. The ultimate objective is achieving effective mitigation in the land use sector as a whole, notes the paper.

The paper matters to policy-makers, but Rufino also calls on scientists to embark on similar studies elsewhere. “It would be interesting to see the type and size of the effects we quantified in drier environments,” she says. “I encourage further research in different ecosystems, so we can better understand – and address – the impact of livestock on forests.”