BUENOS AIRES – The adoption of measures to reduce methane emissions from livestock, in line with the commitments derived from the last climate summit, is not currently a central objective for South America. It is, at most, an incipient purpose, which includes short-range government plans, some field studies and research that is still in its initial stage.
Although in several sectors the idea persists that it is a neutral activity in terms of the environment, there is a broad scientific consensus that livestock farming is one of the main generators of methane worldwide. Emissions from livestock, from manure and gastroenteric releases, are estimated to account for approximately 32% of human-caused methane emissions. In countries with a greater predominance of the primary sector, this percentage can be much higher.
Being among the 15 main world producers of beef cattle, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay have, with their flats, a relevant role in meeting the goals emanating from the last 26 Conference of the Parties (COP26) on climate change of the United Nations. Nations, held in Glasgow in November 2021, where it was agreed to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030. Despite the fact that the three countries are signatories to the aforementioned pact, the panorama is complex and there is still a long way to go.
“The reduction of methane is a global commitment, which does not have specific goals for each country,” Kelly Witkowski, manager of the Climate Change and Natural Resources Program at the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), replied cautiously.
The specialist acknowledged that the agricultural sector is responsible “for 48% of methane emissions in the region,” but replied that the reality of the item is “very diverse” and that there is no “silver bullet that alone solves the methane problem.
What is being done in South America to reduce methane?
Although it is up to 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide, methane has a significantly shorter lifetime in the atmosphere – about 12 years – so removing the gas can make rapid progress in limiting global warming.
Despite resistance from some political leaders and the private sector, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay are beginning to take steps to reduce their methane emissions.
Proof of the incipient paradigm shift is the recent forum “Methane in Livestock: The Path to Climate Neutrality”, which took place in São Paulo at the beginning of May, organized by the food company JBS.
Among the 23 experts who spoke there was Fabiana Villa Alves -director of the Department of Sustainable Production and Irrigation of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply of Brazil-, who in a conversation with Diálogo Chino indicated that three types of technology: those that work on the ground, those that improve the genetics of cattle and those involved in the nutrition of the animal.
The official is one of those responsible for the official ABC masterplan -launched in 2010 and updated in 2020-, which precisely encourages the adoption of new methodologies by livestock producers. One of them was recently highlighted by the Financial Times, consisting of increasing the stocking rate and reproducing it at a younger age, a process that results in the same amount of meat but with less methane emissions.
One of the innovations incorporated in Brazil recently was the commercial approval of a methane-reducing food additive, manufactured by the European chemical company DSM. As officially reported by the company, a trial conducted at the São Paulo State University between 2016 and 2017 registered a reduction of up to 55% in enteric methane emissions with its use in beef.
Any of these options requires an investment that is not easy for the structure of a small and medium producer, a dominant profile in the region. “Therefore, for methane reductions to be sustainable, they have to provide additional benefits, in terms of resilience, lower costs or greater productivity,” stressed Kelly Witkowski from IICA.
Before reducing total emissions, what is being worked on the most in these countries is to decouple production levels from environmental impact. This was stated by Guillermo García, leader of the Environment area of the CREA movement, which brings together 2,000 agricultural companies in Argentina.
«What is sought is to improve efficiency and thus lower the intensity of emissions. In other words: reduce the tons of greenhouse gas per kilo of meat produced”, indicated García, who shared his own research in which through the management of the herd (for example, increasing the percentage of weaning) could reduce 10% the intensity of emissions.
Recently, another study -carried out by the National Institute of Agricultural Technology and a national university- found a 25% reduction in methane emissions per kilo, for a group of animals fed a winter supplement of corn.
For the consultant Víctor Tonelli, these innovations “are still in the development stage, while transferring them directly to the producer is lacking.”
Part of the problem could be explained because the Argentine leadership itself prioritizes pointing out that local modes of production are a solution rather than a problem. They do it not only the political authorities, but also the private representatives of the meat chain. In that country, in addition, a plan was recently launched that, although it includes a chapter on sustainability, emphasizes among its main objectives increasing the livestock stock.
Something similar is happening on the other side of the Río de la Plata: the Uruguayan government supports research projects that make it possible to increase the efficiency of the rodeo (one was recently presented that managed to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 16% per kilo of meat). , but at the same time work is being done on a study – which will include 13 indicators to measure the footprint of livestock – that “will place the country at the forefront in environmental matters,” according to official senator Sebastian Da Silva, president of the Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries Commission.
Around efforts to reduce methane and broader emissions, many in the industry have wanted to position ranching as a potentially emissions-neutral activity, where emissions are offset by carbon storage in soils. of the pastures.
This argument has been heard especially in Argentina and Uruguay, where deforestation caused by cattle ranching has been comparatively less than in neighboring Brazil.
different challenges
Rafael Terra, a professor at the University of the Republic of Uruguay, specialized in climate risk management, maintains that the characteristics of the countries of the region must be differentiated when thinking about solutions for the sector.
“I think it is part of the clumsiness of a certain discourse, which does not distinguish productive systems. We must improve the digestibility of the natural field, without losing the structure of the natural field, adjusting the load to work with more grass, so that the field matrix does not deteriorate and so that emissions are lower”, evaluated Terra.
Terra, like other respondents, wants to highlight the different circumstances of methane emissions in the countries and the global goal of reducing them by 30% in the next decade.
Brazil – which is also facing difficulties due to high rates of deforestation in the Amazon – is the fifth largest emitter of methane in the world, but still produces three times less than the leading country, China. Argentina, for its part, emits three times less than Brazil; and Uruguay six times less than Argentina.
The relative little importance at the global level should not be an excuse to prevent the development of more sustainable production alternatives.
Nor should one simply rely on global dietary changes, which also coexist with a higher level of meat consumption. As Marcelo Mena, executive director of the Global Methane Hub, recently told this medium, “that is not enough.”
Mitigation actions must be deepened and Latin America must be the protagonist of that path.
This article was originally published on the Chinese Dialogue information platform.
RV: EG
–
