Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mitigating methane emissions from livestock: a global analysis of sectoral policies

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Methane emissions from livestock enteric fermentation and manure management represent about 40% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector and are projected to increase substantially in the coming decades, with most of the growth occurring in non-Annex 1 countries. To mitigate livestock methane, incentive policies based on producer-level emissions are generally not feasible because of high administrative costs and producer transaction costs. In contrast, incentive policies based on sectoral emissions are likely administratively feasible, even in developing countries. This study uses an economic model of global agriculture to estimate the effects of two sectoral mitigation policies: a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme based on average national methane emissions per unit of commodity. The analysis shows how the composition and location of livestock production and emissions change in response to the policies. Results illustrate the importance of global mitigation efforts: when policies are limited to Annex 1 countries, increased methane emissions in non-Annex 1 countries offset approximately two-thirds of Annex 1 emissions reductions. While non-Annex 1 countries face substantial disincentives to enacting domestic carbon taxes, developing countries could benefit from participating in a global sectoral emissions trading scheme. We illustrate one scheme in which non-Annex 1 countries collectively earn USD 2.4 billion annually from methane emission permit sales when methane is priced at USD 30/t CO2-eq.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Annex I countries (including the subset of Annex I countries who are also in Annex II) are parties to the UNFCCC that include members of the OECD, the Russian Federation, the Baltic States and several Central and Eastern European States. Most Annex 1 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and thus committed to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. Non-Annex 1 countries consist mostly of developing countries that are not legally required to reduce emission levels under the Kyoto Protocol.

  2. Attribution is important because the policy analyzed is a commodity tax based on embodied emissions. Incorrectly attributing emissions would distort the price signal given by the tax, resulting in an inefficient production response. For example, if all N2O emissions from manure were attributed to livestock and none to non-feed crops, then livestock products would be over-taxed and non-feed crops that use manure as an input would be under-taxed. This would result in the under-production of livestock products and the over-production of non-feed crops, relative to a social optimum.

  3. Other potential methods for reducing methane emissions from manure include altering feeding practices, compositing manure, covering manure heaps, covering lagoons with permeable barriers such as straw. However, research on these methods indicates uncertainties in terms of effectiveness and the potential for tradeoffs in terms of greater N2O emissions (IPCC 2007).

  4. Of course, this considers only methane emissions, and a consideration of total GHG emissions would yield somewhat different estimates. This is discussed in greater detail later in the text.

  5. In some countries, standards designed to reduce water pollution from nitrogen run-off and leaching, such as the EU nitrates directive, may have indirectly caused substantial CH4 and N2O emissions reductions (EC 2009).

  6. Before 2030, participants will be allocated a number of free emission permits based on historical emissions levels. The portion of free permits allocated will decline between 2019 and 2030.

  7. The government of a country that “opts out” of a SCM would not be able to earn revenue from selling emission reduction credits. However, that country’s domestic producers would be able to take advantage of higher import and export prices. Global product prices would likely increase in response to the mitigation efforts in countries participating in the SCM.

  8. Some distinctions between goods are made in the model according to country of origin to reflect existing trade rules regarding the sanitary status of livestock. In particular, beef and swine markets are segmented according to foot-and-mouth disease free and endemic regions.

  9. Sheep wool is not included in the analysis because it is not included in the AGLINK-COSIMO model.

  10. A more detailed analyses of emissions (Tier 2 or Tier 3) require country-level data that were not available. Tier 1 estimates were also derived for Annex 1 countries for comparison. The Tier 1 estimates of total methane emissions for the selected Annex 1 countries (those displayed in the following tables) was 19.5% lower than the values reported by the Annex 1 countries. This suggests that using Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods to estimate non-Annex 1 emissions would produce somewhat higher values, implying higher tax rates for the non-Annex 1 countries.

  11. The tax also has an effect through input markets. The reduction in production of carbon-intensive goods (especially beef and to a lesser extent sheep) causes a decline in the demand for feed and pasture, which lowers feed prices. This benefits producers of other livestock commodities depending on how much they compete for feed and pasture with beef and sheep producers.

  12. Tax rates depend on methane emissions per dollar of output, which in turn depends on local methods of production, livestock productivity, and prices.The tax rate on beef in Canada is close to the average for Annex 1 countries, but it is about 50% higher than the US tax rate. Since most of Canada’s trade in beef is with the US, the tax results in a relatively large decline in net exports and beef production.

References

  • Alcock D, Hegarty RS (2006) Effects of pasture improvement on productivity, gross margin and methane emissions of a grazing sheep enterprise. In: Soliva CR, Takahashi J, Kreuzer M (eds) Greenhouse gases and animal agriculture: an update. International Congress Series No. 1293, Elsevier, The Netherlands, pp 103–106

  • Baron E, Ellis J. Sectoral crediting mechanisms for greenhouse gas mitigation: Institutional and operational issues. OECD International Energy Agency May 2006. Accessed from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/36/6/36737940.pdf

  • Boadi D, Benchaar C, Chiquette J, Masse D (2004) Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: update review. Can J Anim Sci 84:319–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach RH, DeAngelo BJ, Rose S, Li C, Salas W, DelGrosso SJ (2008) Mitigation potential and costs for global agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Agric Econ 38(2):109–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchemin K, McGinn S (2005) Methane emissions from feedlot cattle fed barley or corn diets. J Anim Sci 83:653–661

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosi M, Ellis J (2005) Exploring options for “Sectoral Crediting Mechanisms”, OECD Environment Directorate and International Energy Agency. Unclassified, COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2005)1

  • Cacho OJ, Marshall GR, Milne M (2005) Transaction and abatement costs of carbon-sink projects in developing countries. Environ Dev Econ 10(5):597–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casey JW, Holden NM (2006) Quantification of GHG emissions from sucker-beef production in Ireland. Agric Syst 90:79–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conforti P, Londero P (2001) AGLINK: The OECD Partial Equilibrium Model. Working Paper No. 8. Istituto Nazionale di Economia Agraria. September

  • De Cara S, Houze M, Jayet PA (2005) Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture in the EU: a spatial assessment of sources and abatement costs. Environ Resour Econ 32:551–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demment MW, Young MY, Sensenig RL (2003) Providing micronutrients through food-based solutions: a key to human and national development. J Nutr 133(11S-II):3879S–3885S

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumortier J, Hayes D, Carriquiry M, Dong F, Du X, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Mulik K (2010) Modeling the effects of pasture expansion on emissions from land-use change. Center For Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State. Working Paper 10–WP 504. Available at: http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/10wp504.pdf

  • EC (2009) “Quantification of the effects on greenhouse gas emissions of policies and measures: Final Report Appendix I: Detailed policy methodology and results chapters.” European Commission. December 2009. Accessed at: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/studies/g-gas/docs/ghgpams_report_appendix_i_180110_en.pdf

  • FAO (2009a) “Anchoring Agriculture within a Copenhagen Agreement” A Policy brief for UNFCCC parties by FAO. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessed at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/data/nrc/policy_brief_sbstabonn.pdf

  • FAO (2009b) The State of Food and Agriculture 2009: Livestock in the Balance. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. ISBN: 978-92-5-106215-9. Rome. 176pp. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0680e/i0680e00.htm

  • Figures C, Streck C (2009) Enhanced financial mechanisms for post 2012 mitigation. Policy Research Working Paper, WPS5008. July

  • Gerber P, Key N, Portet F, Steinfeld H (2010) Policy options in addressing livestock’s contribution to climate change. Animal 4(3):393–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houser T, Bradley R, Childs B, Werksman J, Heilmayr R (2008) Leveling the Carbon Playing Field International Competition and US Climate Policy Design. The Peterson Institute for International Economics

  • IFCN Dairy Report 2007: For a Better Understanding of Milk Production World-Wide. International Farm Comparison Network. IFCN Dairy Research Center, Kiel, Germany

  • IFPRI (2009) In: Nelson G (ed) Agriculture and climate change: an agenda for negotiation in Copenhagen. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 10

  • IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press

  • Johansson D, Hedenus F (2010) A perspective paper on methane mitigation as a response to climate change. Copenhagen Consensus Center. Denmark. Accessed at: http://ftc_dev.planck.mocsystems.com/uploads/tx_templavoila/PP_Methane_Johansson_Hedenus_v.2.0.pdf

  • Johnson KA, Johnson DE (1995) Methane emissions from cattle. J Anim Sci 73:2483–2492

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan E, Lovett DK, Hawkins M, Callan J, O’Mara FP (2006) The effect of varying levels of coconut oil on intake, digestibility and methane output from continental cross beef heifers. Anim Sci 82:859–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemfert C, Schill W (2009) “An analysis of methane mitigation as a response to climate change” Copenhagen Consensus Center. Denmark. Accessed at: http://fixtheclimate.com/uploads/tx_templavoila/AP_Methane_Kemfert_Schill_v.5.0.pdf

  • Lovett D, Lovell S, Stack L, Callan J, Finlay M, Connolly J, O’Mara FP (2003) Effect of forage/concentrate ratio and dietary coconut oil level on methane output and performance of finishing beef heifers. Livest Prod Sci 84:135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett DK, Shalloo L, Dillon P, O’Mara FP (2006) A systems approach to quantify greenhouse gas fluxes from pastoral dairy production as affected by management regime. Agric Syst 88:156–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machmüller A, Ossowski DA, Kreuzer M (2000) Comparative evaluation of the effects of coconut oil, oilseeds and crystalline fat on methane release, digestion and energy balance in lambs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 85:41–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinn SM, Beauchemin KA, Coates T, Colombatto D (2004) Methane emissions from beef cattle: effects of monensin, sunflower oil, enzymes, yeast, and fumaric acid. J Anim Sci 82:3346–3356

    Google Scholar 

  • Moll HAJ (2005) Costs and benefits of livestock systems and the role of market and nonmarket relationships. Agric Econ 32:181–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monteny GJ, Bannink A, Chadwick D (2006) Greenhouse gas abatement strategies for animal husbandry. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112(2–3):163–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newbold CJ, López S, Nelson N, Ouda JO, Wallace RJ, Moss AR (2005) Proprionate precursors and other metabolic intermediates as possible alternative electron acceptors to methanogenesis in ruminal fermentation in vitro. Br J Nutr 94:27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NZMAF (2009) Agriculture in a New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Accessed July 1, 2009 at: http://www.maf.govt.nz/climatechange/agriculture/

  • OECD (2007) Documentation of the AGLINK-COSIMO model. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. AGR/CA/APM(2006)16/FINAL. March 14 2007

  • OECD-FAO (2008) OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2008–2017. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessible at: http://www.agri-outlook.org

  • Pelletier N (2008) Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions. Agric Syst 98:67–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez Domínguez I (2006) Greenhouse gases: inventories, abatement costs and markets for emission permits in European agriculture—a modelling approach, Peter Lang, European University Studies

  • Randolph TF, Schelling E, Grace D, Nicholson CF, Leroy JL, Cole DC, Demment MW, Omore A, Zinsstag J, Ruel M (2007) Role of livestock in human nutrition and health for poverty reduction in developing countries. J Anim Sci 85:2788–2800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringius L, Torvanger A, Underdal A (2002) Burden sharing and fairness principles in international climate policy. Int Env Agreements: Pol, Law, and Econ 2:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, McCarl B, Ogle S, O’Mara F, Rice C, Scholes B, Sirotenko O, Howden M, McAllister T, Pan G, Romanenkov V, Schneider U, Towprayoon S (2007) Policy and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1–4):6–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samaniego J, Figueres C (2002) Evolving to a sector-based clean development mechanism. In: Kevin A, Baumert K, Blanchard O, Llosa S, Perkaus JF (eds) Building on the Kyoto protocol: options for protecting the climate. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, pp 89–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt J, Helme N, Lee J, Houdashelt M (2008) Sector-based approach to the post-2012 climate change policy architecture. Clim Policy 8:494–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider L (2007) Is the CDM fulfilling its environmental and sustainable development objectives? An evaluation of the CDM and option for improvement. Report prepared for World Wildlife Fund. Berlin. Oko-Institut Nov. 5, 2007. Accessed at: http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/622/2007-162-en.pdf

  • Schneider U, McCarl B, Schmid E (2007) Agricultural sector analysis on greenhouse gas mitigation in US agriculture and forestry. Agric Syst 94:128–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stehfest E, Bouwman L, van Vuuren D, den Elzen M, Eickhout B, Kabat P (2009) Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim Chang 95(1–2):83–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan C (2006) Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterk WA, Wittneben B (2006) Enhancing the clean development mechanism through sectoral approaches: definitions, application and ways forward. Int Env Agreements: Pol, Law, and Econ 6:271–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomassen MA, de Boer IJM (2005) Evaluation of indicators to assess the environmental impact of dairy production systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 111:185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (2008a) National Inventory Reports, 2008. Table 4 Sectoral Report for Agriculture, Inventory 2005. Various countries. Accessed at: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/4303.php

  • UNFCCC (2008b) Challenges and opportunities for mitigation in the agricultural sector. FCC/TP/2008/8. 21 November 2008

  • UNFCCC (2008c) Elaboration of possible improvements to emissions trading and the project-based mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol. Ad Hoc Working Group On Further Commitments For Annex I Parties Under The Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/KP/AWG/2008/INF.3 24 November 2008. Accessed at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/awg6/eng/inf03.pdf

  • UNFCCC (2009) Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under The Convention, Negotiating text. Sixth session, Bonn, 1.12 June 2009. FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/8 19 May 2009. Accessed at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca6/eng/08.pdf

  • USEPA (2006a) Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990–2020. June 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC

  • USEPA (2006b) Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Atmospheric Programs (6207J) EPA 430-R-06-005. Washington, DC 20460 June 2006

  • Vermont B, De Cara S (2010) How costly is mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture?: A meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 69(7):1373–1386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirsenius S, Hedenus F, Mohlin K (2009) Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: Rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects. Manuscript

  • Wright A, Kennedy P, O’Neill C, Troovey A, Popovski S, Rea S, Pimm C, Klein L (2004) Reducing methane emissions in sheep by immunization against rumen methanogens. Vaccine 22:3976–3985

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The authors would like to thank Theun Vellinga, Pierre Gerber, Carolyn Opio, Henning Steinfeld, and Merritt Cluff for helpful insights and assistance. We would also like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. The views expressed are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Economic Research Service, USDA or the OECD.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 355 E Street SW, Washington, DC, 20024, USA

    Nigel Key

  2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2 rue André Pascal, 75775, Paris Cedex 16, France

    Gregoire Tallard

Authors
  1. Nigel Key
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregoire Tallard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nigel Key.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Key, N., Tallard, G. Mitigating methane emissions from livestock: a global analysis of sectoral policies. Climatic Change 112, 387–414 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0206-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0206-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation