IMPLICATIONS AND PRACTICALITIES OF GHG MITIGATION.

Discipline: environment; 

This contribution does not directly address R & D, but it is based on results partly generated by the author. The mitigation of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the dairy industry, as in the larger livestock industry and agriculture as a collective, is becoming highly relevant to our management systems as the carbon footprint is required to be reduced by 20% by 2025, that is less than 10 years from now! In an article aimed for the Agri SA readers, the author and his co-authors addressed some of the issues they think should be priority. This message, clearly, is important to the dairy industry audience as well, and therefore the author compiled this contribution from that article.

It is well known that agriculture in South Africa (SA) is a significant contributor to GHG and therefore the Sector has a responsibility to implement reduction programmes. It is praiseworthy that the Sector has shown considerable commitment towards doing so, both through working closely with the responsible government sectors and within commodity structures. The question, however, is what does it mean in practical terms and how should we proceed.

As defined by the SA Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), agriculture falls within the AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use) Sector. The most recent calculations of GHG emissions by the DEA1 show that the total SA emissions are about 544000 gigagram (Gg) carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (eq) per annum of which the AFOLU sector contributes 51800 Gg CO2 eq. This is about 10% of the total, if carbon sequestration in forestry and other areas of the Sector is not taken into account and 5% if it is. Thus, if the AFOLU Sector meets its goal of reducing GHG emissions by 20% at 2025, the contribution to the national burden at maximum would be about 2.5%, which is less than the errors associated with estimation and assumption of official statistics because of unreliable or shortcomings in statistical models and natural yearly variability.

Currently, because of international obligations and environmental policies adopted by government a tremendous effort is put into streamlining estimations, also to establish a baseline for future monitoring of successes or failures in GHG reduction. Whereas the effort on the one hand is commendable, one should ask the question whether, from an AFOLU Sector perspective, this is really where the emphasis should be given the fact that it is unlikely that numbers of animals will be more accurately estimated, land allocation and transfer are uncertain, crops vary substantially due to climate constraints, production systems vary considerable etc; the GHG contribution of the Sector simply will never be accurately estimated because of comparatively large biological and environmental influences.

Time is running out to meet the target by 2025. So, where should the emphasis be? The obligation to meet the target should in the first instance be emphasized. Secondly, production systems in relatively similar environmental zones are approximately similar. This applies to crops, horticulture or livestock production. Since these zones are localized to some extent, statistics can be more reliable or can be modelled with relative ease. Thirdly, pilot GHG measurement studies can be implemented if necessary and fourthly, because influences are less variable in localized areas, the production system can be modelled with scenario statement. From an effective extension and training perspective, which should be the priority goal, the focus on similar production systems which sometimes can be narrowed down to districts should be initiated sooner rather than later.

Reference:

1 DEA, 2014. GHG National Inventory Report South Africa 2000-2010. Dept of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria, November 2014.