Regional Brief Boosting Livestock Sector Growth with Low Emissions A Strategic Approach in Eastern and Southern Africa © 2025 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank Group, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover photo credit : Frauke Jungbluth / World Bank Contents Acknowledgments vi Abbreviations and Acronyms vii Executive Summary  viii INTRODUCTION 1 Livestock sector in Eastern and Southern Africa: key features  2 Purpose, structure and motivation of this brief 3 1. A Growing Livestock Sector in Eastern and Southern Africa Driven by Rising Consumption Trends 5 Rising consumer demand for animal-source products  6 Increasing intake of animal-source products in low-income countries and population groups 7 2. Rising Emissions with Livestock Sector Growth  8 Livestock sector growth and rising emissions  9 Avoiding rapid methane emission growth in cattle hotspots in the region  11 3. Responsible Livestock Development: A Framework for Constructive Action  13 Externalities of Livestock Sector Growth  14 Maximizing the livestock sector’s potential and minimizing its negative impacts 15 4. Balancing Emissions Reduction and Livestock Sector Growth 17 A toolbox to reduce emissions in livestock systems 18 Cutting methane emissions with fewer, but better-performing cattle 20 Preserving and improving carbon stocks in landscapes  21 5. Beyond Emission Control: Additional Benefits of Responsible Livestock Development 22 “Greener” production: higher profits and greater resilience 23 Capitalizing on opportunities in high-end markets with responsible production 24 6. Setting Priorities: Key Strategic Recommendations for Policymakers 25 Prioritizing low-carbon feed, improved genetics and breeding practices, and landscape restoration  26 Institutions and data systems for low-emitting livestock 27 National and regional partnerships  28 7. Financing Responsible Growth in the Livestock Sector 29 Investment in the livestock sector: current needs and the sector’s untapped potential30 Diverse funding streams to support responsible livestock sector expansion  30 Leveraging climate finance and emerging options for responsible livestock development  31 Carbon markets: provision of extra incentives for responsible livestock development 32 References 34 iii APPENDIX A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) 39 Sectoral and policy context  40 Outcomes of adopting the selected interventions  41 Reduction in emissions and increase in resilience from increase in cattle productivity and reduction in herd size  45 Effects on soil carbon sequestration and profitability of improved systems  47 Carbon revenues as an incentive 48 Detailed Assumptions Used in Case Studies 48 APPENDIX B: Further Information about Article 6 Transactions and Voluntary Carbon Markets  55 Country readiness for accessing carbon markets: lessons learned and building blocks 57 Strategizing access to carbon revenues as an extra incentive  60 Figures Figure 1. The Strategic Approach at a Glance  x Figure 2. Livestock Production in Eastern and Southern Africa  6 Figure 3. Animal-Source Food Intake and Meat Consumption 7 Figure 4. Livestock Emissions in Eastern and Southern African Countries, 1990–2020 9 Figure 5. Emissions from Enteric Fermentation and Manure Management as a Percentage of Total Emissions from Livestock Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa 10 Figure 6. Methane Emissions from Livestock, Eastern Africa, 1990–2050 11 Figure 7. Methane Emissions from Livestock, Southern Africa, 1990–2050 12 Figure 8. Change in Direct Emissions Resulting from Productivity-Enhancing Interventions and Herd Control 43 Figure 9. Decrease in Emission Intensity (per Unit of Protein) with Adoption of Selected Interventions 44 Figure 10. Number of Projects Registered at Verified Carbon Standard Methodology (VM) and Gold Standard (GS) in Different Regions 56 Figure 11. Roadmap for Carbon Market Readiness 58 iv Tables Table 1. Options Available to Control Direct and Indirect Emissions 18 Table 2. Climate Finance Options for Livestock Development 31 Table 3. Selected Interventions 41 Table 4. Emissions Intensity with and without Interventions 45 Table 5. Soil Carbon Stocks 47 Table 6. Net Present Value, Total Revenues, and Total Costs for a 1,000-Cattle Herd Under Various Scenarios 47 Table 7. Assumptions for With-Interventions Scenarios in the Four Country Case Studies  48 Table 8. Parameters for Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model: Interactive Simulations in Botswana 49 Table 9. Parameters for Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model: Interactive Simulations in Namibia 50 Table 10. Parameters for Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model: Interactive Simulations in Tanzania 51 Table 11. Parameters for Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model: Interactive Simulations in Zimbabwe 52 Table 12. Emissions Intensity per Kilogram of Meat 53 Table 13. Parameters Used to Estimate Soil Carbon Stocks  53 Table 14. Parameters Used for Financial Analysis 54 Boxes Box 1. Direct and Indirect Sources of Livestock Emissions 10 Box 2. A Responsible Approach to Livestock Development: Principles Related to Environment, Animal Health, and Inclusion 15 Box 3. Changing Consumption Patterns in Middle- and High-Income Countries 20 Box 4. Results-Based Financing as a Hybrid Scheme to Foster High-Integrity Carbon Credits  33 v Acknowledgments The preparation of this brief and the case studies conducted in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe were generously supported by the government of Switzerland through the BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes. The fund aims to promote and reward the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon sequestration through better land management. The case studies assessed the potential for implementing triple-win options in livestock development and evaluated access to carbon markets. These cases inspired the preparation of this brief, which is meant to provide high-level messages and recommendations for policymakers in the region. A World Bank team of the Department of Agriculture and Food in the Eastern and Southern Africa Region, led by Francisco Obreque, Senior Agriculture Specialist, and including Ernest Ruzindaza, Senior Agriculture Economist; Emma Isinika-Modamba, Senior Agriculture Economist; Hardwick Tchale, Senior Agriculture Economist; Biruktayet Assefa Betremariam, Senior Agriculture Specialist; Ana Cristina Canales Gomez, Senior Livestock Specialist; Easther Chigumira, Senior Agricultural Specialist; and Mario Mendez, Senior Program Assistant prepared the brief. The preparation benefited from the guidance of Iain Shuker, Regional Director of Planet Department (Agriculture, Climate Change, Environment, Social Development, Water) in the Eastern and Southern Africa Region, and Holger Kray and Frauke Jungbluth, Regional Managers for Agriculture and Food in the Eastern and Southern Africa Region. The International Fund for Agricultural Development and the Global Methane Hub provided additional support during the preparation of the brief. Mario Herrero, Professor of Food Systems and Global Change at Cornell University and member of the Expert Panel on Livestock Methane; Hayden Montgomery, Director of the Agriculture Program at the Global Methane Hub; Svetlana Edmeades, Lead Agriculture Economist, Pierre Gerber, Senior Agriculture Economist at the World Bank, and Anne Mottet, Lead Technical Specialist in Livestock at International Fund for Agricultural Development, provided technical advice during the review process. The team acknowledges comments and suggestions from Roy Parizat, Senior Economist at the Global Department for Climate Change and Integrated Sustainable Forest Landscapes Program Manager; Alexander Lotsch, Senior Climate Change Specialist at the Global Department for Agriculture and Food; and Izabela Leao, Senior Rural Development Specialist, Eastern and Southern Africa Region. For the case studies and some sections of the brief, the World Bank engaged a team from Unique Land Use GmbH that included Suzanne van Dijk, Andreas Wilkes, Titis Apdini, and Christopher Williams. vi Abbreviations and Acronyms Abbreviation Definition BAU Business as usual CH4 Methane CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent ERPA Emission-reduction purchase agreement EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GDP Gross domestic product GHG Greenhouse gas GLEAM-i Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model—Interactive IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development ISFL Integrated Sustainable Forest Landscapes MRV Measurement, reporting, and verification N2O Nitrous oxide NDC Nationally determined contribution VCM Voluntary carbon market VCS Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard vii Executive Summary The brief seeks to guide policymakers in Eastern and Southern Africa on tackling emissions within the rapidly expanding livestock sector, advocating for a responsible growth strategy. It broadly addresses three key questions: Which systems are producing emissions? Why is this significant for the region? And how can emissions be managed in a manner that simultaneously promotes sectoral growth? The livestock sector supports the livelihoods of over 400 million people and an estimated 80 percent of the poor in Eastern and Southern Africa. The sector is a major contributor to the economy, creating employment in primary production, processing, and all related services. Livestock is a primary source of income and financial reserve for many households. The sector also plays a role in alleviating food insecurity—a pressing issue that has significantly worsened in the region over recent years. Governments can harness the rising demand for animal-source products to drive inclusive economic growth. In recent decades, demand for animal-source products has surged rapidly in Eastern and Southern Africa and abroad in places such as the Middle East and North Africa. As population and cities expand, and consumption habits change, the demand is projected to grow further. The long-term trend creates massive opportunities for small-scale livestock keepers, businesses and investors. To seize them, government action is needed: boosting production with high biosafety and quality standards, fostering domestic and international trade, integrating smallholders into dynamic value chains, and creating quality jobs. Public policies play an important role in enhancing the nutritional status of the population and promoting public health. Products such as meat, milk, and eggs are rich in essential nutrients vital for health and development, particularly for children. Yet, people in Eastern and Southern Africa are not consuming enough animal-source foods. The intake of these foods is among the lowest globally and, on average, falls below the levels recommended by dietary guidelines as a way to meet nutritional standards. Those in dire need of more protein—children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable groups—can greatly benefit from policies that make animal-source foods more available and affordable, especially in situations with limited or no access to vegetable protein. Livestock brings many benefits, but it also causes negative externalities that require government action. Land degradation, deforestation, and outbreaks of zoonotic diseases are among the negative effects of livestock production. The expansion of the sector has led to doubling greenhouse gas emissions in Eastern and Southern Africa since the nineties. While promoting sector growth, government initiatives should simultaneously mitigate these externalities to ensure responsible livestock development. Most livestock emissions stem from beef and dairy cattle and emission hotspots are found in areas with increasing cattle numbers. An estimated half of the livestock emissions in Eastern and Southern Africa are methane arising from the digestive process in cattle. Methane is a strong pollutant that contributes to global warming much faster than carbon dioxide. Additional emissions include those from the animal feed supply chain and from land degradation and deforestation, which lead to reduced carbon stocks in landscapes. Overall, emissions have markedly increased in eastern African countries due to growing cattle numbers, while they have remained relatively constant in southern African countries because higher mortality rates have hampered the expansion of cattle populations. Cattle producers will be more likely to adopt emissions-reduction practices that also increase revenue. The case studies for beef production in Botswana, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe, along with evidence from dairy production in Ethiopia, confirm the profitability of scenarios with higher protein production and lower emissions. Livestock keepers can achieve higher production levels by adopting better reproductive, feeding, and health practices, thereby reducing the level of emissions per unit of protein. When adding herd control and restoring rangelands, the combined effect on reducing emissions can be so significant that the production systems even sequester more carbon dioxide than they emit. Governments can encourage a transition towards low-emitting livestock systems through smart policies that have multiple benefits. The following represent public investments offering triple-win benefits—boosting production, curbing emissions, and enhancing resilience to climate shocks—and should become strategic priorities in countries with cattle production: viii • Low-carbon, low-cost feeds and feeding strategies: Feed is by far the greatest cost element in most livestock systems; its importance for production is evident. Not only will better feeds and feeding strategies significantly impact profitability, but they will also reduce pressure on natural resources and cut indirect emissions. Governments should prioritize research programs that develop high-quality feed with a low- carbon footprint, improve extension and advisory services to disseminate viable solutions with locally available feedstuffs and work with the private sector to deploy self-sustaining supply chains. • Improved cattle genetics and breeding practices: Improving genetics is crucial for achieving fewer but more productive animals, which is the entry point to controlling methane emissions. Improved genetics are also vital to enduring extreme weather events. Better genetics can include both indigenous and exotic breeds and crossbreeds, and their adoption must be accompanied by practices that boost reproductive performance, for instance, reducing calving intervals and calves’ mortality. • Restoration of landscapes: Restoring landscapes, including rangelands, is an effective way to sequester carbon. Eastern and Southern Africa has a vast area of degraded rangelands that can be turned into carbon sinks while enhancing water storage and soil fertility and thereby sustaining higher productivity in the long term. Smart livestock policies need to go hand in hand with enhanced institutions, improved data systems, and stronger partnerships. Public institutions in the livestock, agriculture, and environmental sectors need strong cross-sectoral collaboration, supported by permanent coordination structures and capacity building. Strong collaboration with the private sector, farmers’ groups and associations, and regional organizations can allow governments to share knowledge and collaborate in cross-border initiatives. Closing existing data gaps and improving data infrastructure are crucial areas of collaboration. Governments are expected to measure emissions to report progress in decarbonization and unlock climate finance. Ministries of agriculture, livestock, or environment need to collect enough data to establish and maintain Tier 2 inventories for estimating and tracking methane emissions. Shifting diets to reduce the demand for animal-source products, often recommended to curb livestock emissions, is an approach that needs to consider specific contexts. In high-income countries, the environmental and health implications of beef are sufficient reasons to advocate for reduced meat consumption. Overconsumption of animal-source products is not a concern in Eastern and Southern Africa, where increasing protein intake remains a pressing issue. Governments must invest more in the livestock sector to fully realize its benefits. Public investment avenues in livestock development include optimizing national budgets and mobilizing external financing. Ineffective and inefficient agricultural subsidies can be repurposed to finance triple-win investments. Safety nets can be directed toward public works in such a way that public funds not only ensure an income for resource- poor people but also have climate co-benefits. These works include watershed or rangeland restoration or afforestation initiatives, like in Ethiopia, Malawi, or Botswana. Various development partners can support repurposing initiatives and upscaling public works with environmental results as part of safety nets. Carbon markets can add to the incentives to adopt sustainable practices. By demonstrating a reduction in emissions, producers and businesses can sell carbon credits and earn a financial bonus. Most carbon projects in the voluntary carbon markets are driven by nongovernmental organizations that seek to create an additional revenue stream to cofinance their operations and deliver extension services to livestock producers. Landscape approaches can be conducive to climate finance. In Ethiopia, a large jurisdictional approach led by the government illustrates a different method of climate finance: livestock emissions are reduced within the context of a landscape approach that enhances carbon stocks, while significantly improving resilience. By doing so, the entire jurisdiction becomes a producer of emissions reductions or carbon credits. Most of the carbon revenues flow directly to communities. This model has significant potential for expansion in Ethiopia and can be replicated in other countries in the region. With the potential emergence of transactions among countries under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, countries will need large volumes of carbon credits for trading. Landscape approaches can enable countries to achieve the scale required for these transactions. ix Figure 1. The Strategic Approach at a Glance The Strategic Approach at a Glance NS fe e d s and DA O st TA TU TI - co fe S w ed YS I ST , lo TE in g IN M - c ar b o n S s t r ate gies Low Im Triple-win investments pr o that reduce emissions, ed v increase output and scapes ca t enhance resilience le g e n e t to shocks la n d of c nd sa es PR o n b re c at OP edin g pr act o r PS Re s t ER HI N FI RS AN E CI N NG RT PA x INTRODUCTION 1 Biruktayet Betremariam, Curt Carnemark, © & Frauke Jungbluth | World Bank Introduction  Livestock sector in Eastern and Southern Africa: key features Livestock plays a critical economic and social role both globally and in the Eastern and Southern Africa region. Globally, livestock supports the livelihoods of almost 1.3 billion people. In Eastern and Southern Africa—26 countries stretching from the Red Sea in the north to the Cape of Good Hope in the south, also referred to as the region in this document—the contribution of livestock to the overall economy ranges from less than 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in Namibia and Botswana to 40 percent in Somalia. At least half of the agricultural GDP is attributed to livestock production, and in some countries, such as Somalia, the livestock sector contributes up to 70 percent of GDP (IGAD 2022). The livestock sector is also a source of revenue and export opportunities. Countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda are exporting livestock products mainly to the Middle East and North Africa. Livestock supports the livelihoods of at least 400 million people and an estimated 80 percent of the poor in Eastern and Southern Africa. The livestock sector encompasses a variety of species, with cattle being the most prominent in the region. Production systems in Eastern and Southern Africa include ruminants—cattle, camel, goat, sheep, and buffalo— and monogastric animals—poultry and pork. Eastern Africa is home to half of the world’s camel population, 10 percent of the cattle, and 12 percent of sheep and goat population (IGAD 2022). Cattle production is significant for most countries because of its multiplier effects on the economy. Top beef producers in Africa include Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. Except for Sudan, all have experienced significant growth in production over the past two decades. For instance, Zambia increased beef production by more than 260 percent between 2000 and 2020 (World Bank 2022). Equally diverse are production systems across the region, which can be classified as intensive and extensive. These systems have particularities according to the agroecological conditions of their locations, which vary from humid to arid. • Intensive systems include intensive urban dairy systems, zero-grazing cattle with feedlot, and high-density poultry or pork production. These systems are important contributors to market availability of animal-source protein in urban areas. Intensive and semi-intensive livestock systems are poised for fast growth in response to projected demand for animal-source products, although intensive systems rely on external inputs and are particularly vulnerable to disruptions due to climate change, such as heat stress, drought-related feed shortages, and diseases (IGAD 2022). • Extensive systems are predominant in Eastern and Southern Africa and can be broken down into two broad categories: pastoral and agro-pastoral. Pastoral systems are based on moving livestock depending on seasonal pasture and water availability. The mode of migration varies depending on need and culture, with traditional structures and institutions predominant throughout the region. Mobility is a resilience response to changing climates and terrain (Kaufmann, Hülsebusch, and Krätli 2019). In agro-pastoral systems herders tend to stay in one place, combining livestock and crop farming, either rain fed or irrigated. These systems are found along main rivers across pastoral areas and in the transition from high to lowlands. Livestock systems in the region comprise large and small farms. Often, and particularly in the southern countries, well-organized commercial businesses on privately owned farms coexist with smallholders producing on communal land. For example, commercial farmers and businesses own approximately 60 percent of the beef cattle in South Africa. In contrast, in Botswana, more than 80 percent of the cattle are in communal cattle production. In southern countries, it is estimated that there are 100 million smallholder livestock keepers, producing most of the pork, poultry, and eggs (Von Braun et al. 2023). 2 Introduction  Purpose, structure and motivation of this brief This brief has three specific objectives.1 Raise awareness of the need to address emissions in the fast-growing livestock sector as part of a responsible approach to livestock growth. Help policymakers understand, in broad terms, how to address emissions (which emissions, why, and where) to the extent possible without compromising sector growth. Provide high-level strategic recommendations, including how to finance livestock sector development. The brief is organized into the following sections. • Section 1 provides information about growth in the livestock sector and its driving forces and the need for increasing consumption of animal-source products in Eastern and Southern Africa. • Section 2 examines why it is urgent to address emissions in the livestock sector. • Section 3 discusses the prevailing sector growth model and lays out the basic elements of a more responsible approach to livestock growth. • Section 4 addresses how to reduce emissions in livestock, with emphasis on the most important pathways: cutting methane emissions in cattle and preserving and enhancing carbon stocks in landscapes. • Section 5 touches on additional benefits of a responsible approach beyond emissions control. • Section 6 provides high-level recommendations in terms of priority investments, institutions and systems, and partnerships. • Section 7 elaborates on how to finance responsible livestock sector development, including growing opportunities for using carbon markets as an additional incentive. • Appendix A includes case studies conducted in 2023 for Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. • Appendix B provides further information about Article 6 and voluntary carbon markets. As a knowledge product, this brief builds on pilots for results-based financing for emissions reduction in two African countries, supported by the BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes (ISFL) Program in Eastern and Southern Africa. In Ethiopia, since 2022, the Oromia Forested Landscape Program has aimed to reduce deforestation, forest degradation, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land use, including livestock management. Similarly, in Zambia, the Eastern Province Jurisdictional Sustainable Landscape Program was approved in June 2024. Both programs, implemented by their respective governments, adopt a jurisdictional approach that enables countries to monetize emissions reductions by registering and selling carbon credits from nature-based solutions. These credits can be transacted in part to the BioCarbon Fund on behalf of its contributors. Credits generated may also be sold to third-party buyers should the host country wish to do so. 1 Background papers that served as the basis for this brief include World Bank 2023a; 2023b;2023c; 2024a; 2024b. 3 Introduction  The pilots in Ethiopia and Zambia sparked interest in replicating results-based financing across Eastern and Southern Africa. Case studies were carried out in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe to assess the potential for replicating the approach, including access to carbon markets. These case studies were part of a broader analytical effort undertaken in response to requests from the respective governments. Given that cattle are the main source of global livestock emissions (IPCC 2019), the sector presents a significant potential for mitigation. These four countries are major beef producers and their governments are interested in modernizing beef production, creating a unique opportunity to integrate the mitigation agenda into their policies. Therefore, estimating potential reductions, as well as costs and benefits, was intended to inform policy dialogue. This brief consolidates existing knowledge and the findings of the case studies and is designed to help policymakers develop effective and smart strategies for this crucial sector. The mitigation agenda (addressing emissions) presents an opportunity for countries to access international finance, align with a more responsible approach, and contribute to the global fight against climate change. 4 1. A Growing Livestock Sector in Eastern and Southern Africa Driven by Rising Consumption Trends 5 © Francisco Obreque | World Bank 1A Growing Livestock Sector in Eastern and Southern Africa Driven by Rising Consumption Trends . Rising consumer demand for animal-source products The livestock sector has been expanding rapidly in most areas of Eastern and Southern Africa, with a significant part attributed to dairy production. Production of all main animal products has been growing in recent decades (Figure 2). Between 2010 and 2022, it is estimated that total growth in livestock production was 27 percent. As of 2022, there were almost 70 million dairy cattle in Africa, with approximately 40 million in Eastern and Southern Africa, largely in eastern Africa. Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania are among the biggest dairy producers on the continent. The dairy sector is one of the fastest-growing agricultural domains in Eastern and Southern Africa and a significant source of economic returns and employment opportunities along dairy value chains. Sector growth has not been even across the region, and production has decreased in some areas, especially as a result of droughts, floods, and disease outbreaks. Figure 2. Livestock Production in Eastern and Southern Africa 35 30 25 Millions of metric tons 20 15 10 5 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Total livestock Meat of cattle Meat of sheep, Meat of goat, production with the bone, fresh or chilled fresh or chilled fresh or chilled Raw milk Meat of chickens, Eggs from other Meat of pig of cattle fresh or chilled birds in shell, with the bone, fresh, n.e.c. fresh or chilled Source: FAOSTAT. Data. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed on May 6, 2024). The driver behind this growth is the expanding demand for animal-source foods, which is forecasted to continue rising. Key factors contributing to growth in demand for products such as meat, milk, and eggs are population growth, urbanization, and shifts in consumption patterns driven by increases in purchasing power (FAO 2021; Godfray et al. 2018; Parlasca and Quinn 2022; Thornton 2010; Tschirley et al. 2015; UN 2019). Taking these factors into account, each country has a unique rate of growth in demand for animal-source products, but the overall trend is consistently upward. For instance, by 2050, demand will increase in Ethiopia by 142 percent, Kenya by 108 percent, Tanzania by 271 percent, and Uganda by 337 percent (Henchion et al. 2021). Demand for specific products differs between eastern and southern African countries. Analyzing trends from 1990 to 2015, it is projected that milk consumption will increase at a significantly faster rate in the eastern countries, whereas consumption of poultry meat and eggs is expected to experience substantial growth in the southern countries (von Braun et al. 2023). 6 1A Growing Livestock Sector in Eastern and Southern Africa Driven by Rising Consumption Trends . Increasing intake of animal-source products in low-income countries and population groups Overall, consumption of animal-source products remains low in low-income countries. In middle- and high-income countries, more than 60 percent of protein intake is from animal-source foods, whereas in low- income countries, it does not exceed 20 percent. Countries in Eastern and Southern Africa have among the lowest consumption of milk and eggs and the second lowest consumption of meat after South Asia, albeit with significant variability across countries. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Ethiopia are among the countries with the lowest meat intake worldwide, whereas South Africa has a much higher level (Miller et al. 2022). Figure 3 illustrates the uneven animal-source food intake around the world. Figure 3. Animal-Source Food Intake and Meat Consumption World Southeast and East Asia Central or Eastern Europe and Central Asia High-income countries Latin America and Caribbean Middle East and North Africa South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa 0 1 2 3 4 5 Intake (servings per day) Dairy Eggs Seafood Meat Source: FAOSTAT. Data. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed on May 6, 2024). In Eastern and Southern Africa, consumption levels of animal-source products are significantly below dietary guidelines. Animal-source foods offer high-quality proteins and essential nutrients such as bioactive factors, iron, zinc, and fatty acids that are vital for human health and cognition throughout life (FAO 2023a; Paul et al. 2020). Meeting nutritional requirements, particularly during the first 1,000 days of life, is essential to secure physical and cognitive development in children. Consumption of animal-source food is widely recommended in the dietary guidelines of the countries in Eastern and Southern Africa. For instance, the Ethiopian government’s dietary guidelines recommend that the average adult consume 60 grams of animal-source foods such as eggs and meat and 300 to 400 grams of dairy foods every day (Government of Ethiopia 2022). Actual daily average per capita consumption is only 24 grams of meat, slightly more than 1 gram of eggs, and around 100 grams of milk.2 Consumption of products such as milk and its derivatives varies according to country, geographic area, and purchasing power. In Kenya, for instance, dairy consumption is close to or even exceeds the recommended amount only in the wealthiest urban groups (Ecker and Pauw 2024). Enhancing production in Eastern and Southern Africa, one of the critical factors that can contribute to affordable supply, could increase consumption of animal-source products among vulnerable population groups. 2 Data from 2019 in Ethiopia, Apparent intake (based on household consumption and expenditure surveys), in FAOSTAT https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/HCES 7 2. Rising Emissions with Livestock Sector Growth 8 © Frauke Jungbluth | World Bank 2Rising Emissions with Livestock Sector Growth . Livestock sector growth and rising emissions As the livestock sector grows, so does its carbon footprint. Although emissions from livestock have remained stable in southern Africa since 1990, they have more than doubled in eastern Africa (Figure 4), mainly because of a significant increase in the number of cattle, with dairy production being a key driver. In contrast, cattle populations in southern African countries have declined, mainly due to successive droughts causing high mortality and making it difficult to expand cattle herds. Figure 4. Livestock Emissions in Eastern and Southern African Countries, 1990–2020 400,000 350,000 Kilotons of carbon dioxide equivalent 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Eastern Africa Southern Africa Source: FAO 2023b. 9 2Rising Emissions with Livestock Sector Growth . Most growth in the sector in Eastern and Southern Africa has resulted from larger numbers of animals rather than productivity gains, which explains the increase in emissions. Cattle is by far the largest emitter, and when livestock production increases without efficiency gains, emissions increase correspondingly. Plus, indirect emissions are linked to production systems more broadly. An overview of direct and indirect emissions is provided in Box 1. Box 1. Direct and Indirect Sources of Livestock Emissions Direct sources of emissions include those that are produced by the animals directly: Enteric fermentation: The digestive process in ruminant animals (cattle, sheep, goats, buffalo, camels) generates methane as a by-product. Enteric methane accounts for more than 40 percent of all livestock sector emissions, being the most important source (Figure 5). Manure management: Manure contains high levels of organic matter and nitrogen. Storage and processing of manure thus results in methane and nitrous oxide emissions. The more manure there is, and depending on how it is handled and how long it is kept, the more of these gases can be released into the atmosphere. Manure accounts for approximately 10 percent of livestock emissions. Indirect sources of livestock emissions include those beyond production: Land use change and land degradation: Growing demand for grazing and feed resources has led to an expansion of pasture, which is often linked to deforestation and is estimated to generate 10 percent of emissions in livestock systems, but this may be much higher in certain contexts. It is estimated that land use contributes 45 to 65 percent of the total carbon footprint from dairy in Tanzania (Hawkins et al. 2021). Emissions in feed production can add another 12 percent. Rangeland degradation leads to loss of soil and biomass carbon stocks (no estimates available). Other indirect sources include energy use for transport and processing of livestock products and production and transport of feed, causing emissions from the use of fertilizer, crop production, and processing. Food loss and waste also add to emissions. Figure 5. Emissions from Enteric Fermentation and Manure Management as a Percentage of Total Emissions from Livestock Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa 7.84% Manure (CH4) 0.321% Feed (CH4) 45.4% 9.76% Feed (N20) Enteric fermentation (CH4) 4.99% Manure (N20) 12.3% Feed (CO2) 9.35% LUC: pasture expansion (CO2) 5.44% Post-farm (CO2) 2.47% Direct on-farm energy (CO2) Embedded on-farm energy (CO2) 0.523% 1.61% LUC: soy and palm (CO2) Source: Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model—Interactive version 3.0, data from 2015, online dashboard updated in https://www.fao.org/gleam/dashboard/en/. Note: CH4 = methane; CO2 = carbon dioxide; N2O = nitrous oxide. 10 2Rising Emissions with Livestock Sector Growth . Avoiding rapid methane emission growth in cattle hotspots in the region Containing methane emissions growth is a global priority. Methane is a short-lived but powerful climate pollutant. Methane emissions must be reduced dramatically before 2030 to keep the 1.5°C warming limit of the Paris Agreement within reach. The livestock sector is the largest source of anthropogenic methane emissions (Costa et al 2021; UNEP and Climate and Clean Air Coalition 2022). Given the urgency of cutting methane emissions, 157 countries and the European Union are participating in the Global Methane Pledge, to bend the methane curve globally. At least half of the countries in Eastern and Southern Africa have joined the pledge. Countries in the region will most likely see the livestock sector grow further, fueled by strong market incentives. The challenge is to balance this growth with containing the surge of methane emissions. Methane emissions are increasing in areas with growing cattle populations. In eastern Africa, it is projected that total methane emissions from the digestive process in animals (enteric fermentation) will have increased by 356 percent from 1990 to 2050 (Figure 6). Countries with large cattle populations, such as Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania, have high methane emissions, which are projected to increase significantly by 2050. In southern Africa, total methane emissions are also projected to increase but not as significantly as in eastern Africa (Figure 7). The largest contributor to southern Africa’s methane emissions is South Africa, and the largest increase in methane emissions (from 1990 to 2050) is expected in Namibia. Figure 6. Methane Emissions from Livestock, Eastern Africa, 1990–2050 250 Million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent 200 150 100 50 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Burundi Comoros Djibouti Eritrea Ethiopia Kenya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Rwanda Seychelles Somalia South Sudan Tanzania Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Source: Methane Emissions Data, Global Methane Initiative (accessed January 12, 2024), https://www.globalmethane.org/methane-emissions​ -data.aspx. 11 2Rising Emissions with Livestock Sector Growth . Figure 7. Methane Emissions from Livestock, Southern Africa, 1990–2050 Million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent 50 40 30 20 10 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Botswana Lesotho Namibia South Africa Eswatini Source: Methane Emissions Data, Global Methane Initiative (accessed January 12, 2024), https://www.globalmethane.org/methane-emissions​ -data.aspx. 12 3. Responsible Livestock Development: A Framework for Constructive Action © Biruktayet Betremariam | World Bank 3Responsible Livestock Development: A Framework for Constructive Action . Externalities of Livestock Sector Growth Expansion of livestock production is associated with various negative externalities. The livestock sector contributes to ecological deterioration and the propagation of zoonotic diseases, and accounts for nearly half of food system emissions. (IPCC 2019) Overgrazing often leads to land degradation. Expansion of livestock farming is a significant driver of deforestation globally and in Eastern and Southern Africa. Furthermore, livestock farming produces considerable waste. In the context of rapidly expanding urban areas in most countries in the region, pollution stemming from livestock is becoming a significant problem, particularly in peri-urban zones. In addition, consumption of meat raised under unhygienic conditions is one of the riskiest factors of zoonotic and foodborne diseases in the region (Kayano, Pulford, and Thomas 2023). Additionally, in areas where pastoralism is prevalent, livestock operations frequently become a cause for conflict. Continuing with business as usual will not address these negative impacts. Rising demand propels producers to prioritize quantity over quality, leading to expansion of livestock populations, particularly cattle, which increases emissions and exacerbates other environmental issues. Livestock keepers and businesses often do not consider the collateral environmental costs of their expansion, and public incentives and regulations—or lack thereof—can amplify the negative impacts. Case studies conducted for beef production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe (Appendix A) reveal that, with growing cattle populations, a business-as-usual scenario would result in a 12 to 16 percent increase in livestock emissions from 2024 to 2030. The livestock sector and its environmental impacts have been a subject of global concern for a long time. Since the early 2000s, the technical literature on the negative impacts of livestock has been abundant. Multilateral institutions and development agencies have continuously advocated for making the sector more sustainable.3 3 In 2006, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) published a report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options” to raise awareness of the numerous negative impacts of livestock production. 14 3Responsible Livestock Development: A Framework for Constructive Action . Maximizing the livestock sector’s potential and minimizing its negative impacts From the standpoint of policymakers, a responsible approach to livestock growth involves mitigating risks and preempting externalities that may cause lasting, irreversible damage. A responsible approach promotes growth while addressing climate and environmental impacts, potential conflict, animal health and welfare, and equity and inclusion. A framework for responsible livestock development can be broken down into multiple principles (Box 2). Policymakers can use these principles as a checklist for policy and investment choices. Box 2. A Responsible Approach to Livestock Development: Principles Related to Environment, Animal Health, and Inclusion Principles for environment and emission reductions • Protect and enhance carbon stocks • Increase efficiency at animal and herd levels • Source sustainable feed • Improve soil health for sustainable grazing • Minimize fossil fuel use Principles for animal health • Prevent and control animal diseases • Ensure welfare of animals • Promote healthy animals for safer food • Reduce risk of zoonosis • Use antimicrobials with prudence Principles for inclusion • Include smallholders in viable livestock development initiatives • Reduce conflict • Boost gender mainstreaming • Promote better nutrition for vulnerable groups Source: See the World Bank Group “Investing in Sustainable Livestock Guide,” at https://www.sustainablelivestockguide.org/investing-sustainable-livestock-isl-guide. A responsible approach begins by broadly framing livestock sector development. In South Sudan, for instance, boosting the livestock sector is important as a way to diversify the economy. Precarious conditions for animal health and very low productivity are intertwined with weak public sector delivery and prevalent conflict, resulting in significant constraints on sector development. In this context, a strategy with a narrow focus on single aspects of the broader picture—only productivity or animal health—would be likely to fail to seize the opportunities the sector offers and might aggravate undesired impacts. How governments set boundaries on the problems in the sector ultimately determines the range of possible solutions and risks to be reduced. 15 3Responsible Livestock Development: A Framework for Constructive Action . Despite the emissions being modest compared to other regions, the call to address emissions in Eastern and Southern Africa is based on the global responsibility of all countries to contribute to the solution to climate change to the greatest extent possible. In the region, policymakers are aware of the pressing need for enhancing adaptation, because the livestock sector is harshly impacted by climate shocks. However, mitigation efforts do not garner the same level of attention, given the overall relatively small contribution of African countries to global warming—all countries in Eastern and Southern Africa combined generate an estimated 7 percent of total global methane emissions. However, every additional ton of carbon released into the atmosphere exacerbates the global challenge, regardless of its origin, and every ton avoided or captured contributes to the solution. Climate change is a global issue that requires efforts from all countries. 16 4. Balancing Emissions Reduction and Livestock Sector Growth 17 © Frauke Jungbluth | World Bank 4Balancing Emissions Reduction and Livestock Sector Growth . A toolbox to reduce emissions in livestock systems Many resources and options are available to governments for planning emissions-reduction strategies. Numerous useful sources are available, such as the FAO (2022a) publication, “Pathways Towards Lower Emissions: A Global Assessment of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation Options from Livestock Agrifood Systems,” which provides a comprehensive inventory of technical alternatives. The International Livestock Research Institute, part of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research system, is a leading technical institution in Eastern and Southern Africa. The World Bank and FAO (n.d.) recently released an updated version of the online resource, “Investing in Sustainable Livestock Guide,” aiming to enhance the sustainability of livestock investment projects in terms of environmental and animal health dimensions. The International Fund for Agricultural Development is financing several projects focusing on livestock and climate change mitigation in the region and has recently published a position paper on the topic that includes recommendations for policymakers and options for various systems (IFAD, 2024). Table 1 presents a menu of options for addressing direct and indirect emissions in Eastern and Southern Africa‘s key livestock production systems. Later in this section, additional information is provided on the most essential strategies to address methane in cattle and enhance carbon stocks in landscapes. Table 1. Options Available to Control Direct and Indirect Emissions (Part 1) Direct emissions Category Practices that address emissions Relevance in livestock systems across Eastern and Southern Africa Intensive Extensive (Peri) urban Zero-grazing High-density Grazing Agro-pastoral dairy systems cattle with poultry and systems (mixed crops feedlot pork and livestock) Changes in Promote species with lower Ok Ok Ok Ok structure carbon footprint (e.g., cattle > goat > chicken). Manure Change manure management Ok Ok Ok management practices; use anaerobic digesters (biogas). Change livestock diets to reduce Ok Ok Ok nitrogen excreta. Herd Reduce herds of ruminants. Ok Ok Ok Ok management Feeding strategies Ok Ok Ok Ok Feeding Use feed additives that reduce Ok Ok Ok Ok strategies enteric fermentation, new feeds such as seaweed and insects. Ok Ok 18 4Balancing Emissions Reduction and Livestock Sector Growth . (Part 2) Indirect emissions Category Practices that address emissions Relevance in livestock systems across Eastern and Southern Africa Intensive Extensive (Peri) urban Zero-grazing High-density Grazing Agro-pastoral dairy systems cattle with poultry and systems (mixed crops feedlot pork and livestock) Reduction in Conserve existing carbon pools Ok Ok deforestation in forests, shrub vegetation, and forest and soils by controlling degradation deforestation and grazing impacts on forest degradation and regeneration. Increase Encourage silvopastoral Ok Ok in woody systems, fodder trees, biomass better grazing management, restoration of degraded rangelands. Better Conserve and enhance soil Ok Ok grazing land carbon stocks. management Better fodder Enhance soil carbon Ok Ok production sequestration and nutrient, water, and tillage management. Crop-livestock Manage manure, especially in Ok Ok integration intensive livestock systems, to minimize nutrient losses and improve nutrient usage rates. Livestock- Encourage waste to energy Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok energy (e.g., biogas) to minimize integration nutrient losses, and use manure or processing waste for energy production; promote renewable energy generation and energy efficiency in livestock operations. Renewable Promote renewable energy Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok energy and generation and energy energy efficiency improvements all efficiency along supply chains. Food loss and Reduce losses in livestock Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok waste product supply chains (e.g., milk wastage). Feed supply Improve feed quality, Ok Ok Ok alternative feedstuffs with lower carbon footprint. Source: World Bank 2023d. 19 4Balancing Emissions Reduction and Livestock Sector Growth . Comprehensive low-emissions strategies should incorporate actions that address both types of emissions, avoiding “either-or” approaches and involving multiple stakeholders. To manage direct emissions, individual livestock keepers need to shift production practices on the farm. Evidence shows that the best outcomes can be achieved by bundling cost-effective solutions (Kihoro, Schoneveld, and Crane 2021). Furthermore, addressing indirect emissions requires a broader approach that includes pre- and post-production activities beyond individual farmers and communities. This includes restoring rangelands and landscapes, as well as promoting better feeding options and energy sources along supply and processing chains. Development organizations and scientists tend to recommend shifting diets to reduce the global demand for animal-source products, thereby curbing livestock emissions. While this recommendation is valid globally, it needs to be approached carefully in the context of Eastern and Southern Africa (Box 3). Box 3. Changing Consumption Patterns in Middle- and High-Income Countries In high-income countries, the environmental and health implications of beef are enough reason to advocate for less meat consumption. For instance, replacing beef with beans in the United States could free up 42 percent of the country’s cropland and reduce 334 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, accomplishing 75 percent of the 2020 carbon reduction target (Rust et al. 2020). There is also a health argument: excessive intake of unprocessed red meat is associated with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain cancers. Thus, promoting healthier diets with lower red meat intake is frequently part of nutritional recommendations. The consumption of plant-based protein, for instance, is a promising alternative. In middle- and high-income countries, reducing meat consumption can affect low-income countries through trade. For instance, if Gulf countries consume less meat, demand from eastern African countries—an important meat supplier of Gulf countries—may decrease. Although this could have adverse economic consequences for eastern Africa, it could help reduce emissions (Sutton et al. 2024). Although overconsumption of animal products is a global concern, it is not a concern in Eastern and Southern Africa, where increasing protein intake remains pressing to meet nutritional needs (see Section 2). In affluent areas with health problems from excess consumption or where poor hygiene increases the risk of disease transmission, reducing intake of animal-source products could be beneficial and an option for policymakers to consider. Cutting methane emissions with fewer, but better-performing cattle Cutting direct methane emissions from cattle—approximately half of the livestock emissions in Eastern and Southern Africa—requires maintaining or reducing cattle numbers. In African nations, herd expansion is favored for its quick, low-cost boost to production and income. Moreover, in rural areas, herd size often has cultural significance and conveys social status. The relevance of herd control as a policy option is highly context-specific, particularly regarding availability and affordability of other sources of high-quality protein. Nonetheless, strong policy arguments exist for endorsing smaller herds: • Boosting productivity: Production can be increased without expanding herd size, and improving quality over quantity can lead to profitability with fewer animals. • Protecting the environment: Smaller herds put less pressure on natural resources and reduce pollution. • Enhancing animal health: Having fewer animals allows for better health management, given growing concerns about disease outbreaks and zoonosis. For instance, access to vaccines is limited in many areas in Eastern and Southern Africa, and having smaller herds reduces pressure on vaccine supply. In many places, vaccines are available only through the public sector, so herd control measures can reduce public expenditures. • Reducing conflict: Livestock production is often a source of conflict in pastoralist areas with farmers, and having smaller, well-managed herds can mitigate this risk. 20 4Balancing Emissions Reduction and Livestock Sector Growth . A natural entry point to control emissions in cattle involves enhancing productivity and reducing emissions per unit of output. In most countries in Eastern and Southern Africa, productivity levels are low, and expanding the number of animals is the most common strategy to raise production. For example, in Tanzania, between 2010 and 2022, the number of cattle almost doubled, from 17 million to 33 million. At low output levels, one must have more animals to produce a certain amount of protein than in more efficient systems. As a reference for dairy, on average, a cow produces 838 liters of milk per year in Kenya, 501 liters in Rwanda, 371 liters in Ethiopia, 355 liters in Sudan, and 331 liters in Tanzania (FAO 2020). Only to match Kenya’s productivity levels, most countries have a long way to go. Data from the Livestock and Fisheries Sector Development Project4, implemented by the government of Ethiopia with support from the World Bank, show that beneficiaries increased milk yields by 75 percent by adopting improved feeding strategies, health care, and genetics. While in the first two years of the project total emissions increased by 55 percent among producers, the level of emissions per ton of protein decreased by 39 percent due to the increase in output. (project documents, unpublished) If paired with herd controls, over time these productivity gains will contribute to containing emissions. Modeling performed for beef production in Tanzania gives a sense of the magnitude of potential production gains and emissions reductions. For the modeling, a population of approximately 300,000 cattle was used, assuming organic growth at a historic rate. In the model, three improved practices were considered: the introduction of high-quality breeds, the improvement of grasslands, and the control of tick-borne diseases using vaccines. The modeling revealed a potential increase in protein production of 64 percent from 2024 to 2030 and a 27 percent reduction in emissions per unit of output. Keeping the population constant, protein production increases by 12 percent and methane emissions decrease 18 percent compared to the baseline (2024), equivalent to reducing some 65,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (tCO2e) (Appendix A). Preserving and improving carbon stocks in landscapes Sustainable, responsible intensification of production rather than expansion of unproductive systems is essential to avoid deforestation and protect carbon sinks. Deforestation is one of the largest sources of emissions in most countries in Eastern and Southern Africa and one of the largest sources of emissions in food systems globally. As the livestock sector expands, more land is needed for grazing and growing crops for feed, both of which are significant drivers of land use changes. One of the drivers of the expansion of agricultural areas is low productivity. In extensive livestock systems, healthy grasslands sustain production and sequester carbon. Unsuitable for crops, these grasslands underpin ruminant production across vast areas in Africa. For example, Botswana, Tanzania, and Namibia together have more than 140 million hectares of grazing land. Effective rangeland management preserves vegetation and soil fertility while preventing carbon loss due to soil degradation from overgrazing. Implementing agroforestry, silvopastoral systems, and land restoration can boost soil health and prevent erosion. Key strategies include better grassland and legume management, low cattle density to facilitate pasture recovery, and no-till practices for legumes. In Angola, recommended practices include high- load, short-duration grazing followed by rest periods for pasture recovery (FAO 2021). The modeling conducted for Tanzania projected that grassland enhancements would increase organic soil carbon by 17 percent from 2024 to 2030 (Appendix A). Maximizing carbon sequestration in Eastern and Southern Africa’s diverse productive landscapes is one of the most effective strategies to address livestock emissions. Carbon sequestration in landscapes can contribute to achieving net-zero livestock production in terms of emissions and even compensate for other emissions at a greater scale. This requires that governments endorse landscape strategies that transcend individual farms or communities, combining land use planning with the natural potential and limits of resources and engaging all relevant stakeholders. 4 https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/P159382 21 5. Beyond Emission Control: Additional Benefits of Responsible Livestock Development 22 © Biruktayet Betremariam | World Bank 5Beyond Emission Control: Additional Benefits of Responsible Livestock Development . “Greener” production: higher profits and greater resilience Economically viable solutions for beef and milk production are available in Eastern and Southern Africa. In the case studies for beef production in Botswana, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe, a cost-benefit analysis confirmed the profitability of scenarios with higher production and lower emissions. The solutions considered for the modeling were selected based on practices that are available and effectively used in all three countries, including better health and feeding practices and better genetics. Real costs and market prices were used to estimate the net present value of the investments, resulting in increases ranging from 6 to 176 percent (Appendix A). In addition to beef, data from the Livestock and Fisheries Sector Development Project in Ethiopia revealed increases in milk production and sales, resulting in a 60 percent increase in income, along with a 30 percent reduction in emissions per unit of output (World Bank 2024c). Good low-emissions options are also available for other value chains, such as poultry, in which pathways to manage emissions include the use of locally grown feed and feed ingredients when these are available at lower costs. Replacing soybeans, which often come from South America, with other sources of protein, such as black soldier fly larvae, with a low carbon footprint is an emerging, promising option (Verner et al. 2021). In Kenya, for example, businesses produce insect-based feed on a commercial basis, with rapid uptake in the industry. Besides feedstuffs, further emission reductions are achieved by cutting energy consumption in transportation, cooling, processing, and marketing. The use of solar-powered cooling facilities is becoming increasingly popular on the continent, and costs have fallen considerably. These examples show that achieving lower emissions, instead of being a burden that discourages farmers and businesses, can form part of a package that creates more revenue by reducing costs, enhancing output, or both. Improved practices and technologies can reduce losses during shocks. Cattle breeds that tolerate heat stress are increasingly being adopted. In intensive systems, livestock producers who diversify their sources of feed reduce the risk of supply chain disruptions during extreme weather events (Rojas-Downing et al. 2017). Conserving fodder and feeding hay during the dry season can reduce mortality from drought. More resistant breeds and diversified feeds can reduce emissions and simultaneously make production more resilient to shocks. The case study for Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe included a scenario of drought while using improved practices that can cut emissions. The modeling reveals a reasonable level of protein production and profit because better-fed, healthier animals are more likely to endure harsh conditions. Well-managed landscapes make livestock more resilient to extreme weather events. When rangelands are used according to their carrying capacity and pastures are restored and improved the soils become more fertile and retain more moisture, in addition to sequestering organic carbon, and assure more vegetation that can tolerate water scarcity. Including more trees in agroforestry systems adds to these benefits by sequestering carbon and helping the lower vegetation and animals withstand drought, which is one of the most significant threats to extensive livestock production. Having more trees in grazing areas also increases soil fertility. Vigorous forests, protected from domestic animals, offer invaluable benefits in regulating local climate conditions in addition to sequestering carbon. Restoring, improving, and protecting landscapes has a strong role to play in contributing to climate adaptation and mitigation in extensive livestock production. 23 5Beyond Emission Control: Additional Benefits of Responsible Livestock Development . Capitalizing on opportunities in high-end markets with responsible production In high-income countries, consumer interest in sustainable products is increasing. In the United States, one in five consumers—even more among young people—places sustainability in the top three purchase drivers for food and groceries. One of the key areas of consumer focus is reducing emissions (Glow 2023). In the European Union (EU), a recent directive aims to ensure that products consumed within the EU, including cattle products, do not contribute to deforestation or forest degradation. African countries that seek to reach high- value markets must consider these trends. In Botswana, the Beef Cluster Strategy from 2023 was designed to promote the production and branding of Botswanan beef as natural (grass-fed) and, with that, access premium (domestic and export) beef markets. This strategy is consistent with a low-emissions development path. Reducing the carbon footprint of livestock in Botswana will help position the products differently, following examples of other countries that have achieved this, such as Uruguay. Premium prices for low-carbon certifications could become additional incentives. The Carbon Trust, established in 2006, introduced the first carbon-neutral certification for food products, enabling companies to use a carbon reduction label when measuring, reducing, and offsetting their carbon footprint. Since then, other efforts have followed, including certifying low-carbon beef. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay are among the countries using low-carbon beef schemes. The low-carbon certification was approved in the United States in 2021. Despite growing interest, data on the global market for low-carbon products remain scarce, because it is still much smaller than conventional production. Globally, low-carbon products and labels encompass a wide spectrum, from wine to processed products. The state of low-carbon certification seems comparable with organic certification in its early stages. Since the 1980s, the organic market has experienced exponential growth worldwide. In 2022, global sales of organic food and drink reached a value of 135 billion euros (Willer, Trávníček, and Schlatter 2024). Low-carbon certification may follow a similar path. 24 6. Setting Priorities: Key Strategic Recommendations for Policymakers © Frauke Jungbluth | World Bank 6Setting Priorities: Key Strategic Recommendations for Policymakers . Prioritizing low-carbon feed, improved genetics and breeding practices, and landscape restoration Governments can encourage a transition towards low-emitting livestock systems through smart policies that have multiple effects. Amidst pressing needs, policymakers face the challenge of allocating scarce financial resources and must identify investments that yield multiple benefits. The following represent options offering triple-win gains—boosting production, curbing emissions, and enhancing resilience: • Low-carbon, low-cost feeds and feeding strategies. Feeding accounts for the largest share of production costs in animal production systems—up to 70 percent. Improvements in feeding practices can have a significant economic impact and provide resilience during periods of shock. Feed and feed supply affects direct and indirect emissions. Governments must prioritize research programs that develop high-quality feed with a low-carbon footprint, improve extension and advisory services to disseminate viable solutions with locally available feedstuffs (‘balanced rations’), and work with the private sector to deploy self-sustaining supply chains. This agenda includes not only testing and using emerging products such as seaweed or insects, but also helping farmers use existing grazing resources, crops, and trees in extensive production. • Improved cattle genetics and breeding practices. Data from Tanzania show productivity increases of up to four times with the adoption of specialized breeds in beef and dairy (Government of Tanzania, 2024). However, exotic breeds are often vulnerable to extreme weather events such as heat stress. Therefore, promoting better genetics involves leveraging new breeds, indigenous breeds or crossbreeding them. To make improved genetics available, efforts from the public and private sectors must converge towards research and development, multiplication centers, and creating effective supply chains. In Rwanda, for example, a company uses drones to distribute cattle semen across the country. The use of improved genetics should be paired with practices that enhance conception rates, shorten calving intervals, and reduce calf mortality, thereby boosting reproductive performance. • Landscape restoration, where extensive livestock production takes place. Reversing land degradation is part of a long-term resilience-building agenda that requires significant investment. Land use planning; capacity building; and improvements such as tree planting, erosion control, and pasture establishment are costly, and efforts must be sustained. The long-term benefits of restored landscapes in terms of resilience and emissions reduction justify the effort. Sustainable grazing practices together with rangeland management can maintain and increase production and help farmers withstand dry periods. At the landscape scale, these investments can lead to systems that offset livestock emissions and sequester more carbon than all emissions combined in the area. Linking investments in landscapes to carbon markets can create an additional flow of revenue to maintain sustainable management practices and an incentive to producers. Governments are encouraged to adopt jurisdictional approaches, that is jurisdictions capable of generating a substantial volume of carbon credits. (See Appendix B for further recommendations.) Regulations establishing and enforcing limits for grazing according to the land’s carrying capacity must accompany investments in landscape management. Degraded lands and areas that are critical for biodiversity and carbon sequestration must be prioritized, especially buffer zones of protected areas. Implementing measures in these areas can have the co-benefit of improving the management of wildlife and cattle populations, leading to better disease monitoring and control. 26 6Setting Priorities: Key Strategic Recommendations for Policymakers . Institutions and data systems for low-emitting livestock The public sector must work more across sectors. In most countries in Eastern and Southern Africa, livestock development falls under the agriculture ministry, with a few exceptions in which livestock has its own ministry. The climate strategy is often with ministries of environment, and lack of cross-sector collaboration between the livestock and environment sectors appears to be the norm rather than the exception, according to anecdotal information including views from more than 100 people consulted during the four case studies conducted (Appendix A). Typically, officials managing livestock, primarily veterinarians, are well versed in disease control but less familiar with environmental and climate-related concerns. Key recommendations are the following: • Increase the capacity of public institutions addressing the livestock sector on low-emission solutions. Efforts to increase capacity must cover the full range of public servants, from policymakers to front-line staff. The focus must be on the climate aspects of livestock, including adaptation and mitigation. For instance, extension workers must learn about bundles of solutions that are affordable to farmers and reduce emissions, along with other benefits. Officials must understand the data needed for emissions accounting and where collaboration with ministries of environment is essential. • Create permanent coordination structures. Countries can form dedicated committees or task forces to steer policy decisions and synchronize efforts at the intersection of agriculture, livestock, and environment. Coordination is important for addressing climate issues and other topics such as disease control and surveillance and land use more broadly. For accessing climate finance, it is imperative to establish sound governance structures clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the various actors involved. As an example, in carbon markets under jurisdictional approaches, ministries of livestock must lead investments with adaptation and mitigation outcomes and account for sectoral emissions, and ministries of environment or finance must manage carbon credits and transactions (Appendix B). These are examples of areas that are cross-sectoral in nature and require collaborative work. The lack of data and data infrastructure is a significant obstacle to effective policy making in the livestock sector. For countries to be able to account for climate co-benefits while accurately measuring greenhouse gas emissions, and to reflect this in national climate commitments, specific data, tools and capacity are needed which are currently not available in all countries. (Mottet et al., 2024) Countries in Eastern and Southern Africa have diverse levels of data infrastructure and availability. Some countries possess robust data sets for livestock, whereas others lack data entirely. Institutions such as statistics bureaus play an important role, as they collect critical data through censuses or surveys. Other agencies include meteorological institutes that gather data from remote sensing. Following are key recommendations linked to the climate aspects of livestock. • Establish (or improve) Tier 2 inventories to better track methane emissions. To report progress toward nationally determined contribution (NDC) targets in livestock, countries need Tier 2 inventories for livestock, which are based on a comprehensive set of data about the herds. Tier 2 inventories have been introduced in several countries, for instance Kenya, Botswana and Namibia. Development partners such as FAO and New Zealand have been supporting this process. Tier 2 inventories are also crucial if countries seek to tap into carbon markets. To establish Tier 2 inventories, governments need to expand data collection for cattle through statistics offices and engage technical agencies that determine emissions factors that fit the local contexts. • Expand use of digital tools in landscape management. Options for using digital tools are extensive and cover numerous technical fields, making their use an obvious choice. From a climate perspective, priority should be on data and systems that support landscape and rangeland management. Use of geoinformation systems is essential to perform geographic analysis and estimate emissions and carbon sequestration from biomass. Mobile phones can facilitate data collection. For instance, most carbon projects in Eastern and Southern Africa use dedicated mobile applications to collect farm data. 27 6Setting Priorities: Key Strategic Recommendations for Policymakers . National and regional partnerships Strong collaboration with the private sector, farmers’ groups and associations, and regional organizations can allow governments to share knowledge and collaborate in cross-border initiatives. The following are specific recommendations: • Partner with the private sector in strategic investment areas. Governments must work with the private sector to establish large-scale programs and supply chains for low-carbon feed and better genetics that is more resilient to climate hardships. Landscape restoration also requires private sector involvement. For instance, good-quality seed for pastures is essential to restore rangelands, and most countries in Eastern and Southern Africa have shortages. Although public research institutes can provide varieties that suit multiple environments, their use can be massified only with the involvement of farmers and businesses. Public-private cooperation is the only way to achieve the scale of investments needed. • Partner with farmer groups to implement a responsible approach. Farmer organizations can help smallholder farmers access better inputs, improve production practices, and access markets, including carbon markets. (Refer to the example included in section 7.) Farmer groups are critical for including small production units in sector growth, as these groups are a vehicle to reach large scale, and access services and markets. In Malawi, government efforts to increase access to livestock markets are supporting 100 farmer organizations encompassing approximately 20,000 members. Half of these groups engage in dairy production. (Refer to the Agricultural Commercialization Project5 ) In Ethiopia, the Livestock and Fisheries Sector Development Project has supported more than 10,000 common interest groups, 500 cooperatives and 51 unions.6 Governments can partner with these types of farmer groups and help them become multipliers of sustainable practices. Establishing matching grants and other incentives that promote better practices can be a concrete way to support farmer groups. Providing them with access to finance and markets will ensure that the groups endure and grow. • Partner with regional organizations on knowledge sharing and data collection and use. For instance, the Food Systems Resilience Program, which the World Bank finances with growing contributions from multilateral and bilateral development partners (International Fund for Agricultural Development, Japan International Cooperation Agency, Germany, United Kingdom), spans seven countries and three regional organizations in Eastern and Southern Africa, offering an additional avenue for knowledge exchange and capacity building. Regional organizations such as the African Union Commission, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, and the Southern African Development Community help disseminate knowledge and coordinate initiatives. Countries can benefit from developing regional guidelines on measuring and reporting on emissions to align with national systems and ensure consistency across countries. Various development technical institutions, including FAO and the International Livestock Research Institute, can assist governments in these efforts. Developing this measuring and reporting capacity can be part of investment projects with financing from multilateral development banks. Countries can also take advantage of established regional learning and exchange platforms such as the Africa Climate Smart Agriculture Alliance and the Africa Carbon Markets Initiative. 5 https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/P158434 6 https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/P159382 28 7. Financing Responsible Growth in the Livestock Sector © John Hogg / World Bank 7Financing Responsible Growth in the Livestock Sector . Investment in the livestock sector: current needs and the sector’s untapped potential Based on growth prospects in the livestock sector, governments in Eastern and Southern Africa are increasingly interested in its modernization, but the level of public expenditure in the sector has historically been low. Between 2001 and 2020, the average share of agriculture in government expenditures, including livestock, has fluctuated from 3.4 to 6.9 percent in eastern Africa and 1.5 to 1.9 percent in southern Africa (FAO 2022a). Farmers often face challenges because of a lack of financial resources or access to credit for financing investments. Investing in new technologies and practices requires significant financial, labor, and natural resources, which can pose considerable risks for resource-poor producers. This is particularly pronounced in extensive communal grazing systems, where farmers have limited access to land, constraining their ability to enhance grassland and grazing management or access credit because of lack of collateral. Similarly, in mixed crop-livestock systems, small farm sizes and diversified activities can make investments in improved technologies or practices economically unviable. These constraints underscore the need for targeted interventions and support mechanisms to enable farmers to overcome financial barriers and adopt sustainable practices effectively. Diverse funding streams to support responsible livestock sector expansion The avenues available for public investments include the following: • Using national budgets better. Before more is invested in livestock, it should be ensured that existing resources are being well used. Public funds can be used to initiate shifts that will directly or indirectly reduce emissions from livestock, focusing on methane in cattle and land degradation, which are by far the largest issues. Two concrete pathways are proposed. - Repurpose input subsidies to promote better livestock management. Faced with limited resources, governments must allocate funds judiciously, often reassessing and redirecting funds from ineffective and inefficient expenditures. For example, governments in Eastern and Southern Africa have historically allocated substantial funds to unproductive agricultural input subsidies. By freeing up public resources from wasteful input subsidies, governments can create positive economic incentives for livestock. Bilateral and multilateral development partners widely support repurposing initiatives. Options to create incentives include introducing matching grant schemes, low-interest loans, and partial credit guarantees; encouraging positive changes such as poultry production over cattle; transitioning from grazing to (semi) zero-grazing systems; replacing feed with locally produced supply; introducing better genetics; and supporting community-based rangeland management and regenerative grazing. In some countries, incentives could also be used to promote access to markets for sustainably produced meat such as the EU. - Direct safety net programs toward public works that deliver climate co-benefits. Most countries in Eastern and Southern Africa have safety net programs that provide cash for work and could be used as part of the livestock development agenda to deliver climate co-benefits. For example, the Ethiopian and Malawian governments have introduced climate public works programs within their safety nets, wherein beneficiaries work to support flood protection, reforestation, and watershed management. In Botswana, public employment programs are used to restore vegetation in communal rangelands.7 • Mobilizing external financing. Governments can expand public expenditure on livestock development using financing from international organizations and the private sector. Institutions such as the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the World Bank Group, and the African Development Bank provide concessional and market-level financing to countries in Eastern and Southern Africa. In Ethiopia, the World Bank, together with the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), has financed the Lowlands Livelihood Resilience Project (phases one and two8 ), implemented by the government of Ethiopia. 7 Beyond the World Bank, multiple partners are supporting safety nets in eastern and southern Africa, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, the U.S. Agency for International Development, Denmark, Ireland, and Norway. The Green Climate Fund is providing financing for rangeland restoration in Botswana. 8 https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/P164336 https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/P180076 30 7Financing Responsible Growth in the Livestock Sector . In Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Rwanda, IFAD is financing low-emission dairy development for a total of US$ 400 million, including U$ 200 million to be financed by the Green Climate Fund. Livestock sector development remains a potential area for financing, contingent upon investments being made responsibly, with attention to social and environmental concerns. Various multilateral and bilateral partners also support sector investments through their agencies, nongovernmental organizations, UN agencies, and governments, offering concessional financing and grants. • Supporting and leveraging private investments. Private firms, farmers’ cooperatives, and individual farmers often use their capital to do business or access financial services. Governments can create better conditions for the private sector to operate through regulations and support programs. Leveraging climate finance and emerging options for responsible livestock development Climate finance is a subset of broader finance, with a narrower focus on climate-related needs by adapting to changing climate or mitigation emissions. Various options of climate finance are available for the livestock sector (Table 2). Table 2. Climate Finance Options for Livestock Development FINANCIAL MECHANISM EXPLANATION FUNDING SOURCE OR FLOW Conditional credit lines for climate Lending through local financial intermediaries is based Climate finance institutes, government mitigation actions on mitigation conditions that enable stakeholder credit lines, local banks access to credit institutions. This can be facilitated by measures such as risk absorption by multilateral development banks and international financial institutions to reduce investment risk, offering lower interest rates and providing technical capacity building for beneficiaries. Value-chain finance for native Typically, this type of financing is funneled through Corporations, foreign direct investment, ecosystem restoration corporations that are encouraged to invest in local banks sustainable practices in exchange for sustainability recognition such as labeling and price premiums. Investment through emissions trading Pricing emissions is a way to encourage emissions Participating corporations or schemes reductions, resulting in financial benefits for lower governments emissions through sale of emissions trading credits and higher costs for higher emissions through compulsory purchase of emissions trading credits. Official development assistance for Targeted official development assistance and Foreign government development policy commitments international financial institutions’ funding programs finance, international financial can drive policy changes that create conditions for institutions introducing sustainable technologies and practices. Verifying sustainable sourcing of Purchase of sustainably sourced feed (e.g., from Multilateral development banks livestock feed areas free from deforestation) can be encouraged via verified sourcing area–based climate finance to reduce emissions at the feed production level, which also enhances feed quality. Financing can arise from grants, precommercial loans, or concessional loans. Prize-based programs for innovation These programs encourage research and development Private impact investors, microfinance, in livestock climate finance and accelerate the adoption of climate solutions in competition managers, philanthropic markets. funding Source: World Bank 2020. Emerging financing options from other regions could be replicated. In 2023, Uruguay secured a US$350 million development policy loan from the World Bank with an innovative, built-in interest-reduction mechanism. Under this loan, interest payments will be reduced if Uruguay meets its ambitious targets for lowering methane emissions from beef production. The mechanism is supported through the Global Public Goods Fund, a facility in the World Bank. These types of options are emerging and could be available to Africa, encouraging governments to raise their ambitions in terms of reducing emissions. 31 7Financing Responsible Growth in the Livestock Sector . Carbon markets: provision of extra incentives for responsible livestock development By lowering emissions, livestock producers can register and sell carbon credits and reap additional monetary incentives as a bonus. Carbon project registries in the voluntary carbon markets show various livestock- development projects in Eastern and Southern Africa (more information in Appendix B). These projects are often run by nongovernmental organizations and companies working with smallholder farmers and combine reductions in direct emissions from livestock with carbon sequestration in rangelands. Carbon markets quantify and sell emissions reductions as credits to buyers who wish to compensate for their own emissions. These reductions are measured in tCO2e reduced, sequestered, or avoided through mitigation actions (see Section 5). A third-party certification entity verifies the achieved reductions, which are registered as credits, typically one credit per tCO2e. A specific methodology for accounting emissions is employed. This entire process from methodology and accounting to final issuing of carbon credits is often referred to as monitoring, reporting and verification. Countries, corporations, and other investors can purchase these credits as in any market transaction. Credits are sold at a price that the seller and buyer agree upon, with the buyer seeking to offset their emissions by purchasing these credits. Growing interest in carbon markets in Eastern and Southern Africa stems from the perception that they are a source of revenue and a means to mobilize much-needed climate finance for these countries. While interest in carbon markets is growing, there are also increasing concerns about the actual benefits of carbon projects. Lack of transparency from private operators regarding revenues, trustworthiness of the credits generated, and potential harm to communities are among the challenges surrounding carbon projects. Since late 2023, voluntary carbon market standards have faced harsh criticism, and several methodologies for accounting are being revised. Programs such as the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative have been established to address these concerns. As a critical actor in the carbon finance space, the World Bank (2023e) has developed the Engagement Roadmap for Carbon Markets to foster high-integrity, high-impact carbon markets. In Eastern and Southern Africa, the options for carbon markets are as follows. • Voluntary, self-regulated carbon market between nongovernment agents: Over the past five years, the market has seen substantial growth, with transaction volumes nearing US$1.9 billion in 2022. Total transaction volume in 2023 has leveled off because of integrity concerns. In 2022, Africa hosted voluntary carbon market projects valued at US$164 million, 11 percent of all agriculture, forestry, and other land use projects (Donofrio and Procton 2023). Nature-based solutions now constitute the largest segment of the market and have increased the average carbon price because of their potential to enhance development, livelihoods, and food security. The scalability and delivery of pro-poor benefits in agricultural carbon projects have spurred significant growth in price and volume for these credits. Ecosystem Marketplace9 data show a 283 percent increase in transaction volume for the agricultural sector from 2021 to 2022, accompanied by a 14 percent rise in the average price per tonne (from US$9.65 to US$11.02), and a total value of finance that has increased by more than 300 percent. • Article 6 transactions (at pilot stage): Beyond self-regulated markets, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement establishes a mechanism for trading carbon credits to meet countries’ NDCs. Article 6.2 outlines bilateral cooperation, and Article 6.4 addresses multilateral cooperation. The emissions reductions, known as internationally transferred mitigation outcomes, are to be measured according to an agreed-upon standard. Unlike in voluntary markets, Article 6 transactions will involve predominantly governments, using mitigation financing aligned with their decarbonization targets. Implementation guidelines for this mechanism are under preparation to ensure the integrity of market-based mitigation instruments, enabling transparent achievement and reporting of NDC targets and addressing problems such as double counting.10 Further details regarding the Article 6 mechanisms can be found in Appendix B. A finalized rulebook will eventually 9 See website at https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/. 10 Double counting occurs when two parties both count the same mitigation action towards both their emission reduction targets, leading to an over-estimation of the total emissions reduction. 32 7Financing Responsible Growth in the Livestock Sector . guide bilateral deals, although the basic framework for trading is clear enough to enable pilot deals. Consequently, pilot deals are underway, with countries such as Gabon, Ghana, Malawi, Morocco, and Senegal having signed memoranda of understanding. The potential for the livestock sector to engage in these developments is significant in theory, but only one agricultural project is underway globally. This project focuses on climate-smart sustainable rice production in Ghana, in cooperation with Switzerland (UNDP 2022). There is also one livestock-relevant project under the «methane avoidance» category in Malawi, also in cooperation with Switzerland, focusing on dairy biogas (Klik International 2023). It is worth noting that lessons learned from projects in voluntary markets should inform the establishment of systems for larger transactions under Article 6, which will require long-term strategies with solid legal frameworks and governance structures. • Results-based financing: Box 4 provides an overview of results-based financing offered by the World Bank based on results and carbon markets. This modality has the potential to be expanded in Eastern and Southern Africa countries. Large jurisdictional projects can help mobilize private sector financing into climate action, helping meet financial needs to achieve decarbonization targets Box 4. Results-Based Financing as a Hybrid Scheme to Foster High-Integrity Carbon Credits The World Bank provides results-based financing, enabling countries to access startup funds for entry into carbon markets with high-integrity carbon credits. For more than 20 years, the World Bank has helped countries monetize mitigation results through technical assistance and financing, generating, and selling carbon credits that benefit people and communities. The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, for example, supports 15 countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, aiming to generate 270 million credits by 2028. The World Bank rewards these mitigation results by purchasing part of the credits within a purchase agreement and making a sizable portion—more than 20 million tons in 2024—available to the voluntary market, with up to 90 percent of the economic benefits going to local communities. The BioCarbon Integrated Sustainable Forest Landscapes (ISFL) facility also de-risks countries’ entry into carbon markets, by providing an emission reductions offtake contract. In Ethiopia and Zambia, the program has established measurement, reporting, and verification systems and protocols to ensure social and environmental integrity. When the BioCarbon Fund ISFL transacts carbon credits with its country partners, this is based on two emissions reduction use modalities. The BioCarbon Fund ISFL contracts to either retransfer emissions reductions back to the host country for use against their NDC or to retain the emissions reductions to transfer to their donor partners, or a combination of the two modalities In the case of the BioCarbon ISFL, the contracted carbon credits can also be sold directly in the markets, because the BioCarbon Fund ISFL offers only a floor price for a volume, as an incentive for countries to be entrepreneurial and search for better prices. Countries are also able to generate “excess credits” over and above their contracted volumes with the BioCarbon ISFL, which they can transact or utilize as they wish. Supported by the BioCarbon ISFL, the Jurisdictional Program in Ethiopia will account for emissions reductions in livestock. The Oromia Forested Landscape Program was developed to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions and improve sustainable forest management throughout the Oromia state. The first emissions-reduction purchase agreement (ERPA) for the Oromia Forested Landscape Program was signed between the World Bank and the government of Ethiopia in 2023. Covering 32 million hectares and a population of about 30 million people, this ERPA contracts the purchase of 1.8 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions reductions from avoided deforestation and forest development until December 2024. The revenues will help state authorities, the private sector, and communities manage forests sustainably, with more than 70 percent expected to go to communities. A second ERPA is planned to cover mitigation activities, including emissions from livestock, after the first ERPA expires. In Oromia, methane emissions from enteric fermentation by cattle are the main emissions source after forest-related emissions. Therefore, the next ERPA, currently being prepared, will include cattle enteric fermentation. The ISFL methodology accounts for reductions in livestock emissions intensity, aiming to reduce net emissions from a baseline of average emissions over 10 years. Source: https://www.biocarbonfund-isfl.org/programs/oromia-forested-landscape-program. 33 References © Francisco Obreque | World Bank References Costa, Jr. Ciniro, Michael Wironen, Kelly Racette, and Eva Wollenberg. 2021. “Global Warming Potential* (GWP*): Understanding the Implications for Mitigating Methane Emissions in Agriculture.” Information Note, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, Wageningen. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/114632. Donofrio, Stephen, Patrick Maguire, Christopher Daley, Ciro Calderon, and Katherine Lin. 2022. The Art of Integrity—The State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2022 Q3. Washington, DC: Ecosystem Marketplace. Donofrio, Stephen, and Alex Procton. 2023. Paying for Quality—State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2023’, Ecosystem Marketplace. Washington, DC: Ecosystem Marketplace. Ecker, Olivier, and Karl Pauw. 2024. “Dairy Consumption and Household Diet Quality in Eastern Africa: Evidence from Survey-Based Simulation Models.” Food Policy 122: 102562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102562 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options. Rome: FAO. 2020. Statistical Yearbook. Rome. Rome: FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1329en. 2021. The State of Food and Agriculture. Rome: FAO. 2022a. “Pathways Towards Lower Emissions: A Global Assessment of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation Options from Livestock Agrifood System.” FAO, Rome. 2023a. The State of Food and Agriculture. Rome: FAO. 2023b. “Contribution of Terrestrial Animal Source Food to Healthy Diets for Improved Nutrition and Health Outcomes—An Evidence and Policy Overview on the State of Knowledge and Gaps.” FAO, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc3912en. Glow. 2023. “2023 US Brand Sustainability Benchmark Report Food & Grocery Industry.” https://2395431.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/2395431/SRS/Glow%20-%202023%20 US%20Brand%20Sustainability%20Benchmark%20Report%20-%20Food%20&%20Grocery.pdf?__ hstc=255129943.083bcf4e1df86b09b2cfdfa01bafbb5c.1714670991144.1714670991144.1714670991144.1&__ hssc=255129943.1.1714670991145&hsCtaTracking=181477b2-c530-4eb0-8198-419adb412567%7C2af5769a​ -9a5d-40be-bd9b-524e82d12b7c. Godfray, H. Charles J., Paul Aveyard, Tara Garnett, Jim W. Hall, Timothy J. Key, Jamie Lorimer, Ray T. Pierrehumbert, Peter Scarborough, Marco Springman, and Susan A. Jebb. 2018. “Meat Consumption, Health, and the Environment.” Science 361 (6399). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324. Government of Ethiopia, Ministry of Health, Ethiopian Public Health Institute. 2022. Ethiopia: Food-Based Dietary Guidelines–2022. Government of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Government of Tanzania. 2024. Tanzania Agriculture Master Plan. Strategy to Transform the Crops, Livestock and Fisheries Sectors. Government of Tanzania, Dodoma, Tanzania. Hawkins, James, Gabriel Yesuf, Mink Zijlstra, George C. Schoneveld, and Mariana Rufino. 2021. “Feeding efficiency gains can increase the greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the Tanzanian dairy sector.” In Scientific Reports 11, Article number 4190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83475-8 35 References Henchion Maeve, A.P. Moloney, John Hyland, Jesko Zimmermann, and Sinead McCarthy. 2021. “Review: Trends for Meat, Milk and Egg Consumption for the Next Decades and the Role Played by Livestock Systems in the Global Production of Proteins.” Animal 15 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100287. Herrero, Mario, Petr Havlik, John McIntire, Amanda Palazzo, Hugo and Valin. 2014. “African Livestock Futures: Realizing the Potential of Livestock for Food Security, Poverty Reduction and the Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Office of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Food Security and Nutrition and the United Nations System Influenza Coordination, Geneva, Switzerland. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/41908. Herrero, Mario, Benjamin Henderson, Petr Havlík, Philip K. Thornton, Richard T. Conant, Pete Smith, Stefan Wirsenius, Alexander N. Hristiv, Pierre Gerber, Margaret Gill, Klaus Butterbach-Bahl, Hugo Valin, Tara Garnett, and Elke Stehfest. 2015. “Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potentials in the Livestock Sector.” Nature Climate Change 6: 452–461. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2925. IFAD. 2024. “Investing in Livestock for Improved and Resilient Livelihoods, Nutrition and Climate Action”. Position paper. IFAD, Rome. IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2022. “Practices for Sustainable Investment in Private Sector Livestock Operations.” IFC, Washington, DC. IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development). 2022. “IGAD Strategy for Sustainable and Resilient Livestock Development in view of Climate Change (2022-2037).” https://igad.int/download/igad-strategy-for​ -sustainable-and-resilient-livestock-development-in-view-of-climate-change-2022-2037/. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute) CIAT (International Center for Tropical Agriculture), NARO (National Agricultural Research Organization, Uganda), KIT (Royal Tropical Institute); CGIAR (KIT (Royal Tropical Institute), GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit); BMZ (Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany), IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development); SNV (Netherlands Development Organisation). 2020 Factsheets on forage species in East Africa. Nairobi (Kenya): Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT. https://www.ilri.org/knowledge/publications/rhodes-grass-chloris-gayana-factsheets-forage-species-east-africa IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2019. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Geneva: IPCC. Kaufmann, Brigitte A., Christian Hülsebusch, and Saverio Krätlis. 2019. “Pastoral Livestock Systems.” In Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainability, edited by Pasquale Ferranti, Elliot Berry, and Jock Anderson, 354–360. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Kayano, Taishi, Justin Pulford, and Lian F. Thomas. 2023. «Identifying Pig- and Pork-Associated Zoonotic and Foodborne Hazards in Eastern and Southern Africa: A Systematised Review.” In Zoonotic Diseases 3 (2): 120– 133. https://www.mdpi.com/2813-0227/3/2/11. Kihoro, Esther M., George C. Schoneveld, Todd A. Crane. 2021. “Pathways Toward Inclusive Low-Emission Dairy Development in Tanzania: Producer Heterogeneity and Implications for Intervention Design.” In Agricultural Systems 190 (1): 103073. doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103073. KliK International. 2023. “Malawi Dairy Biogas.” klik.ch/international/activities/malawi-dairy-biogas. Habtemariam, Akale Assamere. 2021. “Ecological, Commercial and Economic Significance of the Tree Lucerne: A Review.“ In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences 91, 737– 741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-021-01262-x. 36 References Mekonnen, Kindu, Melkamu Bezabih, Peter Thorne, Million Getnet Gebreyes, Jim Hammond, and Aberra Adie. 2021. “Feed and Forage Development in Mixed Crop-Livestock Systems of the Ethiopian Highlands: Africa RISING Project Research Experience.” In Agronomy Journal DOI: 10.1002/agj2.20853. Miller, Victoria, Julia Reedy, Frederick Cudhea, Jianyi Zhang, Peilin Shi, Josh Erndt-Marino, Jennifer Coates, Renata Micha, Patrick Webb, and Dariush Mozaffarian. 2022. “Global, Regional, and National Consumption of Animal-Source Foods between 1990 and 2018: Findings from the Global Dietary Database.” Lancet Planetary Health 6 (3): e243–e256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00352-1. Mottet, Anne., Teillard, Felix. and Özkan, Şeyda. 2024. “Investing in low-emission and resilient livestock production: the why and how”. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 128 (387–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-023-10319-4 Njarui, D.M.G., Gatheru, M., Ghimire, S.R. 2020. “Brachiaria Grass for Climate Resilient and Sustainable Livestock Production in Kenya”. In African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, edited by Leal Filho, W., Oguge, N., Ayal, D., Adeleke, L., da Silva, I. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42091-8_146-1. Parlasca, Martin C., and Matin Qaim. 2022. “Meat Consumption and Sustainability.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 14: 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340. Paul, Birthe K., Jeroen C. J. Groot, Celine A. Birnholz, Beatus Nzogela, A. Notenbaert, Kassahun Woyessa, Rolf Sommer, Ravic Nijbroek, and Pablo Tittonell. 2020. “Reducing Agro-Environmental Trade-Offs through Sustainable Livestock Intensification across Smallholder Systems in Northern Tanzania.” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 18 (1): 35–54. doi:10.1080/14735903.2019.1695348. Paul, Birthe K., Jessica Koge, Brigitte L. Maass, An Notenbaert, Michael Peters, Jeroen C.J. Groot, and Pablo Tittonell. 2020. “Tropical Forage Technologies Can Deliver Multiple Benefits in Sub-Saharan Africa. A Meta- Analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Devevelopment 40 (22). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00626-3. Poore, Joseph, and Thomas Nemecek. 2018. “Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts Through Producers and Consumers.” Science 360: 987–992. DOI:10.1126/science.aaq0216. Rojas-Downing, M. Melissa, A. Pouyan Nejadhashemi, Timothy Harrigan, and Sean A. Woznicki. 2017. “Climate Change and Livestock: Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation.” Climate Risk Management 16: 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001. Rust, Niki A., Lucy Ridding, Caroline Ward, Beth Clark, Laura Kehoe, Manoj Dora, Mark J. Whittingham, Philip McGowan, Abhishek Chaudhary, Christian J. Reynolds, Chet Trivedy, and Nicola West. 2020. “How to Transition to Reduced-Meat Diets that Benefit People and the Planet. Science of the Total Environment 718: 137208. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137208. Sutton, William R., Alexander Lotsch, Ashesh Prasann. 2024. Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System. Agriculture and Food Series. Conference Edition. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/41468. Thornton, Philip K. 2010. “Livestock Production: Recent Trends, Future Prospects.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365 (1554): 2853–2867. Tschirley David,Thomas Reardon, Michael Dolislager, and Jason Snyder. 2015. “The Rise of a Middle Class in East and Southern Africa: Implications for Food Systems Transformation.” Journal of International Development 27: 628–646. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3107. UN (United Nations). 2019. World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights. New York: UN. 37 References UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2022. “Ghana Authorizes Transfer of Mitigation Outcomes to Switzerland.” https://www.undp.org/ghana/press-releases/ghana-authorizes-transfer-mitigation-outcomes​ -switzerland#:~:text=The%20bilateral%20agreement%20falls%20under,development%20benefits%20in%20 the%20country. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and Climate and Clean Air Coalition. 2022. “Global Methane Assessment: 2030 Baseline Report.” Nairobi: UNEP. Verner, Dorte, Afton Halloran, Glenn Surabian, and Edinaldo Tebaldi. 2021»Insect and Hydroponic Farming in Africa: The New Circular Food Economy.» World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/a0a69a10-a1cc-5ce3-b924-f24d219daedd. Von Braun, Joachim, Kaosar Afsana, Louise Fresco, and Mohamad H.A. Hassan. 2023. “Science and Innovations for Food Systems Transformation.” Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15703-5. Willer, Helga, Johan Trávníček, and Bernhard Schlatter. 2024. “The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2024. FiBL IFOAM – Organics International. https://www.fibl.org/en/shop-en/1747-organic-world-2024. World Bank. 2020. Opportunities for Climate Finance in the Livestock Sector: Removing Obstacles and Realizing Potential. World Bank, Washington, DC. 2022. Zambia-“Growth Opportunities Program-for-Results Project.” World Bank Group, Washington, DC. https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/P178372. 2023a. «A Roadmap for Responsible Investments Towards Sustainable Livestock in Tanzania.» World Bank, Washington, DC. 2023b. «Enhancing Opportunities for Mitigation in the Livestock Sector by Accessing Carbon Markets in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe.» (unpublished). World Bank, Washington, DC. 2023c. «Enhancing Opportunities for Mitigation in the Livestock Sector by Accessing Carbon Markets in Zimbabwe» (unpublished). World Bank, Washington, DC. 2023d. Agriculture Toolkit for Paris Alignment (unpublished). World Bank, Washington, DC. 2023e. “Engagement Roadmap for Carbon Markets.” World Bank, Washington, DC. https://www.worldbank.org/ en/topic/climatechange/brief/the-world-bank-engagement-roadmap-for-carbon-markets. 2024a. «An Investment Framework for Sustainable Livestock Value-Chain Development in Botswana and Namibia.» World Bank, Washington, DC. 2024b. «A Roadmap for Responsible and Sustainable Livestock Development in Zimbabwe» (unpublished). World Bank, Washington, DC. 2024c. Livestock and Fisheries Sector Development Project. Project documents (unpublished). World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank and FAO. 2022. “Tanzania Agriculture Public Expenditure Review.” World Bank and FAO. World Bank and FAO. n.d. “Investing in Sustainable Livestock Guide.” https://www.sustainablelivestockguide.org/investing-sustainable-livestock-isl-guide. 38 APPENDIX A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) 39 © Curt Carnemark | World Bank Appendix A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) The case studies in brief: For each country, livestock sector greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and potential mitigation interventions were rapidly assessed, and level of preparedness for accessing carbon markets was assessed by reviewing the regulatory environment, institutional setup, and availability of national data for measuring, reporting, and verification purposes. The mitigation potential and economic viability of mitigation interventions were assessed. Finally, a roadmap was developed with country-specific high- and second-priority recommendations for effective mitigation interventions in the livestock sector. Sectoral and policy context Botswana Cattle production is central to Botswana’s economy, predating the discovery of diamonds and other minerals. It accounts for 85 percent of the agricultural output, serving as a crucial source of income and food security and a form of insurance in rural areas. The cattle value chain has been diversified to enhance economic and export potential, with Botswana enjoying quota-free access to high-end markets such as the European Union. In 2022, Botswana supplied 0.2 percent of the European Union’s beef volume, indicating potential for growth in this market, although diseases, resource depletion, and extreme weather events reduced the cattle population from 2.5 million in 2010 to about 1 million in 2022. To address this decline, the government has launched the Beef Cluster Strategy under the Thuo Letlotlo initiative. This strategy focuses on increasing productivity and improving animal health and natural resource management while developing the cattle value chain through market development and branding. Regulatory and institutional reforms have been developed to create a competitive environment, including operationalization of the Meat Industry Regulatory Authority and implementation of the Botswana Meat Commission Transition Act. Sustainable livestock practices, such as good pasture and animal health management, are expected to reduce mortality and increase cattle sales by 50 percent. Namibia Cattle production is a significant growth driver in Namibia, accounting for 66 percent of agricultural output and most agricultural employment. Like Botswana, Namibia benefits from quota-free access to the European Union, supplying 1.3 percent of the European Union’s beef volume in 2022, although beef production has stagnated, with the cattle population hovering around 2.5 million for the past decade, slightly increasing to 2.9 million in 2022. More than 55 percent of Namibia’s cattle are in the northern communal areas, where diseases such as foot and mouth disease and rangeland degradation due to overgrazing have hindered production. The Bovine Productivity Task Force aims to revitalize the industry by improving feedlots, abattoirs, rangeland management, and fodder production, particularly in the northern communal areas. This government initiative also addresses regulatory and institutional reforms to improve commodity-based trade, benefiting communal farmers. By focusing on these reforms, Namibia hopes to overcome the challenges that diseases, overgrazing, and policy shortcomings pose and thereby boost its cattle production and export potential. Tanzania Tanzania is one of Africa’s largest livestock producers, with a diverse sector that includes cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, chickens, and donkeys. The country has 36.6 million cattle, 26.6 million goats, and 9.1 million sheep and about half of the population is employed in agriculture. Despite this, livestock yields are low, with most production below global and regional averages. Most livestock is raised in agro-pastoral systems, with production increases driven more by increases in the number of livestock than by increases in yield. Consumption is projected to surpass production, leading to deficits in meat and milk by 2031. Limited investment and gender disparities have hindered the sector’s sustainable development. Climate change exacerbates these challenges, with emissions expected to rise significantly without intervention. The Third National Five-Year Development Plan and the Agriculture Sector Development Plan II are designed to transform and commercialize the sector through climate-smart agriculture, an increase in production, sustainable intensification, and value-added processing. These plans address key constraints such as weak cooperatives, limited market infrastructure, and inadequate advisory services, aiming to enhance the sector’s productivity and market reach. 40 Appendix A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) Zimbabwe Zimbabwe’s livestock sector is vital for rural livelihoods, contributing 35 percent of agricultural gross domestic product. The sector includes beef, dairy, small ruminants, pigs, poultry, and other livestock, primarily driven by smallholder farmers in mixed crop-livestock systems. The sector faces numerous challenges, including poor breeding programs, inadequate infrastructure, and limited competitiveness in export markets. Climate- related challenges, high disease rates, and limited access to veterinary services contribute to low productivity and high mortality, with tick-borne diseases such as theileriosis causing significant cattle deaths annually. To address these challenges, the government introduced the Agriculture and Food Systems Transformation Strategy and the Livestock Growth Plan (2020-2025), which is focused on improving nutrition, genetics, health, climate-resilient production, and market development. Climate change poses a significant threat, with drought risk necessitating adaptation and mitigation strategies. Key management strategies include better feeding practices, investments in pasture and health management, and breeding programs that prioritize climate resilience, aiming to enhance the sector’s productivity and sustainability. Outcomes of adopting the selected interventions A package of improved practices was selected to assess potential effects on emissions in a given cattle population. Government counterparts actively participated in the selection of the practices, considering priorities of national programs and policies; feasibility of implementation, giving priority to proven approaches; and scalability of interventions. The interventions are expected to increase grassland, animal, and herd productivity; enhance animal health; or help reduce livestock mortality. The target beef cattle population was determined based on specific targets in the sectoral programs or policies or by using existing projects as a reference. An overview of selected interventions and target beef cattle populations in each country is given in Table 3. Table 3. Selected Interventions COUNTRY INTERVENTIONS TARGET POPULATION Botswana Improved pastures through resilient fodder crops, fodder reserves, and 636,620 beef cattle regenerative grazing Animal health measures to reduce livestock mortality1 Namibia Split ranch approach2 41,858 beef cattle Rangeland management with bush thinning and landscape rehydration Planting of drought-resilient forage3 Tanzania Development of productive high-quality breeds using artificial 314,402 beef cattle insemination, improved bulls, and dissemination of heifers Planting of pastures; clearing shrubs, bush, and invasive weeds; production of seeds for pastures; construction of dams and bore holes Control of tick-borne diseases, vaccinations (East Coast fever, anaplasmosis, babesiosis, heart water)4 Zimbabwe Use of improved grass varieties, sowing of high protein legumes and 114,000 beef cattle fodder Paddocking grassland to enable rotational grazing5 1 Interventions from Botswana’s Beef Cluster Strategy (2023) and National Drought Plan (2020). 2 The split ranch approach uses approximately half of the land and rests the other half each year to allow soil and grass regeneration. 3 Selected interventions from Namibia’s Rangeland Management Policy and the Northern Communal Areas of Namibia Livestock Sector Transformation Strategy (2019). 4 Selected interventions from Tanzania’s Livestock Sector Transformation Plan (2022/23–2026/27). 5 Selected interventions from Zimbabwe’s Livestock Growth Plan (2021–2025) and the Beef Enterprise Strengthening and Transformation project (2019–2023), funded by the European Union. 41 Appendix A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) A lifecycle approach using FAO’s Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model—Interactive (GLEAM-i) was used to assess GHG emissions from the livestock sector and the potential impact of productivity-enhancing interventions. The GLEAM-i tool simulates biophysical processes and activities along livestock supply chains and estimates GHG emissions using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Tier 2 methodology. Four scenarios were defined. • A continuation of current livestock production practices and population dynamics (based on population dynamics from 2012-22) (referred to as “business as usual” [BAU]) • Implementation of selected interventions (referred to as “with interventions”) • Implementation of productivity-enhancing interventions with smaller herd size capable of achieving 2030 BAU production levels (referred to as “interventions + herd control”) • Implementation of productivity-enhancing interventions under severe drought conditions (referred to as “interventions + drought”). This scenario was defined to identify the potential benefits of productivity- enhancing interventions for climate change adaptation. All scenarios were modeled for a seven-year period (2024-30). Changes in animal and herd productivity, feed composition, and manure management parameters were estimated from country or regional scientific literature and national inventory reports supplemented by expert judgement during stakeholder consultations. All assumptions used for GLEAM-i simulations are included at the end of the Appendix. To estimate the impact of the selected practices on soil carbon stocks, the amount of grassland and legumes required was estimated using the feed basket, as calculated in GLEAM-i, and yields obtained from literature. Soil carbon stocks and factors for different grassland and legume management practices in the four countries were calculated using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Tier 1 Method; detailed assumptions are presented at the end of Appendix B. Soil types and climate classifications in each country were determined using the Earth Map tool. Soil carbon stocks were multiplied by improvement factors reflecting the outcomes of the selected interventions and by the size of the grassland and legume area. Profitability of the BAU and “with interventions” scenarios was assessed using financial analysis for Botswana, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe.11 Analysis included farm-level costs and revenues, including expenses for feed, artificial insemination, and vaccinations, and revenues generated by the sale of cattle, including youngstock, manure, and carbon trading. To enable a comparison between the countries, results were expressed per 1,000 head of cattle. In line with recent increasing livestock population trends, BAU emissions from livestock increase in Namibia and Tanzania by 2030. Following decreases in cattle populations since 2010 (Botswana) and 2017 (Zimbabwe), BAU emissions decrease in Botswana and Zimbabwe (Figures 8 and 9). 11 Namibia was excluded from analysis because cost and revenue data were unavailable. 42 Appendix A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) Figure 8. Change in Direct Emissions Resulting from Productivity-Enhancing Interventions and Herd Control Botswana Namibia 3,000,000 90,000 tCO2e tCO2e 0 0 2024 2026 2028 2030 2024 2026 2028 2030 Tanzania Zimbabwe 500,000 250,000 tCO2e tCO2e 0 0 2024 2026 2028 2030 2024 2026 2028 2030 Business as Usual With Interventions and herd control With Interventions With Interventions and drought Note: tCO2e, tons carbon dioxide equivalent. 43 Appendix A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) Figure 9. Decrease in Emission Intensity (per Unit of Protein) with Adoption of Selected Interventions Botswana Namibia 100 650 tCO2e t protein-1 tCO2e t protein-1 50 450 2024 2026 2028 2030 2024 2026 2028 2030 Tanzania Zimbabwe 300 75 tCO2e t protein-1 tCO2e t protein-1 200 50 2024 2026 2028 2030 2024 2026 2028 2030 Business as Usual With Interventions Note: tCO2e, tons carbon dioxide equivalent. In Namibia, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe, implementing productivity-enhancing interventions increases absolute emissions, but in Botswana, better feed quality (by replacing crop residues with legumes) reduces absolute emissions from livestock. 44 Appendix A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) Reduction in emissions and increase in resilience from increase in cattle productivity and reduction in herd size Implementing the selected interventions substantially increases livestock productivity. As a result, herd size can be reduced by 4 percent in Botswana, 17 percent in Namibia, 23 percent in Tanzania, and by 14 percent in Zimbabwe, still reaching the initial level of protein production. Assuming higher productivity, the net mitigation potential from reducing herd size is 2,033,824 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) in Botswana, 22,616 tCO2e in Namibia, 345,210 tCO2e in Tanzania, and 82,151 tCO2e in Zimbabwe. Implementing the selected interventions will increase overall protein production in all countries. These results are in line with those of other studies (e.g., Mekonnen et al. 2021), that reveal that increasing grass productivity and quality can increase meat and milk production. Including legumes in the feed basket also increases dry matter intake and milk production, because legumes increase the protein content in the diet (Paul et al. 2020). The four case studies show that, even under severe drought conditions, implementing the improved practices can contribute to sustained protein production. Considering that all countries have experienced severe drought in recent years, enhancing the resilience of livestock to these impacts is important. The interventions decrease GHG emission intensity (Table 4). Emissions intensity in Zimbabwe is the lowest of the four countries (68.3 tCO2e/tonne of protein), with the highest level in Namibia (196.1 tCO2e/tonne of protein), which is still lower than the global average emission intensity from beef production worldwide (499 tCO2e/tonne of protein) (Poore and Nemecek 2018). Namibia and Tanzania have greater emissions intensity than Botswana and Zimbabwe, mainly because of their low protein production (as a result of lower liveweight and high mortality). Botswana and Zimbabwe have low emissions intensities because they feed their cattle high-quality forage, concentrates, and by-products from the grain industry, which are highly digestible and therefore decrease methane emissions from enteric fermentation. Implementing the selected interventions reduces emissions intensity by up to 30 percent (Botswana) by increasing protein production. Table 4. Emissions Intensity with and without Interventions BOTSWANA Scenario Total greenhouse gas emissions Protein Emission intensity (Tons of carbon dioxide equivalent/year) production (tCO2e/ton of protein) (Tons/year) BAU 2024 2,788,518 29,418 94.8 Difference from BAU 2024 (%) BAU 2030 −29 −27 0 WI 2030 −48 −29 −30 WI 2030 + herd control −50 −29 −30 WI 2030 + drought −48 −36 −19 NAMIBIA Scenario Total greenhouse gas emissions Protein Emission intensity (Tons of carbon dioxide equivalent/year) production (tCO2e/ton of protein) (Tons/year) BAU 2024 60,204 307 196.1 Difference from BAU 2024 (%) BAU 2030 16 16 0 WI 2030 27 25 −9 WI 2030 + herd control 5 16 −9 WI 2030 + drought 7 6 1 45 Appendix A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) TANZANIA Scenario Total greenhouse gas emissions Protein Emission intensity (Tons of carbon dioxide equivalent/year) production (tCO2e/ton of protein) (Tons/year) BAU 2024 327,879 1,758 186.5 Difference from BAU 2024 (%) BAU 2030 12 12 0 WI 2030 20 64 −27 WI 2030 + herd control −18 12 −27 WI 2030 + drought −13 −10 −2 ZIMBABWE Scenario Total greenhouse gas emissions Protein Emission intensity (Tons of carbon dioxide equivalent/year) production (tCO2e/ton of protein) (Tons/year) BAU 2024 223,580 3,275 68.3 Difference from BAU 2024 (%) BAU 2030 −4 −4 0 WI 2030 −1 12 −11 WI 2030 + herd control −15 −4 −11 WI 2030 + drought −20 −15 −6 46 Appendix A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) Effects on soil carbon sequestration and profitability of improved systems Quantity and proportion of grass and legumes in total feed intake can account for changes in soil carbon stocks in grassland and legume areas. Interventions generally include improvements in grassland and legume management, with low cattle density in pastures to allow for pasture regeneration, inputs applied to grassland, and no tillage on legume areas, all of which can increase soil carbon stocks per unit of land. The interventions in Namibia and Tanzania increase soil carbon stocks because of the higher proportion of grasses and legumes in the feed basket (Table 5), whereas soil carbon stocks in Botswana and Zimbabwe decrease by 2030, in line with the projected decrease in quantity of grass and legume consumed by cattle. For accurate analysis of the impact of interventions on change in soil or biomass carbon, a long-term experiment to parameterize a carbon model or direct measurements will be required. Table 5. Soil Carbon Stocks Scenario Botswana Namibia Tanzania Zimbabwe BAU 2024 3,073,305 337,343 1,800,533 2,490,361 Difference from BAU 2024 (%) BAU 2030 −29 16 12 −4 WI 2030 −19 23 17 −46 WI 2030 + herd control −22 13 −20 −54 WI 2030 + drought −53 −20 −9 −23 Note: BAU, business as usual; WI, with intervention. The analysis reveals a compelling business case for reducing emissions intensity; adopting interventions results in a positive net present value and is thus profitable in all three countries (Table 6). The greatest increase in total costs due to interventions is observed in Zimbabwe, as a result from additional costs for water and labor required to improve pasture management. Simultaneously, interventions in Zimbabwe generate the highest revenues. Even under severe drought conditions, productivity-enhancing interventions result in a positive net present value, although the net present values are lower than under the BAU scenario. Table 6. Net Present Value, Total Revenues, and Total Costs for a 1,000-Cattle Herd Under Various Scenarios Country Scenario Net present value (US$) Total revenue (US$) Total cost (US$) Botswana BAU 244,000 285,700 41,700 WI 260,350 428,500 168,150 WI + drought 73,300 142,850 69,500 Tanzania BAU 142,493 219,220 76,727 WI 276,087 484,607 208,520 WI + drought 129,887 206,613 76,727 Zimbabwe BAU 115,333 196,167 81,000 WI 314,333 653,500 339,167 WI + drought 98,500 179,500 81,000 Note: BAU, business as usual; WI, with intervention. No data were available for Namibia. 47 Appendix A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) Carbon revenues as an incentive Emissions reductions per unit of output can be monetized, using methodologies such as the Gold Standard Smallholder Sairy Methodology and Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard Methodology for Improved Grassland- Based Cattle Production (currently under review and expected to be approved by the end of 2024). In these methodologies, the reduction of emissions per unit of output are accounted against a baseline. The Integrated Sustainable Forest Landscapes (ISFL) methodology can also be used in accounting for reductions in emissions per unit of output, with the provision that all combined emissions at the jurisdiction level do not increase. Assuming a carbon price of US$5.8 per tCO2e,12 total emissions reductions due to an increase in livestock productivity (and thus a reduction in emissions intensity) can yield carbon revenues of US$1.5 million/year in Botswana (target population 636,620 cattle), US$130,000/year in Namibia (41,858 cattle), US$480,000/year in Tanzania (314,402 cattle), and US$290,000/year in Zimbabwe (114,000 cattle). To facilitate the comparison, yearly carbon revenues per 1,000 cattle are estimated at US$2,356 in Botswana, US$3,106 in Namibia, US$1,527 in Tanzania, and US$2,544 in Zimbabwe. The level of carbon revenues is modest and would not trigger adoption of better practices and change in systems alone. Given that reducing emissions intensity is economically viable, carbon revenues add arguments to the overall business case and can be considered a bonus. The size needed to make a carbon project viable is not easy to determine, because it depends on multiple factors. In the case of the examples, carbon projects are justified as part of a package that offers multiple monetary and nonmonetary benefits. Carbon revenues can be used to finance extension services, inputs and market access to livestock keepers, or as additional revenue stream. Detailed Assumptions Used in Case Studies Table 7. Assumptions for With-Interventions Scenarios in the Four Country Case Studies Parameter Botswana Namibia Tanzania Zimbabwe Herd performance - Interventions decrease - Interventions decrease - Interventions decrease - Interventions decrease mortality but increase mortality but increase age at first parturition age at first parturition fertility rate. liveweight and milk and replacement rate and mortality but - Drought increases yield. but increase fertility increase fertility rate, mortality. - Drought increases rate, liveweight, milk liveweight, milk yield, mortality. yield, and weight at and weight at birth. birth. - Drought increases - Drought increases mortality, but mortality, but decreases fertility rate, decreases fertility rate, liveweight, and milk liveweight, milk yield, yield. and weight at birth. Feed basket - Interventions replace - Interventions reduce - Interventions decrease - Interventions increase by-products, crop the proportion of crop the portion of poor- the proportion of grain residues, and poor- residues and poor- quality fresh grass and and add fodder beet, quality grass with quality grass in the hay in the feed basket. hay and silage in feed legumes, legume hay feed basket and add - Drought leads to use of basket. or silage, maize grain, legumes. grass and legume hay. - Interventions for feed and maize gluten feed. - Drought leads to use of basket are also applied - Drought increases use legume hay. during drought period. of legume hay and crop residues from maize and sorghum. Manure management - Same as BAU - Same as BAU - Instead of burning it for - Manure managed as systems fuel and applying if for dry lot is allocated to daily spread, manure solid storage. is managed in a solid storage. Note: BAU=business as usual. 12 The assumption is based on The State of the Voluntary Carbon Market in 2022 Q3 (Donofrio et al. 2022). 48 Appendix A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) Table 8. Parameters for Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model: Interactive Simulations in Botswana Parameter Business WI WI + Drought Source as Usual Herd performance Age at first parturition, months 27 27 27 Expert judgement Mortality of adult animals, % 10 5 15 Expert judgement Mortality of young females, % 10 5 15 Expert judgement Mortality of young males, % 10 5 15 Expert judgement Fertility rate of adult females, % 57 68 57 Default value Live weight of adult females, kg 400 400 400 Expert judgement Live weight of adult males, kg 450 450 450 Expert judgement Live weight of meat females at slaughter, kg 400 400 400 Expert judgement Live weight of meat males at slaughter, kg 450 450 450 Expert judgement Milk fat, % 3.7 3.7 3.7 Default value Milk protein, % 3.5 3.5 3.5 Default value Milk yield, kg/year 1,650 1,650 1,650 Expert judgement Replacement rate of adult females, % 9 9 9 Default value Weight at birth, kg 37.5 37.5 37.5 Expert judgement Feed basket By-products from soy, % 2 0 5 Expert judgement Crop residues from maize, % 3 0 10 Expert judgement Crop residues from sorghum, % 2 0 10 Expert judgement Dry by-product from grain industries, % 5 5 5 Expert judgement Fresh grass, % 15 0 0 Expert judgement Fresh mixture of grass and legumes, % 10 30 10 Expert judgement Grains, % 1 5 5 Expert judgement Hay or silage from cultivated grass, % 2 0 0 Expert judgement Hay or silage from grass and legumes, % 40 50 50 Expert judgement Leaves from natural vegetation, % 15 0 0 Expert judgement Maize, % 2 5 2 Expert judgement Maize gluten feed, % 1 3 1 Expert judgement Maize gluten meal, % 1 1 1 Expert judgement Molasses, % 1 1 1 Expert judgement Manure Burned for fuel, % 3 3 3 Expert judgement management Dry lot, % 7 7 7 Expert judgement Pasture, range, paddock, % 90 90 90 Expert judgement Note: WI, with intervention. 49 Appendix A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) Table 9. Parameters for Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model: Interactive Simulations in Namibia Parameter Business as WI WI + Drought Source Usual Herd performance Age at first parturition, months 48 48 48 Expert judgement Mortality of adult animals, % 8 7 9 Expert judgement Mortality of young females, % 24 20 26 Expert judgement Mortality of young males, % 24 20 26 Expert judgement Fertility rate of adult females, % 58 58 58 Default value Live weight of adult females, kg 323 388 323 Expert judgement Live weight of adult males, kg 435 522 435 Expert judgement Live weight of meat females at slaughter, kg 323 388 323 Expert judgement Live weight of meat males at slaughter, kg 435 522 435 Expert judgement Milk fat, % 3.7 3.7 3.7 Default value Milk protein, % 3.5 3.5 3.5 Default value Milk yield, kg/year 450.0 540.1 450.0 Expert judgement Replacement rate of adult females, % 9 9 9 Default value Weight at birth, kg 17 17 17 Expert judgement Feed basket Crop residues from maize, % 15 8 12 Expert judgement Crop residues from millet, % 15 8 12 Expert judgement Crop residues from wheat, % 21 10 17 Expert judgement Fresh grass, % 49 0 0 Expert judgement Fresh mixture of grass and legumes, % 0 58 47 Expert judgement Hay or silage from grass and legumes, % 0 0 12 Expert judgement Manure Burned for fuel, % 1 0 1 Expert judgement management Pasture, range, paddock, % 50 75 50 Expert judgement Solid storage, % 49 25 49 Expert judgement Note: WI, with intervention. 50 Appendix A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) Table 10. Parameters for Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model: Interactive Simulations in Tanzania Parameter Business as WI WI + Drought Source Usual Herd Age at first parturition, months 48 40.8 48 Livestock master plan performance Mortality of adult animals, % 9 4.5 9 Livestock sector transformation plan Mortality of young females, % 25 16.3 28.8 Livestock master plan Mortality of young males, % 25 16.3 28.8 Livestock master plan Fertility rate of adult females, % 58 66.7 55.1 Livestock master plan Live weight of adult females, kg 249 286.4 224.1 Livestock master plan Live weight of adult males, kg 292 335.8 262.8 Livestock master plan Live weight of meat females at slaughter, kg 249 286.4 224.1 Livestock master plan Live weight of meat males at slaughter, kg 292 335.8 262.8 Livestock master plan Milk fat, % 3.4 3.4 3.4 Default value Milk protein, % 3.5 3.5 3.5 Default value Milk yield, kg/year 400 500 320 Livestock master plan Replacement rate of adult females, % 5 4 4 Default value Weight at birth, kg 15 17.3 13.5 Livestock master plan Feed basket Crop residues from maize, % 10 15 0 Expert judgement Fresh grass, % 65 38 45 Expert judgement Fresh mixture of grass and legumes, % 0 20 10 Expert judgement Grains, % 0 15 25 Expert judgement Hay from adjacent areas, % 10 0 5 Expert judgement Hay or silage from alfalfa, % 0 0 510 Expert judgement Hay or silage from cultivated grass, % 10 5 0 Expert judgement Hay or silage from grasses and legumes, % 5 0 5 Expert judgement Molasses, % 0 2 0 Expert judgement Silage from whole maize plant, % 5 5 0 Expert judgement Manure Burned for fuel, % 5 0 0 Expert judgement management Daily spread, % 5 0 0 Expert judgement Dry lot, % 10 10 10 Expert judgement Pasture, range, paddock, % 65 65 65 Expert judgement Solid storage, % 15 25 25 Expert judgement Note: WI, with intervention. 51 Appendix A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) Table 11. Parameters for Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model: Interactive Simulations in Zimbabwe Parameter Business as WI WI + Drought Source Usual Herd Age at first parturition, months 48 40.8 40.8 Default value performance Mortality of adult animals, % 15.6 13.3 15.6 Livestock Assessment Report 2021/2022 Mortality of young females, % 18.4 15.6 21.2 Livestock Assessment Report 2021/2022 Mortality of young males, % 18.4 15.6 21.2 Livestock Assessment Report 2021/2022 Fertility of adult females, % 64 70 61 Default value Live weight of adult females, kg 383 440 345 GHG inventory in Zimbabwe Live weight of adult males, kg 456 524 410 GHG inventory in Zimbabwe Live weight of meat females at slaughter, kg 383 440 345 GHG inventory in Zimbabwe Live weight of meat males at slaughter, kg 456 524 410 GHG inventory in Zimbabwe Milk fat, % 4.3 4.3 4.3 Default value Milk protein, % 3.6 3.6 3.6 Default value Milk yield, kg/year 1,875 2,157 1,725 GHG inventory in Zimbabwe Replacement rate of adult females, % 5 5 4 Default value Weight at birth, kg 32 37 33 GHG inventory in Zimbabwe Feed basket By-products from sugar beet, % 0 4 0 Expert judgement Crop residues from maize, % 3 12 0 Expert judgement Crop residues from other grains, % 1 0 0 Expert judgement Crop residues from rice, % 1 0 0 Expert judgement Dry by-product from grain industries, % 2 0 0 Expert judgement Fresh grass, % 75 30 45 Expert judgement Fresh mixture of grass and legumes, % 0 7 7 Expert judgement Grains, % 5 25 25 Expert judgement Hay from adjacent areas, % 0 0 5 Expert judgement Hay or silage from alfalfa, % 0 0 10 Expert judgement Hay or silage from cultivated grass, % 10 0 0 Expert judgement Molasses, % 1 2 0 Expert judgement Silage from whole grain plants, % 0 4 Expert judgement Silage from whole maize plant, % 2 16 8 Expert judgement Manure Anaerobic digester, % 1 0 0 Expert judgement management Dry lot, % 11 5 5 Expert judgement Liquid/Slurry, % 1 0 0 Expert judgement Pasture, range, paddock, % 77 77 77 Expert judgement Solid storage, % 10 18 18 Expert judgement Note: GHG, greenhouse gas; WI, with intervention. 52 Appendix A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) Table 12. Emissions Intensity per Kilogram of Meat Item Method Botswana Namibia Tanzania Zimbabwe Emission intensity FAOSTAT (2024) 31.6 105.6 59.9 8.5 (kg CO2/kg meat)a GLEAM-i simulation in this study 49.4 79.4 58.5 83.6 Emission intensity FAOSTAT (2024) 199.7 666.0 378.0 53.8 (kg CO2/kg meat protein)b GLEAM-i simulation in this study 145.7 215.9 231.0 268.6 a. FAOSTAT (2024) calculates emissions intensity per kg of meat, whereas Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model—Interactive (GLEAM-i) calculates emissions intensity per kg of carcass weight. GLEAM-i simulations in this study are only for grassland systems. b. Meat protein is calculated using bone-free-meat percentage (0.75) and meat protein (0.2113) based on https://www.fao.org/gleam/en/ Table 13. Parameters Used to Estimate Soil Carbon Stocks Parameter Botswana Namibia Tanzania Zimbabwe Soil type Sandy High-activity clay High-activity clay High-activity clay Climatea Warm, temperate, dry Tropical montane Tropical montane Tropical montane Soil carbon stocks based on soil type 10.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 and climate (tons/hectare) Improved grassland (factor) 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 Inputs applied to improve grassland 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 (factor) No tillage to grow legumes (factor) 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Soil carbon stocks in grassland 10.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 for BAU scenario (tons/hectare) Soil carbon stocks in grassland 14.2 65.7 65.7 65.7 for WI scenario (tons/hectare) Soil carbon stocks in legume area 11.0 56.1 56.1 56.1 for WI scenario (tons/hectare) Grass yield (tons/hectare of dry 10.0b 6.5c 13.0d 6.1e matter) Legume yieldf (tons/hectare 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 of dry matter) GRASSLAND SIZE (HECTARES) Parameter Botswana Namibia Tanzania Zimbabwe BAU 2024 188,135.8 6,614.6 33,980.6 48,830.6 BAU 2030 132,643.4 7,666.7 37,960.0 46,812.3 WI 2030 98,786.7 6,335.9 25,386.7 18,838.1 WI 2030 + herd control 94,946.9 5,239.0 17,242.7 16,194.6 WI 2030 + drought 57,621.8 4,115.1 22,299.0 26,287.9 SIZE OF LEGUME AREA (HECTARES) Parameter Botswana Namibia Tanzania Zimbabwe BAU 2024 119,194.7 0.0 1,323.9 0.0 BAU 2030 84,037.1 0.0 1,479.0 0.0 WI 2030 98,786.7 6,335.9 7,919.8 1,806.0 WI 2030 + herd control 94,946.9 5,239.0 5,379.1 1,552.5 WI 2030 + drought 57,621.8 4,115.1 3,062.9 3,284.6 Source: IPCC 2019. Note: BAU, business as usual; WI, with interventions. a. See www.earthmap.org, and select International Panel on Climate Change climate and soil classifications for each country. b. Yield of Bermuda grass based on Feedipedia: https://www.feedipedia.org/node/471. c. Yield of Lehman love grass based on Feedipedia: https://www.feedipedia.org/node/435. d. Yield of Rhodes grass based on ILRI et al. (2020). e. Yield of Brachiaria grass based on Njarui et al. (2020). f. Yield of lucerne based on Habtemariam (2021). 53 Appendix A: Reducing Emissions in Beef Production in Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, and Botswana and Potential Access to Carbon Markets (Case Studies) Table 14. Parameters Used for Financial Analysis BOTSWANA Parameter Business as usual With interventions Source Feed cost, US$/year 112 414 Consultations Artificial insemination costs, US$/year 30 30 Consultations Vaccinations, tick control, US$/year 18 18 Consultations Labor cost, US$/year 0 183 Consultations Revenue from animal sale, US$/year 1,094 1,641 Statistics Botswana; consultations Exchange rate, US$/BWP 0.07 0.07 Consultations Financial discount rate, % 15 15 Botswana Central Bank TANZANIA Parameter Business as usual With interventions Source Water costs, TSh/cow per year 18,000 36,000 Consultations Feed costs, TSh/cow per year 200 200 Consultations Artificial insemination costs, TSh/cow 0 25,000 Consultations Vaccinations, tick control, TSh/cow per day-1 0 7,500 Consultations Costs of purchasing animal, TSh/cow 0 250,000 Consultations Revenue from animal sale, TSh/cow 400,000 500,000 Consultations Labor cost per month, TSh 140,000 140,000 Private sector minimum wage Labor (dipping costs), TSh/year 0 4,800 Consultations Revenues from manure sale, TSh/year 0 10,000 Consultations ZIMBABWE Parameter Business as usual With interventions Source Water costs, US$/year 30 60 Consultations Feed costs, US$/year 0 6 Artificial insemination costs, US$/year 0 120 Consultations Vaccinations, tick control, US$/year 0 60 Consultations Costs of purchasing animal, US$/year 0 0 Consultations Revenue from animal sale, US$/year 200.60 668.16 Consultations Labor cost, US$/year 28.74 28.74 Private sector minimum wage Labor (dipping costs), US$/year 24.00 72.00 Consultations Note: BWP, Botswana pula; TSh, Tanzanian shilling. 54 APPENDIX B: Further Information about Article 6 Transactions and Voluntary Carbon Markets 55 © The World Bank Group, All Rights Reserved. Appendix B: Further Information about Article 6 Transactions and Voluntary Carbon Markets Self-regulation and participation of nongovernmental actors are hallmarks of voluntary carbon markets (VCMs). In VCMs nongovernmental organizations, local communities, and registered companies are the predominant generators of credits. These markets are focused on corporate buyers, some of which have joined the Science-based Target Initiative.13 Accounting methodologies that measure emissions reductions against a baseline scenario are overseen using independent, nongovernmental, and nonprofit certification standards to validate and verify projects following the chosen methodology, in collaboration with accredited, independent, third-party auditors. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) and the Gold Standard are the leading certifiers of projects in the agriculture, forestry, and other land use sector.14 There are various entry points for livestock investments among VCS methodologies and afforestation/reforestation certified by the Gold Standard. (See Figure 10 for relevant methodologies that include livestock activities.)15 Figure 10. Number of Projects Registered at Verified Carbon Standard Methodology (VM) and Gold Standard (GS) in Different Regions 125 100 75 50 25 0 VM - REDD+ VM - Sustainable VM - Sustainable VM - Reduction VM - Improved GS - Afforestation Methodology Grassland Grassland of Enteric Agricultural Land /Reforestation through Fire Methane and Grazing Africa Asia Europe Latin Middle North Oceania America East America 13 See Science-Based Targets Initiative website at https://sciencebasedtargets.org/. 14 See list of registered carbon credit projects at Clean Development Mechanism: https://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/projsearch.html; VCS: https://registry.verra.org/app/search/VCS; Gold Standard: https://registry.goldstandard.org/projects?q=&page=1. 15 VCS methodologies include VM0007 for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries framework, VM0026 for sustainable grassland management, VM0032 for adoption of sustainable grasslands through adjustment of fire and grazing, VM0041 for reduction of enteric methane emissions from ruminants through use of feed ingredients, and VM0042 for improved agricultural land management. 56 Appendix B: Further Information about Article 6 Transactions and Voluntary Carbon Markets Country readiness for accessing carbon markets: lessons learned and building blocks Stronger VCMs can pave the way for robust international markets. The experience gained with VCMs in Eastern and Southern Africa should help these countries prepare for larger Article 6 transactions, likely to become a reality in the medium and long term. Three important lessons should guide future efforts. • Achieve real mitigation outcomes: Carbon projects must deliver trusted, significant results in terms of emissions reductions. Across the continent, some projects have failed or overestimated their outcomes, damaging the credibility of the whole mechanism. To ensure credible outcomes, the use of recognized standards and solid measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems is critical. • Mitigate social and environmental risks: Carbon projects must not cause harm, such as forced displacement of local communities. • Ensure fair benefit distribution: Local communities involved in resource protection must be included in fair benefit-sharing agreements. Governments often view carbon projects as extractive operations that generate significant profits at the expense of the country. This perception has led to measures such as taxing carbon revenues, as seen in Zimbabwe. Countries must address three strategic areas, at a minimum. • Legal framework includes regulations on carbon rights or ownership, carbon rights transfer, benefit sharing, and taxes on carbon revenue. To attract investments in nature-based solutions, the legal framework must provide a predictable environment, similar to other types of investments. Countries’ openness to investment varies across the continent. For jurisdictional approaches, such as in Ethiopia, the legal framework is crucial for defining project boundaries. • Governance involves defining roles and responsibilities at every stage, from reducing emissions in specific sectors to conducting carbon transactions. Policymakers need to clarify who sets regulations, who registers and trades carbon credits, and who ensures social and environmental compliance. Institutionalization of transparent accounting registries will play an increasingly crucial role in Article 6 transactions. These registries should serve as the basis for linking internationally transferred mitigation outcomes to decarbonization targets in nationally determined contributions (NDCs).16 • MRV capabilities encompass a wide array of hardware and software, along with expertise in data generation and management. Strengthening these capabilities has been among the most challenging tasks in World Bank–supported projects in Eastern and Southern Africa. Examples include chronic lack of historical data for building baselines and limited knowledge on using models and conducting calculations. Developing MRV systems requires upfront investments and time to reach full operational capacity, but leveraging the experience of more-advanced countries, modern digital technologies, and support from the international community should help countries expedite the establishment of robust MRV systems. 16 National registries are essentially centralized accounting systems that store information on volume of emissions reductions within a country. They can act as a balance sheet and are essential for allowing clear, transparent accounting of emissions reductions and tracking of their transfer between countries or parties under market-based cooperation. 57 Appendix B: Further Information about Article 6 Transactions and Voluntary Carbon Markets Figure 11 is a roadmap for country readiness, assuming government leadership and involvement in large carbon projects. The scheme demonstrates that preparatory work for VCMs can also facilitate readiness for governments engaging in United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change mechanisms under development. Although governed separately, there are significant overlaps between these mechanisms, and many prerequisites for country readiness can be addressed by developing technical and regulatory capabilities based on investments in VCM projects and potential pilot programs under Article 6.2. Figure 11. Roadmap for Carbon Market Readiness Technical roadmap Regulatory roadmap Input: Inventory support to ensure: Include prioritisation of livestock • Sustainability in terms of Feasibility assessments of larger institutional set-up sector in updated Nationally scale projects • Quality of data collected Determined Contribution targets and reported Input: Input: Clarity on trading Identify capacity development Develop measuring, requirements via Article 6.2 Develop national carbon Develop national and investment needs for reporting and Ensure alignment and 6.4 agreements accounting registry and carbon trading technical developments: verification with Article 6 expected at 29th United enabling institutions regulations Nations Climate Change • For example, Asian capabilities Development Bank Conference or Conference investment in agricultural of the Parties (for example Measurement, Reporting guidance on requirements and Verification on behalf for corresponding of Joint Crediting adjustments for VCM Mechanism, or use of VCM Input: projects) VCM project investments Private sector investments development Input: Development of bilateral deals for Priming for Article 6.4 multilateral Foreign country Article 6.2 pilot projects: trading: investments based on • Proof of concept from VCM projects and • Proof of concept from VCM projects and bilateral deals regulatory and technical readiness regulatory and technical readiness Note: VCM = voluntary carbon market. 58 Appendix B: Further Information about Article 6 Transactions and Voluntary Carbon Markets The basics of carbon projects can be illustrated with a rangeland project. Conservation South Africa implements the Kruger-to-Canyons Rangeland Restoration Project17 in collaboration with Meat Naturally, the Kruger-to-Canyons Biosphere Reserve Partner, Conservation International, and various farmers associations. Under validation, this project uses the Verified Carbon Standard VM0032 (Methodology for Sustainable Grasslands) and the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Standard to account for mitigation results. The project is designed to help farmers shift from continuous grazing to planned rotational-rest grazing on 82,000 hectares. By implementing grazing plans, rangeland restoration, and technical assistance, the project is expected to sequester carbon in soils and reduce emissions from enteric fermentation, achieving approximately 100,000 tCO2e in emissions reductions per year. It is anticipated that the project will generate US$24 million to US$27 million in carbon revenues over 30 years in the voluntary carbon markets. Other examples are as follows: Grassland Restoration and Stewardship in South Africa Project ID: 2931 Registered at: Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard GHG reductions: 465,123 tCO2e/year Crediting period: December 1, 2021–November 30, 2051 Project proponent: TASC SA (Pty) Ltd.; Meat Naturally (Pty) Ltd. This project is designed to enhance agricultural land management and ecosystem restoration in South Africa’s grassy biomes. It employs the Herding for Health model, which helps farmers and herders build climate resilience by developing smallholder livestock value chains. The model supports rangeland restoration and GHG sinks by sequestering carbon and reducing methane emissions. Unmanaged communal grazing leads to conflicts. Developed by the Peace Parks Foundation, Conservation International, and Meat Naturally Africa, the Herding for Health model uses a community-driven approach tailored to local needs through participatory methods. Source: https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/2931 Sustainable Agroforestry Based Dairy Value Chain in Mount Elgon, Kenya Project ID: 6588 Registered at: Gold Standard GHG reductions: 50,618 tCO2e/year Crediting period: June 6, 2018―June 6, 2032 Project proponent: Livelihoods Fund Société d’Investissement à Capital Fixe Special Investment Venture This project is designed to improve livelihoods in Bungoma and Tran Nzoia counties. Implemented by Vi Agroforestry with Livelihoods Fund Société d’Investissement à Capital Fixe Special Investment Venture and Brookside, it targets environmental, economic, and social goals. Environmentally, it promotes sustainable agriculture on 25,000 hectares for soil and water conservation. Economically, its goal is to boost milk production from 5,000 to 135,000 liters per day in five years and increase yields by 30 percent. Socially, it seeks to enhance the knowledge, skills, and incomes of 30,000 farmers; improve family health; and empower women through strong farmer organizations. Source: https://registry.goldstandard.org/projects/details/1809 17 https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/3397 59 Appendix B: Further Information about Article 6 Transactions and Voluntary Carbon Markets Strategizing access to carbon revenues as an extra incentive Carbon markets can serve as an additional funding source if countries pursue substantial carbon projects, such as large jurisdictional approaches covering vast areas of rangeland and livestock. The following recommendations are made: • Assess the feasibility and economic viability of medium to large carbon projects for livestock (500,000 tCO2e/ year or more), including jurisdictional approaches with a combination of reduction in livestock emissions and carbon sequestration in grasslands. • Develop action plans for country readiness for Article 6 transactions. Countries can develop bilateral deals or pilot programs under Article 6.2 following current ongoing examples. • Promote regional collaboration on GHG emissions-reduction strategies and carbon markets through established platforms such as the Africa Carbon Markets Initiative. Legal Framework and Governance • Develop comprehensive carbon trading regulations to establish clear ownership, authorization, and transfer of carbon rights, along with potential taxes and benefit-sharing requirements. • Align with Paris Agreement Article 6 to prepare for large transaction (under articles 6.4 and 6.2), using VCMs as a proof of concept. This includes developing and strengthening institutional architecture for transparent trading and accounting, such as a national registry. • Strengthen land tenure arrangements and clarify carbon rights to prepare for deals and safeguard local communities, ensuring clearly delineated rights to land (or land management) and carbon. • Strengthen collaboration between agriculture and environment ministries, clearly defining roles in emissions reduction, accounting, and carbon trading, especially for livestock and landscape approaches. Enhance sector governance to ensure multi-stakeholder partnerships and dialogue for climate-sensitive policy reforms and institutional development. Measurement, Reporting, and Verification • Develop and strengthen MRV capabilities in the agriculture, forestry, and other land use sector, including establishing or improving Tier 2 inventories for livestock, and develop national carbon accounting registry. This includes determining emissions factors, requiring research at the national and regional levels. • Promote regional integration in MRV and develop regional guidelines to align with national systems and ensure consistency. • Estimate potential of carbon sequestration using landscapes approaches, including soil organic carbon and biomass. 60 Boosting Livestock Sector Growth with Low Emissions A Strategic Approach in Eastern and Southern Africa ©2025 The World Bank. Graphic design provided by Pi COMM