Good practices of initiative:
Development of competitive livestock production systems with low GHG emissions in Central America
Relevance
It measures the alignment of the initiative with existing policy frameworks in the country. In addition, the scalability of the initiative to other realities and geographies is valued.
| Marco | Description | Ambit | Country | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories | The IPCC Guidelines provide standardized methodologies for estimating CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O emissions in the agricultural sector. The initiative applies Tier 1 and Tier 2 approaches to generate emission factors tailored to tropical livestock systems, strengthening the accuracy of national inventories in participating countries. | Global | Africa (aggregate) America, Caribbean (16 countries) America, North (aggregate) Latin America (aggregate) Europe (aggregate) Oceania (aggregate) | Link |
| Central American Convention on Climate Change | The Central American Climate Change Agreement, adopted by SICA member countries, establishes regional commitments to reduce climate vulnerability, promote sustainable production practices, and strengthen GHG mitigation in key sectors such as livestock. The initiative aligns closely with this framework by generating more accurate measurement methodologies, local emission factors, and livestock management practices that contribute to regional goals for adaptation and emission reduction. | Regional | Central America SICA Region | Link |
| State Policy for the Agri-Food Sector and Rural Areas of Honduras 2004-2021 | This policy guides Honduras’ agricultural development toward more competitive and sustainable production, promoting efficient pasture management, technological modernization, and reduced environmental impacts in livestock systems, aligning with the low-emission practices supported by the initiative. | National | Honduras | Link |
Eficacy
This measures how well the objectives and goals set out in the initiative were fulfilled, as well as the extent to which the results achieved are attributable to the actions implemented by the initiative.
| Indicator | Description | Indicator Type | Measure Unit | Base date | Base | Goal | Measure Date | Measure | Compliance | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greenhouse gas emissions per kg of milk produced. | It measures the GHG emissions intensity of the livestock system, expressed as kg CO₂e per kg of milk. It reflects the environmental efficiency of production and allows for comparison of farms with different levels of intensification. | Effectiveness | kg CO₂e/kg leche | 01-01-2015 | 5.9 | 4 | 30-12-2017 | 2.5 | 178.9 | Link |
| Reduction of total GHG emissions per farm | Evaluate annual emissions from enteric fermentation, manure, fuels, electricity, and fertilization. | Effectiveness | t CO₂e/año | 01-01-2015 | 99.8 | 90 | 30-12-2017 | 84.1 | 159.2 | Link |
| Reduction of enteric methane emissions per kg of live weight | It measures environmental efficiency in terms of methane emissions per unit of animal weight, reflecting improvements in feeding and herd management. | Effectiveness | g CH₄/kg PV | 01-01-2015 | 0.36 | 0.30 | 30-12-2017 | 0.28 | 133 | Link |
Sustentaibility
It measures the installed capacities or actions identified to maintain or improve the results of the policy initiative.
| Indicator | Description | Indicator Type | Measure Unit | Base date | Base | Goal | Measure Date | Measure | Compliance | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sustainable adoption of low-emission livestock practices by producers | Measures institutional and productive sustainability through the number of producers who continue applying low-emission livestock practices (pasture management, supplementation, record-keeping) after the initial technical support period. | Sustainability | Number of producers | 2015-01-01 | 0 | 40 | 55 | meets | Link | |
| Trained technicians who continue to provide assistance in sustainable livestock farming | Evaluates the institutional sustainability of the project through the continuity of trained technical staff who continue applying low-emission methodologies and tools in their professional activities. | Sustainability | Number of technicians | 2015-01-01 | 0 | 10 | 14 | meets | Link | |
| Farms that maintain production and environmental records after the project | Measures operational sustainability by verifying how many farms continue using productivity and emission records, essential for ongoing monitoring and decision-making in low-emission livestock systems. | Sustainability | Number of farms | 2015-01-01 | 0 | 20 | 27 | meets | Link |
Learned lessons
Gained knowledge from implementing, evaluating, and managing a policy intervention, including why it was or was not effective and how it could be improved in the future.
| Lesson | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Sustainable intensification reduces emissions per unit of product. | The project showed that farms with improved forage management, enhanced pastures, and strategic supplementation exhibit significantly lower GHG emissions per liter of milk and per kilogram of live weight. This demonstrates that sustainable intensification simultaneously improves productivity and environmental efficiency. | Link |
| The quality of the forage is crucial for methane mitigation | Experimental studies confirmed that forage nutritional quality directly affects enteric methane production. Pastures with higher energy and protein content reduce emissions, highlighting the importance of proper paddock management and forage planning. | Link |
| The adoption of practices improves with technical assistance and production records | Producers adopt low-emission technologies more effectively when they receive continuous technical support and maintain records showing productive and economic improvements. Practical training and field demonstrations are essential for driving behavioral change. | |
| Manure management is a persistent gap | The project found that most producers lack appropriate manure management practices, despite its importance for emission reduction and environmental protection. This highlights the need to promote simple and accessible technologies for manure treatment and utilization. |