CLEANED LVCs Towards a generic framework. –17 billion domestic animals globally! (SOFA 2009)...
-
Upload
emery-rogers -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
2
Transcript of CLEANED LVCs Towards a generic framework. –17 billion domestic animals globally! (SOFA 2009)...
CLEANED LVCsTowards a generic framework
– 17 billion domestic animals globally! (SOFA 2009)
– 30% Earth’s ice-free surface occupied by livestock systems (Reid et al 2008)
– 1/3 global cropland for feed production
– 15% global greenhouse gas emissions
– 32% global freshwater consumption (Heinke et al forth coming)
Livestock – the BIG numbers
– Significant global asset: value of at least $1.4 trillion (Thornton and Herrero 2008)
– Livestock industry market chains employ 1.3 billion people (LID 1999)
– Livestock GDP: 20-40% of agricultural GDP
– Incomes for producers – often more constant than crops
– A risk management tool, especially for the poor
Livestock – the Economic Benefits
4
600 million Poor Depend on Livestock
Thornton et al. 2002, revised 2009
– 17% global kilocalorie consumption
– 33% of the protein consumption (FAOSTAT 2008)
– Africa 8% of calories
– Provides food for 830 million food insecure people (Gerber)
– Significant differences in consumption of livestock products, but… highest increase in the Developing World
Livestock and Nutrition
Herrero et al 2008a
Consumption of Milk and MeatEurope SSA
Meat 10% 3 %Dairy 11% 3 %
Most growth in consumption in Asia and Latin America
(FAO: SOFA 2011)
Per capita kcal intake livestock products
Poultry
Pork
Beef
Maize
Wheat
Soy
Global Livestock RevolutionMeat production Feed crop use
( Mton )(FAOstat 2012)
8
FAO: SOFA2011
Richer People Consume more Meat
Why do we need to assess environmental impacts?
• Development projects are interested in improving food security and livelihoods in agricultural value chains
• But it is essential to ensure that promoted practices are environmentally sustainable
NPKNPK
NPK
• Grain legumes
• Green manures
• Agroforestry• Fodder
legumes• Manure• Fertilizers
(Rowe, 2003)
EU Nitrate Directive
1991
Farming Systems Research
Nutrient cycling
Livestock Revolution
1999
Value Chain Research
Life Cycle Analysis
2006
Livestock’s Long Shadow
2001
3rd IPCC report
Global assessments
Herrero et al, Science 2010
Integrated assessment of farming systems essential – at all levels
– from global to local!
Strategic CRP 3.7 Cross-cutting Platforms• Technology Generation• Market Innovation• Targeting & Impact
Inputs & Services Production Processing Marketing Consumers
Value chain development team + research partners
GLOBAL RESEARCH PUBLIC GOODS
INTERVENTIONS TO SCALE OUT REGIONALLY
Value chains and institutions
Major intervention with development partners
Approach: Solution-driven R4D to achieve impact
0
0.5
1income
food security
GHGwater use
external inputs
mixed
pastoral
Trade-offs and synergies
Why do we need a new framework?
• Practitioners need a relatively rapid and flexible tool that can be used across systems
• Farming systems usually complex, especially in developing countries
• Multiple livelihoods objectives, many environmental dimensions
• Not one single indicator good enough for assessing environmental performance of a farming system
• Need to upscale impacts in time and space
BMGF Initiative
“The key is to develop sustainable intensification methods that improve efficiency gains to produce more food without using more land, water, or other inputs”
(Herrero et al. 2010)
New ex-ante environmental framework
to secure sustainable livestock production
Agricultural Development TeamMonika Zurek Kate Schneider
Three core
partners
CLEANED members
An Notenbaert, ILRI (CIAT)Mario Herrero, CSIRO
Mats Lannerstad, SEI & ILRISimon Fraval, ILRI
Simon Mugatha, ILRIYlva Ran, SEI
Birthe Paul, CIATJennie Barron, SEI
Eric Kemp-Benedict, SEISilvia Silvestri, ILRI
CLEANED LVCs
Comprehensive Livestock Environmental Assessment
for Improved Nutrition, a Secured Environment and Sustainable Development
along Livestock Value Chains
CLEANED LVCs
Module I: Review of existing environmental frameworksFormulate new framework ideas
Module II: Expert consultations
- Stakeholders East Africa in Nairobi- High Level Consultation in Stockholm
General framework Tailored framework for smallholder dairy EA
Module III: Testing the framework - implementing a pilot studyFinal consultation with stakeholders & experts
Three Modules over 18 months
Module I: Review of existing environmental frameworksFormulate new framework ideas
Module II: Expert consultations
- Stakeholders East Africa in Nairobi- High Level Consultation in Stockholm
General framework Tailored framework for smallholder dairy EA
Module III: Testing the framework - implementing a pilot studyFinal consultation with stakeholders & experts
Three Modules over 18 months
Module III: A pilot study on smallholder dairy ……value chains in East Africa
Background work
1. Review frameworks2. Review LCA3. E.A. stakeholder workshop
Review Environmental Frameworks
N=35
Impact categories used by frameworks
0
5
10
15
20
25
GHG emissions/air qualityWater quantityLand useEnergy consumptionBiodiversity and plant protectionSoil useWater qualityNutrient flows (N and P)Resource consumptionEco-toxicity potentialWaste
Num
ber o
f fra
mew
orks
ass
essi
ng im
pact
cat
egor
ies
Most are weighted scores-Rise, AgBalance, Vital Signs, SPA, IDEA etc.
Most frameworks look at the entirety of “sustainability” (ecological, social and economic)
Illustrations of results:-aims for simplicity (e.g.. Spider diagram)- Backed up by a more descriptive report of suggestions/improvements
Outcomes
RISE sustainability polygon
AgBalance scored sustainability diagram
Frameworks differ in terms of audience, complexity/data intensity, spatial scales, indicators covered
Positioning of frameworks
• Data intensity/practitioner skill: e.g. ESI / LCA / RISE• Choice of indicators: e.g. volumetric water vs. WSI LCA• Communication of results must be balanced
between accuracy and simplicity• Most frameworks aim to cover multiple scales and multiple
indicators• Biodiversity is the most challenging impact category
Lessons
Review LCAsof livestock and fish
38
7
4
LCA value-chain coverage
3
2000 2005 2010 2013
No.
Pub
licati
ons
Feed Production
Livestockfish man.
Process-ing
Retail Distrib.
Consump.Disposal
38 4 5 7
N= 70
LCA lessons
• Standardisation and a critical eye– System boundaries– Life cycle inventory (data inventory)– Sensitivity analysis
• Wealth of knowledge– LCIA methods– Allocation and system expansion
• Catering for through chain and other scopes
LCA limitations
• Data intensity • Accurate representation vs. simplicity of
communication• Site specific nature of some impacts
Stakeholder workshop Dairy East Africa
Stakeholders:Local policy/decision-makersResearchers on dairy livestock chainsFarmers representative
Aim:To identify key local challenges and environmental
impacts in dairy development
Charles Mutagwaba Tanzanian Dairy BoardDr. Grace Cheserek Eldoret University;
Lead consultant: Environmental Impact Assessment (NEMA)
Dr. Clavery Tungaraza Faculty of science, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania
Dr. Robert Otsyina Private Sector/Development Associates ltd
Gregory Sikumba, ILRI/EADD,Luke Kessei Senior Assistant Director of Livestock
Production; Department of LivestockPeter Bos RE Advisor SNV
Presenters
Most important environmental issues along the dairy value chainFeed Animal production Marketing Processing Consumption
Water Land degradation GHG emissions/Energy
GHG emissions/Energy
Waste
Soil fertility Overgrazing Waste management Waste Pollution
Deforestation GHG emissions Water pollution Water use/pollution Human healthOvergrazing Water use and
pollution Air pollution and
odour
Dry seasons Overuse of resources Gender Intentional
burningInbreeding
Nutrient mining GHG emissions Biodiversity Zoonosis
Carbon stock depletion
Nutrient load
GHGs Biodiversity Rats invasion
(storage)Nutrient loss
Waste management related to animal husbandry and
breeding
Aestethic destruction
Feed
Animal
producti
on
Mark
eting
Proce
ssing
Consumption
0
5
10
15
20
25
Frequency of key environmental issues identified by stakeholders along the value chain
freq# issues
Value Chain Stages
Frequency
• VC interventions that are not rigorously environmentally evaluated may hurt farmers that they seek to benefit,
• And impede on prospects of future VCs
Therefore :• EA stakeholders want to consolidate VC gains with
least negative impacts on natural resources, through a framework that works
Qualities for a good framework
For development & government agencies, a good framework should:
– Be scalable spatially and temporary– Function on technologies accessible to farmers – Flexible and easy to operate
For farmers, a good framework should:
– Be flexible to address the difference between farmers
– enable farmers understand the environmental impacts of their farming practices
– be applicable at farmer level or at group level– incorporate more issues in addition to the
environmental one
Rationale for our proposal
Why do we need a new framework?
• Practitioners need a relatively rapid and flexible tool that can be used across systems
• Farming systems usually complex, especially in developing countries
• Multiple livelihoods objectives, many environmental dimensions
• Not one single indicator good enough for assessing environmental performance of a farming system
• Need to upscale impacts in time and space
Target UsersAudience: National programs and policymakersOther local implementers, such as private sector, NGOs and donors
Initial implementation:Livestock and fish programme - complementing teams working on productivity, food security, nutrition and gender in VCs
• Test the framework (on ”best-bets”)• Engage end users (through e.g. Dairy Development
Forum in TZ)• Distribute the tool
CLEANED – All, but less complex
Begtsson, Seddon,
2013
Berlin, 2002
Davis et al., 2010
Fantin et al., 2012
Ridoutt, Pfister, 2010
Thevenot et al., 2013
Verge et al., 2013
Verge et al., 2013
Chicken CheesePork chop (conventio
nal)Milk
Pasta sauce / Peanut M&Ms
Chicken Milk Yogurt
GWP 81.39 94.38 56.35^ 85 - 89.67 86.9 72.2Acidification - 98.98 - 92 - 97.73 - -Eutrophication - 99.36 96.44 97 - 98.22 - -POCP - 93.7 - 84 - - - -Ozone layer depletion - - - 62 - - - -Water depletion / footprint* 75.08 - - - 97 - - -
Abiotic depletion 80.84 - 34.64ƚ - - - - -Ecopoints 87.12 - - - - - - -
*Stress-weighted, including grey water in Ridoutt et al. (2010)^GWP: 13% of emissions at processor and 13% at household in Davis et al. (2010)ƚ Abiotic depletion: 19% of impact at processor, packaging 14%, household 23%.
Highest percentage of impact observed pre-farmgate
Why focus on production stages?
The Generic Framework
Building Blocks• Four dimensions
1. Value chain modules2. Spatial scales3. Time steps4. Environmental impact categories
• Step-wise procedureA. Setting the baseline
• Typologies• Value chain description• Environmental baseline
B. Ex-ante assessment• Environmental impact• Out-scaling
Dimension 1: Value Chain Modules
• Modules can be combined into a value chain as appropriate to local context
• Emphasis at the earlier stages in the chain, with less detail in the later stages
Landscape/Catchment
Regional/National
Global
Dimension 2: Spatial scales
Farm
Field
• Current• 1 year
– E.g., water quality and availability• 5 years
– E.g., soil fertility• 50 years
– E.g., climate change
Dimension 3: Time steps
Four main categories• Resource use• Waste output• GHG emissions• Biodiversity loss
• All have sub-levels, several variables with associated indicators• There are interactions between categories• Playing out:
– at different scales (spatial and temporal)– differently in different systems, environments
Dimension 4: Environmental Impact Categories
Step-wise procedure
A. Setting the baseline1. Typologies2. Value chain description3. Environmental baseline
B. Ex-ante assessment1. Environmental impact2. Out-scaling
Different issues and impacts in different systems/environments
Stratification of the landscape according to farming system typology
– This will be used for out-scaling and estimating impact at the landscape/regional scale
Assumption = information from one location (similar system/type/farm) can be used to predict the impact in another
Step A1: Typologies
Local relevance of global livestock system classifications is limited, large uncertainties
(Sere & Steinfeld, 1996)
Functional farm typologies can be too site specific, out-scaling difficult(Tittonell et al., 2007)
Agroecology Population density Market access
Type 1 Type 3Type 2 Type 4
Level of intensification
Grazing
Crop residues
Planted fodder
Supplements
Opportunistic feedRel
ativ
e us
e of
fee
d
Communal
Private
Cut-carryTethered
Cut-carryGrazed
Subtypes determined from hh survey – e.g. market orientation, off-farm income, income from livestock, land size, resource endowment…
Step A2: VC description
MILK PRODUCTION
INFORMAL
CCTRADER
PROCESSOR
CONSUMER
Home consumption rateSales rates
Etc
Different types of markets
Location
VC description
Typology Type 1
Type 2
Type n
E.g. grazing,
Mixed extensive
Mixed intensive
E.g. grazing / rural to rural market
Extensive / rural to rural market
Intensive / rural to rural market
Intensive / rural to urban market
Step A: Baseline setting
Environmental Baselines
Intervention description+ ex-ante impact assessment
Step 2: Ex-Ante Impact Assessment